The reason people wrestle with the NAZI version of socialism is bifold:
1) The Marxist Left has propagated that "socialism" = "Marxist socialism" (which is entirely wrong - Marx created a socialistic framework called communism, but socialism existed in various forms before and after Marx), and therefore when the Marxist Left says the NAZI party isn't "socialist" they are correct if you ONLY equate Marxist Socialism (Communism) with Socialism. Additionally, because of the Marxist Left, the word "socialism" is hard to divorce from Marxist socialism anymore. They have been conflated.
2) The NAZI Party bears the name of socialism because it carries many socialistic features (rhetorical appeals to common weal, in-group welfare programs, critiques of "parasitic capital", etc). They did not think of socialism the way that Marx did, but they share many of the Pre-Marx qualities of socialism. Therefore, they ARE socialist in that sense, just not Marxist. They are also share at least some capitalistic features. In effect, it used state-directed capitalism with socialist-style subordination of private property to collective national goals. This hollowed out genuine market autonomy even while leaving nominal private ownership. That is why I lean Nazis toward the party's actual name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even if (like most political parties) it's a little disingenuous.
The problem with state socialism (socialism forced into a government scale) is that people who understand politics use it as a means to an end. The end is always authoritarian control. (See Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, etc.)
Socialism on a smaller scale (not the Marxist kind) works fine, and is an extremely old economic unit. (Examples: the legacy family unit, an Israeli Kibbutz, an aboriginal tribe, etc.) It just doesn't scale properly, because those units are people who KNOW one another personally, and in most cases are free to leave the community if they want to. (Like an actual commune, after which Marx named his abstract model.) But when you scale that up to the size of a state, in which people must share resources with strangers, you run into uncountable problems that result in authoritarian control.
Authoritarianism can be seen as roughly a third economic entity - not capitalistic entirely, not socialistic entirely, but leveraging features of both as tools to maintain control. Mussolini framed his party, in fact, as being that third economic entity. (See the "corporative state.")
Additionally, all of this also gets tangled up with the Left-Right axis conflation problem which was exasperated by various leaders in World War I to mean what it didn't originally mean. In other words, Left and Right were attached to the ideology of a person rather than the alignment of a person to their respective current government. This created all sorts of problems. But not a rabbit hole for this post.
Several years ago I saw Dinesh D’Souza make this point. While I like Dinesh and agree with a lot of his work, I didn’t quite buy in regarding this point. Thanks for this definitive analysis. Guess I owe Dinesh an apology.
What do you think the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is on the US Seal? It is about signifying that America is a NEW thing, a human creation, a rejection of the Old Order, a rejection of traditional Western Civilization.
Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, said twice in it "A change in government is a change in Civilization".
America is a rejection of traditional Western Civilization.
Third, the American Revolution, like the French Revolution, was run by Masons! The Tea Party in Boston Harbor was done by Masons dressed up as American Indians. Half of the FFofA were Masons. Thomas Paine, not a member, wrote favorably of their ideology.
Thomas Jefferson was a Mason; his name appears in a Masonic published Bible. Thomas Jefferson had three portraits of the people that influenced him the most, Roger Bacon, John Locke and Isaac Newton who he called his "Trinity".
All three of them were Kabbalists, involved in the Utopianism of the Kabbala and the requirement of the need for the state of Israel to be reconstituted.
Freemasonry, like Communism, is founded upon the ideology of Jewish Messianism, which is about rebuilding the Tower of Babel. Syncretism is central to Gnosticism and Jefferson advocated tolerance and diversity which is syncretism.
George Washington, Mason said:
>>>“We have sown a seed of Liberty and Union that will germinate by and over the whole earth. Some day the United States of Europe will be constituted, modelled after the United States of America. The United States will be the legislator of all nations”.
