Comparison of Nazism to other left-wing movements
tkdowning
planning
2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
individual.
3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
4) Both favor Gun control
5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
individualism and individual rights
Shel Scott
NAZI = Nationalist Socialist.
tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--
ab...@earthlink.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
bu...@appointed.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
>planning
Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
production.
Military production, therefore is a central theme of right wing
ideologues and policy
>2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
>individual.
Nazism venerated individual characteristics, so much so that most of
right winger hitler's ideology was predicated in producing an
individual with specific characteristics.
>3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. How
would they tax themselves?
>4) Both favor Gun control
Nazis had no gun control.
>5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
Nazis and Hitler "borrowed" southern conservative social policy of
forced sterilizations, incorporated into their ideology. Was used as
the basis for the holocaust.
>
>6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
>individualism and individual rights
Nazism abhorred world order. Nazism (right wing) venerated symbols,
icons, and believed in "conserving" old ways. They also hated
minorities, immigrants-------EVERY one a conservative character trait.
======================================================
"mein Kamph detailed Hitler's radical ideas of
German nationalism, antisemitism, and anti-Bolshevism. Linked with
Social Darwinism, the human struggle that said that might makes right,
Hitler's book became the ideological base for the Nazi Party's racist
beliefs and murderous practices.
American "nationalism" is a right wing "thing"
Anti Bolshevism is a right wing "thing"
Military might is a right wing "thing"
Unfettered economic and personal freedom (social darwinism)
is a right wing "thing"
Pär Svensson
"tkdowning" <tk_dow...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:77353968.02012...@posting.google.com...
Bert Hyman
<per.sv...@telia.com> wrote:
> Just a hit for you, The Nazis are extreme right movement!
>
An inconsequential discriminator, a distinction without a difference.
Totalitarianism knows no right or left.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Raff
"Pär Svensson" <per.sv...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ORG48.11820$n4.20...@newsc.telia.net...
> Just a hit for you, The Nazis are extreme right movement!
Maybe in Europe, but here in America they are on the left.
Scott D. Erb
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> In news:ORG48.11820$n4.20...@newsc.telia.net "Pär Svensson"
> <per.sv...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> > Just a hit for you, The Nazis are extreme right movement!
> >
> An inconsequential discriminator, a distinction without a difference.
>
> Totalitarianism knows no right or left.
It is a distinction that has differences based on ideology, style
of government, and who supported them. But at base, both turned
out to have evil forms of government in the extreme right and
left, without regard for individual liberty. Most liberals and
conservatives in the US are not like either the Nazis or the
Communists.
Minister of Silly Walks
their party, and therefore, every slobbering right wing dufus equates
them to Democrats in America (or worse, LIBERALS)..
Meanwhile, the propaganda tactics of their chief bellwether, Rush
Limbaugh,
closely resemble those developed by Joseph Goebells during the Nazi
regime..
Pär Svensson
differences.
"Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3c534a96$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
Liberals HATE America..
<bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> >planning
>
> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> production.
The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you would
like to apply it to the right in America.
I hate to confuse a LIEberal with the facts but the word Nazi is made up
from the first two letters of the word German word "nationaler: and the
third and fourth letters of the German word "Sozialist."
"We are socialists because we see in socialism… the only chance to maintain
our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our
German state… We are a workers' party because we… are on the side of labor
and against finance… As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we
see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the
nation's goods."
Joseph Goebbels, 1932
Scott D. Erb
"Pär Svensson" wrote:
>
> Hmm interesting that they are left in US since there are such fundamental
> differences.
A few on the fringe of the right wing in the US calls them
"leftist" for propaganda purposes. The vast differences between
Nazi thought and leftist thought have been pointed out to them,
with cites, long explanations, etc. They snip it and just throw
out a slogan, sort of like how the brownshirts used to respond to
political argumentation.
Scott D. Erb
"Liberals HATE America.." wrote:
> The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
> That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you would
> like to apply it to the right in America.
No, you are wrong. Do we have to pull out AGAIN the long threads
by classicliberal2, Arne and myself documenting the differences?
Just to respond to obviously false assertions?
> I hate to confuse a LIEberal with the facts but the word Nazi is made up
> from the first two letters of the word German word "nationaler: and the
> third and fourth letters of the German word "Sozialist."
Duh. And the German Democratic Republic was a democracy in your
book, eh?
Your propaganda attempt is Goebbelesque, but won't work.
> "We are socialists because we see in socialism… the only chance to maintain
> our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our
> German state… We are a workers' party because we… are on the side of labor
> and against finance… As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we
> see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the
> nation's goods."
>
> Joseph Goebbels, 1932
Goebbels had a way of lying to try to win votes. I guess we'll
have to roll out the cites again and show how wrong you are
(classicliberal2, do you have a copy of your last post with both
your earlier one and mine included -- this has been crossposted
to other groups, so I think it's important that we repost it. If
you don't, I know I can dig it out).
-Scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
bu...@appointed.com
<noe...@forme.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
><bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
>
>> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
>> >planning
>>
>> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
>> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
>> production.
>
>The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
How did nazis share power, and extend the control of the means of
production?
so·cial·ism (s½“sh…-l¹z”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and
political power is exercised by the whole community
The name of the party was taken from a pre-existing political party,
then turned into what we now know as a RIGHT WING conservative
ideology.
Now, make me laugh fuckwit.
===================================================
The German Workers' Party , the forerunner of the Nazi Party,
espoused a right-wing ideology, like many similar groups of demobilized
soldiers. Adolf Hitler joined this small political party in 1919 and rose to
leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches. He
encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk
and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews,
exploiting antisemitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries.
He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German
Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party (or NSDAP). By the
end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler
became its official leader, or Führer.
And which party is:
1 Ultranationalistic
2 concerned with "diluting" american, immigration,?
3 using "volk" (family) as a mantra
4 hates "world order"
5 emotionalizes "national feelings"?
Yes, you guessed it correctly.
Sherwood
The Antifederalits, Jefferson among them, belonged to a social and
political thought termed as being "liberal minded." You might say that
this nation was conceived in liberality, and overthrown by
conservative Federalism.
Your argument about Nazism is without merit or facts downing.
Here is some of what the Nazis are all about.
Night of the Long Knives
January 13, 2002
Recently there has been a lot of continuing argument, back and forth
on usenet, and elsewhere, between the left and the right, over the
right-wing associating the Nazis with being socialists, and that the
right-wing has been unfairly targeted and branded by the left as being
the Nazis, when it is the left and the socialists, according to the
right-wing, that are the Nazis.
The defining and accepted historical image of Nazism, or National
Socialism, is one that is definitely conservative.
Here is one historical and conclusive definition of "Nazism," from The
New Book of Knowledge, 1978, Grolier, Inc., NY, written by Alan
Bullock, author of the book, Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, which
provides more definitive proof that the Nazis are nationalistic
conservative fascists.
In addition, the article describes the destruction, and cold blooded
murder of those within the Nazi Party, in 1934, who were of the
socialist or liberal left ideology, like Ernst Rohm. That bloody and
infamous day in the history and turning point of Nazism, in 1934,
became known as The Night of the Long Knives.
***
"NAZISM
National Socialism was the German Fascist movement founded by Adolph
Hitler in Munich in 1919. Its full title was the German National
Socialist Workers' Party (Nazis, for short).
The two words National Socialism give the key to the kind of movement
this was in the early days. Hitler was a violent German nationalist
who played on the bitterness many Germans felt after World War I. They
had lost the war, and believed that the harsh demands other nations
made on them in the Treaty of Versailles were unfair. Hitler claimed
that the Germany Army had never been beaten by foreign armies.
Instead, Germany had lost because it had been stabbed in the back by
the German democratic politicians who came to power at the end of the
war (November, 1918). Hitler demanded that these "November criminals"
be driven from office. He wanted their power handed over to those who
would free Germany from the Versailles Treaty and restore it to
greatness.
This was one side of National Socialism--its appeal to German
nationalism. But the other side was equally important to start with.
Hitler criticized Germany's nationalist parties for being so
traditionalist and "respectable." He attacked the "top hat and frock
coat" attitude of conservative politicians. He said that they knew
nothing about the way the mass of German people lived; therefore they
had allowed the socialists to win the loyalty of the working classes.
Hitler wanted to win back the support of the masses for German
nationalism by linking nationalism to a radical program of social
reform.
This was the original two-part program of National Socialism. The
first part was nationalism: the Nazis told the Germans that they were
the greatest people in the world and promised to restore Germany's
military power. The second part was socialism: the Nazis promised to
carry out radical changes in Germany to suit the mass of the people.
They would get rid of the men on top--leaders who had failed to help
the masses.
Although they promised much to the workers, the Nazis, like other
fascist parties, hated democracy. They had no use for equal rights for
all men. The Nazis believed that the strong should rule and the rest
of the people should accept their leadership without question.
A special feature of National Socialism was its belief in racism.
Hitler preached that the Germans belonged to a Nordic, or Aryan,
master race. He said that Aryans alone had the ability and the right
to rule. They were threatened by the inferior races, not only by the
black and yellow peoples of Africa and Asia but also by the Slavs of
Eastern Europe. The Nazis believed that their greatest enemies were
the Jews. They claimed that the Jews were carrying on a worldwide
conspiracy to crush the Aryan race. Hitler attacked the Jews for all
the evils that had happened to Germany. He said they were to blame for
the stab in the back that had lost the war for Germany and for
everything that had gone wrong since. The Jews, he said, were the
hidden power behind high finance and big business, which made fat
profits by cheating the common people. At the same time, he said that
the Jews were the leaders of the Socialist and Communist parties.
