The Inter- National Socialists (Inter- Nazis*) Excerpt from ‘Solar History’ Chapter 22.

Museum Wolmirstedt. (2018-05-16). Abzeichen zum 1. Mai 1934. Retrieved from

Nazi Plaquette with hammer and sickle May Day, ‘labor Day’. 1934. Museum Wolmirstedt


* By ‘international socialists’, I’m not referring to ordinary people who believe in equality of outcome as a fulfillment of justice, but primarily to a global elite of collectivist, increasingly far-left ideologues, who are using identity politics, censorship and cohesion as part of a fascist tactic to their gain of power, these include most party leaders in western countries. I’m not specifically referring to self-declared socialist activist groups like the ISO, either.

At the entrance to the Visitors Centre of the European Parliament, there is a plaque with these words, demanding World Government: [i]

“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times […] The only final remedy for this evil is the federal union of the peoples.”

By definition: Proletarian internationalism, sometimes referred to as international socialism, is the perception of all communist revolutions as being part of a single global class struggle rather than separate localized events.

Fig. 31Nazi Pin with swastika, hammer and sickle, May Day, ‘Day of the Laborer’. 1934. In April 1933, Adolf Hitler had declared May 1stas the National Labor Day, the same year, he was appointed Chancellor of Germany and the Nazis began their reign of terror.  Image (with friendly permission from); Museum Wolmirstedt, Germany, last modified 2018-05-16.;

Former California governor [and later US president] Ronald Reagan made this comment during a 1975 interview with “60 Minutes”:

”[…] Someone very profoundly once said many years ago that if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.” [ii]


Obviously, Communism is a left-wing ideology and Nazis were right-wing extremists. On closer inspection, the two ideologies are very similar and historically, the Nazis themselves initially called themselves “Germany’s Left”, proclaimed to fight against the “capitalist bourgeoisie” and they later colluded with Communist Russia. They also collaborated with other nations and other races (such as Imperial Japan and Islamic leaders), a fact that puts doubt into whether the Nazi leaders really believed their own racist party lunacy of “blood and honor”. Meanwhile, they furthered collectivization of their native industries. Corporations were still competing on the market to some extent, but they were mandated what they had to produce by the Nazi state – which meant largely state control over the means of production. We saw in Chapter 18, how Nazis and Fascists called for the sacrifice of the individual to the state, and for more state control.

Numerous historians such as Michael Geyer have pointed out the comparison and similarities of the totalitarian Nazi Regime and the totalitarian Soviet Union, especially Stalinism. [iii]The prominent difference was: Nazis were obsessed with race, communists were obsessed with class.

In this paragraph, for the sake of simplicity, I will use the terms socialism and communism more or less interchangeably (as Mao did). By Oxford definition, Socialism is a ‘political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole’.

Oxford Dictionary further provides the following partial definition:

Socialism: (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.“

And further: “Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology in which the state would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system. In practice, however, the state grew to control all aspects of communist society”.

And the Oxford definition of Communism: “A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.


So, strictly speaking, according to Marx’s own theory, real Communism has not yet happened,self-declared communist states are in reality failed socialist transition governments clinging on to power, these governments have yet to demonstrate that they will ever “wither away” and leave the egalitarian, liberated people alone to take care of themselves. In the meantime, every communist power is dependent on free market countries for imports and technological innovation. Even Mao Zedong, chairmen of the Chinese Communist Party and world record holder of mass murder, used the two terms interchangeably:

“Not just in China, but everywhere in the world without exception, one either leans to the side of imperialism or the side of socialism. Neutrality is mere camouflage; a third road does not exist.” Mao Zedong [iv]

Alex Ross describes Hitler’s rise to power in a ‘leftist government’:

“[Young] Hitler remained in the Army after the Armistice; disgruntled nationalist soldiers tended to join paramilitary groups. Because the Social Democratic parties were dominant at the founding of the Weimar Republic, Hitler was representing a leftist government. He even served the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic. It is doubtful, though, that he had active sympathies for the left; he probably stayed in the Army because, as Weber writes, it “provided a raison d’être for his existence.” As late as his thirtieth birthday, in April 1919, there was no sign of the Führer-to-be.” [v]


