Prince Charles, Sauds, Heavily Implicated in Financing ISIS ‘Terrorists’

“The Fall of the House of Windsor”

“Saudi Role in Financing Jihadis Now Being Questioned in International Press”

“Deciding who is funding ISIS—and who should take the heat for its survival—depends upon the degree to which the world believes that the Islamic State is self-financing. Western governments have detailed the production of oil wells in ISIS territory and the vast amounts of cash supposedly stolen from Mosul banks after ISIS took over, but smuggling fuel and ransacking vaults can hardly sustain an Islamist nation which controls an area larger than the U.K.” says Leading British Middle East journalist Robert Fisk, writing in the Belfast Telegraph Feb. 4, essentially asking, “If the Saudis aren’t funding ISIS, who is?” Putting it bluntly, Fisk asks, “Should the world blame the Saudis for the inflammable monster that is ISIS?” (Executive Intelligence Review, February 9, 2015)

The House of Windsor is sinking itself–and the entire loathsome dogs of war that havoc  the earth in the name of British Imperialism–deeper and deeper into the slimy swamps  from which it crawled so long ago, according to Historians version of the Venetian nobility from which they originated.

British monarchs  have been  used to simply doing whatever they wanted and not having anyone daring

Dickens at the Blacking Warehouse. Charles Dic...
Dickens at the Blacking Warehouse. Charles Dickens is here shown as a boy of twelve years of age, working in a factory. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

to utter a peep of protest, as when Henry VIII romped through English, looting and

plundering all the properties and treasures of the Catholic Church–and set the Industrial Revolution back 250 years, contrary to what young trollings have been led to believe. He was ex-communicated by the Pope, but Henry didn’t care. He just invented his own church, made himself the head of it, and probably invented his own god, also.

The famous ‘English Common Law‘ was merely for the sake of appearances, for the most part. Anyone who has read Charles Dickens or any of the novels of those eras are quite familiar with the brutality and total indifference the oligarchical class showed the common man. England was severely overcrowded, there were simply not enough jobs, land or food to go around, and yet the poor were treated like poverty was a moral failing on their part, and idleness was a sign of sloth, ignorance and a criminal constitution.

So they threw the poor into prisons, hanged them, starved them in workhouses, paid them less to nothing and worked them to death in horrid factories they would not keep a dog they liked . Indeed, most horses led much better lives than the common working man in England.

Het gieten van ijzer in blokken
Het gieten van ijzer in blokken (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is where their views about eugenics and total lack of humanity came from; any society that could hang a seven-year-old child for stealing a teaspoon did not deserve to exist.

Was it any wonder our forefathers left to find freedom from such sheer assholery in America? The Royals were exceedingly insulted and outraged when the new colony had the effrontery to dare to think it could govern itself–common people, escaping from their masters? It was outside the laws of nature–according to the Monarchy, and hadn’t they dismissed God as a nuisance years ago? After the Revolution, they have spent untold efforts and money not only to bring the USA back into its proper place, but to bring the entire world under its authority, as was proper and fitting–in their eyes. Like the Muslims, they have decided they are the only ones perfect enough, sacred enough, refined enough to be allowed to be master of everyone else on the planet. Somehow, they ignore the fact they are a bunch of bloody, sociopathic butchers, dope-pushers and criminals. Just like their buddies.


It’s no secret Prince Charles has ties to  the Saudi sponsors of Wahhabite terrorism worldwide; so does George Bush as a matter fact, and no one can miss how Obama positively grovels before the Saud royals.  U.S. citizens are growling in rising outrage,  demanding disclosure of the 28 suppressed pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concerning the relationship of the Saudi royal family to those crimes.  Charles can’t wiggle his way out of this, or mutter polite excuses;  Not only did Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the USA in 2001 and undoubtedly a subject of the 28 pages, pour tens of millions of dollars into Charles’s private “charities” and the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (known as “Charles’s OCIS,” because of his active patronage), but Charles himself negotiated mega-deals within the Anglo-Saudi arms trade[1]

(1. Richard Freeman and William F. Wertz, Jr., “Charles of Arabia. The British Monarchy, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11,” EIR, May 23, 2014; and Richard Freeman, “King Faisal and the Forging of the Anglo-Saudi Terror Alliance,” EIR, June 27, 2014, document ties between the Saudi and British Royals, particularly Charles.)

