The Dark and Ugly Legacy of the Democratic Party

L.K. Samuels

The Democratic Party has the darkest, most ugly history imaginable. No other political party in American history comes close to matching the sheer magnitude of their horrendous behavior. They try to keep their dirty secrets under wraps, but their true repulsive legacies are starting to leak through many cracks.

The Democratic Party’s ugly tradition started in 1829, with the election of Andrew Jackson. He defended the morality of slavery and racism, and was infamous for beating his slaves. Jackson instigated the removal of Native Americans from their tribal lands east of the Mississippi River. He is responsible for three trail-of-tears forced marches, sparking a genocide that killed up to 8,500 Native Americans.

Originally, one of the poorest men in America, Jackson became one of the richest man in the world after he made a fortune secretly buying cheap Indian land that his administration had taken under his Indian Removal Act of 1830. He also profited by instituting the politically corrupt “spoils system,” which booted out experienced public servants to be replaced by Jackson’s campaign donors and workers.

By the 1830s, slavery was dying. One of the biggest slave states, Virginia, almost banned slavery in 1832. Southerners were in a panic. Andrew Jackson’s Vice President, John C. Calhoun, came to the rescue to intellectually defend slavery and racism. He and other pro-slavery Democrats started to spread the monstrous lie that black slaves had it far better than the free labor in the industrial North. Slaves now were seen as children who required motherly help.

Calhoun also believed that the “superior” man brought order; the “inferior” man instigated chaos. A war hawk in the War of 1812, he and his disciples rejected the Founder’s view of natural rights for all men, equality at birth, and free-market capitalism. Calhoun did not consider humans as autonomous individuals, but believed that “instead of being born free and equal, [people] are born subject, not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country…” Not surprisingly, Calhoun was the leading spokesperson for the “slavery as a positive good” movement, arguing that slavery is “instead of an evil, a good—a positive good.” He also defended slavery under paternalism and social welfare principles, where unfit and enslaved laborers would be provided food, shelter, clothes, and old age benefits.

The conflict between liberty and slavery lead Democratic Party politicians to instigate a violent insurrection. They created the Confederate States of America, fired on Fort Sumter, and instigated the Civil War. After losing the war, the defeated Democrat southerners organized the Ku Klux Klan, assassinating black leaders, white abolitionists, and Union officers. President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, refused to rein in the KKK terrorists. General Grant, a Republican, ran for President and quickly destroyed the KKK.

A half-century after the Civil War, many Democrats became progressive reformers who ushered in “modern-social liberalism.” The Democrat-elected President Woodrow Wilson was both a progressive reformer and modern liberal who was also an outright racist, segregationist, and anglophile, who pushed for restrictive and discriminatory immigration laws. Wilson praised the wildly racist 1915 silent film, Birth of a Nation Birth. He defended segregation, telling a delegation of black leaders that “Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit.” He segregated most federal departments, and fired most black postal workers. He regarded the Ku Klux Klan as a “great” movement. He referred to blacks as an “ignorant and inferior race.” Impressed with socialism, Wilson engaged in imperialism with “gunboat diplomacy”, invading other nations to make regime changes. He suppressed anti-war dissent during World War I, arresting and prosecuting thousands of anti-war protesters, engaged in warrantless arrests, holding detainees without trial.

The next Democratic Party president was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who defended collectivism, socialism, and fascism. He sent his closest Brain Trust adviser, Rexford Guy, to Fascist Italy. Guy was impressed with Mussolini’s fascism, calling it “the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen.” He brought back books by Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of Fascism, and encouraged FDR’s staff to emulate fascist economics. FDR did exactly that with the National Recovery Act (NRA) which promoted cartels, monopolies, government interventionism, and higher prices.

FDR also confined 120,000 citizens of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps. FDR was not sympathetic towards Asians or Jews, believing that biological characteristics prevented them from becoming loyal Americans.  As for American blacks, FDR displayed his racism by refusing to invite the US black 1936 Olympic team to the White House, including four-gold-medal-winner Jesse Owens. Every white Olympian was invited. Enraged, Jesse proclaimed, “Hitler didn’t snub me; it was our president who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send a telegram.”

Furthermore, after the Civil War, it was the Democrats, mostly in the South, who instigated segregation, Jim Crow laws, and voter suppression. They were responsible for the lynching of thousands of blacks, burning down whole black townships, and passing laws to deny blacks the right to own guns. In one of their last desperate attempts retain white supremacy, many Democrats US senators filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They failed.

In 2010, Joe Biden eulogized Sen. Robert Byrd at his funeral, referring to him as his “mentor.” But Sen. Byrd was a segregationist and an organizer for a KKK chapter in West Virginia. Apparently, President Biden does not fall far from the racist tree. He once labeled desegregation as a “racial jungle.”

It is truly difficult to explain why any African-American would support their former taskmasters. The Democrats’ abusive and ugly history of racism, white supremacy, tribalism, socialism, and fascism should have led to their party’s demise decades ago. It is time to proceed with Democrats’ final burial and let them rest with ignominy. 

L.K. Samuels is the author of Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum. His website is

The Surprising Origins of Critical Race Theory


Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been cited as an offshoot of Karl Marx’s theory of class struggle, which was designed to pit one class against another so as to foment worker-led revolutions. It is also widely accepted that the Marxian Frankfurt School in Germany reworked Marx’s “social conflict theory” in the 1950s by adding “race” to their long list of “oppressed” minorities. But historically, the Frankfurt School theorists were latecomers to the racial theory table. They were not the originators of Critical Race Theory. A revolutionary socialist movement had already existed decades before in Germany. These racial justice warriors sought to pit one race against another and encourage the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor. They called themselves German National Socialists.

After World War II, the Frankfurt School intellectuals and academics began to plagiarize the “racial struggle” and “victimhood” theories that had originated with Nazi theorists in the mid-1920s. It is true that the Nazi theorists, many with Marxist leanings, were less sophisticated in their racial superiority approach. But their long-term goals on racial disparity and struggle were remarkably similar.

The National Socialists, like the Marxian Frankfurt School leaders, dedicated themselves to fighting racial oppression imposed by other advantaged races. But in the case of the Nazis, they identified the “oppressed race” as the Aryan and German people and the “oppressor race” as the Jews. They believed that the Jews controlled the world as members of a wealthy and privileged race that supposedly mistreated the so-called Aryan races.

To demean the so-called “Jewish oppressors,” the National Socialists taught German children that the Jews, Jewish-run banks, and capitalists were persecuting the German nation and its people. This “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative is pure classical Marxism, which had devastating effects across the annals of modern history. Such racist nonsense divides society, creating hostile tribalism and unending ethnic violence.

Of course, this racial struggle was exactly what the Nazi propagandists intended in their effort to purge certain “oppressor” races. They wanted only one race to exist in German-controlled lands. That is why Critical Race Theory is so poisonous. Its endgame almost always results in horrific final solutions to punish so-called privileged and oppressor races.

The march towards securing superiority over an oppressor race began in earnest after the Nazis nationalized most German schools in 1933.  School administrators quickly inserted racist policies into newly rewritten textbooks and school policies. With the assistance of the National Socialist Teachers League, (the official Nazis teacher’s union), students were inundated with racial theories that invaded most disciplines. Nazi party officials promoted the Führer’s Volksgemeinschaft concept of equality, which included social engineering, social justice, racial tribalism, national collectivity, and social Darwinism. But their biggest mission was to implant biased ethnic-racial studies into Germany’s classrooms.