(National-) Socialism

Laas Leivat says thatNazi propaganda chief Goebbels compared Hitler with Stalin while Molotov outlawed opposition to Nazi ideology:

“Partisans who fell prisoner while fighting the Nazis and the Communists in occupied territories, were exchanged and the Russians were also known to hand over Jews to the Germans. The Soviets had employed mass murder as a form of control long before the Nazis assumed power.” [vi]

The Non-Aggression Pact, a temporary collaboration, alone does not prove a shared ideology or common cause. In the fog of war, it is not out of the ordinary for opposing powers to make certain strategic concessions and compromises with opponents, for temporary gains. In the case of the National Socialists, it is the contention that Stalin had the plan to let Hitler destroy Europe, so he could come in and sweep up the pieces and make Europe part of the Soviet Union, which partly materialized with East Germany. However, it is striking how far Stalin was working with the Nazis and he joined the axis powers only in the later stages of the war in 1941 (after Hitler’s surprise attack on Russia).

Nietzsche had warned of the wars of the 20thcentury. After the conflicts of 1850s- 1870s, Nietzsche warned in 1882 – a time of relative peace in Europe:

“The story I have to tell is the history of the next two centuries.”

What Nietzsche predicted, Tom Wolfe notes, is that “[…] the twentieth century would be a century of ‘wars such as have never happened on earth,’ wars catastrophic beyond all imagining”. [vii]

Almost all of the mass killings that took place in that violent 20thcentury were conducted under totalitarian rule of collectivist regimes, whether they were Socialists/ Communist, Fascist/ National Socialists.

While the Communists were obsessed with class identity and National Socialists were obsessed with race and national identity, in the end, all of these dictatorships ended up in a philosophy along the lines of: “everyone is the same (except the leaders are more equal than others) and everyone who disagrees, will be exterminated.”


Francoise Thom, professor of modern history, explains in the Film the Soviet Story, that both communism and National Socialism have an ideology which has the ambition of creating a new man, they are at war with human nature. This she calls the ‘root of totalitarianism’:

“Nazism is an ideology based on false biology, communism is an ideology based on false sociology. But both systems have an ambition of resting on a scientific basis.”  [viii]

The fluid boundaries between race- baiting and class- baiting manifested in the early Nazi’s propaganda. As late as Dec 1931, propaganda minister Goebbels called the Nazis the ‘left’ and praised Lenin in the official newspaper of the Nazi-Sozi party ‘Der Angriff’:

“[T]he NSDAP is the German Left. We despise bourgeois nationalism.”[ix]

The early Nazi party insisted on their affinity to Marxist ideology. The New York Times reported in November 28th, 1925:

“The National Socialist-Labor Party, of which Adolf Hitler is a patron and father, persists in believing Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted in a party meeting,[…] Last night, Dr. Goebbels tried the experiment in Berlin and only police intervention prevented a repetition of the Chemnitz affair. […] On the speaker’s assertion that Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses.” [x]

Goebbels also declared the following in his “Lenin or Hitler” speech, first delivered on September 17th, 1925:

Capitalism is the immoral distribution of capital […] Germany will become free at that moment when the thirty millions on the left and the thirty millions on the right make common cause. Only one movement is capable of doing this: National Socialism, embodied in one Führer – Adolf Hitler.” [xi]

Goebbels had much more to complain about capitalism, here from a letter of 1920:

[…] “This caste has spun its web over the entire earth; capitalism recognizes no national boundaries…Capitalism has learned nothing from recent events and wants to learn nothing, because it places its own interests ahead of those of the other millions. Can one blame those millions for standing up for their own interests, and only for those interests? Can one blame them for striving to forge an international community whose purpose is the struggle against corrupt capitalism?”  [xii]

And in the National Socialist Letters (NS-Briefe), of Nov 15th, 1925 Goebbels doubled down:

“[…] we can see the commencement of our own national and socialist survival in an alliance with a truly national and socialist Russia.”

