Damn the purists and the self-righteous.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

God made us perfect once and we screwed it up in The Garden of Eden when Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit. Yeah, I know, the comedians want to tell you, the Devil made her do it, but we have only gotten worse over time. So why do so many good people still try to be perfect and end up falling on their face?

I am one of those bitter clingers the liberals hate so much but apart from my strong belief in our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional Republic, I take a dim view of people who are so blindly immersed in their religion that they can’t see straight. If you read my bio you’d know I am a life-long Baptized Catholic and I can trace my Holy Bible back to Jesus Christ not to King James. But some Christians seem incapable of getting beyond Genesis without using a calculator. Those would be the people who had nothing better to do than add up the ages and years mentioned in the Bible and reached the astounding conclusion that the Earth is 6000 years old. My guess is that if God has a sense of humor He would be laughing right now instead of playing a game of marbles with asteroids. I’m not going to come out and defend evolution because it has come to mean a lot more than you would think but I do believe that something happened on this planet before and after God created Adam and Eve that hasn’t been given much thought. Hint: man did not walk with the dinosaurs. Hint: God doesn’t wear a wristwatch and measure time the way we do today. Hint: the funny looking rocks in this photo are 500-million year old fossil sea shells that came out of my back yard. The University of Oregon told me these are both common brachiopod shells from Late Ordovician rocks of the Cincinnati region. The dark ones, laying on the lens cap from my camera for size, are named Platystrophia laticostata.

Lets get on with another subject. Politics rules our lives and also ruins it. Maybe devout Christians should stay away from it, at least some of them should, anyway. In no particular order let me start with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a staunch conservative Republican, who has rightly earned a commendable reputation for fixing the fiscal problems in his state. Recently we found out that back in 2010, when before he was elected governor, while he served as a Milwaukee county executive his office learned that a woman doctor who had been hired at the Milwaukee County Behavioral Division had once been a model posing in underwear ads. Maybe she used the income to pay for education, no one knows, but the mere suggestion, while “It isn’t pornographic” wrote one of Walker’s advisers, it was a problem. Walker ordered his aid to “Get rid of the MD asap.” Maybe the self-righteous Republican should read his Bible, whichever version he has, about the story of Mary Magdalene.

Here is an impartial excerpt from Wikipedia. “Mary Magdalene is a religious figure in Christianity. She is usually thought of as the second-most important woman in the New Testament after Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary Magdalene traveled with Jesus as one of his followers. She was present at Jesus’ two most important moments: the crucifixion and the resurrection. Within the four Gospels, the oldest historical record mentioning her name, she is named at least 12 times, more than most of the apostles. The Gospel references describe her as courageous, brave enough to stand by Jesus in his hours of suffering, death and beyond.” Mary Magdalene was a prostitute before she met Jesus. She is considered a Saint in the Catholic Church and among her many patronage’s she is revered by reformed prostitutes.

The Pro-Life movement in America has become a powerful force within the Republican Party and their endorsements are coveted by many conservative candidates. The different Pro-Life groups usually rely on a 10-point questionnaire to rate the different candidates, both Republican and Democrat. Unless a candidate answers all ten questions correctly they do not get a Pro-Life endorsement. Not even if they answer just nine questions the right way. The 10th question that presents a serious problem to many concerns the abortion of an unborn baby for reasons of rape and incest. While many Pro-Lifers acknowledge that abortion is acceptable in a case where the life of the mother is at stake, I have never read any arguments that consider the life of the mother of a child conceived by rape or incest after being forced to carry it to birth. Pro-Life people view the life of the unborn child above that of the mother, no matter how young she may be. While I still consider myself Pro-Life, I would only get a ninety-percent rating.

When a political candidate is so concerned about offending the feelings of Pro-Lifers they can easily be coerced into making some ridiculous statements. Take for example the case of Todd Akin, former U.S. Representative for Missouri’s 2nd congressional district, serving from 2001 to 2013. In 2012 he lost his bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat. His campaign was ahead in the pre-election polls until he said in a TV interview that women who are victims of what he called “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant. He said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin eventually apologized for the remark, rebuffed calls to withdraw from the election, and lost 54.7 percent to 39.2 percent. Todd Aiken meet Scott Walker.

