Tag Archives: fascism

The Odd Thing about the Tea Party

There is something odd about the tea party that I have not been able to pin down until now. The Tea Party is “mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it no more”. I see these older white folks talking about armed revolution and it makes me chuckle. Could you see gray haired, overweight revolutionaries being mowed down by the military? This sounds like a Monty Python skit to me. Anyway, the really funny thing is that these folks are demonstrating to conserve. There is an oxymoron knotted in this thought. The thought of ‘conserving’ is to continue the status quo. Traditionally, conservatives do not want too much change. They support establishment candidates that are not going to rock the boat. It would be ludicrous to demonstrate to stay the same. It would be like painting legs on a snake, a koan. These folks are using the thought ‘conserve’ to covertly introduce a radical agenda.

They do not want to conserve. They want to push an elitist, marginally violent (for now), questionably racist, quasi anarchistic agenda. They all came out of the conservative Republican ranks so they think of themselves as conservatives but they have not worked out the ideological specificities of their own anger. If they really wanted to conserve they would stay in the Republican Party and vote for the ‘true’ conservatives (whatever that is). These folks say they are ‘true’ patriots and ready to spill blood to prove it. Their deacto flag is the American Revolutionary flag that states, “Don’t Tread on Me”. They quote Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” They rarely state the rest of the quote but it is the part that I agree with about the Tea Party, “It is it’s natural manure.” They think of themselves as extreme patriots. They do not think they are racists as they find that position untenable but they make ‘rational’ claims and ‘mere’ jokes about Islamics, women and blacks. Personally, I am all too happy to see them tear the Republican Party to pieces. However, when they find out they do not want to conserve but overthrow traditional conservatives it will be interesting to see how far they will go with their lassie faire capitalism. They are against taxes because they see that their standard of living is going down and they blame it on the liberals. Many of the ingredients are in play for the dictionary definition of fascism.

Only one thing is lacking – a vibrant, charismatic leader. After World War 1 the Germans saw their standard of living go down and blamed it on the Versailles Treaty that ended the war. They saw ‘illegal immigrants’ and ethnic groups such as the Jews as the source of their plight. They still maintained their extreme nationalism after World War 1. Hitler seized the moment and played on their angry emotions. He rightly divined undercurrents that were making the Germans angry as hell and gave those emotions voice and clarity. He played up the ethnic antagonisms and voiced the ‘rational’ concerns of their anger. Like Sarah Palin, he spoke in thinly veiled terms of violence (i.e., locked and loaded, cleaning their guns, scope crosshairs, etc.). He played on the Germans anger with their current government and advocated throwing the bums out. He made the current German government the enemy which is not a conservative inclination. He appealed to the ‘true’ German national. He focused their anger on the liberals of his day the socialists and the communists (contrary to the obscurantism and revisionist history of Jonah Goldberg). He used the corporatism of his day to finance his campaign. There were some differences. He did not play on religious values as his megalomania would not allow it (although he did fan nationalism into a religious zeal). He gave the Germans a revisionist history of themselves.

I do not know if the Tea Party would follow this route even if a Hitler type came along but the Tea Party does need to clarify its ideology and unify its goal. They are ripe for the picking and these folks are not scholars. They distrust ‘liberal’ universities and to the contrary trust the antithesis in folks like Sarah Palin. I think the fascist tendency in this country has been redefined, revised, made virtuous and put lipstick on but the stench has been apparent since Reagan and growing. Fascism is really violent hate disguised. With a little push like a lower standard of living and a vibrant spokesperson it could grow legs. I hope that this is not the case. In any case, on the positive side, these folks will tear the Republican Party to pieces and if, as I have long thought, the religious element checks out the Republicans will be introduced to what the Democrats have been dealing with for decades, plurality.

Free Market Either/Or Government?

      After listening to some of the tea party people blog about the government and liberals being fascist, it occurred to me that one possible source for this could be the notion that what they perceive as a unilateral intervention by the government into the private sector is what they deem `fascist’ (I have dealt with the historical notion of fascism as it pertains to liberalism in another blog  http://mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/03/fascism-is-liberal-and-squares-are-circles/).  They have an emotive perception that liberals are fascist.  Conversely, let me state that while I would not think of many Republicans as historical fascists I certainly understand the emotion that results from feeling like you are being forced against your will to do something you totally detest.  I felt the emotion many times when Bush was president (In particular, especially when my tax dollars and our children were being forced into two, in my opinion, absurd wars that actually created terrorists more than diminished terrorism. see http://mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/08/war-on-terrorism/).  The feeling is that one is powerless to stop the perceived aggression against one’s higher ideals.  I have dealt with the notion of `higher ideals’ to some extent in the previously mentioned blog (also, see http://mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/19/the-criminal-and-the-human-a-rational-approach-to-liberalism/ ).  What is the higher ideal that is at work in the tea party folks? 

