Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Once socialism is implemented it is Marxist in theory as well as practice and falls right into the hands of globalist manipulation. There is no such thing as “national” socialism.

All socialism is Marxist socialism, and it is wrong.

The only real alternative to government control is the exchange of made value for made value (not value for debt, not “monetary reserve” for value, value for value in worth as well as in risk) between equals and that requires a monetary system that is based on the nation’s values, not the globalist exchange rate.

Trending: Obama: The Most Corrupt and America-Hating President in U.S. History

All totalitarian systems are explained by Marx’s theory. Marx set the right against the left. National Socialism is fascism, a system of crony capitalism protecting large private property from competition by government. Marx sets one form of totalitarianism (fascism) against another (communism) to give people ruled by government the “feeling” of choice. But both are simply alternate forms of totalitarianism.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?

  • Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Communism is a system of full government control of all large collectives. Marx’s system sets both large collectives against each other to be financed and controlled by private debt.

This is what the Rothschilds have done for centuries. Pit one collective against the other and financed both sides. That’s also how they win wars, they pit one nation against the other and finance both sides. That is now their plan for pitting the nationalism of NK against the nationalism of the US.

But patriotism does not have to be supported by the socialism of a government that promotes crony capitalism.

Germany did not win Hitler’s wars. The global usurers did. The German people did not benefit from Germany’s prosperity. The global usurers did. These left Germany with huge debt, without an identity, without pride, and susceptible to such things Merkel, cultural Marxism and Islam. These things were unthinkable in Germany prior to socialism.

During WWII the Rothschilds funded all sides as well as the concentration camps, the gas chambers and the “ovens.” Despite detractors calling it “a conspiracy theory” there are rumors that Hitler was a direct, albeit illegitimate descendant of the Rothschilds. http://www.bibliotecapleyad… and much of his hatred was based on his desire to shake off that lineage.

Hitler invaded other countries to try to fund the war. He was also funded, in part, by Ford, GE, and Standard Oil, all closely tied to the Rothschilds. Neo nazis point up the fact that Hitler was the only ruler to jail a Rothschild. Hitler may have jailed a Rothschild, but other leaders have indicted them. However the Rothschilds enabled other nations to apply their weapons to Hitler’s Germany to destroy him, because he lacked the one thing necessary to destroy the Rothschilds — allies in other nations that had the same monetary plan. And Hitlers monetary plan was also flawed in that it depended on labor and not the free market or private property.

Capitalism is an economic concept, not a political concept. Any tie between capitalism and government makes a fascist country, which is the same as crony capitalism.

Hitler’s plan for national prosperity was based on an individual, work based, currency, which he based on work units. Such a plan ignores property, legacy, ownership,entrepreneurial ability, creativity and much of the free market. Further, Hitler did not try to make allies to adopt the same monetary system. He was forced to subdue them by war and because they did not share the same monetary system he was unable to finance both sides of the wars. But the Rothschilds were.

Hitler did not succeed in changing the world. He depended on the internal mechanisms of National Socialism to build his economy. Because the monetary system was controlled by the Rothschilds, internal prosperity could not translate internationally into trade with other countries.

For effective change, the financial system must be replaced with something that others can and will agree upon, internationally. It must also include property, legacy and entrepreneural ability, because all of these count in a free market.

Hitler didn’t or couldn’t do it. Free trade between equals is necessary and National Socialism did not provide it. National socialism depended on Government direction, and control instead of the free market. That is consistent with Marxist theory.

Hitler’s national socialism failed because it was socialism. Socialism is flawed in theory so regardless of how it is implemented the flaws in the theory will lead to failure in the practice.

Critics argue that Hitler didn’t invade countries to fund the war, but that war was “forced upon him, and he tried to make peace several times.” If true, he was quite unsuccessful as a peacemaker but quite expansive as a warmonger.

If everyone, including businesses, do what is best for the state, they do not do what is best individually. There is no freedom, only Crony Capitalism which only leads to preference and pull, never equality in law.

Marx’s socialism explains both Hitler’s fascism and FDR’s New Deal. All forms of socialism will eventually lead to destruction because the theory itself is flawed regardless of how it is implemented because socialism in a basic axiom is flawed. No system that uses it will succeed because it is based on a system that must lead to a downward spiral in all aspects of civilization.

Socialism is wrong because uses government force to lead the economy, and that leads to the elimination of rights which leads to everything else that is wrong with society.

Marxism is inclusive to any form of government that leads the economy ie. totalitarian forms of government. I believe government should protect the individual rights of citizens. That is not anarchy, that is freedom. We turn over force to government to protect our rights so that there is a way to settle disputes without individual vengeance which is the hallmark of anarchy.

