Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke heaps praise on Rep. Ilhan Omar

The Mises Institute is not neocon; it’s libertarian.

It doesn’t reflect him very well

Course what does

Ford foundation

National Review

And so on don’t reflect their founder

Hillsdale....hmmm

My Alma mater only has one library of note and his home

A beloved but difficult to read writer...who I think was a lefty to be honest....

I actually like Faulkner and was close to his two great nephews Rusty and James.....but he was too apologetic on Dixie though he described it well enough.....he takes you there aptly......Thacker mountain...lol

along Mises lines...I like Rothbard even more

“By that parameter anyone who uses violence to consolidate political power is similar”

You can do it and still make sense if you don’t try and claim that they were all part of the same political philosophy.

Paul Johnson dealt with this in his Modern Times. He called them gangster governments. Hitler, Stalin, Tojo. Somehow he resisted the urge to label them all “socialist”.

It’s what republicanists do

Same folks ashamed Dixie is in their ranks

You know them...lol

Jonah Goldberg also pimps this

Confederates are Nazis are Communists

But the GOPe is our salvation party

These folks are liberals left behind by the wacky democrat party of today but queasy about conservatism and nationalism and right wing cultural inclinations

Hence they aim for these nonsensical distinctions

As I showed, they were socialists.

Mises talked about two varieties of socialist, which he called the Russian and German varieties.

https://mises.org/library/national-socialism

“The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer’s goods for his consumption.”

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern “maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets.” But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. “Market exchange,” says Mises, “is only a sham.”

“Hitler was a Marxist”

Well at least you believe it.

Hitler certainly didn’t. He wasn’t the least bit shy about equating Jews with Marxism and he didn’t like Jews very much.

Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg didn’t believe it. He was a big influence on Hitler in the 1920s and he’s the one who targeted “Jewish Bolshevism” as the great threat to Germany.

William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich extensively explores the influences on Hitler. It’s been awhile since I read it but I’m willing to bet that Marx isn’t one of them.

Oh come one....do they teach that at Hillsdale..that Hitler was a Marxist..please tell me no

Read the links I posted, and/or read Mises on “German socialism.”

“German socialism” and “Russian socialism,” as Mises called them, amount to the same thing despite some shades of difference.

“These folks are liberals left behind by the wacky democrat party of today but queasy about conservatism and nationalism and right wing cultural inclinations

“Hence they aim for these nonsensical distinctions”

That’s what it looks like to me. They echo chamber this stuff by citing each other...repetition giving it the gloss of “fact” once the talk radio crowd picks it up.

The original neoconservatives began as Trotsky fans at the New York Public Library. Irving Kristol and his pals. Then a mix of Cold War liberal Democrats and some former Leftists like Medved.

They wanted America to be a swaggering global empire and played a big role in getting Bush the Inferior to invade Iraq. They were for a strong military but pretty much hated the domestic views of traditional conservatives.

Mises made his distinction between Russian and German socialism because they weren't the same, contra your soft-peddling "amount to the same thing despite some shades of difference."

The Soviet Union nationalized all industry. There were no privately owned businesses.

The "socialist" Nazis didn't nationalize industry. They even sold off state industry to the private sector. What the Nazis did have was a war economy, with the private sector drafted into building war materiel.

In that respect they resembled another major power whose private sector was drafted into building war machinery, the United States. And von Mises noted that similarity.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/mises-on-how-price-controls-lead-to-socialism-1944

It is sometimes difficult for modern readers to imagine how much government intervention in the economy took place during World War Two, even in the so-called liberal democracies like Great Britain and the United States. It would take a refugee from Nazi Europe, such as the economist Ludwig von Mises, to see the close parallels between the economic policies of Nazi Germany and the United States of President Roosevelt. These parallels arose because both economies faced similar difficulties in time of war.

With international free trade disrupted, goods with multiple uses (such as gasoline and rubber) had to be allocated away from consumer goods production to war goods production such as tanks and aircraft. Since the government did not wish to pay more for these goods in a free market, thus competing with consumers for the use of these goods, it used regulations and controls like rationing to take the bulk of these products for its war industries and to ration what was left to the consumers.