According to Richard J. Evans in The Third Reich in Power 1933-1939, Nazi educators and administrators from the Education Ministry mandated that the topics of “racial biology” and “racial science” be inserted into almost every school course across Germany. Biology was heralded as the key to understanding and identifying racial differencesThe National Socialists even developed a racial-social arithmetic for their textbooks to indoctrinate students. For example, this racial mathematics used formulas to design calculations that would determine how many blond Aryans lived in a German population.

The German language did not escape this politicization of education.  Language had to focus on speech patterns to provide a racial background that would subliminally implant German schoolchildren with the racial-socialist ideology of Nazism.  The study of geography had to bow to a racial makeover that required Nazi ideology to be more compatible with heroism, home, and race. Amazingly, Nazi educators even found ways to link climate to race.

Not surprisingly, such old-style racism is now returning to our world, mostly voiced by progressives, the woke mob, and Black Lives Matter. Similar to the National Socialists, this orthodoxy is a hodgepodge of social justice, oppressor-versus-oppressed victimhood, and racial tribalism. A German poster from 1933 highlights the Nazi’s dedication to a socially just racial state, proclaiming, “Because Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich wants social justice, big Jewish capitalism is the worst enemy of this Reich and its Führer.”

A number of present-day “anti-racist” activists are emulating the National Socialists’ pogrom policies. For instance, co-founder of Black Lives Matter in Toronto, Yusra Khogali, called for the extermination of certain races. Taking jabs at white privilege and oppressor races and gender, she mused in 2016 that she had an urge “to kill men and white folks.” Moreover, she tweeted that “white skin is subhuman.” Hitler and his Nazi horde spouted the same “subhuman” accusations against Jews, and eventually acted upon their convictions in the Holocausts.

The origins of Critical Race Theory have a dark history.  Why would anyone justify racism, racial superiority, or racial inferiority in today’s world? Such inflammatory rhetoric has never led to racial or social equality. CRT must be discarded into the ashbin of history, along with any resurgence of National Socialism and its socialist-racist narratives.


No Truth in Socialism: Why the ‘Crisis of Marxism’

August 7, 2021 — American Thinker

Why do the Progressive Big Media, Democrats, elites, and Democratic Socialists feel duty-bound to create false realities?  Why must they silence, obstruct, or distort any truthful voice before it can ever be heard?  And why do they rush to judgment before the facts can be sorted out?  The answer is simple: socialists and collectivists have no other choice.  By hard experience, they learned over 100 years ago that their ideology is devoid of facts and reality.  They had to sacrifice truth in order to hide the inevitable failures of socialism.

This realization occurred in the late 1890s, when a crisis of confidence began to reach a fever pitch.  Before that, Marxian socialists were seen as the bright new kids on the political block.  They were gaining acceptance and recognition.  They thought they had it made.  Socialists had long predicted capitalism’s inevitable demise.  In anticipation, they prepared to be capitalism’s pallbearers, and they breathlessly awaited the birth of a glorious socialist-proletarian revolution.

But then something unexpected happened: socialism started to decompose.  Marxist leaders and revisionists looked inward and noticed serious flaws in Marx’s socioeconomic predictions.  Across Europe, the truth of Marxian socialism was called into question.  As the defects and failures started to pile up, Marxian socialists faced an ideology both false and unworkable. Instead of witnessing capitalism in its last stage of life, it was apparent that Marxism and socialism were dying on the vine.

Like a viral plague, these inconsistencies within Marxist theory swept across the entire socialist and Marxist landscape.  It became known as the “crisis of Marxism,” a term dubbed by Marxist theoreticians and practitioners themselves.  This internal struggle revolved around the release of devastating economic data in the 1890s.

Obviously, this situation was a bitter pill to swallow.  Socialist intellectuals had to face the fact that truth and scientific law could easily destroy their political agenda to reconstruct society.  If Marxian socialism did not conform to reality, then they would have to rely on other methods to gain political power.  They found it more effective and convenient to sidetrack the truth at every possible opportunity.

Ironically, the man who pointed out the many fatal flaws of socialism and communism was a rising star in the Marxist movement: Eduard Bernstein.  He was an important Marxist political theorist and historian and a close friend of Friedrich Engels, working with him for almost ten years.  Bernstein also personally collaborated with Marx, becoming not only a patron, but editor of Der Sozialdemokrat, the militant organ of the Social Democratic Party in Germany, from 1881 to 1890.  Bernstein was being groomed as one of the major philosophical heirs of Marx and Engels.

A stickler for ethics, Bernstein embraced the idea that truth was a strong disinfectant against hypocrisy.  He wanted to see successful results, not Marxist dogma.  He waited until the passing of Marx in 1883 and Engels in 1895 before he launched an investigation of Marx’s predictions.

The litany of failed promises that Bernstein discovered overwhelmed orthodox Marxists with a stunning sense of denial.  Marx had predicted that industrial capitalism would result in a concentration of a few big companies; instead, ownership of companies become more dispersed, decentralized, and scattered into many hands.  Marx and his surrogates predicted that the poor would become poorer; instead, Bernstein showed empirical data that the incomes of workers were rising to unheard-of levels.  He discovered that big companies were not as profitable as smaller businesses, which defied Marx’s contentions.  Technology was advancing, not hitting a roadblock.  Profits were rising, not falling.  Past problems of “unemployment, overproduction, and the inequitable distribution of wealth” were being overcome by capitalism.  Bernstein even targeted Marx’s cherished “class struggle” theory, proving that capitalism’s wealth-building capacity had reduced the animosity between the wealthy class and the worker class.  These statistics confronted Marxist and socialist theorists with a paradox: why was capitalism growing more vibrant when it was supposedly entering its final dying days?

To Marxist socialists’ dismay, the bourgeois system of market economics had gotten a clean bill of health.  Capitalism was flourishing.  Objective reality refused to comply with socialist demands.  Instead, Marxian socialism was found guilty and given a sentence of rejection.  To the public, Marxian socialism had lost its credibility.

As reams of published evidence proved the emptiness of socialist theories, Marxian ringleaders became distraught.  They were taken by surprise by something they had never expected — widespread repudiation of Marxian fundamentals by economic and social statistics that appeared in many journals and newspapers.

Nonetheless, Marxism and socialist revolutionary activity did not die.  A French Marxist and Revolutionary Syndicalist, Georges Sorel, had already figured out the next course of action.  His prescription was to inject heavy doses of “myth-making” into public discourse, confusing political issues, and overriding truth.  His plan was to reinvigorate the socialist brand by releasing mountains of lies.  Sorel understood that unconstrained truth would crush socialist theories and their fledgling movement, forcing socialists to master the art of slick propaganda to prevent being invalidated once again by the power of truth.

Georges Sorel went on to make lies sound truthful in an effort to defend the fallacies and failures of Marxism, propping up the advocacy of labor violence in the streets, anti-democracy, autocratic socialism, and revised Marxism.  His myth-making propaganda became an inspiration to Marxists, fascists, and a host of socialist elites.  To Sorel, truth was no longer important; it was an impediment to progress and had to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

In reality, there is no truth in socialism, because it has never worked.  Still smarting from the hard lessons of history, today’s Marxist socialists have learned to swiftly bury truth and any truth-seekers, before they can become entombed themselves.



Democratic Party Fights Racism with Racism

by L.K. Samuels  May 28, 2021

A disturbing behavior is starting to reappear on the political stage in recent years. It is not a crowd-pleaser for most onlookers. It is more like bad political theater that meshes cheap horror films with dark comedy and few people are laughing.