Voegelin, Eric (1975) From Enlightenment to Revolution. Ed. by John H. Hollowell. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. citing Gouhler. Pgs 181-182
The following quotes are in his diary, other was in a letter to Layayette
>>>"The foundation of a great Empire is laid, and I please myself with a persuasion, that Providence will not leave its work imperfect"
>>>"Altho’ I pretend to no peculiar information respecting commercial affairs, nor any foresight into the scenes of futurity; yet as the member of an infant-empire, as a Philanthropist by character, and (if I may be allowed the expression) as a Citizen of the great republic of humanity at large; "
This "...Citizen of the great republic of humanity" is Freemasonry, a religion. America is a revolutionary state built on the ideals of Jewish Messianism.
Thomas Jefferson responding to a letter, wrote, "the introduction of the new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us."
The American regime has NO connection to traditional Western Civilization; it copied the image but rejected the substance--that substance is Hierarchy.
The American and French Revolutions were BOTH conducted by Masons and BOTH of these revolutions stem from the English Civil Wars that was the first. Oliver Cromwell removed the House of Lords and killed their monarch, just what the American revolution wanted to do.
I point you to Eric Nelson's book The Hebrew Republic, Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought where he points out that English radical Protestants searched out and used rabbinical teaching for the redesigning of their political system. The rabbis taught them that "Monarchy is Idolatry". The English revolutionaries, the Puritans, Levellers, 5th Monarchymen, et. al. were proud to call themselves "Talmudic Commonwealthmen".
The American Revolution was first called "The Presbyterian War" because the people in the colonies recognized that it was a continuation of the English Civil Wars. In his pamphlet, Common Sense, Thomas Paine, within the first three paragraphs repeats this phrase "Monarchy is Idolatry". (It is not--it is just more Jewish lies and propaganda.)
Yes, throughout the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there is a negative opinions of """PURE""" democracy. What the FFofA did was borrowed the image, the institutions of a true republic, like the upper house, to restrain the impulses of a Pure democracy. But America is till Anti-hierarchical. The FFofA rejected the class/caste of Indo-European civilization. They recreated, redefined what a true republic and created a similitude that masked their democracy. The rejection of hierarchy, of distinctions of rank, IS a SOFT form of Ideological democracy. They just had the States appoint two common people as Senators. In 1913, this system was changed throughout America that the common people voted in Senators--destroying the system of the FFofA.
Democracy is defined by ONE class of people--all people of a mass. True republics of classical antiquity and Tudor England had castes and had Mixed Government. America is a "democratic republic" --- which is just democracy with a different name upon it. There is NO caste or classes in America--thus an Ideological democracy as Jewish Messianism dictates.
I did a 61 page dissertation of what a republic is. It is all referenced, sourced, over 191 endnotes.
America is a Masonic construct. The American Revolution was the continuation of the English Civil Wars and the killing of Monarchs is the common theme among all three revolutions, English, American and French. (In Boston, if I remember the correct city, there was a statue of King George II, the American revolutionaries tore it down, thus a metaphor for killing their own king.)
I am confident that over 100-million murdered corpses in the 20th century would universally tell us the “different” teeth of the socialist cog will turn, grind, and produce the same results - misery and death - every time.
GREAT ANALYSIS! My understanding is that the "Nazis are of the Right and Communists on the Left and are opposites" originated with Stalin shortly after WWII (that's "Two," not eleven) - however, I don't have the receipts that Stalin actually said this. For 30 years, I've been arguing just this point: The Nazis, or National Socialists, used slightly different mechanisms than the international socialists, with both paths blooming into the similar mechanisms of brutally controlling the masses and top-down collective economies. Mr. Muse's excellent historical research is clear: socialists, communists, and fascists are Leftists. And the fascist-communist conflicts throughout Europe up to, during, the post-WWII were and continue to be a civil war. Both are clearly working against Western liberal civilization.
Richard Pipes in his book “Communism, a history,” wrote “Even while Marx was working on Das Kapital, evidence emerged that wages of labor in England were rising—evidence Marx chose to ignore.” The industrial democracies were alarmed by socialist strides in organizing labor and gaining seats in parliament through unemployment, health insurance and other benefits. Pipes added, “The first country to take this route, was Germany, where the Social Democratic Party was especially poised to gain a parliamentary majority.” After Marx’s death in 1883, first came the Socialists and then came the Communists, as Marx’s doctrine was revised because it had already proven to be a theoretical construct that “flew in the face of reality.”