“Bandar’s brother-in-law Prince Turki bin Faisal, who resigned as director of Saudi General Intelligence 10 days before 9/11, is a member of the OCIS Board of Trustees and chairs its Strategy Advisory Committee. The pair were among only eight foreign royals whom Charles invited to his wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005.”

 Both are named in the 4,000-page lawsuit filed on Feb. 3 in New York by the families of 9/11 victims. [See article in National—ed.] Already in 2005, a book co-authored by British former prisoner of the Saudi regime Sandy Mitchell pointed out that “Prince Charles’s relationships with prominent House of Saud members have created serious problems and obstacles to UK agencies investigating claims of Saudi financing of international terrorism, according to Special Branch sources,” citing how lawyers for 9/11 families encountered such a stone wall on a visit to the UK in 2003. [2 ]

2. Mark Hollingsworth with Sandy Mitchell, Saudi Babylon: Torture, Corruption and Cover-Up Inside the House of Saud (Edinburgh and London: Mainstream Publishing, 2005).

Fury at the  Windsor-Saud alliance is building rapidly, and where there was a time when no journalist dared say a word remotely critical of a royal, they have sunk themselves so deep in the mire of their own scandals, that the world at large has lost all respect for them, it seems. Human rights activist Joan Smith, for example, blasted Charles in a Jan. 25 column in The Independent, for “sucking up to the Saudis.” She cited the role of “Saudi Arabia, with its two-faced royal family,” in “the 9/11 attacks, Madrid, the 7/7 bombings, the kidnapping of the Chibok girls [and] the massacre at Charlie Hebdo.
Charles is feeling the heat. A new biography of the Prince of Wales claims that he “no longer wants to promote UK arms sales in Gulf States,” according to the BBC on Feb. 4. [3]

3. The book is Charles: Heart of a King (London: WH Allen, 2015), by Time magazine journalist Catherine Mayer 

When  Charles visited the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, again on Feb. 6-12, Clarence House (his residence) even  issued a defensive-sounding statement that “the Prince of Wales’s return to the region only one year after his last tour demonstrates the importance that Her Majesty’s Government places on its association with key partners in the area. These connections are underpinned by the long-standing and respectful relationships which exist between the Royal Family and the ruling families in the Gulf.” The BBC reported that a spokesman followed up with a pre-emptive denial of new arms deals, saying: “The Prince of Wales’ upcoming visit to the Middle East is not about sales of defense equipment.”  You almost have to feel sorry for someone so pathetically clueless, but they are ALL like that, and it’s what makes them so bloody dangerous.

Even more scum leaking out of the fissures and cracks of the crumbling “Empire”:

• Revelations about a pedophile ring operating in high society, including within Buckingham Palace, continue to rock the UK. At the same time, Catherine Mayer’s biography has drawn attention to the status Prince Charles accorded the late Jimmy Savile—a TV personality and notorious pedophile (exposed as such only after his death in 2011)—as friend, confidant, adviser, and even “key aide,” as one newspaper account put it. A 2013 Scotland Yard report cited abuse by Savile “on an unprecedented scale,” shown in complaints by 450 people, covering the period 1955-2009 and victims aged 8 to 47.

• Sworn testimony is sought from Prince Andrew, fifth in line to the throne, in a sexual abuse claim against convicted child-abuser Jeffrey Epstein by a victim who testifies she was pimped to Andrew by Epstein, his friend, when she was a minor.

Charles’s “fury” over a BBC documentary called “Reinventing the Royals,” was widely reported. It concerns the PR campaign waged after Diana’s death to get the public to accept Charles’s longtime mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, as his next wife. Scheduled to air on Jan. 4, the program was pulled because Clarence House refused to provide archival footage. After an uproar over Charles’s heavy-handed intervention, the program is now supposed to air on Feb. 19.