In 1927 in “Nationalsozialisten aus Berlin und aus dem Reich”, Goebbels complained:

“The money pigs of capitalist democracy… Money has made slaves of us… Money is the curse of mankind. It smothers the seed of everything great and good. Every penny is sticky with sweat and blood.” [xiii]

George Orwell was himself a socialist when he wrote The Road to Wigan Pierin 1937.  He warned that the theoretical book-trained Socialist’ leader had no real compassion for the oppressed:

“The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard. Take the plays of a lifelong Socialist like Shaw. How much understanding or even awareness of working-class life do they display? Shaw himself declares that you can only bring a working man on the stage ‘as an object of compassion’; in practice he doesn’t bring him on even as that, but merely as a sort of W. W. Jacobs figure of fun– the ready-made comic East Ender, like those in Major Barbara and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion.” [xiv]

“The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs.” [xv]

Jordon Peterson, after having worked with the Canadian New Democratic Party, NDP, concluded about (many) socialists: “They don’t like the poor, they just hate the rich.”[xvi]


“Dinesh D’Souza’s newest film Death of a Nation, was released in 2018.

The Hollywood Reporter announced:

“Dinesh D’Souza’s newest film will not only make the controversial claim that Donald Trump has a lot in common with Honest Abe Lincoln, but will also suggest that Democrats were once too racist even for Nazis.”

 In fact, these claims are solidly proven by D’Souza, he also states: “every segregation law in the American South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor and enforced by Democratic officials.”[xvii]We saw above, that at the beginning of the Civil War, only Democrats owned slaves and no Republican owned slaves. Democrats were the party of the KKK.

On June 5, 1934, a young justice ministry lawyer named Heinrich Krieger, who had studied in Arkansas, took part in a meeting of Nazi officials and representatives of the American Democratic Party, who were to advise the Nazis how to create their anti-Semitic race laws. The Germans were impressed by the democrats Jim Crow laws.

“All the leading figures of early fascism – not merely in Germany but also in Italy, France and England – were men of the left. Most of them moved seamlessly from Marxism and socialism to fascism and Nazism during the 1920s and 1930s.” [xviii]

In Germany, the socialist playwright Gerhart Hauptmann embraced Hitler’s National Socialism and produced plays during the Third Reich. After the war, he called himself a communist and staged his productions in Soviet-dominated East Berlin. [xix]Similarly, in Italy, many Marxists moved to Fascism.

As late as October and November 1940, German–Soviet Axis talks occurred concerning the Soviet Union’s potential entry as a fourth Axis Power in World War II. [xx]

In recent decades, a powerful faction of the global political elite has started to show their true faces again: The doctrine has been marketed in different names: Postmodernism (not the same as neo-Marxism, but potentially used for similar outcomes). The basic ideology has infiltrated Democratic Socialist parties of Western Nations.


Nazi attorney Walter Hallstein, a prominent Professor of Law among the Nazis, declared in a speech in 1939: “One of the most important Laws is the Law of protection of German ‘Blood and Honor.’ Hallstein was a German representative in the ‘Working Committee for German-Italian legal Connections’, planning Greater Europe in collaboration with Mussolini. [xxi]. After the war, his leading Nazi role was covered up and he was commissioned by Konrad Adenauer to draft the legal framework of the first “European Commission” (the executive organ of the later EU), and in 1959, Hallstein became its first President. So, an actual prominent Nazi official co- founded the EU. The EU today calls him a ‘visionary leader’. [xxii]