For some unearthly reason, Democratic Party politicians are now acting as if it is okay to fight racism with racism. Of course, that is an absurdity, a completely nonsensical farce. It is like trying to fight rape assaults with more rapes, or preventing murders by murdering more people. Nobody can fight the evils of racism with the ugliness of racism. But some in the Democratic Party leadership want to do exactly that. They have declared that it is perfectly acceptable to engage in blatant racist behavior, like spiteful Klansmen on their way to a cross burning. Like churlish bigots, these Democrats want to “even the score.” In their minds, imitating prejudicial conduct will somehow atone for past racial discrimination, which ironically was perpetrated against blacks, Catholic and Jews by mostly bygone Democratic Party firebrands.

 The most glaring example of this attempt to fight racism with racism is Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a longtime Democratic Party leader in Chicago. On May 19 of this year, she sent a letter to the Chicago media declaring that she would “exclusively” provide “one-on-one interviews with journalists of color.” She refused to accept personal interviews with reporters who had the wrong skin color. Much of the news media looked the other way, some congratulating her for highlighting the lack of diversity in newsrooms.

To hide her virulent racism, Mayor Lightfoot unleashed the specter of racism to promote so-called “equity,” a word often thrown under the bus to protect the foolish and the power hungry. But there is more. She acted as if wanted to inflict revenge. She wanted an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth in her quest for “justice”. She apparently believes she can engage in outright bigotry because others did so in the past. In this way, she echoes the response of Democrat Governor George Wallace, who barred black-skinned children from entering public institutions of learning. Democrats cannot seem to get past their warped sense of justice. Incredibly, some media outlets actually agreed with Mayor Lightfoot’s racist rants.  They were eager to defend her racist policies, singing praise for her noble stand to fight racism, contending that too many news reporters were born with the wrong skin color.

But Mayor Lightfoot’s unprofessional action is not an isolated incident perpetrated by Democratic Party leaders. No, the list is almost endless. For instance, on March 23, 2021, Democratic Senators Duckworth and Hirono pledged to vote “no” for any Biden nominees unless they were of particular race. They refused to confirm any white nominees, engaging in the ugly trend of “anti-white racism.” Denying jobs to people who have the wrong skin color is not only racist, but violates Title VII of the1964 Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” Due to public criticism, both Democrats eventually backed away from their racist demands. More and more Democrats now oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In March of 2021 the Democratic mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf,announced a“Guaranteed Income Pilot”program to give $500 per month to low-income residents if they are the right skin color. They offered nothing for poor white families in Oakland.An estimated 10,000 white residents in Oakland are stuck in poverty, earning less than $12,880 a year. Poor is poor; it afflicts all races.

The state of Vermont expanded vaccine eligibility to individuals 16 or older who identified as Black, Indigenous or a person of color. Vermont discriminated on the basis of race in distributing lifesaving vaccines that are mostly paid by public agencies. Again, whites were not eligible. Extremely racist!

In the 2021 President Biden’s Covid-19 pandemic stimulus package discriminated against certain races in getting financial aid. The Democrat-written law stipulated that only “socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers” based on race, could get financial aid from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The stimulus limited funding to only six races and leaves out whites. Clearly a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Democratic Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, confessed that he was one of the men who wore either blackface or KKK robes in a photograph from his 1984 medical schoolbook page. Despite the racist photo, Governor Northam refused to step down. Only true racists would refuse to atone for past indiscretions.  Northam was the little racist Democrat who could. Then again, Democrats have traditionally been the defenders of black slavery, segregation, Ku Klux Klan, racism, racial supremacy, violent insurrection, voter suppression, and lynching.

And to top this off, California Governor Gavin Newsome and Democratic Party legislators attempted to legalize racial discrimination in 2020. They placed a ballot initiative (Prop. 16) to allow California to legally discriminate on the “basis of race and sex.” They called it “affirmative action,” but it was actually a latent method to discriminate by race. It lost at the ballot box, but Democrats raised over $25 million in order to pass a blatantly racist measure.

Nonetheless, many on the progressive left are currently championing the spread of Democrats’ dubious “enlightened racism,” which often bolsters their anti-racist credentials. Others are playing along with this charade, hoping that nobody will notice how incredibly insensitiveit is to speak in fluent “Racese.” It is indeed a crazy world of epic portions. Once deemed the most tolerant people in the world, Americans are now lambasted for things that long-dead ancestors might have done. Who would have guessed that Democrats would be extolled as the rescuers of those minorities who suffered the most from the cruel whip of the Democrat party’s scourge?

With a talent for Orwellian doublespeak, Democrats are now eager to drag their racist skeletons out of the closet, dust off their Confederate patina, and assert that their rediscovered racism is actually good for diversity and equality. Apparently, the racist apple has not fallen far from the Confederate tree.


The ‘Fascist Left’: Myth or Reality?

by L.K. Samuels  May 10, 2021

In the last few years, many conservative commentators and political figures, including President Trump, have lashed out against extreme left-wing politicians and radical agitators as the “Fascist Left.” Many news media pundits scoffed at this phrase, incredulous at the thought that authoritarian and nationalistic socialists could ever exhibit leftist tendencies. However, many well-known historians would differ. These academicians have identified German National Socialists and Italian Fascists as close relatives to the revolutionary socialist Left. Why? Because Nazi and Fascist authority figures often proclaimed to be on the “Left” side of the political spectrum, embracing a slew of “revolutionary socialist policies.”

For instance, Joseph Goebbels and the Strasser brothers promoted worker-based class struggle, socialism, wealth redistribution, social justice, social welfare, anti-capitalism, the breakup of large estates, nationalization, and an alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union. These National Socialist leaders were almost in complete alignment with the ideological thrust of Lenin and Stalin. Some historians refer to them as the comrade vanguard of the Nazi party’s left-wing faction. Others viewed Goebbels and the Strasser brothers as “National Bolsheviks.”

In stark comparison, right-wing elements of Europe instead gravitated towards the monarchy, church, and traditional values, which was an outright anathema to socialist left-wing elements. Hitler regarded right-wing elements as reactionary and bourgeois. According to the American historian David Schoenbaum, Hitler in 1935 proclaimed that “The enemies of National Socialism,” were not only the “Jewish Marxists” and “certain elements of an incorrigible, stupid reactionary bourgeoisie,” but also Catholics. Goebbels held similar views.

So, when did Goebbels come out of the left-wing closet? It was almost from day one. But his most famous quote, where he proudly acknowledged his support for the “German left” and his hated for the “right-wing” business class, occurred on Dec. 6, 1931. In that edition of his Der Angriff publication, Goebbels wrote, “According to the idea of the NSDAP [Nazi party], we are the German left. Nothing is more hateful to us than the right-wing national ownership block.” Here, Goebbels explicitly spelled out his true revolutionary red colors, confessing that the German National Socialist party belonged on the socialist “left” side of the political spectrum, comrades in arms who despised the capitalist right wing.

Goebbels’ left-wing identification was no secret to many German historians. They had already uncovered the Nazi’s left-wing and socialist orientation. And they, unlike other historians, were willing to reveal their dark secrets. Some, like German historian Wolfgang Venohr, made it a point to reveal Goebbels’ pro-left quote in his book Documents of German Existence: 500 Years of German National History 1445-1945. Other German historians echoed the same evidence about the socialist leftist movement of the Hitler’s National Socialist party. In 2011, Prof. Arnulf Baring reminded listeners during a TV broadcast, “The Nazis were not right-wing, the Nazis were a left-wing party! National-socialist!” The German historian Götz Aly concurred, writing, “Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles.” This included Hitler, who fervently declared himself a “fanatical socialist” in 1941.

