Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Hitler’

The Antifascist Scam – American Greatness

Posted by M. C. on March 8, 2021

One of the most transparent deceptions engaged in by American antifascist polemicists, including media celebrity Mark Bray and Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, is to depict the United States as being on the verge of a Nazi takeover. The only way we can avoid repeating the disaster that befell Germany in 1933 is by practicing ruthless intolerance.

Contemporary antifascists don’t care much about Hitler’s tyranny, except as an image that can be applied to those whom they want to bully.

By Paul Gottfried

Demonstrating that irony is far from dead, eBay has just pulled six of Dr. Seuss’s books for sale, but buyers are still free to bid on Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It seems that the woke Left has gone after the children’s classics for “racist imagery” but are cool with people reading Hitler. The latest victim of this leftist cancel culture, the late Theodore Geisel, and the author of such charming, illustrated reading for children as Scrambled Eggs Super and The Cat’s Quizzer, was on the Left politically and a passionate antiracist. Dr. Seuss denounced putative fascist-sympathizers even after World War II, readily joined far-Left organizations, and was an early, outspoken champion of the civil rights movement. His posthumous fate illustrates the law of History formulated by the Genevan counterrevolutionary Jacques Mallet du Pan in 1793: “Like Saturn, revolutions devour their own children.”

The treatment of Dr. Seuss’s classics confirms an argument that runs through my book on antifascism that is now in press. I quickly discovered in doing research that contemporary antifascists don’t care much about Hitler’s tyranny, except as an image that can be applied to those whom they want to bully.

Even a once serious scholar like Deborah Lipstadt, who has spent decades going after Holocaust deniers or minimizers, most famously the English historian David Irving, has engaged in a truly bizarre form of Holocaust trivialization. Lipstadt has not only repeatedly compared Donald Trump’s administration to Hitler’s dictatorship, but she has also claimed that those who raise questions about the 2020 presidential election are exactly like Holocaust-deniers. If David Irving landed in an Austrian jail as a “Holocaust trivializer” (he grossly lowballed the death figures for Nazi murders), I have no idea where we should place his accuser. Her comparisons seem even more shocking than Irving’s highly questionable scholarship.

In Germany, someone who asserts the Holocaust was not unique (einzigartig) in its cruelty or that Hitler was not uniquely evil could face legal and certainly professional difficulties in a country that is obsessively antifascist (but not noticeably antitotalitarian). Germany is also a country in which the argumentum ad Hitlerum was regularly employed by academics, journalists, and politicians to describe Trump’s America. The rule there may be that one is not allowed to compare any leader to Hitler or any government to Nazi Germany unless it advances the purposes of the antifascist Left.

One of the most transparent deceptions engaged in by American antifascist polemicists, including media celebrity Mark Bray and Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, is to depict the United States as being on the verge of a Nazi takeover. The only way we can avoid repeating the disaster that befell Germany in 1933 is by practicing ruthless intolerance. 

Granting one’s opponents the right to express their views seems to Bray especially unwise, since we are sitting on the top of a fascist volcano. In Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, he explains that “militant antifascism” rejects the “liberal alternative,” which “is to have faith in rational discourse.” This supposedly was the mistake of those liberals who tried to appease Hitler, and who naturally failed. (Bray does not reveal who these “liberals” were who helped bring the Nazis to power by engaging in “rational discourse.”)

Stanley reaches the same conclusion, namely, that there is too much fascist talk these days, by drawing breathtaking comparisons between Hitler’s Germany and Trump’s America. In How Fascism Works, a booklet that brought Stanley national attention, we learn that Trump’s America came closer and closer every day to the Third Reich because of the prevalence of “sexual anxiety,” “anti-intellectualism,” “failure to introduce gender equity,” and our stubborn resistance to the LGBT movement. 

For Stanley, another sure sign of our slouching toward some form of fascism, although not necessarily German Nazism, is our embrace of “the libertarian ideal of self-sufficiency and freedom from the state.” Since Mussolini spoke about putting everything into the total state and leaving nothing outside of it, I find no way to reconcile the American ideal of individual self-reliance with Stanley’s identification of fascism with self-sufficiency. 

What Stanley is really doing is defending a powerful centralized state which advances an intersectional agenda while controlling the economy. His complaints have nothing to do with the antifascism of the 1930s or 1940s. In 2016, Stanley poured out obscenities in intersectional fashion against Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne, who dared to criticize gay relationships. One doubts that past anti-Nazis, say, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, FDR, or even Josef Stalin, would have raged at a critic of gay rights. They might well have agreed.

