One of the most common errors I see swirling around the internet is the idea that the feminist movement, and its spawn the LGBT movement, is a “fascist” or “Nazi” movement. I often see feminists referred to as “feminazis” and those afflicted by homosexuality labeled “homo-fascists.” These distinctions are utterly erroneous and this article explains the reason why.

It is an incredibly well-documented fact that the Women’s Liberation movement – the mother of all other social justice perversions – was founded by the communists. One of the longest chapters in my book A Century of Red is devoted to exposing this connection. The communists saw the traditional family – particularly the patriarchal Christian home – as their main obstacle to world conquest. The feminist movement is their chief weapon to destroy this obstacle and usher in a “new morality.”

Early on, the communists fabricated the concept of a “patriarchy” that “oppressed” women. They spread this propaganda to make women feel like underprivileged victims. Once women felt like victims of some fictitious male conspiracy, the communists then offered them so-called “liberation” and “equal rights.” These women, having developed a woe-is-me victim mentality, were naturally galvanized to work for worldwide communist revolution without knowing they did so. With women in their camp, the communist conspirators systematically destroyed the institution of the home from within. And a wrecked and decaying civilization is the direct result.

The radical Bolshevik feminist, and mistress of Vladimir Lenin, Inessa Armand, explained how integral feminism is to the communist conspiracy. She declared:

“If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”

Researcher Henry Makow, whose book Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order ranks as one of the best on the subject, made a similar observation. He wrote:

“It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name” (Makow, Cruel Hoax, 37).

In accordance with their anti-family communist ideology, the Soviet Union was the first modern state to legalize abortion. The USSR was also the first nation to institute no-fault divorce. Even church marriages were outlawed. To fill the void, some people had “Red weddings” instead. The communist regime implemented a radical “family code” throughout the Soviet Empire which embodied many of these feminist talking points just mentioned. Paul Kengor’s book Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage is a fantastic exposé on the subject.

It is a sad indictment that the United States has followed the Soviet prototype and has instituted no-fault divorce, legalized abortion, altered the traditional definition of marriage, and is in the process of restructuring the family along secular lines. Misleading slogans coined by communists are now ingrained in the American psyche. Chief among them is the war cry of “equality” which ignores the fact that equality is a myth. In the eyes of God we are all equal and under just laws people are equal, but in every other conceivable way equality is a lie used to tug on people’s heartstrings and rally them to fight for “social justice” and a decidedly Marxist restructuring of society.

Under the guise of “equal rights,” women have barged into the workplace to compete with men, leaving behind their homes, young children, and the divine calling of motherhood. Feminists have used the concept of “equality” to justify their lewd and promiscuous behavior, claiming that “if men can do it, we can do it, too.” Immorality is wrong when anyone does it, but it is more strongly felt throughout society when women abandon their virtuous nature and seek to become what amounts to inferior men. Women have ruined themselves in grasping for “equality.” One of my favorite quotes on this subject, whose authorship I am not certain, says:

“Men stopped being gentlemen when women stopped being ladies and started demanding equality in a society that treated them like queens.”

Women of past generations were cherished for their work in the home as mothers, wives, and homemakers. They were beloved. No other member of society received as much praise and support. Yet, the feminist propagandists – most of whom were card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA – went out of their way to besmirch these women and portray them as uneducated dolts who were enslaved by the “patriarchy.” These lies were used to scare younger women into avoiding the time-tested, scripturally-approved path of marriage, motherhood, and homemaking.

Instead of being enslaved to the fictitious male cabal known as the “patriarchy,” women are now enslaved tools of the communist cause. Instead of being queens in their homes, they are drones in the workplace. Instead of being the noble, virtuous women their progenitors were, they are lewd, loud, and lust-filled. Feminism has corrupted the very essence of femininity and has severely disadvantaged American women who were once the most blessed and privileged class of people to have ever walked the planet.

Feminists and their Social Justice Warrior cohorts are the vanguard of this worldwide revolution to destroy Christian culture and the sound foundation of society. Women and feminized men are the hammer with which the Bolsheviks have bludgeoned to death Biblical marriage, patriarchal families, healthy home life, and traditional gender roles. Everything sacred has been trampled on by these bitter, hoodwinked feminists who don’t have the mental acumen to know they are tools in communist hands.