These parties, he believed, were working for revolution and would set
the German people against each other.
For all these reasons Hitler believed that the Nazis must clear the
Jews out of Germany.
Like Mussolini, Hitler glorified war. He preached violence as a way of
destroying political opponents at home and Germany's enemies abroad.
The Nazis recruited a private army of storm troopers, dressed in brown
shirts, with military ranks. Their emblem was the swastika, and their
salute the outstretched arm and the greeting "Heil Hitler" ("Hail
Hitler"). They made great play with military-style parades. They were
tough street fighters who went around breaking up rival political
meetings and knocking down Germans who did not like Hitler.
Hitler's National Socialist movement began in Munich in the German
province of Bavaria. For the first few years the Nazis remained a
small party, confined to Bavaria. It was in Munich, in November 1923,
that Hitler made his first attempt at revolution. The attempt failed,
and he was sent to prison. While there, he wrote the first part of his
book Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), which became the bible of the Nazi
movement.
After his failure in 1923, Hitler made up his mind not to risk another
attempt at seizing power by force. Instead, he would try to win it
legally. But when he came out of prison in December, 1924, Germany was
no longer so ready for a change. There was less of the widespread
unrest that had swept Germany right after the war. Usually a country
must be unsettled and miserable before an extremist movement like
National Socialism can get a chance to win.
It was only when the economic crisis of 1929-30 hit Germany and
millions were left without jobs that the Nazis began to attract a mass
following. Then, at the general election of September, 1930, the Nazis
won 107 seats in the German Reichstag. Hitler became a national figure
overnight.
Between 1930 and 1933 the Nazis fought a series of election campaigns.
They increased their votes until they became the largest single party
in the country. A great part of their success was due to the use of
propaganda and publicity on a scale no one had seen before. Monster
rallies, giant parades, and wild reports of street fighting excited
the people. Hitler used these tricks to build up the impression of a
mass movement that could not be stopped.
All this campaigning required money. Hitler was able to get money from
big businessmen by making them believe that only the Nazis could save
Germany from a Communist revolution. The same argument drove the
old-style conservative leaders and the army to work with Hitler. They
disliked Nazi radicalism and despised Hitler as an upstart. But the
Nazis were the only party that could turn out a mass vote to match the
vote of the Communists and Socialists.
On January 30, 1933, after much bargaining, Hitler gained the position
of chancellor of a coalition government. The other parties that shared
in the government thought they could use the Nazis to win their goals.
They discovered that they were mistaken--but it was too late. A fire
in the Reichstag building on February 27, 1933, gave Hitler an excuse
to declare that the Communists were plotting an armed uprising against
the government. Fearing revolution, the people gave Hitler 44 percent
of the votes in a new election. At once Hitler demanded complete power
to do anything necessary to secure the safety of the state. He got
this power in the Enabling Act of March 21, 1933. He used it to set up
a single-party dictatorship.
As a dictator, Hitler suppressed all other political parties and the
trade unions. He placed Nazis in all key positions, including control
of the police. He enrolled the brownshirted storm troopers as extra
police. Anyone who protested was thrown into prison, and many Jews
were beaten and robbed.
Even this did not go far enough for many Nazis. They wanted still more
jobs in the army, in government, and in business. Hitler found himself
in difficulty. His "Brown Shirts" had been useful for street fighting
and beating up opponents. Now that he was in power, their demands were
a nuisance.
The crisis came in the summer of 1934. The aged president of Germany,
Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), was dying. Hitler knew that if he
wanted to become president as well as chancellor he must have the
support of the conservative army leaders. To get that support, he must
prove to them that the socialist part of the Nazi revolution was over.
On June 30, 1934, he carried out a purge of the party. Some of his
best-known party officials--including Ernst Rohm and Gregor
Strasser--were shot, and the Nazi Party's Brown Shirt army was broken
up as a political force. Their place was taken by the more reliable
blackshirted SS (Schutzstaffel--"Protection Squad"), Hitler's official
police.
In this way Hitler broke with the radical side of National Socialism,
the idea of a social revolution. The other side, German nationalism,
became all the stronger. The whole nation was mobilized to build up
Germany's strength as a great power. One by one, Hitler began to
ignore the provisions of the treaty of Versailles. He built up
Germany's armed forces into one of the world's great fighting
machines. This gave him power to threaten war against anyone who tried
to stop his plans to extend Germany's frontiers.
As Hitler began taking land from other countries, European nations saw
their choice. They must either submit to German domination of Europe
or they must fight. Even after they made up their minds to fight and
World War II began, Hitler swept from victory to victory. In 1941 he
attacked the U.S.S.R. and set up Nazi control of Eastern Europe. This
meant treating the Slavic people of Poland and the U.S.S.R. in the
most brutal way possible. They were robbed of everything they owned
and forced to work like slaves for the benefit of Germany. At the same
time the Nazi SS, on Hitler's orders, set to work to wipe out the
Jewish people by systematic murder. Jews and other prisoners were
herded like animals into terrible concentration camps. Millions of
Jews were killed in these camps. many millions of people, including
Germans, died before Hitler was defeated and the Nazi empire
overthrown (1945).
The rise and fall of National Socialism is one of the most horrible
episodes in human history. All that Nazism left behind was hatred,
destruction, and a warning. The story of the Nazis shows what happens
when a nation gives itself up to the evil doctrines of violence and
race supremacy."
***
ABC News, in the days following the September 11th incident, aired a
six hour program on the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, and on
more than one occasion, described the Nazis and the fascists,
including Hitler, as being "right-wing," i.e., conservative in
ideology. Included in the lengthy program, was a very lengthy segment
done by ABC on The Night of the Long Knives, and the bloody, murderous
demise of the socialists and the liberals within the Nazi party, which
was carried out by Hitler and his newly formed SS. Many of the
liberally or socialist minded victims who were the prime targets of
the purge by Hitler and his SS, were shot while they slept, or taken
out and shot in the back of the head alongside public roadways. Others
simply disappeared and were never heard from again, while those not
fortunate enough to have escaped, or gotten murdered, were rounded-up
and imprisoned by the SS. Most of those imprisoned were tortured, and
never to be seen alive again.
There are, to say at the very least, many parallels between what
Bullock wrote about, and what is currently going on with Bush and the
far right Federalists who are in power.
The article by Bullock also leaves very little doubt as to what
happened to those in the Nazi party who might have held liberal left
or socialist views - they were murdered off in a very calculated and
violent manner, sometimes in public, and replaced with
ultra-conservative right-wing fascists.
History will in the end, most remember the Nazis for what they ended
up being after The Night of the Long Knives, and that is a
conservative fascist ideology. What the Nazis were before that bloody
and fateful night on June 30, 1934, has little bearing on what the
Nazis ultimately became after that, and which Nazism has continued to
be, and has represented ever since.
In the final and clear analysis, the Nazis were, and remain,
right-wingers. No amount of glossing over or paint, used by the
right-wing, will in the end, alter or change that already established
fact.
*********
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/bor1.html
http://www.civicsandpolitics.com/#Cool
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
Ninure Saunders
tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
-1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
-planning
-
-2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
-individual.
-
-3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
-
-4) Both favor Gun control
-
-5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
-
-6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
-individualism and individual rights
Except for point 4.....that the above sounds just like the Republican
Party platform.
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Scott D. Erb
> How did nazis share power, and extend the control of the means of
> production?
>
> so·cial·ism (s˝“sh…-ląz”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
They used the term "socialist" in the party precisely to try to
undercut working class support for Communists and Social
Democrats. It worked, but until Hitler grabbed power there were
a number of left leaning folk in the Nazi party. Hitler
liquidated them once he had power, clearly embracing the
so-called "right wing" of the party, which was widely known to
have represented. For a detailed and interesting view on events
before 1933, see Otto Friedrichs, "Before the Deluge."
Pär Svensson
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns91A2B7F0471...@209.98.98.13...
> In news:ORG48.11820$n4.20...@newsc.telia.net "Pär Svensson"
> <per.sv...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> > Just a hit for you, The Nazis are extreme right movement!
> >
> An inconsequential discriminator, a distinction without a difference.
>
> Totalitarianism knows no right or left.
Well that can be discussed, since they originate from so diffrent political
and philosophical standards. Which can be divided into left and right.
Gandalf Grey
Dana <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote in message
news:3c534a96$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
>
> "Pär Svensson" <per.sv...@telia.com> wrote in message
> news:ORG48.11820$n4.20...@newsc.telia.net...
> > Just a hit for you, The Nazis are extreme right movement!
>
> Maybe in Europe, but here in America they are on the left.
Unfortunately the skinheads are all right wing, Buttmaster
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5360A8...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> "Pär Svensson" wrote:
> >
> > Hmm interesting that they are left in US since there are such
fundamental
> > differences.
>
> A few on the fringe of the right wing in the US calls them
> "leftist" for propaganda purposes.
It's just a lie. The reps for Naziism in America are the Aryan Spremacists
and they're admittedly right wing. Harold Covington's site here on the web
is an excellent example.
Dana and his pals are nothing but outright liars.
Gandalf Grey
Ninure Saunders <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@1cust187.tnt9.chi15.da.uu.net..
.
> In article <77353968.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
>
> -1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> -planning
> -
> -2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> -individual.
> -
> -3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
> -
> -4) Both favor Gun control
> -
> -5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
> -
> -6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> -individualism and individual rights
>
> Except for point 4.....that the above sounds just like the Republican
> Party platform.
It is the Republican Party platform. American nazis are right wing. You
can go to any nazi site on the net and you'll see it.
Dana and his pals are liars.