On the subject of opposing gun control and supporting our Second Amendment rights I have been a big critic of the National Rifle Association because they have a senseless rule they use when handing out endorsements. For one thing, they favor incumbents over challengers and for another thing, they see nothing wrong with supporting the campaigns of so-called Blue Dog Democrats, the supposedly conservative politicians who buck their party’s anti-gun agenda. Yeah, we have seen how well that works. For one thing, the NRA was instrumental in giving us the rabidly anti-gun Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House in 2008 after the NRA helped get 56 Democrats elected. By a simple majority of numbers, since more Democrats were elected to the House than Republicans, they got to choose the new Speaker and Pelosi got the vote. We remember Nancy for her famous remark about the ObamaCare bill, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” It didn’t matter whether or not 56 of those Democrats were supposed to be “conservative”, it was their party affiliation that counted. Then, two years later, in spite of the wave of Tea Party opposition the NRA again endorsed almost as many Democrats but the revolution in the streets only allowed 26 to get elected or reelected. In 2012 at the height of Obama’s anti-gun push, when the bill to create a national gun registry built around an enhanced background check, almost all of the Blue Dog Democrats who had been endorsed by the NRA voted for it. Will the NRA ever learn anything? I won’t believe them ever again until I read they have changed their rules. They also had a chance in 2010 of removing Nevada Senator Harry Reid as Majority Leader if only they had thrown their support behind NRA Life Member and Republican candidate Sharron Angle. Instead, they gave Harry Reid a lot of good publicity but chose to endorse no one in the Nevada race that year. The NRA knows a lot about firearms but not too much about politicians.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Glenn Beck Furious Over FCC Media Proposal

Hat Tip: BB

From Rush:


The FCC announced this afternoon they would not be going thru with the monitors. However, this is not dead. It will come back under a different name, in a different way. It’s coming and so is Net Neutrality.

Krauthammer: ‘If Government Brought Any Coffee Into FOX, I’d Get A Taster Before I’d Touch It’ – Fox Nation

HERO: This FCC Commissioner Blew the Whistle on The FCC’s Study of Newsrooms

The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom


Dear beautiful America, please, stop moving Forward

Guest post by Aleksey
Doug Ross @ Journal

Upon migrating to the United States many years ago, I embraced my new home and left the past behind. Never could I imagine that, at some point, that past would become relevant.

But now, I am compelled to talk about it again.

In the USSR, we had state-controlled media which shaped the narrative entirely.

Our founder, Vladimir Lenin, was portrayed as a noble, charismatic, and smart man — the champion of the underdog (the working class), the seeker of equality, defeater of the rich. The humble man with common ideas who was destined for greatness.

Lenin peered at us intently from textbooks and walls. His was the face behind the good intentions that shaped our everyday life.

As a kid, I was largely shielded by my family — they took the brunt of “adult tasks” in everyday life. They bribed officials to accomplish the most basic of things, they conserved every kopek and piece of bread, they got me the rare medicines I needed, all through means I didn’t dare fathom.

Of course, there was nothing special about those medicines, those favors, or anything else that took such effort to obtain — in America, you can just go out and get it in a corner store. In the Soviet Union, the word “deficit” was commonly used in everyday language.

“This and this product are in deficit.” This meant that you couldn’t buy them. Maybe for the next three months or maybe forever, unless someone was bribed or the product was obtained via the black market, friends, or contraband. Fruits and vegetables had their “seasons” when they made an appearance in local stores — we didn’t have advanced technology like hydroponic farms.

Instead, adults were herded into collective farms, which were the Soviet antithesis of family — or individual-owned farms. Under cheerful banners of “accomplishing a five-year plan in four,” they usually underperformed and the bureaucrats responsible faked the numbers, which moved up the chain of command.

“Deficit.” I heard this term a lot, as I stood in long lines for bread and milk in stores with cheerfully generic names like “Progress” or “Sunrise.”

The lines resembled those formed by hipsters in America lining up for the sale of the next iPhone model — except we stood in them every day.

