Hitler’s Quest for the Holy Grail? New Book Explores Nazi Obsession With the Occult

Folklore, magicians and “monstrous science”? Nazis weren’t just evil – they were also obsessed with the supernatural under Hitler’s direction.

Eric Kurlander is a history professor who published “Hitler’s Monsters: A Supernatural History of the Third Reich” last year. He joined Glenn on today’s show to talk about how a fascination with bizarre pseudo-science and the supernatural fueled the Nazi conviction that Aryans were a master race.

“You’ve never heard any of this before, and it will give you … a new look on what allowed the Nazi movement to really grow,” Glenn said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: If you listen at all to the program, you know that I -- I read an awful lot. And I could go through -- I could go through two or three books a week, pretty easily. And I thought I would devour this book by Eric Kurlander. Hitler's Monsters. But this has taken me about a month to get through, mainly because I get sidetracked and start looking up the things that he is pointing out. Because you've never heard any of this before. And it will give you a couple of things. A new look on what allowed the Nazi movement to really grow. And grow deep roots for a while.

And also, the fact that, no, uh-uh. No. This was not a Christian movement, which a lot of people like to say, national socialist. Hitler was a Christian. No. Uh-uh. No. No, that was not a Christian movement.

The only guy that has done serious work on the supernatural history of the Third Reich is Eric Kurlander. And he joins us now. And I want to make sure that you understand that this isn't some guy who is just like, I just did some research. He has his PhD of Modern European History from Harvard. MA, Modern European History, Harvard. BA History. Is it Bowdoin College? I'm not familiar with that.

ERIC: Bowdoin. It's Belgium.

GLENN: Bowdoin. Sorry. Belgium, okay.

Well, welcome. I'm a huge fan of this book. And thank you for -- how many years did it take you to compile all of this?

ERIC: Well, thank you, Glenn for having me on. I really appreciate it. I watched the show many years ago. And Robert Gellately, one of my colleagues at Florida State University was on. I think on a book, comparing Hitler and Stalin to Mussolini.

And I appreciated the way you brought in academic historians into your conversation. So thank you for having me on.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

ERIC: And like many academic monographs, it took me a good eight to ten years from conception to going to archives and doing the due diligence. Reading other people's work and then finally starting writing, presenting it. And eventually deciding I had a critical mass of information to make my arguments.

And it doesn't mean that there isn't going to be a reviewer somewhere that is like, well, you could have looked at that or this. But as you point out, it's pretty dense already. I mean, at some point, you've got to say, you're ready.

GLENN: Enough.

ERIC: And get it out there.

GLENN: Yeah. There's a couple of things. And I want you to kind of lead this a bit. But I want to kind of ask you a couple of questions up front, that I think show the depth of your research.

One, you went and this fascinated me. You went to the detail of looking at books that Hitler had collected and had read. And you looked for things he underlined. And there were a couple of things that -- that you talked about. I could only find one of them now as I was looking this morning. But one that he underlined was horror always lurks at the bottom of the magical world. And everything holy is always mixed with horror.

This comes from a book called magic in 1923. He underlined this. And there was also another quote about something about a truly great man has to have the seeds of a demon inside of him.

ERIC: That he did underline the quotes from a page that he had underlined. But he hadn't underlined that particular quote. And I want to be very clear about this. Because this is an important methodological point. A fellow historian, a journalist who writes history, found the book in the library of Congress, where we have Hitler's library. And it seems to be underlined and annotated in the way that Hitler had annotated other books. We're not 100 percent certain that he read and annotated it. But he's the most likely suspect. So I use this book to represent a kind of cultural milieu in which he may have been thinking. Because it seems that he may have read it. And then I tie in other sources that talk about Hitler, seeming to be interested in parapsychology, magic. Even if he just thinks it's a way to manipulate people and not an actual force in the universe, he clearly was involved in that kind of milieu. That's the point I'm making. And it does appear that he underlined 66 passages in that book. But as someone who is not -- I'm not a specialist in handwriting. I don't know for certain that he did. I just want to put that out there.

GLENN: So, Eric, the other thing that I thought would be important to start with, to show the depth of your research was the -- I mean, you go back to the 1800s, and you're really trying to lay out the mindset of Germans at that time. And I was not aware -- and you talk a lot about the films that were made, the silent films in the teens and the 20s. And I went back and I I don't remember which one I watched, but I watched one of these silent films that you pointed out in your book. And it is terrifying. And it is -- it -- the -- the -- the distortion of the Jew into a monster or later, Nosferatu, the vampire is terrifying --

ERIC: Right. Right.

GLENN: -- that that went on for so long without the Nazis.

ERIC: Right. So a number of film scholars and literary scholars have argued that Weimar because of all the trauma it went through, the way the people of Weimar processed it was through horror. Through expressionism. Through very kind of avant-garde artistic media that were, you know, channeling a kind of return of the repressed, right?

And I try to show the ways in which certain images, monster's images of the other, right? Jews, Slavs, communists, were portrayed in not an empirical way.

Here's what's going to happen to the economy if finance capital does that or the Communists do this. But in a metaphysical or supernatural way, right?

And that's -- and I'm trying to show how that culture proceeds the Nazis. It doesn't mean everyone who watched horror movies was a Nazi. But their way of processing trauma and crisis, I argue was influenced by a kind of supernatural thinking.

GLENN: How much -- how much of this came from the churches -- I know the churches in the West, in England, et cetera, et cetera, many of them were really damaged because of World War I.

And the people were kind of shook from that. And they kind of started to see, wait a minute. The church is kind of a political organ here.

How much of this return to magic in Germany came from the churches kind of selling out or not being what churches should be?

ERIC: That's an excellent question. And you're not going to want to me to get into too much detail here.

But I will say, is I point out in chapter one, that Max Weber, the famous sociologist, was alive at the time said, clearly the traditional churches in the wake of hyper industrialization, even before World War I, and science, are no longer providing the kind of answers for a lot of people, a lot of younger people, living certainly in cities that they used to provide.

And yet, with this disenchantment of the world, right? People still need something higher than themselves. They need faith in something. If science isn't going to do it and traditional religion doesn't do it, what's in between?

Well, New Age religion, occultism, the so-called border sciences that claim to explain everything, like World Ice Theory, really can't be proven empirically. That's a vehicle for faith.

Pulp Fiction, science fiction, and we see that across the West, after the 1890s, and especially after World War I. With the decline in traditional religion. We even see some of the Catholic and Protestant leaders trying to tap into that more grassroots, central way of thinking.

But what I argue, and I guess this is something that as you point out in the intro, it would be reassuring for you as someone who believed believes in the Judeo-Christian ethos in the West, it's usually to the degree that they move away from that, that they're open to these new ways of thinking. I don't find a lot of devout Catholics and Protestants who like -- who believe in world ice theory, for example.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: But they're compatible because they're both faith-based ways of thinking. But I do think you've got to take a step away from traditional religion, towards what I would call border science, or occultism, in order to find that as your new religion. So you're right, that while the churches may have made certain concessions to it, or like you say, become too political.

GLENN: Sure.

ERIC: I don't think Christianity, per se, was a bridge to this kind of thinking.

GLENN: And I don't mean it exactly that way. I mean the absence of that thinking led people to go find something that was different and worked.

ERIC: Right.

GLENN: I want to have you explain border science and things like that, when we come back. And kind of get in and set the groundwork of, what they actually believed and what they used. I mean, the idea that they were using astrologers and divining rods to find submarines is amazing. And eventually the miracle weapons that they were going after, and the reason why, possibly, they did not get the bomb, is -- is -- is an amazing revelation. And we'll get to that here in just a second.

(music)

STU: The book is Hitler's Monsters: A Supernatural History of the Third Reich. Eric Kurlander is the author. If you're fan of like those incredible crazy, you know, documentaries they've made on this topic, this goes much, much further.