The full measure of antifascist bullying can be found, however, in the counsels of Bernie Sanders organizer Kyle Jurek, who in a rant caught by Project Veritas in January 2020 called for putting “Nazified” Trump voters into Soviet-style gulags. The rest of Jurek’s comments about the fascist enemy almost equals in vulgarity Stanley’s tear against Swinburne. Such is the antifascist scam in America today.

About Paul Gottfried

Paul Edward Gottfried is the editor of Chronicles. An American paleoconservative philosopher, historian, and columnist, Gottfried is a former Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, as well as a Guggenheim recipient.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Social Justice Has a Religion, and This Is Its Dictionary – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 22, 2020


Some identify religion as a human necessity. Seemingly as a testament to that, even those who have proudly done away with what they see as the banal and barbaric myths of the past, make a god of the state and a religion of the political process. Others may see Tony Robbins as a high priest overseeing an invigorating religious ceremony. Still others, may see Oprah as a prophet, or a periodic, lavish dinner as an epicurean communion of ritualistic value.

It is apparent that man longs for a story about the order of the universe that religion offers.

Christianity did not become the de rigueur spiritual, philosophical, and political system of vast portions of the world without having something to offer its adherents. Writers like Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell have written volumes on the universal need of humans for certain structures in life. Religion satisfies many of those structural needs.

As the extreme left in America veers further from established religion, it inevitably engages in a very human behavior and builds itself yet another religion.

The problem is, unlike religions that have had centuries or millennia of the brightest minds in the world testing and retesting the ideas of the religion in fervent debate, the religion of the social justice warrior is a several decades old mish mosh of screwy ideas.

Far from a work of prescription, it is with the utmost sadness that I present to the reader a descriptive work of this befuddling body of thought. Sadness, because these ideas somehow exist as a body of thought in an age where the most brilliant, tested, consistent and cohesive ideas are just a few keystrokes away. It is not lack of access that stops more solid ideas from being adopted. Nor is it lack of resources or education, for the more education a person receives, the more likely they are to subscribe to this body of ideas. To identify a few:

Original Sin — The modern feminist movement imposes original sin on the man in the relationship, popularly referred to over the past decade as “privilege.”

Unlike original sin, privilege is not digital or binary, but analog and appearing in gradients. If the man is white, then his original sin is even greater. Privilege of all sorts exist. The less privileged one is, the better that person is.

All privileged people must confess their sins and come to the collective with a spirit of humbleness. The more privilege one has, the more this is needed. The less privilege one has, the less this is expected.

God — The flavor-of-the-month trend deemed popular by the collective is able to act as god. The role of god shifts from group to group and time period to time period. The status of god verges on the omnipotent and omniscient, but is so temporary that some may be imbued with this role for mere days.

Council of Nicaea — The Council of Nicaea is an ongoing meeting, often taking place on social media. Where two or three gather in the name of social justice, there is a Council of Nicaea serving as implementer of dire and important dogma, the temporariness of which does not detract from the direness of the implementation, but makes it all the more passionate, high stakes, and extreme.

Prophetic Voices — Only those who are seen as being identified with an issue are permitted to speak on an issue. The idea that a straight white man could have a valuable opinion on racism, abortion, homosexuality, or hardship is anathema. Total self-censorship is recommended when speaking to those of less privilege, with only the most self-deprecatory statements considered permissible.

Sinners — Only those who can be shamed into accepting their own privilege are deemed sinners. Though the unrepentant will be pursued with a missionary zeal, refusal to publicly accept one’s role as a sinner largely excludes a person from the worst defilement the religion has to offer. A sinner must willingly accept his role as sinner. Any public apology makes one a sinner in the eyes of the social justice movement. The act verges on masochistic.

Once a sinner, always a sinner. In this regard, the public apology is a form of baptism that does not cleanse the soul, but opens it up to repeated defilement. The act of baptism is repeated over and over publicly as a show of humbleness and attrition (sorrow) but not contrition (remorse and penitence).

There is no method of reaching contrition in this religion, and no attainment of forgiveness.

Satan Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

When Nazis Call You Nazi – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

What did the Mexican women do in response? They didn’t chant back, they didn’t jeer. They prayed for the people calling them racists and Nazis. It was a site to behold.

As the group of kool-aid-haired women raged through their bullhorns about the pro-life Mexicans being Nazis, KKK, fascist, and racist, a man walked by with a handmade sign that said “HITLER was PRO-ABORTION, and did you know Hitler was also a SOCIALIST ??”

•Hitler was a vegetarian too.


I recently watched a group of kool-aid-haired forty and fifty year old white women yelling through bullhorns and chanting slogans such as “No racist! No KKK! No fascist USA!…No Nazi! No KKK! No fascist USA!”

Or “No more patriarchy. Down with the patriarchy.”