Why Should Non-Muslims Try to Understand Islam? Because the Answer Affects You Whether You Choose It or Not.
Most conversations about Islam in the West begin in the wrong place.
They begin with whether Islam is a religion of peace. They begin with whether the violent minority represents the peaceful majority. They begin with sensitivity calibration and qualification stacking and the careful management of who might be offended by the question.
None of that is where I begin.
I begin with a structural observation that is almost never stated plainly in polite company, even though it is not controversial among people who have read the actual texts.
Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level.
It contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it.
This is not a fringe interpretation. It is not the position of radicals or extremists. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence, codified by the tradition's own most respected voices. Ibn Kathir. Al-Suyuti. Al-Shafi'i. These are not men on the margins. These are the tradition's own authorities, and what they say is plain: the world is divided into the house of Islam and the house of war, and the legal obligation of perpetual conflict between them continues until Islam prevails. 1,400+ years and counting.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. Islam does that too. But Islam also contains a legal architecture derived directly from its foundational texts that imposes ongoing obligations on believers toward those who never signed up. And it specifies the conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue living, under Islamic authority, subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation.
This is not a secret. It is not hidden in obscure manuscripts. It is the tradition's own self-description, and it is why Shariah law does not stay in Muslim-majority countries.
There is a second thing the West needs to understand. Abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses are not equal options sitting side by side, available for Muslims to choose between according to temperament or circumstance.
The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism for resolving the contradiction. It is called naskh. Abrogation. Think of it as a software update: the most recent instructions override the earlier ones. The Quran was not delivered all at once. It came piecemeal, over roughly twenty-three years, and the later revelations carry legal weight over the earlier ones.
Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse.
The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences draws almost entirely from the earlier material. The Quran itself is arranged not chronologically but by chapter length, largest to smallest, which means the earlier and generally more peaceful material appears throughout the text without the chronological context that would reveal its legal status. What was said first does not mean what was said last. In Islamic jurisprudence, what was said last is what governs.
And then there is taqiyya.
The doctrine that grants permission, under conditions determined by the one doing the deceiving, to be deceptive. To an enemy. To a spouse. To advance the goals of the tradition. This is not a conspiracy theory invented by critics. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars, agreed upon across the major schools.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It does not mean most Muslims are your enemy. I have known Muslims I would trust with my life and one I called a brother for a decade. That is not the point and it was never the point.
The point is this. You are living inside a civilizational argument whose terms were set by texts you have not read, whose mechanisms were established by jurists whose names you do not know, and whose outcome affects you regardless of whether you chose to participate.
Understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
I have no degree. What I have is a nail gun, ten trades, and 1,346 audiobooks. I built this understanding the same way I build everything else. One plank at a time, load-bearing joints first, nothing on ice.
It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922 communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom… F A Hayek
Excellent write up. For those who claim Fascism must be completely different because of hatred of other socialists, look at Islam. Shia hate Sunni and Ibadi. Ibadi hate Shia and Sunni. Sunni hate Ibadi and Shia. All 'Islam'. All consider all others to be infidels for their different interpretations.
True. Socialism, fascism, and communism believe the ‘government’ is god and owns everything. Direct opposite of a Constitutional Republic; we are not a democracy where the majority rules.
They lied. They lied, you idiot. They said what people wanted to hear. That’s why they claimed to be socialists. They were liars. Unless I assume you believe that Hitler only wanted part of Czechoslovakia.
The reason people wrestle with the NAZI version of socialism is bifold:
1) The Marxist Left has propagated that "socialism" = "Marxist socialism" (which is entirely wrong - Marx created a socialistic framework called communism, but socialism existed in various forms before and after Marx), and therefore when the Marxist Left says the NAZI party isn't "socialist" they are correct if you ONLY equate Marxist Socialism (Communism) with Socialism. Additionally, because of the Marxist Left, the word "socialism" is hard to divorce from Marxist socialism anymore. They have been conflated.