GLENN: Oh, much --

STU: It explains it with real credibility.

GLENN: Yeah. This is -- this is Indiana Jones and the, you know, holy grail and the last crusade. It is -- it's, you know, the Ark of the Covenant and Captain America. But it's the real stuff. It's amazing.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We have Eric Kurlander on. He is the author of a book, Hitler's Monsters. This is a serious scholarly book about the supernatural history of the Third Reich and what they believed and what they used.

Eric, help me out. Let's get a couple of definitions. What -- define the occult, what does that mean? Is that devil stuff?

ERIC: Right. So I started out thinking, oh, you know, I'm going to look at occultism, whatever that means. And then I realized that occult is a pretty specific meaning to scholars. It's things related to demonology, witchcraft, certain what I later call border sciences, but really that are linked to things like astrology and dowsing and doctrines like Ariosophy or anthroposophy. These are also things that usually come under the umbrella of occultism, something that is between religion and science, and will help you uncover a secret world or a hidden world. That's where the term comes from.

GLENN: Pretend I read the book, but still could not get my arms around the osophies. Can you --

ERIC: Right.

GLENN: Can you define those?

ERIC: Right. Excellent question. And, again, these osophies are larger doctrines, which supposedly explain the world in ways that traditional religion and science can't because they integrate both. So theosophy, which Blavatsky, a Russian thinker in the mid- to late 19th century is this idea that if you study the religions in the East and the kind of practices of the East and unite it with Darwinism and evolution, you can come up with a syncretic doctrine that explains all of world history. So she came up with this idea of root races, the most superior of which lived in Atlantis. Millennia earlier maybe mated with extraterrestrials, and these other races which had various qualities. You know, the early theosophists were not as explicitly racist as the later anthroposophists or ariosophists, obviously with Arian in the title. But they all believed in this idea of root races, that modern biology and Darwinism makes sense, but it's got to be leavened with Eastern philosophy and religion. And that you can understand the stages of world history through that.

And if you reverse-engineer everything, you can get back in touch, both spiritually and racially with the great races of the earlier period.

And so much of what they were doing was having seances and following certain doctrines to try to get back in touch with humanity when it was at its highest point. You can see why that was attractive to some central Europeans.

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: And the folkish movement. The more racialist political movements and anti-Semitic movements. Because it in a way justified their view of the world.

GLENN: So, Eric, I just want to go back. I was -- I was interested to read how much they were into eastern religion. And I can't remember, was it Himmler that carried around the sayings of Buddha in his pocket?

ERIC: The Bhagavad Gita. It's not exactly the same thing. But, yeah, Himmler, Hess -- Rudolf Hess, the deputy furor, Valter Duray (phonetic), just to name a couple.

GLENN: This would not be something that people would expect.

ERIC: No. But it makes perfect sense when you think about, what is their larger view of the world? Why do they use the swastika? Which is an Indo-Aryan fertility symbol, right?

Because in their mind, coming out of this 19th century supernatural imagery of the first chapter, they recognize that the great races and civilizations -- and, of course, we don't have scientific evidence of this, but that this is their view of the world -- all came from these Indo-Arian races, which may have developed in Atlantis or the Hyperborea, some ancient Arian or racially pure Atlantian civilization. But at some point, because of a flood or giant blocks of ice, did migrate East, thereby populating India, east Asia, Japan.

And the reason all these superior civilizations occurred is because of the leadership of the Indo-Aryans, for whom the symbol of the swastika and the religion of Tibet.

Why Tibet? Well, it's a high point where in a flood, a lot of the high priests of Arian religion could have fled.

And then they're trying to reinscribe those ideas back into their view of Nordic race and religion in the '20s and '30s. So that's their kind of view of the world. So it's not that odd. They just skip over the flaws in Jews, right? Because those are subhuman races, are Africa. But Asia makes sense to them.

GLENN: We're talking to Eric Kurlander, he's the author of Hitler's Monsters. It is a scholarly book on the -- the supernatural leanings of the Third Reich. And what -- what was in the society that made them embrace Naziism. And what did the Nazis use to strengthen that embrace? More in a second.

GLENN: There is a book that is a must-read. But I warn you, it's going to take you a while, just because it's so fascinating. You will jump out of the page and go, wait a minute. I've got to look that up. It's called Hitler's Monsters. Eric Kurlander. A supernatural history of the Third Reich.

This is a scholarly book. You know, this is not Pulp Fiction. It is a deep dive and well-documented on what the Nazis believed and what they did. And, Eric, I want to -- I want to clarify one thing with you that I didn't -- I didn't walk away knowing for sure. And maybe you don't know the answer, how much of this did they believe or make a pact with, and how much was just being used?

ERIC: That became a central question for me as I was going through different sources.

So one thing I can say, Heinrich Himmler, Rudolf Hess, believed -- truly believed in a lot of these different doctrines. Border sciences like parapsychology, dowsing, astrology. They truly believed that if you did it in a scientific way, you could glean answers that mainstream science and religion would not give you.

GLENN: So he was looking into -- Himmler was looking into the holy grail.

ERIC: Yes.

GLENN: At the end, he was -- I guess you could credit this to Tesla. But I'm not sure if he credited it more to Tesla or to Thor's hammer.

ERIC: Exactly.

GLENN: Which was it. Was it Tesla, or was it, he believed, the Thor hammer, electricity in the air.

ERIC: We have the -- I mean, one of the greatest historians of the Third Reich and the Holocaust. And other sources, both corroborate him asking his acolytes to look into whether the energies that we associate with Thor's hammer can somehow be harnessed, that maybe they're not traditional scientific energies. But something more occult or hidden.

And that's why certain of the gods had certain powers. He thought he was the reincarnation of Otto the great or Henry the follower, I'm sorry. One of the great medieval German princes.

Many people have noted Himmler's actual investment in these ideas, as well as Hess. What I find though, and that's where the real debate comes, is that many other Nazis, Otto Ohlendorf, who led the Ainzgot (phonetic) group in to kill thousands of Jews, he was seen as a kind of -- one of these technocrats. Highly educated.

Turns out, he was pushing biodynamic agriculture and anthroposophic, which is an occult doctrine, approaches to the world, as a kind of -- not a substitute religion, but as something that could unite religion and science in the Third Reich. He's not normally associated with those ideas. Hitler had a dowser in the right chancellery to look for cancer-causing death rays. And gave an honorary degree to one of the progenitors of World Ice Theory.

GLENN: Some people -- some in the Third Reich said that they found Mussolini through divining rods or dousing over a map. And you document that really well.

Did -- did Hitler believe that stuff?

ERIC: So I would say Hitler is -- he's perfectly representative of the Nazi movement and maybe Austro-German society. He's right in the middle. He clearly believed with some of these doctrines because he had grown up with them, and he didn't find traditional Catholicism compelling. And he didn't embrace modern science because he considered it a Jewish science and it was too empirical. But he wasn't as invested as some other Nazis were, like Himmler or Hess. On the other hand, there were a few Nazis like Heydrich -- he's one of the only leaders I can find who almost never shows authentic investment in any of these ideas. And wants to combat them as another form of sectarianism.

So he doesn't care what religion, a cult or philosophical doctrine you have, whether you're a liberal, a communist, or even a conservative, if you're not a Nazi, that's potentially a problem. So Heydrich goes after occultists. But many of the other leaders who claim they don't like the occult, like Rosenberg or Himmler actually just don't like people who practice it in a way that challenges their beliefs. The minute -- by the way, this is the problem with a lot of religion, right? People argue that they have the true faith. The true method or path to the Lord, right?