     I think it may be that they believe the `free market’ is the ultimate dispenser of justice and equality over and above the government.  I have also dealt with the notion of the `free market’ in another blog (http://mixermuse.com/blog/2009/12/23/why-i-am-not-a-conservative/)  `Free market’ as well as `government’ is a social, organizing dynamic.  If the metaphysic of the `free market’ is at work in the emotion of an individual (the meaning-bestowing, intention projecting, higher ideals of an individual), the perception of violation, sin or moral conflict is brought to the fore of the individual’s psyche when external interventions are perceived as threatening.  Thus, the emotional latent word `fascism’ seems to capture the dilemma succinctly for the tea party folks. 

     With the metaphysic of the `free market’ there is the idea that all external intervention is wrong.  I have heard many conservative commentators and economists that are lassie-faire draw heavily from the assumption that all intervention (by this government is implied) is disruptive of the implied and pre-understood `justice’ of the free market.  This brings the higher ideals of such an individual in conflict with the compelling need to subsidize these violations with their tax dollars.  Thus, we see the name calling, town hall yelling tea party phenomenon.

This is my answer to those folks:

     Not all intervention is fascist and not all “non-intervention” is free market.  Free market is full of intervention – intervention is another word for competition.  When a big business competes against a small business the small business will lose in a head to head competition because big business is always the “senior partner”.  On the other hand, government intervention is not always wrong as evidenced by the FDIC, NPS, NIST, NOAA, CDC, NIH, FAA, etc.  Why draw an abstract line between government and free market?  Why not look at it in terms of the dynamics of small and large? 

     Small companies can generate innovation and efficiency and so can small governments.  Large companies and governments can provide mass products and solutions at lower costs due to economies of scale.  However, large companies and governments can become fat and bureaucratic and drive out new competition and innovation.  If there are no other big companies that can do battle, then we get monopolies, multi-national corporations, “to big to fail”.  What is there to restrain corporate totalitarianism?  If there is no government that is big enough to intervene then what could possibly stop a corporate totalitarianism? 

     If the free market hits a snag and can’t solve the health care crisis do we keep trying to believe that the issues are only related to the lack of a truly free market; the market is not “pure” but contaminated by government intervention or can we honestly look at our metaphysic of “pure” vis-à-vis “free market”.   If we analyze the economic structures in terms of power structures ranging from small to large scales what we see is a sort of Machiavellian war of all against all; a Darwinian survival of the fittest; a perpetual revolution.  As long as these economies of scale are kept from devolving into totalitarianism the benefits to people, individuals, cultures and societies can be allowed to grow, diversify and thrive.   If the market is left to itself there really is no way for the small to perpetually overthrow the large.  David may have defeated Goliath once but without God to intervene the odds get much worse.  It is free market “religiosity” that makes one think the small can always keep the large in check.  What is needed is battle of the Goliaths.  Goliaths learned a long time ago that collusion (i.e., price fixing) is much better than battle.  If there were no government to intervene, regulate, make treaties, etc. the multi-national corporation would have no incentive to address anything such as a “health care” crisis.  They would simply continue to spin their propaganda about how wonderful they and the free market are while millions continue to die in emergency rooms and without any health care.  The “free market” can work well within limits but every market must have limits as they will not limit themselves in all cases. 

     The only agency that can limit and require intervention when necessary is the government.  The government is not an ideal solution.  It is merely another Goliath among the others.  However, since a democracy (not a fascist or communist state) has other dynamics and entropies at work it has the innate tendency against collusion and for battle.  When the battle is diminished, Wall Street will win every time.  If the government continually squashes other Goliaths, totalitarianism will reign supreme.  In either case, individuals lose.  The natural regulation of the market is not found in Adam Smith or Carl Marx but in-between.  Those that are pure free marketers or communists will effectively promote totalitarianism.  Diversity should not be thought merely in terms of an un-regulated, pure free market but in terms of the natural antipathy between government and business.  When one side of that equation dominates individuals lose.  It is ludicrous to think that Goliaths will not arise when humans are present but Davids do much better when Goliaths collide than when God walks away and lets the Goliaths decide.  I suppose this means God is not lassie-faire.