As much as my family shielded me from their troubles, they couldn’t protect me from factors beyond their control. They couldn’t raise my level of living above theirs. And they certainly couldn’t get me anesthetics for dental visits. Sitting in the gray, sterile corridor for two hours, hearing the sobbing of the kids already in the dental chair as their teeth were drilled without anesthetics, water, or suction, and knowing that your turn was coming — some handled it better than others.

In the local clinic, needles were resterilized and reused. Ambulances took three hours to arrive, if they came at all. That was our “free” healthcare.

We also lived in a “free” apartment, which was suffocatingly small by American standards, and it took years, if not decades, for an average couple to obtain such a place. Usually, several generations of a family lived under one roof until the government bestowed upon its citizens another gray five- to sixteen-story building that looked just like its gray neighbor and had the same exact green-painted swings in the yard.

Since almost nobody had cars, people could rarely afford to move to another city or republic.

Public transportation, which we all had to use, consisted of cranky people squeezed tightly like sardines inside a rusty box on wheels. Despite that, when I was eight, I wanted to be a trolley bus driver. Partially because of all the buttons he flipped to open and close doors, but mostly because there was a wall between him and the sardine can.

The walls in Soviet apartments were poorly insulated from noise and cold. Therefore, wall carpets were dominant in Soviet culture. They all looked similar, usually colored red with abstract, curving patterns.

Soviet factories were state-controlled. Variety was not a concept. The color red was all over the place — it garnished the banners hanging off the sides of gray five-story buildings, with profiles of Lenin, Marx, and Engels fluttering lightly in the wind, proclaiming that “Marxism-Leninism is the symbol of our times.” Others stated, “Forward toward Communism!”

Red was splattered on our classroom walls and our school uniforms.

In grade school, you became an “Octyabronok” (named after the October 1917 revolution) and wore a Lenin-faced star on your lapel. You got a free newspaper, the “Young Leninist.” Later, you became a “Pioneer” and swapped the star for a red tie. After that, you moved on to “Komsomol” (All-Union Leninist Young Communist League). Those who did not follow the groupthink enough to make it to “Komsomol” lost access to crucial resources and careers later in life.

I grew up with no concept of “brands.” If I wanted to get that shoddy water pistol that suddenly appeared in a store, and my parents let me, then that was the water pistol. It broke in two weeks, of course.

Bread in the stores was the bread. Milk was the milk. Kolbasa was the kolbasa. Everything was manufactured by the state to provide the minimum required survivability, and minimum expected functionality. Improvements in design and the manufacturing process did not exist.

When I came to America and laid down on an American bed, it struck me that it was more comfortable than any bed I’d ever experienced. It was the result of evolving design oriented toward customer satisfaction — a concept alien to my former homeland.

The two famous brands of Soviet cars, Zaporozhets and Moskvich (both named after their places of origin), just… existed. We didn’t really have Zaporozhets 1980 followed by a new and improved Zaporozhets 1981 — now with power steering! No such thing. It was a car, and it required no further improvement. There was no customer demand, because people were poor, the state-controlled prices were very high, and product evolution crawled at snail’s pace.

The very concept of “customer convenience” did not exist. We didn’t have bottles sculpted to fit the shape of your hand, nor did we have polite cashiers, for they were under no obligation to please anyone — they worked for the state. The abacus was still in common use in our stores while American stores had electric change machines, credit card readers, and sliding doors.

Like most things, clothes were in “deficit” and thus traveled from older to younger siblings in every family over time. Broken things weren’t thrown away but repaired.

Our giant lamp television was carried in the family since about the time I was born. It received three channels — all State-controlled. On our evening news program, the Chernobyl disaster announcement was calm and lasted fifteen seconds. Our state papers, such as Pravda and Izvestia, were not read but used as invaluable sources of free toilet paper. This is not a joke.

Our propaganda put the big focus on the noble working class and how there was no such thing as a “lower” profession. Much emphasis was made on the nobility of simple working man, and certainly there is something to that.

But when the janitor receives roughly the same salary as a teacher who is paid roughly the same as a surgeon who is paid roughly the same as a programmer, all of them surrounded by peers who get paid the same no matter how well or poorly they perform, some people start carrying the team, and then they just give up. Everyone performs poorly in the end.