So what you see in the Third Reich, much like occultism more generally is claims that they're doing it scientifically. They understand it. These other people are charlatans. And many historians, when they saw that superficially, who weren't particularly interested in research. Were like, oh, they're hostile to occultism. And I point out, they're not hostile to it, epistemologically. They're hostile to anyone who practiced it in a way that isn't compatible with their racial ideas, their politics, their propaganda.

GLENN: It actually worked to the West's advantage to some degree.

The SS Obergruppenführer Kammler, who was -- who was really only known for making the crematoriums in Auschwitz more effective, was the replacement for Von Braun in the rocket science department. Because -- if I'm not mistaken, wasn't it because of horoscopes or astrology?

ERIC: We can't confirm it's because of astrology. What we can confirm is that Himmler preferred to have SS men who shared some of his approaches to science and politics and race theory around him. More than -- than tried and true professionals like Von Braun.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And that's why Speer, as you see in my chapter -- the primary sources I have from the archives are Speer reminding the other Nazi leaders, we aren't going to come up with miracle weapons that are going to decide the war.

This is propaganda. And then you have Goebbels and Himmler and Kammler saying, oh, no, we can do this. With enough will. With enough faith, if we harness the right energies. And clearly, that tips over into the realm of border science very often. It's not empirical. It's not something that's actually feasible.

GLENN: Towards the end, it seemed to really work towards the West's advantage again. Their race theory and their belief in what you called border sciences.

I was -- I was really interested in what you said one of the reasons why we think that they weren't farther along with the nuke, is because they saw that as a Jewish science. And so it was a little underplayed. And the border sciences, the miracle weapons were -- were looked at with possible equal shot of it working. Do I have that right?

ERIC: Exactly. You have two parallel things going on. Obviously, you lose a lot of the best scientists, who may have been, quote, unquote, liberal or Jewish. Right? Many who stay are still top scientists. Heisenberg, Max Planck, right? Von Braun.

But they're working -- they're doing -- they're carrying out traditional science, mainstream science. And then you've got a lot of Nazis, led by Himmler, who has this whole institute. The honoree (phonetic) by the institute for ancestral research, who is frustrated they don't want to work with his scientists. Who are operating based on folklore. And Indo-Aryan race theory. And want to experiment with hidden electrical energies.

The one thing I'm certain of is that the incompatible of those two cultures, certainly undermines some of their strategic thinking. We know that Hitler and Himmler, because they read science fiction, liked the idea of rockets and, you know, ships and jets. And didn't think in terms of these more abstruse ideas like nuclear physics, which is not something you can concretely hold or build, but is something they associate with abstract thinking of Jews and liberals and communists.

GLENN: Thank God.

ERIC: Thank God. But in a way -- now, I can't quantify -- a lot of the things I bring up in the book, as scholarly as it is, are things that someone else who is a specialist in these areas, armaments, military history, should really pursue, and see to what degree this really did you shouldn't undermine their war effort. I suggest it did. Speer suggests it does. But, you know, that's a whole other line of research. Yeah.

GLENN: Eric, I could spend hours with you. I'd love to have you back. Because we haven't gotten into some of the miracle weapons. And the bell, which, you know, the flying saucer and antigravity stuff that they supposedly were working on, but were really not sure if they were.

ERIC: Exactly.

GLENN: I'd love to continue our conversation on that.

I do want to switch gears because you wrote another book, which I have not read. It is your first book. And let's see if I have it. The Price of Exclusion: Ethnicity, National Identity, and the Decline of German Liberalism.

Just based on the title. I have a feeling we would have a lot to learn from that in today's world.

ERIC: We would.

And the second book, Living With Hitler: Liberals and the Third Reich, which I think you would appreciate most of all. We have slightly different political views. But I think you'll find the arguments in that book about the way that progressives kind of sold out to fascism, not because they were fascist, but because they saw certain continuities that made accommodation possible, I think you'd find that interesting.

GLENN: Eric, I don't want to turn you political. But if you had any historic milestones that would be important, there's -- CPAC announced that they're having the National Front speak from France, which is a national Socialist Party.

ERIC: It is.

GLENN: And I think they're doing it because they'll say, there's lots of things that we do have in common. And we don't have to take that. And this is a big movement that is happening all around. And any lessons from history?

ERIC: Well, this is -- if anything unites the three books I've written, which have been written in a time when I would argue our liberal -- so-called liberal parties have moved to the right on socioeconomic issues, and then in other ways, embraced values issues. Fights over values.

And our right has done the same thing. What you see happening is an unwillingness for very -- we could maybe both agree that it's the role of Wall Street and government elites who don't want to fight it out over the actual empirical relates of, how do you get the best health care or the best tax policy? They fight it out over ideology and values. And those values have moved more and more to what I would argue the populist right.

So how do you win elections in America and France and the Netherlands now? You claim you're going to protect people in ways that can never quite be explained. From global forces. Other ethnicities. Religions. Terrorism. Economic forces that both parties used to embrace, right? Trade. Those are dangerous.

And this, of course, moves both parties -- but obviously our right-wing, more than what I call now our center, towards what you used to call, what we now call the alt-right, but we used to call fascism. And that's very dangerous. Especially in America, you could always trust conservatives to defend the Constitution. To be at least classical liberals, right?

And as you're pointing out, you can't always trust that anymore. And if our so-called liberals have to be the constitutional conservatives, we're in trouble. Right? They're the interventionists, right? They're the ones -- the progressives --

GLENN: The balance is.

ERIC: -- are the ones that want to tear down the Constitution or change it. And now they're the ones defending the FBI and the Constitution. We have a constitutional crisis. We have a political cultural crisis. I think both traditional conservatives and so-called liberals or progressives could agree with this. And the lessons in history from the '20s and the '30s are scary ones about the way this happens.

GLENN: Yes. Eric, I would like to talk to you again. Thank you so much. And thank you for the really hard work. I've read a lot of books. And I don't think I've read one that took more hard work than this. This was turning over every stone. And thank you for your hard work. One last question.

Would you definitively say the national socialist movement in Germany was not a Christian movement?

ERIC: When you're talking about a country of 80 million people or 20 or 30 million who suspected the Nazis, obviously lots of Christians saw something in Naziism, whether it was extreme nationalism, anti-Semitism, Lutheran kind of patriotism.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

ERIC: But when it comes to the leaders, and here's where I feel like I'm on solid ground. Those leaders were frustrated by traditional Christianity, which they linked to Judaism and to universalism and to a world beyond the here and now. Which they saw as not helpful in creating a racial ancestor-worshiping blood and soil movement. That's why they liked Shinto and Hinduism, whether they interpreted those religions properly or not. They saw those as more compatible with creating a religion of the here and now.

GLENN: Eric, thank you.

ERIC: And so in that, I would say they weren't -- the leaders at least were not Christians, by any conventional of the word. No.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Eric. Hold if you would, I would like to talk to you in a minute.

STU: Hitler's Monsters is the book. Supernatural history to the Third Reich.

Eric Kurlander is the artist. We got to have him back on again. There's so much to go through on this.

GLENN: I want to talk to him about all the miracles stuff. The bell. Did you even know what the bell is? Just look it up. Just look up Nazi bell. Never heard of it. Never heard of it.

And it's fascinating. Whether it happened or not, I don't know.

Biden part Deux: The China connection

Wikimedia Commons

Last week I took you through several examples of the ways Joe Biden apparently helped his close family members secure amazing business deals while he was Vice President. One of those instances involved Joe Biden's younger brother, James, becoming an executive at a new construction company – despite having no experience in the construction industry. Then, six months after he joined the company, it scored a $1.5 billion contract to build 100,000 homes in war-torn Iraq. The company's president even admitted to investors that "…it really helps to have the brother of the vice president as a partner."