Fascism is Liberal and Squares are Circles

George Santayana remarked that forgetting history was tantamount to repeating it.  I would add that re-writing history is also tantamount to repeating it.  How do you re-write history – simple, propaganda.  Propaganda is the art of equivocation.  If you have an ideology to promote and you minimize differences and maximizes similarities that reinforce your dogma then the only other thing you need to do is get people to believe it by repeating it enough.  If you can achieve this you can re-write history and start down the road of its horrific repetitions.  With regard to the assertion made in many posts I have read, the equivocation is this: Liberalism = Socialism = Totalitarianism = Evil.  The other unspoken equivocation is Conservatism = Capitalism = Nationalism = Good.  By “Nationalism” I mean, God/Good is on the side of the US (or more particularly – the Republican party since  liberals may or may not be Nationalistic as also Democrats can be liberal or conservative economically and/or socially – see how these equivocations break down when thought is applied).  I have no interest whatsoever in defending socialism only in preserving differences and preventing equivocation and dogmatic, homogenizing of history.  Additionally, I totally agree that this nonsense goes on from both sides!  I oppose it equally from the left too.

After doing some research I found a source of these equivocations to be a book by Jonah Goldberg called “Liberal Fascism”.  The Heritage Foundation and the National Review are promoting it.  Jonah Goldberg is a Fox news commentator and editor at the National Review.  He did go to college but I can’t find if he even got an undergraduate degree (??).  He is not a scholar and his work is at best considered right-wing propaganda by scholars (i.e., liberal, commie academics) oh, and also serious conservatives.  His book appeals to the same crowd as Ann [Reich] Coulter.  He also thinks the KKK came from liberalism.  Maybe we should round up these commie liberals and execute them or at least start a “black list” in the name of anti-fascism and love of God and country? – give me a f***ing break

 “Not without reason was Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism widely expected to be a bad book. As many predicted from the title, Goldberg does not content himself with rebuking those who call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist. Instead, he invents reasons of his own for calling anyone who disagrees with Jonah Goldberg a fascist.”

                                             January 28, 2008 Issue
                                             Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

                                             Goldberg’s Trivial Pursuit


Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right.


“Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.” (p. 32)

                                                          Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

 Gosh, I guess that would explain why the first prisoners rounded up and sent to Dachau — the first Nazi death camp — were socialists and communists:

“Dachau is one of the first concentration camps the Nazis establish. The first prisoners arrive two days later. They are mainly Communists and Socialists and other political opponents of the Nazi party. Dachau is the only camp to remain in operation from 1933 until 1945.”


 For that matter, of course, there are still genuine fascists and proto-fascists with us today. They go by such names as the Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, or National Socialist Movement. And they’re all aligned, politically, to the far right.


“National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.”

                                                                                                                          Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186

“Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society….”

“The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….”

                            In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.


And thus the Left is forced more and more to turn to Bolshevism. “In Bolshevism they see today the sole, the last possibility of preserving the present state of affairs. They realize quite accurately that the people is beaten so long as Brain and Hand can be kept apart. For alone neither Brain nor Hand can really oppose them. So long therefore as the Socialist idea is coined only by men who see in it a means for disintegrating a nation, so long can they rest in peace.”

“But it will be a sorry day for them when this Socialist idea is grasped by a Movement which unites with it the highest Nationalist pride, with Nationalist defiance, and thus places the Nation’s Brain, its intellectual workers, on this ground. Then this system will break up, and there would remain only one single means of salvation for its supporters: vis. to bring the catastrophe upon us before their own ruin, to destroy the Nation’s Brain, to bring it to the scaffold – to introduce Bolshevism.”

“So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There remains then the Right. And this party of the Right meant well, but it cannot do what it would because up to the present time it has failed to recognize a whole series of elementary principles.