The target of their anger was a group walking down the street whose biggest demographic  was several thousand predominantly Latina women. Of those Latinas, most were Mexican.

The sight was a shocker to me.

Could anyone seriously claim these kool-aid-haired angry women had any place calling total strangers racist? What had these Mexicans women done to them to deserve such derision, you may ask?

You see the group that the kool-aid-haired old women were calling racist and Nazi and loudly denouncing the patriarchy to were participating in a pro-life march. But they didn’t seem to see the individuals they were saying it to. Nor did they seem to digest the meaning of what they were saying.

And by the way, when I call 40 or 50 “old,” that’s not in reference to their age – this band of kool-aid-haired women looked very unhappy and very old for their ages.

What did the Mexican women do in response? They didn’t chant back, they didn’t jeer. They prayed for the people calling them racists and Nazis. It was a site to behold.

As the group of kool-aid-haired women raged through their bullhorns about the pro-life Mexicans being Nazis, KKK, fascist, and racist, a man walked by with a handmade sign that said “HITLER was PRO-ABORTION, and did you know Hitler was also a SOCIALIST ??”

At the sight of that sign, the sloganeering from the kool-aid-haired women continued undeterred. Of course the sign was true,

•Hitler DID support abortion.

•Hitler WAS a socialist.

As for the KKK chant,

•Margaret Sanger founder of the largest pro-abortion organization in the US, Planned Parenthood, spoke at a KKK meeting in Silver Lake, New Jersey according to her autobiography, and

•Sanger had notorious racist writer and klansman Lothrop Stoddard on her first board in 1922 (see this) for the organization that would later become Planned Parenthood.

•Sanger’s 1939 “Negro Project” was about getting black Americans onboard with their own population control.

•Five black babies are aborted for every ten live births in the United States, and

•a number equivalent to more than half of the present black population in America has been aborted since Roe v Wade.

This is all seemingly in accord with the eugenicist agenda of Margaret Sanger and the organization that became Planned Parenthood.

How exactly are pro-life marchers Nazis or KKK by marching AGAINST Nazi and KKK ideas?  They are in fact the opposite.

I looked up and noticed a little ten year old blonde haired girl in a Make America Great Again hat look on in horror at the spectacle of the kool-aid-haired women yelling as she passed.

The kool-aid-haired women were all so angry. Such bad optics. The Mexicans and other pro-lifers were all so jolly, surrounded by big groups of family and friends – it was a giant diverse crowd that the kool-aid-haired women were calling “literally Hitler.”

But Wait There’s More…

Then to make the whole sight even crazier, across the street were a bunch of very trendy looking young folks under thirty years old – maybe 50 or 75 of them – seemingly supporting the pro-life marchers. They were so well-dressed and so well-orchestrated in their motions that I wondered if they were paid actors.

They chanted over and over again: “Harvested eggs are alive.”

And each held the same professionally made sign in the same way and at the same height that read: “Right to rescue.”

It sounded vaguely supportive of something that the pro-life marchers were saying, but it was strange that they were facing the marchers, as if they were protesting against the marchers, rather than marching in the pro-life march.

I asked one of the police officers who they were. “They are pro-life,” he responded.

“Why aren’t they matching then?”

He shrugged.

It turns out they actually weren’t with the pro-lifers. They were PETA-type folks, protesting chicken egg harvesting and eating by humans. They weren’t there for unity. They were pro-abortion people calling it hypocrisy to want to protect a human baby, but not a chicken egg.

On one side you had pro-abortion “privileged” kool-aid-haired women screaming at the Mexican women about the patriarchy and how Nazi the Mexican women and other pro-lifers were. On the other side, you had pro-abortion people chanting about the moral value of a vegetarian lifestyle.

•Hitler was pro-abortion.

•Hitler was socialist.

•Hitler was a vegetarian too.

But facts didn’t seem to matter here. Emoting feelings mattered. Thought didn’t matter. Prefabricated slogans mattered. Communication or trying to understand another person didn’t matter. Being loud mattered. Swearing into a bull horn in front of kids mattered.

The American left increasingly resembles the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, in their plank, and in their bullying and abusive tactics that oppose reason and evidence while operating with a “might makes right” style of morality.

I witnessed exactly that where Powell meets Market in San Francisco at this pro-life march.

Be seeing you

Mel Brooks as Singer in The Producers | monologuedb





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tyrants With Pens – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on January 29, 2020

I find it strange that today’s writers resemble dictators of the past in their unwillingness to accept opinions contrary to their own.


