The Revival of Nazism in Europe — It’s Not Just Racism [The Good Life]

[Originally published at]

An old specter is again haunting Europe — neo-fascist and neo-Nazi movements and political parties are returning to prominence.

This feature in Britain’s The Guardian notes an increase in attacks on Jews in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Further east and south Nazi-like parties are surging in the polls in countries like Hungary and Greece, as this New York Times piece reports, accompanied by their supporters’ many verbal assaults and physical beatings on immigrants from Asia and Africa.

It is all disgusting and disheartening. But there are serious forces at work that those of us who advocate freedom, individualism, and tolerance must grasp in order to be able to respond accurately and decisively.

Much of the commentary focuses on the racism. In Greece, for example, supporters of the Golden Dawn party, which now has elected members sitting in parliament, have expressed their desire to “rid the land of filth.”

More precisely, though, the commentary should focus on the ethnocentrism. The hostility sometimes targets individuals for their skin color, but more often it is focused on religion, nationality, and financial status, all of which cut across many racial categories. Seeing individuals as interchangeable members of racial groups is part of the problem, but treating individuals primarily as members of ethnic groups is another major part. Biological and cultural collectivism are both in play.

But much of the commentary, unfortunately, misses another huge part of the phenomenon. One hint of this is that the neo-fascist parties are typically labeled as “far right” or “hard right” parties, as the writers for The Guardian and The New York Times do. And this is where the widely-discredited left-right way of presenting the political spectrum and a lack of research get many commentators into trouble.

Take a look at this Golden Dawn manifesto, for example, as stated by one of its articulate advocates. Right there, in plain English and Greek, Point 8 states:

“The state should have control over private property so that it is not dangerous for the survival of the People or can manipulate them. The economy should be planned so that it serves the national policy and ensures the maximum self-sufficiency without dependence on international markets and control of any multinational companies.”

Packed into that are four key sub-points:
1. State control of private property.
2. A government-planned economy.
3. Isolation from international markets for capital, goods, and talent.
4. Foreign companies not allowed or subject to extra controls.

All of those are profoundly anti-capitalist and part of the long tradition of socialism — the other socialism, that is: National Socialism. As the manifesto’s authors put it in Point One, Golden Dawners are “opposed both to communist internationalism and universalism-liberalism.”

“National Socialism” of course takes us back to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and forces us to reflect on the lessons of history. That history is alive in Greece, as Golden Dawn supporters gave Hitler salutes and sang the Horst Wessel song outside the parliament in Athens, and as the #HitlerWasRight hashtag now enjoys lively Twitter usage. (And, parenthetically, as Hitler’s Mein Kampf was a best-seller in Turkey in 2005.)

A particular notion of human identity and a particular notion of economics are both important to national socialism. And according to its supporters, there are clear and important connections between the two. We might disagree, but to understand them we cannot ignore the persistence of that packaging and its continued popularity.

Go back to 1920 when the German Worker’s Party, as it was then called, and its leader Adolf Hitler announced their new program and name-change to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The NSDAP program listed 25 points: 14 of the 25 points itemize economically socialist demands. These include the nationalization of industries, the state-confiscation of lands, government-run welfare, retirement, education, and healthcare, the abolishing of charging interest and stock market speculation, and so on.

In speeches and pamphlets, Hitler and Goebbels regularly attacked free-market capitalism and endorsed socialism.

“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.” That’s Adolf Hitler in a 1927 speech.

“The worker in a capitalist state — and that is his deepest misfortune — is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.” That’s Joseph Goebbels in a 1932 pamphlet, with rhetoric inspired directly from one of his intellectual heroes, Karl Marx.

So, yes, the Nazis were racist and ethnocentrist, but they were also socialist. (Commercial advertisement: I discuss the socialism of national socialism in detail in my Nietzsche and the Nazis documentary and book.)

The same holds for the fascist variant. Benito Mussolini was an orthodox socialist of the Marxist variety from his teen years until his 30s. He joined the Italian Socialist party, joined with unions to organize the workers, and wrote pamphlets urging violent revolution.

World War I and a reading of Friedrich Nietzsche triggered Mussolini’s break with Marxism. He was struck by the intense nationalistic fervor the war wrought: Humans are moved most, Mussolini judged, not by workers-of-the-world class fellowship but by their ethnic identity as Italians, Germans, and Russians. So the socialist cause had to be recast in nationalistic terms to be successful in Italy.

What Mussolini took from his reading of Nietzsche was that socialism could not wait for the masses to rise up — it required an iron-willed leader to impose it top-down.