“In the first place the Right still fails to recognize the danger. These gentlemen still persist in believing that it is a question of being elected to a Landtag or of posts as minister or secretaries. They think that the decision of a people’s destiny would mean at worst nothing more than some damage to their so-called bourgeois-economic existence. They have never grasped the fact that this decision threatens their heads. They have never yet understood that it is not necessary to be an enemy of the Jew for him to drag you one day on the Russian model to the scaffold. They do not see that it is quite enough to have a head on your shoulders and not to be a Jew: that will secure the scaffold for you. “

“In consequence their whole action today is so petty, so limited, so hesitating and pusillanimous. They would like to – but they can never decide on any great deed, because they fail to realize the greatness of the whole period. “

“And then there is another fundamental error: they have never got it clear in their own minds that there is a difference or how great a difference there is between the conception ‘National’ and the word ‘dynastic’ or ‘monarchistic.’ They do not understand that today it is more than ever necessary in our thoughts as Nationalists to avoid anything which might perhaps cause the individual to think that the National Idea was identical with petty everyday political views. They ought day by day to din into the ears of the masses: ‘We want to bury all the petty differences and to bring out into the light the big things, the things we have in common which bind us to one another. That should weld and fuse together those who have still a German heart and a love for their people in the fight against the common hereditary foe of all Aryans. How afterward we divide up this State, friends – we have no wish to dispute over that! The form of a State results from the essential character of a people, results from necessities which are so elementary and powerful that in time every individual will realize them without any disputation when once all Germany is united and free.’

“And finally they all fail to understand that we must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint. It is of course very easy to call out to those on the Left, ‘You must not be proletarians, leave your class-madness,’ while you yourselves continue to call yourself ‘bourgeois.’ They should learn that in a single State there is only one supreme citizen-right, one supreme citizen-honor, and that is the right and the honor of honest work. They should further learn that the social idea must be the essential foundation for any State, otherwise no State can permanently endure. “

“Certainly a government needs power, it needs strength. It must, I might almost say, with brutal ruthlessness press through the ideas which it has recognized to be right, trusting to the actual authority of its strength in the State. But even with the most ruthless brutality it can ultimately prevail only if what it seeks to restore does truly correspond to the welfare of a whole people. “

“That the so-called enlightened absolutism of a Frederick the Great was possible depended solely on the fact that, though this man could undoubtedly have decided ‘arbitrarily’ the destiny – for good or ill – of his so-called ‘subject,’ he did not do so, but made his decisions influenced and supported by one thought alone, the welfare of his Prussian people. it was this fact only that led the people to tolerate willingly, nay joyfully, the dictatorship of the great king. “

“And the Right has further completely forgotten that democracy is fundamentally no German: it is Jewish. It has completely forgotten that this Jewish democracy with its majority decisions has always been without exception only a means towards the destruction of any existing Aryan leadership. The Right does not understand that directly every small question of profit or loss is regularly put before so-called ‘public opinion,’ he who knows how most skillfully to make this ‘public opinion’ serve his own interests becomes forthwith master in the State. And that can be achieved by the man who can lie most artfully, most infamously; and in the last resort he is not the German, he is, in Schopenauer’s words, ‘the great master in the art of lying’ – the Jew. “

“And finally it has been forgotten that the condition which must precede every act is the will and the courage to speak the truth – and that we do not see today either in the Right or in the Left. “

“There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise – there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew. “

“It is from the recognition of this fact, from recognizing it, I would say, in utter, dead earnestness, that there resulted the formation of our Movement. There are two principles which, when we founded the Movement, we engraved upon our hearts: first, to base it on the most sober recognition of the facts and second, to proclaim these facts with the most ruthless sincerity. “

“And this recognition of the facts discloses at once a whole series of the most important fundamental principles which must guide this young Movement which, we hope, is destined one day for greatness:

1. ‘National’ and ‘social’ are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ‘National Socialist.’ We said to ourselves that to be ‘national’ means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be ‘social’ means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.

“2. And then we said to ourselves: there are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race. If there are castes in India, well and good; there it is possible, for there were formerly Aryans and dark aborigines. So it was in Egypt and Rome. But with us in Germany where everyone who is a German at all has the same blood, has the same eyes, and speaks the same language, here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else. Certainly, we recognize, just as anyone must recognize, that there are different ‘occupations’ and ‘professions’ [Stände] – there is the Stand of the watchmakers, the Stand of the common laborers, the Stand of the painters or technicians, the Stand of the engineers, officials, etc. Stände there can be. But in the struggles which these Stände have amongst themselves for the equalization of their economic conditions, the conflict and the division must never be so great as to sunder the ties of race. “

“And if you say ‘But there must after all be a difference between honest creators and those who do nothing at all’ – certainly there must! That is the difference which lies in the performance of the conscientious work of the individual. Work must be the great connecting link, but at the same time the great factor which separates one man from another. The drone is the foe of us all. But the creators – it matters not whether they are brain workers or workers with the hand – they are the nobility of our State, they are the German people! “