2) The NAZI Party bears the name of socialism because it carries many socialistic features (rhetorical appeals to common weal, in-group welfare programs, critiques of "parasitic capital", etc). They did not think of socialism the way that Marx did, but they share many of the Pre-Marx qualities of socialism. Therefore, they ARE socialist in that sense, just not Marxist. They are also share at least some capitalistic features. In effect, it used state-directed capitalism with socialist-style subordination of private property to collective national goals. This hollowed out genuine market autonomy even while leaving nominal private ownership. That is why I lean Nazis toward the party's actual name, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even if (like most political parties) it's a little disingenuous.
The problem with state socialism (socialism forced into a government scale) is that people who understand politics use it as a means to an end. The end is always authoritarian control. (See Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Hitler, etc.)
Socialism on a smaller scale (not the Marxist kind) works fine, and is an extremely old economic unit. (Examples: the legacy family unit, an Israeli Kibbutz, an aboriginal tribe, etc.) It just doesn't scale properly, because those units are people who KNOW one another personally, and in most cases are free to leave the community if they want to. (Like an actual commune, after which Marx named his abstract model.) But when you scale that up to the size of a state, in which people must share resources with strangers, you run into uncountable problems that result in authoritarian control.
Authoritarianism can be seen as roughly a third economic entity - not capitalistic entirely, not socialistic entirely, but leveraging features of both as tools to maintain control. Mussolini framed his party, in fact, as being that third economic entity. (See the "corporative state.")
Additionally, all of this also gets tangled up with the Left-Right axis conflation problem which was exasperated by various leaders in World War I to mean what it didn't originally mean. In other words, Left and Right were attached to the ideology of a person rather than the alignment of a person to their respective current government. This created all sorts of problems. But not a rabbit hole for this post.
Several years ago I saw Dinesh D’Souza make this point. While I like Dinesh and agree with a lot of his work, I didn’t quite buy in regarding this point. Thanks for this definitive analysis. Guess I owe Dinesh an apology.
What do you think the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is on the US Seal? It is about signifying that America is a NEW thing, a human creation, a rejection of the Old Order, a rejection of traditional Western Civilization.
Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, said twice in it "A change in government is a change in Civilization".
America is a rejection of traditional Western Civilization.
Third, the American Revolution, like the French Revolution, was run by Masons! The Tea Party in Boston Harbor was done by Masons dressed up as American Indians. Half of the FFofA were Masons. Thomas Paine, not a member, wrote favorably of their ideology.
Thomas Jefferson was a Mason; his name appears in a Masonic published Bible. Thomas Jefferson had three portraits of the people that influenced him the most, Roger Bacon, John Locke and Isaac Newton who he called his "Trinity".
All three of them were Kabbalists, involved in the Utopianism of the Kabbala and the requirement of the need for the state of Israel to be reconstituted.
Freemasonry, like Communism, is founded upon the ideology of Jewish Messianism, which is about rebuilding the Tower of Babel. Syncretism is central to Gnosticism and Jefferson advocated tolerance and diversity which is syncretism.
George Washington, Mason said:
>>>“We have sown a seed of Liberty and Union that will germinate by and over the whole earth. Some day the United States of Europe will be constituted, modelled after the United States of America. The United States will be the legislator of all nations”.
Voegelin, Eric (1975) From Enlightenment to Revolution. Ed. by John H. Hollowell. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. citing Gouhler. Pgs 181-182
The following quotes are in his diary, other was in a letter to Layayette
>>>"The foundation of a great Empire is laid, and I please myself with a persuasion, that Providence will not leave its work imperfect"
>>>"Altho’ I pretend to no peculiar information respecting commercial affairs, nor any foresight into the scenes of futurity; yet as the member of an infant-empire, as a Philanthropist by character, and (if I may be allowed the expression) as a Citizen of the great republic of humanity at large; "
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0200
This "...Citizen of the great republic of humanity" is Freemasonry, a religion. America is a revolutionary state built on the ideals of Jewish Messianism.