If you think it's good to be the Vice President's brother, it's even better to be his son. On Thursday's TV show, I did a major chalkboard explaining how Joe Biden's son, Hunter, came to be on the board of Ukraine's largest private natural gas company. Tonight on TV, I'm going back to the chalkboard for part two of our Joe Biden profile. As bad as the Bidens' activity in Ukraine looks, it's really just the tip of the iceberg when you see the deals that they struck in China.

RELATED: 'Creepy Uncle Joe's' diary

To give you an idea of just how much the Biden's were plugged into China, there's a separate story that we won't have time to get into tonight. Chinese oil tycoon Ye Jianming worked overtime to get meetings with top movers and shakers in the U.S. government. His efforts included things like donating $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation – which was basically a rite of passage for any foreigner wanting access to the U.S. government during the Obama years.

In 2015, Mr. Ye worked on trying to connect with the Biden family. By that point, as you'll see tonight, Hunter Biden's company was deeply involved with Chinese businesses. At first, one of Mr. Ye's top lieutenants, a guy named Patrick Ho, met with Hunter Biden in Washington DC. That led to Mr. Ye himself meeting with Hunter at a Miami hotel in 2017. At that meeting, Mr. Ye proposed partnering with Hunter Biden's firm to invest in U.S. infrastructure and energy.

Then in November 2017, Joe Biden's brother, James, was in a hotel lobby when he got a random call from Patrick Ho, Mr. Ye's top lieutenant. Ho was in deep trouble and told James Biden he was looking for a lawyer. Federal agents had arrested Ho in New York on allegations that he bribed African officials in Chad and Uganda for access to oil fields. During Ho's trial, prosecutors showed that Ye's company had a side gig as an arms dealer in conflict zones around the world. Ho was ultimately convicted of conspiracy, attempted bribery, and money laundering. His boss, Mr. Ye, is now in Chinese custody at an undisclosed location.

Probably the most disturbing aspects of these China deals are the national security implications.

Perhaps the weirdest, most cryptic part of this episode is what James Biden told The New York Times when they interviewed him about that phone call from Patrick Ho. James Biden said he was surprised by the call and believed that Ho had intended to reach Hunter Biden, so he gave him Hunter's contact information. James Biden said:

There is nothing else I have to say. I don't want to be dragged into this anymore.

Dragged into what exactly? Presumably, the deep web of Chinese business connections that Joe Biden facilitated for his son while he was Vice President. Probably the most disturbing aspects of these China deals are the national security implications. You're not going to believe the partnerships that were formed. I'll explain it all on tonight's TV show. I'll also talk with Peter Schweizer who did so much amazing research and first blew the lid off the scandal of the Bidens' activity in China. You don't want to miss it…

Joe Biden – "Lunch Bucket Joe" – likes to remind America as often as possible what a regular guy he is. But beneath his carefully crafted narrative is a familiar story of old-fashioned crony capitalism. Or, in this case, we could call it bro-ny capitalism.

Starting in November 2010, Joe Biden's younger brother, James Biden, was named executive vice president of HillStone, the housing subsidiary of a company called Hill International. Hill International owned 51% of HillStone. A group of partners, including James Biden, owned the other 49%.

RELATED: THIS could derail the Biden 2020 train before it even starts

James Biden had no documented work history in the construction industry, but six months after he joined HillStone, the company scored a $1.5 billion construction contract from the U.S. government to build 100,000 homes in war-torn Iraq. The minority partners in HillStone would pocket around $735 million of that contract. Which means, minus expenses for the actual construction work, James Biden and the rest of his minority partners would stand to pocket millions of dollars.

Analysts were puzzled how HillStone, which was a brand new construction business created in 2010, got such a sweet contract. In a meeting with investors, the president of HillStone's parent company, David Richter, reportedly told them that "…it really helps to have the brother of the vice president as a partner."

Other lucrative government deals materialized for Hill International, including in 2012, a $22 million contract to manage the construction of State Department offices.

James Biden wasn't HillStone's only connection to Vice President Biden. HillStone's president, Kevin Justice, grew up in Delaware and was a close friend of Joe Biden's sons, Beau and Hunter.

You can never accuse him of failing to take care of his own.

However, by the beginning of 2012, Kevin Justice claimed that James Biden and David Richter (who was president of Hill International) were trying to dilute Justice's ownership stake in the $1.5 billion Iraq project deal and control all the money. Kevin Justice left the company in February 2012.

As you'll see on the show tonight, crony capitalism absolutely thrived under Joe Biden. You can never accuse him of failing to take care of his own. He's an expert at keeping things in the family. That is Joe Biden's biggest political achievement.

Joe Biden always likes to remind people just how much of a regular Joe he is. For almost half a century he's worked hard to craft this "Lunch Bucket Joe" persona. He's Mr. Amtrak, commuting every day between Wilmington, Delaware and Washington, DC when he was a Senator. They even named the Wilmington Amtrak station after him in 2011. He liked to remind Americans over the years that he has little wealth to show for his long career in government, even after becoming Vice President. Except, he hasn't exactly been skipping meals and sleeping in his car either.

In 1977 before he'd even finished his first term as a U.S. Senator, his speaking fee was one of the highest in the Senate at $22,596 per speech. By 1979, Biden was one of the Senate's top 25 earners of outside income – along with 22 others on that list, he voted against a bill to limit such earnings. Today he gets between $100,000 – $200,000 per speech.

RELATED: 'Creepy Uncle Joe's' diary

Don't cry for poor ol' Joe. He's scraping by okay.

One thing you could never accuse Joe Biden of is failing take care of his own. When his second son, Hunter Biden, graduated from Yale law school in 1996, Hunter was hired as a lobbyist with MBNA, which is a major credit card company based in Delaware. As a reminder, Joe Biden was a Delaware Senator for 36 years before he became Vice President.

Between 1989 and 2008, MBNA was Joe's largest corporate donor. In the Senate, Joe voted against a bill that would require credit card companies to warn consumers of the consequences of making only minimum payments. He also voted four times for a bankruptcy bill – supported by the credit card industry – that made it harder for financially strained borrowers to get protection from creditors. But I'm sure that had nothing to do with his donor relationship with MBNA – just like he insists he had nothing to do with MBNA hiring Hunter twice, the first time straight out of law school, and again from 2001 to 2005 as a consultant.

When he ran for president in 2008, Joe paid over $2 million in campaign cash to his family members and their businesses. $1.8 million of that went to Joe Slade White & Company for "media consulting" fees. A top executive at that company was Valerie Biden Owens – Joe Biden's sister and longtime campaign manager.

One thing you could never accuse Joe Biden of is failing take care of his own.

Biden's campaign also paid $150,000 for legal work to a lobbying and law firm in Washington DC co-owned by his son, Hunter Biden. Joe Biden's campaign spokesman insisted that Hunter didn't receive a dime of that money because another lawyer at the firm did the actual legal work for the campaign.

A 2008 report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ranked Biden among the top five senators for amount of money paid to family members over the three election cycles from 2002 to 2006. He was also in the top five for payments to a family business.

According to the Federal Election Commission, a campaign can hire family members and their companies if the work is legitimate and charged at market rates. But as you'll see in the show Thursday night, the phrase "just because you could doesn't mean you should" means nothing to Joe Biden.

Yes, Virginia: Hitler really was a socialist

Wikimedia Commons

Much hay has been made of late regarding a decades-old debate as to whether Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.

On the face of it, the argument may seem ridiculous. … After all, the name of the party was National Socialist German Workers' Party. For some, it should be as simple as that. They called themselves socialists, so they were socialists.

However, proponents of the idea that Hitler and the Nazis were diametrically opposed to socialism point out numerous reasons that this simple explanation is, by itself, insufficient, and in fact can point out several facts, which clearly demonstrate that the Nazis were socialist in name only, but not in ideology.

As is generally (and gloriously) true, the truth behind this debate is extremely nuanced and takes effort to discover. But it is very clearly there.

