> On 11/12/2012 12:28 AM, Planet Visitor II wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:02:49 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 11:15 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:02:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Which is really more Socialistic? France or the US?
>>>>>> In France the richest 10% share 25.5% of the market and pay 28.0 % of
>>>>>> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.1
>>>>>> In the US the richest 10% share 33.5% of the market and pay 45.1 % of
>>>>>> the personal tax burden. Ratio of tax to market share 1.35
>>>>> Baron Montesquieu explained the reason for the discrepancy:
>>>>> Freedom and taxation are correlative. France, like any free country,
>>>>> has high taxes. The U. S. has low taxes like the USSR, Mideast
>>>>> dictatorships, the teabag Congress, Libertaria and all other despotic
>>>> And yet... unlike France, or the USSR (which does not even exist any longer),
>>>> the U.S. has never had a run on toilet paper in fear that it will run out.
>>> tired of rising prices in a deflating economy? put the blame where it
>>> belongs squarely in the lap of wealthy parasites: unregulated
>>> capitalism(fascism)is starving hundreds of millions of people, just
>>> as mao and stalin did another word for unregulated capitalism is "THIEVERY"
>> Actually, it is socialism that has been touted by fascists, and capitalism that has
>> been assaulted and bashed by Nazis, just as you would now assault and bash
>> capitalism... Need proof?? Here you go...
>> "As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews,
>> the incarnation of capitalism" -- Joseph Goebbels.
>> I suppose that as you are a "socialist," you are also an opponent of the Jews,
>> and capitalism.
>> Planet Visitor II
> "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
> system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
> salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
> wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
> are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
> --Adolf Hitler--
"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he
comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister
- when he refused to take his official salary.
"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci did not aim at the defense of the ruling class or the existing
State but wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist
camp so as to prevent a victory of Bolshevism.
even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his
wife and stop at various
farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy
discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and
obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim
to represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he
never gave up his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric.
His policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the
exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old favorite
of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he tried to
get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain production from its traditional
level, enabling Italy to cut wheat imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p.
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and in 1926 he
issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save wood pulp.
And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars
(Smith, 1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift
from rural areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it
unless official permission was granted
he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls
designed, among other things, to prevent abuse of monopoly power
(Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).
...a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social
insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work)
organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge
maternal and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for
their rationality and efficiency and, as such, were rewarded with
great success. For instance, the incidence of tuberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor, p. 259). "instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land
reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius 12th signed the Lateran treaty -
which is still the legal basis for the existence of the Vatican State
to this day - and Pius in fact at one stage
called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty recognized
Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as recognizing
the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in exchange was
acceptance by the church - something that was enormously important in
the Italy of that time.
the great hatred that existed in prewar Germany between the Nazis and
the "Reds". And the early Fascists battled the "Reds" too, of course.
The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies of
worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the
peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility. Further,
Mussolini never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".
He wanted a harmonious and united Italy for all Italians of all
classes and was sure that achieving just treatment for the workers
needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.
This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive
"voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent
Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net
emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and
the Berlin wall.
Mussolini gained power through political rather than revolutionary
means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army
approved of him because of his pragmatic policies so did not oppose
the march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide range of
Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create ...a
system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate
state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights
REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
basically they all come down to the following.
Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done
for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its
people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
determines everything under Fascism.
In other words, the government asks, "Is XYZ Enterprises good for our
nation and our people?" If yes, it's approved. If no, it's not
approved. When they ask, "Is it good?", they mean, "Is XYZ Enterprises
good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a
product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people
technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???" For
example, a pornography company would not be allowed because
pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women
particularly. Also, "free" trade agreements (such as what the U.S. has
with China) would never be allowed because such trade agreements
result in companies sending jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap).
Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation's labor class.
This is entirely unnacceptable and thus not allowed under a Fascist
Fascism is based on free enterprise - but with constraints (the
primary constraint being, "Is the particular economic activity in
question good for our nation?"). Also, a businessman can become
wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to
this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages
private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism
where private property is not allowed).
In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, "Go ahead and
start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don't
produce any products or services which damage our nation and our
nation's people... and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay
them a living wage. If you don't do these things, we'll shut you
The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a
cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government
plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music,
education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things
clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor,
and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts
A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the
enviroment as Fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and
thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental view with that of
Capitalism which too often takes the short term view and foolishly
believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit.
Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn't like things, he/she can leave
the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don't like
things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no
option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a
re-education camp where you'll be brainwashed to accept the Communist
system. And if you still resist, you'll probably be killed. Again,
there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.
Lastly, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the
carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and
well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a
career but only if a career won't interfere with her family's needs;
family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet
In Germany, the NSDAP essentially followed the above described Fascist
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims. "We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."
When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.
The Fascists also fought the Reds in the streets while the
Capitalists hid under their beds.
The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick. This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And soon there was not a Red left to be found.
If we ever get to do this over again, we need to install some safeguards. First, who 'owns' the society. Founders of the USA 'took things for granted' and did not foresee the day when their own inheritance could be ousted 'from within' by the principles as set up 'then'.