Some non-German historians were also privy to the Nazis socialist, left-wing history and ideology. UC Berkeley political scientist,A. James Gregor, a leading expert on Fascism, claimed that“Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy’s intelligentsia of the Left.” The French historian, François Furet, a former communist intellectual himself, argued, “It was in Nazi Germany that Bolshevism was perfected.”American historian Stanley G. Payne weighed in with “Hitlerian socialism more nearly paralleled Russian Communism than any other non-communist system.” The American leader of the Socialist Party of America, Norman Thomas, who ran for U.S. president many times, condemned the Soviet Union in the 1940s as exhibiting “Red fascism.” His exact words were, “communism, whatever it was originally, is today Red fascism.” And we cannot leave out the national ‘newspaper of record”, The New York Times, which in its 1939 editorial stated: “Hitlerism is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism.”

Even hardcore Marxists could not help but equate Fascism with Stalinism. The German Communist Otto Ruhle, declared that “Fascism is merely a copy of Bolshevism.” Even Leon Trotsky, the Russian Marxist who headed the Red Army, pointed out the same comparison, writing in 1936, “Stalinism and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity.”

Goebbels not only promoted the Nazi party as an offshoot of the German left branch. He spent time and energy proving it. In 1925, as a budding regional Nazi orator who spoke to crowds of thousands, he repeatedly praised Lenin and encouraged the Nazi leadership to ally with Stalin’s Soviet Union. By late November of 1925, he views finally made national headlines. As reported by the New York Time, Goebbels declared, “Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.” But Goebbels was eager to show off his Marxian catechism as well. In 1925 he wrote, “We will turn National Socialism into a party of class struggle,” a major requirement for a full-fledged leftist with Marxian credential. He even spoke up for “strict social justice.” Then again, such extreme left-wing bravado would be expected from a political war-horse who professed in 1924 to be a “German Communist.”

Such leftwing grit and grime resonated throughout Goebbels’ political career. In 1929, he referred to Nazi Germany as “a party of “revolutionary socialists.” By 1939, he promulgated the narrative that World War II was a bitter battle between capitalism and socialism, declaring, “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state” in his famous “England’s Guilt” speech. Apparently, Hitler agreed with his close friend. Bragging about his military successes in Western Europe in 1941, Hitler declared, “It is already war history how the German armies defeated the legions of capitalism and plutocracy.”

Joseph Goebbels was no minor figure in the upper echelons of the Nazi party. He was not only the Propaganda Minister of Nazi Germany, but also one of Hitler’s closest and most devoted associate. And achieving success in that role, he climbed the Nazi ladder to be the only other man to serve as Chancellor of Nazi Germany.

Goebbels’ secret was simple. He was a fanatical political extremist to the core, prepared to die for his cause, declaring that it was “better to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal capitalist servitude.” Goebbels’s socialist and anti-capitalist dreams of collective sacrifice inspired the German public. “To be a socialist,” Goebbels wrote, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” And sacrifice they did.

So, what about the Italian Fascists?  Benito Mussolini made it clear that he believed that Fascism sat firmly on the “Left.” He was a diehard Marxist for much of his life, considering himself a disciple of his friend, Vladimir Lenin. The English historian Denis Mack Smith concurred, writing, “Mussolini had once belonged to the Bolshevik wing of the Italian Socialist Party and still in 1924 confessed admiration for Lenin.” In his famous 1933 “Doctrine of Fascism”, Il Duce made it crystal clear, writing, “It may be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism.” This quote comes from Mussolini’s 1933 “authorized translation” by Jane Soames, an accomplished journalist and translator for The Times of London.

As a flaming atheist who declared, “Christ is dead and his teachings moribund,” and who opposed monarchism, Mussolini never considered himself part of the reactionary right. In Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, Polish-born American historianRichard Pipe puts the history of Mussolini’s Fascism into perspective, asserting, “Genetically, Fascism issued from the ‘Bolshevik’ wing of Italian socialism, not from any conservative ideology or movement.”

 The American historian Charles F. Delzell knew this instinctively. He wrote in Mediterranean Fascism 1919-1945, “A good many Fascists… came from the ranks of left-wing Marxism and syndicalism, and when the Fascist regime was overthrown in 1943-45 it was not hard for a certain number of ex-Blackshirts to swing to left-wing political extremism.”

In fact, the Fascist-left radicals for Mussolini’s regime were so in tune with Marxist ideology and violent tactics that it is difficult to see much difference between them and the American Antifa radicals. Because of their similarities, the current crop of Antifa agitators are unabashed imitators of Mussolini’s blackshirt violence and revolutionary socialism. Moreover, the reason Antifa is part of the Fascist left is that historically Fascism originally came out of Marxism. Who have made those claims? Many historians, including two of the world-leading experts on Fascism, Zeev Sternhell and A. James Gregor. A Polish-born Israeli historian, Sternhell wrote, “Fascist ideology… was the direct result of very specific revision of Marxism,” while UC Berkeley political scientist, Gregor, has a slightly different take, arguing that “Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism.” David Ramsey Steel, a former member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, explained it most succinctly: “Fascism began as a revision of Marxism by Marxists.”

Mussolini was never sly about revealing his communist roots. In a 1932 interview with Emil Ludwig, Mussolini eagerly attesting, “It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket.” After winning a legislative seat in Italy’s Chamber of Deputies in1921, Mussolini spoke with pride, “I know the Communists. I know them because some of them are my children.” He was also overjoyed in 1934 when he announced that Italy’s economy had been mostly nationalized-socialized, boasting, “Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.” Mussolini was celebrating the public ownership of the economy, the main hallmark of Marxist socialism.

Who else referred to Italy’s Fascists as the “Fascist Left?”  One is the American historian Stanley G. Payne in his A History of Fascism, 1914–1945, who employed the term “Fascist left” to describe a number of major Fascist leaders in Italy, including Edmondo Rossoni, Michele Bianchi, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti and others. Many of these “Fascist Syndicalists,” favored “class consciousness,” “labor’s autonomy” and heavy doses of socialism and unionism. By 1923, Italian industrialist were so horrified by the Fascist syndicalists (unionists), that they wondered whether it was “now wise to pay the Communists to fight the Fascists!” As leader of the Fascist Syndicalists, Rossoni instigated hostile strikes in his effort to eventually abolish capitalism. He demanded workers’ control of factories, “class consciousness,” and believed that “only the Fascist syndicates could complete the revolution.” Rossoni was famous for depicting Italy industrialists as “vampires” and “profiteers.”

So why is there a general belief that German National Socialism and Italian Fascism rest on the right? After all, according to the French Revolution’s sitting arrangement in 1789, authoritarians sat on the right while the classical liberals, like Thomas Paine, sat on the left. It was because of Soviet propaganda during and after World War II.  The Russian Soviets, embarrassed by their cozy corroboration with Hitler and Mussolini, decided to conceal their striking Fascist-Marxist similarities. They prohibited communists and their sympathizers from using the term “National Socialist”in public or in media outlets. They organized massive disinformation media campaigns to convince the world that Fascism and Communism were polar opposites, devoid of any common traits. Of course, it was all a big propaganda lie worthy of the myth-making Pravda.

When the worldwide disinformation effort by Soviet Russia started to gain traction in the 1940s, Winston Churchill was flabbergasted at the news.  Churchill, a historian in his own right, clearly saw the glaring parallels between Nazism and Communism, commenting that, “As Fascism sprang from Communism, so Nazism developed from Fascism.” When Churchill was confronted by Soviet propaganda to falsely depict the world’s two major totalitarian ideologies as polar opposites, he remarked to his son, “Fascism and Communism… Polar opposites—no, polar the same!”


Was World War II a Battle between Capitalism and Socialism?

Posted first at Strike-The-Root (STR) – January 23, 2020

L.K. Samuels

The little hidden secret about World War II is that it was a giant struggle between two opposing economic ideologies—capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, the public is mostly unaware that the Nazi and Fascist ranks were chock-full of hardcore socialists and Marxist-lite ideologues. This was no accident. For decades the public had been indoctrinated by socialist academicians who falsely claimed that Fascist leaders were the captains of industry, controlling the people like puppet masters pulling the strings of Hitler and Mussolini.