Did any of you know that most of the 20th-century monsters—Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ceausescu, Duvalier, and even the Ethiopian mini-Napoleon Mengistu—were rather good writers who could form better-than-average sentences that said that power grew out of the barrel of a gun? I read this in a Big Bagel weekly that was once known for its wit but is now so blinded by hate against The Donald that it’s turned into a rag, surpassed in venom only by The New York Times and CNN. I knew that Mussolini was a scribbler of notes because he wrote the editorials of his newspaper Il Popolo before he took power. “Inequality and discipline, these are the substitutes for the cries of Equality and Liberty,” wrote Il Duce. That’s telling them, Benito—them being all those American Times hacks like the lachrymose Roger Cohen and the lugubrious Paul Krugman, who as I write are undergoing nonstop colonoscopies in order to cleanse their brains of depression following the British election. Professor Klinghoffer, who is administering the procedure in his Austrian clinic, told me that the more he studies the Cohen-Krugman gray matter, the closer he’s getting to proving his theory that only people who have shit for brains can work for The New York Times.

Mind you, one never knows why some people write well and others bludgeon sentences like those men and women at The New York Times. I suppose hate for the Orange Man clouds their noggins, but then how come a monster like Stalin could write like the proverbial dream? Hitler put down “writer” as his occupation while starving and unemployed in Vienna. The two good dictators, Franco and Salazar, kept their scribbling to a minimum, as good dictators should. But I still find it amazing that Stalin loved books and plays and befriended playwrights and offered valid criticisms to prominent writers. And, when not reading or offering advice and criticism, murdered anywhere from 30 to 100 million innocent human beings.

“I find it strange that today’s writers resemble dictators of the past in their unwillingness to accept opinions contrary to their own.”

I find it strange that today’s writers resemble dictators of the past in their unwillingness to accept opinions contrary to their own. Especially in America, where different views from those of the academe or the media are strictly verboten, and we the people have to view the world through a similar lens as they do—or else. It is probably the greatest irony ever: We fought a seventy-year battle against a totalitarian system that prohibited free speech, and having won it, we adopted the very system we defeated and imposed it on ourselves. The easiest way of shutting down free speech is by using the R-word. Call someone a racist and all doors close, and needless to say no smug progressive, no arch feminist, no super-woke riffraff has failed to use it at the slightest disagreement. It’s the easiest way to impose one’s opinion since the advent of the Colt 45.

Actually we live in an age where people want to cancel other people out, to disappear them. No one ever feared Torquemada or Savonarola as much as they fear the Twitter mob today. The ultra-woke protect their sensibilities with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and crying rooms. Freedom-loving folk like yours truly are seen as freaks and fascists, long past our sell-by date. Tarzan, too, is a goner. He just got canceled back in Westchester County, N.Y. A school was planning to perform a Disney version of the jungle classic, but it was nixed after two parents blasted the play as imperialist. A white man as the king of the jungle in Africa, that’s like singing “Springtime for Hitler” for real.

Basically it is the mainstream media in America and the BBC in the U.K. that has pushed our culture way to the left. There was a time not so long ago when a Puccini opera like Turandot did not need to mask what today is considered racist, Ping, Pang, and Pong changed to Jim, Bob, and Bill, Chinese costumes into black suits, effeminate Asian men ordered not to prance around on stage. Opera is accused of a racist, sexist past. All I can say is where is Don Giovanni to run all these crapulous woke bums who come up with such crap through and through with his sword once and for all? Some bloody Chinese woman was recently screaming her head off against poor old Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of a Japanese man in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. What is next, outlawing history?

Which of course brings me to Meghan and Harry Markle. Some nonentity who goes by the name of Afua wrote that Brexit was the culprit behind their leaving: “It emboldened people who advocated for a national identity and a return to the imperial past.” Now she tells us, who knew? Actually, Meghan and Harry Markle are now free to focus on abortions for men who have transitioned to be women and other such causes. Yippee! And I can focus on Reza Aslan’s nose. He’s the CNN hack who said about a young white Catholic boy who was waiting for a bus when he was attacked by a group of minority thugs, “Have you ever seen a more punchable face?” The boy was wearing a MAGA cap. Aslan has the most punchable nose ever, and I’d love to show you how punchable, if I can ever find the bum among the garbage he hangs out with.

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on December 30, 2019

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

David Gordon

Critics of Roosevelt’s New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt’s numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal’s supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.

The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this “delegation of powers,” Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the “uninhibited frenzy of market speculation.” The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, “stressed ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,’ praising the president’s style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler’s own dictatorial Führerprinzip” (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He “told American ambassador William Dodd that he was ‘in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”‘” (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'” (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini’s program to modernize Italy: “It’s the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious” (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government.