RELATED: Hitler's Quest for the Holy Grail? New Book Explores Nazi Obsession With the Occult

For those of you looking for the Cliff's Notes version, here is the answer: Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, for the simple reasons that they were staunchly anti-capitalist and believed that the means of production in their society should be controlled by a centralized state power. That is very clear from their writings, their words and their actions. Done and done.

Much hay has been made of late regarding a decades-old debate as to whether Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.

On the face of it, the argument may seem ridiculous. … After all, the name of the party was National Socialist German Workers' Party. For some, it should be as simple as that. They called themselves socialists, so they were socialists.

However, proponents of the idea that Hitler and the Nazis were diametrically opposed to socialism point out numerous reasons that this simple explanation is, by itself, insufficient, and in fact can point out several facts, which clearly demonstrate that the Nazis were socialist in name only, but not in ideology.

As is generally (and gloriously) true, the truth behind this debate is extremely nuanced and takes effort to discover. But it is very clearly there.

For those of you looking for the Cliff's Notes version, here is the answer: Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.

For those of you looking for the Cliff's Notes version, here is the answer: Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, for the simple reasons that they were staunchly anti-capitalist and believed that the means of production in their society should be controlled by a centralized state power. That is very clear from their writings, their words and their actions. Done and done.

Now, for those of you looking for a more complete and nuanced analysis of the topic, please consider the following thoughts:

With a recent article in Vox as case-in-point, those who believe that Hitler and the Nazis were not socialists will generally put forward some version of the following arguments:

  • 1. The Nazis did not preach or practice pure, "classical" socialism, so they weren't socialists.
  • 2. The Nazis were not the true Socialist party in Germany — there were already socialist and communist political parties in Germany — when they adopted the term "socialism."
  • 3. The Nazis were fascists, not socialists. Everyone knows fascism is right wing, socialism is left wing.
  • 4. The Nazis only adopted the title of "socialist" for political reasons, not ideological ones.
  • 5. The Nazis were staunchly anti-communist and anti-Marxist, therefore they couldn't have been socialists.
  • 6. The Nazis were racists and nationalists, so they couldn't have been socialists.
  • 7. The Nazis did not seize all private property and money, so they weren't socialists.
  • 8. Hitler was only interested in power, in being a dictator, not in socialist principals of peace and love and equality…

I'll address each of these in turn, but the above arguments and themes all miss a central and critical reality … and demonstrates a lack of critical thinking as well.

What's missing from the simple question of "Was Hitler a socialist?" is this: When do you mean?

It's a vital component of any coherent discussion, for two reasons.

First, because when examined over a timeline it becomes perfectly clear that yes, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party was an extremely, very clearly socialist-aligned organization at the time of their founding. One could argue that over time the specific manifestation of Nazi-socialism did drift away from what is today viewed as "classical"' or archetypal socialism (also a misnomer, which I'll cover shortly) and toward a nationalistic, "Germanified" socialism. During the build-up to war, it then morphed further into economic-statist policies of fascism and eventually a fascist-dictatorship.

Second, it's vital to note the shift and migration "from" socialism "to" a dictatorship because this is almost always what ends up happening when socialism, communism and/or Marxism implemented in any country (as evidenced by Germany's Hitler, the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, China's Mao Zedong, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, etc).

Marxist-collectivist systems devolving into brutal dictatorship with some elements of Marxist-philosophy remaining is the norm, not the exception. I'll leave what that says about Marxism to your own judgment.

So, with that said, let's start at the very beginning (a very good place to start), and review the historical record:

1. The Nazis did not preach or practice pure, "classical" socialism, so they weren't socialists.

Statements like this one are generally followed with quotes from Hitler or some other Nazi leader saying something negative about socialism, or examples of a policy like leaving most manufacturing in private hands as proof that the Nazi Party wasn't a socialist organization. But generally, those quotes and those policies were from much later in the Nazi-Germany saga.

What is conveniently ignored is the fact that Hitler joined the German Workers' Party in 1919, when he was 30 years old. Six years before he wrote "Mein Kampf," and 14 years before he was appointed chancellor of Germany.

So, at the time the political party was formed, what did it espouse and believe? And what did Hitler espouse and believe?

History is abundantly clear on this. As we know from "The Coming of the Third Reich"by Richard J. Evans, we know because Hitler joined the German Workers' Party, a party he'd initially been ordered to spy on and join by his Germany Army Intelligence handlers. It's key to note that the original name of the group was the German Socialist Worker's Party (italics mine), but party-supporter and journalist Karl Herrer recommended against including the word "socialist" because it might be confused with another local political party (the Social Democratic Party of Germany) and might make it more challenging to gain the support of his middle-class newspaper subscribers. Subsequently, the name was shortened to German Workers' Party. Author F.L. Carlsten makes that clear in his book, "The Rise of Fascism."

Hitler joined the party and within a few months had risen to a level of authority. Having spoken publicly for the first time at a party meeting just weeks after joining, by early 1920 he was appointed chief of propaganda, a period of party history covered in excellent detail in "The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany" by T.L. Jarman.

As the party grew in prominence, Hitler believed they needed a public manifesto that clearly articulated the party's political beliefs and platform. He, along with party founders Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart, and Anton Drexler, wrote a manifesto titled, The National Socialist Program. As explained in William Shirer's seminal, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"(a work every American should read), on that same day, the German Workers' Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler arranged a public meeting at a large Beer-Hall and personally read the manifesto aloud to more than 2,000 attendees, receiving ever increasing applause as he continued.

You can review the entire 25-point plan here, and yes, it is a platform that is filled with anti-Semitic and nationalist themes, but a review of several of the key points of the manifesto are important to understand their political beliefs as they orient around socialist and Marxist philosophy.

"…We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens…"

"…The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work, mentally or physically..."

"…The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality [the state], but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all..." [italics mine]

"…We demand the Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery…"

"…In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits…"

"…We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries..." [italics mine]

"…We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries…"

"…We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare…"

"…We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation…"

"…We demand the immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality…"

"…We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death…" [italics mine]

"…We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the [existing] Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order…"

"…The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education…"

"…The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding…"

"…We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession…"

"…The state is to care for the national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young…"

"…We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press… Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden… We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands…"

"…a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: "THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THE GOOD OF THE INDIVIDUAL." [All CAPS theirs in the original document]

"…For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power… Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general…"

"…The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration…"

I apologize for the length here, but this was their "Declaration of Independence", and the length to which they spoke of these beliefs is strong evidence of how important these ideals were to them and their platform. That Hitler would dedicate the bulk of his written manifesto for his party to these indicates they were more than just a convenient political tool.

It's also worth noting that according to the US Holocaust Museum, the National Socialist Program remained the platform of the Nazi Party until Hitler's suicide in 1945, although clearly some of the specific tenets were ignored as the Third Reich matured and entered its "war" phase. In fact, we know from Big Business & Hitler, in 1924, party co-founder Gottfried Feder proposed an expanded 39-point plan that would include accommodation for Industrialists and large landowners with the National Socialists, but at the 1925 Bamburg Conference, then party leader Hitler refused to make any changes, stating that the manifesto was "inviolable" and would never be changed. Even after coming to power and declaring himself Dictator for Life, Hitler never modified a single word.

The point is that the original German Workers' Party as well as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, from its earliest roots, absolutely believed in and ran on many traditionally "Socialist" ideals, such as subordinating the individual to the "common good" and "the State."

Arguments as to whether the Nazi Party was "right wing" or "left wing" is what confuses most modern pundits and scholars.

Arguments as to whether the Nazi Party was "right wing" or "left wing" is what confuses most modern pundits and scholars. They clearly were nationalists, socialists, anti-capitalists and statists. Placing them on modern "right vs. left" political spectrum is an entirely different debate, and largely a semantic one. Whether they have more in common with the modern U.S. "right" or "left" is in the eye of the beholder.