It was painfully obvious to everyone just how low the desire of the average person is to produce goods for other people. Without competition or opportunity to get ahead, with the state controlling production and paying equal salaries to workers regardless of their contributions, we had no concept of abundance.

With our “free” services, we regularly experienced water and electrical outages and sometimes went to a nearby forest to get water. Once you fill that bathtub with water, you can’t use it for anything else.

The first time I entered an American food market at the age of seventeen, I froze.

Older Soviets who visited American stores for the first time, got hit harder — all the lies they were taught from childhood through the decades of their lives — until that last moment, they expected them to be at least partially true.

Sure, they heard stories from overseas, but come on, those were just the Potemkin villages, mirages created to make the Soviets jealous. How can one imagine the unimaginable?

“They told us in Odessa, that in San Francisco it’s hard to find milk.”

This is the typical Soviet mentality, and they were used to it, and they bought into it, and then they entered that American supermarket and saw the rows upon rows of milk of different brands and kinds and fat percentages.

This is where some have been known to cry. It is the realization that their lives were stolen from them by the regime. A realization of what could’ve been, if they had been lucky enough to be born in this place which, from everything they knew, could not possibly exist.

I now live in Northern California, in the heart of the Bay Area, thousands of miles away from my homeland.

And yet the poison of Soviet propaganda seeps through college dorms just as it did in Soviet classrooms.

Stop a random youth on the street and you’ll find out what he thinks about capitalism (bad!) and communism/socialism (good!). Their favorite news programs are the “Daily Show” and the “Colbert Report,” where comedians reinforce their brainwashing via short, catchy clips.

Walk through Berkeley and you will see wall graffiti of the same hammer and sickle that adorned the big red flags of the Soviet era.

This doesn’t extend to just youths. People of all ages, even acquaintances that I otherwise respect and admire, are like this. They support the “progressive” leader Barack Obama, worship the nanny state, and believe in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

They badmouth capitalism and complain that only one percent of the American population has the “American dream.” They buy into the class warfare rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. They want artificially raised minimum wage, government handouts, and believe that Obamacare is the greatest thing since the invention of pockets.

I look at them and the red ties materialize, familiarly, around their necks.

There are “academic” speakers now who advocate that having too many choices is “bad for you.” Too stressful to choose, you see.

Living in the Soviet Union, being bombarded with similar nonsense, we had nothing to contradict it. When we walked outside the school, the everyday reality had no traces of the wealth afforded by capitalism. We lived in the grayness and that grayness was all there was.

Americans leave school to go home and they drop by a mall to buy something from an incredible selection of wealth and choice afforded by capitalism. They drop by a small corner store, which could probably feed a savvy Soviet village for a month (dog food is food, too, you know), and they pick up some “entertainment food” that did not exist in the USSR, in quantities that weren’t affordable for an average Soviet family.

Then they go home and write essays on their expensive iPads about how they don’t have the American Dream.

Now, most American news sources are no different than Pravda and Izvestia. Now, the government used the IRS to stifle political opposition. Now, ObamaCare is a wealth redistribution platform disguised as a common good. Now, Obama is being portrayed in academia and the media alike as a charismatic, messianic, “progressive” figure, fighting for the “underdog.” He would feel right at home as the General Secretary of the Communist Party. Now, Obama Youths are me, from decades ago. Leninist academia has had its way with them. Now, just like Soviet leaders, American leaders give lip-service to “social justice” while stocking up on personal wealth for their families.

There’s nothing new under the sun. I’m hardly the only ex-Soviet to point out the parallels. But some things matter enough to bear repeating.

Dear beautiful America, please, stop moving Forward.

Hat tip: BadBlue News


RINO Season Opens — All Together Now — Ready-Aim-Fire!

By: Dick Manasseri

RINO Season Opens–All Together Now–Ready-Aim-Fire!

RINO Hunt #1 — March 4th Texas Primary
32nd Congressional District

Constitutionalist Katrina Pierson vs. RINO Pete Sessions

Constitutionalists across the country need to start right now, pulling the trigger in unison, taking down RINOs in strategic winnable races like TX-32 (just days away). Early wins will build the momentum needed to take down the Mega-RINOs like McConnell on May 20th.