But once government no longer protects the rights of citizens and instead interferes with free trade among equals, it becomes tyranny. Tyranny usurps the individual rights of citizens instead of protecting these rights. It takes instead of serves.

That puts government above the people and thus above justice and therefore above individual rights.

There can never be complete consonance between the individual and the collective. Because of the disagreement within, there is never complete consonance on common unifiers, one can only seek the best of the best, through debate, and never compromise.

Sometimes monarchies are Marxist. The theory of Marxism cuts across time and space forward or backward, just as any theory. But Marxism or “scientific socialism” is a social theory based on a contradiction (the paradox of Hegel). The contradiction is deadly.

There can be NO common unifiers between right and wrong. Any compromise between good and bad inevitably leads to the worsening of the best, by making the average between good and bad “ideal.”

“Common unifiers” are subject to interpretation as to which are good and which are bad. This subjectivity prevents rule of law and makes rule by man. Rights are then no longer absolute, but subject to interpretation by the ruler, be it a dictator, king, politburo, or “democracy.” The result is always compromise between good and bad.

An example is “human rights” and “social justice.” Hitler may have been right but it was his opinion, and the next ruler could have had an opposite opinion. The next may have thought that debt was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that the idea of eugenics is to dumb down the population.

This should sound familiar, and it is one of the problems with Marxism.

Those that claim that “rights do not exist” are Marxist socialists, whether they admit it or not. These believe that rights are not natural, but built by man. These do not believe that life, liberty and property are innate. But they are. I also believe that rights are not unique to man, but are built, to some degree, into every living being. Living beings have an innate right to protect their life, their liberty and their property.

Marx is wrong in principle. I certainly do not believe that he is a “time traveler” any more than I believe that Newton was a time traveler. Yet I do tie Newton’s laws to every physical event of humanity. Whether people knew it or not they worked by Newton’s laws of physics on this planet. Same way totalitarian social power structures work with Marx.

The only “credit” I give to Marx is that he explains totalitarian systems in a consistent way, and that is because the entire concept of totalitarianism is wrong. It is wrong because it is opposed to individual rights.

If based on an error, a theory can be logically consistent, yet totally wrong.

The “inconvenient truth” that you are admitting is that you are a Marxist socialist through and through whether you choose to admit it or not. It is a clear conflict. Innate, individual rights, or man made privileges. Freedom requires innate rights for the individual. Slavery and tyranny is when government absconds with the innate rights of people then doles it out as if they were entitled to do so.

They are not. Rights, and the defense of rights, are born with the individual, and it is only when we elect rulers instead of servants that the relationship changes.

If you don’t believe that rights are innate, take a dog’s bone away from him and tell him “I’m the government. I give you your rights.” Rights are innate. If you don’t see it you’re not looking.

It is an argument that must be ignored by socialists because it can’t be debunked. The examples that will be given of government making “rights” will in fact be government’s attempts to usurp innate rights and turn them into government granted privileges so that they can invent new “rights” for “government approved” collectives.

Even a dog knows that he has a right to defend his bone. And he will. What stops the other dog or you from taking his bone is that he will defend it.

What keeps people from defending themselves, as I stated earlier is that they chose to delegate some of their defense to law, and government, if the government was able to use force to protect their rights. Law is the tool that man uses to protect his rights to avoid the messy anarchy of doing it himself.

A society does not dictate your rights. You have them, you delegate the work of defending them to those who would rather fight than produce. Thus the tribe has the tribal chief, who does very little except keep the peace within the tribe and wage war against other tribes.

That is the function of government in the essence, to keep the peace and protect the borders. And that is it. Government does not have the function of usurping the rights of its citizens, and when it does do that, it becomes the ruler and not the servant of its citizens.

Rights are innate. The protection of rights are delegated to keep a society together and prevent it from breaking out in internecine war. Rights are not given by government they are delegated to government by the individual. When government thinks that it is the owner of rights it becomes the tyrant.

That’s it. Government does not own its citizens. When the government serves the people, the citizens own the government. When the government rules despotically and tyrannically, the government makes the people serve them. That is what happens in all socialism. That is what was defined by Marx.

That is the reason why “national socialism” is Marxist socialism.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Herman Gazort

Prove everything. Don't rely on me or any "expert." Find truth for yourself. I will give you what I found and try to convince you with proof, information, example and a solid argument, but trust no one. Prove your truth for yourself, by yourself. That is how you can defend it.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Send this to a friend