But what of fascism? Surely the hated “Nazis” must have also tried to destroy the family and promote radical cultural ideas, right? In fact, no, they did not. Fascism and feminism have nothing in common. Fascism, particularly as practiced by Hitler’s Germany, was an enemy to everything feminism stood for.

Germany in the 1930s and 40s was the most vociferously anti-communist state I have ever studied. Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists were elected not because of their stance on Jews, as most historians have absurdly alleged, but because of their official anti-communist stance. Hitler gave his famous 1933 Sportpalast acceptance speech, after having secured the post of chancellor, in front of a massive banner that read: “Marxism must die for the nation to survive.”

In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke of communism in these terms:

“[T]he original founders of this plague of the nations must have been veritable devils; for only in the brain of a monster – not that of a man – could the plan of an organization assume form and meaning, whose activity must ultimately result in the collapse of human civilization and the consequent devastation of the world” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, 63-64).

Hitler virulently opposed the culture-corrupting, nation-destroying Red Plague of communism. He considered it his greatest enemy, and the greatest enemy of humanity. In this he was 100% correct. In May 1933, after having ascended to the chancellorship, Hitler again wrote of Germany’s struggle against communism:

“This for us is not a fight which can be finished by compromise. We see Marxism as the enemy of our people which we will root out and destroy without mercy. . . .

“We must then fight to the very end those tendencies which have eaten into the soul of the German nation in the last seventeen years, which have done us such incalculable damage and which, if they had not been vanquished, would have destroyed Germany. Bismark told us that liberalism was the pace-maker of Social Democracy. I need not say here that Social Democracy is the pace-maker of Communism. And Communism is the forerunner of death, of national destruction, and extinction. We have joined battle with it and will fight it to the death” (Adolf Hitler, Volkischer Boebachter, May 11, 1933, in Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villany, 166).

Hitler and his “fascists” understood the inherent evil of communism. They saw with their own eyes the damage it had done to Germany and to Europe. They understood that modern “liberal” society was a forerunner of communism, as is so-called “democracy” and “social democracy.” The values promoted by these counterfeit systems of governance are communist in origin and are inimical to Christianity and moral institutions.

Instead of following the Marxian socialists, Hitler promoted a different form of “socialism” that bears almost no resemblance to that of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. The record is clear: Hitler promoted the traditional family, womanhood, motherhood, and home life.

In 1939, the British Viscount Rothermere wrote of Hitler:

“He believes that Germany has a divine calling and that the German people are destined to save Europe from the revolutionary attacks of Communism. He values family life very highly, whereas Communism is its worst enemy. He has thoroughly cleansed the moral, ethical life of Germany, forbidden publication of obscene books, and performance of questionable plays and films” (Rothermere, in Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 161-162).

Hitler recognized that the Women’s Liberation movement was part of the communist attempt to decimate and restructure the nations of the world. He therefore opposed feminism outright. Instead, he promoted the traditional family, the calling of motherhood, and the value of homemaking. He once said:

“If I have a female lawyer in front of me these days, and it doesn’t matter how much she has achieved, and next to her is a mother of five, six, seven children, and they are in great health and well-educated by her; then I want to say, from the eternal point of view of the eternal value of our people, the woman who is able to have children – has children and raised them and thereby gave our people the ability to live in the future – has achieve more. She has done more.”

What person with any modicum of intelligence and sense can dispute the truth of that statement? Motherhood is the highest calling in eternity. Women do far more for society in the home than they ever could in the workplace. They will be remembered, respected, and cherished far more for their selfless acts in the home than they ever will be for any worldly achievement. Women, don’t abandon your homes; society needs you there now more than ever before. The future rests on your delicate shoulders.

In 1933, the year Hitler rose to the chancellorship, the National Socialist government officially instituted Mother’s Day as a state holiday. In fact, Germany was one of the first states to celebrate Mother’s Day. From an article on the topic, we read:

“From 1939 to 1945, Mother’s Day gained a remarkable position, where a tradition of giving The Cross of Honor of the German Mother was established. It was a state decoration conferred by the government of the German Reich in three classes: bronze, silver, and gold, to mothers who exhibited strong moral principles, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent. But this “golden era” of Mother’s Day did not last too long as by the end of the World War II Mother’s Day misplaced its Nazi elements, replaced by the more neutral elements of celebration by offering gifts, flowers and cards to mothers.”