Raff
> Hmm interesting that they are left in US since there are such fundamental
> differences.
The left in America is very much in favor of a strong central gvt, and a
planned economy. The left is anti-capitalism.
But mostly America is a very moderate country, where only the extreme right
and left is where the differences can be seen.
Raff
> >
> > Hmm interesting that they are left in US since there are such
fundamental
> > differences.
>
> A few on the fringe of the right wing in the US calls them
> "leftist" for propaganda purposes.
No, not at all. Most people in the US know that the American left is a lot
like the Nazis.
.
Raff
>
>
> "Liberals HATE America.." wrote:
>
> > The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are
socialist.
> > That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you would
> > like to apply it to the right in America.
>
> No, you are wrong.
No, Erb it is you, CL2, and arne tha are wrong as has been proven many times
already.
>
> > I hate to confuse a LIEberal with the facts but the word Nazi is made up
> > from the first two letters of the word German word "nationaler: and the
> > third and fourth letters of the German word "Sozialist."
>
> > "We are socialists because we see in socialism. the only chance to
maintain
> > our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our
> > German state. We are a workers' party because we. are on the side of
labor
> > and against finance. As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because
we
> > see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the
> > nation's goods."
> >
> > Joseph Goebbels, 1932
>
> Goebbels had a way of lying to try to win votes.
As Erb goes into apology mode.
Raff
"Sherwood" <ensey_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9746ed4a.02012...@posting.google.com...
> tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote in message
news:<77353968.02012...@posting.google.com>...
> > 1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> > planning
> >
> > 2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> > individual.
> >
> > 3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
> >
> > 4) Both favor Gun control
> >
> > 5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
> >
> > 6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> > individualism and individual rights
>
> The Antifederalits, Jefferson among them, belonged to a social and
> political thought termed as being "liberal minded."
Not to be associated wuth modern liberalism, which has nothing in common
with the likes of the Antifederalists.
> You might say that
> this nation was conceived in liberality, and overthrown by
> conservative Federalism.
Which is the modern liberal a statist at heart.
Gandalf Grey
Except that American Nazis are right wing, Dana.
>
> .
>
>
classicliberal2
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (classicliberal2, do you have a copy of your
> last post with both your earlier one and mine
> included -- this has been crossposted to
> other groups, so I think it's important that we
> repost it. If you don't, I know I can dig it out).
No sooner said than done:
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<3C4F8241...@worldnet.att.net>...
I've added some more details here and there.
___
> classicliberal2 wrote:
>
>>>>>> Actually they were. They were the ultimate
>>>>>> anti-socialists
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a fair enough start. I consider
>>>>> socialism of ANY kind, including that of
>>>>> Hitler, to be a great evil, to be overcome,
>>>>> even at great cost.
>>>>
>>>> Besides the fact Hitler wasn't a socialist
>>>
>>> He most assuredly was. Both in tactics and
>>> goals.
>> ___
>>
>> In HITLER: A STUDY IN TYRANNY, Alan
>> Bullock says the Nazis had originally been "a
>> radical anti-capitalist party, and this side of the
>> Nazi programme was not only taken seriously
>> by many loyal Party members but was of
>> increasing importance in a period of economic
>> depression." This stance, however, was
>> nothing more than a vote-gathering propoganda
>> ploy. "For [Hitler]," writes William Shirer in THE
>> RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, "the
>> Nazi socialist slogans had been merely
>> propoganda, means of winning over the masses
>> on his way to power." The Nazis' real appeal
>> was to Big Business. In 1927, at the suggestion
>> of Emil Kirdorf (a despicable reactionary, and
>> head of Rhenish-Westphalian Coal), Hitler
>> created a pamphlet called "The Road To
>> Resurgence," which was then quietly
>> distributed, by Kirdorf, to the nation's leading
>> industrialists.[*] Shirer describes the Nazis'
>> appeal to the giants of German capital: "[The
>> Nazi party] promised to lead the German people
>> away from communism, socialism, trade-unionism,
>> and the futilities of democracy."
>>
>> The support of these interests were the key
>> ingredient to Hitler's rise to power. Shirer, again:
>>
>> "The businessmen and the bankers were not the
>> only financial sources [for the party]... but they
>> were the largest. And the more money they gave
>> the Nazis, the less they would have for the other
>> conservative parties which they had been
>> supporting hitherto.
>>
>> "'In the summer of 1931,' Otto Dietrich, Hitler's
>> press chief first for the party and later for the
>> Reich, relates, 'the Fuehrer suddenly decided to
>> concentrate systematically on cultivating the
>> influential industrial magnates.'
>>
>> "What magnates were they?
>>
>> "Their identity was a secret which was kept from
>> all but the inner circle around the Leader. The
>> party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had
>> to allow Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder
>> to beguile the masses with the cry that the National
>> Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the
>> money barons. On the other hand, money to keep
>> the party going had to be wheedled out of those
>> who had an ample supply of it."
>>
>> Walther Funk was one of Hitler's liasons with the
>> industrialists. At the Nuremburg trials, he named
>> some of them: Kirdorf, Fritz Thyssen, head of
>> the German steel trust, Albert Voegler, another
>> steel baron. "The coal and steel interests were the
>> principal sources of the funds that came from the
>> industrialists to help Hitler over his last hurdles to
>> power in the period between 1930 and 1933."
>> (Shirer)
>>
>> They weren't the only ones, though. Funk's list,
>> though incomplete, was quite long. "It included
>> Georg von Schnitzler, a leading director of I.G.
>> Farben, the giant chemical cartel; August
>> Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry
>> (Funk speaks of this industry's 'positive attitude
>> toward the Fuehrer'); Cuno of the Hamburg-Amerika
>> line; the brown-coal industry of central Germany;
>> the Conti rubber interests; Otto Wolfe, the powerful
>> Cologne industrialist; Baron Kurt von Shroeder, the
>> Cologne banker, who was to play a pivotal role in
>> the final maneuver which hoisted Hitler to power;
>> several leading banks, among which were the
>> Deutsche Bank, the Commerz und Privat Bank,
>> the Dresdener Bank, the Deutsche Kredit
>> Gesellschaft; and Germany's largest insurance
>> concern, the Allianz."
>>
>> These interests made Hitler a national figure, and,
>> whenever it seemed as though the Nazi rise to
>> power would be interrupted, time and time again
>> they came to his rescue. In 1933, after Hitler made
>> a well-recieved speech to the Industry Club in
>> Dusseldorf, "large contributions from the resources
>> of heavy indsutry soon flowed into the Nazi
>> treasury... [T]he industrialists came to see him as
>> the man who would defend their interests against
>> the threat of Communism and the claims of the trade
>> unions, giving a free hand to private enterprise and
>> economic exploitation in the name of the principles
>> of 'creative individuality.'" (Bullock)
>>
>> Bullock writes about what this money bought, a Nazi
>> campaign that was "a masterpiece or organized
>> agitation which attempted to take Germany by storm.
>> Every constituency, down to the most remote village,
>> was canvassed, and the walls of the town were
>> plastered with screaming Nazi posters; films of Hitler
>> and Goebbels were made and shown everywhere (an
>> innovation in 1932); gramophone records were
>> produced and sent through the post." And so on.
>>
>> As polls closed in March, though, Hitler was still seven
>> million votes behind Hindenberg. The response of the
>> industrialists? More money. The extravagant "Hitler
>> Over Germany" campaign was launched, and the
>> Nazi leader was flown all over the country to campaign,
>> hitting over 20 towns in one week. This didn't give
>> Hitler the April runoff, but he did manage to snag two
>> million more votes over March. The Reichstag
>> elections were set for July, and Hitler took to the skies
>> again, this time managing to draw in 37.3% of the
>> Reichstag seats. Encouraged, Hitler declared for the
>> chancellorship. It seems his enthusiasm was misplaced,
>> though--he lost two million votes and nearly 40 seats in
>> the Reichstag. Not to worry, though; he still had his Big
>> Business buddies to bail him out. John Toland (in
>> ADOLPH HITLER): "Late that November, thirty-nine
>> prominent businessmen (including Hjalmar Schacht,
>> former Chancellor Cuno, and tycoons like Krupp,
>> Siemens, Thyssen, Bosch, Worman, and Vogler) signed
>> a letter to petition Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor
>> of Germany. These pragmatic men were placing a bet on
>> the NSDAP. They were confident Hitler's socialism was
>> a fraud and that, once in power, he would be the tool of
>> capitalism."
>>
>> The rest, as they say, is history.
>>
>> By the time Hitler had weasled his way into power, the
>> Nazis had the support of all the major German
>> industrialists, and Hitler obligingly set about destroying
>> all socialist or reformist elements seen as a threat to the
>> capitalist order.
>>
>> ___
>>
>> [*]
>> (Kirdorf had become a Nazi backer in 1927
>> after Hitler had convinced him that all the
>> "socialist" talk was just talk, and that the party
>> had no intention of implementing any of it once
>> in power. For a few months, after the Nazi rise
>> to power, Kirdorf left the party because Hitler
>> had failed to liquidate the radicals within it. He
>> returned immediately after the Night of the Long
>> Knives, and remained a loyal Nazi until the day
>> he died in 1938 (and Hitler spoke wamrly of him
>> until the day he himself died).
>
>
> Here's my addition:
>
> "Theory was not the strong point of movements
> devoted to the inadequacies of reason and
> rationalism and the superiority of instict and
> will. They attracted all kinds of reactionary
> theorists in countries with an active conservative
> intellectual life... as we have seen fascism
> shared nationalism, anti-communism,
> anti-liberalism, etc. with other non-fascist elements
> on the right....The major difference between the
> fascist and the non-fascist right was that fascism
> existed by mobilizing masses from below."