While Hitler’s and Roosevelt’s nearly simultaneous ascension to power highlighted fundamental differences … contemporary observers noted that they shared an extraordinary ability to touch the soul of the people. Their speeches were personal, almost intimate. Both in their own way gave their audiences the impression that they were addressing not the crowd, but each listener as an individual. (p. 54)

But does not Schivelbusch’s thesis fall before an obvious objection? No doubt Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini were charismatic leaders; and all of them rejected laissez-faire in favor of the new gospel of a state-managed economy. But Roosevelt preserved civil liberties, while the dictators did not.

Schivelbusch does not deny the manifest differences between Roosevelt and the other leaders; but even if the New Deal was a “soft fascism”, the elements of compulsion were not lacking. The “Blue Eagle” campaign of the National Recovery Administration serves as his principal example. Businessmen who complied with the standards of the NRA received a poster that they could display prominently in their businesses. Though compliance was supposed to be voluntary, the head of the program, General Hugh Johnson, did not shrink from appealing to illegal mass boycotts to ensure the desired results.

“The public,” he [Johnson] added, “simply cannot tolerate non-compliance with their plan.” In a fine example of doublespeak, the argument maintained that cooperation with the president was completely voluntary but that exceptions would not be tolerated because the will of the people was behind FDR. As one historian [Andrew Wolvin] put it, the Blue Eagle campaign was “based on voluntary cooperation, but those who did not comply were to be forced into participation.” (p. 92)

Schivelbusch compares this use of mass psychology to the heavy psychological pressure used in Germany to force contributions to the Winter Relief Fund.

Both the New Deal and European fascism were marked by what Wilhelm Röpke aptly termed the “cult of the colossal.” The Tennessee Valley Authority was far more than a measure to bring electrical power to rural areas. It symbolized the power of government planning and the war on private business:

The TVA was the concrete-and-steel realization of the regulatory authority at the heart of the New Deal. In this sense, the massive dams in the Tennessee Valley were monuments to the New Deal, just as the New Cities in the Pontine Marshes were monuments to Fascism … But beyond that, TVA propaganda was also directed against an internal enemy: the capitalist excesses that had led to the Depression… (pp. 160, 162)

This outstanding study is all the more remarkable in that Schivelbusch displays little acquaintance with economics. Mises and Hayek are absent from his pages, and he grasps the significance of architecture much more than the errors of Keynes. Nevertheless, he has an instinct for the essential. He concludes the book by recalling John T. Flynn’s great book of 1944, As We Go Marching.

Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today.

But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. “It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis…. Hitler’s story is the same.” … Flynn’s prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944 … “We must have enemies,” he wrote in As We Go Marching. “They will become an economic necessity for us.” (pp. 186, 191)

Originally published September 2006.

Be seeing you

While Donald Trump flirts with Russia, Eastern Europe ...

FDR with his “Uncle Joe”



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How to prevent the next Hitler: stop caring | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on November 6, 2019

So who is the next Hitler? Oh just ask around, you’ll get plenty of answers, usually divided along (pretty convenient and suspect) political fault lines.

Instead of caring about this fight, lead by example, make the changes in your own life you want to see in the world. That is the most effective way to manifest your vision of how the world should be.

By Joe Jarvis

Hitler cared.

Hitler really really cared about a lot of things. He was passionate. He was dedicated. And he was effective.

Hitler was also a horrible human being. No one to be glorified or emulated.

But you can’t deny he cared about Germany. His passion for righting the wrongs done to Germany led him down a path which caused millions of deaths. Hitler was dedicated to making Germany the ruling power of the earth because he was so god-damn sure in himself, the Aryan people, and their divine destiny.

I apologize for the cliche. They say, whenever someone brings up Hitler, you should leave the conversation. And in general, that’s a good rule of thumb. Usually, at that point, the conversation has devolved into one “side” accusing another of being the most Hitler-like.

Hitler is an easy comparison, the embodiment of evil. I could have said Stalin, or Mao–they did just as much damage if not much more– but then I’d have to explain myself. Hitler gives a nice emotional shot to the brain.

And that’s why Hitler comes out when people get emotional. They accuse someone–or a political party, or a movement–of being like Hitler because they care. They really freakin’ care about the point they are trying to get across. They are passionate about their beliefs and dedicated to their cause.

Which is why “Hitler” is a great signal to stop caring about what they say. Time to walk away and say, you know what, I just don’t care.

And I’m not saying they are necessarily wrong. Maybe they are right to be so passionate. Maybe they see the truth and are just so frustrated and bitter that they can’t help but lash out.

But for every one of those, I guarantee there are a hundred little Hitlers. They’ll never have the opportunity to be as effective as Hitler, thank god, but they would reach such evil heights if they could. And they would do it in the name of their righteous cause that they care so deeply about.