This notion is purely pseudo-historical nonsense with no basis in fact. So, how do we know? It is easy. Just listen to what the German National Socialist and Italian Fascist leaders openly expressed. They were not squeamish about their pep talks to eradicate capitalism and economic liberty. For instance, Adolf Hitler himself pushed an extreme anti-capitalist narrative throughout many of his speeches, referring to “capitalistic people” as “unscrupulous exploitation of men.”

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, was also a specialist devoted to spewing out not only the usual Nazi anti-capitalist rhetoric but explicitly pro-socialist visions for the future. Not long after the invasion of Poland in 1939, Goebbels framed the Nazis’ war with England in stark terms: “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state.” Here, Goebbels proclaimed that the capitalists in England are the “richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth.” In that same “England’s Guilt” speech, he throws more jabs at England’s tightfisted plutocracy as compared to Nazi Germany’s lavish support of social welfare programs, declaring: “It is also why English capitalists want to destroy Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English capitalism.”

Injustice of Wealth Inequality

 To the National Socialists of Germany, wealth inequality was a horrendous injustice that had to be eliminated. Both German Nazis and Italian Fascists attempted to strengthen and enlarge their social safety nets via social justice programs. Hitler decreed the expulsion of all private charity, terminating all NGOs, and strove to end capitalism and the stock market in 1933. The lion’s share of Germany’s stock exchanges were closed, cut down from twenty-one to only nine by 1935. As these Hitlerites continued to nationalize commercial banks and industry, the government demanded registration of stock ownership, and to the limit the distribution of “dividends to 6 percent.” In 1936, laws were enacted that “prohibited the quotations of foreign stocks on German stock exchanges” and later “blocked foreign exchange dealing at the stock exchanges completely.”

 A militant Marxist for decades, Mussolini boasted in 1934 to his Italian Chamber of Deputies that “Three-fourths of the Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.” He often railed against capitalist nations in favor of “social justice”, declaring in a 1945 interview, “We are proletarian nations that rise up against the plutocrats.”

In fact, when Mussolini wanted to show his support for the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, he told fellow Fascist official Giuseppe Bottai that the internal differences between Fascism and Bolshevism were minor, arguing that both Italian Fascism and Russian Bolshevism opposed the “demo-plutocratic capitalism of the western powers.”

Representing himself as a common “have-not” with no “ancestral estate,… bank account… stocks… or dividends,” Hitler was often more explicit in his hatred of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Sometimes referring to the German bourgeois elites as “cowardly shits,” Hitler explained to Otto Wagener, the party’s economic advisor, that the business bourgeoisie “know nothing except their profit. ‘Fatherland’ is only a word for them.”

Earlier in a 1922 speech, Hitler promised that “Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed.” One of his main reasons for wanting to destroy market capitalism and advance social justice was his contempt for “Jewish capitalism”, “unearned income”, and its unregulated financial markets. To Hitler and most socialists and Marxists of Europe, capitalism was a Jewish conspiracy of moneylenders, bankers, and financiers who were trying to control the world. During a 1940 speech in Berlin, he targeted capitalists as the enemy, declaring: “They are, after all, plutocracies in which a tiny clique of capitalists dominates the masses, and this, naturally, in close cooperation with international Jews and Freemasons.” In another speech in 1940, Hitler declared that his National Socialist movement had broken the “Jewish capitalist shackles imposed by plutocratic-democratic” nations, along with the “dwindling class of exploiters at home” in Germany.

 Capitalist Plutocracies versus Proletariat Nations

 Determined not to be outdone by Hitler’s anti-bourgeois and anti-Semitic rhetoric, Goebbels in his 1944 “Our Socialism” editorial wrote:  “the Jews are the incarnation of capitalism.” Even Nazi street posters blared out the Nazis’ anti-capitalism and anti-Jew screeds. One 1933 poster from Münster read:  “Because Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich wants social justice, big Jewish capitalism is the worst enemy of this Reich and its Führer.”

Hitler, who was once a red armband-wearing Communist and later a “Social Democrat” in 1919, also put World War II in terms of the proletarian nations engaging in the ultimate showdown against the western plutocracies propped up by capitalism. Bragging about his victorious 45-day battle against the western Allies in 1941, Hitler declared that “It is already war history how the German Armies defeated the legions of capitalism and plutocracy.” The Führer had framed World War II as a war between the socially-just proletariat nations and the Western capitalist nations, thus demonstrating the extent to which Hitler sought to destroy liberal capitalism.

 Even members of the German military were exposed to this message. During the lead-up to Operation Barbarossa in 1941, many ideological lectures were given to German soldiers, such as one entitled: “Socialism against Plutocracy.” This hatred of capitalism was endemic at all levels in the Third Reich. Many National Socialist campaign pamphlets pushed a strong anti-capitalist narrative. One propaganda theme from 1932 warned German farmers that a big “danger is the American economic system—Big Capitalism; it means ‘world economic crisis,’ it means ‘eternal-interest-slavery’, it means that the world is nothing more than a bag of booty for Jewish finance in Wall Street, New York, and Paris,… it knows only profit and dividends.”

 Love Germany and Hate Capitalism

 Often referring to Nazism and himself as “revolutionary socialists,” Goebbels was the leading cheerleader for nationalistic socialism, sounding the loudest death knell for capitalism. In a Nazi pamphlet first appearing in 1929, he attacked capitalism as a “rotten industrial system.” Confessing in his 1924 diary that he was “a German Communist,” Goebbels contended that he could simultaneously “love Germany and hate capitalism”, and that “only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people.” In other writings, Goebbels condemned “the money pigs of capitalism,” saying that “money is the curse of mankind.” At other times he angrily proclaimed that “The bourgeoisie has to yield to the working class … Whatever is about to fall should be pushed. We are all soldiers of the revolution. We want the workers’ victory over filthy lucre. That is socialism.”

But some critics, usually socialist historians, ignore what the National Socialists and Fascists actually proclaimed and did. They regularly decry that the National Socialists and Fascists were somehow not real socialists in good standing, although Hitler made his intentions clear in a Feb. 24, 1941 speech, proclaiming to a cheering crowd: “I am a fanatical socialist.”

 Actually, Nazis were more socialist than even most Social Democrats, taking positions razor-close to Marxist sentiments. A 1925 New York Times article revealed Goebbels’s Marxist-lite outlook. In the news story, Goebbels is identified as the man who declared to a crowd in Chemnitz that “Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.”

Luckily, the war between Hitler’s socialism and Western democratic capitalism ended in a victory for individual liberty. Some socialist historians still believe that Hitler’s anti-capitalist demagogy and practices were just a myth. But history has preserved large volumes of such historical records in great detail. If only more people, especially academicians, would examine such material without their socialist-based conflict of interest getting in the way.

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

The Original Social Justice Warriors: Hitler and Mussolini

Posted first at – Nov. 5, 2019

By L.K. Samuels

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.”  It was also Goebbels who defined the two opposing forces during World War II. In his “England’s Guilt” speech from late 1939, Goebbels declared that “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state.” Proclaiming that “English capitalists want to destroy Hitlerism,” Goebbels argued that the capitalists in England are the “richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth.”