>
> Page 117, "The Age of Extremes" by Eric
> Hobsbawm
>
> He also points out on the same page how the
> Nazis stole symbols from the Communists to try
> to lure the working class to their right wing
> cause, including the term "national SOCIALIST."
> (others attacked this saying Hobsbawm was
> leftist, so he can't be believed -- an argumentum
> ad hominem attack -- but above you cite Bullock
> and others agreeing on this, so Hobsbawm's
> position reinforces theirs).
___
The "holy trinity" of Nazi historians--Bullock,
Toland, and Shirer--are all in agreement on
the point.
___
> For a real dramatic story showing how
> anti-communist and right wing the nazis
> were, see:
>
> "The Nazi Seizure of Power, The Experience
> of a Single German Town, 1930-1935," by
> William Sheridan Allen.
>
> For those who doubt that nazis were
> anti-bolshevik to the extreme, here are
> some places to look:
>
> "Political Ideologies" by Thobaben and
> Funderburk
> "Political Ideologies" by Leon Baradat
> "A History of Modern Germany," by Hajo
> Holborn
> "European Democracies" by Juerg Steiner
> "The Nightmare Years," by William Shirer (a
> book everyone should read sometime in
> their lives)
> "The Weimar Republic," by Detlev J.k. Peukert
>
> The KPD (Communists) were the first party
> put in the concentration camps in 1933.
> The SPD (Socialists, anti-Communist and
> anti-fascist) were sent to Dachau in 1933
> as well, voting against Hitler extending his
> powers. The conservative parties
> supported Hitler completely.
>
>
>From "Political Ideologies" by Thobaben and
> Funderburk, 3rd edition, p. 187:
>
> "Hitler states his hatred of democracy with
> its 'ridiculous institution' of parliament and
> communism with the 'loathsome' doctrines
> of class struggle created by 'the jew Karl
> Marx'....Hermann Goering, commander of
> the German force, saw Germany as a bastion
> against communism. War with the 'red terror'
> was viewed as inevitable as national socialism
> and Marxism are poles apart. Marxism's
> doctrines of class struggle, internationalism,
> pulbic ownership of property, and atheism, if
> put into practice, would destroy Germany as
> a nation-state."
>
>
> From: "The Weimar Republic," by Detlev
> J.K. Peukert. Peukert, who died in 1990 at
> age 39, was formerly professor of modern
> history at the University of Essen, and
> director of the Research Institute for the
> history of the nazi Period:
>
> "Ideologically speaking, on the other hand,
> the NSDAP stood for a melange of ideas
> and grievances that were far from original
> and indeed were common to much of the
> German right; all that was new was the
> passion and single mindedness with which
> the separate ingredients of this ideological
> mixture were combined on behalf of a
> struggle against ‘the system.' This
> demonized image of ‘the system' was
> aprojection of attitudes that were by no
> means identical: anti-Semitism, anti-liberalism,
> and anti-Marxism...some of the Nazis specific
> political arguments were certainly borrowed
> frmo the attacks on modernization that had
> been mounted by the conservative
> Kulturkritiker. But the Nazis cult of dynamism
> and the movement's utopian appeal to a
> future national community outrivalled the
> conservatives' attempts to restore the old
> order." - p. 237
>
> Note also page 268: anti-fascist movements
> were mostly from the left, and were paralyzed
> by the right. Not also in that chapter how it
> was conservative parties which cooperated
> with Hitler, and helped him gang power (and
> ultimately voted to give Hitler total power later
> in 1933, with only the SPD standing against
> him).
___
As Bullock noted in what I quoted earlier,
there was, in the beginning, a left wing
within the Nazi party that was made up
of socialists (mostly allied behind the
Strasser brothers and, later, Roehm). The
right, led by Hitler, held them in contempt.
Writing about 1925, Bullock notes:
"Hitler had little sympathy with the Strasser's
anti-capitalism and their demand for the
breaking up of the big estates, which
embarassed him in his search for wealthy
backers." The latter suggestion Hitler
called a "Jewish swindle."
This rivalry continued for years. "In April
1930, the trade unions in Saxony declared
a strike and Otto Strasser came out in full
support of their action" Hitler was
furious and "enforced an order that no
member of the Party was to take part in the
strike..." Strasser continued to agitate in
favor of it, however, and Hitler "suddenly
appeared in Berlin" and "invited" Strasser
to come talk things over with him. At the
meeting, Hitler denounced Strasser as a
socialist, no better than a Marxist. When
Strasser asked him if he would nationalize
German industry should he come to power,
Hitler replied "Of course I should leave it
alone. Do you think I should be so mad as
to destroy Germany's economy?"
"At the end of June, Hitler wrote to Goebbels
instructing him to drive Otto Strasser and his
supporters from the party," which was
immediately done. While Otto's brother Gregor
stayed with Hitler, Otto arranged some of his
exiled supporters into the "Black Front party,"
which had little success and quickly faded to
obscurity.
This wasn't, of course, the end of the left
within the Nazi party. They didn't meet their
final fate until a few years later, almost
immediately after Hitler came to power.
The talk among the socialists within the party
at that time was of "the Second Revolution,"
a metaphor for implementing a socialist
program. As Shirer, Toland, and Bullock all
note, Hitler denounced the Second
Revolution movement in the strongest
possible terms. "To back up his words, Hitler
dismissed a number of Nazi 'radicals' who
had tried to seize control of the employers'
associations. He restored Krupp von Bohlen
and Fritz Thyssen to their positions of
leadership in them, dissolved the Combat
League of Middle Class Tradespeople, which
had annoyed the big department stores and
in place of Hugenberg named Dr. Karl Schmitt
as Minister of Economics. Schmitt was the
most orthodox of businessmen, director gereral
of Allianz, Germany's largest insurance
company, and he lost no time in putting an end
to the schemes of the National Socialist who
had been naive enough to take their party
program seriously." (Shirer)
Then, of course, came the Night of the Long
Knives. Albert Speer wrote about this in "Inside
the Third Reich":
"...in the Blood Purge of June 30, 1934,
the strong left wing of the party, represented
chiefly by the SA, was eliminated. That wing
had felt cheated of the fruits of the revolution.
And not without reason. For a majority of the
members of the SA, raised in the spirit of
revolution before 1933, had taken Hitler's
supposedly socialist program seriously."
A little later, Speer offers a portrait of the
remains of the left after that:
"Late at night, I would return from my
rounds to the Hotel Duetscher Hof, which
had been reserved for Hitler's staff and for
the Gauleiters and Reichleiters. In the hotel
restaurant, I usually found a group of old
Gauleiters waxing boisterous over their
beer as they denounced the party's betrayal
of the principles of the revolution and
betrayal of the workers. Here was a sign
that the ideas of Gregor Strasser, who had
once led the anticapitalist wing within the
NSDAP, were still alive, though reduced
to mere bombast. Only in alcohol could these
fellows resurrect their old revolutionary elan."
Gandalf Grey
Raff <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote in message
news:3c538...@news.meganetnews.com...
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C5361BE...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > "Liberals HATE America.." wrote:
> >
> > > The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are
> socialist.
> > > That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you
would
> > > like to apply it to the right in America.
> >
> > No, you are wrong.
>
> No, Erb it is you, CL2, and arne tha are wrong as has been proven many
times
> already.
You're a cringing little liar, Dana. Anyone looking through the nazi sites
on the web will notice that they are ALL right wing to the core
Smaug
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:11:49 GMT, "Liberals HATE America.."
> <noe...@forme.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
> >
> ><bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
> >
> >> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> >> >planning
> >>
> >> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> >> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> >> production.
> >
> >The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
>
But a greater amount of education, as well as just using your head, would
tell you Nazis never were Socialist, and were, at best, opportunists.
> How did nazis share power, and extend the control of the means of
> production?
>
> so·cial·ism (s˝“sh…-ląz”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
--
To email me, remove "NOSPAM" from my address.
Cephalus
nationalistic socialists.
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 02:50:16 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> How did nazis share power, and extend the control of the means of
>> production?
>>
>> so·cial·ism (s½“sh…-l¹z”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
Cephalus
>On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:11:49 GMT, "Liberals HATE America.."
><noe...@forme.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>><bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
>>
>>> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
>>> >planning
>>>
>>> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
>>> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
>>> production.
>>
>>The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
>
>How did nazis share power, and extend the control of the means of
>production?
>
>so·cial·ism (s½“sh…-l¹z”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
>of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and
>political power is exercised by the whole community
>
>The name of the party was taken from a pre-existing political party,
>then turned into what we now know as a RIGHT WING conservative
>ideology.
>
They were rightwing socialists
Bert Hyman
<cool...@luke.com> wrote:
> However, the Nazis DID have the word 'socialist' associated with
> their party, and therefore, every slobbering right wing dufus equates
> them to Democrats in America (or worse, LIBERALS)..
The economic system implemented by the NAZIs was fascism or corporatism.
It retains nominal private "ownership" of business, but has total state
control.
Ownership of something without control of that thing is absurd. Ultimately,
there is no practical or philosophical difference between fascism and
socialism in the economic context.
George Spelvin
>
> You're beginning to get the picture, I see. Good.
> NAZI = Nationalist Socialist.
Just because they called themselves Socialists doesn't mean they were .
. . no more than the German Democratic Republic (i.e., East Germany) was
a democracy.
> tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
>
> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> >planning
Lie. BTW, if you want to compare the NAZIs to other right-wing
dictatorships and ultra-conservative movements you wouldn't have to make
up shit.