How about each one of us take the same concentrated action and fire our ammo ($$ and time) at the same RINO race each week to make sure our shots for freedom hit the bullseye and actually take down the targeted RINO?

Rush Limbaugh reminds us that the Tea Party and other Constitutionalists are directly under attack from the RINOs.

Pete Sessions is a RINO:
Blocked the Benghazi Investigation
Protected funding for Obamacare
Supports Amnesty
10 Bad Votes per FreedomWorks

Glenn Beck sees Pete Sessions as a RINO that, like McConnell, must be defeated; so he recently took the time to introduce Katrina to his audience.

Katrina Pierson is a real Constitutionalist endorsed by Palin, Cruz (Father & Son), Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, TX Right to Life and more:

  • Sarah Palin: “Let’s start in Texas. …Katrina Pierson is an emerging leader and important voice for the future of the grassroots conservative movement.”

  • Ted Cruz: “Katrina Pierson is an utterly fearless principled conservative.”

  • Rafael Cruz: “She’s a strict constitutionalist. She’s a strong conservative and she wants to do what’s right.”

  • Tea Party Express Chair, Amy Kremer: “Katrina Pierson and her story are what the Republican Party desperately needs.”

The time for concerted action is now, Right Now!

Will you join us and repeat the Ted Cruz “TX Miracle?” Voters from across the country can take down John Boehner’s ally Pete Session by investing in the victory of Katrina Pierson now with just 10 days to go.

Donate! Volunteer!

Watch this space for the next RINO Hunt Call-to-Concerted-Action!

Cruz Coalition on Facebook

Cruz Coalition on Twitter


The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 02/21/14

The Watcher’s Council

Obama ‘Sub Par’ Posters: True Counter-Culture in Action

Our hearts and prayers go to those in the Ukraine and Venezuela fighting for their freedoms and their lives against tyrants and Communism… The military has been sent into both places now and the black boot of tyranny is coming down.

The State vs The People: Kiev’s Independence Square: Before & After

Venezuelan anti-government students light a fire during clashes with riot policemen in Caracas on February 20, 2014.

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

Even taking into consideration the normal high level of quality in both the Council and Non-Council entries, this was a tough call with some exceptional pieces to choose from, and the close vote tallies reflects it.

“There is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a people’s safety and greatness.” – President Grover Cleveland

“I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.” – Margaret Thatcher

“Use your enemy’s hand to catch a snake.” – Persian Proverb

This week’s winner, The Noisy Room’s Iran and the New Axis of Evil, looks at the alliance between Iran and Russia and the danger it poses for America. Here’s a slice:

For now we see through a glass, darkly the liaison between Russia and Iran that I have written at length on. As the faux interim nuclear deal between Iran and the world takes effect, Iran is cozying up to Mother Russia and suggesting joint military exercises. How long do we let this progress before America takes steps to stop the New Axis of Evil from crippling us permanently with an EMP, cyber attack or worse?

Middle East officials are stating that the joint naval exercises would take place in May. According to Aaron Klein of WND, Russia has not accepted yet and is still pondering the offer. Right. Do you really think that Russia will rebuff their proxy Iran? Iran and Russia have already agreed to expand ties.

Meanwhile, we move the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman outside of the Gulf as a gesture of goodwill. This is so the bogus interim nuclear agreement with Tehran can kick in. I’ve got a gesture or two for Iran, for Russia, for China and heck, for Obama… We’re opening our borders and allowing terrorists and spies into the US, we move our battleships away from the enemy to placate them, our country is sharing our personal data and secrets with Russia and the list goes on and on concerning actions that look clearly to me as outright attempts to aid our enemies and to help them bring us to our knees as a nation. It’s like watching Jurassic Park and just knowing the goat is going to get eaten by Trex, but you can’t look away. Hint: we’re the goat.