To the National Socialists, wealth inequality was a horrendous injustice that had to be solved. Both German National Socialists and Italian Fascists worked feverishly to strengthen and enlarge their social safety nets. In addition to old-age insurance (social security) and universal socialized healthcare, the Nazi’s administration provided a plethora of social safety net goodies: rent supplements, holiday homes for mothers, extra food for larger families, over 8,000 day-nurseries, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, to name just a few. But there was more. Under the Third Reich’s redistributive policies, the main social welfare organization—the “National Socialist People’s Welfare” (NSV)—was not only in charge of doling out social relief, but “intended to realize the vision of society by means of social engineering.” In other words, the Nazi’s welfare system ushered in a menagerie of welfare programs: aid to poor families and pregnant women, nutrition, welfare for children, ad nauseam, but also put energy into “cleansing of their cities of ‘asocials,’” which ushered in a no-welfare-benefits for-the-unfit program, based on a welfarism that was committed to a sort of social Darwinist collectivism. Other asocials and underperforming workers were housed in Gestapo-operated “labor education camps,” a new category that by 1940 encompassed two hundred camps that held 40,000 inmates.

Established in May of 1933, the NSV deemed that they had created the “greatest social institution in the world.” And to keep it that way, Hitler ordered its new chairman, Erich Hilgenfeldt, to “see to the disbanding of all private welfare institutions,” which began the Nazi’s effort to both nationalize charity and control society by determining who received social benefits. And yet, the banning of privately operated welfare organizations implied far more. Such social engineering policies meant that the Nazis were entrenched in their statist left-wing beliefs that government had to be the sole provider of welfare services. By socializing welfare in Germany, the national socialists exhibited their true red-revolutionary colors, following in the socialist footsteps of the Soviet Union.  Even today most American left-wing progressives would be reluctant to deny Non-Government Organizations (NGO) the opportunity to do charity work for the community. So, does this place American Progressives on the far right because the Nazi’s social welfare programs were so extremely left-wing?

The Nazi welfare state was so massive and all-encompassing that a German businessman’s letter published in Günter Reimann’s 1939 book, The Vampire Economy, declared that “these Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.’” The same businessman also revealed that “Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system” and that the German business community “fear National Socialism as much as they did Communism in 1932.”

Mussolini, also displayed similar social justice causes.  In his early years as a Marxist, labor union leader and disciple of French Marxist Georges Sorel, Mussolini supported violence in the streets to bring about a proletarian state through labor strikes. When he started to embrace nationally-based socialism, his blackshirts roughed up and force-fed castor oil to opponents. Nonetheless, his advocacy of nationalistic socialism did not preclude him from supporting social justice issues, welfarism, public works projects, and a socialist totalitarian state. One of the components of Italian Fascism was interventionistic economics, especially during the 1930s. He supported central planning, heavy state subsidies, protectionism (high tariffs), steep levels of nationalization (three-fourths of the economy), rampant cronyism, large deficits, high government spending, steep taxes, bank and industry bailouts, overlapping bureaucracy, massive social welfare programs, crushing national debt and bouts of inflation.

As UC Berkeley political scientist A. James Gregor asserted, Italy spent considerable funds on elaborate social welfare programs which were “motivated by the ‘moral’ concern with abstract ‘social justice.’” He wrote: “Fascist social welfare legislation compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive.”

During the early1930s, Mussolini spoke about equality and social justice and his admiration for the labor movement, declaring in a speech to workers in Milan: “Fascism establishes the real equality of individuals before the nation… the object of the regime in the economic field is to ensure higher social justice for the whole of the Italian people.”

Under the new Italian Social Republic, Mussolini’s administration enacted a “socialization law” in 1944 that called for more nationalization of industry, where “workers were to participate in factory and business management,” along with collectivized land reform. One section of the socialization law proclaimed: “Enforcement of Mussolinian conception on subjects such as much higher Social Justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life.”  According to Australian historian R.J.B. Bosworth, the Italian Social Republic “obsessively emphasized” commitments to socialization and a “variety of fascist equalitarianism and an amplified fascist welfare state.”

On another occasion, Mussolini declared in one of his last interviews (March 20, 1945): “We are fighting to impose a higher social justice. The others are fighting to maintain the privileges of caste and class. We are proletarian nations that rise up against the plutocrats.”

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 at

Why Are Most Socialists Anti-Semitic?

Posted first at Strike-The-Root (STA) – Nov. 14, 2019

L.K. Samuels

Ever since a horde of Democrat Socialists became the darlings of the news media in recent years, the specter of anti-Semitism has again reared its ugly head. This is no accident. Many of these Democratic Party politicians, especially Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have embraced the ideals of socialism alongside those of anti-Semitism. And the reason for their virulent racism is that socialism and anti-Semitism are closely related worldviews. In fact, anti-Semitism and racial bigotry are in the very DNA of socialism, constructed around the hatred for Judaism and its merchant culture that promotes prosperity, diversity, and opportunity.

Historically, the ideologues who were most vehemently opposed to Jews and their merchant-bourgeoisie culture were the socialists. From the beginning of the socialist movement in the 1820s, socialists of almost every stripe found the Jews offensive and grasping. From the 1820s to the 1920s, if someone professed to be a socialist, he or she was almost unquestionably anti-Semitic. Sidney Hook attested to this fact. A former Marxist friendly to Leon Trotsky, Hook wrote that, “anti-Semitism was rife in almost all varieties of socialism.” Anti-Semitism was so profuse in the French socialist community that historian Zosa Szajkowski concluded in an exhaustive study that he “could not find a single word on behalf of Jews in the whole of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920.”

This legacy of anti-Semitism among socialists explains why Hitler in his 1920 speech “Why We Are Anti-Semites” declared that as “socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!” He further proclaimed, “socialism can only be carried out accompanied by nationalism and antisemitism.” The main reason Hitler and his National Socialist party opposed the Jews was because they saw them as greedy capitalists who made “unearned income” at the expense and misery of others.

One of the earliest and most prominent socialist theorists was mutualist, anarchist and anti-Semite Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who exemplified the “socialist utopian” school of thought. Like the German National Socialists, Proudhon had a profoundly anti-Semitic streak, calling “for the expulsion of the Jews from France… The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated…. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear.” Like most anti-capitalist socialists of the day, Proudhon viewed Jews as exploiters of labor who charged high usury rates on loans, to the detriment of workers. To socialists and collectivists, interest-bearing loans exemplified the depredation of finance capital and capitalism. But Proudhon went further on his racist rant. Convinced of the inferiority of certain races, he claimed that such races as the Jews are “badly born and bastard races.”

The socialist who popularized the term “anti-Semitism,” Wilhelm Marr, was once expelled from Zurich for alleged communist activities. He wrote that “Anti-Semitism is a Socialist movement, only nobler and purer in form than Social Democracy.” A proponent of German unification under Prussian leadership, Marr became involved in the Burschenschaften, a nationalistic movement that sought a unified state of territories inhabited by the German-speaking people.

Although Karl Marx confided that he derived many of the philosophical ideas from the French utopian socialist movement, he knew that he was adopting an ideological movement rife with xenophobia. In fact, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin in Why The Jews? asserted that “Marx and the early French socialists, developed anti-Semitism ideals that have characterized much of the Left to this day.”

Although he was half-Jewish by blood and reared by a Christian family, Marx soon embraced atheism. When it came to Jews, Marx saw himself as an expert in citing their character flaws. Marx wrote in 1844: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. In another rant, Marx accused the Jews of belonging to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, a charge that Hitler repeated many decades later. Marx wrote: “Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit,…” and that these “handful of Jews” would “ransack pockets.”

Socialism took on anti-Semitic luster because, like all collectivist ideologies, it emphasized group supremacy over individual rights. Collectivists put little faith in people or individual identity since they oppose the liberal concept of individualism and self-determination. Collectivists hate diversity; they desire sameness of ideology and behavior, and seek to assimilate everyone into their own single-minded worldview. They will kill to preserve their one-way collective culture. They may speak of liberty, but it is reserved just for them and their activities.