> >2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> >individual.
What's wrong with that?
> >3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
Massive? I don't think so.
> >4) Both favor Gun control
So?
> >5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
What does that have to do with anything?
> >6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> >individualism and individual rights
Another lie.
At least have evidence for your specious claims.
--
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always
that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence
and due process of law. We will not be driven by fear into an age of
unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember
that we are not descended from fearful men--not from men who feared to
write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the
moment, unpopular." --Edward R. Murrow, McCarthy Report, 1954.
Bert Hyman
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Xns91A2B7F0471...@209.98.98.13...
>
>
> Well that can be discussed, since they originate from so diffrent political
> and philosophical standards. Which can be divided into left and right.
>
What matters is that they all believe that the state is supreme.
All else flows from that.
George Spelvin
keep this up!
bu...@appointed.com wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2002 11:13:54 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> >planning
>
> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> production.
>
> Military production, therefore is a central theme of right wing
> ideologues and policy
>
> >2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> >individual.
>
> Nazism venerated individual characteristics, so much so that most of
> right winger hitler's ideology was predicated in producing an
> individual with specific characteristics.
>
> >3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
>
> Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. How
> would they tax themselves?
>
> >4) Both favor Gun control
>
> Nazis had no gun control.
>
> >5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
>
> Nazis and Hitler "borrowed" southern conservative social policy of
> forced sterilizations, incorporated into their ideology. Was used as
> the basis for the holocaust.
>
> >
> >6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> >individualism and individual rights
>
> Nazism abhorred world order. Nazism (right wing) venerated symbols,
> icons, and believed in "conserving" old ways. They also hated
> minorities, immigrants-------EVERY one a conservative character trait.
George Spelvin
"Conservatives HATE America.." wrote:
>
> <bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
>
> > >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> > >planning
> >
> > Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> > to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> > production.
>
> The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
> That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you would
> like to apply it to the right in America.
Textbook ignorance: just because someone calls themselves socialist does
not automatically put them in the left wing. The NAZIs were
ultra-conservative. Period. You have no idea what liberalism and
conservatism mean otherwise you wouldn't have made such an idiotic
statement.
> I hate to confuse a LIEberal with the facts but the word Nazi is made up
> from the first two letters of the word German word "nationaler: and the
> third and fourth letters of the German word "Sozialist."
>
> "We are socialists because we see in socialism… the only chance to maintain
> our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our
> German state…
That is one of the most conservative statements I have ever heard. The
NAZIs were ultra-conservative, right-wingers with a vengeance.
> We are a workers' party because we… are on the side of labor
> and against finance…
The NAZIs were also liars. Apparently you take them at their word.
That's sad.
> As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we
> see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the
> nation's goods."
So you take the word of lying, anti-semitic racists?
Why do you hate Americans so much?
Bert Hyman
<spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
> Now you are going to confuse them with logic and sound reasoning if you
> keep this up!
>
> bu...@appointed.com wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2002 11:13:54 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
>> wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
>> >planning
>>
>> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
>> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
>> production.
>>
>> Military production, therefore is a central theme of right wing
>> ideologues and policy
Kind of like those right-winngers, the Soviets and Chinese, right?
>>
>> >2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
>> >individual.
>>
>> Nazism venerated individual characteristics, so much so that most of
>> right winger hitler's ideology was predicated in producing an
>> individual with specific characteristics.
Sort of like "The Ideal Soviet Man" envisioned by Stalin?
>>
>> >3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
>>
>> Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. How
>> would they tax themselves?
>>
>> >4) Both favor Gun control
>>
>> Nazis had no gun control.
What?
George Spelvin
> They used the term "socialist" in the party precisely to try to
> undercut working class support for Communists and Social
> Democrats. It worked, but until Hitler grabbed power there were
> a number of left leaning folk in the Nazi party. Hitler
> liquidated them once he had power, clearly embracing the
> so-called "right wing" of the party, which was widely known to
> have represented. For a detailed and interesting view on events
> before 1933, see Otto Friedrichs, "Before the Deluge."
You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
government.
George Spelvin
>
> >so·cial·ism (s˝“sh…-ląz”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
> >of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and
> >political power is exercised by the whole community
> >
> >The name of the party was taken from a pre-existing political party,
> >then turned into what we now know as a RIGHT WING conservative
> >ideology.
> >
>
> They were rightwing socialists
Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
totalitarian, military dictatorship.
Bert Hyman
<spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
> Cephalus wrote:
>>
>> They were rightwing socialists
>
> Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
> totalitarian, military dictatorship.
As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
Why would you think you can't be both?
Bert Hyman
<spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
> You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
> government.
>
Because they were competitors.
Smaug
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
> In news:3C542A09...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
> > government.
> >
>
> Because they were competitors.
And the Socialists hate the Capitalists because the Capitalists believe in
exploitation and war for the same reason. They're competing for the
working class, and the working class knows who's truly on their side.
>
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
--
bu...@appointed.com
like a right wing nut;
><spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
>> government.
>>
>
>Because they were competitors.
They were both Totalitarians.
They both employed tactics best described as right wing.
====================================================
Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
or are you to chicken to fight.
I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
come on chicken man, make your hat.
Smaug
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
> In news:3C542A79...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
> > Cephalus wrote:
> >>
> >> They were rightwing socialists
> >
> > Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
> > totalitarian, military dictatorship.
>
> As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
>
Which has nothing in common with Marx's description of Communism, or that
of any of the 19th century Socialists. Many of the 20-century
"Socialists" forgot the main principles, and became mere statists.
> Why would you think you can't be both?
Because evidence says otherwise. Read Marx.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
--
Smaug
(Cephalus) wrote:
> Or maybe like Ferdinand LaSalle before them, they were just
> nationalistic socialists.
>
How do you know that LaSalle was a Socialist? Question when you read.
--
bu...@appointed.com
<spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote like a right wing nut;
Free enterprise existed, corporations existed, the government "bought"
from industry.
Smaug
(Cephalus) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 02:09:13 GMT, bu...@appointed.com wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 01:11:49 GMT, "Liberals HATE America.."
> ><noe...@forme.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
> >>
> >><bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
> >>
> >>> >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> >>> >planning
> >>>
> >>> Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> >>> to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> >>> production.
> >>
> >>The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are socialist.
> >
> >How did nazis share power, and extend the control of the means of
> >production?
> >
> >so·cial·ism (s˝“sh…-ląz”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means
> >of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and
> >political power is exercised by the whole community
> >
> >The name of the party was taken from a pre-existing political party,
> >then turned into what we now know as a RIGHT WING conservative
> >ideology.
> >
>
> They were rightwing socialists
Don't spew like an idiot; Back up what you say!!
>
> >Now, make me laugh fuckwit.
> >
> >===================================================
> >
> >The German Workers' Party , the forerunner of the Nazi Party,
> >espoused a right-wing ideology, like many similar groups of demobilized
> >soldiers. Adolf Hitler joined this small political party in 1919 and rose to
> >leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches. He
> >encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk
> >and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews,
> >exploiting antisemitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries.
> >He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German
> >Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party (or NSDAP). By the
> >end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler
> >became its official leader, or Führer.
> >
> >And which party is:
> >
> >1 Ultranationalistic
> >
> >2 concerned with "diluting" american, immigration,?
> >
> >3 using "volk" (family) as a mantra
> >
> >4 hates "world order"
> >
> >5 emotionalizes "national feelings"?
> >
> >Yes, you guessed it correctly.
> >
> >
--
bu...@appointed.com
like a right wing nut;
><spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
>> Cephalus wrote:
>>>
>>> They were rightwing socialists
>>
>> Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
>> totalitarian, military dictatorship.
>
>As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
>
>Why would you think you can't be both?
Why do you think that Stalin couldn't be right wing? Or Mao?
Sherwood
Raff's of Laughs really likes to get his ass torn apart over his
attempts at revisionist history and right-wing subterfuge, and since
Dana likes it having stuck to him every chance he gets, here we go
again:
The following is re-rinted with the explicit permission of The
Roundhead Watch
Federalism and federalists, have been playing the controlling and
dominant role in America, since its very start:
"As a national organization, the Federalist Party expired about 1816,
but it continued to live in spirit. Its heirs, with their conservative
coloration, sought refuse with other parties, ultimately with the
present-day Republicans. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, to
be sure, made a powerful appeal to the common people. But since the
Civil War the Republicans have consistently favored a protective
tariff and other profit-giving concessions to business. More than
their Democratic rivals, they [the Republican Party] have been the
party of conservatism, big industry, and wealth. These characteristics
are distinctively Hamiltonian, and many latter-day [present time]
Republicans have claimed the Federalist financier as the godfather of
their party."
Thomas A. Bailey, History Professor, The American Pageant, 5th
Edition, Vol. 1, 1975, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington
"For the last decade or so, the Republican Party and the devout
Federalists running the Party, have been busy remaking the Party and
themselves into a catch-all political machine, intent on making the
Republican Party into something that means all things to all people.
In their attempt to be all things to all people, the ultraconservative
Federalists in control of the Republican Party, have also been selling
the idea to the masses of people, uneducated or gullible enough to
believe their Federalist lies and propaganda, that the Republican
Party is the party of Antifederalist republican principles, which of
course IT IS NOT."
"Federalists, i.e., the Republican Party and its conservative allies,
stand for the aristocracy, the RICH MEN, whose only desire is to be
your only rulers, lords and masters. Should not this in itself, put
you on your guard and make you concerned for your future, and the
future of America? Does not riches beget power, and power, by its
natural consequence through wealth, spawn oppression and tyranny? Do
you enjoy oppression and tyranny so much that you are willing to make
yourselves and your children the willing slaves of the RICH MEN, the
select few?"