Class warfare versus group identity politics

Today’s intellectual left-wing leaders with modern-day Neo- Marxist ambitions found out that the narrative of class warfare is not working anymore since free markets – allowing immense class mobility – and the industrial progress led to enormous increases in general wealth, even of the poor. That is not to say that there isn’t plenty of injustice in the world. But today the poorest citizens in western countries are richer than the average person of the planet. And much wealthier than the middle class in their own country a few decades ago. Since it has become undeniable to everyone that class barriers are as fluid as ever and are often traversed, the modern far left and democratic socialists, have changed their strategy from class warfare to identity politics. The wealthiest few own most of the money, but they also pay most of the taxes that finance social spending and welfare and they provide most jobs. Already in 2014, almost half of California’s income taxes were paid by the top 1 percent. [xxiii]US- wide, the top 1 percent of taxpayers earned 20.6 percent of all taxable income in 2014, but they pay 39.5 percent of federal individual income taxes. [xxiv]

The working class isn’t poor anymore, and every working-class member has relatives and friends who have managed to work themselves up. Left liberal politicians (like Barack Obama or congresswoman Maxine Waters) preach that the system is rigged against minorities, but they never address how they themselves (members of minorities) broke the system and became wealthy and powerful.

In Neo-Marxist and Postmodern ideology, instead of classes, people can be categorized into groups that are victims of various degrees of oppression. The problem for the implementation is its own long-term outcome. Individualism is based on the premise that everyone is the same under the law (equality of opportunity).

The left (which is becoming indistinguishable from the far-left) is still trying to expend identity politics, and further subdivide oppressed minorities into sub groups and everyone can find some criteria to see themselves as a victim of group oppression and create his or her new subgroup, which will eventually lead to everyone being their own individual group, which leads to individualism. In this way, today’s identity politics (by definition racist and sexist) would eventually end up in individualism, a principle of capitalist republics, so the leading promoters are either not thinking the theory through, or they plan on profiting from a collapse that takes place on the way.

The great dangerfor the followers on the left, especially for the disenfranchised, vulnerable and minorities, is that at some point right wing extremists may take advantage of the identity politics craze before this collapse by adopting their own version of identity politics.


Needless to say, the call to fight inequality is appealing, since oppression actually does exist, when people can be convinced by the intellectual ruling elite that all of their disadvantages in life is a result of oppression exerted by the middle class or some ‘privileged’ group. The call is most effective in times of high social excitability (mostly in Grand Maximum).

Collectivist dictators on both sides called for sacrifice of the people for the greater good. Recall Fascist Benito Mussolini in 1932:

“Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.” [xxv]

Hitler himself demanded: ‘The common interests before self-interest’and in Mein Kampf, he wrote on the duty to engage in sacrifice:

“This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture […] The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call—to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness—idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”[xxvi]

Hegel is thought to have had a leading influence on Hitler’s ideologies. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831, Berlin) was a German Philosopher, the most important proponent of Idealism. Hegel succeeded Johan Fichte at the University of Berlin in 1814:

“…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State […] for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'”  [xxvii]

A crucial fact that is increasingly disregarded by both democratic socialist ideology as well as conservatives is this: people are different. Diversity means differences in individuals and groups. Since there are differences in physical traits, mentality and cultures, there are logically and empirically proven also differences in abilities, capacities.

These are the two main errors underlying all bi- partisan politics, on which most conflicts of the world are based:


The Right claims: All people are the same. If poor people only really try, they can achieve everything they want.


The Left claims: All people are the same. If poor people are only given equal opportunity, they can achieve everything they want.


Both propositions are demonstrably false and lead to individual as well as inter-group resentment and ultimately to conflicts. At some point, identity politics are used on both sides for the persecution of groups without evidence or even without accusation of wrongdoing.

It is of course true that everyone is capable of improving his or her life and the lives of others to a great extent.  In order to deal with the next international social crisis, we must discuss the following bothersome facts of life:

-We can either have equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. But we cannot have both.


-We can have justice (individual justice) or social justice, but we can’t have both.