Unlike communism/feminism which despises motherhood and the domestic life, fascism promoted it, glorified families, and honored mothers. Truthfully, feminism is anti-woman whereas fascist regimes always placed a high value on womanhood and the natural femininity of the fairer sex.

On January 30, 1937, Hitler gave a speech commemorating four years of prosperous, successful National Socialist rule in Germany. He ended his speech with a tribute to German women. He said:

“And we, too, Men and Deputies of the Reichstag, wish to join together to thank above all the German women, the millions of our mothers who have given the Third Reich their children. For what would be the sense in all our work, what would be the sense in the uprising of the German nation without our German youth? Every mother who has given our Volk a child in these four years has contributed, by her pain and her happiness, to the happiness of the entire nation.”

Additionally, the Programme of the NSDAP – the official National Socialist party platform – demanded that: “The State must see to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants.” One of the things the National Socialists did to protect women, apart from restricting abortions, was to ban birth control, a move I personally would love to see in the United States.

Feminism not only doesn’t protect mothers or infants, but it zealously promotes infanticide as a mother’s “right.” As noted, the Soviet Union was the first modern state to legalize child murder, also known as abortion. National Socialist Germany, on the other hand, restricted abortions for most of the population. Children were seen as the future of the German nation and the government went to great lengths to protect them. Women were also expected to engage in exercise to maintain their health, while simultaneously – thankfully – being excluded from the German military.

There is one additional bit of confusion I want to clear up. Far too many people think that National Socialism is the same as communism. This is not true. National Socialism was never Marxian socialism. The two philosophies, though they share a common name, are fundamentally and emphatically different.

For instance, in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the communists swear to abolish private property. The Manifesto explains:

“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

“We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.”

Truthfully, private property is the foundation of all Liberty and in seeking to abolish property, communists seek to abolish Freedom and make men slaves. The National Socialists, on the other hand, protected private property. In The Programme of the NSDAP, we read:

“National Socialism recognises private ownership of property as a principle and protects it by law, given that it is acquired and employed honourably.”

Within the NSDAP Programme, Hitler is also quoted as saying that “the N.S.D.A.P. admits the principle of private property.”

There are numerous other fundamental differences between communism and National Socialism. It is dishonest to allege that Hitler’s philosophy and Marx’s ideology are one and the same in terms of core principles. Truthfully, their core principles are worlds apart. In an alleged 1923 interview with Hitler, George Sylvester Viereck recorded the following conversation:

““Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”

““Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

““. . . Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

“. . . “We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.””

And again, in a December 28, 1938 article in the Guardian, Sunday Express published in England, Hitler explained:

“‘Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, or efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 165).

To close this point, as if any evidence is still required, I quote from Richard Tedor’s book Hitler’s Revolution:

“There is considerable difference in the socialism of Hitler and that of Marxist doctrine . . . Marx’s purely economic socialism “stands against private property . . . and private ownership.” Marx saw socialism as international, unifying the world’s working class people who were social pariahs in their own country. He therefore considered nationalism, advocating the interests and independence of one’s own nation, incompatible with socialist ideals. Die SA argued that since socialism really stands for collective welfare, “Marxist socialism divides the people and in this way buries any prerequisite for achieving genuine socialist goals.”

“Hitler saw nationalism as a patriotic motive to place the good of one’s country before personal ambition . . . Die SA summarized, “Marxism makes the distinction of haves and have-nots. It demands the destruction of the former in order to bring all property into possession of the public. National Socialism places the concept of the national community in the foreground. . . . The collective welfare of a people is not achieved through superficially equal distribution of all possessions, but by accepting the principle that before the interests of the individual stand those of the nation.” . . . .

“Hitler regarded Marxist economic policy as no less repugnant to genuine socialism as the concept of class warfare was. Marx advocated de-privatizing all production and property. State control would supposedly insure equitable distribution of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, and protect the population from capitalist exploitation. Hitler advocated private ownership and free enterprise. He believed that competition and opportunities for personal development encourage individual initiative” (Tedor, Hitler’s Revolution, 25-26).