This is the true historical legacy of socialism and its hatred for minority groups such as Jewish culture, language and traditions. Everyone should be aware that as the Democratic Party rushes towards hardcore socialism, extreme anti-Semitism will not be far behind.

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

What Bernie Sanders Won’t Tell You about Social Democracy

Posted first at – Oct. 7, 2019

By L. K. Samuels

Sen. Bernie Sanders is always happy to explain to the public his social democracy ideology, or what he often labels democratic socialism. Despite his enthusiasm, he has never revealed the more infamous past admirers of his brand of authoritarian socialism. Sanders and other Social Democrats always fail to identify one of their most prominent political colleagues— Adolf Hitler. In 1919 the future Führer considered himself a big fan of “national Social Democracy,” and told others that he planned to join the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP).

So what caused Hitler to embrace social democracy? After his arrest as a leader of the short-lived Communist-run Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hitler felt pressured to plead innocent to charges of being a radical leftwing communist. During his interrogation by Weimar Republic officials, Hitler confessed that he was moderate leftist, a “Social Democrat,” not a diehard communist.

Most of this evidence comes from the German historians Thomas Weber and Konrad Heiden. According to Heiden, a journalist based in Munich during the 1920s, Hitler “espoused the cause of Social Democracy against that of the Communists.” Since Hitler did not flee or resign his position with the communist Räterepublik, he likely found it necessary to change his tune after fierce street battles that led to over 600 casualties and the capture of Munich by Weimar Republic and Freikorps troops. In fact, within days after the communist republic was overthrown, Hitler decided to turn “informant” against his former comrades to avoid the possibility of being imprisoned or shot.

Later, as a correspondent for the Frankfurter Zeitung, Heiden wrote that “Hitler had supported the SPD” (Social Democratic Party of Germany) and he “talked about joining the party.” At an early meeting of a political group that eventually turned into the Nazi Party, Hitler told Friedrich Krohn, an early supporter of the party, that he preferred a type of “socialism” he referred to as “national Social Democracy” like that in nations such as Scandinavia, England, and prewar Bavaria. One wonders if Stalin had it right all along when he condemned the Social Democrats and the National Socialists as “twins” birthed by the same socialist mother. By the early 1930s, both Stalin and the Communist International were describing Social Democratic parties as “social fascists.”

In 1921 when Hitler felt compelled to defend an early Nazi supporter, Hermann Esser, from internal Nazi party attacks, he stated, “Everyone was at one time a Social Democrat.” Several news stories detailed Hitler’s endorsement of social democracy. One newspaper, the liberal daily Berliner Tageblatt, wrote in Oct. 29, 1930, that Hitler had identified himself “as a supporter of Social Democracy.”

However, Hitler’s favorable backing of the Social Democrats was short lived. His sudden feelings of animosity was not over socioeconomic theories or a dislike of socialism, but because the SPD was directly responsible for a punitive peace treaty that made Germans realize that they had actually lost World War I. Most Germans were traumatized by this turn of events. During this juncture, Hitler experienced his own road-to-Damascus conversion through the realization of Germany’s total defeat when the newly formed SPD-led government signed and ratified the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. Hitler saw the SPD as traitors to Germany’s national interests and ethnic identity. This signified his political transformation towards a militant racial radicalization and away from the social democracy. Despite Hitler’s backpedaling from social democracy, he confided in 1942 that “The only problem for the Social Democrats at the time was that they did not have a leader.”

But how different were the Social Democrats from the National Socialists? Apparently, not much. The Social Democrats were willing to compromise with capitalists, but only through a gradualism that advanced the socioeconomic interventions by the state, welfarism, public-state ownership, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. That was what the National Socialists tried, in their anti-capitalist zeal to bring about a German “socialist people’s state.”

Yet, according to orthodox Marxists, the various Social Democratic parties were not manifesting true socialism, and therefore they were repeatedly berated by Stalinists as reactionary mongrels who were expounding some debauched version of pseudo-socialism or crypto-fascism. This is the same argument used against the National Socialists.

What Bernie Sanders holds in common with the German National Socialists is his proposal calling for government to guarantee jobs for every American “who wants or needs one.” His plan entailed a large-scale jobs program aimed at such priorities as “infrastructure, care giving, the environment, education and other goals.” Yet, again, Hitler beat Bernie to the punch. In 1933 Hitler started to carry out his proposed job—guarantee promises, and spent lavishly on public works projects, which included the autobahn, hospitals, public housing, and the 1936 Olympics stadium. Referring to full employment as a “right to work” entitlement, such government projects held importance because it was “almost synonymous with what they called German socialism.” Bernhard Köhler, the head of the Nazi Party Commission for Economic Policy, declared in 1932: “The National Socialist state will guarantee that every one of our people finds work.”

There was also Bernie’s favorable position on “economic nationalism,” which he championed during his run for U.S. President in 2016. As a self-described FDR New Deal progressive, Sanders made a populist appeal for “tough-talking economic nationalism.” But Sander’s “economic nationalism” was actually the heart of anti-free trade socialism. Calling for nationalistic policies to keep jobs in America instead of going overseas, Sanders echoed the same anti-free trade “autarky” policies advocated by Hitler and Mussolini.

Sanders’ supporters also became excited when he proposed a federal takeover of the entire energy-producing sector, a type of big business nationalization popular with the Nazis. In fact, the National Socialists were nationalizing and creating so many new government-owned companies that Albert Speer, the Nazi Minister of Armaments and War Production, warned that Germany’s economy was transforming into “a state-socialist economic order.”

Yes, Hitler supported but eventually moved away from a Bernie Sander form of social democracy. But such political twists and turns are common among collectivists. Despite their propensity for groupthink and mindless conformity, some socialists will bolt to another tribe over minor doctrinal matters. And if the Social Democratic Party of Germany had refused to sign the hated and humiliating Treaty of Versailles, Hitler would probably have remained a Social Democrat, albeit a militant one who would have fought for a socialistic nation based on his country’s culture, language and traditions, not the international variety.

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

Was Adolf Hitler the Son of Karl Marx?

Posted first at — 10-23-2019

By L.K Samuels

In an age where Karl Marx is increasingly immortalized as a saint for trying to end all inequalities, it becomes vital to understand his political theories, activism and temperament. And when one begins to research Marx and his utopian ideas, it turns out that his more human qualities do not match up with his supposedly angelic image. In fact, Marx was no profound world-class thinker, but a racist, nationalistic socialist warmonger who hated Jews, Slavs and sought to create a powerful German empire. When one looks around to locate other prominent leaders who echo Marx’s ideology and ambitions, one character rises to the forefront. Another well-known militant German socialist with a funny mustache also envisioned a powerful empire ruled by a superior German race. And that other socialist authoritarian was Adolf Hitler

Without a doubt, ideologically, economically, and politically, Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler were almost indistinguishable. Like father and son, they were two social justice warriors, determined to weaponize intolerance, socialism, racism, and nationalism for the greater good. In big ways, Marx and Hitler seamlessly fit a similar political profile as both fraternal comrades and combative siblings. They were two sides of the same coin.

Don’t let the squabbling between the National Socialists and the communists thugs fool anyone. Socialists are always killing other socialists or communists on a grand scale. These violent duels for power and egos is innate in militant collectivists’ DNA. Stalin killed millions of his Russian comrades, including Trotskyites, old Bolshevik diehards, Soviet military leaders and soldiers, and even German communists. A slew of communist nations have invaded and laid waste to other communist nations over petty ideological differences. Collectives do not get along well together. Just examine Marx’s erratic behavior towards his own comrades, viciously insulting and vilifying his socialist colleagues across Europe. Marx always had to be the center of attention; when one of his devotees outshined him, he would verbally abuse them with racist insults, level patently false accusations, or accuse them of having syphilis. Often ridiculing friend or foe in public gatherings, Marx spewed out a barrage of hate against these dedicated comrades, branding them as “toads,” or “the rabble,” or the “European emigrant mob,” or “the rotten emigrant swine who wallow in the filth of newspapers.”