Royals and British Intelligence Implicated in Assassination of Princess Diana

The deaths of Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, were a terrible shock to the world. She was much-beloved, and there were grave suspicions that her death was no accident, as the “official storyline” claimed. A retired New Zealander, John Morgan, was prmpted to look into her death by his own suspicions, and after intensive investigation, found that a key intelligence figure involved was a rather infamous and high-ranked MI6 Intelligence Officer, Sherpard Cowper-Coles, who was posing under a pseudonym in the London Embassy, and replaced the day after Diana’s murder. No testimony from Cowper-Coles was taken at the inquest, although presiding Lord Justice Scott Baker had announced that the involvement of British security services was a major topic for review. That omission is even more striking in view of Cowper-Coles’s relationship to the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal, [20 ] in which Prince Charles and Prince Andrew have both directly participated.

([20.] Jeffrey Steinberg, “Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City,” EIR, June 22, 2007. Cowper-Coles had headed the Hong Kong Department of the British Foreign Office, until the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. As
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (2003-07), he played a decisive role in 2006 in shutting down the British Serious Fraud Office investigation of the Al-Yamamah deal, which Prince Bandar had negotiated with the huge British arms company BAE Systems. Al-Yamamah generated a slush fund of $100 billion, used to finance the Afghan mujahedin networks
that gave rise to Al-Qaeda. Cowper-Coles was later the British Ambassador to Afghanistan (2007-09) and the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan (2009-10). In 2007, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expelled two MI6 agents caught funding the Taliban, one of whom, Michael Semple, was a close associate of Cowper-Coles. (Ramtanu Maitra, “Does the U.S. Understand What Is at Stake in Afghanistan?”, EIR, Sept. 24, 2010, details the involvement of Cowper-Coles in the matter of British dope-promotion in Afghanistan, while also mentioning his track record with respect to Diana’s death and the Saudi arms scandal.) After leaving the Foreign Office, CowperColes
became a senior executive at BAE Systems. He left BAE in 2013 and is currently Senior Advisor to the CEO of another elite British company, one with a background in the narcotics trade, HSBC Group. In 2004 Queen Elizabeth made Cowper-Coles a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

Phases of Al-Yamamah, as well as other BAE-Saudi arms deals, were negotiated by Charles himself, most recently during his February 2014 state visit to Saudi Arabia. In November 2010, major British press reported on Andrew’s advocacy for BAE, as revealed in a U.S. diplomatic telegram, exposed by Wikileaks, expressing shock at how he had “railed at British anticorruption investigators, who had had the ‘idiocy’ of almost scuttling the al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia.”)


Who are the Real Fascists in America?

Who Are the Real Fascists in America?

by Chylene Ramsey

 Psychologists have a term for the way some people who do destructive, even horrible things shift the blame onto others—it’s called “transference”, and in its misplaced assignment of blame and responsibility, is a form of lying, especially to one’s own self. Often, they even blame the very victim of their crime, blaming the person or persons they have harmed by their actions. In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler contrasts the big lie with ordinary lies to describe Nazi propaganda: “The great masses of the people more easily fall victim to the big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous representation of others.” [1]

Hitler was referring to lies allegedly propagated by Jews, who he said were masters of the big lie, even though “Mein Kampf” itself is a blatant recitation of libels and calumnies against the Jews. They are accused both of being capitalists, to Bolsheviks; from being impotent to lusting after Nordic women; from being insignificant to being seekers of world domination. ..obviously, they cannot be all of these things, but Hitler also accuses the Jews of lying and plotting the destruction of Germany, even while he lied and plotted the destruction of the Jews.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the big lie has been reborn, this time about the role of fascism and Nazism in American politics. The Left—with the support of the Democratic Party—insists that Donald Trump is an American version of Hitler or Mussolini, and the GOP the new incarnation of the Nazi Party. They feel justified in seeking to destroy him and his allies by any means necessary, because in their way of thinking, “the end justifies the means.”

However, a perusal of the history and philosophy of fascism will soon make clear that fascism is an outgrowth of socialism, and in their tactics of bullying and intimidation of anyone who disagrees with them are subscribing to a full-blown fascist ideology.

