Some Quotes on Socialism and Fascism



Chiefio: If you poke around a little, you can find a lot more places where Wilson or FDR praised Mussolini:

Franklin D. Roosevelt (about Musollini) , quotes about Fascism:
I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble.

Chiefio: I think this one makes Adolf Hitler’s views on Capitalism clear and that he thinks Nazis are Socialists:

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic 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.

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?

Chiefio: Never trust folks with no vices who think they know whats good for you too:

Heinrich Hoffmann, quotes about Nazi:
Adolf Hitler’s life style is simple. He never drinks alcohol and does not smoke.

Chiefio: Gee, this sounds like someone thinks they are an anti-capitalist socialist:

Joseph Paul Goebbels, quotes about Nazi:
As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

Chiefio: How about a little “Living Wage” Policy? Maybe some “public health” issues? Equality of education at the public expense?:

National Socialist Party of Germany (NAZI), quotes about Nazi:
We ask that 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 the confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of financial interest. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education…. We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents…. The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor — by the greatest possible support for all groups concerned with the physical education of youth. [W]e combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.

Chiefio: And way back before all of it we have a somewhat spooky premonition:

Adam Smith, quotes about Fascism:
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would … assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

Chiefio: Shades of “War on Drugs” and “War on Terrorism” and “Health Care Crisis” and…:

Herbert Hoover, quotes about Nazi:
Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ‘emergency’. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And ‘emergency’ became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.

Joseph Sobran, quotes about Fascism:
At the end of a century that has seen the evils of communism, Nazism and other modern tyrannies, the impulse to centralize power remains amazingly persistent.

Stephen P. Halbrook, quotes about Nazi:
Such questions have never been discussed in scholarly publications because the Nazi laws, policies, and practices have never been adequately documented. The record establishes that a well-meaning liberal republic would enact a gun control act that would later be highly useful to a dictatorship.

Chiefio: How about a nice “Progressive” policy like “Gun Control”:

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi (False):
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Chiefio: Some “collectivist” thoughts:

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.

Chiefio: Love of money? Not for a good socialist:

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
Gold is not neccesary. I have no interest in gold. We will build a solid state, without an ounce of gold behind it. Anyone who sells above the set prices, let him be marched off to a concentration camp. That’s the bastion of money.

Vance Packard, quotes about Nazi:
The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded.

Chiefio: Now, about those “Corporations” that were allowed to exist:

Leonard Peikoff, quotes about Nazi:
Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property—so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

Chiefio: Talk about your “Smoking Nazi!”:

Robert N. Proctor, quotes about Nazi:
Jena by this time was a center of antitobacco activism — mainly through the labors of Karl Astel, director of the new institute [Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research] and president, since the summer of 1939, of the University of Jena. Astel was head of the Thuringia’s office of Racial Affairs and a notorious antisemite and racial hygienist (he had joined the Nazi party and the SS in July of 1930) … Astel was also a militant antismoker and teetolater who once characterized opposition to tobacco as a ‘national socialist duty.’ On May 1, 1941, he banned smoking in all buildings and classrooms of the University of Jena, and the following spring, as head of Thuringia’s Public Health Office, he announced a smoking ban in all regional schools and health offices. Tobacco in his view had to be fought ‘cigar by cigar, cigarette by cigarette, and pack by pack’ — hence his notoriety for snatching cigarettes from the mouth of students who dared to violate his Jena University tobacco ban.

Chiefio: Reminds me of the “mandated volunteer community service” my kids had to do in “public school”…

Bernhard Rust, quotes about Nazi:
Teachers are directed to instruct their pupils… and to awaken in them a sense of their responsibility toward the community of the nation.

Chiefio: How about a ban on “Military Style Guns”, where does that lead?:

SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, quotes about Nazi:
All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately … The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon … must be regarded as an enemy of the national government.

Chiefio: Some more “Progressive Agenda”:

Karl Marx, quotes about Fascism:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Chiefio: Birds of a feather:

John F. McManus, quotes about Fascism:
Left has come to represent increasing government control. The extreme leftist typically seeks total government. Working their way toward total government power are the Communists, socialists, fascists, and modern liberals who advocate government solutions for every real or imagined problem.

Chiefio: The “Collective” State:

Benito Mussolini, quotes about Fascism (Questionable):
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.

Benito Mussolini, quotes about Fascism:
Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State … Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual.

Benito Mussolini, quotes about Fascism:
Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State.

Chiefio: Do what I want, centrally planned, or else:

Benito Mussolini, quotes about Fascism:
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.