2. The Nazis were not the true socialist party in Germany, there were already socialist and communist political parties in Germany when they adopted the term "socialism."

It's completely true that there were already socialist and communist political parties in Germany. Socialist parties had sprung up and gained popularity in Europe both before and during World War I. Russia had collapsed into a communist revolution during World War I, and there were communist political parties and organizations throughout Germany and Austria who had proven, friendly ties to the Russian communist parties responsible for the Russian revolution.

But the presence of other parties does not in any way indicate that Hitler's party wasn't also socialist. Just as today in America there are democratic socialists, socialist, Green Party and Communist parties, does not mean that I couldn't start up a new flavor of socialist political party tomorrow.

What is clear is that the founders of the Nazi Party did want a very different type of political party, one that was highly nationalist and one that sought an ethno-German racial ideal. In fact, as detailed in the already cited "The Rise and Fall of Fascism," the reason that Anton Drexler and others founded the National Socialist German Workers' Party in the first place was their rejection of the existing Social-Democratic Party and Communist Party's lack of nationalism. Hitler's flavor of socialism was staunchly anti-Bolshevik and anti-Semitic and he spoke against "Jewish-Marxism" and communism, as did key party leaders Alfred Rosenberg and Rudolph Hess. Existing socialist and Marxist parties were too globalist for them – they were after a purely ethno-German socialism.

3. The Nazis were fascists, not socialists. Everyone knows fascism is right wing, socialism is left wing.

Without turning this into a purely semantic debate, applying the modern "U.S.-centric" idea of the right vs. left political spectrum to political, economic and social philosophies such as socialism or fascism is truly an apples vs. Legos idea.

Of course, the origins of "right" vs. "left" political spectrum likely dates to the French Revolution and had to do with which side of the King's throne courtiers and lords were seated. At that time, those Loyal to the King were on the "right" and those who favored the people's independence and Democracy would be on the "left" …but clearly today's modern conservatives and libertarians would not support rule by a monarch or dictator, whether his name was Louis, Washington or Trump.

This is a key part of why there is so much cognitive dissonance for today's self-avowed socialists when someone dares to point out that Nazis were socialists and did support many socialist ideals. Nazis were also nationalists, were anti-immigration, often xenophobic and pro-militarism. Those are traits they associate with today's modern far-right.

As Jane Carlson points out in her recent Vox article, trying to put German-Nazis of 1930 on our modern U.S. political spectrum is a troublesome exercise. For our purposes, we'll simply note that the policies and platform of the early Nazi Party clearly aligned to socialist theory of the time, simply modified to fit the Volkish German tastes of the time.

Furthermore, claims that Hitler and the Nazis were fascists, not socialists, is again an inherently anachronistic view of events. It also clouds the issue of fascism and socialism, painting them as polar opposites on the political spectrum, when, in fact, they were close bedfellows in the 1920s.

Fascism didn't come to the Nazi Party and Germany until late in the 1920s or even early 1930s. Certainly there are no contemporary media references to the National Socialist German Workers' Party as "fascists" during the era of the party's founding in 1919, at the time Hitler wrote and presented the National Socialist Program in 1920, leading up to the Beer-Hall Putsch in late 1923, during Hitler's incarceration in 1924 and even leading up to the elections of 1928 and 1930.

During that entire era, no paper, across all of Germany, Italy, England or America can be found that refers to Hitler or to the National Socialist party of Germany as a "fascist" party. They were referred to as the national socialists or Nazis, a name meant to be a pejorative. It's also noteworthy that in his book, "Mein Kampf," Hitler did not refer to himself as a fascist or even use the word a single time.

It wasn't truly until the elections of 1932 that "fascism" could truly be applied to the policies espoused by Hitler and other Nazi politicians who held seats in the German Parliament. By then, it had been nearly a decade since Benito Mussolini, the publisher of a Socialist newspaper for more than six years, founded his own version of a violent nationalist-socialist party within Italy: fascism.

Fascist political ideology was the brainchild of another Marxist, a man named Giovanni Gentile. Gentile was an Italian intellectual and student of Marx, but whose criticism of the standard socialist model was based on the idea that the human mind was insufficiently pure to make communal socialism practical for industrial countries. As such, he advocated for a hybrid of a strong-centralized government with total authority (lead by intellectuals and experts) but leaving direct ownership of industrial production in the hands of the business elite. A Socialist-Corporate state.

Mussolini had seen in World War I, his countrymen were no longer fighting for some grand, socialist utopia as they had been toward the outset of the war. By the end of the war, they were fighting for their country. Under the tutelage of Gentile, he morphed that nationalist passion into fascism, but it was not a far-right movement. Mussolini referred to himself as a socialist in his own diary just 12 days before his capture, and it's worth noting that the party he was head of at the time of his capture was called the Italian Social Republic.

By the time Hitler had been named chancellor in 1933 and dictator in 1934, it would have been fair to start thinking of Nazis as having fascist ideas.

Hitler, seeing the success of Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s and wishing to curry favor with the Italian leader to help reinforce his southern flank, developed a warm and open relationship with him. By the time Hitler had been named chancellor in 1933 and dictator in 1934, it would have been fair to start thinking of Nazis as having fascist ideas. But even as late as 1937, Winston Churchill was still making speeches and writing essays about the "two" great "creeds of the Devil" in socialism and fascism, as threats faced by Britain.

The real difference between communists, national socialists and fascists is simply this: Communists are the international workers party and fascists are the national workers party.

In the end, it's reasonable to look at Hitler's adoption of some tenets of the fascist political-economic system of an authoritarian-central government but leaving private ownership of some industries as an indication that Hitler was not, in the end, a "perfect" socialist. But, as you'll learn below, that notion is itself, nonsense.

4. The Nazis only adopted the title of "socialist" for political reasons, not ideological ones.

As we have already cited from Carlsten's "The Rise of Fascism," the opposite is actually true. Anton Drexler had originally wanted to include socialist in the party's title, but its primary "publicist" at the time, Karl Herrer, had objected — not because they were opposed to socialist ideas, but because it would make it difficult to stand apart from the already existent Social-Democratic Party, and because it would make it more difficult to appeal to middle class readers of his newspaper.

In fact, as author Robert Spector covers thoroughly in his book, "A World Without Civilization," Drexler and others went out of their way to publish articles clearly delineating between Marxist-socialism and the German-socialism they intended to create, which would be a massive social-welfare state that would provide aid only to true ethno-Aryan Germans.

The ideals of the Nazi leadership were absolutely and significantly focused on German nationalism, anti-Semitism, racial purity, etc. It's also fair to say that Hitler's personal ideology and goals were built around German-idealized delusions of grandeur, and less around the philosophical tenets of socialism.

But a fair assessment of the progression of Nazi Party socialist doctrine cannot start in 1933 when Hitler became chancellor or 1938 when he invaded Poland. A more fair assessment might to be say that Hitler and the Nazis wanted to create a 1,000-year German Reich and a pure ethno-German race, and they were also socialists. More pure socialists when they started in 1919 than when they finished in 1945? Yes, certainly if our goal here is to measure Hitler against some 'perfect socialist' yardstick, then it might be fair to suggest that, by the end, he was less of a socialist than he was at the beginning.

But as I've already pointed out, the same could be said for virtually every socialist leader of all time. They all started with grand socialist ideals, tried them out, found that they didn't seem to work to achieve any practical real-world goals, so instead they became a tyrannical dictator wielding violence, torture and autocratic rule to maintain their vision. Ask Mao, ask Stalin, ask Maduro, Ask Xi, ask Castro, ask Che, ask Minh, ask Lenin…Hitler was just a me-too.