So Mussolini’s fascism was to be socialism for Italians, just as Hitler’s Nazism was to be socialism for Germans. Here’s Mussolini in 1932: “As regards the Liberal doctrines, the attitude of Fascism is one of absolute opposition both in the political and in the economical field” (my emphasis added).

Golden Dawn and the others are the ideological grandchildren of Hitler and Mussolini. There is an organic connection between the fascism/nazism of the early twentieth century and the fascism/nazism of the early twenty-first. Its advocates have always taken both the nationalism and the socialism seriously.

That is to say, they take collectivism seriously. Racism and ethnocentrism are collectivism applied to human identity: You are not primarily an individual, they say, but a member of a group. And socialism is collectivism applied to human action: You are not an economic free agent, it says, but an asset belonging to society. An effective response to the sorry phenomenon of neo-fascism in Europe must target both elements.

The antidote to collectivism is individualism: Individuals are primarily individuals, and they should judge themselves and others primarily in terms of their individual beliefs, character, and actions. And individuals are free agents who should be free to chart their own courses economically and in life generally.

* * *

Stephen Hicks is the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault and of Nietzsche and the Nazis. He blogs at For future columns on The Good Life, feel welcome to send your philosophical questions and moral dilemmas to him at

A Nazi graphic against capitalism, communism, homosexuality, and the Jews

The microscope reveals symbols for the British pound and the American dollar, and for Jews, communists, and homosexuals (triangles).

The poem at the bottom reads:

Infectious Germs

With his poison, the Jew destroys
The sluggish blood of weaker peoples;
So that a diagnosis arises,
Of swift degeneration.
With us, however, the case is different:
The blood is pure; we are healthy!

(From Der Stürmer, April 15, 1943, p. 1.)

My rough count for each symbol: British pound (5), American dollar (5), Jews (28), communists (5 hammer/sickles and 2 stars), and homosexuals (15).

(Does that mean the Nazis’ worst nightmare would be a gay Jewish capitalist?)

The poem and image are from “Metaphors, Fantasy & the Social Construction of Reality” by Richard A. Koenigsberg.
The image is from Robert Proctor’s Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis.

An earlier post on “Dr. Franz Hamburger and the Nazi collectivizing of reproduction.”
My fuller treatment of National Socialist medicine, sex, family, and eugenic policies is in Section 16 of Nietzsche and the Nazis.

Marxism = Nazism (another datum)

raf-133x100Baader-Meinhof was a far Left terrorist group, and one of the most violent, killing dozens and maiming more during the 1970s. Its “official” name was Rote Armee Fraktion (“Red Army Faction”). The logo shows a nice big socialist red star with a Heckler Koch submachine gun.

The group’s two most prominent members were Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof. Here is one of Meinhof’s explanations:

“Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were: money Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews … Anti-Semitism is really a hatred of capitalism.” [Source.]

marx-50x61Which is of course right out of Karl Marx: “What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money. Very well: then in emancipating itself from huckstering and money, and thus from real and practical Judaism, our age would emancipate itself.
“As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism—huckstering and its conditions—the Jew becomes impossible … The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.” [Source: “On the Jewish Question” (1843), in The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 48, 52.]

Which is what Hitler agreed with: “Today I will once more be a prophet. If the international Jewish financiers, inside and outside Europe, succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!” [Source: Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on January 30, 1939.]

goebbels-finger-50pxAs did Goebbels, in speaking of “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.” [Sources: Goebbels, 1929, quoted in Orlow 1969, p. 87 and Goebbels 1929, quoted in Mosse ed., 1966, p. 107.]

[Bonus question: Who said this?

“The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”

Answer: Joseph Goebbels, in his 1932 “Those Damned Nazis” pamphlet.]


Heidegger, anti-humanism, and the Left.
The Nietzsche and the Nazis page.

[Go to the main page.]

Summary of the five differences [Section 33 of Nietzsche and the Nazis]

[This is Section 33 of Nietzsche and the Nazis.]

33. Summary of the five differences

nn-front-cover-thumbWe have five significant partings of the ways between Nietzsche and the Nazis:

1. The Nazis believe the German Aryan to be racially superior—while Nietzsche believes that the superior types can be manifested in any racial type.

2. The Nazis believe contemporary German culture to be the highest and the best hope for the world—while Nietzsche holds contemporary German culture to be degenerate and to be infecting the rest of the world.

3. The Nazis are enthusiastically anti-Semitic—while Nietzsche sees anti-Semitism to be a moral sickness.

4. The Nazis hate all things Jewish—while Nietzsche praises the Jews for their toughness, their intelligence, and their sheer survival ability.