"In addition, Federalists also stand for a powerful centralized
government, a large and powerful standing military to impose it's
Federalist will on others, RULE by the "best people," an expanding
bureaucracy, restrictions on free speech and the press, hostility to
the extension of democracy, a government committed to fostering
business, and concentrating the wealth in the hands of the select few.
1"
1 Bailey, Thomas A., The American Pageant, D.C. Heath & Co., 1975,
Vol. 1, p. 171
"The present Democratic Party traces its descent, in unbroken lineage,
from the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson."
Thomas A. Bailey, History Professor, The American Pageant, 5th
Edition, Vol. 1, 1975, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington
Raff's of Laughs, aka., Dana, has once again been proven by the facts
and truths of history to be wrong.
Antifederalist Papers 2002: Paper No. 1
Tearing Apart the Federalist-Republican Lies & Manipulations
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/antifed001.html
classicliberal2
>> You might say that this nation was conceived
>> in liberality, and overthrown by conservative
>> Federalism.
>
> Which is the modern liberal a statist at heart.
___
A "statist" is nothing more than someone who
advocates a state. The word covers everyone
from liberals to conservatives to dictators--the
only people it doesn't cover are anarchists.
Liberals HATE America..
socialist.
> > like to apply it to the right in America.
>
> by classicliberal2, Arne and myself documenting the differences?
> Just to respond to obviously false assertions?
You can spout your radical left-wing historical revisionism propaganda all
you want, it doesn't change facts.
Raff
"George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:3C54273C...@everywhere.edu...
> Shel Scott wrote:
> >
> > You're beginning to get the picture, I see. Good.
> > NAZI = Nationalist Socialist.
>
> Just because they called themselves Socialists doesn't mean they were .
Yes it does.
> . . no more than the German Democratic Republic (i.e., East Germany) was
> a democracy.
As practiced by the Germans, just look at their social democracy, ha ha what
a joke it is.
>
> > tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote:
> >
> > >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> > >planning
>
> Lie.
Really George, since when do you agree with a limited federal gvt, as
spelled out by the Constitution. Had we had that kind of federal gvt, you
would not have SS, medicare, and other unconstitutional social programs.
> > >2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> > >individual.
>
> What's wrong with that?
If you do not know, they you are a hopeless case.
>
> > >3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
>
> Massive? I don't think so.
Try again George.
>
> > >4) Both favor Gun control
>
> So?
So you act like a nazi.
>
> > >5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
Comparing lefties to nazis.
>
> > >6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> > >individualism and individual rights
>
> Another lie.
You agreed with it above.
Raff
> Now you are going to confuse them with logic and sound reasoning if you
> keep this up!
Gary has no idea what that is.
>
> bu...@appointed.com wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Jan 2002 11:13:54 -0800, tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning)
> > wrote like a right wing nut;
> >
> > >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> > >planning
policy
> >
> > >2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> > >individual.
> > >3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
> > >4) Both favor Gun control
> >
> > Nazis had no gun control.
Gary, you are caught in another lie.
> >
> > >5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
> >
> > Nazis and Hitler "borrowed" southern conservative social policy of
> > forced sterilizations, incorporated into their ideology. Was used as
> > the basis for the holocaust.
Since when was Margret Sanger a southern conservative, she was a Northern
modern liberal like you. You do realize that hitler took his idea of
killing the jews from Sanger, who was the founder of planned parenthood.
While hitler wanted to kill all the jews, sanger wanted to destroy the black
race. Seems the left and nazism have quite a lot in common.
> >
> > >
> > >6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> > >individualism and individual rights
> >
> > Nazism abhorred world order.
They wanted to create a world order, with them as the leaders, what a fing
moron you are.
Raff
>
>
> "Conservatives HATE America.." wrote:
> >
> > <bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
> >
> > > >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
> > > >planning
> > >
> > > Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> > > to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> > > production.
> >
> > The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are
socialist.
> > That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you would
> > like to apply it to the right in America.
>
> Textbook ignorance: just because someone calls themselves socialist does
> not automatically put them in the left wing. The NAZIs were
> ultra-conservative.
No, they were left wing socialists, just like the left in America.
.
>
>
> > I hate to confuse a LIEberal with the facts but the word Nazi is made up
> > from the first two letters of the word German word "nationaler: and the
> > third and fourth letters of the German word "Sozialist."
> >
> > "We are socialists because we see in socialism. the only chance to
maintain
> > our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our
> > German state.
>
> That is one of the most conservative statements I have ever heard.
Guess you never read up on the founder of planned parenthood, an American
modern liberal just like you.
The
> NAZIs were ultra-conservative, right-wingers with a vengeance.
No they were typical left wing intolerant bigots.
>
> > We are a workers' party because we. are on the side of labor
> > and against finance.
>
> The NAZIs were also liars. Apparently you take them at their word.
> That's sad.
As george goes into apology mode.
>
> > As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we
> > see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the
> > nation's goods."
>
> So you take the word of lying, anti-semitic racists?
You do not like the truth. Well too bad. Your side is just like the nazis.
>
> Why do you hate Americans so much?
The question is why do you????
Raff
Raff
--
"Liberal: A man suffering from an overwhelming conviction to believe what is
not true."
"George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
news:3C542A09...@everywhere.edu...
Gandalf Grey
>
>
> --
> "Liberal: A man suffering from an overwhelming conviction to believe what
is
> not true."
"Conservative: Anyone suffering from an overwhelming conviction that they
must tell other people lies."
Gandalf Grey
> news:3C542936...@everywhere.edu...
> >
> >
> > "Conservatives HATE America.." wrote:
> > >
> > > <bu...@appointed.com> wrote in message like the left-wing whacko he is:
> > >
> > > > >1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central
economic
> > > > >planning
> > > >
> > > > Right wing ideology is marked by a militaristic character. In order
> > > > to maintain high military ability, industry is geared to military
> > > > production.
> > >
> > > The slightest bit of education would tell you that Nazis were/are
> socialist.
> > > That is LEFT WING on the political spectrum no matter how much you
would
> > > like to apply it to the right in America.
> >
> > Textbook ignorance: just because someone calls themselves socialist does
> > not automatically put them in the left wing. The NAZIs were
> > ultra-conservative.
>
> No, they were left wing socialists,
No they weren't. They were right wing fascists just like the American Nazi
Party is today. Check out any nazi site on the web and you'll note that
it's anti-socialist and hyper right wing. Just Like Dana.
Gandalf Grey
Dana <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote in message
news:3c547...@news.meganetnews.com...
>
> "Sherwood" <ensey_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9746ed4a.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote in message
> news:<3c538...@news.meganetnews.com>...
> > > "Sherwood" <ensey_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9746ed4a.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > > > tk_dow...@hotmail.com (tkdowning) wrote in message
> > > news:<77353968.02012...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > 1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central
> economic
> > > > > planning
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
> > > > > individual.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Both favor Gun control
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Nazis and Hitler were pioneers in Animal rights
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) Both in favor of "group rights" and violently opposed to
> > > > > individualism and individual rights
> > > >
> > > > The Antifederalits, Jefferson among them, belonged to a social and
> > > > political thought termed as being "liberal minded."
> > >
Exactly the opposite of the fascism-leaning right wing.
> > >
> > > > You might say that
> > > > this nation was conceived in liberality, and overthrown by
> > > > conservative Federalism.
Overthrown by the right wing. Precisely.
Knoway
"classicliberal2" <classic...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:B45449DDA13CB6AC.5112D9F3...@lp.airnews.net...
And Muslim fundamentalists
Gandalf Grey
Knoway <kno...@spamfilter.attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3c548...@news1.prserv.net...
You could even include them in on it. A theocracy is a government. A
government with some form of religious worship at its center. A Christian
state, a Muslim state, both are states and their controllers and promoters
are statists.
>
>
bu...@appointed.com
like a right wing nut;
>
>
>"Liberal: A man suffering from an overwhelming conviction to believe what is
>not true."
DANAISM: A self abusing, sex advertising, sham "moralist" who got
caught with sick, disgusting sex ads archived at GOOGLE. COM
Scott D. Erb
As one poster said, the attempt to say that "Hitler is a leftist"
as a form of propaganda is a dangerous rewriting of history, akin
to the holocaust deniers. It's sad that people try to do that,
but at least that's something we can work against, both on
newsgroups, and in other forms of education.
Scott D. Erb
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> In news:3C542A09...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
> > government.
> >
>
> Because they were competitors.
They also had a very different ideology and outlook on how
politics should be organized. They were opposites. You seem to
want to think the world is just 'more government' vs. 'less
government.' It's much more complex than that.
Scott D. Erb
slogans and simplistic vague attacks, while those who show they
aren't have detailed cites and analysis. The proof is in the
pudding.
I'm going to leave it as a top post, because below is a good
demonstration:
Bert Hyman
sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com (Smaug) wrote:
> In article <Xns91A36AC9B3A...@209.98.98.13>, Bert Hyman
><be...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:3C542A79...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
>> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Cephalus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> They were rightwing socialists
>> >
>> > Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
>> > totalitarian, military dictatorship.
>>
>> As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
>>
>
> Which has nothing in common with Marx's description of Communism, or that
> of any of the 19th century Socialists. Many of the 20-century
> "Socialists" forgot the main principles, and became mere statists.
They forgot nothing.
Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of any regime like socialism or
communism or facism.
Bert Hyman
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
At the periphery, maybe. But you can't have totalitarianism with out an all-
powerful state, can you?