A week ago, I wrote about Iran’s ships headed towards US maritime borders:

The fleet, which consists of a destroyer and a helicopter-carrying supply ship, shoved off last month from the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas. The ships are carrying some 30 navy academy cadets, supposedly for training, along with their regular crews. Instead of a three hour cruise, these sailors are on a three-month mission. This move is in response to the US naval deployments near its own coastlines. Emboldened by a weak US President and a weakened super power in general, the Iranians are poking the badger with no expectation of the Americans defending themselves. Why should they worry? It’s nukes and EMPs away and the most Obama would do is hit the golf course one more time.

And just as I predicted, what does Obama do? He hits the golf course – again. The EMP threat by this little band of merry Jihadists is not a laughing matter and I am not the only one warning people that the Iranians are coming:

Iran’s surprising decision to move warships off the Atlantic coast poses a potential catastrophic threat to America from a nuclear or electromagnetic pulse attack, according to an expert who foresaw Iran’s move.

Peter Pry, an expert on EMP attacks, said the ships are likely a dry run for a future attack, a maneuver meant to lull Washington into complacency while also embarrassing President Obama and his effort to convince Tehran to give up production of a nuclear bomb in return for a lifting of some economic sanctions.

“Yes, patrols by the Iranian Navy off our coasts could pose threat of a surprise EMP attack,” said Pry, who with others such as former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, has convinced several state legislatures to take moves to harden their electric and energy grids from EMP attack because Washington won’t.

Pry said the ships are probably conducting a test for a future visit from an Iranian freighter that would launch the attack.


“I and my colleagues, including Reza Kahlili, who warned six months ago that these Iranian patrols were coming, think it more likely Iran would make an EMP attack by launching a missile off a freighter, so they could do the deed anonymously, and escape retaliation,” Pry explained.

“Iran has demonstrated the capability to launch a missile off a freighter. Iran has also purchased Russia’s Club-K missile system. The Club-K is a complete missile launch system, disguised to look like a shipping container, that could convert any freighter into a missile launch platform. The Club-K, if armed with a nuclear warhead, could be used to execute an EMP attack.”

Woolsey recently told Secrets that Iran was just months away from finishing production of their first nuclear bomb.

He also has joined with Pry and others, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, in warning about a nuclear blast in the atmosphere that would knock out electric transformers and facilities in the mid-Atlantic.

And we just sit here and watch like none of this is real — like we are untouchable. Except we’re not and our enemies are getting ready not to just reach out and touch us, but clobber us. We have let the enemies within and without grow strong and emboldened, while we dither weakly and whine that we can’t do anything because our politicians won’t let us. This is our country, our government, our military… We better man up and force action here or get ready to face a new dark age.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was the Doug Ross@Journal’s >Dear beautiful America, please, stop moving Forward (Guest Post by Aleksey), submitted by Rhymes with Right. It’s a moving plea from someone who has already seen where we’re headed if we don’t change course and begs us to do so for our freedom’s sake.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Simply Jews was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in… don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


How Are Socialism, Communism and Fascism All the Same?

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

G. Edward Griffin does an excellent job in explaining a very important connection between socialism, communism and fascism — one that is routinely overlooked and misunderstood, in my humble opinion.

The often heard mantra from the left-side of the political spectrum, that fascism is a right-wing ideology, while communism-socialism is considered a left-wing philosophy, never made much sense to me.

Consider this article from 1925 that appeared in an edition of the New York Times from none other than Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the infamous propaganda minister of The Third Reich:

(Screencap credits: sovietstory.com)

(Screencap credits: sovietstory.com)

Let’s just be sure we are clear on what the previous screen capture shows from The New York Times newspaper. Dr. Joseph Geobbel’s allegedly said:

“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 …”

Now, if we carefully read the last part of Goebbel’s quote, we read something that flies in the face of what most Marxist educators teach. So I’ll include the entire quote below, my emphasis:

“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.”

— Joseph Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels (Credits: Bundesarchiv)

Well … wait a minute! (I hear the devoted Marxist saying right now), I thought socialism in Germany, at this time, was just a popular movement with the German people? Au contraire, comrade, hence the “whizzing beer glasses.”

Germans hated communists and Bolsheviks, and the like, at this time. Not surprisingly, early Hitlerite propaganda started to remove any glowing references to communism or Bolshevism. It was intensely unpopular with many Germans in the 1920-30′s.