5. And finally, the Nazis see Christianity to be radically different and much superior to Judaism—while Nietzsche believes Judaism and Christianity to be essentially the same, with Christianity being in fact a worse and more dangerous variation of Judaism.

Those five points identify important differences and lend support to those interpreters of Nietzsche who complain about simplistic identifications of Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi philosopher.[106]

But there are equally important ways in which the Nazis were right on target in seeing Nietzsche as an intellectual ally.


[106] E.g., Walter Kaufmann 1954, p. 14.


[Return to the Nietzsche and the Nazis page. Go to the main page.]

On anti-Semitism: valid or disgusting?

[This is Section 30 of Nietzsche and the Nazis.]

30. On anti-Semitism: valid or disgusting?

derjude-100pxThe most repulsive sign of Germany’s decline, Nietzsche writes—and this may be initially surprising—is its hatred of the Jews, its virulent and almost-irrational anti-Semitism.

Nietzsche, we know, has said some harsh things about the Jews—but again, that is a set of issues that is easily misinterpreted, so we must be careful.

In connection with all of the negative things Nietzsche has said about the Jews, we must also note the following.

Nietzsche speaks of “the anti-Jewish stupidity” of the Germans.[92] He speaks of those psychologically disturbed individuals who are most consumed with self-hatred and envy. He uses the French word ressentiment to describe such nauseating individuals and says that such ressentiment is “studied most easily in anarchists and anti-Semites.”[93]

Pathological dishonesty is a symptom of such repulsive characters: “An antisemite certainly is not any more decent because he lies as a matter of principle.”[94]

So, to summarize: Nietzsche saves some of his most condemnatory language for Germans who hate Jews—he considers them to be liars, stupid, disturbed, self-hating pathological cases for psychologists with strong stomachs to study.

So it seems a reasonable inference that Nietzsche would have been disgusted by the Nazis, for the Nazis absorbed into their ideology the worst possible kind of anti-Semitism and pursued their anti-Jew policies almost to the point of self-destruction.[95]


[92] BGE 251.

[93] GM 2:11.

[94] A 55.

[95] Connecting here to the fascinating “What-if” history question: What if the Nazis had put the Holocaust on hold and devoted the vast resources used there instead to military purposes where needed in WWII?


[Return to the Nietzsche and the Nazis page. Go to the main page.]

The Holocaust [Section 19 of Nietzsche and the Nazis]

[This is Section 19 of Nietzsche and the Nazis.]

19. The Holocaust

In 1821, the German poet Heinrich Heine wrote, “Where books are burnt, in the end people are also burnt.” Heine was evoking the terrible era of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in which both people and books were burned regularly. But he was also making a philosophical point about the importance of ideas: books are about ideas, and ideas matter. We humans live what we believe, and if history teaches us anything it is that people can believe an incredible variety of things about themselves and the world they live in. Books store and transmit ideas, but it is in the minds of actual human beings that ideas live and are put into practice. Burning a book has some stopping power for an idea, but the only way to eliminate an idea fully is to eliminate the individuals who believe it. Dictators know this and they have no compunction about eliminating individuals.

The Nazis were not historically unique in this way—where they were unique is in the huge scale upon which they operated and the cold-bloodedly efficient ruthlessness with which they destroyed, killed, and burned human beings.

Eleven to twelve million human beings were exterminated during the Holocaust; approximately six million of them were Jews. We have all heard the numbers and the terrible stories before, and sometimes it is hard for them not to become just abstract statistics in our minds.

But just think of one person you know who lives a real life, has dreams, works hard, loves his or her family, has a quirky sense of humor, wants to travel the world. And then imagine that person taken away in the middle of the night, herded into a cattle car, stripped naked, experimented upon without anesthesia, slowly starved, gassed, shoved into an oven and burned to cinders. That is what the Nazis did to millions of human beings.

All of the theoretical ingredients of the National Socialist program that contributed to the Holocaust were announced publicly twenty years before the Holocaust began:

That human beings are divided into collective groups that shape their identity.

That those collective groups are in a life and death competitive struggle with each other.

That any tactic is legitimate in the war of competing groups.

That human beings are not individuals with their own lives to live but are servants of the state.

That the state should have total power over both the minds and bodies of its citizens and may dispose of them as it wishes.

That citizens should obey a higher authority and be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of their group, as defined by higher authority.