Benito Mussolini, quotes about Fascism:
The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

Benito Mussolini, quotes about Fascism:
Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.

Chiefio: Note that here “liberalism” is the traditional ClasiLiberal sort, or Libertarian not the “progressive” that it has come to mean in America (which is actually a flavor of socialist leaning). OK, more ‘collective’ action and some “social goals”:

Alfredo Rocco, quotes about Fascism:
For liberalism, the individual is the end, and society the means. For fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

Unknown, quotes about Fascism:
The difference between [socialism & fascism] is superficial & purely formal, but it is significant psychologically; it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (& of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, &, therefore, the abolition of private property… Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use.

James A. C. Brown, Fascism quotes:
Communism and fascism or nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority.

Chiefio: Gotta love this one:

Paul Harvey, Fascism quotes:
They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?

Chiefio: I think I like this sorting:

Robert A. Heinlein, Fascism quotes:
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Adolf Hitler, Fascism quotes:
It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.

Adolf Hitler, Fascism quotes:
What luck for the rulers that men do not think.

Some Marxist Views and Where They Go

So I was trawling around for some quotes, and ran into this rather facinating page. No idea who the guy is, nor who the folks are to whom he links, but he’s got a pretty in depth look at the historical connections. I’m going to quote some fairly large chunks, just because I can’t see how to cut them down and preserve the feel for the thing. At any rate, the whole article is “well worth a read” and even spends some time on issues like the Soviets use of the Swastika before the Nazi’s use. Seems Hitler picked up more than just his economic policies from Soviet Russia, but also the emblematic Swastika.


I’ll be marking blocks of text wtih “BEGIN QUOTE” and “END QUOTE” as otherwise the indenting levels get too deep.


John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

“True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?”

Have a look at the headline quote above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler’s speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.

That settles it, doesn’t it? Who does not know of Hitler’s glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a “thousand-year Reich”?

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx’s co-author (See here and here). So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler’s day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be.

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

“Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.

Note that Marx wanted to “emancipate” (free) mankind from Jewry (“Judentum” in Marx’s original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx’s essay in German was “Zur Judenfrage”, which — while not necessarily derogatory in itself — is nonetheless exactly the same expression (“Jewish question”) that Hitler used in his famous phrase “Endloesung der Judenfrage” (“Final solution of the Jewish question”). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily “dissolve” itself, the word he uses in German is “aufloesen”, which is a close relative of Hitler’s word “Endloesung” (“final solution”). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler’s ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here


I don’t have the time right now to follow up that particularly juicy connection, but that Marx and Engles shared so much more of the Racist element of Nazism is of significance. (Why? As “nationalism” and “racism” are the only two things that really separate the Nazi doctrine from the Soviet one. And if racism was in from the foundation of Marx and Engels, well, it’s a much shorter “connection” to make!)

The Social Agenda


Modern Leftism

Before we answer that question, however, let us look at what the Left and Right in politics consist of at present. Consider this description by Edward Feser of someone who would have been a pretty good Presidential candidate for the modern-day U.S. Democratic party:

He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend “lived together” for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man’s personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.

He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: “As Christ proclaimed ‘love one another’,” he said, “so our call — ‘people’s community,’ ‘public need before private greed,’ ‘communally-minded social consciousness’ — rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!”

The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people’s ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one’s ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one’s ethnic group

There is surely no doubt that the man Feser describes sounds very much like a mainstream Leftist by current standards. But who is the man concerned? It is a historically accurate description of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was not only a socialist in his own day but he would even be a mainstream socialist in MOST ways today.


It does sound rather like the typical “Progressive Agenda” of today… But skipping on down:

The Socialist Collective by Any Other Name


(For those who are unaware of it, Von Mises was an Austrian Jewish intellectual and a remarkably prescient economist. He got out of Vienna just hours ahead of the Gestapo. He did therefore have both every reason and every opportunity to be a close observer of Nazism. So let us also read a bit of what he said about the Nazi economy:)

The Nazis did not, as their foreign admirers contend, enforce price control within a market economy. With them price control was only one device within the frame of an all-around system of central planning. In the Nazi economy there was no question of private initiative and free enterprise. All production activities were directed by the Reichswirtschaftsministerium. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operations from the orders issued by the government. Price control was only a device in the complex of innumerable decrees and orders regulating the minutest details of every business activity and precisely fixing every individual’s tasks on the one hand and his income and standard of living on the other.

