RightWing Conference Tells Activists to Get Their Guns Ready for Bloody Battle with Obama the Nazi

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Oh, and unless it was a purposeful play on words, shouldn't your avatar name be :

Klaatu barada

source


"Klaatu barada nikto" is a phrase originating from the science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). "Klaatu" is the name of the humanoid alien protagonist in the film.


Sort of a "nit", but it is from one of my favorite films ...



Back to the OP, I am concerned with the obama campaign promise to create a civilian force, "as strong, as powerful, and as well-funded as the military" that would be beholden to obama for it's existence and funding. IMO, that does sound a little too close to 1933 Germany.


[edit on 9/30/2009 by centurion1211]




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Now children stop fussing.

As for far left = totalitarian etc.

I do not know a single liberal/leftist personally, in power or out who would endorse a totalitarian style of government.

Even the most left members of congress; the late Paul Wellstone...and Bernie Saunders wouldn't even go there.

American liberalism/leftist is far more moderate than European varieties.


But Grover, my friend ...

Many (most?) of us also regard the "nanny state" that liberals would love to create as a totalitarian form of government, since all you'd be left with is the freedom to exist within a set of norms created by the government - political correctness allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion. That is different from soviet russia, how?

Really think about that ...

The books "Brave New World" and "1984" and what is happening in the UK now with all of its cameras, etc. come to mind.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


But think about it Centurion...first off a totalitarian regime is dictatorial in nature...

what you call a nanny state is shared by some of the freest nations in the world...Britain, the Scandanavian states, the Netherlands, France etc...and all of them have lively democracies and could hardly be called totalitarian...

Also...even in this country we live within the dictates of the government...its called societal constraints...and every society that has ever existed has them...they allow us to function as a whole without becoming an anarchy.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Some tidbits and facts about Nazi's and why they were more extreme left wing than anything:



"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism that separates us from it...I have given orders that...Communists are to be recruited into the party at once. The petite bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a Nazi, but the communist always will" - Adolf Hitler


1) Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.



2) Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

3) Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist "exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course.

4) Desire to disarm and dominate the people



"...ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state" - Heinrich Himmler


In a truly free nation, the people rule the leaders, not the other way round. However, in tyranny, the reverse is true, with a small cabal dictating terms to the masses, and viewing them all as nothing more than cogs in the state machinery to serve the needs of "The People" or "The State". In such a state, a few heroic people will always resist, some forcefully. In the extreme states of the far left, citizenry are disarmed almost immediately, leaving them to the fate of the "party", and also leaving the people they choose to massacre and transport to gulags defenseless.

5) "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement.

6) Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics".

7) The Nazi's confiscated and seized the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic.

8) The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen".Right-wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people". Sound familiar?

9) Use of monitoring, gulags and slave labour

Both the Nazis and Communists also employed secret police forces to crush internal opposition, thus eliminating competing views of the future from interrupting their social engineering. In both cases, the police forces of Nazi Germany (Gestapo) and the USSR (NKVD, later KGB) operated with almost total power and employed an extensive number of informants who were encouraged to "denounce" their neighbours. Yet again, absolutely no difference between the Nazis and the Communists, as they were both far left movements.

10) Belief in creating a utopia via the guidance of an all powerful ruling party

When the Nazis came to power, one of their first goals was to create a Volksgemeinschaft ("Peoples Community"), where all divisions based on class would be swept away, and all people would live together in a healthy state. One can already see the parallels between this "classless utopian" vision of the Nazis and the similar classless heaven on earth envisaged by Marxists.

The Nazis also believed that a temporary period would be needed to realign and re educate their population before this leap to a classless Volksgemeinschaft paradise could come about. This meant an all powerful inner party taking control of all organs of public culture, from theatre and music to the education system and print media. This was exactly what the Bolsheviks in Russia did when they came to power, as they too believed that there needed to be a temporary "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" when an all powerful inner party would lead the re-education and societal re-alignment of the masses to prepare them for the leap to the classless utopia. Again, no difference between the Communists and the Nazis.