Additionally, during the 1930s the Nazis had experimented with most of the practical techniques that would be used in the Holocaust. In the 1930s, basic human rights to liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness were denied to millions as a matter of official policy. Many of those deemed undesirable had been forced to leave their homes and country. Those who stayed were subject to officially tolerated vandalism, beatings, and occasional murders. Some of those deemed unfit to reproduce had been sterilized. Some of those deemed unfit to live had been euthanized. As early as 1933, concentration camps had been established north of Berlin at Oranienburg and at Dachau in the south of Germany. More camps were added as the decade progressed.

And of course the vicious anti-Semitism of the Nazis and their sympathizers among millions of Germans had been common knowledge and common practice. It is appropriate that the classically-educated Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Culture, would express it most bluntly and clearly: “Certainly the Jew is also a Man, but the Flea is also an Animal.”[42]

So I return to our early question: How could Nazism happen?


[42] “Sicher ist der Jude auch ein Mann, aber der Floh ist auch ein Tier.”


[Return to the Nietzsche and the Nazis page. Go to the main page.]

Nationalism, not internationalism or cosmopolitanism [Section 9 of Nietzsche and the Nazis]

[This is Section 9 of Nietzsche and the Nazis.]

9. Nationalism, not internationalism or cosmopolitanism

This raises a question. So far the Nazi Program emphasizes that collectivism and socialism take priority over the individual—but which collective or social grouping has priority? Here the Nazi Program emphatically defines its collectivism and socialism in nationalistic terms. Individuals belong primarily to their ethnic and racial groups, those ethnic and racial groups giving them their core identities.

In the 1920 Program, seven of the twenty-five points speak directly to this issue. This issue is moderately complicated, because the Nazis have three enemies in mind against whom they want to distinguish themselves.

First they reject Marxist socialism or any socialism that puts economic groupings first. As much as the Nazis hate capitalism, they do not see the world as a battle between economic groups. The Marxists, as they see it, are obsessed with and too narrowly focused on money. To the Nazis money is only part of the battle—the major battle is between different racial and cultural groups with different biological histories, languages, values, laws, and religions. The battle is between Germans—with their particular biological inheritance and cultural history—against all other racial cultures.

Second, the Nazis reject cosmopolitanism, an ideal of Western liberals who believe that all humans are essentially the same wherever one travels in the world, and who believe that one should strive to be a citizen of the world, someone who can be at home anywhere.

The Nazis are nationalists, by contrast, and they reject any form of internationalism or cosmopolitanism.[16]

These themes explain the design of the Nazis’ swastika flag, as a symbolic integration of the socialism and the nationalism. Red is symbolic of socialism, white is symbolic of Nationalism, and the swastika is, according to Hitler, representative of the Aryan struggle for racial and cultural supremacy against those who are trying to destroy the Germans.

Consequently, in the Nazi Program of 1920 we find many points about German national identity and asserting German needs and goals.

Point 1 demands the unification of all ethnic Germans into a greater Germany.

Point 8 demands that immigration by non-Germans be halted and that all those who have immigrated recently be expelled from the country.

Public offices can be open only to citizens, and Point 3 defines citizenship in terms of the possession of German blood.

And the possession of German blood is defined carefully to reject a third target of the Nazis, those whom they hate even more than the Marxists or the liberal capitalists—and that is the Jews.[17]

Point 3 of the Program denies that Jews can be racial comrades of Germans, and this in combination with the other points in the Program effectively shuts the Jews out of German life.

A widely-used Nazi propaganda poster displayed a dragon with three heads wearing hats representing the communist, the international capitalist, and the Jew—the enemies the pure German warrior must defeat.

From the beginning of the Party in 1920, then, the pro-German nationalism and the strong anti-Semitic themes are, like the collectivism and the socialism, core Nazi themes.

mein-kampf-cover-100pxWhile the 1920 Program only mentions the Jews twice and seems to advocate only that the Jews be forced to leave Germany, within a few years the Nazi leadership had clearly begun to consider harsher measures. In 1925, for example, Hitler published Mein Kampf, a book that sold increasingly well as the Nazis rose to power. Hitler variously describes the Jews as an “octopus,” as “a parasite on the body of other nations,” as a “vampire,” as a “spider” that was “suck[ing] the blood out of the people’s pores,” and as having taken over the German state. To free the German Volk, consequently, Hitler calls for the “elimination of the existing Jewish one” and “the end of this parasite upon the nations.”[18]


[16] As Goebbels put it in his 1929 Michael, which sold well and went through seventeen editions: “Race is the matrix of all creative forces. Humanity—that is a mere supposition. Reality is only the Volk. Humanity is nothing but a multitude of peoples. A people is an organic entity” (Goebbels 1929, in Mosse ed., 1966, p. 106).