As an example: Asian American students in the US need higher test scores to be admitted to universities then other races, even if they grew up in poverty or have other difficult circumstances, because Asians have generally higher test scores and are generally over represented (especially in science and math). This is applied racism in the name of social justice. [xxviii]To implement affirmative action: ‘U.S. Supreme Court upholds race-based college admissions in 2016’. [xxix]


Which then leads to the following realization, as narrowed down by Nobel prize laureate Milton Friedman:

“You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state“. [xxx]

If a society wants both at same time, they must first reason why just now it will work for the first time in history. No person of normal empathy likes it, but it must be realized: there is no historical example of a society that sustainably combined the two. In the US, before 1914, more or less everyone could immigrate to the country, in 1917, under the Wilson administration, Congress passed the first comprehensive immigration act.

Stephen Fry outlined the today’s ‘strange paradox’:

“The liberals are illiberal in their demand for liberality. They are exclusive in their demand for inclusivity. They are homogenous in their demand for heterogeneity, they are somehow un-diverse in their call for diversity: you can be diverse but not diverse in your opinion, language and your behavior. “ [xxxi]

That then leads to: They demand to give a voice to everyone, except to white, heterosexual males. Democrat leaders cherish diversity of cultures and minority groups, but only as long as they vote for the left.  American Democrat politicians want to give the African American community a voice for identity politics, but they don’t want to give black people a voice when it comes to (for instance) gay marriage, which blacks are disproportionately against.




It is not surprising then that the globalist elites at the World Economy Forum in Davos are warning and searching solutions against ‘rising Populism’, [xxxii]while the media has indoctrinated the European population to believe that populism is some kind of a “far- right” ideology. Even ‘Pope Francis Stresses Anti-Populist Message in Trip to Lithuania’.[xxxiii]

The New Oxford American Dictionary used by Mac OS (Copyright 2005–2017, still defines Populism as: Support for the concerns of ordinary people.”While the updated Oxford online version says: “A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.”

So, ironically, the international social democrat and neo-Marxist elites are warning the ordinary people to not follow populists, who support the concerns of the ordinary people (or at least promise to do so).


In the 2000 edition of the German standard Dictionary “Duden”, Populism is defined as (translation mine):

Opportunistic politics seeking to win the favor of the masses.”

So, basically every politician who wants to be democratically elected (the opportunistic part is debatable).

In the 2015 edition of the “Duden” it says: Often demagogic politics, characterized by Opportunism, close to the people, with the goal, using dramatization of the political situation, to win the favor of the masses (with view to elections).


University political bias (motivated reasoning)

Professor Jonathan Haidt relates how the data from the higher education research institute showed that as late as the 1990s the left to right ratio in University professors, throughout all fields, was at 2: 1, a relatively moderate imbalance. Only 15 years later it had changed to 5: 1, so 83,4 % are left wing. In the humanities the ratio is much higher. The ratio in psychology professors by 2016 was: 17 democrats vs 1 republican, so 95% are left-wing (according to Langbert et al 2016). [xxxiv]20% are far-left / Marxists; on the right, there are no far-right professors.

Ironically, it’s the same universities that force ‘Unconscious bias training’ for students and staff to help people find out in what situations they are unconsciously bigots. Note, it’s not called ‘Unconscious bias test’, to help you to find out whether or not you are culturally biased. So, if you sign up for such a program, you have already admitted that you (probably) are a bigot (racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe…) and you are just not conscious of it, whereas responsible, righteous non-bigot people consciously know that they are not bigots.



The Milgram experiments

So, how did the leaders of totalitarian regimes find hundreds or thousands of subjects who were willing and able to torture and kill millions of innocent people, and compatriots even, for the ‘greater good’?

Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted the famous series of experiments on obedience to authority figures, beginning in 1961. A participant was made to believe that he was to perform in a teacher role in an experiment for learning enhancement by physical punishment. By a rigged draw of sticks, the actual participants were always the ‘teachers’. The ‘students’ were actors, who gave false answers after which the ‘teachers’ had to administer electroshocks which they believed to be real. The teacher could hear but not see the student in the other room. In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment’s final massive 450-volt shock, and all administered shocks of at least 300 volts,after they were told by a professor that there was no known permanent damage by the shocks, even though the switch for the high voltage shocks was marked with 3 X’s. Throughout the shocks, the ‘student’ was screaming in agony and begging the teacher to stop. Some teachers even continued after the students in the other room did not respond anymore, leaving the presumption that they were unconscious or dead. There was no other pressure put on the teacher other than a professor asking them to administer the electroshocks. In case of hesitation of the teacher the first encouragement was ‘please continue’, the second ‘the experiment requires you to go one’. And the third ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’. No one said ‘it says in a contract you signed…’ or ‘if you don’t do it, you’re in trouble’ or the like.

So, that’s all that is necessary to make most normal people torture and kill an innocent stranger for no reason at all (or rather, they had every reason to believe they killed someone).  [xxxv]

35 years later, in 1999, a follow up meta-analysis by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County found the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages ranged from 28% to 91%. [xxxvi]

If you ask people on the street, you will probably here from everyone they would never follow these orders, but reality shows almost everyone you ever met is just about ready to torture an innocent stranger.

The experiment was critiqued for the trauma it caused the unwitting participants (‘teachers’). Well, I’d say, yes, the truth hurts, but it’s never too soon to find out whether you have what it takes to be a concentration camp guard. Many participants stated their later regret and shock over their own cruel obedience. To be fair, the applicability to totalitarian states is not so clear. There is of course a big difference between following unexpected orders on a single day and going to work at a concentration camp every day. The innocent citizens who died in the Soviet gulags or Nazi concentration camps did not care about the difference between unconscious new officials who were suddenly pushed to torturer positions and full- blown, conscious psychopaths.

But all in all, it’s almost as if the philosopher Bias of Priene (6thcentury BC) was right when he said:

“”Most people are evil.”


The two experiment years mentioned, 1963 and 1999, were both at high Schwabe maxima, in the Modern Grand Maximum. It would be interesting to see the results for Grand Solar Minima and I venture to speculate that the experiment would yield much lower obedience rates/ more refusals to these orders, at the bottom of a Grand Minimum. Aye Rand wrote in ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’:

“Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” [xxxvii]

Let’s lighten this up with a few more words from the same author: The Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand came to prominence in the 1950s, in the post-war period. In ‘Atlas shrugged’protagonist John Galt had this to say about “the Mystics”.

“Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his wishes, his whims – as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs. “

“You who are innocent enough to believe that the forces let loose in your world today are moved by greed for material plunder—the mystics’ scramble for spoils is only a screen to conceal from their mind the nature of their motive. Wealth is a means of human life, and they clamor for wealth in imitation of living beings, to pretend to themselves that they desire to live, but their swinish indulgence in plundered luxury is not enjoyment, it is escape. They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself.” [xxxviii]

[i]The Telegraph:  Leo Mckinstry; The EU has revealed its true nature: a federalist monster that will not stop until nations are abolished; 7 APRIL 2016

[ii]Chapman, Michael W.2014: CNS June 5, 2014,

[iii]Geyer, Michael Editor, 2006: Beyond Totalitarianism, Stalinism And Nazism Compared; Cambridge University Press Cambridge, New York


[v]The New Yorker, Alex Ross: How American Racism Influenced Hitler; Scholars are mapping the international precursors of Nazism; April 30, 2018;

[vi]Laas Leivat; 2017: The MRP, more than just Nazi-Soviet Collusion, that launched World War II Estonian life (5) Arvamus 04 Aug 2017 EL (Estonian Life)

[vii]Tom Wolfe,: Hooking Up 2000 essay collection; p. 98 “God is dead”

[viii]The Soviet Story, documentary film, Edvīns Šnore (2008) timemak: 12:40 ,

[ix]Der Angriff, (Dec. 6, 1931) written by Goebbels. Der Angriff [The Attack] was the official newspaper of the Nazi-Sozi party in Berlin.  Wikipedia 4.3. 2018

[x]Hitlerite Riot; In Berlin; New York Times1925: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin; November 28, 1925, p.4.