It is worth noting, that when Adolf Hitler was still in the German Army, he was assigned the task of penetrating left-wing groups. It was one group, in particular, The German Workers Party, that Adolf Hitler eventually took over. This was the auspicious beginnings and original core of the group of people who ominously became the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (National Socialist German Workers Party), which are typically referred to as the Nazis.

The whole notion that there really isn’t a plug nickel’s worth of difference between fascism and communism is an assertion that will send your friendly, resident socialist into an apoplectic fit (at least in my experience). But what is the common link between socialism, fascism, communism, and every other ism known to mankind? Collectivism–the religion of the “common greater good,” the group over the individual, the state over the slave, the tyrant over the subjects. It is the wiping out of individualism, which is anathema to the collectivist.

Benito “Il Duce” Mussolini

And often times, this is the point where the collectivist attempts to divert the individualist into their swamp of isms, particularity if trained in some of our more prestigious institutes of higher leftist learning like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc.–The Eastern Establishment.

The “mission statement” of ideologies like socialism and communism — meaning: a borderless and classless world, where all will be one, living in perfect harmony, surrounded with endless abundance, where all wants and needs are provided for by the state (Nirvana, Heaven on Earth, Workers’ Paradise, Utopia, etc.) – exposes a rather glaring contradiction, when one considers the tactics and processes used in order to bring about a collectivist society.

Collectivism is riddled with factionalism. Ironically, creating factions and splitting apart their opponents is one of the tactics used by collectivists to bring about collectivism … for the alleged purpose of creating a classless society of “equality and perfect harmony.” The purposeful agitation and creation of conflict between groups of people forms the core political strategy for our radical leftist friends. Yet, I don’t think a proud collectivist can deny the existence of the many layers and flavors often attributed to socialist and communist ideologies, and systems.

When discussing the philosophy and history of collectivism in the academic setting, I have often been led on an endless and circuitous journey into the magical world of Ism by some of my esteemed instructors and fellow students. For example, under the umbrella of collectivism, we have communism, socialism and fascism. But, like one devoted Marxist I met in college years ago, with spittle flying from his lips, gently admonished me by saying, “DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FLAVORS OF COMMUNISM THERE ARE?!”

Obviously, he was very correct. There are so many flavors of communist ideology–like Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, Marxist-Leninism, Eurocommunism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Humanism, Prachanda Path, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, etc. Within the seemingly infinite types of communism, you have numerous factions of individuals–like Stalinists, Marxists, Socialists, Lovestonites, Trotskyites, Browderites, etc.

Dr. Bella Dodd

This is where we start going around in circles, and the contradictions start piling up thick, in my opinion. According to Dr. Bella Dodd, communist leaders never call publicly proclaim communism, but rather socialism. Of course there are the various flavors of socialism — namely, National Socialism, Welfare Socialism, World Socialism, Economic Socialism, Economic Democracy, Social-Democracy, Global Governance, etc.

Ivor Thomas, a journalist and author who served eight years as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the British Labour Party, concluded, in his book The Socialist Tragedy (1951), socialism and communism have three identical aims: ownership, income, and planning. He wrote, my emphasis:


“We have now reached the conclusion that a fully socialist state, just like a fully communist state, would have the following characteristics:

“There would be no private ownership, but only public ownership and control, which in practice usually means state ownership and always means state control, of the land with its ores and minerals, the mines and quarries, the farms, works, mills and factories with their equipment, the transport systems, and the banks.

“No individual income would be derived from rent, interest or profit, but the only source of individual income would be wages and salaries, possibly professional fess, and state payments (pensions and allowances).

“All the economic activities of the country would be consciously planned by a central planning authority.

“These common features of socialism and communism are so all-embracing, and so many consequences flow from them, that we may feel tempted at this point without further ado to declare that a fully socialist state will not differ from a fully communist state. If we want a common name for socialism and communism there is not an inapt term in collectivism….

Oh, but we are not done yet! This brings us to the present day, featuring even more stratification in the communist layers. Not only do we have the aforementioned variations of communism, i.e. socialism, but we now have new flavors–like Progressivism, Liberalism, Communitarianism, Alinskyism, etc., and so-called “Non-Marxist Communism“ like Christian Communism (see Liberation Theology) and Anarchist Communism (Anarcho-Syndicalism).