“We understand under the term ‘work’ exclusively that activity which not only profits the individual but in no way harms the community, nay rather which contributes to for the community. “

“3. And in the third place it was clear to us that this particular view is based on an impulse which springs from our race and from our blood. We said to ourselves that race differs from race and, further, that each race in accordance with its fundamental demands shows externally certain specific tendencies, and these tendencies can perhaps be most clearly traced in their relation to the conception of work. The Aryan regards work as the foundation for the maintenance of the community of the people amongst its members. The Jew regards work as the means to the exploitation of other peoples. The Jew never works as a productive creator without the great aim of becoming the master. He works unproductively, using and enjoying other people’s work. And thus we understand the iron sentence which Mommsen once uttered: ‘The Jews is the ferment of decomposition in peoples,’ that means that the Jew destroys and must destroy because he completely lacks the conception of an activity which builds up the life of the community. And therefore it is beside the point whether the individual Jew is ‘decent’ or not. In himself he carries those characteristics which Nature has given him, and he cannot ever rid himself of those characteristics. And to us he is harmful. Whether he harms us consciously or unconsciously, that is not our affair. We have consciously to concern ourselves for the welfare of our own people. “

“4. And fourthly we were further persuaded that economic prosperity is inseparable from political freedom and that therefore that house of lies, ‘Internationalism,’ must immediately collapse. We recognized that freedom can eternally be only a consequence of power and that the source of power is the will. Consequently the will to power must be strengthened in a people with passionate ardor. And thus we realized, fifthly that …”

“5. We as National Socialists and members of the German Workers’ Party – a Party pledge to work – must be on principle the most fanatical Nationalists. We realized that the State can be for our people a paradise only if the people can hold sway therein freely as in a paradise: we realized that a slave state still never be a paradise, but only – always and for all time – a hell or a colony. “

“6. And then sixthly we grasped the fact that power in the last resort is possible only where there is strength, and that strength lies not in the dead weight of numbers but solely in energy. Even the smallest minority can achieve a might result if it is inspired by the most fiery, the most passionate will to act. World history has always been made by minorities. And lastly… “

“7. If one has realized a truth, that truth is valueless so long as there is lacking the indomitable will to turn this realization into action! “

“These were the foundations of our Movement – the truths on which it was based and which demonstrated its necessity. “

“For three years we have sought to realize these fundamental ideas. And of course a fight is and remains a fight. Stroking in very truth will not carry one far. Today the German people has been beaten by a quite other world, while in its domestic life it has lost all spirit; no longer has it any faith. But how will you give this people once more firm ground beneath its feet save by the passionate insistence on one definite, great, clear goal? “

“…thus we were the first to declare that this peace treaty was a crime. Then folk abused us as ‘agitators.’ We were the first to protest against the failure to present this treaty to the people before it was signed. Again we were called on the masses of the people not to surrender their arms, for the surrender of one’s arms would be nothing less than the beginning of enslavement. We were called, no, we were cried down as, ‘agitators.’ We were the first to say that this meant the loss of Upper Silesia. So it was, and still they called us ‘agitators.’ We declared at that time that compliance in the question of Upper Silesia must have as its consequence the awakening of a passionate greed which would demand the occupation of the Ruhr. We were cried down ceaselessly, again and again. And because we opposed the mad financial policy which today will lead to our collapse, what was it that we were called repeatedly once more? ‘Agitators.’ And today? “

“And finally we were also the first to point the people on any large scale to a danger which insinuated itself into our midst – a danger which millions failed to realize and which will nonetheless lead us all into ruin – the Jewish danger. And today people are saying yet again that we were ‘agitators.’ “

“I would like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He said in the last session of the Landtag that his felling ‘as a man and a Christian; prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the Man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through that passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have not duty to allow myself be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago – a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people. “

“Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free! “

“And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see it work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week it has only for its wage wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited. “

“And through the distress there is no doubt that the people has been aroused. Externally perhaps apathetic, but within there is ferment. And many may say, ‘It is an accursed crime to stir up passions in the people.’ And then I say to myself: Passion is already stirred through the rising tide of distress, and one day this passion will break out in one way or another: and now I would ask those who today call us ‘agitators’: ‘What then have you to give to the people as a faith to which it might cling?’

“Nothing at all, for you yourselves have no faith in your own prescriptions. “

“That is the mightiest thing which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts.”