5. The Nazis were staunchly anti-Communist and anti-Marxist, therefore they couldn't have been socialists.

The idea that being anti-communist or anti-Marxist indicates one couldn't be a socialist is an anachronism, especially for post-Great War Germany. Let's not forget that Russia and Germany had fought ferociously during the war, including clashes before and after the communist revolution. Many Germans strongly blamed Germany's surrender at the end of World War I on communist sympathizers and/or spies within Germany, especially Marxist-Jewish political leaders, intellectuals and writers.

Leaders of the early Nazi Party, in particular, viewed the Treaty of Versailles not so much as a surrender to Western powers but as a surrender to international "Jewry", both the capitalist-Jews from America and England as well as the communist Jews from Russia. As Shirer points out in "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," Hitler and other Nazi leaders frequently referred to being "stabbed in the back" by communist-Jewish elements in Germany and Austria.

As such, as we learned from Roger Griffin's epic work "Fascism," the anti-Marxism present in the early Nazi Party was strongly anti-Bolshevik, or, said more plainly, it was "anti-Jewish Russians and Germans who betrayed at the end of World War I and who profited from the war."

Recall as well that communism is merely one manifestation of Marxist political philosophy … one that could progress out of a Socialist foundation. Even today, communists and socialists can have lively debates on the topic, one rejecting or point out logical flaws in the "purity" of the other on the scale of Karl Marx's idea of "perfect" socialism. (Marx never really had such an ideal, see below).

The point is, the fact that Hitler was feverishly and passionately anti-Marxist (because he was massively anti-Semitic) and anti-communist doesn't indicate he wasn't some form of socialist.

6. The Nazis were racists and nationalists, so they couldn't have been socialists.

I would have hoped I didn't have to go too deeply into this topic, but many people seem to make some form of this argument.

The disconnect here is that most people today associate left-leaning or socialist-aligned politics to be also "globalist," for open borders and pro-immigration. On the other hand, many people associate right-leaning and even "conservative" groups with anti-illegal-immigration and "America-first" policies.

Again, let's not start a semantic debate about modern policies of those on the right vs. those on the left and whether one or the other group is more or less racist than the other (let's do that on Twitter instead!); for our purposes here, what is key to point out is that Marx himself was a fairly racist bloke, who wrote an essay in 1844 titled, "The Jewish Question" (wonder where Hitler got that?):

" What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."— Karl Marx, The Jewish Question, 1844

In a letter to co-creator of Socialist doctrine, Friedrich Engels, Marx wrote:

"It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses' exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product." — Karl Marx, Letter to Friedrich Engels, 1856

Many seem to believe that today's democratic socialism is inherently and not racist universally (unless perhaps, you happen to be a Jew … or maybe a white male, at least in some of the more vehement circles), so the fact of Nazi racism demonstrates simply that they could not have been socialists. But the socialism of the Nazi era was generally not-free of the every-day racism that was pervasive throughout that era.

To be sure, the Nazis were perhaps the most racist, anti-Semitic socialists who ever existed, but their racism, just like their nationalism, doesn't erase their socialism.

Furthermore, while socialism is not inherently racist, socialism and racism have been happy bedfellows numerous times.

One of the key and so-often-present-it-seems-to-be-required components of socialist movements is the presence of a bogeyman. An enemy of the people, or, in the case of Germany, the "volk."

In today's Americanized version of socialism, the bogeyman is the Gordon Gekko from "Wall Street,"Oh, wait, we have a more modern caricature of the same profile: Donald Trump. A self-made, unapologetic billionaire capitalist, flaunting both his wealth and ego across every TV screen and Twitter-feed 24/7.

For today's democratic socialist, that is the bogeyman. The rich (generally white) capitalist male who has more than his neighbor and doesn't feel bad about that.

Anti-Semitism and versions of socialism have often gone together because of the anti-capitalist and anti-wealthy-person ethos at the heart of Marxist ideology.

Hitler's bogeyman was also a banker — the Jew. Anti-Semitism and versions of socialism have often gone together because of the anti-capitalist and anti-wealthy-person ethos at the heart of Marxist ideology. Because Jews have tended to be industrious and have accumulated wealth, the Jewish people have been hated by many socialist and fascist groups throughout history. Socialist and totalitarian regimes in the Middle East also hated Jews, long before the founding of Israel after World War II.

In fact, after meeting with Hitler in the 1940s, Muslim regimes in Turkey and Syria planned on building Polish-styled death camps in the Middle East. During the war, Hitler also invited the creation of an entire Muslim division of Waffen-SS, such was the alliance between Islamic-Marxism and the National Socialists, all oriented around the anti-Capitalism and anti-Semitic ideals of Marxism.

As Richard Pipes detailed in "Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime,"Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin also implemented anti-Jewish (themed as anti-capitalist) programs in Russia and the USSR after the Communist revolution. Lenin ordered the Jews to be sent to the front lines of combat in battle, and ordered that no Jew should be given high-ranking administrative positions in government, as was detailed in "Time of Darkness: Moscow"by the great Russian political reformer and historian, Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev.

The argument that it is fascism that was the birth of Hitler's anti-Semitism also fails to hold water. Mussolini founded the fascist movement in Italy and had seized control of the Italian government well before Hitler's SS had started harassing Jews, but Mussolini protected Jews in Italy from persecution (as long as they swore political loyalty to him), until much later after his country was under Allied attack and he had to beg Hitler for German troops to fight off the Allied advance.

To this day, even in America, democratic socialists struggle with elements of anti-Semitism in their own ranks, because Jews are still being accused of hypnotizing the world via money by democratic socialist members of the U.S. Congress.

No, socialism is not inherently and always racist. But neither is socialism free from racist ideology, if that racist ideology serves as a bogeyman, any enemy of "the people" who is preventing the utopia of equality. Hitler's enemy of the "volk" was the capitalist, banker Jew, sucking the life out of his precious Fatherland. For freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), it's the un-woke white male, driving an SUV and drinking single-malt while hunting deer from a tree stand, making the world unsafe for women, children and minorities. Both were self-ascribed socialists. Both racist, too.

Racism isn't always about "race" either. The point is about dehumanization as a means to classify the enemies of "The People." In addition to murdering six million Jews, the Nazis killed additional millions of gypsies, homosexuals, blacks, Christians and Slovaks. Hitler and the Nazis used dehumanizing language to describe all of them… . Jews just happened to be his favorite target. But the techniques used by socialist were universal. Marx referred to capitalists or the bourgeoisie as "parasites" over 120 times in books, essays and speeches.

As recently as this past year, National of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Jews as "termites"… although luckily Chelsea Clinton was kind enough to write an article for the online progressive magazine,"Forward," politely correcting him and implying, emphatically, she'd never met a Jewish termite.

Today's democratic socialists are using the same techniques. How many times have Trump supporters been called "sub-human" or a "Basket of Deplorables"? Marxism requires an enemy of the people, but when push comes to shove, people don't like to kill other people. So, the enemies must be made sub-human in order to justify the "purging" and "liquidation" that must necessarily follow. What will Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez do when wealthy, white males won't go along with their gun and SUV confiscation schemes required under their green-collectivist state? The Weather Underground boldly let us know back in the 1970s, when they issued a news releaseclaiming that in order to bring justice to the U.S., up to 25 million white people would have to die.

Today, the Chinese Communist Party is rounding up Christians, Muslims and Uigars, placing them in concentration camps and re-education camps. More than 35 percent of the current Chinese population has been relegated to digital and travel-restricted ghettos, because their social-trust score is below Communist Party standards. Hitler had to go through the trouble of rounding Jews up and moving them into ghettos. Today, Chinese leader Xi Jinping does it with the help of Facebook and Google.

All part of creating the socialist utopia Marx dreamed would destroy the unfair inequality of capitalism.