11) Re-invention of morality and human nature

Both Nazism and Communism re-invented morality; both believed there was no God as it was "the ultimate Jewish consequence" or "opiate of the masses", depending on whether you were Nazi or Communist. There was also a denial of the traditional Western moral view of the dignity of the individual, which was cast aside in favour of collectivism and deindividuation. Both Nazis and Communists expected their citizens to submerge their individuality into the sea of the collective masses, and to sacrifice themselves for this goal, until we had a "New Soviet Man" or "Ubermensch", again a different label for the same concept. Both of these mythological utopianites were men who had no traits to distinguish them from any other, and whose whole psychology revolved around serving the hive-like structure of the collectivist utopian society.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Absolutely none of those are found in either classic socialism or even communism...nor are they even the sole reserve of the left. And rhetoric aside that was designed to divide and conquer I seriously doubt either Mussolini or Hitler would consider themselves liberal or left. They were the total antithesis of the liberal ideal.

Hitler also considered himself a Christian...does his actions make him one?


As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

Adolf Hitler


[edit on 30-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by centurion1211
 


But think about it Centurion...first off a totalitarian regime is dictatorial in nature...

what you call a nanny state is shared by some of the freest nations in the world...Britain, the Scandanavian states, the Netherlands, France etc...and all of them have lively democracies and could hardly be called totalitarian...

[edit on 30-9-2009 by grover]


But you have to compare our freedoms to theirs to see their freedoms that have been and are being eroded away.

The UK is actually forcing some people to put government monitored cameras in their houses. And of course what we call the 2nd amendment rights have already been taken away and the UK government is now taking a hard look at eating utensils, all under the name of "taking care of everyone" - the nanny state. I call these types of government actions dictatorial, and it's just the beginning of what they're trying to do.

That's why I referenced those books. If you haven't read them, you should to see the logical end game of what is going on. Sadly, in "Brave New World" the citizens through conditioning thought they lived in a utopia (with government supplied happy pills - soma - for whenever "things just didn't feel right"), but the reader can clearly see that it actually was quite the opposite with their allowable thoughts and actions confined to narrow "norms".

[edit on 9/30/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Absolutely none of those are found in either classic socialism or even communism...nor are they even the sole reserve of the left. And rhetoric aside that was designed to divide and conquer I seriously doubt either Mussolini or Hitler would consider themselves liberal or left. They were the total antithesis of the liberal ideal.

Hitler also considered himself a Christian...does his actions make him one?


As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.

Adolf Hitler


[edit on 30-9-2009 by grover]


Hitler was a well known Atheist. The quote you placed was before he was elected and is widely viewed purely as a political move. Hitler killed many Christians that claimed that God was greater than the German nation. He was a known Atheist.



"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." Adolf Hitler




"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." Adolf Hitler




"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... "Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... "...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... "Christianity the liar.... "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."
Adolf Hitler


There are many more but I think you get the point. He was most certainly not a Christian. Regarding you other comments, some of those items are strictly on the far left side, some are not. Many are showing the similarities between the tactics and policies of Communism which is also on the far left side. Additionally, I was showing the foundation of Nazism in socialism and Facism.

Like I have said many times, I don't think the far right or the far left have anything to do with Conservatives or Liberals. But many of you are making incorrect assumptions tying govt's you call 'right wing' in Europe to the Conservative movement in the US. Conservatives in the US want small govts out of people's lives. Not strong, large govts. As far as that is concerned, in the US at least, large powerful central govt backers are purely on the left side.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Every government and people see and react to things differently...to suggest what is (or is not) happening in Great Britain for example since you are the one using it...would happen here simply is not correct. It is not an absolute.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 

Do not make the mistake of equating Soviet style communism with the ideal that gave rise to it. They are vastly different.