To Hitler, the archetypal “fascist” and “Nazi,” Marxism was a “plague” that stifled true growth, led to societal ruin, and lowered the moral standards of the community. Hitler was as much a communist as I am. As an avowed enemy to communism, Hitler also rejected the feminist assault on traditional institutions and on the value of womanhood. Instead of bowing to the perverse social justice campaign active in his day as in ours, Hitler promoted motherhood and the traditional family.

Yes, National Socialism and Marxist-style socialism are diametrically opposed to one another and share only the most superficial similarities. I implore writers and commentators, historians and “experts,” radio personalities and internet bloggers, to cease besmirching Hitler and the National Socialists by comparing them to the communists and other anti-humanity socialists. In the same way, I urge writers to stop calling feminists and LGBT stooges “Nazis” and “fascists.” They are communists.

For all their flaws, fascist regimes were not totalitarian like communist regimes are. To call feminism “fascist” is a terrible, and inaccurate, parallel. To call the LGBT movement “Nazi” is likewise erroneous at its core. It would be far more accurate to call feminism a communist movement or to label it a communist front, which it is. Most major feminist icons have been literal communists – the avowed enemies of fascism. Communism is infinitely more totalitarian, degrading, and destructive than fascism.

After making these controversial points, I want to make one other thing clear: I am not a “Nazi.” I don’t lionize Hitler. He was not a saint (though, truthfully, he is innocent of most of the heinous “crimes” and “atrocities” attributed to him. Most of these alleged “crimes” were inventions of Soviet atrocity propaganda). And I certainly don’t support National Socialism in its entirety, though it contained many very good points and policies, including one or two I’d love to see implemented in the United States, such as its ban on usury.

Politically, I am a constitutionalist. I believe in our unique American form of constitutionalism. I believe the U.S. Constitution was literally inspired by Almighty God and that it is the greatest form of government ever given to man. I believe every form of government that is not in strict harmony with the Constitution is, ultimately, from an evil source regardless of the good intentions of the people who promote them. On this list of anti-Constitution ideologies, to either greater or lesser degree, are: Democracy; communism; socialism; liberalism; parliamentarianism; monarchy; oligarchy; dictatorship; anarchy; feudalism; and fascism.

One more note before I close. I know that most people call feminists “feminazis” because they have been led to believe that the National Socialists were tyrants, or even totalitarians, who forced conformity to their viewpoints. By using the term “feminazis” they are trying to suggest that feminists are totalitarians who seek to force everyone into conformity to their worldview. This sentiment is correct. However, it is simply not true that the National Socialists were totalitarians, so the comparison doesn’t hold water.

Hitler and the NSDAP were not only elected once, but multiple times. In an August 1934 national plebiscite, a year and a half after Hitler had taken power, an astounding 90% of German voters voiced their approval of his actions (Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 229). Later, in 1938, Austria voted 99.75% to join Hitler’s Germany (Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 282). Hitler received mass support from his people unlike any head of state in recent generations. And he did it through the force of his ideas, not through the force of arms.

No, Hitler did not come to power by force or violent revolution, unlike the communists. He did not, as the feminists do, seek to silence those who opposed him. He did not, as the feminist Bolsheviks do, try to bully and coerce his opposition. Rather, he used the legal process to gain influence, promote the family, defend Germany, and punish traitors and subversives.

In short, Hitler had the overwhelming support of the German people in carrying out his well-publicized agenda of restoring Germany, protecting traditional values, and destroying communism. Whether you agree or disagree with his principles is irrelevant; the fact is that he did not behave as the feminists/communists do.

To close, I reiterate that feminism is communism and communism is feminism. They are one and the same. Women’s Liberation was founded as a communist front, as was the LGBT monstrosity. The aim of this militant movement was to destroy the traditional family, to extinguish traditional marriage, to usher in an era of depravity, to compromise men by manipulating women, and, ultimately, to restructure society. Never forget that feminism is communism. So, to take a leaf from Hitler’s book, I adapt this truism: Feminism must die for society to survive.

Zack Strong

June 1, 2018.