Thomas Jefferson responding to a letter, wrote, "the introduction of the new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us."
The American regime has NO connection to traditional Western Civilization; it copied the image but rejected the substance--that substance is Hierarchy.
The American and French Revolutions were BOTH conducted by Masons and BOTH of these revolutions stem from the English Civil Wars that was the first. Oliver Cromwell removed the House of Lords and killed their monarch, just what the American revolution wanted to do.
I point you to Eric Nelson's book The Hebrew Republic, Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought where he points out that English radical Protestants searched out and used rabbinical teaching for the redesigning of their political system. The rabbis taught them that "Monarchy is Idolatry". The English revolutionaries, the Puritans, Levellers, 5th Monarchymen, et. al. were proud to call themselves "Talmudic Commonwealthmen".
The American Revolution was first called "The Presbyterian War" because the people in the colonies recognized that it was a continuation of the English Civil Wars. In his pamphlet, Common Sense, Thomas Paine, within the first three paragraphs repeats this phrase "Monarchy is Idolatry". (It is not--it is just more Jewish lies and propaganda.)
Yes, throughout the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there is a negative opinions of """PURE""" democracy. What the FFofA did was borrowed the image, the institutions of a true republic, like the upper house, to restrain the impulses of a Pure democracy. But America is till Anti-hierarchical. The FFofA rejected the class/caste of Indo-European civilization. They recreated, redefined what a true republic and created a similitude that masked their democracy. The rejection of hierarchy, of distinctions of rank, IS a SOFT form of Ideological democracy. They just had the States appoint two common people as Senators. In 1913, this system was changed throughout America that the common people voted in Senators--destroying the system of the FFofA.
Democracy is defined by ONE class of people--all people of a mass. True republics of classical antiquity and Tudor England had castes and had Mixed Government. America is a "democratic republic" --- which is just democracy with a different name upon it. There is NO caste or classes in America--thus an Ideological democracy as Jewish Messianism dictates.
I did a 61 page dissertation of what a republic is. It is all referenced, sourced, over 191 endnotes.
Classical definition of a republic 5th Rev.
https://www.academia.edu/5280564/
America is a Masonic construct. The American Revolution was the continuation of the English Civil Wars and the killing of Monarchs is the common theme among all three revolutions, English, American and French. (In Boston, if I remember the correct city, there was a statue of King George II, the American revolutionaries tore it down, thus a metaphor for killing their own king.)
The posts were "red meat" for the red crowd. Well played.
I am confident that over 100-million murdered corpses in the 20th century would universally tell us the “different” teeth of the socialist cog will turn, grind, and produce the same results - misery and death - every time.
GREAT ANALYSIS! My understanding is that the "Nazis are of the Right and Communists on the Left and are opposites" originated with Stalin shortly after WWII (that's "Two," not eleven) - however, I don't have the receipts that Stalin actually said this. For 30 years, I've been arguing just this point: The Nazis, or National Socialists, used slightly different mechanisms than the international socialists, with both paths blooming into the similar mechanisms of brutally controlling the masses and top-down collective economies. Mr. Muse's excellent historical research is clear: socialists, communists, and fascists are Leftists. And the fascist-communist conflicts throughout Europe up to, during, the post-WWII were and continue to be a civil war. Both are clearly working against Western liberal civilization.
NSDAP- socialists- Hitler- Democrats.
Richard Pipes in his book “Communism, a history,” wrote “Even while Marx was working on Das Kapital, evidence emerged that wages of labor in England were rising—evidence Marx chose to ignore.” The industrial democracies were alarmed by socialist strides in organizing labor and gaining seats in parliament through unemployment, health insurance and other benefits. Pipes added, “The first country to take this route, was Germany, where the Social Democratic Party was especially poised to gain a parliamentary majority.” After Marx’s death in 1883, first came the Socialists and then came the Communists, as Marx’s doctrine was revised because it had already proven to be a theoretical construct that “flew in the face of reality.”