Here are some more Hitler quotes:


Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator”

“I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature”

“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
Adolf Hitler



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
"Right" and "Left" are terms that mean different things to different people.

What is unambiguously true is that authoritarian, totalist versions of ideologies of both the "left" and "right" killed & oppressed millions in the last century.

The response should be to oppose authoritarianism in general, not merely the left or right wing version.


exactly!
people should lose the left/right red herring and focus on the authoritarian problem.
forced vaccinations, concentration camps, rendition, torture, the patriot act, excessive state secrecy, spying on your own citizens.... THAT is america's problem.
america is nowhere near being the land of the free, anymore.
where's thomas paine when you need him?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by xmotex
"Right" and "Left" are terms that mean different things to different people.

What is unambiguously true is that authoritarian, totalist versions of ideologies of both the "left" and "right" killed & oppressed millions in the last century.

The response should be to oppose authoritarianism in general, not merely the left or right wing version.


exactly!
people should lose the left/right red herring and focus on the authoritarian problem.
forced vaccinations, concentration camps, rendition, torture, the patriot act, excessive state secrecy, spying on your own citizens.... THAT is america's problem.
america is nowhere near being the land of the free, anymore.
where's thomas paine when you need him?


Agreed. However, it is important to correct, given that many people are making claims that Republicans/Conservatives are just a few notches from being Nazi's. To the same extent, it also needs to be said that Democrats/liberals are not a few notches from being Nazi's.

However, there are many self admitted communists and socialists in the US, that 100% advocate the overthrow of the US republic and capitalism. Ignoring that or pretending those forces don't exist in this country will not make it go away. I do not think Obama is one of those people, however it is scary how many people are him are.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by johnny2127
 

Do not make the mistake of equating Soviet style communism with the ideal that gave rise to it. They are vastly different.

Here are some more Hitler quotes:


Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.

It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator”

“I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature”

“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
Adolf Hitler



Again, another mixture of pre-elected Hitler and the Hitler after he took over the country. Completely different rhetoric, almost giving completely different impressions of the man. Why? Because he has to make himself electable. I would argue that the true Hitler is when you read his comments after becoming the 'Fuhr'.

Also, regarding the education post you made, it is quite ironic given that Hitler took over and nationalized education, rewrote history, and made a universal curriculum. But again, that was a pre-election comment.....



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
well, for the record, i don't think it matters who is president, because they don't call the shots. they just take orders from the banksters, and impose those policies through stealth (marijuana, income tax, the patriot act) or executive order (take your pick, lol).

it is clear to me that in america, and indeed canada, my troubled home, that fascism is the rule, and what that means in real terms is the old boys network runs the show, and what the little people think or want has no bearing on policy.

the first part of the solution is to break the illusion that 'they' care about 'us' at all. what we think, do, desire, need are only important to them to the extent of preventing us from waking out of our stupor, and marching with torches and pitchforks on castle frankenstein.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Okay take me and my political ideals and tell me what you think I am.

I am in favor of a small, strong, effective government but I understand that it is not the programs that need to be cut but the bureaucracy administering them.

I believe in strong regulation...especially in matters of worker safety, the environment, consumer protection and finance. I don't think any business should be allowed to get so large that its failure would adversely effect the national economy.

I believe that environmental protection is easily as important to national security as a strong police and/or military.

I believe in a strong but not bloated military. No one can actually physically invade us so border protection should not be the reserve of the military but law enforcement. I am against a foreign policy that maintains bases overseas or props up governments. Charity begins at home. I do not believe we need a military as large as we have since what we spend on it is more than the 5 nearest competitors combined. I believe that our troops should be used rarely and sparingly but if used at all should get the maximum support that they need...but I do not equate objection to any given war as unpatriotic like the hard right slurred the left with during the bush minor years.

I don't believe in bailouts and tax cuts etc. to corporations or to the wealthiest...they should pay their fair share just like everybody else. Period. Paying their share in taxes should be a requirement to do business here and if you take jobs overseas you should pay a tax penalty...especially if you are an American business.