But you can’t tell the difference. So the solution is simple, don’t join a side, don’t evangelize a cause, just stop caring.

Let me pause here before you think I am getting cynical and nihilistic.

Things matter. I’m not saying it doesn’t all make a difference.

Hitler was elected, after all. So it makes sense to have passionate, dedicated people who really care about making sure another Hitler isn’t elected to cause the same destruction.

There were people in Germany who surely saw Hitler for what he was.

Many passionately dedicated themselves to spreading the truth about the evils of Naziism.

Some of these were communists– the same type that got their guy to power in Soviet Russia. Great job guys…

Some were patriots. They just wanted to live a happy life and leave something for their children in the motherland. They probably died, likely turned in to the Gestapo by their own children for grumblings against the Nazis.

And some left. They didn’t care enough to defend the homeland, or elect a communist, or join the Nazis. They lived and thrived. They had children who had children. They passed ideas along, they built things.

So who is the next Hitler? Oh just ask around, you’ll get plenty of answers, usually divided along (pretty convenient and suspect) political fault lines.

But the truth is, everyone has their counterpart on the other side, all passionately screaming to wake up the sheep because– you guessed it– they care.

Look, there is a lot that I care about. I’m not faulting anyone for caring. But in the past, I cared Hitler-style. I was so passionately caught up in what I knew to be right, that I just ended up contributing to the screaming match.

It’s the same screaming match I’m sure you’ve noticed, in which our society is currently engaged. It makes passions flare, it makes people angry, it creates zealots dedicated to their righteous cause.

The problems in society right now are not due to a lack of caring. Apathy is not causing the problems. People care. They just care about different things and haven’t figured out that the best way to solve them doesn’t involve forcing everyone else to bend to your demands.

Instead of caring about this fight, lead by example, make the changes in your own life you want to see in the world. That is the most effective way to manifest your vision of how the world should be.

But if your first inclination is to force everyone else to care about what you care about, try having a little empathy. Maybe that’s not the issue for them. And maybe that doesn’t make them a piece-of-shit Nazi or Commie-scum or whatever.

Maybe it makes them just another human with unique wants and needs, who has had different experiences that put emphasis on different values.

If you don’t care, stay strong, I commend you. Because at least you know you’re not supporting the next Hitler.

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Original Social Justice Warriors: Hitler and Mussolini – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2019


Both Hitler and Mussolini were perhaps the original and most dedicated ideological warriors for social justice. But the German National Socialists and Italian Fascists represented more than a brutal force that sent stormtroopers and blackshirt thugs to shout down rivals, block free speech, break shop windows, throw tear gas at opponents, and bash heads. They also represented a nationalist, collectivist and Marxist-inspired ideology that sought a “socially just” welfare society by redistributing everyone’s wealth.

The Nazis threatened and bullied almost everyone, any outspoken opponent or opposition political party, including conservative-nationalist parties. During the 1932 fall elections in Germany, the Nazis were almost at war with the conservative German National People’s Party (DNVP), where according to the German historian Hermann Beck, “the Nazis broke up German National election meetings with stink bombs and tear gas” and heckled a DNVP deputy and called him “Jew boy.” The German national press retaliated with charges of Nazism awash in socialism and violence, and stern warnings of economic doom if the Nazis were to gain power. The DNVP and German conservatives denounced Nazism as “bolshevism in nationalist wrapping.”

According to German historian Götz Aly, what made German National Socialism different from earlier versions of socialism was its “drive to couple social equality with national homogeneity, a concept that was popular not only in Germany.” From the very start, Hitler made it plain that social justice was an important ingredient for a healthy state. In his 1920 speech, “Why We Are Anti-Semites,” Hitler proclaimed to thousands of Nazi followers in Munich: “we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice.” Throughout his regime, Hitler promoted his Völkisch equality goals for society. In one speech to factory workers in 1940, Hitler promised “the creation of a socially just state, a model society that would continue to eradicate all social barriers.”

This advocacy for social justice was combined with their contempt for Jewish capitalism. A Nazi propaganda poster from 1933 read: “Because Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich wants social justice, big Jewish capitalism is the worst enemy of this Reich and its Führer.” To the National Socialists, every German of pure blood was entitled to equality before the law and equality of opportunity, not as individuals, but as part of the collectivity of a “people’s community” (Volksgemeinschaft).

In essence, Nazi Germany had become a redistributive regime that sought to rob the rich to pay the poor to fashion a universal social utopia—a sort of social justice mecca that has been dubbed a “racist-totalitarian welfare state.” In fact, National Socialist “policies were remarkably friendly toward the German lower classes, soaking the wealthy and redistributing the burdens of wartime to the benefit of the underprivileged.” Götz Aly described how Hitler’s regime financed their lavish social safety net for proper racial pedigree Germans, writing that to “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent ‘polemics against landlords,’ subsidies to German farmers as protection ‘against the vagaries of weather and the world market,’ and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as ‘effortless income.’”