Why Should Non-Muslims Try to Understand Islam? Because the Answer Affects You Whether You Choose It or Not.
Most conversations about Islam in the West begin in the wrong place.
They begin with whether Islam is a religion of peace. They begin with whether the violent minority represents the peaceful majority. They begin with sensitivity calibration and qualification stacking and the careful management of who might be offended by the question.
None of that is where I begin.
I begin with a structural observation that is almost never stated plainly in polite company, even though it is not controversial among people who have read the actual texts.
Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level.
It contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it.
This is not a fringe interpretation. It is not the position of radicals or extremists. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence, codified by the tradition's own most respected voices. Ibn Kathir. Al-Suyuti. Al-Shafi'i. These are not men on the margins. These are the tradition's own authorities, and what they say is plain: the world is divided into the house of Islam and the house of war, and the legal obligation of perpetual conflict between them continues until Islam prevails. 1,400+ years and counting.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. Islam does that too. But Islam also contains a legal architecture derived directly from its foundational texts that imposes ongoing obligations on believers toward those who never signed up. And it specifies the conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue living, under Islamic authority, subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation.
This is not a secret. It is not hidden in obscure manuscripts. It is the tradition's own self-description, and it is why Shariah law does not stay in Muslim-majority countries.
There is a second thing the West needs to understand. Abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses are not equal options sitting side by side, available for Muslims to choose between according to temperament or circumstance.
The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism for resolving the contradiction. It is called naskh. Abrogation. Think of it as a software update: the most recent instructions override the earlier ones. The Quran was not delivered all at once. It came piecemeal, over roughly twenty-three years, and the later revelations carry legal weight over the earlier ones.
Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse.
The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences draws almost entirely from the earlier material. The Quran itself is arranged not chronologically but by chapter length, largest to smallest, which means the earlier and generally more peaceful material appears throughout the text without the chronological context that would reveal its legal status. What was said first does not mean what was said last. In Islamic jurisprudence, what was said last is what governs.
And then there is taqiyya.
The doctrine that grants permission, under conditions determined by the one doing the deceiving, to be deceptive. To an enemy. To a spouse. To advance the goals of the tradition. This is not a conspiracy theory invented by critics. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars, agreed upon across the major schools.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It does not mean most Muslims are your enemy. I have known Muslims I would trust with my life and one I called a brother for a decade. That is not the point and it was never the point.
The point is this. You are living inside a civilizational argument whose terms were set by texts you have not read, whose mechanisms were established by jurists whose names you do not know, and whose outcome affects you regardless of whether you chose to participate.
Understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
I have no degree. What I have is a nail gun, ten trades, and 1,346 audiobooks. I built this understanding the same way I build everything else. One plank at a time, load-bearing joints first, nothing on ice.
That is what this work is about.
A. C. Rosenthal
Thank you for writing this piece. It is well and needfully done.
Different labels, same tyrannical results.
It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922 communists and Nazis or Fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties. They competed for the support of the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. But their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom… F A Hayek
Excellent write up. For those who claim Fascism must be completely different because of hatred of other socialists, look at Islam. Shia hate Sunni and Ibadi. Ibadi hate Shia and Sunni. Sunni hate Ibadi and Shia. All 'Islam'. All consider all others to be infidels for their different interpretations.
Noticeably absent from critiques of this spectrum is its adversarial relationship with Christianity.
True. Socialism, fascism, and communism believe the ‘government’ is god and owns everything. Direct opposite of a Constitutional Republic; we are not a democracy where the majority rules.
https://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6tz-Aly/e/B001H6RR84/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State
Yep. Adolph was a socialist.
They lied. They lied, you idiot. They said what people wanted to hear. That’s why they claimed to be socialists. They were liars. Unless I assume you believe that Hitler only wanted part of Czechoslovakia.
Huh?
So they were liars so they were or were not Socialists?