Dozens of classical stars of the socialist firmament were ardent racists. Margaret Sanger, socialist and anti-black advocate…sorry, pro-black-abortion advocate. Bernard Shaw, famous socialist, was first to dream up and write about using gas chambers to 'gently, humanely' remove those societies that was determined to no longer have a productive use. " Sir or madame, please kindly justify your existence." Both Shaw and Sanger are still widely studied and celebrated by socialists today.

Perhaps a final lesson here can be learned by examining the ideology of Richard Spencer, self-proclaimed racist and white supremacist, and therefore branded by the media and political elite as a right-wing extremist. However, Spencer also rejects the U.S. Constitution, is pro-universal health care and pro-free (segregated) college education, and in favor of government-funded abortions. Most of the National Socialist program themes Hitler wrote about, he'd embrace in total. And he's a right-wing extremist? Take away just his virulent racism, he'd be a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, espousing purely leftist ideologies.

Hopefully you are getting the wider picture. Socialism doesn't guarantee racism, but neither does it offer any sort of protection from it. To claim otherwise is willful blindness to history.

7. The Nazis did not seize all private property and money, so they weren't socialists.

Again, it's vital to review the overall timeline of Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party from the early and perhaps idealistic days of 1919 all the way through the fall of the Third Reich in 1945. For most of the 1920s, Hitler and the Nazis held little by way of political power through which they could have seized anybody's property, but that doesn't mean they didn't advocate for doing so, first in their National Socialists program cited extensively above, but numerous times after that. They did, after all, seize substantial privately owned property in Germany as well as conquered lands, including thousands of businesses, farms and bank accounts.

The fact that they focused first on Jewish businesses is irrelevant to the fact that private property was seized and transferred to the ownership of the state. The fact that Jewish property was at the top of the list of whom to target doesn't make it less Marxist or socialist to do, any more than it would be less socialist to target rich white males, as is currently being proposed by Bernie Sanders and others on the far left. Who you're targeting for confiscation schemes should be a moot point.

It's key to recall who Hitler and the Nazis were. They were socialists by way of economic policies, but staunchly nationalist and staunchly anti-Semitic racists who believed in a German super-race that could only be realized by way of physically purging inferior peoples and blood and by "reclaiming" lands stolen from their rightful Aryan-ancestors. Eric Kurlander powerfully and skillfully provided that history in "Hitler's Monsters," another book every American should read to fully understand the Nazi era.

It is true that once the Nazis came to power and started down their twin paths of political dominance within Germany and military conflict with external forces, Hitler's pragmatic side certainly overwhelmed any traditional or "classic" socialist ideals he may have once held. Surely after the powerful success he'd seen Mussolini seemingly achieve in Italy under fascism, the idea of communal socialism wouldn't have seemed the most efficient way for him to achieve his vision of a blood-pure and massive German super-state.

Note that the Nazis did nationalize dozens of industries and, by law, did have total centralized-control over the means of production … business owners and manufacturers had ownership of their property and factories in name only once the Waffen-SS and stormtroopers were fully in power. So, in his own way, Hitler did achieve Karl Marx-vision of control over the means of production by an all-powerful state. For Hitler, that state was simply imbued in him, instead of in a democratically elected central committee. Hitler's rejection of the authorities of labor unions or of workers' councils shouldn't, then, be viewed as anti-socialist. … Hitler was not in favor of giving any other person or group any authority over his own. Coincidentally, President Xi of China just recently declared himself dictator for life. History seems to love to recycle these themes, no?

Hitler was a pragmatist. He saw the favor of the German aristocracy and wealthy manufacturers (if they were not Jewish) as key to achieving his vision for the Third Reich.

Hitler was a pragmatist. He saw the favor of the German aristocracy and wealthy manufacturers (if they were not Jewish) as key to achieving his vision for the Third Reich. The fact that this meant not being a "perfect" socialist may have occurred to some, but certainly not to him.

8. Hitler was only interested in power, in being a dictator, not in socialist principals of peace and love and equality.

Before I dispense with the peace and love and equality BS … look, a study of Marx is a study about inequality! Marx was a racist, class-warfare-monger whom the average democratic socialist in America today would wholly reject from their social circles and political party.

So, I won't argue this last one, it's just beyond discussion. Socialism isn't nice and peaceful and filled with love and equality. Just stop it. Please pick up a history book and get back to me when you're ready to have a real conversation.

Yet, one final point should be made:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERFECT "MARXIST" SOCIALISM!!

From the time Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in the 1850s until his death in 1883, Marx never once espoused any version of "perfect" Socialism. As socialist professor Philip Gasper pointed out quite correctly in his 2005 book, "The Communist Manifesto: A Roadmap to the World's Most Important Political Document":

"Marx and Engels never speculated on the detailed organization of a future socialist or communist society. The key task for them was building a movement to overthrow capitalism. If and when that movement was successful, it would be up to the members of the new society to decide democratically how it was to be organized, in the concrete historical circumstances in which they found themselves."

So, for Karl Marx, the "father" of socialism, there is no thing as perfect, idealized, "do it this way or you're not a socialist" socialism.

The primary goal was building a movement to overthrow capitalism. In that Hitler and the Nazis viewed Jewry as capitalistic (as did Marx), it's very likely that Marx would have found them to be wonderfully and perfectly socialist. He did exactly what Marx advised: Take what you got and organize your own brand of socialism against the "concrete historical circumstances" in which they found themselves.

The very statement that "Hitler was not a socialist" by some imaginary perfect socialist checklist is itself a ludicrous notion. Marx never created one, it's only via the magic of a modern veil of anachronistic imagination that one can create such a yardstick by which to make such a claim. And so, we're back where we started, according to Marx himself: The Nazis, including Adolf Hitler, called themselves Socialists. The claimed an all-powerful centralized state power as having authority over the means of production. As such, they were socialists, by Marx' own definition.

In the end, the story follows the Occam's Razor theorem to the "T"…

A younger and idealistic Hitler returning from the Great War believed in and espoused many socialist ideas and political ideals and got together with a bunch of other young people also espousing socialist ideas. As he grew older and gained more political power, he found that those socialist ideas weren't much use when it was time to actually accomplish anything in the real world, so he did what all socialist rulers eventually do — he claimed power by force and used violence to try to achieve his political ends, killing millions of people along the way, all the while still calling himself a socialist. And Marx slept soundly in his grave.

Socialism is the building block that undergirds all forms of modern totalitarianism. But it should never be confused with a large welfare-state safety net. Charity and safety nets can be and should be created for those who cannot fully take care of themselves. As individuals, we have a responsibility to take care of and protect the weakest among us. If we fail to do this we revert back to the laws of the jungle, that leaves its weakest behind for the good of the "pride." Safety nets when done right are uniquely human and humane as still look to help individual.

The human "pride" knows that what ennobles man is that we refuse to leave the weakest behind to be eaten and we certainly could not call ourselves a noble species if our stated goal was to not only leave the weak behind, but to set out to purposely kill any group deemed "inferior" or slowing the pack down. A true safety net empowers anyone that has been kicked to the ground to stand back up. It gives them a hand up as an individual — while they regain their footing.

Socialism at its root is and always must be about the collective. Collective "injustice" in all of its forms. In opposition to a "safety net" for individuals, socialism looks for "groups" of victims and groups of villains. Socialism is at its heart a system that dismisses rights of the one for the gain of the many. Once those the in-group deems vermin, cockroaches, greedy, privileged or problems — anything is justifiable to provide "social justice" to the collective.

In western society, traditional western liberalism stand against the collective mob and as a protector of the individual. Once one understands why socialism is defined as a "stepping stone," you will begin to understand why the story usually ends in mass graves of enemies or starvation. Create a collective at the expense of the individual and it becomes a playground for those who seek power and riches at any cost, justifying every evil they commit in the name of the collective they are supposedly defending.

So yes, Virginia, Hitler really was a socialist. Tragically, a very successful one.