By the way, hero of the radical left, Noam Chomsky, identifies himself as an “anarcho-syndicalist.”

The attempt of the anarchist-communists to divorce themselves from Karl Marx et al. is rather laughable, since it all falls under the umbrella of collectivism, in my opinion. I do understand the distinction our anarchic-syndicalist comrades are trying to make–mainly, that the implementation of collectivism will not be accomplished via communist parties, but rather by mass organizations like labor unions, tax-exempt foundations and large corporations that fund and promote collectivist policies via the Democratic Party and the Progressive Congressional Caucus.

But I will have to take exception with the syndicalists. It was V. I. Lenin who wrote the labor unions are “the transmission belts from the Communist Party to the masses.” Labor unions are by far the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. So, I think a more academically accurate description of the anarcho-syndicalist would be a Marxist-Leninist — a communist who does not simply theorize about socialism, but puts it into practice.

Granted, even at this point in the scholarly debate, the lumping of fascism and socialism together is just too much for the devoted socialist or democrat to bear (not to mention the “useful idiots”). But I’m certainly not the only one who has posited socialism and fascism are practically indistinguishable from one another … only in the sense that Hitler’s form of socialism was national, while Soviet communism focuses on the international. But this alleged distinction goes down in flames when one considers that Hitler’s ultimate aim was world domination. I guess I might call that “international” in scope as well. But that’s just me.

Via Democratic Peace Blog:

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

See also his chapter 12: “The Socialist Roots of Naziism.”

Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:

There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.

Another objection to the claim that fascism and communism only differ in minor ways is the very real historical fact that Hitler crushed both the communists and the labor unions in Germany. Well, Hitler eventually killed his own people, as did Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Hitler simply co-opted left-wing groups and labor unions to facilitate his own rise to power; and then he clamped down with an iron fist, eliminating anything and anyone who stood in his way.

Joseph Stalin behaved in a similar fashion, even having completely innocent people executed, for the express purpose of instilling fear and terror into the populace and his inner-circle, and to demonstrate his ruthlessness to anyone who would dare threaten or challenge his authority as a Supreme Leader. As both Hitler and Stalin assumed more power, it became quite dangerous and precarious for those within the inner-circles of both merciless tyrants, proving deadly for some, if not many.

German and Soviet troops at the “Border of Peace,” Poland, 1939

Furthermore, the Marxist votary is not fond of facing the historical fact of the close collusion of Hitler and Stalin–such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (also known as the Non-Aggression Pact). The treaty permitted the trade of oil and material between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, prior to the Nazis invading the Soviet Union in 1941. Stalin literally helped Adolf Hitler build his war machine, and then was stunned and shocked when Hitler attacked Mother Russia. Additionally, during the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, half of Poland was turned over to the Soviets per agreement with Germany.

But even though I may explain all of this to a devout communist-socialist, some will still exclaim that Hitler just co-opted socialism, claiming it was a “popular movement” among the German people, prior to Der Fuerher’s creation of the fascist, Nazi state, i.e. National Socialism. Well, at this point, my only answer to such a dogmatic stance would be … you must have missed the “whizzing beer glasses” part.


Thomas, I. (1951). The Socialist Tragedy. New York, NY. Macmillon Publishers.

Loudon, T. (2011). Barack Obama and the Enemies Within. Las Vegas, NV. Pacific Freedom Foundation.

Snore, E. (Director). (2008). The Soviet Story [Documentary]. European Parliament. UEN Group. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udMOkD_nJSM

Huckabee, B. (Director). (2005). Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism [Documentary]. USA. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uCqAHW0bw

Griffin, G. E. (2013, September 8). How Socialism, Communism, Fascism Are All the Same [Speech]. Fatima, Italy. YouTube. Retreived from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=005cahIsSXE

Dodd, B. (1954). School of Darkness. New York, NY. P.J. Kenedy & Sons. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/8634527/Bella-Dodd-School-of-Darkness

Rummel, R. (2005, August 22). Hitler Was a Socialist, (and Not a Right Wing Conservative). (2005, August 22) [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/