[17] Michael Mack’s German Idealism and the Jew (University of Chicago Press, 2003) is a study of the role German philosophers, historians, and other intellectuals, including Kant, Hegel, Marx, and others, played in developing and promoting anti-Semitism. See Appendix 3 for further quotations.

[18] Hitler 1925, pp. 623, 305, 327, 193, 453, and 327.


[Return to the Nietzsche and the Nazis page. Go to the main page.]

Appendix 3: Quotations on German anti-Semitism [Nietzsche and the Nazis]

[This is Appendix 3 of Nietzsche and the Nazis. Sources for the quotations are at the end of this post.]

Appendix 3: Quotations on German anti-Semitism

Martin Luther (1483-1546): “The Jews deserve to hang on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves.” And: “We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them.”[189]

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.”[190]

Kant: “The euthanasia of Judaism is the pure moral religion.”[191]

Johann Herder (1744-1803) quoting Kant from his lectures on practical philosophy: “Every coward is a liar; Jews, for example, not only in business, but also in common life.”[192]

Johann Fichte (1762-1814): “A mighty state stretches across almost all the nations of Europe, hostile in intent and in constant strife with all others … this is Jewry.” Also: “As for giving them [the Jews] civil rights, I for one see no remedy but that their heads should be all cut off in one night and replaced with others in which there would not be one single Jewish idea.”[193]

Ernst Moritz Arndt (1769-1860, professor at University of Bonn). Arndt was a poet, a historian, a deeply-religious Lutheran, and post-Kantian philosophical idealist whose hero was Arminius, who defeated the Romans in 9 C.E., thus saving the pure German soul from “contamination” by Latin races. According to Arndt, the Jews were “a rotten and degenerate race” that had “evil and worthless drives and desires.”[194]

G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831): Germany cannot assimilate the Jews because the Jews live an “animal existence that can only be secured at someone else’s expense.” Also: “Spirit alone recognizes spirit. They [the Jews] saw in Jesus only the man … for He was only one like themselves, and they felt themselves to be nothing. The Jewish multitude was bound to wreck His attempt to give them the consciousness of something divine, for faith in something divine, something great, cannot make its home in a dunghill.”[195]

Johann Fries (1773-1843), professor at University of Heidelberg: Fries was a Kantian logician, a disciple of Fichte, and influential among student nationalist societies. He called the Jews “rotten,” “worthless cheats,” “bloodsuckers,” a “diseased people,” argued they should be required to wear special signs indicating to others their race, and called for their “extermination.”[196]

Karl Marx (1818-1883): “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew—not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time. … We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development—to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed—has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry.”[197]

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): “I have not met a German yet who was well disposed toward the Jews; and however unconditionally all the cautious and politically-minded repudiated real anti-Semitism, even this caution and policy are not directed against the species of this feeling itself but only against its dangerous immoderation.”[198]

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) in 1925: “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” And in 1931: “The Jewish problem is a highly complex matter … our ideology is opposed to the interests of the Chosen Race in that we abominate their dance around the Golden Calf. For racial and financial reasons the Jews are basically opposed to communism.”[199]

Hitler: “Anti-Semitism is a useful revolutionary expedient.”[200]

Sidney Hook (1902-1989), a socialist philosopher: “anti-Semitism was rife in almost all varieties of socialism.”[201]


[189] Luther, quoted in Murphy 1999, p. 9.

[190] Kant, quoted in Weiss 1996, p. 67.

[191] Kant, Streit der Fakultaten, in Werke 11:321, quoted in Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism from Kant to Wagner (Princeton, 1990), p. 96.

[192] Herder, quoted in Mack, 2003, p. 5.

[193] Fichte, quoted in Weiss 1996, pp. 72 and 68.

[194] Arndt, quoted in Weiss 1996, p. 74.

[195] Hegel, quoted in Weiss 1996, pp. 67 and 66.

[196] Fries, quoted in Weiss 1996, p. 74.

[197] Marx, “On The Jewish Question,” Viewed September 17, 2007.

[198] Nietzsche, BGE 251.

[199] Hitler, in interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “Second Interview with Hitler,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews. New York: John Day Co., 1971, p. 86.

[200] Hitler, in Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction: Hitler Speaks, as quoted in George Seldes, The Great Thoughts. New York: Ballantine, p. 186.

[201] Hook, “Home Truths About Marx,” Commentary (September 1978) reprinted in Marxism and Beyond. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1983, p. 117.


[Return to the Nietzsche and the Nazis page. Go to the main page.]