I am fully in favor of the public option...if the insurance companies do not feel threatened then whatever change happens will be minimal and the average person still gets screwed.

I have no problem with public assistance...we are the richest nation on earth...if we cannot afford to take care of our own, something is seriously wrong. It should not be a lifetime crutch though and those receiving it should not be penalized if they try to improve their lot like many states do.

I am in favor of the immediate legalization of all drugs...to be sold at state run ABC stores with the proceeds to be used for education and rehab...it is the only sane way to take them (and the subsequent violence) out of the hands of cartels and gangs...it is a flawed answer but better than what we are doing now.

Federal laws should trump states rights in national matters but in local matters states should have the final say...prime examples of this are environmental and educational standards...which should be set by the federal government...but how they are applied should be the state's preserve.

Do away with teaching to the test standards...the purpose of education is to teach children to think for themselves not to parrot.

A woman's right to chose is inviolate...it is her body not some religious opponent's...if they are opposed to abortion then don't have one but don't you dare to presume to take the freedom of that choice away from another.

I believe that certain national resources belong to the nation and should be controlled by the state via oversight and regulation. The government doesn't need to run them but the state shouldn't be all but giving them away either.

I believe in a universal public service between the ages 18 and 21...Those who are inclined to go into the military will always gravitate that way but it can also include Vista, Peace corp, Community Conservation Corp type agencies...community work etc. Once the four years are completed then a college education would be provided for as in the original G.I. bill...with military veterans getting special considerations. The same sort of benefits could also be a way to segue into a national health care system again with special benefits and considerations for veterans.

I could go on but that is a general overview.

So what does that make me...left, right center or off the map?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Okay take me and my political ideals and tell me what you think I am.

I am in favor of a small, strong, effective government but I understand that it is not the programs that need to be cut but the bureaucracy administering them.

I believe in strong regulation...especially in matters of worker safety, the environment, consumer protection and finance. I don't think any business should be allowed to get so large that its failure would adversely effect the national economy.

I believe that environmental protection is easily as important to national security as a strong police and/or military.

I believe in a strong but not bloated military. No one can actually physically invade us so border protection should not be the reserve of the military but law enforcement. I am against a foreign policy that maintains bases overseas or props up governments. Charity begins at home. I do not believe we need a military as large as we have since what we spend on it is more than the 5 nearest competitors combined. I believe that our troops should be used rarely and sparingly but if used at all should get the maximum support that they need...but I do not equate objection to any given war as unpatriotic like the hard right slurred the left with during the bush minor years.

I don't believe in bailouts and tax cuts etc. to corporations or to the wealthiest...they should pay their fair share just like everybody else. Period. Paying their share in taxes should be a requirement to do business here and if you take jobs overseas you should pay a tax penalty...especially if you are an American business.

I am fully in favor of the public option...if the insurance companies do not feel threatened then whatever change happens will be minimal and the average person still gets screwed.

I have no problem with public assistance...we are the richest nation on earth...if we cannot afford to take care of our own, something is seriously wrong. It should not be a lifetime crutch though and those receiving it should not be penalized if they try to improve their lot like many states do.

I am in favor of the immediate legalization of all drugs...to be sold at state run ABC stores with the proceeds to be used for education and rehab...it is the only sane way to take them (and the subsequent violence) out of the hands of cartels and gangs...it is a flawed answer but better than what we are doing now.

Federal laws should trump states rights in national matters but in local matters states should have the final say...prime examples of this are environmental and educational standards.

Do away with teaching to the test standards...the purpose of education is to teach children to think for themselves not to parrot.

A woman's right to chose is inviolate...it is her body not some religious opponent's...if they are opposed to abortion then don't have one but don't you dare to presume to take the freedom of that choice away from another.

I believe that certain national resources belong to the nation and should be controlled by the state via oversight and regulation. The government doesn't need to run them but the state shouldn't be all but giving them away either.