It’s become obvious that the Left, through a process of transference, blame the very victims of these tactics on their victims, accusing them of doing the very things they themselves are engaged in. They, who declare they are the opponents of hate, are the real practitioners of the politics of hate and dishonesty, and have the idea that the progressives and Democrats are the party of emancipation, equality, and civil rights, whereas the Democratic Party is actually the party of slavery and Native American genocide, of segregation and Jim Crow laws, of racial terrorism and the Ku Klux Klan, that even opposed the civil rights movement of the sixties. They instead have taken full credit for the civil rights movement, even though Republicans were the ones who got it passed, and the opposition to it came almost entirely from the Democrats. Needless to say, the Democrats have never admitted their racist   history or taken responsibility for their actions.

They can do this because they have almost entirely monopolized the public voice, from academia to the movies, to the major media itself.  These Big Liars can say whatever they please, confident that they leave no room for contradiction by opposing views. Their lies are taught in classrooms, movies and TV shows and reported in the media as the truth.

In 1860, the year before the Civil War, no Republican owned slaves. All the four million slaves at the time were owned by Democrats. And what about Democrat Robert Byrd, the “conscience of the Senate?” Decades ago, he had been a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, yet was eulogized by the Clintons and Obamas when he died in 2010.

“Fascism” and “Nazism” have become the branding irons of whatever the Left disapproves of; it is obvious that they have no idea how the real fascists and Nazis operated, or they would not be using their methods and subscribing to much of their ideology. Fascism is routinely applied to Christians, and to those who want lower taxes, who oppose government over-regulation, who deny global warming, to any person or organization that opposes them.

This attitude has reached mammoth proportions in the Left’s denouncements of President Trump. They compare him to pre-war Hitler and Mussolini, and hysterically warn that unless he is stopped, by whatever means they deem necessary, he will do terrible things. They have not only rejected Trump, but the democratic process by which he was elected into office by a resounding majority of the American people.

Similarly, in the 1920’s and 1930’s, it was the fascists who rejected parliamentary democracy with its annoying, unworkable rules. They were the ones who declared democratically elected leaders illegitimate, and backed strategies to oust them from power. Now it is the progressive Democrats who continue to challenge the validity of Trump’s presidency. It is they who refuse to accept the results of the election, and are reacting as they Nazis and fascists did against what they perceive to be a malfunctioning democratic system. They seem to be totally unaware that their tactics of violence and intimidation, they are doing exactly what the Nazis and fascists did to silence political and ideological foes.

Hitler describes in “Mein Kampf” how his brownshirts would arrive at political events armed with bats and sticks. Out election process was dominated by heated and sometimes violent confrontations, all at Trump rallies, never at Hillary’s.  Such things were commonplace in Italy and Germany during the early twentieth century, but haven’t been seen in America since the 1960’s. A group called Project Veritas released videotaped evidence that the Hillary campaign and leftist groups had paid protestors to provoke violence at Trump rallies. Still, the MSM transferred the blame on Trump, claiming that even if the Left did start the violence, it was a natural and justifiable response to Trump’s speeches. The media even portrayed the Antifa hoodlums as heroic resisters trying to block the rise of Nazism in America. They ignored the fact that the alleged “fascists” were acting in a lawful, peaceful manner, and the “anti-fascists” were behaving like the fascists they were supposed to be resisting. The Left is engaging in premeditated violence as a political strategy. Many on the Left even justified the violence and tried to rationalize it. How can it be in a democratic society that they can prevent others from exercising their First Amendment rights and in violently rejecting the results of a democratic election? “Anti-fascists” however are committed to stopping perceived fascists from speaking, apparently unaware that they are using fascist tactics to do so.

It was the Nazis who engaged in what they called “Gleicschaltung”, which means “coordination” and refers to the Nazi effort to use intimidation across the cultural institutions of society to bring everyone is line with Nazi doctrine. Progressives in America are using their dominance in the fields of academia, Hollywood and the media to enforce their own “Gleichschaltung”. They do this not only by the type of blatant propagandizing and outright lying that Joseph Goebbels propagated, but also through the battering and forced exclusion of dissenting voices, so that theirs are the only voice heard, even though the election proved that the majority of Americans had rejected a socialist platform.