Minister of Silly Walks
propagandist,
the chief Republican Radio Turd himself, Rush Limbaugh - to get the REAL
state of the art on revisionism..
Minister of Silly Walks
Scott D. Erb
Given that totalitarianism is part of what defines those systems,
that's not surprising. But most on the Left, and certainly most
modern Social Democrats despise the Communist systems of the East
bloc as much as they despise fascism. The ideological roots of
each were different. The similarity is that any time someone
thinks they have found the RIGHT system and that it is legitimate
to use any means necessary to force others to go along with it,
even to the point of denying democracy and individual rights,
that system is prone for disaster. It also shows that
centralizing power draws ruthless and twisted people like moths
to a flame.
Scott D. Erb
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> In news:3C54990C...@worldnet.att.net "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Bert Hyman wrote:
> >>
> >> In news:3C542A09...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> >> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
> >> > government.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because they were competitors.
> >
> > They also had a very different ideology and outlook on how
> > politics should be organized. They were opposites. You seem to
> > want to think the world is just 'more government' vs. 'less
> > government.' It's much more complex than that.
> >
>
> At the periphery, maybe. But you can't have totalitarianism with out an all-
> powerful state, can you?
But a variety of ideologies and policies can emerge from an all
powerful state.
Knoway
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:a321nm$ko6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
anarchy. ;-j
tkdowning
So your relying on some racists punk Nazi-wannabes to define the term
"right wing"? I never liked that term anyway, so they can have it. My
point was that Nazis of the 1930's and 1940's have much more in common
with Modern Liberals than they do with Modern
conservative/libertarians. If you want to disagree with me, please
refute my points.
Comparison of Nazism to Modern Liberals:
1) Both advocate a strong, powerful government, with central economic
planning
2) Both place the needs of the society above the needs of the
individual.
3) Both favor massive regulation and high taxation of corporations
4) Both favor Gun control
5) Nazis were pioneers in Animal rights
Gandalf Grey
I like it!
classicliberal2
___
Our sources were largely uncontroversial
mainstream works on the subject (cited in
the posts), and, for my part, I did that to
preclude anyone but an utter imbecile from
making the sorts of remarks you did above.
Those posts came together in a thread
wherein the opposite side was represented
by a guy whose single source (which he had
plagiarized) was right-wing bullshit-artist Rush
Limbaugh. I'd say we have such a source
beat, hands down.
If you have even a single one to support
your position, feel free to cite it at any time.
Gandalf Grey
tkdowning <tk_dow...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:77353968.02012...@posting.google.com...
No problem. Since the American Nazi party is formally represented by right
wing 'punks' your entire point fails automatically.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C54B279...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Bert Hyman wrote:
> >
> > In news:sorcer-E-211...@ip-216-222-14-190.salmoninternet.com
> > sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com (Smaug) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Xns91A36AC9B3A...@209.98.98.13>, Bert Hyman
> > ><be...@visi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In news:3C542A79...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> > >> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Cephalus wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> They were rightwing socialists
> > >> >
> > >> > Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
> > >> > totalitarian, military dictatorship.
> > >>
> > >> As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Which has nothing in common with Marx's description of Communism, or
that
> > > of any of the 19th century Socialists. Many of the 20-century
> > > "Socialists" forgot the main principles, and became mere statists.
> >
> > They forgot nothing.
> >
> > Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of any regime like socialism or
> > communism or facism.
>
> Given that totalitarianism is part of what defines those systems,
> that's not surprising. But most on the Left, and certainly most
> modern Social Democrats despise the Communist systems of the East
> bloc as much as they despise fascism.
Not to mention how much the Communists despised socialism.
Smaug
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
> >
> > In news:sorcer-E-211...@ip-216-222-14-190.salmoninternet.com
> > sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com (Smaug) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Xns91A36AC9B3A...@209.98.98.13>, Bert Hyman
> > ><be...@visi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In news:3C542A79...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> > >> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Cephalus wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> They were rightwing socialists
> > >> >
> > >> > Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
> > >> > totalitarian, military dictatorship.
> > >>
> > >> As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Which has nothing in common with Marx's description of Communism, or that
> > > of any of the 19th century Socialists. Many of the 20-century
> > > "Socialists" forgot the main principles, and became mere statists.
> >
> > They forgot nothing.
> >
> > Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of any regime like socialism or
> > communism or facism.
>
> Given that totalitarianism is part of what defines those systems,
> that's not surprising.
Say what? Socialism and true, Marxist Communism are not distinguished by
Totalitarianism. Technically, Fascism isn't either, as shown by the
dictatorship of Mussolini.
But most on the Left, and certainly most
> modern Social Democrats despise the Communist systems of the East
> bloc as much as they despise fascism. The ideological roots of
> each were different. The similarity is that any time someone
> thinks they have found the RIGHT system and that it is legitimate
> to use any means necessary to force others to go along with it,
> even to the point of denying democracy and individual rights,
> that system is prone for disaster. It also shows that
> centralizing power draws ruthless and twisted people like moths
> to a flame.
--
To email me, remove "NOSPAM" from my address.
Smaug
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C54B279...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > Bert Hyman wrote:
> > >
> > > In news:sorcer-E-211...@ip-216-222-14-190.salmoninternet.com
> > > sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com (Smaug) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Xns91A36AC9B3A...@209.98.98.13>, Bert Hyman
> > > ><be...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In news:3C542A79...@everywhere.edu George Spelvin
> > > >> <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Cephalus wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> They were rightwing socialists
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Actually they weren't really Socialists at all. NAZI Germani was a
> > > >> > totalitarian, military dictatorship.
> > > >>
> > > >> As was the Soviet Union, as is China.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Which has nothing in common with Marx's description of Communism, or
> that
> > > > of any of the 19th century Socialists. Many of the 20-century
> > > > "Socialists" forgot the main principles, and became mere statists.
> > >
> > > They forgot nothing.
> > >
> > > Totalitarianism is the inevitable result of any regime like socialism or
> > > communism or facism.
> >
I noticed you can't back that up. Are you too stupid? Just say so and
I'll understand.
> > Given that totalitarianism is part of what defines those systems,
> > that's not surprising. But most on the Left, and certainly most
> > modern Social Democrats despise the Communist systems of the East
> > bloc as much as they despise fascism.
>
> Not to mention how much the Communists despised socialism.
--
Smaug
> --
Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
> "Liberal: A man suffering from an overwhelming conviction to believe what is
> not true."
"Retard : See 'Dana'"
>
> "George Spelvin" <spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C542A09...@everywhere.edu...
> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > > They used the term "socialist" in the party precisely to try to
> > > undercut working class support for Communists and Social
> > > Democrats. It worked, but until Hitler grabbed power there were
> > > a number of left leaning folk in the Nazi party. Hitler
> > > liquidated them once he had power, clearly embracing the
> > > so-called "right wing" of the party, which was widely known to
> > > have represented. For a detailed and interesting view on events
> > > before 1933, see Otto Friedrichs, "Before the Deluge."
> >
> > You are correct. Hitler HATED Communism and the Soviet style of
> > government.
--
Chris Morton
sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com says...
>
>In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote:
>
>> --
>
>Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
>left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
Speaking of Naziism, Glen Yeadon claims both that the Nazis ALLOWED the Jews to
have guns, AND that the Nazis had NO gun control laws, AT ALL?
Do you subscribe to that revisionist lie too, Shawn?
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Bert Hyman
news:3C54B2A2...@worldnet.att.net:
Which make absolutely no difference. Or do you ->really care what
symbol is at the center of the police state's flag?
Pär Svensson
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C5360A8...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> "Pär Svensson" wrote:
> >
> > Hmm interesting that they are left in US since there are such
fundamental
> > differences.
>
> A few on the fringe of the right wing in the US calls them
> "leftist" for propaganda purposes. The vast differences between
> Nazi thought and leftist thought have been pointed out to them,
> with cites, long explanations, etc. They snip it and just throw
> out a slogan, sort of like how the brownshirts used to respond to
> political argumentation.
But if they call them selfs leftist for propaganda and have the Nazi oppnion
they are to be concidered Nazis.
The vrownshirts that was Hungary or something like that. Supporting the
Nazis.
Raff
"Smaug" <sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:sorcer-E-221...@ip-216-222-14-159.salmoninternet.com...
> In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com>
wrote:
>
> > --
>
> Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
> left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
You, Erb, GG, &CL2 are pretty good proof.
Scott D. Erb
Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> scot...@worldnet.att.net (Scott D. Erb) wrote in
> news:3C54B2A2...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> >> > They also had a very different ideology and outlook on how
> >> > politics should be organized. They were opposites. You seem to
> >> > want to think the world is just 'more government' vs. 'less
> >> > government.' It's much more complex than that.
> >> >
> >>
> >> At the periphery, maybe. But you can't have totalitarianism with
> >> out an all- powerful state, can you?
> >
> > But a variety of ideologies and policies can emerge from an all
> > powerful state.
>
> Which make absolutely no difference. Or do you ->really care what
> symbol is at the center of the police state's flag?
Yes, I think ideology matters. I think that all
realistic ideologies posit some kind of government
role, and the question is how much and in what manner.
Also there are ideologies that are inherently expansive
(such as nazism) and authoritarian systems that are
more isolationist. Understanding the ideology also
helps understand the way a state led that way will
behave.
Ultimately, you need to look at the ideology in order
to avoid future mistakes. Nazism and Communism are
mistakes that come from different ideological sources.
If one pretends that the same source led to both, then
one might be prepared to learn from mistakes based on
that ideology, but not learn about another. After all,
no one comes to power proclaiming that they want a
brutal police state -- that's one reason seeing
ideological components of movements that end up with
such a system is important.