I believe in a universal public service between the ages 18 and 21...Those who are inclined to go into the military will always gravitate that way but it can also include Vista, Peace corp, Community Conservation Corp type agencies...community work etc. Once the four years are completed then a college education would be provided for as in the original G.I. bill...with military veterans getting special considerations. The same sort of benefits could also be a way to segue into a national health care system again with special benefits and considerations for veterans.

I could go on but that is a general overview.

So what does that make me...left, right center or off the map?







Well you definitely are not a liberal through and through. Some of your beliefs are liberal, while others are downright conservative. I would call you a progressive libertarian if not for many of the beliefs you have in govt-based assistance. I think you are more of what are referred to as a Blue Dog Democrat.

In many ways you are a dichotomy politically with some very libertarian beliefs and some very liberal ones. Very tough to define. But I would definitely not call you very liberal.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Yet I disagree with the Republicans and conservatives in general if not most of the time.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
i'll weigh in, grover.
most of your thoughts are libertarian/liberal except for the ones on conscription and policing which are more authoritarian.
that's the fun, we can have little left/right sovereign/state slave battles inside ourselves!

i believe in heavily policing big power (which should be a capitalist system, with monopolies being illegal), and the total freedom of the individual to do anything but trample someone else's right to exist peacefully and freely.

what does that make me?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Since certain people are spreading misinformation in this thread - I'll post this for the readers:




Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right

Summary:

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production.

True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right.

He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

Argument:

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough,. and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.


www.huppi.com...


And in the link I posted here before with the interview with Hitler we can read what Hitler himself said about the name: National Socialism and why they did chose this name since it is the Antithesis of Marxist Socialism & Communism



Series: Great interviews of the 20th century

This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932

"When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home."

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea, but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

"Bolshevism," the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany, continued, gazing at me balefully, "is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst.

"The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St Germain are kept alive by Bolshevism in Germany. The Peace Treaty and Bolshevism are two heads of one monster. We must decapitate both."

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

"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.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. 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.

"It may not suit Hitler to attack Bolshevism in Russia. He may even look upon an alliance with Bolshevism as his last card, if he is in danger of losing the game. If, he intimated on one occasion, capitalism refuses to recognise that the National Socialists are the last bulwark of private property, if capital impedes their struggle, Germany may be compelled to throw herself into the enticing arms of the siren Soviet Russia. But he is determined not to permit Bolshevism to take root in Germany."

"We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses.


www.guardian.co.uk...



In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."


Please! for more understanding of what the far-right in America is distorting and are now lying about - and what they now want you to believe through their untrue propaganda and their attempts to distort the political history - please read more here
www.huppi.com...


As the reader clearly can see here is that Fascism is the very Antithesis of Marxist Socialism - its the American far-right attempts to distort important historical facts and bend the historical truth to fit their sinister agenda.

In short: they are lying to you straight to your face through their falsified history descriptions and false definitions of the European polititical Philosophy.

I leave it up to the reader to decide upon whether what I have contributed to this thread to be true or not.

The knowledge of knowing that if I at least can help one member here to further investigate this on his own with true independent facts about the true nature and the political Philosophy of National Socialism & Fascism and Socialism & Communism - it would make me happy! - Deny Ignorance!


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Chevalerous
 


Ironic that you take Hitlers word for things versus his actions, while also ignoring what he said later on after the interview you are quoting. This was before he took complete control of the country. And yes he did take over complete industries and companies.

Although, I do find it entertaining you then post an article telling me what conservatives REALLY stand for. lol, hilarious. Your rhetoric knows no bounds...... Saying 'independent facts' and then linking to those sites and articles. You crack me up


[edit on 30-9-2009 by johnny2127]

[edit on 30-9-2009 by johnny2127]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
You guys might be interested in this thread I just started on the subject of where we fall on the left/right divide.

www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join