These things raise two important questions: is it true that “fascists” do not deserve to be heard and is it justifiable to deny them their civil and constitutional rights? And, most importantly, is it true that the people whom the Left calls “Fascists” and “Nazis” are in actuality fascists and Nazis? The question we need to ask ourselves is, “Who are the real fascists in America?”

The economist Fredrich Hayek in his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, first published in 1944, made the claim that Western welfare-state democracies, having defeated fascism were themselves moving towards fascism. He identified fascism as a phenomenon of the Left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism. He warned, “The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction to the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.” Progressive scholars immediately began reviling Hayek, with one, Herman Finer, accusing him of displaying a “Thoroughly Hitlerian contempt of the democratic man.”  This is typical of the way the Left works—here is Hayek making a case for how the progressives are moving in the direction of Hitler, and without answering the charge and with no supporting evidence, the Left turned around and accused Hayek of being like Hitler. [2], [3]

Jonah Goldberg was similarly treated for his important book, “Liberal Fascism.” He said, “What we call liberalism—the refurnished edifice of American progressivism—is in fact a descendant of and manifestation of fascism.” He also said that fascism and communism were not opposites, but were “closely related historical competitors for the same constituents.” He termed progressivism a “sister movement of fascism, displaying a family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing.”

Goldberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left-wing laundry list in both the platforms of Hitler and Mussolini, and then showing their parallels in modern American progressivism. Once again, the Left set upon Goldberg with a vengeance, charging him of being, of all things, a “fascist.” [4]

How did fascism and Nazism both emerge from socialism?  It started when the central prophecies of Marxism failed to materialize, creating a massive crisis within the Left, and Marxism split into two camps, Leninism and Bolshevism on the one side and Nazism and Fascism on the other.

Fascism and Nazism are two different things; Hitler hardy ever referred to himself as a fascist, and Mussolini never called himself a Nazi or National Socialist. In fact, in some ways, the progressive Democrats are even closer to the Nazis than to the Italian fascists. The fascists were much less racist than the Democratic Party in the United States. Democratic policies of white supremacy, racial segregation and state-sponsored discrimination were alien to Italian fascism, but familiar to the Third Reich.

Robert Paxton, in his “The Anatomy of Fascism” said: “It may be that the earliest phenomenon that can be functionally related to fascism is American: the Ku Klux Klan…” He points out that even before the Nazis, the Klan adopted its racial uniform of robes and hoods, and engaged in the types of intimidation and violence that were, “a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe.” But Paxon fails to mention that during this period, the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. [ 5]

Indeed, the racism of the Democratic Party in America not only preceded and inspired the racism of the Nazis, it lasted a lot longer, more than a century compared to twelve years of Nazi rule in Germany.

The Democratic Party’s racism after the Civil War was preceded by their defense of slavery, and their support for the relocation and extermination of the Native Americans. In doing so, the Left provided the Nazis with some important policy schemes that the Nazis implemented in Europe. Hitler said he intended to displace and exterminate the Russians, the Poles, and the Slavs in precisely the way Democrats in the Jacksonian era had displaced and exterminated the Native Americans. The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were directly modeled on the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws that had been implemented decades earlier in the Democratic South.

Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial “defectives” and producing a “superior” Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives. In the early twentieth century, eugenics and social Darwinism were far more prevalent in America than they were in Germany. Margaret Sanger and her fellow progressives did not get their ideas for killing off “undesirables” or preventing their births from the Nazis, they got them from their American counterparts who dominated the field of international eugenics.

FDR was an avid admirer of Mussolini who endeavored to import Italian fascism to America. FDR also collaborated with the worst racial elements in America working with them to block anti-lynching laws and exclude blacks from the New Deal, and named a former Klansman to the Supreme Court.

These incriminating facts are known to many progressive scholars. But after WWII this group increasingly dominated academia. The progressives realized how detrimental it would be if the truth of the actual record of progressivism and the Democratic Party were ever widely known. Such knowledge would not only result in toppling progressive heroes from their pedestals, it would be the end of progressivism and the Democratic Party. So, they decided to tell a new story and it has become our conventional wisdom. In this tale, the very fascism and Nazism that was from the beginning on both sides of the Atlantic, recognized as left-wing phenomenon, were shifted to the right. Mussolini and Hitler became “right wingers” and the people who brought them to power were the “conservatives”.