[xi]Wikipedia  Joseph Goebbels, Quotes: cited 4.7.2018;

[xii]Letter to Anka Stalherm (14 April 1920), quoted in Ralph Georg Reuth, Goebbels (Harvest, 1994), pp. 33-34. Wikipedia, 3.4. 2018

[xiii]The Nazi Party: A Complete History 1919-1945, Dietrich Orlow, New York: NY, Enigma Books, 2012, p 61.

[xiv]Orwell, George, (reprinted) 2001: The Road to Wigan Pier; Penguin Modern Classics, (first published March 1937) Chapter 11

[xv]Orwell, George, (reprinted) 2001: The Road to Wigan Pier; Penguin Modern Classics, (first published March 1937) Chapter 11

[xvi]Jordan Peterson, Video, Identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege; 11-13- 2017; University of British Columbia Free Speech Club;

[xvii]Hollywood Reporter, Paul Bond; Dinesh D’Souza’s New Film Makes Incendiary Claims About Democrats’ History, 7/30/2018;

[xviii]D’souza, Dinesh, 2017, Wnd: In A Sick Twist, The American Left Is Now Party Of Fascism; Dinesh D’souza News:  Aug 10, 2017;

[xix]D’souza, Dinesh, 2017, Wnd: In A Sick Twist, The American Left Is Now Party Of Fascism; Dinesh D’souza News:  Aug 10, 2017;

[xx]Wikipedia, German–Soviet Axis talks;–Soviet_Axis_talks; cited 9.23_2018

[xxi]The Hidden Nazi Background Of Walter Hallstein, Founding President Of The Brussels EU Commission; Rath health Foundation;  Paul Anthony Taylor, June 3, 2016

[xxii]Rath, Matthias Dr. 2011: Die Nazi-Wurzeln der Brüsseler EU; Health Foundation; Herausgegeben von Dr. Rath Health Foundation ISBN 978-90-76332-69-7   1. Edition,  p. 77

[xxiii]The Sacramento Bee: JIM MILLER, 2016: Almost half of California 2014 income taxes paid by top 1 percent; April 27, Updated April 28, 2016;

[xxiv]Tax foundation, 2017: Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data 2016 Update; February 1, 2017;

[xxv]Barzilai, Roy; 2015:The Testosterone Hypothesis.Dibrah Publishing p. 42

[xxvi]Barzilai, Roy 2015.  p. 42

[xxvii]Shirer William 1959, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich;  1959, p. 144

[xxviii]Bloomberg; 2018, Ramesh Ponnuru: Which Races Should Benefit, at the Expense of Which Others? Asian-Americans suing Harvard reopen an awkward debate; June 21, 2018;

[xxix]Reuters, 2016, Laurence Hurley:  Supreme Court; June 23, 2016;

[xxx]The Telegraph, 2004: You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state; 15 Feb 2004;

[xxxi]Political Correctness Debate ft. Stephen Fry, Jordan Peterson, Michael Dyson, Michelle Goldberg;

[xxxii]Bloomberg; 2017, Davos Elite Seeks Fixes to Defend the System From Populists; Jeff Black and John Follain; January 18.

[xxxiii]  Breitbart; Thomas D. Williams Ph.D: Pope Francis Stresses Anti-Populist Message in Trip to Lithuania, 22 Sep 2018;

[xxxiv]Langbert M. et al: 2016: Faculty Voter Registration: Rectifying the Omission of Two Florida Universities (EJW, January 2017). Character Issues, Volume (Issue) 13(3); pp. 422–451

[xxxv]Wikipedia,              The Milgram experiment: sited 6-13-2018

[xxxvi]Blass, Thomas, 1999: The Milgram Paradigm After 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know About Obedience to Authority;Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, 29, 5, pp. 955-978.

[xxxvii]Ayn Rand, 1961: The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism; Penguin Group, New York, p. 22

[xxxviii]Rand, Ayn: 1957: Atlas Shrugged; Random Penguin, 21.04. 2005 p. 181

Categories: Society

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s