                                                        Adolf Hitler
                                                         Speech of April 12, 1921


” 2. The danger to which Russia succumbed is always present for Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton is capable of imagining that Bolshevism has been exorcised. With his superficial thinking he has no idea that this is an instinctive process; that is, the striving of the Jewish people for world domination, a process which is just as natural as the urge of the Anglo-Saxon to seize domination of the earth. And just as the Anglo-Saxon pursues this course in his own way and carries on the fight with his own weapons, likewise the Jew. He goes his way, the way of sneaking in among the nations and boring from within, and he fights with his weapons, with lies and slander, poison and corruption, intensifying the struggle to the point of bloodily exterminating his hated foes. In Russian Bolshevism we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the twentieth century to achieve world domination. Just as in other epochs they strove to reach the same goal by other, though inwardly related processes. Their endeavor lies profoundly rooted in their essential nature. No more than another nation renounces of its own accord the pursuit of its impulse for the expansion of its power and way of life, but is compelled by outward circumstances or else succumbs to impotence due to the symptoms of old age, does the Jew break off his road to world dictatorship out of voluntary renunciation, or because he represses his eternal urge. He, too, will either be thrown back in his course by forces lying outside himself, or all his striving for world domination will be ended by his own dying out. But the impotence of nations, their own death from old age, arises from the abandonment of their blood purity. And this is a thing that the Jew preserves better than any other people on earth. And so he advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven-stormer back to Lucifer.

  Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent, and to stop the inner contamination of our blood, in order that the forces of the nation thus set free can be thrown in to safeguard our nationality, and thus can prevent a repetition of the recent catastrophes down to the most distant future. If we pursue this aim, it is sheer lunacy to ally ourselves with a power whose master is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we expect to free our own people from the fetters of this poisonous embrace if we walk right into it? How shall we explain Bolshevism to the German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell, thus recognizing it in the larger sense? By what right shall we condemn a member of the broad masses for his sympathy with an outlook if the very leaders of the state choose the representatives of this outlook for allies?

  The fight against Jewish world Bolshevization requires a clear attitude toward Soviet Russia. thou cannot drive out the Devil with Beelsebub.
  If today even folkish circles rave about an alliance with Russia, they should just look around them in Germany and see whose support they find in their efforts. Or have folkish men lately begun to view an activity as beneficial to the German people which is recommended and promoted by the international Marxist press? Since when do folkish men fight with armor held out to them by a Jewish squire?

  There is one main charge that could be raised against the old German Reich with regard to its alliance policy: not, however, that it failed to maintain good relations with Russia, but only that it ruined its relations with everyone by continuous shilly-shallying, in the pathological weakness of trying to preserve world peace at any price.

I openly confess that even in the pre-War period I would have thought it sounder if Germany, renouncing her senseless colonial policy and renouncing her merchant marine and war fleet, had concluded an alliance with England against Russia, thus passing from a feeble global policy to a determined European policy of territorial acquisition on the continent.”

                                                    Mein Kampf


“What Hitler and Mussolini favored and promoted was a system where the State and private corporations served each other’s special interests, much like the situation in America today. They both stood for protecting private ownership from the social revolution, which sought to redistribute wealth and promote public ownership of the means of production.”


In 1932 Mussolini declared that the 20th century would be the “Fascist century” by stating:

“If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century.”

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”

— Benito Mussolini Fascist dictator of Italy

“We stand for the maintenance of private property… We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”

— Adolf Hitler

The fascists hated the socialists. I have many, many quotes from Hitler and Mussolini detesting the Russian socialists and the French liberals. The current American Nazi groups also hate liberals and recruit their clowns from the far right.  Nowdays, the far right is fond of calling Democrats socialists and fascists. The two are mutually exclusive.  You can’t have it both ways unless you just insist on being historical revisionists which by the way the Nazis were really, really good at.  Hitler called it propoganda.

It is precisely that Hitler was nationalistic that he confiscated property from the Jews.  The Jews were not Aryan and not only did not deserve property, they did not deserve to live according to the Nazis.  The property was not confiscated because Hitler was against private property.  Ever heard of the Volkswagen (folks wagen). Hitler loved it…still around today as a private company. Communism (new word – not socialism) thought nationalism was the reason why wars were fought and class systems were founded.

Go ahead and call liberals fascists – just remember that if you participate in propaganda to further your cause you are part of the condemnation to come for forgetting history yet once again!