Even though the evidence for Trump’s supposed racism and xenophobia is virtually non-existent, the Left calls him and all Republicans “racist” and “fascists”. Trump is endeavoring to bring back jobs, and making the government smaller and less bureaucratic; modern conservatism is about restoring the ideals of our founders to create a better future.  Trump has done nothing to subvert the democratic process. While progressivism contends that there was a plot to rig the election in Trump’s favor, the only evidence of rigging comes from the Democratic National Committee’s attempt to rig the 2016 primary in favor of Hillary Clinton, which brought virtually no dissent from Democratic officials or from the media, suggesting that they had the support of the whole progressive movement and the party itself.

Fascism and Nazism in Europe were defeated by 1945. It took Soviet communism a lot longer to self-destruct. You would think the Left would have learned that collectivism having been tried, has failed. But they ignore the lessons of history and for people who know how to recognize it, the Left is still the party of fascism and National Socialism, refurbished and reborn, albeit under disguise.

Robert Paxton in his book, “The Anatomy of Fascism”, said: The legitimization of violence against a demonized internal enemy brings us closer to fascism.” This is exactly what the Left is doing in their unreasoning persecution against Donald Trump with the emergence of Antifa and other violent groups. Where is the opposition to Trump really coming from? No one can ignore the ferocity of the anti-Trump movements. It is obvious that the Left’s real power comes, not from any conspiracy, but from its domination of academia, Hollywood, and the media, and no dissenting voices are allowed to be heard. This state-within-a-state is the deadliest weapon of progressives and the Democratic Party; without it neither progressives or Democrats could have gotten so far.

A recent report by the Oregon Association of Scholars, a conservative group, shows that universities “weed out” conservative professors and refuse to hire them. Leftists in the universities claim that conservatives lack commitment to “diversity”. Therefore, diversity becomes the pretext for progressives to root out the remaining ideological and intellectual diversity that might remain on campuses.

We live today in one of the most closed, exclusionary, repressive cultures in modern history. The Left doesn’t have to with-hunt for conservatives—it simply refuses to hire them or allow them their First Amendment rights of free speech. When conservative speakers show up on campuses, they are frequently prevented from speaking by violent Leftist protestors, or shouted down by activists with bullhorns. This is the America we now live in. Ours is a culture of ritual abuse and humiliation, in which dissenting voices are hounded, shamed, and terrorized, sometimes not just to silence them, but to destroy the careers and lives of those who speak out against them.

This is precisely why so many Republicans and conservatives are timid; they fear the media with its power to humiliate and denigrate them. It is exactly the effect the Left desires—to silence all dissent and truth.

Even as the Left embraces Nazi propaganda and bullying tactics, it insists its actions are in the name of anti-Nazism. That’s where the moral responsibility, or lack of it, comes from. It’s how fascist thugs can be portrayed by their progressive allies in the media and Hollywood as heroes. By contrast, their targets—the victims of their fascist bullying tactics—are they themselves portrayed as fascists who deserve to be humiliated and abused. They spare little thought that what they are doing is suppressing freedom and liberty, and threaten to impose a fascist regime on our entire nation.

Donald Trump was elected by the majority of the people in our country; their power lies in the ballot box and in the power of truth and knowledge. Only by continuing to actively resist the Left by every legal means at our disposal against those who are committing these illegal actions can we hope to turn back this rising tide of fascism and win back our country. It will take courage, strength, and persistence, even in the face of censure and personal attacks to quell these unreasoning attacks upon the very fabric of our democracy.



Dinesh D’Souza: “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left”, Regency Publishing, a Division of Salem Media Group, 300 New Jersey Ave. NW, Washington DC.

[1] Adolph Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Trans. Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton Miffin, 1999), 231.

[2] Fredrich Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom” (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2007), 59.

[3] Herbert Finer, “Road to Reaction” (Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1945); ix.

[4] Joseph Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism” (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 2, 7.

[5] Robert Paxton, “The Anatomy of Fascism” (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), 49.