For conservatives and nationalists, learning from the
mistakes of nazism is essential.
For social democrats and 'liberals,' learning from the
mistakes of communism is essential.
Sherwood
> "Smaug" <sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:sorcer-E-221...@ip-216-222-14-159.salmoninternet.com...
> > In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > --
> >
> > Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
> > left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
>
> You, Erb, GG, &CL2 are pretty good proof.
So far Raff's for Laughs, you have been outed more times than the
worst batter in the history of professional baseball.
Raff's one liners do not constitute a debate, not even close, but they
do make up a form of propaganda known as glittering generalities.
Something that Raff, aka., Dana, is well known for doing.
Raff's for Laughs, has submitted squat, zip, nada, zero, as historical
evidence and proof of "it's" claims. Scott and many others have backed
up their claims, but Raff, aka., Dana, has yet to back-up the claims
it has made.
bu...@appointed.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com says...
>>
>>In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --
>>
>>Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
>>left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
>
>Speaking of Naziism, Glen Yeadon claims both that the Nazis ALLOWED the Jews to
>have guns, AND that the Nazis had NO gun control laws, AT ALL?
"having guns" was the least of the Jews worries, you dumb asshole
You could have given every jew in German 10 "guns" and they'd have
still been all killed.
You right wing fascist fuckwits would have taken care of that no
matter what.
==============================================================================
Adolf Hitler has been the favorite whipping boy of the Jewish and non-Jewish
neo-liberal publicists alike for so long now that many persons have, in all innocence,
attributed to him a number of sins of which he was absolutely blameless.
One of these imaginary sins was the alleged dispossession of the German civilian
population of firearms. American opponents of gun control legislation are in the
unfortunate habit of describing proposed firearms laws as "Hitlerian" and issuing grim
warnings that "it happened in Germany, and it can happen here," referring of course to
their predictions that gun control advocates are aiming at the total confiscation of
firearms from U. S. citizens.
Well, they are undoubtedly right about what the anti-gun people in Washington have in
mind, but they are dead wrong about Hitler and Germany. Under Hitler, German
citizens were completely free to own and bear firearms, both long guns and pistols.
Hitler's government recognized the basic rights of self-defense of German citizens and
encouraged cvilian marksmanship and sport shooting. Hitler himself was an expert
pistol shot.
There were no restrictions or licensing requirements at all for long guns and
ammunition, and only minimal licensing requirements for handguns–one could not, for
example, be a convicted felon in National Socialist Germany and own a handgun
legally. These loose gun laws were in force in Germany until 1945, when the Allies and
the Soviets occupied the country. After that, German civilians in the eastern occupation
zone were summarily shot by Communists (and Allies) if they were found in possession
of so much as a single rifle cartridge.
Democrat Willie Brandt (real name Herbert Frahm, a former Communist Party member
himself), introduced such stiff firearms restrictions in the former West Germany that it
has become virtually impossible for a German civilian to purchase any sort of firearm
unless he belongs to a government sanctioned club. The penalty for possession of an
unregistered gun in today's "free and democratic" Germany is five years in prison. So
much for the Allies' stated goal of "saving democracy" in Germany.
Bert Hyman
news:3c55b530....@news.enetis.net:
>... Under Hitler, German citizens were completely free to own
> and bear firearms, both long guns and pistols.
Of course, the little detail that German Jews were stripped of their
citizenship is overlooked by the writer.
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
=========
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91A4951EEC1...@news.visi.com...
Bert Hyman
news:3c55b...@binaries.vphos.net:
> He was talking about guns.
And so was I. These folks are trying to make it appear that the NAZI
gun control laws were not responsible for disarming the Jews. He went
out of his way to drag up this statement: "German citizens were
completely free to own and bear firearms".
I merely pointed out that he had conveniently neglected to mention
that the NAZIs had stripped the Jews of their German citizenship, so
they could disarm them, among all the other things they did.
This is a common tactic of the revisionists.
Chris Morton
>
>On 28 Jan 2002 05:27:09 -0800, Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com>
>wrote like a right wing nut;
>>In article <sorcer-E-221...@ip-216-222-14-159.salmoninternet.com>,
>>sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
>>>left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
>>
>>Speaking of Naziism, Glen Yeadon claims both that the Nazis ALLOWED the Jews to
>>have guns, AND that the Nazis had NO gun control laws, AT ALL?
>
>"having guns" was the least of the Jews worries, you dumb asshole
Were the Jews allowed by the Nazis to have guns? Yes or no?
Did the Nazis pass NO gun control laws? Yes or no?
Are you a Holocaust revisionist too?
A J Chwick
were no longer citizens, therefore they were not "free to own and bear
firearms..." as overlooked by the original writer.
Kurt Knoll <kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote in message
news:3c55b...@binaries.vphos.net...
Chris Morton
>
>bu...@appointed.com () wrote in
>news:3c55b530....@news.enetis.net:
>
>>... Under Hitler, German citizens were completely free to own
>> and bear firearms, both long guns and pistols.
>
>Of course, the little detail that German Jews were stripped of their
>citizenship is overlooked by the writer.
He probably doesn't think Jews count as people.
Smaug
> "Smaug" <sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:sorcer-E-221...@ip-216-222-14-159.salmoninternet.com...
> > In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > --
> >
> > Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
> > left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
>
> You, Erb, GG, &CL2 are pretty good proof.
> >
Nice try, but no cigar. You have no proof Naziism is a left-wing movement.
Kent Finnell
"Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a34e4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <Xns91A4951EEC1...@news.visi.com>, Bert says...
> >
> >bu...@appointed.com () wrote in
> >news:3c55b530....@news.enetis.net:
> >
> >>... Under Hitler, German citizens were completely free to own
> >> and bear firearms, both long guns and pistols.
> >
> >Of course, the little detail that German Jews were stripped of their
> >citizenship is overlooked by the writer.
>
> He probably doesn't think Jews count as people.
He probably subscribes to history as revised by Matt Giwer. Have you
noticed that that slimey piece of maggot infested pig crap has floated to
the surface again? I thought the bastard had died.
--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
Gandalf Grey
Dana <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote in message
news:3c556...@news.meganetnews.com...
>
> "Smaug" <sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:sorcer-E-221...@ip-216-222-14-159.salmoninternet.com...
> > In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff"
<nos...@spamdnc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > --
> >
> > Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
> > left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
>
> You, Erb, GG, &CL2 are pretty good proof.
Proof of the fact that you're idiot, yes.
Get off the soapbox, little Dana. It's a demonstrable fact that Naziism was
and is a right wing phenomenon. That naziism is still supported by the
right wing in America today and right here on the net is the best proof that
your claims are nothing but lies.
Bert Hyman
sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com (Smaug) wrote:
> I noticed you can't back that up. Are you too stupid? Just say so and
> I'll understand.
>
Is this your usual style of "argument"? No wonder nobody will talk to you.
bu...@appointed.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>In article <3c55b530....@news.enetis.net>, bu...@appointed.com says...
>>
>>On 28 Jan 2002 05:27:09 -0800, Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote like a right wing nut;
>>>In article <sorcer-E-221...@ip-216-222-14-159.salmoninternet.com>,
>>>sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <3c547...@news.meganetnews.com>, "Raff" <nos...@spamdnc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>Say, Buttboy . .. . you *STILL* have no proof that Naziism is a
>>>>left-wing movement. What's more, you never will.
>>>
>>>Speaking of Naziism, Glen Yeadon claims both that the Nazis ALLOWED the Jews to
>>>have guns, AND that the Nazis had NO gun control laws, AT ALL?
>>
>>"having guns" was the least of the Jews worries, you dumb asshole
>
>Were the Jews allowed by the Nazis to have guns? Yes or no?
>Did the Nazis pass NO gun control laws? Yes or no?
Whether or not "jews were allowed guns", or whether or not your hero
nazis passed any "gun control" law is irrelevant to almost any
sensible discussion, you dumb asshole.
>Are you a Holocaust revisionist too?
The ONLY thing you're interested in the Holocaust for is attempting to
justify some lunatic fringe gunwhore argument--------which you've LOST
every day, every week, every month, every year you've been around.
You're a laughable fuckwit, Mortonloon
This present "arguement" about whether or not a nazi "law" was passed
is monumentally ignorant. Whatever "law" they passed was, for all
purposes, not worth the paper it used to print it.
As were ALL their "laws", you stupid fuck.
bu...@appointed.com
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>Get off the soapbox, little Dana. It's a demonstrable fact that Naziism was
>and is a right wing phenomenon. That naziism is still supported by the
>right wing in America today and right here on the net is the best proof that
>your claims are nothing but lies.
BUTTMASTER (a sick, disgusting sex advertiser) falls into the catagory
of half a halfwit
By his "logic", East Germany is/was a Democratic country.
The name, German Democratic Republic must cause him some grief.
====================================================
Poor, pathetic, DIMWIT DANA, blusterers thusly:
IT PROVES YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
Hey ASSHOLE no one but you cares about this,
but it does show you are a hypocritical LOON.
Come on Roseasshole tell us what town you live in,
or are you to chicken to fight.
I am in Phoenix, and my number is listed,
come on chicken man, make your hat.
Kurt Knoll
Are their intention to confuse the issue.
Kurt Knoll.
=============
"A J Chwick" <191...@TheCompleteMachine.com> wrote in message
news:u5bg81b...@corp.supernews.com...
Kurt Knoll
Jews of their cititcenship so
the could not carry arms that would be a little far fetched.
Kurt Knoll.
=========
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91A49BB6E70...@news.visi.com...