His point, however, was that they wind up in the same place, that they're both forms of socialism, that they're close cousins, and they are both dangerous.

What the Nazis did was a de facto nationalization, but not a de jure one. Nonetheless, the economy was controlled by the government. They maintained the fiction of private property while in fact taking complete control themselves and making all the decisions.

They were different types of socialism, but they were both socialist. Which was Mises's point, and the point of the large number of links I provided. There is no question that what they had in Germany and Italy were socialist regimes.

Listen to F.A. Hayek, who described the Nazis as “a genuine socialist movement.”

https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/11/read-pile-top-nazis-talking-love-leftist-marxism/

“The right consists of free-market capitalists, who think the individual is the primary political unit, believes in property rights, and are generally distrustful of government by unaccountable agencies and government solutions to social problems. They view family and civil institutions, such as church, as needed checks on state power.

“These people don’t think government should force a business to provide employee birth control or think law should coerce bakers to make cakes against their conscience. They think the solution to bad speech is more speech, and the solution to gun violence is more guns. These people talk about freedom—the method of individual decisions. (The counterexample might be gay marriage but that is a positive right—“give me something”—instead of a negative right—“leave me alone.”)

“The left believes the opposite. They distrust the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. They give primacy to group rights and identity. They believe factors like race, ethnicity, and sex compose the primary political unit. They don’t believe in strong property rights.

“They believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social problems. They call for public intervention to “equalize” disparities and render our social fabric more inclusive (as they define it). They believe the free market has failed to solve issues like campaign finance, income inequality, minimum wage, access to health care, and righting past injustices. These people talk about “democracy”—the method of collective decisions.

“These Definitions Put Nazis Firmly on the Left

“By these definitions, the Nazis were firmly on the left. National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” This brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics, which perfectly aligns with the modern brand. The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, or volk, and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism—the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War.

“As Hayek stated in 1933, the year the Nazis took power: “[I]t is more than probable that the real meaning of the German revolution is that the long dreaded expansion of communism into the heart of Europe has taken place but is not recognized because the fundamental similarity of methods and ideas is hidden by the difference in phraseology and the privileged groups.” “

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left:
“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
In his 1939 indictment of Nazism, Germany Rampant, Hambloch has an entire chapter on political parties under the German Empire before the First World War and political parties under the Weimar Republic. Hambloch lists parts of the “Left,” “Right” and “Centre” in the German Empire pre-1914, but there are no “Left,” “Right” or “Centre” parties in the Weimar Republic, but rather “Weimar Parties, i.e. those who supported the republican constitution,” “National Reactionary Parties” and “Revolutionary Parties.” The Nazis are listed, along with the Communist Party of Germany, as the two “Revolutionary Parties.” Pointedly, the Nazis were not considered a “National Reactionary Party.”

Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders. Hitler on May 1, 1927:
“We are socialists. We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

http://policydynamics.net/karl-marx-intellectual-godfather-adolph-hitler/

“There’s a reason for the word “socialism” in National Socialism. That becomes clearer when the full name of the party is written out: The National Socialist German Workers Party.

“To quote Adolph Hitler, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

“Planks in the Nazi party platform fell right in line with those of conventional socialism/communism. The Nazis demanded:

• the abolition of all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work;

• the nationalization of businesses involved in cartels;

• the communalization of department stores, to distribute to small business;

• land reform, confiscation from owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose, the abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of land speculation.

“So Nazism was much like conventional socialism, with its anti-business and anti-financial attitudes, and demonization the affluent. Nazism particularly demonized a subset of affluent people (many of whom weren’t even affluent), the Jews. Envious Germans prior to and during the Nazi period hurled accusations exactly in line with Karl Marx’s slanders, smearing them as swindlers and worshiping money. Never mind that their hard work, high levels of education, willingness to take risks, and willingness to be merchants early on (upon which other members of society looked down) tended to have a positive effect on income. Success breeds contempt.