What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party.


So you get to keep the corporation in name, but all the planning is from the central government and you don’t have any real say in what you are to do. Not exactly “Free Enterprize”…


And let us listen to Hitler himself on the matter:

“There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.”

Another quote:

“Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please.
The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

(Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

So it’s pretty clear that the “ownership” of a corporation was not at all like we think of it now. It’s also quite clear that the goal was a Socialist State, just by a slightly different path.


Further, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of “the people” (Das Volk). The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful, and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, instituted pervasive supervision of German industry. And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler’s conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler’s Panzern as they stormed through France was Soviet fuel.

And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the ’60s was the 1958 book “The Affluent Society” by influential “liberal” Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith — in which he fulminated about what he saw as our “Private affluence and public squalor”. But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: “Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz” (Common use before private use). And who preceded Hitler in that? Friedrich Engels at one stage ran a publication called Gemeinnuetziges Wochenblatt (“Common-use Weekly”).

So we’ve got the same basic “complaint” from all of the “Leftists”… the “Public Good” needs to come first…

Planned non-Parenthood

But what about that whole “racial purity” and improve people through Eugenics thing? Surely THAT was a uniquely Nazi thing?


And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don’t we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the “master race” through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women — the “Lebensborn” project? Good Leftists today recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler’s day? They were in fact American Leftists — and eugenics was only one of the ideas that Hitler got from that source. What later came to be known as Fascism was in fact essentially the same as what was known in the USA of the late 19th and early 20th century as “Progressivism”, so Fascism is in fact as much an American invention as a European one. The Europeans carried out fully the ideas that American Leftists invented but could only partially implement. America itself resisted the worst of the Fascist virus but much of Europe did not. The American Left have a lot to answer for. I have outlined the largely Leftist roots of eugenics here and the largely American roots of Fascism here

So even Hitler’s eugenics were yet another part of Hitler’s LEFTISM! He got his eugenic theories from the Leftists of his day. He was simply being a good Leftist intellectual in subscribing to such theories.


For what it’s worth, this aspect of American Progressives was widely known when I was a kid. Seems to have been forgotten lately. “Planned Parenthood” came straight out of the American Eugenics movement.

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

Yup, that bastion of the Left “A woman’s right to choose” with a little more encouragment if you are poor, black, or otherwise not quite what they liked…

American Progressive Connections

That “jonjay” link in the prior quote has this interesting bit:

And as this article shows, the American “Progressives” of the late 19th and early 20th century were not only Leftists but they were also war-glorifying militarists. Hitler got not only his eugenic ideas from American Leftists but even his ideas about war being a purification of the national spirit etc. And who was it who said this?

“Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.”

Was it Adolf? It sounds very much like either Adolf or Mussolini at the height of their powers but it was in fact said while both Hitler and Mussolini were still in the trenches of World War I and it was said by the President of the United States, the arch-Progressive Woodrow Wilson. See here for that and many other ways (including book-burning) in which Adolf learnt from American leftists. History can be very surprising. Loberfeld’s short history of progressivism has more on its militaristic aspects.

Wilson even foreshadowed Hitler’s racism. Note this quote about his actions in 1912:

“Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington’s large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson’s cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington. Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments”.

So Wilson actually reversed more tolerant policies put in place by Republicans. Racism was very LEFTIST in Hitler’s day. Leftists like to portray Wilson as a visionary. They neglect to mention that the future he envisioned was a racially segregated one.

Jonah Goldberg has a good summary of the Wilson administration too:

Under Woodrow Wilson, the first American president to embrace the new cult of pragmatism and power that had overtaken “enlightened” thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic (and the first American president to openly disdain the U.S. Constitution), the progressives unleashed a crackdown on freedom that makes the supposed fascism of the McCarthy era and the Bush years seem like a teach-in at Smith College. Wilson established the American Protective League, a group of domestic fascisti charged with crushing dissent, beating “slackers,” and intimidating average Americans. Wilson’s Committee for Public Information was the first modern propaganda ministry. Indeed, according to the late sociologist and intellectual historian Robert Nisbet, the “West’s first real experience with totalitarianism – political absolutism extended into every possible area of culture and society, education, religion, industry, the arts, local community and family included, with a kind of terror always waiting in the wings – came with the American war state under Wilson.”

And I suppose it is very crass and inconsiderate of me to point out that Wilson began his book: The State. Elements of Historical and Practical Politics: A sketch of institutional History and Administration with a study of Aryan politics. Woody’s book does not appear to be available anywhere online so I have reproduced in an Appendix to this article some extracts from it about Aryans and such matters.