Due to Marx’s toxic personality, Marxian culture fostered a proclivity for power struggles, both exteriorly and interiorly, as evidenced by Stalin’s order to assassinate Leon Trotsky in Mexico and the execution of almost every old Bolshevik who founded Soviet Russia in 1917. Political backstabbing and skullduggery was an integral part of the communist psyche, as it was with their National Socialist cousins in Germany.

Marx and his ideological successors represented a reactionary counterforce that was fomented to vanquish the feared menaces of industrial capitalism, Lockean liberalism and individualism. And not only did many anti-Semitic, anti-democratic and Pan-German compatriots swarm Marxist ranks, but so did a World War I corporal and admirer of Marx—Adolf Hitler. In many ways, Hitler was enormously influenced by Marxism and its effort to destroy the bourgeoisie middle class, unearned income, and Jewish capitalism.

When he was stationed in Munich, Hitler dabbled in the politics of revolutionary socialism and hard-core Marxism, first under the People’s State of Bavaria and then the violence-prone Bavarian Soviet Republic. Hitler was obviously attracted to the authoritarian socialism of Marx. Hitler admired the Prussians and their militaristic and dictatorial obsessions, especially Prussia’s King Frederick the Great. Marx was a Prussian German who demanded authoritarian rule and discipline. Hitler and Marx were both angry, unprincipled and ambitious, and preferred dictatorship over individual self-determination.

So, why would Hitler be drawn to Marx’s theories? He was obviously impressed with Marx’s revolutionary nationalism and the support for unification of Germany. In one screed, Marx wrote: “The only possible solution which will preserve Germany’s honor and Germany’s interest is, we repeat, a war with Russia.” Obviously, both nationalism and socialism were companions of Marx’s ideology. Despite his advocacy of an international proletarian movement, Marx’s ardent embracement of German nationalism and socialism seems to place him within close proximity to Nazism. Some scholars have asserted that when Marx founded his nationalistic communism he also laid the groundwork for a type of German national socialism, and that without Marx, there could have never been a Mussolini or Hitler. With Marx’s blatant advocacy of a racist-nationalist-war agenda, some speculate that Hitler could have easily become one of his communist sidekicks or disciples.

In a 1851 letter to Marx, Engels exhibited this nationalistic Pan-Germanism, writing that there is “no more reason for Poland to exist,” and that what should be done is to take “from the western part of Poland anything that can be taken, to let the Germans occupy their fortresses under the pretext of ‘protection,’ use the people for cannon fodder and devour their country.” Marx seemed to agree.

Marx often displayed his chauvinistic and racial-nationalist sentiments in his disparagement of Slavic Russians. He wrote that “I do not trust any Russian” and that “as soon as a Russian worms his way in, all hell breaks loose.” Hitler too had nothing but scorn for the “inferior” Slavic race in Russia.

According to Leopold Schwarzschild in Karl Marx: The Red Prussian, Marx was a vocal warmonger, agitating “more violently than anyone for a war which would further the creation of the German Empire.” British university teacher and politician Christopher Hollis wrote that Marx had no faith in the equality of nations, and was instead a “through and through… pan-German nationalist and language about the higher and the lower races was language that came most naturally to his pen.” Instead of standing up for internationalism, both Marx and Engels in 1848 campaigned for the unification of Germany, publishing a short Communist Party of Germany pamphlet demanding that the “whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic.”

As for his hatred of Jews, Marx penned a poisonous brew of anti-Semitism. In his 1844 “On the Jewish Question” letter he wrote: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist.”

Although the atheist Karl Marx was half-Jewish by birth, he accused the Jews of belonging to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, a charge that Hitler, also an atheist, repeatedly mouthed many decades later. Marx wrote: “Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.”

Marx was not timid in spewing forth hateful and racist invectives. Not to be outdone by the racist rhetoric of other socialist doctrinaires, Marx once launched a barrage of insults towards a German-Jew socialist colleague, Ferdinand Lassalle. He wrote a letter that accused Lassalle of being of mixed race, writing: “the Jewish Nigger, Lassalle… it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”

Not only was Marx a bigot and anti-Semitic, but he exhibited a bizarre social Darwinian attitude when championing black slavery in North America. Hitler would not have been more pleased, considering that forced labor in Nazi Germany was conducted on an unprecedented scale by abducting and enslaving approximately 12 million foreigners. Marx bluntly stated in 1846: “Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the colonies,… Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation. But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map.”

Marx was also extremely anti-democratic, opposed popular elections, and favored a dictatorship of the proletariat. In an 1851 letter to Engels, Marx explained that his objective “was at bottom nothing but a plan of war against democracy.” Engels enthusiastically agreed, referring to Marx’s strategy as the “Plan of Campaign against Democracy.” Hitler could have been more delighted; he also agreed with Marx’s anti-democratic sentiments for a single-party dictatorship for Germany.

Karl Marx had few redeeming qualities, if any. He was neither progressive nor enlightened; he was a racist, anti-Semite, a German nationalist, a warmonger, autocratic, anti-freedom, Machiavellian, pro-Black slavery, petty, homophobic, megalomaniac, a bully and slanderer, anti-choice, and held reactionary values against liberalism and industrial capitalism. Pretty well the same can be said of Hitler. In almost every sense, Marx fits the quintessential image of Hitler like a tight glove. One could easily confuse Marx with Hitler. But it was Marx’s collectivist-based racism that aided him in fomenting conflict, pitting people against people, a sort of identity politics that aroused politicization, deep divisions, and hate that was so useful to the German National Socialists.

The racism of Marx and Engels knew no bounds. But the reasons why Marx, Hitler, and a profusion of socialists held similar hostility towards the ethnicity and culture of Jews can be attributed to their hatred of the capitalist bourgeois. Marx wrote: “Bourgeois society continuously brings forth the Jew from its own entrails.” However, historians have speculated that some socialists might have employed anti-Semitism simply as a means to advance their anti-capitalist doctrine. This was an easy sell. For centuries, the Europeans saw the capitalism of the Jews, especially usury, as a moral evil.

But the attacks were not just against Jewish-inspired capitalism. Liberalism was also a key target. For instance, the socialist reformers in Germany, like the Christian Social Party in the late 19th century, “attacked laissez-faire economics and the Jews as part of the same liberal plague.” What this all boiled down to was an anti-Semitism fueled by hatred of capitalism. And this was what really tied together Hitler’s National Socialists with Marx’s Communist utopia. They both hated liberal-Jewish capitalism and required a community of men who would put common good before the individual good.

Marxism is closely aligned with socialistic nationalism, as was noted when Stalin adopted his “Socialism in One County” policies in 1926. Soviet Russia had turned towards national communism, and in doing so, as UC Berkeley political scientist A. James Gregor opined, “Marxist theory reveals itself as a variant of generic fascism,” which made “the Soviet Union unmistakenly ‘a cousin to the German National Socialism.’”

Marx and Hitler were so alike in so many ways that Soviet Russian leaders had to distance themselves from their former socialist-fascist partner. But history can be unforgiving. Despite mountains of old Soviet propaganda with false narratives, Marx and Hitler are now beginning to be viewed as two racist authoritarians cut from the same red star stone. In so many ways, considering their almost identical political and social makeup, metaphorically speaking, Hitler could easily be regarded as the son of Marx.

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