To achieve socialism and social justice, the Nazis had to engage in extensive social welfare programs. According to Michael Burleigh in The Third Reich: A New History, “charity” was “integral to National Socialism.” He explained that their social welfare policies were an “uncomplicated reflection of human altruism” that “became a favoured means of mobilizing communal sentiment… underrated, but quintessential, characteristic of Nazi Germany.”

Joseph Goebbels applauded the generosity of Hitler’s welfare state, boasting in a 1944 editorial “Our Socialism” that “We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation… the Jews are the incarnation of capitalism.”…

Not only did Hitler and Mussolini engage in violence by teargassing, beating up and shouting down opponents like the modern-day Antifa, they committed atrocities against humanity in their effort to defend social justice, making them the quintessential social justice warriors of the 20th century. Now, if only the violent black-shirted activists in the Antifa movement today would realize that they are merely a resurrection of yesterday’s goose-stepping fascists.

Much of the material is excerpted from L.K. Samuels’ new book, Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum.

Be seeing you


The ISIS head chopper look. Cultural appropriation!



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The World’s Least-Free Countries Reveal Just How Much “Socialism Sucks” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 15, 2019

[Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World. By Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell.  Regnery Publishing, 2019. 192 pages.]

Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell are well-known free market economists, and they do not look with favor on a disturbing trend among American young people. “In the spring of 2016,” they tell us, “a Harvard survey found that a third of eighteen-to twenty-nine year olds supported socialism. Another survey, from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, reported that millennials supported socialism over any other economic system.” (p.8)

Unfortunately, the young people in question have little idea of the nature of socialism. Lawson and Powell would like to remedy this situation, but they confront a problem. Ordinarily, one would urge students to read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, Mises’s “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” and similar classic works, in order to understand the basic facts about the free market and socialism, but the millennials are unlikely to do so. One must attract their attention. What can be done?

Lawson and Powell have had the happy idea of presenting elementary economics in a humorous way that will appeal to those “turned off” by serious and sober scholarship. In the latter adjective lies the key to their approach. Both of the authors enjoy drinking beer, and they travel around the world to various socialist countries in pursuit of their beloved beverage, making incisive comments about the economy of each country as they do so. They write in a salty style that will make millennials laugh, though some readers will find it jarring.

For the young, “socialism” means no more than vague ideas about “fairness”, but, the authors note, the term has a precise meaning: “To separate the state from socialism in any large society is like trying to separate private property from capitalism. It can’t be done. I’ll say it once more for the people in the back: socialism, in practice, means that the state owns and controls the means of production.” (p.128) No country is completely socialist, but some are more socialist than others. How can the degree of socialism be evaluated? Lawson has, along with James Gwartney, produced an annual economic freedom index for the Fraser Institute, which the authors use to answer this question, sometimes with surprising results.

Many professed socialists look to Sweden for inspiration, but according to the freedom index, “Sweden gets a 7.54 rating, which is good enough for twenty-seventh place out of the 159 countries in the study. . .Bottom line: Sweden is a prosperous, mostly capitalist country.” (pp.10-11)…

If some people admire Sweden, few except fanatics have good words for the economy of Cuba. Nevertheless, must we not recognize the wonders accomplished by the Cuban socialized medicine? We must give the devil his due. Lawson and Powell are not convinced. “Official Cuban health statistics are impressive. . .Yet, we also know that the hospitals most Cubans use are so poorly equipped that people often have to bring their own sheets. What gives? The silence [on the streets} is part of the answer. The lack of automobiles means a lack of traffic fatalities. Since automobile accidents are a leading cause of death among younger people, the lack of automobiles has a disproportionate impact on life expectancy statistics for reasons that have nothing to do with health care. The low rate of infant mortality is a product of data manipulation.” (p.53)

Why has Cuban socialism, like all other centralized socialist economies, failed? The authors present with great clarity the essential point: “’[A]lmost a hundred years ago, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained that socialism, even if run by benevolent despots and populated with workers willing to work for the common good, could still not match capitalism’s performance. Socialism requires abolishing private property in the means of production. But private property is necessary to have the free exchange of labor, capital, and goods that establish proper prices. Without proper prices, socialist planners could not know which consumer goods were needed or how best to produce them. . .Socialism also gives tremendous power to government officials and bureaucrats who are the system’s planners—and with that power comes corruption, abuse, and tyranny.” (p.37)