At the risk of appearing to flog a dead horse, I might also point to Koenigsberg’s demonstration that Hitler saw Germany as a living organism that was severely threatened. And where did Hitler get the idea of Germany as a biological organism? He could have got it from various sources but one of the most prominent sources of such thinking was again the very anti-business Woodrow Wilson — who justified his wish to scrap the checks and balances of the American constitution on the grounds that the U.S. government was “not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life… No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live”. And American Leftists still often characterize the constitution as a “living” thing to this day. Like Wilson, they use such language as an excuse for escaping the constraint of law that does not suit them. Hitler would have seen that as perfectly proper!

In fact, the more one reads about the American “Progressives” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the more parallels one finds between them and the Fascists. For instance, particularly prominent on the American Left were the Bellamys. Edward and Francis Bellamy actively promoted what they called “military socialism” and, largely under their influence, loyalty oaths, flag ceremonies, racist preaching and even the straight-armed salute were all common in America long before they were adopted by Mussolini and the Nazis. See here for some details, including remarkable photographs from the period concerned.


OK, that’s kind of a heavy load. But the fact is that the “Progressives” advocated basically the same agenda and used many of the same devices as were later adopted by Fascists and Nazis. It isn’t so much that there was a Fascist root to Progressives, as that there is an American Progressive root in Fascism. Reading a little history of Woodrow Wilson can really give you the willies…

Further down the same page,

But to return to Mussolini for a moment: Where do you think he got these ideas in a speech he made in 1933?

“If we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because, without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good”.

It’s mainstream Fascism, isn’t it? Totally submerging the individual into an army that works only for the common good rather than individual good. The trouble is that it was not a speech made by Mussolini. It is an excerpt from the First Inaugural Address of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — great hero of the American Left to this day. So the ideas of the “Progressives” were also the ideas of FDR’s “New Deal”. Leftism has gone under many names but the basic desire to reduce people to an antlike status remains. Read the above quote again if you doubt it. Or read Hegel for that matter (see Appendix 2 below). And see Trifkovic for more detail on the affinities between FDR and Mussolini.


And it was of course FDR who sent the desperate German Jewish refugees aboard the “St. Louis” back to Germany in 1939 — despite the low level of antisemitism in America at that time.

And that is not the end of the affinities between F.D. Roosevelt and the European Fascists. As Hornberger reminds us:

“Were Hitler’s economic policies in the 1930s, however, significantly different from those of Roosevelt, his counterpart in the United States? On the contrary, there was a striking similarity between FDR’s New Deal and the methods that Hitler used to get Germany out of the Depression. Both FDR and Hitler instituted massive government spending campaigns, including public-works programs, to bring full employment to their countries. In the United States, for example, there was the Hoover Dam. In Germany, there was the national autobahn system.


Shades of “Stimulus” and “QE-2″(!)


The Nazis also imposed an extensive system of governmental control over German businesses. Was Roosevelt’s approach any different? Consider FDR’s pride and joy, his National Recovery Act, which was characterized by the infamous Blue Eagle. With the NRA, the U.S. government required entire industries to combine into government-protected cartels, and directed them to fix wages and prices in their respective industries. If a businessman refused to go along, he faced prosecution and punishment, not to mention protest demonstrations from Blue Eagle supporters. (The Supreme Court ultimately declared the NRA unconstitutional.)

Let’s also not forget the important paternalistic elements of Hitler’s national socialism: Social Security, national health care, public schooling, and unemployment compensation. Sound familiar?

Hitler himself showed keen insight into this matter. In his biography Adolf Hitler, John Toland writes, “Hitler had genuine admiration for the decisive manner in which the President had taken over the reins of government. ‘I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt,’ he told a correspondent for the New York Times two months later, ‘because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy.’ Hitler went on to note that he was the sole leader in Europe who expressed ‘understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt.’”

So again we see European Fascists learning from and admiring the dominant American Leftists of their day. They were brothers in arms, just as Hitler and Stalin were later literally brothers in arms. That brothers sometimes fall out should not prevent us from noting the brotherhood concerned.

The more you dig, the more you find that there were far more similarities than differences between all the various “Progressive” and “Socialist” movements of that day. Same agenda. Same approaches. The major difference was that in the USA our limited government of that day prevented a full blown fascist / socialist state from being formed. (Though we are much closer to it today).