We need to recognize 'heirarchy' to human existence. It does not have to be defined, so much as simply recognizing the need for that 'ownership'. Without that declaried 'ownership', there can only be struggle 'within' for power and control.
Hamilton knew. He saw the possiblity where the unkempt masses could override men of reason to elect scalywags as leaders. And so it has come to pass [in Obama]. The Electoral College was 'supposed' be a safeguard against such things [of course, as it has evolved, has no bearing as a 'safeguard' now].
With 'just' Obamacare, changes are going to be demonstrable to every citizen. But that is not to realize how this man will do everything he can to install his 'father's dream' of how to 'hogtie and corral' America to bring parity in the world [another word for chaos].
If Isreal does not act, for instance, Iran is guaranteed to have nukes before Obama's reign is over; and if Iran, look for Syria, Iraq...hell, the whole mideast to have 'em. But...will anyone use one? If Amedinajad says he plans to wipe Isreal off the map, why should we NOT take him at his word? But then there are plenty of terrorists he could funnel a nuke device to that would be willing to USE it [perhaps even in the USA in a suitcase or something].
Obamacare is a fiasco even before it's implemented fully. It is obvious it's real design is to destroy the insurance industry, forcing the US to universal government takeover. Already, small companies are divesting themselves to drop below 50 employees [if possible]. It has been calculated that each employee will now cost an employer an ADDITIONAL $1.75 an hour of labor cost. Think about that. The 'beaucracy' to oversee Obamacare is estimated to be an 'additional' $50 Billion. That alone could have purchased every one of the 30 million who did not have insurance before, a policy. Estimates of Obamacare are in the TRILLIONS of added costs.
Obama is already talking about 'global warming' policies. Translated to the American citizen is rising 'costs of living'...namely in gas and energy prices. Remember, cap and trade [if passed, and it will be now], is estimated to increase home energy costs by triple what it is now [at least]. America could be energy INDEPENDENT with it's natural reserves of oil and coal. But with Obama, he will only 'fight' to close down such markets. Forget more drilling, regardless of fracking or not [which foreign competitors will surely do to undermine our natural resources]. He seems more interested in doing business with Brasil than developing our own. Why is that [see movie '2016' for insights].
Elections have consequences. This was perhaps one of the greatest debaucles of human history [this last election]. But it asks serious questions as to the fallibility of things like democracy. We take it for granted as the 'best way to go', and yet, we see this 'outcome', where our very nation will most likely be...well, 'destroy' is a strong word; but if you are traditional in any way, a patriot reaching back to Jefferson and Washington et.al, then that is what it looks like...'destruction' of your country.
Who would have ever thought this could happen here. Can you say, 'Banana Republic of America'? Hear that 'whirrrr, whirrrr...whirrr..."? That's Bernakes printing more paper even as I write...
On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:38:04 AM UTC-5, LudovicoVan wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in message news:Rh9os.689120$xK2.email@example.com... > On 11/12/2012 11:11 AM, LudovicoVan wrote: >> "Bert" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in message >> news:XnsA10965580BF93VeebleFetzer@18.104.22.168... >>> In news:firstname.lastname@example.org "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> One doesn't need to be socialist to be against today's (or even >>>> yesterday's) capitalism. >>> >>> Then call it by its proper name: Crony Capitalism, or more formally, >>> Fascism. >> >> Capitalism is in fact worse than fascism. > > Standing in the Marxist spot that you are looking at life from.... YES, > yes it is. One doesn't need to be socialist or marxist to be against today's (or even yesterday's) capitalism: it is sufficient to be against crime. -LV
Doesn't matter what you or I or Beamer 'thinks'...for it is Obama who now has control [and no real opposition to stop him]. You should have watched D'Souza's '2016' to understand who Obama is, where he comes from, and what his 'underlying' agenda 'really' is. He doesn't serve America, socialist or otherwise. He is about 'transfering of wealth' from 'white civilization' to the third world [within as well as without]. He saw America as a 'colonizer' of the world, through it's great economic influences. In a big way, he is more Kenyan than American, for reason of his allegiances. How do I know? Well, a mouse simply knows what a cat is, or else, gets eaten. But more than instinct, everything this president has written, said, spoken, or emulated, all 'screams' as being a natural enemy to the foundations of western civilization, which we conveniently call capitalism, but goes much deeper [in him]. You can explain who Obama is by his "ANTI" posturing, more than anything positive. HE's not just anti-capitalist [cronism or anything else], but anti-western civilization. Can't you see it in his words; a certain vehiemence, a definite 'good buy vs bad guy' mentality [where Wall Street can ONLY be the bad guys] etc. We took Reverand Wright's dialogues far too lightly when his sermons of anti-white, black liberation were probably a deeper insight into what makes this President tick. After all, he sat there for 20 years listening.
No one wins in this you know. Certainly not brown or black. The turmoil about to come will affect 'them' the worst even. Major major major stuff.
The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage. If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.
Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.
Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."