“Socialism/communism blames the world’s ills on economically better off people. But in some societies those people tend to be members of a certain religion or ethnic minority group – be they Jews in Nazi Germany, Armenians in early-twentieth-century Turkey, Chinese in Indonesia, or Tutsis in Rwanda. That makes them easy to identify and pick out. The minority group becomes synonymous with the wealthy class. By scapegoating the rich, they’re scapegoating the minority group.”

https://stoppingsocialism.com/2020/07/hitler-was-a-socialist-who-learned-from-karl-marx/

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt

“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” – October 5, 1937, speech in Berlin

“In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’ By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the ‘freedom of the press.’ In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it.” – December 10, 1940, speech in Berlin

“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.

“Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus

“We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

“There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. … here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic program. Point 13 in that program demands the nationalization of all public companies, in other words socialization, or what is known here as socialism. … the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me? Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals anymore; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting

“Over the last 40 years, the German bourgeoisie has been a lamentable failure; it has not given the German people a single leader; it will have to bow without gainsaying to the totality of my ideology.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting

“What they hate is the Germany which sets a dangerous example for them, this social Germany. It is the Germany of a social labor legislation which they already hated before the World War and which they still hate today. It is the Germany of social welfare, of social equality, of the elimination of class differences—this is what they hate! They hate this Germany which in the course of seven years has labored to afford its Volksgenossen a decent life. They hate this Germany which has eliminated unemployment, which, in spite of all their wealth, they have not been able to eliminate. This Germany which grants its laborers decent housing—this is what they hate because they have a feeling their own peoples could be ‘infected’ thereby. They hate this Germany of social legislation, this Germany which celebrates the first of May as the day of honest labor.” – May 8, 1939, speech “Party Comrades! My German Volksgenossen!” at the Bürgerbräukeller in Munich

“The hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin

“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag

“And justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democracies—a profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocket—then the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.” – January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin

“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.” – February 24, 1941, speech on the 21st anniversary of the Nazi Party

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – March 21, 1943, speech for Heroes’ Memorial Day

Still say he’s not a socialist and his followers aren’t socialists?

https://us.politics.narkive.com/LgSG8DfD/just-like-hitler-david-duke-is-a-socialist-anti-semite-here-s-proof

Notice in the following article how David Duke attacks true right-wingers such as Paul Wolfowiz, Richard Perle,
and Elliott Abrams, mainly because they are Jews. However, with him radical leftist and atheist Jews are okay.

On the other side Duke admires Ken Livingston the communist and Islamofascist mayor of London. Duke also shows sympathy for socialist thug Saddam Hussein. David Duke sounds just like many Canadian radical leftists, such as Remailer, who forges and uses scores of aliases, on “can.politics”.

Duke, Skin-Head Neo-Nazis and Hitler were obviously Leftists as evidenced by their overwhelming support of Gay Marriage and Gay Rights.

NeoNazis are frequently seen holding pro-Gay demonstrations and marching in Gay Pride celebrations along with David Duke; everyone knows that Hitler’s
Gay Pride Parades held at Nuremburg were attended by hundreds of thousands of Leftists from around the world!

It’s documented on www.frontpagemag.com.

Today he is supporting commies, and Islamofascists.

https://www.pacificpundit.com/2019/10/19/democrats-are-still-the-kkk-david-duke-endorses-gabbard-robert-byrd-was-hillary-clinton-mentor/

Yet, once again, even in the year 2019, David Duke, famous for his days with the KKK has endorsed another Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Hillary Clinton was also endorsed by KKK Grand Dragon Will Quigg in 2016. David Duke also endorsed another socialist Democrat recently, named Ilhan Omar. The KKK is, and will always be socialist, just like the Nazis.

https://www.wizbangblog.com/2005/08/14/david-duke-gets/

HomeCategoriesDavid Duke Gets Behind Cindy Sheehan
David Duke Gets Behind Cindy Sheehan Rob Port August 14, 2005 Categories 54 Comments
From the blog of David Duke, America’s best-known racist and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan:

Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.

Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.