To Harvard

Further on down the page, we get to see how Harvard hasn’t changed much…

And the following description of American Progressivism in the early 20th century could just as well have been a description of Fascism:

“Progressive policies embodied an underlying philosophy repugnant to Jeffersonianism. As Ekirch describes this philosophy, “Society in the future would have to be based more and more on an explicit subordination of the individual to a collectivist, or nationalized, political and social order. This change, generally explained as one of progress and reform, was of course also highly important in building up nationalistic sentiment. At the same time, the rising authority and prestige of the state served to weaken the vestiges of internationalism and cosmopolitanism and to intensify the growing imperialistic rivalries.” In their statist cause the progressives, who were now appropriating the name “liberal,” enlisted Social Darwinism, economic determinism, and relativism.

So 20th century Fascism was in fact an American invention, or more precisely an invention of the American Left. Like many American ideas to this day, however, it proved immensely popular in Europe and it was only in Europe that it was put fully into practice. As it does today, American conservatism kept the American Left in some check in the first half of the 20th century so it was only in Europe that their ideas could come into full bloom.

And when those ideas did come into full bloom, America’s “progressive” intelligentsia warmly welcomed them of course. And that great present-day friend of Leftist extremism — Harvard University — was in the lead. Below is just one small extract from the history of the times:

“The Harvard University administration during the 1930s, led by President James Conant, ignored numerous opportunities to take a principled stand against the Hitler regime and the antisemitic outrages it perpetrated, and contributed to Nazi Germany’s efforts to improve its image in the West. The administration’s lack of concern about Nazi antisemitism was shared by many influential Harvard alumni and students. A faculty panel that supervised a mock trial of Hitler in 1934 ruled that Hitler’s anti-Jewish actions were “irrelevant” to the debate. Nazi leaders were warmly welcomed to the Harvard campus and invited to prestigious social events, as the Harvard administration strove to build friendly relations with thoroughly Nazified universities in Germany. By doing so, Harvard’s administration and many of its student leaders offered important encouragement to the Hitler regime as it intensified its persecution of the Jews and strengthened its armed forces…..

Prominent Harvard alumni, student leaders, and some faculty assumed a major role in the friendly welcome accorded the Nazi warship Karlsruhe when it visited Boston in 1934, flying the swastika flag. Boston’s Jewish community protested vociferously. President Conant remained silent. Officers and crewmen from the warship were entertained at Harvard, and professors attended a gala reception in Boston where the warship’s captain enthusiastically praised Hitler.

That year, the Harvard administration welcomed a top Nazi official, Ernst Hanfstangl, who was Hitler’s foreign press chief as well as a virulent antisemite, to the campus for his 25th class reunion. The student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, editorialized that the university should award Hanfstangl an honorary degree “as a mark of honor appropriate to his high position in the government of a friendly country.” The joyous reception Hanfstangl received on campus was interrupted when a local rabbi confronted him and demanded to know what Hanfstangl had meant when he recently remarked that “everything would soon be settled for the Jews in Germany.” The rabbi cried out, “My people want to know . . . does it mean extermination?” Hanfstangl replied that he “[could] not discuss that. I am on vacation. I am with my old friends.” The Nazi official proceeded to President Conant’s house for tea.

Anti-Nazi activists opposed Hanfstangl’s visit. Some put up posters in Harvard Yard, only to have the Harvard police tear them down. Others held a rally in Harvard Square. Seven demonstrators who tried to speak at the rally were arrested, and sentenced to six months at hard labor. Conant called the demonstration “very ridiculous.”

Gotta love those Harvard Progressives…

And much much more…

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in World Economics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Some Quotes on Socialism and Fascism

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Interesting to see the info about Wilson. I must admit, when I was in grade school, I thought that Wilson must have been one of the country’s greatest Presidents. My teacher made him sound so wise… :)

    Few people realize the damage that Wilson did to the US. Creation of the Federal Reserve, implementation of the 16th and 17th Amendments, entry into WWI, jailing (and worse) of dissidents — the list goes on!

  2. PhilJourdan says:

    @jason – even though Wilson is semi-revered in my state (being a native son – and no, it is not New jersey), there have been many rumblings of his faults and shortcomings. That he is a native son means they are not usually widely discussed.

    Before Russia was Marxist, Wilson believed in it. The only thing stopping him was that nasty constitution. The same document the current leaders are ignoring in their quest to run us down the same road to ruin as Lenin did in Russia.

    but having said all that, I find myself drifting towards a conclusion that seems absurd, yet has support in history and modern day. And that is that the natural progression of modern day democracies/republics is towards the ever increasing centralization of power – much in line with the practice of most communist nations. In time, they are there. but then a natural backlash – a natural yearning of men to be free – occurs and you have either a violent or peaceful revolution that pushes back the bonds of totalitarianism. Due to the sloth and apathy of a majority of mankind, no one ever reaches the place the US was 200 years ago. But the headlong rush into a communist dicatorship is aborted, and some freedom returns.

    That is why the US is so special. It occupied a place that precious few societies have been at in the history of the world, and very few will ever be again. The US is now very far down the road of totalitarianism, and in the future, I suspect that Sharon Angles words will come back to be prophetic. It is clear that while those who cherish freedom respect the law, those who strive for totalitarianism (for whatever the calling words are it does not matter) do not. using that ‘weakness’, the progressives will always win in the short term. And it will not be until the oppression has reached a point of suffocating freedoms will the freedom lovers rise up and reassert the rule of law.

    In the 21st century, it is easy to romaticize about how the American Revolution came about. But what is often glossed over is that only 40% of the populace were in active support of obtaining freedom. Another 40% did not care, and the rest were dead set against it – preferring the security of tyranny over the benefits of freedom.

    Those percentages are telling, for today we see similar numbers. When the inevitable snapback occurs, I see the same numbers playing out as happened 200+ years ago.

  3. Jason Calley says:

    @ PhilJordan “I find myself drifting towards a conclusion that seems absurd, yet has support in history and modern day. And that is that the natural progression of modern day democracies/republics is towards the ever increasing centralization of power – much in line with the practice of most communist nations. ”

    “Absurd?” No, not at all absurd, and I think it has some very plausible reasons. Nations which have a maximum of individual freedoms create the most wealth, the greatest prosperity. We humans really are not such bad creatures and when we have excess wealth we usually want to help the “less fortunate”. As long as we have a government we can control, and the tax bite is relatively small, the simplest way to get that glow of altruism is to have the government run the program with our (small) tax payment. Of course things which are subsidized grow, and the demand to feed or clothe or educate or whatever, for the “unfortunate” grows ever larger. Exactly the same process that happens with our altruism is simultaneously happening with the provision of our common defense. Why have armed citizens on call when a standing army will do the job? So the military-industrial-congressional arm swells also. The concurrent welfare/warfare state is born, and once born it grows to be a ferocious adult, one fully willing to consume all the excess weath that any society can create. Finally even that is not enough, and eventually the nation goes broke and turns to tyranny, while all the time those in charge tell you that all that is needed to fix the problem is to give up just a little more freedom and property.

    Happily, the ideas which made America special are loose in the world. Digital information technology is a double edge sword and right now it is harming both freedom and tyranny. The good news is that tyranny is slow and inflexible, but freedom is adaptible and creative. I know who I am betting on!

    We live in interesting times. :)

  4. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Prophecies for this period are that the followers of “more” will have a brief final accent to power and will declare themselves to the public. Then they will be swept away for good.

    The brothers of the north will unite and win the final war with the Islamic nation. The leader of the Oligarcies will be killed by islamics, bad move as he is, behind the scenes, helping them. And the head of the islamics will drown in a secret landing as he moves on Europe.

    George Soros got his start as a Nazi youth who collected the property of Jews before they were shipped off. Today he finances the efforts of progressives with “eastern european” money. Circles working within circles.

    My, we do live in interesting times. pg

  5. Verity Jones says:

    “After having thus successively taken each member
    of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
    de Tocqueville (1899)

    ….and just as relevant today.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    @P.G. Sharrow:

    Which profecies? There are so many to choose from… ;-)

    @Verity Jones:

    I really need to get me a copy of de Tocqueville…

    I’m trying desperately to remember who made that quote about liberty leading to democracy then on inevitably to tyranny again, then revolution (lather, rinse, repeat). I did a search on keywords and “Bing!” seems to like current events more than historical… I thought it was de Tocqueville, but adding his name just got a lot of “tyranny” quotes of other forms.

    Ah well, other things to tend at the moment.

    What I find amazing, literally, is the ability of folks on “The American Left” to be unable to accept their own roots. You can read the historical record. See the policies. Find the letters of communication. It’s pretty darned clear where the philosophies start, how they spread and change, and where they end up.

    But somehow the “political soundbite” form of “reasoning” dominates.

    Almost as surprising to me is my own willingness to say, quite openly: “The fascist form seems to work fairly well if you can keep the militarism, nationalism, and racisim out of it; the “mixed economy” is probably near the optimum point of economic performance.”

    Then again, I proceed from “What is” through “What happens” and only then end at “Was it good or bad?” while most folks seem to proceed from “Does it make me feel good” to “What is good or bad” to “What must have happened” ending with “That can’t be”… just wired backwards (to use Murray’s metaphore of wiring).

    At any rate, on the “right” of me are the Evil Bastard Kings, Dictators, Popes (they have not always been nice…), Oligarchs, Monopolists, While on the “left” of me are the Evil Bastard Czars, Furers, il Duce, Peoples Republic Central Committees, and a thousand and one petty tyrant “Great Leaders” all over the world. Between the two of them is an ever shrinking thin slice of freedom. Will the last person into the pen please close the gate?

  7. Verity Jones says:


    This one?

    “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” Plato

  8. tckev says:


    My reading of de Tocqueville is sketchy at best but I thought the quote was about freedom and slavery. Googling it got me the inevitable Wiki at -

    and this quote –
    de Tocqueville wrote of “Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans” by saying “But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom” in Volumes One, Part I, Chapter 3.
    Is this close?

  9. “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” – Plato

    Thanks for the quote! A more recent endorsement from one or another of these American heroes: Henry David Thoreau, Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine:

    “That government is best which governs least.”

    In view of fundamental truths about mankind, I suspect that the recent turn of events toward establishing a one world governing tyranny began with the realization during the “Cold War” that the threat of nuclear warfare, mutual destruction that would kill politicians too.

    They never hesitated to send others to the front to make the supreme sacrifice for country, but the threat of nuclear war was an unpalatable fact!

    The recent global climate scandal revealed the deep roots of the propaganda machine they established – from obvious politicians like Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC to once respected organizations like the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society, the International Alliance of National Science Academies, the government research agencies they control (NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, etc), the news media, including even the most respected ones like BBC and PBS.

    Fortunately a greater power, with a sense of humor, seems to be in control and switched off solar activity soon after Al Gore’s dire prediction of global warming.

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    Both of those are “close but not it”. I think part of the problem is that a whole bunch of smart folks have noticed the same pattern over a few thousand years so there are a lot of “close” observations…

    Then when I read a few dozen of them in a close span of time, I dont’ do well at keeping the “person” attched to the saying. So was it de Tocqueville, or someone in the US Revolution who was commenting?

    Ah well, it will come to me eventually. It was, roughly parapharased:

    Liberty leads to democracy, then to the tyranny of the masses, which resolves into a dictatorship, eventually returning to a revolution and liberty.

    Though with somewhat more “flowery” language.

  11. George says:

    Here is what our liberty has lead to:

  12. Jason Calley says:

    @ E.M.

    I do not know the source, but perhaps this is what you are thinking of.

    Nations go from slavery to faith, from faith to spiritual courage, from courage to winning liberty, from liberty to prosperity, from prosperity to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy back into slavery.

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jason Callley:

    I think that IS it! I’m remembering it, conflated with that de Tocqueville quote from tckev.

    Early in life I chose to “just remember the meaning”. Then, later, folks started demanding that I be able to repeat quotes exactly and give attribution on things, so I started all that (wasted overhead) effort then. So depending on when I ran into something, it may be a ‘quote’ or an ‘essence of understanding’…

  14. Verity Jones says:

    @Jason Calley / E.M.
    In looking for something else today, I ran across this:

    which reminded me of your quote, but it is not exactly the same. Nonetheless it is in the same vein, also relevant.

    This is what I was looking for:

    “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant)

    It set me in mind of the current administration, and particularly what has happened with the EPA and its increasing regulatory powers.

  15. PhilJourdan says:

    @Jason Calley on March 25, 3:59pm

    Very good analysis. Much better than my napkin scratchings. But while insightful, and I believe accurate, it is depressing as well.

    Man lives for a short time. But during his tenure, he sees that around him and thinks that is the way things will always be, and have always been. The wise among us wake up and realize that is just a mirage, and that the world we grew up in (our childhood) and the world we live in (our adulthood) are merely points on a line, and not the line.

    Thanks for your insight.

  16. Jason Calley says:

    @ PhilJourdan “Man lives for a short time. –snip– the world we live in (our adulthood) are merely points on a line, and not the line.”

    Phil, wonderfully stated. If you are not either a philosopher or a poet you are in the wrong business.

    I would urge you not to be depressed or sad, however. One my favorite Buddhist stories goes like this:

    A wealthy man had just completed the construction of his new house and invited a local monk to give a blessing at the big house-opening feast. At the appropriate time, the monk stood up and said “Grandfather dies. Father dies. Son dies. Grandson dies.” and then sat down. The new home owner was upset and told the monk, “What a horrible thing to say! What kind of blessing was that?!” The monk replied, “In what order would you prefer that the deaths take place?”

    Our country is infested with positive feedback control loops in our fiscal and governmental structures. It goes more and more out of control with each year. Why? There is a natural order to things, and nations grow old and die, as do you and I. When I think about my own death, the things that comfort me are the thoughts that my firends and offspring will continue on. That does not mean that death is a time of happiness — it is still a sorrow — but it is a least a bit more bearable. The thing that makes me able to accept (though still unhappily) the decline in the U.S. is the fact that we have created perhaps the most wonderful offspring since the development of agriculture. The concepts of natural human rights and personal freedom, the idea that laws and not men will rule us, those ideas are loose in the world and have become so widespread that they will NOT be stuffed back into the genie bottle. Our development of digital technology guarantees it. There are new Thomas Jeffersons growing up right now who speak Urdu, or Mandarin or Swahili.
    It is very possible, perhaps even inevitable, that here in the U.S. the battle will be lost. The good news is that the things which have made this nation truly unprecedented in history will triumph. We may lose this battle, but rest assured we will win the war. I sleep better when I remember that.

  17. gnomish says:

    the only positive event i see on the horizon is the release of atlas shrugged movie.

    my interest in the nature of renaissances convinced me that the missing ingredient is an objective standard of values which is explicit among the majority of the population.
    without the ability to define good and evil; without the ability to evaluate the quality of anything objectively, moral relativism is the default – and as i would have you believe: anything not true is a lie. with no explicit objective standard of values then everything can not be but falsely evaluated.

    i don’t know how far part 1 of atlas shrugged movie goes, but it looks good in the trailers. it will show characters you’ve become familiar with and accept as normal. it will redefine them for you in objective terms. you will recognize the producers and the parasites and come to understand IN YOUR GUT that the only relationship you can have is as a menu item. hugs don’t cure cannibals; it gets you in their arms. however it is necessary for a person to be able to explain this to himself and understand the reason it. otherwise he is quite defenseless. the keepers of the flock know this very well.

    rand’s idea of a novel was to create a synthetic experience that would allow a person to internalize, emotionally, the intellectual experience the author wished to teach about.
    she does provide the words, the cognitive tools. the reader need only provide the dictionary to make sure he understands them lest he be misled by the deliberate debasing of language that becomes normal in a culture of cultists. how well the novel provides the experience will depend on the structure of experience the reader already has achieved on his own.

    of course, for those who only want to store ‘the meaning’ without all the overhead, the money shot is the first part of galt’s speech where an objective morality is defined in terms so simple a child can grasp it. this was what all the institutional mind crippling systems have trapped people with- a promise of morality; they delivered a morality of death. rand was the one who defined the morality of life – and that’s what’s been lacking. unfortunately, this may be in part 3 – which does not yet exist so far as i know – but i hope it will come to be.

    i’m pretty sure that nearly a million individuals in the usa ‘get’ this. it’s a small percentage, but it’s a small percentage that really makes the world go round.
    death is the negation of life; tax, the negation of productivity. death and taxes are the negations of the true absolute values of life itself. yet, these are held forth as absolutes.

    in a culture where it’s commonplace to divide into ‘who wears the spurs and who wears the saddle’, where self-sacrifice is held as a virtue and death is life.everlasting, where productivity is fined and self possession criminalized, there is only one outcome.

    the only remedy of which i am aware is to know better.
    to do that, first you must know good – and be able to define it. that’s what rand did and no other before her did so well and completely. it’s what human beings need as the foundation for their survival as human beings and it’s what has been systematically purged by every thug and guru every chance he got. look around and see what it’s got. it is exactly what it is. we are witnessing the full fruition today. maybe when it hurts enough, once again people will question the premises. at least this time, the answer is on the table for any who may still care to grasp it.

  18. Rick Hiser says:

    Wow! Some very interesting stuff here.

  19. Pingback: Marx, Progressives, Socialism, and Agenda 21 « Musings from the Chiefio

  20. Pingback: isms, ocracies and ologies | Musings from the Chiefio

  21. Pingback: Bob Beckel’s Bogus Bias | Musings from the Chiefio

Comments are closed.