Socialist tyrants were the greatest mass murderers in history, and the young must be apprised of this melancholy fact. “Stalin ranks just behind Mao as history’s second greatest mass murderer, with Hitler coming in third—and all three dictators were, of course, committed socialists of one sort or another.” (p.115)…

It is not only the drug war, but the war on terror as well, that ought to be condemned, and here once more, the many millennials who protested against the war are in the right. “We feel the same about the war on terror. The wars and violence associated with it in the Middle East are a major reason for Europe’s immigration wave. . .advocates for capitalism can be against war precisely because war undermine capitalist institutions and freedoms.. . .Chris Coyne wrote a book entitled After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy, in which he shows that when the U.S. engages in foreign intervention, it rarely creates the kind of lasting institutional change that supports what some might call a ‘neoliberal’ society. Economist Robert Higgs’s classic book, Crisis and Leviathan, shows how crises in the United States, especially wars, have led to expanded government at the expense of markets. Chris’s latest book, Tyranny Come Hone: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, co-authored with another friend of ours, Abby Hall, has shown how U.S. military interventions abroad ‘boomerang’ back to the United States in ways that decrease our freedoms at home. See, anti-war isn’t a uniquely leftist position. Capitalists should be anti-war too.” (pp.136-137. I regret the use of “neoliberal” as a term of praise and the solecism “advocates for.”)

I confess that I approached the authors’ project of a drinking tour of the socialist countries with skepticism. Would it be more than ajeu d’esprit? Reading the book has laid my skepticism to rest. Socialism Sucks has the potential to do great good, if it gets into the right hands, and its impressive sales suggest that it will do so.

Be seeing you

Sean Penn

The Dumb and Dumber of economics




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Nazis Were Marxists

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2019

By Bruce Walker

The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe.  Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. 

The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater.  Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution.  The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany.  In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically.  It established its program at Inglau in 1914.

What was this program?  It  was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes.  This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol.  Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.


Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism.  Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers.  He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament.  Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.


The very term “National Socialist” was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany.  Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.


The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies.  Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on.  Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party.  In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”

Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left: 

“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.  The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all.  Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.  We demand profit sharing in big business.  We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.  The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders.  Hitler on May 1, 1927: 
 “We are socialists.  We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” 
Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in 1928:

“The worker in a capitalist state – that is his greatest misfortune – no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things.  He has become a machine.”

That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times.  In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were.  What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis?  “State socialism.” …

Karl Lowenstein in the 1940 book, Governments of Continental Europe, writes that there was a convergence in Bolshevism and National Socialism regarding private property, and that this was clear long before Hitler and Stalin became allies.  Such things as freedom of contract, inviolability of private property, and the right to dispose of one’s estate were cited as examples of the deep-reaching restrictions in both totalitarian states. National Socialists were socialists.  They had nothing but contempt for what socialists call “capitalism” or what normal people call economic freedom.  While it is convenient to portray Nazis as beholden to industrialists and militarists, even from the earliest days Nazis loathed not only industrialists in general but armament makers in particular.  The Nazis raised taxes, punished profits, reduced the power of owners, of managers, and of directors and championed the right of the state or the party to “protect” Germany and German workers from abuses of “capitalists
Nazis were Marxists, through and through.  Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.”  Nazis were Marxists.
Be seeing you

vene social

Is that Sean Penn?



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Discomforting Facts about World War II – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on June 10, 2019

Britain entered the war because of a treaty obligation to defend Poland. FDR and Churchill ended up giving Poland to Stalin.

Russia won the war in more ways than one.


Prior to U.S. entry into World War II, the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to entering the conflict. That’s because of two things: (1) the non-interventionist foreign policy that was the founding policy of the United States and that had remained the foreign policy of the United States for more than 100 years; and (2) the horrible waste of men and money that had been expended on America’s intervention into World War I, not to mention the massive destruction of liberty that came with that war.

It was only because President Franklin Roosevelt intentionally provoked and maneuvered the Japanese into attacking at Pearl Harbor, where U.S. destroyers were conveniently based (FDR had wisely removed the carriers), that the U.S. ended up entering the conflict…

Hitler never had the ability to conquer the United States, much less the world. After all, his forces proved unable to cross the English Channel to conquer England…

Mainstream historians and newspapers have long pointed out that defeating Germany saved Europe from Nazi control. But it was always clear from the beginning that Hitler was moving east, not west — toward the Soviet Union, whose communist regime he considered the real enemy of Germany (just as the U.S. would consider the Soviet Union to be the real enemy of the United States after the war was over)…

The reason that England declared war on Germany was to honor the guarantee that England had given to Poland. But it was an empty guarantee because England knew that it lacked the military capability to free the Poles from German control… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »