Dubya slaps the NRA
John & Natalie WIlson
each is a different meme that simple wants total control of you and your life. They
are fundamentally no different.
Brainwashed by a religious meme or brainwashed by a political meme, people from both
beliefs strive to control others.
America is the place for neither.
d'geezer wrote:
> Gunner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:02:13 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >thats rith the right wingers never give up persecuting those on the
> > >left. Meanwhile the right wingers go scot free just ask the damn Nazis
> > >from the 30s.
> > >
> > >>
> > Tell that to the 80+ dead at Waco, Mrs. Randy Weaver, and her son, Tim McVeigh
> > and a host of others that you seem to be rather selective in remembering.....
> >
> > So... the Right Wingers are Nazis? Well pal, the Left, has far more in
> > common with Fascism (National Socialism), than the Right does....
> >
> > So.... Sir (sarcasm mode/off) Pray enlighten us as to why you have a
> > rational belief that the Right are Nazis. Please.
> >
> > Gunner
> >
> > Gunner
> >
>
> Because the "Right" wants Americans controlled, all social services
> supplied by the government, people monitored from cradle to grave, an
> elite favored class to run every.........whoops! Wrong group of folks.
> Sorry Gunner, my apologies. Must be my advanced
> age...heheheheheh...d'geezer
>
> --
> "Damn, you are a mean son-of-a-bitch. I've always admired that in a
> person."
> d'geezer 1935
Che'Gu Maru
be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
azazel
John & Natalie WIlson <nwi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> When will you people ever get it. The "left" ....the "right" ..... on
the extreme of
> each is a different meme that simple wants total control of you and
your life. They
> are fundamentally no different.
>
> Brainwashed by a religious meme or brainwashed by a political meme,
people from both
> beliefs strive to control others.
>
> America is the place for neither.
>
gunner, i suggest you research right wing politics, right-wing is a
more nationalist cultural identity movement whereas the left is more
anti-nationalist anti-cultural identity. ask a klansman or a neo-nazi,
whom he think is less evil.. liberals or conservatives.
"First they came for the jews and I did not speak out -
because I was not a jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out -
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out -
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me -
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Pastor Niemoeller (Victim of the Nazis)
now extremist on both sides can support a dictatorship to enforce their
views, like the third reich and the iron curtain, however the right is
more likely to support fascism. just look at the cultural purity
stances the right takes.
the term "left" and "right" come from where the French government
representatives sat.
communist-liberal-moderate-conservative-fascist
left right
true the conservatives are against gun control and the liberals are
for, but look who the conservatives wish to leave out.. the underclass
peasants in "ghettos" and like the nazi's called their ghetto
inhabitants.. conservatives call them criminals.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
don
>
> Well said! It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will invariably
> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
>
Bingo. Some light on the subject of conservatism. Used to be the
liberals laid claim to the same thing. Do you suppose the true liberals
and the true conservatives are in fact brothers and sisters in arms?
Could it be the demagogues on the further right and left are the real
problem? Polarization is dangerous but of course drives the democratic
process. Maybe this whole damn mess is actually working. Let's hear it
for chaos. Gives us little quiet mice a lot more places to hide out and
dream our happy little dreams. don
--
"Tender-handed stroke the nettle, And it stings you for your pains;
Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." Aaron Hill,
1685-1750
RJMartin
> It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will
invariably
> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as
"conservatives". Wait --
> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly
"conservative"
> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves
its opinions
> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
I think it was de Toqueville who said something to the effect that America
is conservative except that the principles conserved are liberal even
radical. Trouble is most people seem to have forgotten that liberalism
meant a maximum of individual liberty. And many seem to have forgotten that
individuals acting independently at their liberty for their own motives
advance a society extremely efficiently, without coercive planning.
Matt Nichols
>Che'Gu Maru wrote:
>>
>> Well said! It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will invariably
>> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
>> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
>> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
>> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
>>
>
>Bingo. Some light on the subject of conservatism. Used to be the
>liberals laid claim to the same thing. Do you suppose the true liberals
>and the true conservatives are in fact brothers and sisters in arms?
Yes, because to be a "conservative" means you are interested in
_conserving_ the fundamental principals of your society. American
fundamental principals are inherently _liberal_, in the classical
sense (no relation to the modern-day Authoritarians who've hijacked
the term), thus true US conservatives are by definition liberal.
-Matt
Strabo
In the original sense of the words this is true but since the
these words have been hijacked by propagandists it is better to
be clear as to meaning rather than attempt to explain definitions.
Anyone who is for kicking down doors for law and order is not
a conservative and anyone who supports the concept of hate crimes
is not a liberal. They both for example support the Rico Act and
other unconstitutional legalese. They are both the antithesis of
the American ideal. They both seek control of others at the expense
of their country.
The notion of "left" and "right" and "center" and "moderate" were
invented as a means to describe relative philosophical positions.
Political parties then adjusted their platforms to the perceived
reaction of the voters. As each party must differentiate itself
in order to gain attention and voters, the very definitions of
party direction and position change. This causes over time
a radical shift in the definitions of the words as well as
the meaning of the parties. In short, we have arrived at a point
where the parties stand for anything that will get their
candidates elected.
It is misleading and self-defeating to even use these terms.
The difference between the Communists and Nazis are perhaps
twenty words in their relative descriptions and no difference
in their results.
The emphasis now must be placed on citizen knowledge of the
constitution and how this translates into developing a personal
philosophy and applies to citizen duty such the jury.
Strabo
>
> In article <3962A945...@nc.rr.com>,
> John & Natalie WIlson <nwi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > When will you people ever get it. The "left" ....the "right" ..... on
> the extreme of
> > each is a different meme that simple wants total control of you and
<snipped>
> > > elite favored class to run every.........whoops! Wrong group of
> folks.
> > > Sorry Gunner, my apologies. Must be my advanced
> > > age...heheheheheh...d'geezer
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Damn, you are a mean son-of-a-bitch. I've always admired that in a
> > > person."
> > > d'geezer 1935
> >
>
> gunner, i suggest you research right wing politics, right-wing is a
> more nationalist cultural identity movement whereas the left is more
> anti-nationalist anti-cultural identity. ask a klansman or a neo-nazi,
> whom he think is less evil.. liberals or conservatives.
Can you believe that the "left" would have no nationalist cultural
identity?
The "left" is not "anti-nationalist anti-cultural identity". It
is simply positioning as an underdog for a different nationalist
cultural identity, and one that it will not describe.
<snipped>
>
> now extremist on both sides can support a dictatorship to enforce their
> views, like the third reich and the iron curtain, however the right is
> more likely to support fascism. just look at the cultural purity
> stances the right takes.
It is a name game. Fascism is simply the modern day cooperation
of the industrial state and the government. The the US the
federalists call it "partnering" or forming a "partnership"
with corporations and NGOs. And this plan came from the Clinton
administration.
The entire tax scheme is fascist and mandatory withholding
was put in place by Roosevelt in 1942.
>
> the term "left" and "right" come from where the French government
> representatives sat.
>
> communist-liberal-moderate-conservative-fascist
>
> left right
>
> true the conservatives are against gun control and the liberals are
> for, but look who the conservatives wish to leave out.. the underclass
> peasants in "ghettos" and like the nazi's called their ghetto
> inhabitants.. conservatives call them criminals.
It's the name game designed to divide and conquer.
azazel
Strabo <str...@flashmail.net> wrote:
> azazel wrote:> > the extreme of
> >
> > In article <3962A945...@nc.rr.com>,
> > John & Natalie WIlson <nwi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > > When will you people ever get it. The "left" ....the "right"
..... on
> > > each is a different meme that simple wants total control of you
and
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > > elite favored class to run every.........whoops! Wrong group of
> > folks.
> > > > Sorry Gunner, my apologies. Must be my advanced
> > > > age...heheheheheh...d'geezer
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "Damn, you are a mean son-of-a-bitch. I've always admired that
in a
> > > > person."
> > > > d'geezer 1935
> > >
> >
> > gunner, i suggest you research right wing politics, right-wing is a
> > more nationalist cultural identity movement whereas the left is more
> > anti-nationalist anti-cultural identity. ask a klansman or a neo-
nazi,
> > whom he think is less evil.. liberals or conservatives.
>
> Can you believe that the "left" would have no nationalist cultural
> identity?
>
> The "left" is not "anti-nationalist anti-cultural identity". It
> is simply positioning as an underdog for a different nationalist
> cultural identity, and one that it will not describe.
yeah, thats why the conservatives are pissed at the liberals pro-
multiculturalism.. okay whatever. if you celebrate one culture than why
not all?
> <snipped>
>
> >
> > now extremist on both sides can support a dictatorship to enforce
their
> > views, like the third reich and the iron curtain, however the right
is
> > more likely to support fascism. just look at the cultural purity
> > stances the right takes.
>
> It is a name game. Fascism is simply the modern day cooperation
> of the industrial state and the government. The the US the
> federalists call it "partnering" or forming a "partnership"
> with corporations and NGOs. And this plan came from the Clinton
> administration.
yes like GM giving money to the republican party.. lobbying has been
going on for a while, business and government have been working to
gether for a while, the very fact that the republican party and big
business hold onto their common thread is frightening.
> The entire tax scheme is fascist and mandatory withholding
> was put in place by Roosevelt in 1942.
sure, i'll take that and then compare the pro-christian prayer in
schools to it too. i really dislike government.. can't imagine why...
> >
> > the term "left" and "right" come from where the French government
> > representatives sat.
> >
> > communist-liberal-moderate-conservative-fascist
> >
> > left right
> >
> > true the conservatives are against gun control and the liberals are
> > for, but look who the conservatives wish to leave out.. the
underclass
> > peasants in "ghettos" and like the nazi's called their ghetto
> > inhabitants.. conservatives call them criminals.
>
> It's the name game designed to divide and conquer.
i agree. so why can't anyone admit it?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
--
"When an anarchist is taken seriously, the NRA will believe
guns are evil."- the old punks webzine
"The violence associated with alcohol Prohibition, and the threat of
Communist and anarchist subversion during the 1930s, prompted in 1934
the restriction of so-called "gangster weapons" from availability
to the general public. "-talk.politics.guns FAQ
Why the Left fears the Right http://www.duke.org
Why the Right fears the left
http://flag.blackened.net/anarpics/blkred2.gif
Matt Nichols
wrote:
>
>Matt Nichols wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:30:14 -0700, don <d...@nettlepatch.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Che'Gu Maru wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well said! It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will invariably
>> >> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
>> >> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
>> >> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
>> >> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Bingo. Some light on the subject of conservatism. Used to be the
>> >liberals laid claim to the same thing. Do you suppose the true liberals
>> >and the true conservatives are in fact brothers and sisters in arms?
>>
>> Yes, because to be a "conservative" means you are interested in
>> _conserving_ the fundamental principals of your society. American
>> fundamental principals are inherently _liberal_, in the classical
>> sense (no relation to the modern-day Authoritarians who've hijacked
>> the term), thus true US conservatives are by definition liberal.
>>
>
>In the original sense of the words this is true but since the
>these words have been hijacked by propagandists it is better to
>be clear as to meaning rather than attempt to explain definitions.
That's why I call them "Authoritarians". Most Democrats and a
depressingly large chunk of Republicans both fit this term.
-Matt
don
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:30:14 -0700, don <d...@nettlepatch.net> wrote:
>
> >Che'Gu Maru wrote:
> >>
> >> Well said! It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will invariably
> >> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
> >> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
> >> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
> >> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
> >>
> >
> >Bingo. Some light on the subject of conservatism. Used to be the
> >liberals laid claim to the same thing. Do you suppose the true liberals
> >and the true conservatives are in fact brothers and sisters in arms?
>
> Yes, because to be a "conservative" means you are interested in
> _conserving_ the fundamental principals of your society. American
> fundamental principals are inherently _liberal_, in the classical
> sense (no relation to the modern-day Authoritarians who've hijacked
> the term), thus true US conservatives are by definition liberal.
>
Geez Matt. You just described an American political party. You do know
which one of course. don
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>
>Matt Nichols wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:30:14 -0700, don <d...@nettlepatch.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Che'Gu Maru wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well said! It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will invariably
>> >> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
>> >> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
>> >> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
>> >> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Bingo. Some light on the subject of conservatism. Used to be the
>> >liberals laid claim to the same thing. Do you suppose the true liberals
>> >and the true conservatives are in fact brothers and sisters in arms?
>>
>> Yes, because to be a "conservative" means you are interested in
>> _conserving_ the fundamental principals of your society. American
>> fundamental principals are inherently _liberal_, in the classical
>> sense (no relation to the modern-day Authoritarians who've hijacked
>> the term), thus true US conservatives are by definition liberal.
>>
>> -Matt
>
>In the original sense of the words this is true but since the
>these words have been hijacked by propagandists it is better to
>be clear as to meaning rather than attempt to explain definitions.
>
>Anyone who is for kicking down doors for law and order is not
>a conservative and anyone who supports the concept of hate crimes
>is not a liberal. They both for example support the Rico Act and
>other unconstitutional legalese. They are both the antithesis of
>the American ideal. They both seek control of others at the expense
>of their country.
>
>The notion of "left" and "right" and "center" and "moderate" were
>invented as a means to describe relative philosophical positions.
>Political parties then adjusted their platforms to the perceived
>reaction of the voters. As each party must differentiate itself
>in order to gain attention and voters, the very definitions of
>party direction and position change. This causes over time
>a radical shift in the definitions of the words as well as
>the meaning of the parties. In short, we have arrived at a point
>where the parties stand for anything that will get their
>candidates elected.
>
>It is misleading and self-defeating to even use these terms.
>
>The difference between the Communists and Nazis are perhaps
>twenty words in their relative descriptions and no difference
>in their results.
1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
extreme right.
2==> I will start by quoting from "Questions on German History,
Ideas, forces, decisions from 1800 to the present; history. exhibition
in the Berlin Reichstag; catalogue. / the exhibition is organised by
the German Bundestag. Publ. by the German Bundestag, Press and
Information Centre,, Publ. Sect., Bonn. -- Engl. ed. of the 9th
updated German ed. - Bonn: German Bundestag, Press and Information
Centre, Publ. Sect. 1984. Dt. Ausg. u.d.T.; Fragen and die deutsche
Geschichte ISBN 3-92451-01-8
I suggest that the German Government might know a bit more about the
history of the Nazis that whatever source of propaganda you seem to be
believing.
"The start of the world economic depression in autumn 1929,
which hit Germany particularly hard, increased social and political
tension in the Weimar Republic. Influenced by mass unemployment and
economic depression large sections of the population turned to
extremism. The economically threatened middle classes in particular,
the traditional supporters of the liberal parties, turned their backs
on the Republic and moved to the the right. The right wing
opposition, which was grouped around the NSDAP, grew into a mass
movement and helped Adolf Hitler to power, with the support of
sections of heavy industry and of the financial world." [page 304]
3==> The name of a political party is intended to appeal to the
voters, not what it actually stands for. "Liberal" has as many
definitions as "socialism", "democracy", "republic" and so on.
Suppose that Americans revere "God, apple pie and the flag": In that
case, if you see a new party emerge in a couple years it might be the
"God, apple pie and flag party" or the GAPFP. ...but you still won't
know whether it is left or right wing until you read its platform. It
could be a left wing Communist front or more right wing than Genghis
Khan.
If surveys had indicated that the Germans had valued these in the
thirties, then Hitler might have called his party the "God, apple pie
and flag party" [GAPFP] instead of the Nationalsozialistchen Deutschen
Arbeiter-Parti. [NSDAP].
4==> Of course, what a party says it will do and what it actually does
when it attains power can be dramatically different. Hitler tried to
attain power by a putsch. To quote a bit of what Encarta says on it,
"On November 8, 1923, with 600 armed storm troopers, Hitler
marched on a beer hall in Munich, at which Gustav von Kahr, head of
the provincial Bavarian government, was addressing a public meeting.
Hitler took von Kahr and his associates prisoner and, abetted by
General Erich Ludendorff, declared in von Kahr's name the formation of
a new national government. Immediately thereafter von Kahr was
released, and he turned against Hitler and Ludendorff. Following a
brief skirmish with the Munich police on November 9, Hitler and his
associates fled, and the so-called "beer hall putsch" (revolt) failed.
Hitler and Ludendorff were subsequently arrested. The latter went
unpunished, but Hitler was tried and received a five-year prison
sentence, and the party was outlawed. In prison Hitler dictated Mein
Kampf to Rudolf Hess. As later expanded by Hitler, this was a frank
statement of National Socialist doctrines, propaganda techniques, and
plans for the conquest first of Germany, and then of Europe. In later
years Mein Kampf became the bible of National Socialism."
"National Socialism," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
5==> Will again quote from "Questions on German History"
"Hitler was tried on a charge of high treason. During his period
of imprison he set down his political aims in his book "Mein Kampf":
his foreign policy plans, which were in many respects based on extreme
war aims of the First World War, revolved around the central aim of
exterminating the Jewish "mortal enemy" of the "aryan race". During
the first stage, following the "seizure of power", the "cancerous
democracy" was to be abolished and Jews, Bolsheviks and Marxists were
to be banished from the national community." [page 311]
6==> So here we see that not only did Hitler consider the Jews as an
enemy to be exterminated, but also the Communists.
"The N.S. government used the Reichstag fire on 27th Febuary, 1933
as an opportunity for replacing the constitutional laws of the Weimar
Republic on the following day by passing an emergency decree "to
protect the people and the state". This marked the beginning of the
hounding and arresting of political opponents, especially those of the
left.
Fresh elections of 5th March followed the dissolution of the
Reichstag. However, although the NSDAP declared it "the day of the
awakening nation" and although left wing party newspapers had been
banned since the Reichstag fire and communists and social democrats
had been pursued or suppressed, the NSDAP only 43.9% of the votes cast
and thus had no parliamentary majority.
At the opening of the newly elected Reichstag on 21st March, Hitler
testified to the "spirit of Potsdam". In so doing he adopted the
Prussian traditions for himself and his party, which, in place of the
"spirit of Weimar", were to support the "awakening of the nation."
By means of the "Enabling Act" of 23rd March Hitler freed himself
from all constitutional and parliamentary control. The Centre and
middle class parties voted in favor of the Law. After banning of the
KPD the social democrats were the only party to vote against it by
their chairman Otto Wels. The Law made the Reichstag a superfluous
institution. The legislature and the executive were coordinated.
Only the government could now pass laws." [page 312]
7==> The KPD was the German Communist Party, and had been outlawed.
Note that both the centre and middle class parties voted for the
Enabling Act of 23rd March, and the social democrats [the only
remaining socialist party in parliament] were the *only* party to
oppose it. Further proof that the Nazi party was supported not by the
left wing, but the center and right wing parties. To skip ahead and
again quote from a section entitled "The Liquidation of Political
Opponents".
"Parallel to the political alignment process a policy of
elimination of political opponents, of "enemies of the state" was
pursued. According to the statues of the security police the
following categories were sought out: "communists, marxists,
Jews, politically-active churches, freemasons, politically
dissatisfied people (grumblers), members of the national opposition,
reactionaries, members of the Black Front, economic saboteurs, common
criminals, abortionists and homosexuals, traitors and those guilty of
high treason." [page 321]
Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in WW2.
8==> I must admit that I am getting increasingly curious why some of
the people on misc.survivalism refuse to see the obvious differences
between Communism and Nazism. I don't know if they don't care about
the truth and don't think that truth matters, or if they refuse to see
the difference, or do see it and simply won't admit it.
Perhaps they don't want to see that history shows that the extreme
right can be just as much of a danger as the extreme left.
If the German people had seen the danger of the extreme right they
wouldn't have let their fear of communism lead them into voting the
Nazis into power. If the centre and middle class parties in the
German parliament had seen the danger of the right wing NSDAP gaining
total power they wouldn't have voted for the Enabling Act of 23 March
that handed total power to Hitler.
9==> All this is taught as high school history here, and admit am
surprised that it isn't taught there.
—larryn
[misc.survivalism]
Matt Nichols
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:36:16 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashmail.net> ,
>>The difference between the Communists and Nazis are perhaps
>>twenty words in their relative descriptions and no difference
>>in their results.
>
>1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>extreme right.
You miss the point. He's saying that this "spectrum" is incorrect,
because both "ends" are precisely the same *thing* - planned, mandated
society where the individual is totally subservient to the state. It
doesn't matter what *name* you put on them, the same leather-coated,
jack-booted thugs commit the same crimes.
-Matt
Matt Nichols
>Matt Nichols wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:30:14 -0700, don <d...@nettlepatch.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Che'Gu Maru wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well said! It is too bad that those of us who seek the rational middle will invariably
>> >> be demonized by the right as "socialists" and by the left as "conservatives". Wait --
>> >> perhaps the left is correct. After all, the rational middle IS a truly "conservative"
>> >> opinion in that it refuses to make any absolute judgments, and reserves its opinions
>> >> only for those things which may be rationally or empirically verified.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Bingo. Some light on the subject of conservatism. Used to be the
>> >liberals laid claim to the same thing. Do you suppose the true liberals
>> >and the true conservatives are in fact brothers and sisters in arms?
>>
>> Yes, because to be a "conservative" means you are interested in
>> _conserving_ the fundamental principals of your society. American
>> fundamental principals are inherently _liberal_, in the classical
>> sense (no relation to the modern-day Authoritarians who've hijacked
>> the term), thus true US conservatives are by definition liberal.
>>
>
>Geez Matt. You just described an American political party. You do know
>which one of course. don
The one who's membership card I carry in my wallet :-)
-Matt
David Hughes
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
> extreme right.
>
<SNIP>
>
> —larryn
> [misc.survivalism]
>
Excepts from Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary
Communism: a totalitarian system of government in which a single
authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
Nazism: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into
effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third
German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state
control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially
superior, and supremacy of the führer
By these definitions, Nazism is a subset of Communism.
Both are totalitarian, autocratic, and insist on government control of
industry and production.
I don't care what color fur the weasel raiding my hen house has, I'm
still going to kill it.
David Hughes
--
I do not use, possess or own any "weapons".
I do use a variety of tools for the proper
application of "force" to produce "work"
and utilize "power".
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:09:18 +1000, lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:36:16 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashmail.net> ,
>
>>>The difference between the Communists and Nazis are perhaps
>>>twenty words in their relative descriptions and no difference
>>>in their results.
>>
>>1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>extreme right.
>
>You miss the point. He's saying that this "spectrum" is incorrect,
>because both "ends" are precisely the same *thing* - planned, mandated
>society where the individual is totally subservient to the state. It
>doesn't matter what *name* you put on them, the same leather-coated,
>jack-booted thugs commit the same crimes.
1==> l would argue that many of you miss the point in assuming that a
dangerous regime is going to sound dangerous before it gets into
power.
When Hitler was coming to power, he didn't tell the German people that
he planned to set up a police state and exterminate the people he
didn't like. He gave them fine, high-sounding pronouncements like
"protection against communist influence", "military strength",
"restoring the pride of the German people", "patriotism", and so on.
Am quite sure that the Germans thought that there was "no such thing"
as being "too far to the right". However, once Hitler got into power
they found that they were wrong.
The safest position is a central position, yet it seems that many
prefer to be extremists on the left or the right. Where freedom is
concerned, both are equally dangerous.
2==> "Left" and "right" are useful terms to distinguish one sort of
extremist from another sort. What is to be gained by blurring the
distinction and pretending that they are "all the same"?
3==> Whoever your enemies are, it is useful to know something about
their beliefs and goals. Do you think there is any difference in
conservative, liberal, democrat, republican, etc? Would you think it
an advantage to forget the beliefs and goals of each and not bother to
distinguish among them?
If people want to be that reductionist and simplistic, they might as
well just get down to the labels of "us" and "them" and not bother to
learn anything more complicated. :-)
—larryn
Pat Hines
That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
All you have posted in your message is the "conventional wisdom" which
in this case was produced by vested interests to disguise the reality of
their respective political philosophies.
In America we have seen and are seeing the convergence of fascism and
Communism/socialism in our leftists organizations. So much so that a
word has been coined to describe this phenomena; Sociofascism.
Those that still adhere to the tired myth that fascists are
conservatives are quite simply out of touch with reality and poor
observers of politics.
Pat Hines
Zepp, Son of Weasel
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>
>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>> extreme right.
>>
>>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
>>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
>>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
>>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
>>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>
>Poor Pat.
>
>He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
the Big Lie.
>
> =====================================
>
>"Among the principles of the [Nazi] party were ... the annihilation
>of Germany's 'greatest enemies,' the Jews and Communists."
>
>-The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
>
>
>"The Leninist-Stalinist principles of complete state bureaucracy,
>almost total state collectivism (with minor exceptions) and
>philosophical materialism [are] cardinal principles absolutely opposed
>to fascism."
>
>-Fascism: Comparison and Definition. S. Payne, p. 209
>
>
>"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, public ownership of
>property, and atheism, if put into practice, would destroy Germany as
>a nation-state."
>
>-- "Political Ideologies" Thobaben and Funderburk, 3rd edition, p.
>187:
>
>
>"Despite the proletarian flavor of it's title, the Political Workers
>Circle was in fact a radical right-wing grouping with extreme
>anti-Semitic views."
>
>"The DAP remained a largely paper organization until the summer of
>1919. Then in the climate of anti-socialist and anti-Semitic hysteria
>induced by the suppression of the Workers Republic and the public
>trials of it's leaders, the German Workers Party gradually gained the
>confidence to expand its activities and even to stage public rallies."
>
>"The party began to attract the interest of other Bavarian right-wing
>organizations, and before long it came to the attention of the
>Bavarian Reichswehr (army) who were ever on the look out for suitable
>paramilitary organizations to swell their ranks."
>
>-Simon Taylor, The Rise of Hitler,
>Universe Books New York, 1983 p 61
>
>
>"Communists and socialists come from the Marxist tradition whose aim
>was proletarian revolution, while Fascist values were nationalistic
>with its goal an 'organic" society."
>
>-Fascism in Western Europe 1900-1945 H. Kedward p. 241
>
>
>"Fascism...took ideas, methods, and attitudes from conflicting sides
>and presented the world with a unity so full of contradictions that
>an early collapse was widely expected."
>
>- ibid.p.6
>
>
>"Nazism: Like Italian Fascism, it was dictatorial, nationalistic, and
>terroristic. What national socialism added to Fascism was a fanatical
>racism and a policy of incessant international aggression. It is
>doubtful that one can speak of a philosophy or theory of national
>socialism."
>
>"The Nazis abandoned not only liberal democracy but the whole humanist
>belief in rational politics. They saw conflict and violence as the
>basic laws of life and they appealed to passion and emotion as
>instruments in the struggle. Such putative 'philosophies' as those
>expressed in Hitler's Mein Kampf make it abundantly clear that theory
>served the Nazis simply as a rationalization of their fundamentally
>irrational faith."
>
>"On the one hand the Nazis shared with the conservatives the belief in
>authority, hierarchy, and aggressive foreign policy. ... They
>departed from the conservatives in refusing to set limits on either
>means or ends in the realization of their beliefs."
>
>-Encyclopedia Americana
>
>
>"National Socialism: It attracted the bankers and industrialists by
>its anti-Communism and by its promise to rebuild the German economy.
>The party began in 1920 with GOERING, GOEBBELS, and HIMMLER among
>Hitler's followers. Its bible was Hitler's Mein Kampf (1923), and its
>official philosopher was Alfred ROSENBERG.
>
>-The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
>
>****Any questions, Pat?
>
> Volt
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>Campaign 2000
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>
>=============================================================
>"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
>
> --Tom Waites
>=============================================================
**********************************************************
"Omigosh! It's large Negroes with guns! Wait! Wait! We don't believe in
the second amendment after all!" -- Texas GOP, as Armed Black Panthers
marched toward their convention.
George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Matt Nichols
wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:08:15 GMT, David Hughes
><david_ga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <o9kbms8sit0hipbb4...@4ax.com>,
>> lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>
>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>> extreme right.
>>>
>><SNIP>
>>>
>>> —larryn
>>> [misc.survivalism]
>
>
>The right wingers hate it when you point out their ignorance, David.
>
>They will run to their dictionaries in a vain attempt at ignoring your
>analysis.
>
BWAAHHAAAHAAHAA!! Oh, my *goodness*, it's been a long time since I've
laughed so hard at USENET. Volt claims that using a reference source
to acquire knowledge is "ignorance"!!! Wow....
-Matt
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Poor Pat.
>
>He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
Poor Klansman Kennemur. He wears his White supremacism like a fitted
sheet.
The neo-Nazi National Alliance supports gun control and so does he.
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Terry Jameson
Sobran column from several years ago, so errors are likely. Apologies in
advance to Mr. Sobran.
As I recall, he defined fascism as the coupling of overwhelming
government power with a belief that our overlords know far better than we
what's best for us. Right now that fits American liberalism quite well,
though his definition isn't tied to any left/right criteria.
He further stated that our megatonnage (nay, gigatonnage) in H-bombs fits
the power criterion. I disagree - those warheads have no bearing on our
day-to-day lives. Instead, start with a cop packing a 9mm with a fifteen
round clip. Add a radio on his shoulder with which he can call in a small
army of re-inforcements in minutes. From there, look at a court system that
will not admit mistakes. Include a press that's either too lazy to
investigate on their own, or actually likes government power in our lives -
either way, too many papers print police versions of stories without
question. Sorry, no impressive history lessons here. This is America today.
It's far too powerful for our good, and I call it fascist.
jaq...@en.com
<ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
and it works in intimate co-operation with the corporate world, which is
the part of the standard definition that Sobran missed.
silverback
yuo fucking idiot the Nazis were right wing extremist like you patty.
In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist. The plot
failed and then in 42 his brother dressed fascism up in a smiley face
and called it free enterprise.
It is a fact that the drooling idiot raygun read the script written
by Hitler as it concerns domestic policy.
lower the tax on big business
lower the tax on the rich
raise the tax on the poor
lower unemployment benefits
lower social welfare benefits
privatization of government
union busting
court packing
that was the script written by Hitler in the 30s and the one followed
by raygun.
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
Steve Young
silverback <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote in message
news:3967b837...@news.spiritone.com...
Yes, they were right wing extremists
> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
Absolute nonsense. It's just that in a communist country we call it
totalitarianism.
> Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
> society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
Hitler was rich? What business was he in? Why hasn't Bill Gates taken over
America and tried to exterminate Mac users?
> What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
> hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
> a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist. The plot
> failed and then in 42 his brother dressed fascism up in a smiley face
> and called it free enterprise.
Sorry. That's just stupid. We have had free enterprise in this country
since its inception.
> It is a fact that the drooling idiot raygun read the script written
> by Hitler as it concerns domestic policy.
>
> lower the tax on big business
> lower the tax on the rich
> raise the tax on the poor
> lower unemployment benefits
> lower social welfare benefits
> privatization of government
> union busting
> court packing
He was also a vegetarian.
And he was for gun control.
He was real big on racial politics.
I can keep going and make him sound a lot like a modern liberal. All you
have to do is highlight some aspects of character and downplay others. The
bare fact of the matter is that you cannot compare anyone to Hitler. No one
will ever be as evil, even if they do share some viewpoints.
--
Steve
"You can ask 'how much more black can it be'...and the answer is
'none...none more black'"
-Nigel Tufnel
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<ze...@snowcrest.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>>> extreme right.
>>>
>>>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>>>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>>>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>>>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
>>>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
>>>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
>>>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
>>>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>>
>>Poor Pat.
>>
>>He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
>
>Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
>the Big Lie.
Wasn't sure if it was that or if Pat was simply as full of crap as the
bottom of a parrot cage. :-)
However, must admit that am getting tired of trying to convince people
of something so basic as the difference between Communist and Nazi,
left wing or right wing. It is like trying to convince a
"flat-earther" that the world is actually an oblate spheroid. Some
people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of known facts.
—larryn
[misc.survivalism]
*************************************************************************
And the bush hath friends to meet him, and their kindly voices greet him
In the murmur of the breezes and the river on its bars,
And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,
And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.
["Clancy of the Overflow" A.B."Banjo" Paterson]
*************************************************************************
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:27:30 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:08:15 GMT, David Hughes
>><david_ga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <o9kbms8sit0hipbb4...@4ax.com>,
>>> lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>>> extreme right.
>>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> 様arryn
>>>> [misc.survivalism]
>>
>>
>>The right wingers hate it when you point out their ignorance, David.
>>
>>They will run to their dictionaries in a vain attempt at ignoring your
>>analysis.
>>
>
>BWAAHHAAAHAAHAA!! Oh, my *goodness*, it's been a long time since I've
>laughed so hard at USENET. Volt claims that using a reference source
>to acquire knowledge is "ignorance"!!! Wow....
Whereas a dictionary can be useful in determining the meaning of
unfamiliar words, it is hardly the most useful reference source when
discussing complex subjects. Most serious students use encyclopedias
and other sources for this purpose.
For abstractions such as "freedom", "democracy", "socialism",
"republicanism", "monarchism", etc there are simply no short
definitions that are very meaningful.
様arryn
[misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from
others, caused the following words to appear on our monitors:
>larryn asked the following...
>
> <May I ask why you are so determined
> to blur the distinction between
> Communist and Nazi?>
>
>Prob'ly because it's a distinction without a difference.
>
>May I ask why you are so determined to highlight the distinction?
Certainly! Am happy to provide some reasons. :-) Will provide three
for a start.
1==> Firstly, I dislike seeing people bending the English language to
suit their propaganda. As in Orwells "Freedom is slavery", "Ignorance
is strength"....or on the gates to Auschwitz "work makes free".
I'm not really very interested in politics, and would object just as
much if someone claimed that there was "no difference" between Roman
Catholicism and Protestantism, or "no difference" between Judiasm and
Christianity, or "no difference" between Australia and the U.S.
2==> Secondly, it is obvious that the German people fell victim to the
Nazis mainly because they didn't see the danger of his right-wing
politics. They should have, of course. Anyone who had bothered to
wade through /Mein Kampf/ would have had a pretty good idea of what
Hitler would do if he ever got into power.
3==> Thirdly, I must admit am curious as to just how far some people
will go in denying known historical facts in order to hang on to their
false beliefs, especially when they don't cite any evidence to support
their position.
4==> Basically, IMO, any extremism is potentially dangerous, as
extremists have a definite tendency to want to convert everyone into
their own way of thinking, by force if necessary. Extremism doesn't
have to be purely political to be dangerous. Religious extremism will
do just as well, as we can see from the crusades and the inquisition.
[although both were political as well as religious]
The RCs weren't the only guilty ones, of course, some Protestant
groups also persecuted witches. Sometimes they were genuine witches,
sometimes not.
At various times and places in history Catholics and Protestants have
persecuted each other. Both have persecuted Jews.
5==> Every extremist, though, claims that he has a "good reason" for
what he or his group is doing or want to do. The Nazis didn't say "we
are going to kill six million people because we are bad, evil,
bastards." Am quite sure that many if not most of them were quite
sure they were doing the "right thing."
Some anti-abortionists have burned abortion clinics and killed
doctors. They too are sure that they are doing the "right thing".
Some environmentalists think they are doing the "right thing" when
they drive spikes into trees to injure or kill loggers.
The "unibomber" no doubt thought he was doing the "right thing" by
mailing bombs to people in a protest against modern technology.
6==> Extremists become really dangerous when they can seduce other
people into following them. On the most basic level, one
rabble-rouser may not be able to do much. However, if he is
convincing enough, he can raise a lynch mob. There is an old joke
among social psychologists that the IQ of a mob is the IQ of the
dumbest individual in a mob divided by the number of people in the
mob.
If people are stupid and gutless enough to unquestioningly follow
propaganda by political or religious leaders rather than taking the
trouble to find out facts and think for themselves, then they really
only have themselves to blame when they end up in the poo, as the
German people eventually did after putting the Nazis into power.
7==> The Nazi party wasn't a major force in Germany until they got
enough people to vote for them to get enough of them into parliament.
Even then, they didn't quite have a majority.
The Reichstag [parliament] fire of 27th February 1933 gave them an
excuse to seize power. It is not certain how the fire started, and
some have even accused the Nazis of starting it themselves. Or it may
have started by accident. Or it may have been started by Martin Van
Der Lubbe, a Dutch Jew and communist who was arrested for starting it.
...Doesn't matter, really.
"The N.S. government used the Reichstag fire on 27 February 1933
as an opportunity for replacing the constitutional laws of the Weimar
Republic on the following day by passing an emergency decree "to
protect the people and the state. This marked the beginning of the
hounding and arresting of political opponents, especially those of the
left." ["Questions on German History", p 312]
8==> On 28 Feb the following emergency decree was issued:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Decree of the Reich President on the protection of the people
and the state, 28th February 1933"
On the basis of Article 48, para 2 of the constitution of the
Reich the following is decreed as a protection against communist acts
of violence endangering the state:
§ 1
Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the
constitution of the German Reich are cancelled until further notice.
This allows certain restrictions to be imposed on personal freedom, on
the right to express a free opinion, the freedom of the press, the
freedom of association and the right to hold meetings. It allows
restrictions on the secrecy of the mail, post and telecommunications
systems, the ordering of house searches and confiscation of property
and restrictions on property rights.
§ 2
Should the necessary steps to restore public security and order
not be taken in the Länder, the government of the Reich is empowered
to enforce such measures in its capacity as the highest government
authority.
§ 3
The authorities of the Länder and the local level must perform the
following duties, in accordance with decrees of the government of the
Reich set out in § 2
. . . . . . . .
§ 6
This decree applies from the date of publication. Berlin, 28th
February 1933. [[from QGH, page 314]]
-------------------------------------------------------------
9==> Sections 4 and 5 dealing with the duties of the Länder
[provincial] authorities aren't given. Those signing in section 6
are Reich President von Hindenberg / Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler/
Interior minister of the Reich Frick / Justice minister of the Reich
Dr. Gürtner. So a nice legal emergency decree, one that might be
passed by any country which just had its houses of parliament burned.
However, the actual handover of power to Hitler was the "Enabling Act"
of 23 March. As page 312 of QGH says:
"By means of the "Enabling Act" of 23rd March Hitler freed
himself from all constitutional and parliamentary control. The Centre
and middle class parties voted in favor of the Law. After the banning
of the KPD the social democrats were the only party to vote against it
after a courageous speech by their chairman Otto Wels. The Law made
the Reichstag a superfluous institution. The legislature and
executive were coordinated. Only the government could now pass laws."
10==> By this is meant the executive arm of government. The
Reichstag, or parliament, no longer had any say in the matter. The
KPD was the German communist party. [Without bothering to check,
assume that the letters KPD stood for Kommunist Partei Deutschland.]
As they had been banned from parliament, note that the only party to
vote against the Nazi party was the "social democrats" which was a
socialist party. [Still more evidence that "national socialist" and
"socialist" are two entirely different political parties. ]
11==> It is really a pity that the two major parties in the US aren't
called the "Freedom Democrats" and the "Freedom Republicians", for
then it would probably be easier for Americans to see that "socialist"
is not a precise term any more than "freedom" is. If you had "Freedom
Democrats" and the "Freedom Republicans", you would concentrate on
what the parties actually stood for, and simply ignore the fact that
they both claimed to stand for "freedom".
12==> This is how you should regard the word "socialist" in European
politics. It isn't a "negative word" there as it is in the US.
"National Socialists" had almost nothing in common with the
"Social Democrats". If there had been an environmental party at the
time it might have called itself the "Socialist Greens".
The Nazis, instead of calling themselves the "Nationalsozialistischen
Deutschen Arbeiter-Partei" [NSDAP] or, in English, the "National
Socialist German Workers Party could have just as easily called
themselves the "National German Workers Freedom Party" and the
"Social Democrats" could have been the "Freedom Democrats".
As Strabo has pointed out, the actual names of political parties mean
little or nothing. Had Hitler been operating in the US he probably
would have called his party the "Freedom and Patriotism Party" or
something. Whatever will convince the suckers and produce the votes.
....But never assume that the name of a party has anything to do with
what it plans to do if it gets into power. :-)
13==> Anyway, for the sake of completeness, will quote the "Enabling
Act" to show the law that the middle class and center parties voted
for to give power to Hitler.
------------------------------------------------------------------
*Law concerning the solving of the emergency of the people and the
Reich, 24th March 1933*
The Reichstag has issued the following decree, which is hereby
announced with the agreement of the Reich Council, after having
ensured that the necessary legal constitutional amendments have been
made:
Article 1
Laws of the Reich can be passed by the government, in addition to the
procedure laid down in the constitution of the Reich. This also
applies to laws covered by Articles 95, para 2, and 87 of the Reich
constitution.
Article 2
The laws passed by the Reich government do not have to adhere to
the constitution provided that the institutions of the Reichstag and
Reichsrat have no objection. The rights of the President of the Reich
remain unaffected.
Article 3
The laws passed by the government of the Reich will be drafted by
the Chancellor and announced in the Law Gazette. They will apply,
provided that no other provision is made, from the day following their
publication. Articles 68-77 of the constitution do not apply to the
laws passed by the government of the Reich.
Article 4
Treaties agreed by the Reich with foreign states, which concern
the constitutional affairs of the Reich, do not require the consent of
the leglislative institutions. The government of the Reich will issue
the necessary instructions for the implementation of these treaties.
Article 5
This law applies from the day of its publication. It will expire
on the 1st April 1937; it will also be annulled if the present
government of the Reich is replaced by another. [[from page 314]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14==> So, people, if any of you think that the Nazis took over Germany
by force in a military coup of some sort, forget it. They were
legally elected, legally given power, and when they decided to round
up the Jews and other "enemies of the Reich" that was done under
legal "protective custody orders".
15==> Is someone going ask if there was any resistance or opposition?
To save time, will answer this in advance. [From QGH, p 344]
"The seizure of power by Hitler in 1933 sparked off immediate
opposition. In addition to the many thousands who saw emigration as
the only solution, many people shunned the alignment policy at home
and formed secret groups. In the first years of the regime it was
above all the social democratic and communist cells and churchmen who
opposed the totalitarian system and the recognizable aims of Hitler."
16==> And yet again we see that the socialist and communists were both
_enemies_ of the Nazis. Will also quote a few bits from "National
Socialism," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved
"National Socialism was similar in many respects to Italian
fascism (see Fascism). The roots of National Socialism, however, were
peculiarly German, grounded, for example, in the Prussian tradition of
military authoritarianism and expansion; in the German romantic
tradition of hostility to rationalism, liberalism, and democracy; in
various racist doctrines according to which the Nordic peoples, as
so-called pure Aryans, were not only physically superior to other
races, but were the carriers of a superior morality and culture; and
in certain philosophical traditions that idealized the state or
exalted the superior individual and exempted such a person from
conventional restraints."
17==> The Nazis had some very mystical, and some would claim,
Satanistic, views and practices. Contrast this with the extreme
atheistic materialism of the communists.
"The immediate origins of National Socialism are to be found in the
consequences of the German defeat in World War I (1914-1918). Under
the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was charged with sole
responsibility for the war, stripped of its colonial empire, and
forced to pay heavy reparations. German political and economic life
was seriously disrupted as a result of the treaty. Severe inflation,
which reached its climax in 1923, all but destroyed the German middle
class, leaving many of its impoverished and despairing members
vulnerable to the appeals of radical political groups that sprang up
in the postwar years. Only a few years after some measure of economic
stability and progress had been achieved, the worldwide economic
crisis that began in 1929 plunged Germany into an apparently hopeless
depression. During these years the democratic Weimar Republic was
subjected to increasing attack from both left and right. The republic
proved unable to cope effectively with the desperate condition of the
country. By 1933 the majority of German voters supported one or the
other of the two major totalitarian parties, the Communist and the
National Socialist."
18==> People in trouble often seek totalitarian solutions. They don't
see any way out of the difficulty themselves, so when a leader comes
along with a claimed "magic solution" they tend to follow him.
The Communists came to power in Russia with a genuine revolution.
Unlike the Nazis they *weren't* voted in. The Russian people felt
oppressed by the Czar, and the communist revolutionaries promised
"more freedom" and "power to the people"....but when they got in were
just as repressive if not more repressive than the Czar.
"Private property rights were preserved, and previously
nationalized enterprises were "reprivatized"-that is, returned to
private ownership but all owners were subject to rigid state controls.
By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated
competition. Ultimately the "new order" was economically dominated by
four banks and a relatively small number of huge conglomerates,
including the vast munitions and steel-manufacturing empire of the
Krupp family and the notorious Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie,
known as I. G. Farben, which produced dyes, synthetic rubber, oil, and
other products and participated in or dominated almost 400
enterprises. Some of these enterprises made use of millions of
prisoners of war and inhabitants of conquered countries as slave
laborers in German industry. The cartels also supplied materials for
the systematic and scientific extermination by the Hitler government
of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, and others. See Genocide;
Holocaust."
19==> More evidence for the profound difference between Nazism and
communism. Not only didn't the Nazis nationalize industry, they
de-nationalised some of it. Cartels [monopolies] were encouraged.
The controls prevented competitors from emerging.
It would be as if the US allowed Microsoft and a couple of other large
companies to collude to set high prices for hardware and software, yet
prohibit any smaller company form producing or selling either. The
German cartels and the Nazis worked well together.
"Industrial circles were concerned simply about the speed of the
arms build-up and are not interested in the Programme. "We Krupp
people only wanted a system which worked. Politics is not our game"
said Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach in 1945." [QGH, page 328]
20==> In communism, of course, there are no cartels, no private
companies. All means of production theoretically "belong to the
people" but are managed by the state. [The west has similar
institutions. For example, national and state parks in the US and
Australia belong to the people as a whole, but are managed by the
governments. An American has a "share" in Grand Canyon national park,
but that doesn't mean he is free to go build a shack on the rim of it,
or even camp there.]
"After the war a small neo-Nazi movement continued to exist in
West Germany. Neo-Nazism gained some popularity after the
reunification of Germany in 1990. The movement is largely composed of
discontented young males who target Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and
members of other minority groups with acts of violence. Neo-Nazi
groups have also sprung up in other countries, including the United
States."
21==> Have included this one to counter the statement from one poster
that "Nazism is dead". It isn't. Some countries try to ban such
political movements, others don't. Both Australia and the USA have
small Communist parties, but they have no significant political force.
Of the CPUSA, Encarta says:
The membership of the CPUSA is estimated at approximately 20,000
and is concentrated in a few industrial states. Its membership is
believed to be largely middle-aged or older. At the 1980 party
convention, some 385 delegates and alternates were present from 39
states. Among them were 154 women, 96 blacks, 77 Jews, 15 Chicanos,
and 134 trade unionists. Whether these figures are indicative of the
composition of the party as a whole is uncertain, because no such data
are available. The CPUSA is structured on the CPSU prototype. It has
no formally affiliated organizations, but the Young Communist League
of the USA (formerly the Young Workers' Liberation League), with a
membership of some 3000, serves as its youth arm.
"Communist Parties," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
22==> QGH = Earlier material on Nazis quoted from "Questions on
German History, Ideas, forces, decisions from 1800 to the present;
history. exhibition in the Berlin Reichstag; catalogue. / the
exhibition is organised by the German Bundestag. Publ. by the German
Bundestag, Press and Information Centre,, Publ. Sect., Bonn. -- Engl.
ed. of the 9th updated German ed. - Bonn: German Bundestag, Press and
Information Centre, Publ. Sect. 1984. Dt. Ausg. u.d.T.; Fragen and
die deutsche Geschichte ISBN 3-92451-01-8]
Hopefully this post will further clarify the difference between Nazism
and Communism, katm...@webtv.net. ...At least for those who prefer
historical truth to modern propaganda. :-)
For some of my earlier posts on misc. survivalism on same topic see:
Subject: Re: Letter to Anti-gun friends // Date: Fri, 05 May 2000
16:53:50 +1000// <7624hso8jfboicpm3...@4ax.com>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Subject: Re: Letter to Anti-gun friends//Date: Thu, 04 May 2000
14:48:37 +1000// <26p1hs0ad8hm8uj6a...@4ax.com>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Subject: Re: NAZIs vs Right Wing (was Dubya slaps the NRA) //Date:
Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:58:08 +1000 Message-ID:
<pgcaes8t76hf2i17o...@4ax.com>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Subject: Re: Light bulb changing // Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:29:45
+1100 // Message-ID: <otlt8s4ohk2d63f72...@4ax.com>
—larryn
[misc.survivalism]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
/ Magna est veritas, et praevalebit /
[Truth is mighty, and will prevail]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
silverback
wrote:
wrong bozo. Fascism=capitalism
>
>> Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
>> society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
>
>Hitler was rich? What business was he in? Why hasn't Bill Gates taken over
>America and tried to exterminate Mac users?
poor damn fool is as ignorant as they come. Yup Hitler was very
wealthy by the end of the war.
>
>> What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
>> hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
>> a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist. The plot
>> failed and then in 42 his brother dressed fascism up in a smiley face
>> and called it free enterprise.
>
>Sorry. That's just stupid. We have had free enterprise in this country
>since its inception.
>
bullshit thats the fact that you find embarassing. it was right
wingers and rich elite that support fascism in this country. And they
wrapped it up with a smiley face and labeled it as free enterprise.
>> It is a fact that the drooling idiot raygun read the script written
>> by Hitler as it concerns domestic policy.
>>
>> lower the tax on big business
>> lower the tax on the rich
>> raise the tax on the poor
>> lower unemployment benefits
>> lower social welfare benefits
>> privatization of government
>> union busting
>> court packing
>
>He was also a vegetarian.
>And he was for gun control.
>He was real big on racial politics.
>
>I can keep going and make him sound a lot like a modern liberal. All you
>have to do is highlight some aspects of character and downplay others. The
>bare fact of the matter is that you cannot compare anyone to Hitler. No one
wrong again little fool.
raygun was a fascist.
he paid homeage to his heros at that Nazi SS cemetery.
>will ever be as evil, even if they do share some viewpoints.
>--
>Steve
>
>"You can ask 'how much more black can it be'...and the answer is
>'none...none more black'"
>-Nigel Tufnel
>
>
***********************************************
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>> What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
>> hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
>> a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist. The plot
>> failed and then in 42 his brother dressed fascism up in a smiley face
>> and called it free enterprise.
>
>Sorry. That's just stupid. We have had free enterprise in this country
>since its inception.
>
1==> Be that as it may, it is a historical fact that Hitler had quite
a few American, British, and probably Australian admirers who thought
he had done a terrific job in getting Germany back on her feet.
Of course, this support lessened a lot after the start of WW 2, and by
the end of WW2, when the news of the Holocaust spread, if anyone still
admired Hitler they kept pretty quiet about it.
2==> Of course, the Nazis weren't the only fascists. Actually it had
started in Italy. So in the argument of whether Fascism and Nazism
were the same as Communism, we should take a quick look at what
Encarta has to say about fascism in Italy. Again, as expected, we find
a firm friendship with big business. [Would urge anyone following this
thread who has access to Encarta to read the entire articles that I've
just quoted bits from.]
Italy Under Fascism
In 1922 Mussolini seized control of the Italian government and
established a dictatorship. All political parties except the Fascist
Party, were banned, and Mussolini became Il Duce-the leader of the
party. Labor unions were abolished, strikes were forbidden, and
political opponents were silenced.
Lowered Living Standard
Once in power, Mussolini had no immediate program for solving
Italy's social and economic problems other than giving free rein to
big business (both urban and rural), being "pragmatic," and preaching
the need for discipline. The result was that Italian workers lost
(1926) the protection of the eight-hour-day law, and a general wage
reduction was decreed by the government. Between 1928 and 1932 real
wages in Italy were reduced by almost half; by 1930 they were already
the lowest in Western Europe. Between 1926 and 1934 the purchasing
power of farm workers declined by 50 to 70 percent, partly as a result
of a government policy that restricted migration to the cities-a
policy that pleased landowners, who thereby could keep farm wages low.
Mussolini acknowledged (1930) that under his regime the standard of
living had indeed fallen, but he also stated that "fortunately, the
Italian people were not accustomed to eat much and therefore feel the
privation less acutely than others."
Deficient Social Services
Foreign tourists were impressed by the way Mussolini made the trains
run on time, ended public begging, and offered well-publicized social
services to his people. What they ignored was the decline in the
nutrition of the lower class, the increase in child labor, and the
fact that a smaller share of the national income was spent on social
services than in most other European countries. Despite the land
hunger of the peasantry, Mussolini did nothing to divide up the large
estates, the latifondi; some 15 noble families held among them more
than 400,000 hectares (1 million acres) of land. Infant mortality in
Mussolini's Italy was more than twice as high as that in Scandinavia.
Fascist Methods
Like Communists, Fascists employed totalitarian methods, but for
conservative rather than socialist ends. Far more totalitarian toward
the left than toward the right, Italian Fascists crushed the labor
movement but allowed big business to run its affairs with a minimum of
government interference. Cartels flourished in Fascist Italy at the
expense of small business and the consumer, despite Mussolini's
earlier promises that he would protect the latter. His anticapitalist
rhetoric was contradicted by his policies, such as reducing taxes on
big business, when he came to power. Eventually, however, corruption
in the Fascist bureaucracy and the need to increase taxes, even on the
rich, to support military spending alienated some conservatives from
the regime.
From the beginning, the philosophy of Italian fascism heralded the
virtues of war. Not only was military conquest seen as the way to
solve the nation's economic problems, but military values were praised
as good for their own sake. Among the favorite slogans of the regime
were "Nothing has ever been won in history without blood-shed!" "A
minute on the battlefield is worth a lifetime of peace!" Mussolini
himself was to be obeyed in a military manner: "Believe! Obey! Fight!"
"Mussolini is always right!" The Fascist male was to be Darwinian, not
humanitarian; tough, not soft; masculine, not feminine. Concerned with
the moral health of society, Fascists denounced "decadence" in all its
forms: hedonism, materialism, individualism, democracy, and sexual
laxity.
In 1929 Mussolini signed the Lateran Accords with the Vatican, naming
Roman Catholicism the "only state religion." Tension developed later
between the state and the church over which of the two was to control
Italian education.
"Fascism," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>> It is a fact that the drooling idiot raygun read the script written
>> by Hitler as it concerns domestic policy.
>>
>> lower the tax on big business
>> lower the tax on the rich
>> raise the tax on the poor
>> lower unemployment benefits
>> lower social welfare benefits
>> privatization of government
>> union busting
>> court packing
>
>He was also a vegetarian.
>And he was for gun control.
>He was real big on racial politics.
>
>I can keep going and make him sound a lot like a modern liberal. All you
>have to do is highlight some aspects of character and downplay others. The
>bare fact of the matter is that you cannot compare anyone to Hitler. No one
>will ever be as evil, even if they do share some viewpoints.
2==> I don't know that the fact that he was for gun control is very
significant. Any dictator of any political persuasion would be very
stupid to encourage gun ownership, wouldn't he?
3==> IMO it is pretty misleading to draw any comparison between Hitler
and liberals on the grounds that they were/are "big on racial
politics". They aren't "big" in the same ways at all. Liberals
presumably are in favor of racial equality. Hitler was just the
opposite. The Nazi ideal was the tall blonde "Aryan", who would
selectively breed to produce the "Nazi superman", the übermensch
[literally "over-men"] The rest of the human race would be
üntermensch [literally "under-men"] [I won't guarantee that have the
German spelling right:-) ]
—larryn
Zepp, Son of Weasel
<ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
> Permit an uneducated view of fascism. I draw from memory of a Joseph
>Sobran column from several years ago, so errors are likely. Apologies in
>advance to Mr. Sobran.
>
> As I recall, he defined fascism as the coupling of overwhelming
>government power with a belief that our overlords know far better than we
>what's best for us. Right now that fits American liberalism quite well,
>though his definition isn't tied to any left/right criteria.
All your defining is authoritarianism. Your jejune efforts to attach
it to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are
non-authoritarian.
>
> He further stated that our megatonnage (nay, gigatonnage) in H-bombs fits
>the power criterion. I disagree - those warheads have no bearing on our
>day-to-day lives. Instead, start with a cop packing a 9mm with a fifteen
>round clip. Add a radio on his shoulder with which he can call in a small
>army of re-inforcements in minutes. From there, look at a court system that
>will not admit mistakes. Include a press that's either too lazy to
>investigate on their own, or actually likes government power in our lives -
>either way, too many papers print police versions of stories without
>question. Sorry, no impressive history lessons here. This is America today.
>It's far too powerful for our good, and I call it fascist.
>
**********************************************************
Noel B. Brinkley
> In article <smfdpi...@corp.supernews.com>, "Terry Jameson"
> <ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > Permit an uneducated view of fascism. I draw from memory of a Joseph
> > Sobran column from several years ago, so errors are likely. Apologies in
> > advance to Mr. Sobran.
> >
> > As I recall, he defined fascism as the coupling of overwhelming
> > government power with a belief that our overlords know far better than we
> > what's best for us. Right now that fits American liberalism quite well,
> > though his definition isn't tied to any left/right criteria.
> >
> > He further stated that our megatonnage (nay, gigatonnage) in H-bombs fits
> > the power criterion. I disagree - those warheads have no bearing on our
> > day-to-day lives. Instead, start with a cop packing a 9mm with a fifteen
> > round clip. Add a radio on his shoulder with which he can call in a small
> > army of re-inforcements in minutes. From there, look at a court system that
> > will not admit mistakes. Include a press that's either too lazy to
> > investigate on their own, or actually likes government power in our lives -
> > either way, too many papers print police versions of stories without
> > question. Sorry, no impressive history lessons here. This is America today.
> > It's far too powerful for our good, and I call it fascist.
>
> and it works in intimate co-operation with the corporate world, which is
> the part of the standard definition that Sobran missed.
To tell you the truth, I find it a bit wearisome to try deciding whether the enemy
is liberal or conservative, or whether Naziism is liberal or conservative. The
bottom
line is that the real enemy is authoritarianism, the idea that we'll be better off
if government controls more of our daily lives. Unfortunately, both major parties
here are guilty of that attitude. The Libertarians have the correct attitude, but
they
don't have the clout necessary to make anything stick. Consequently, I am
expending
my efforts toward making the Rebublican party more libertarian. It's slow going,
but we are making progress. For example, the congressman from my district,
whom I am proud to say I helped in a small way to get elected, is Ron Paul, the
best, most freedom-oriented congressman alive. If you want to help, go to your
local GOP organizations and volunteer to work. If you work, you soon find
yourself with authority. Use it.
buddy
Pat Hines
>
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
> >>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
> >>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
> >>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
> >>> extreme right.
> >>
> >>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
> >>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
> >>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
> >>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
> >>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
> >>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
> >>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
> >>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
> >
> >Poor Pat.
> >
> >He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
>
> Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
> the Big Lie.
Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
In order to demonstrate that the National Socialists were conservatives
you need to show exactly where they attempted to retain the German
monarchy or return to it, and why their socialist programs were
different than those implemented by their alleged communist enemies, at
least one of which they were allied with for over two years.
So where is the proof of your "conservative nazi's, Hmmmm?
Pat Hines
Terry Jameson
"All your defining is authoritarianism. Your jejune efforts to attach it
to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are non-authoritarian."
Did you miss that bit about whoever it is in power this time, knowing so
much better than the rest of us what's best for us? That's today's
liberals' signature.
Pat Hines
You have been taught a lie by sociofascist propaganda camps, known as
government schools.
> However, must admit that am getting tired of trying to convince people
> of something so basic as the difference between Communist and Nazi,
> left wing or right wing. It is like trying to convince a
> "flat-earther" that the world is actually an oblate spheroid. Some
> people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of known facts.
Basic? Hardly. You are spouting nothing more than the conventional
wisdom, which as anyone can tell you is often the product of vested interests.
The National Socialist Workers Party was merely the German answer to
the international communists who wanted a Moscow oriented, socialist
movement. All loyalties within the Communist Party of the 1920's and
later were required to pay homage to Moscow. Germans, being quite
xenophobic when it comes to politics and military trappings, were by and
large opposed to this foreign born and Russian dominated form of socialism.
The NSDAP offered them the choice of socialist philosophy with a German
accent, and it sold very well during the World War One recovery period.
That's a short history, what is interesting to me is the convergence
seen here in the US of the old socialists that had profoundly Moscow
orientation, shifting their methodology and leanings into a profoundly
Fascist direction. Their complete sell out to the military operations
in Yugoslavia and Iraq, their willingness to sit by and watch the
murders of over 80 people in Waco, TExas; keeping in mind that these are
the same people that still mourn the Kent State deaths, this shift in
their thinking and actions is stunning.
Like the Chinese Communists, the American leftists have become
fascists, and that is where the term Sociofascism is derived.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> <ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > Permit an uneducated view of fascism. I draw from memory of a Joseph
> >Sobran column from several years ago, so errors are likely. Apologies in
> >advance to Mr. Sobran.
> >
> > As I recall, he defined fascism as the coupling of overwhelming
> >government power with a belief that our overlords know far better than we
> >what's best for us. Right now that fits American liberalism quite well,
> >though his definition isn't tied to any left/right criteria.
>
> it to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are
> non-authoritarian.
That is quite simply, a lie.
You want the government to take property from its' owners, with
government guns.
You want to disarm all Americans, with government guns.
You want to tax at higher rates and give the stolen loot to others,
with government guns.
You want a whole plethora of government programs, all enforced with
government guns.
In short, YOU are a sociofascist of the first order, and you attempt to
cover your elitist philosophy in a altruistic skin.
Won't work here, not in America. American citizens are on to you.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
I love this, you always know they have no argument at all when they
start out calling you names, here sliverback admits total moral vacuousness.
> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
socialist government without encouraging capitalism have collapsed into
dust. Only when some capitalism is encouraged, does the financing of
their socialist programs become feasible, hence nearly all so-called
socialist/communist governments are in fact fascist governments, it is
almost inevitable.
> Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
> society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
No, that's not true at all, sociofascism can be arrive at from either
direction, all that is required is a strong, well armed central
government that allows government controlled corporations, and voila!
> What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
> hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
> a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist.
It would be hard for me to hide history, it is ripe with sociofascist
activities; FDR was a notorious sociofascist.
> The plot failed and then in 42 his brother dressed fascism up in a smiley face
> and called it free enterprise.
I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
> It is a fact that the drooling idiot raygun read the script written
> by Hitler as it concerns domestic policy.
Ronald Reagan as a NAZI? Now that is ridiculous, he was a least bad
sociofascist, possibly the least bad since Woodrow Wilson.
> lower the tax on big business
This is ust an indirect tax on salaries and wages, passed on to both
the employee and consumer.
> lower the tax on the rich
YEs, so that we can all be rich, the top ten percent of the population
pay over 70% of the taxes.
> raise the tax on the poor
No, eliminate taxes all together.
> lower unemployment benefits
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
> lower social welfare benefits
TANSTAAFL.
> privatization of government
All but the police, local only, and the militia, again local only.
> union busting
> court packing
>
> that was the script written by Hitler in the 30s and the one followed
> by raygun.
Yeah, right! Hitler "lowered" taxes all through the war, sheesh where
do the come from?
No garbage lie is too great for these sociofascists.
Pat Hines
jaq...@en.com
ze...@snowcrest.net wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:19:01 -0400, "Terry Jameson"
> <ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > Permit an uneducated view of fascism. I draw from memory of a Joseph
> >Sobran column from several years ago, so errors are likely. Apologies in
> >advance to Mr. Sobran.
> >
> > As I recall, he defined fascism as the coupling of overwhelming
> >government power with a belief that our overlords know far better than we
> >what's best for us. Right now that fits American liberalism quite well,
> >though his definition isn't tied to any left/right criteria.
>
> All your defining is authoritarianism. Your jejune efforts to attach
> it to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are
> non-authoritarian.
Well, I haven't met "most liberals", but of the liberals I've met, 100% are
authoritarian; I've never yet seen the liberal program that one could opt
out of. It's true that one seldom sees "cults of personality" in liberalism
(though the Clintons come close). Instead, liberalism claims the authority
of "the people" (an abstract noun with no correlate in the real world)
Certainly the current administration has shown more and more of a tendency
to rule by fiat than by legislation; that makes it more than authoritarian
enough for me.
I once knew a Democrap bitch who told me that people with IQs of 100 or
below were incapable of taking care of themselves, and that the reason we
have laws to take care of them is the same reason why adults childproof
their houses, and if it means a little inconvenience to the adults to keep
the children safe, oh well. Being treated like a 2 yea old is NOT
authoritarian??
silverback
why lookie I must have hurt patty's feelings. But the fact is he
cannot refute a single point so he tries a diversion.
>> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
>
> No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
whoops that puts them on the opposite side of the political spectrum
than communism you damn fool.
>purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
there are no pure capitalistic societies either. In fact such a system
is so damn fatally flawed it has never been tried.
>socialist government without encouraging capitalism have collapsed into
>dust. Only when some capitalism is encouraged, does the financing of
>their socialist programs become feasible, hence nearly all so-called
>socialist/communist governments are in fact fascist governments, it is
>almost inevitable.
ok so yer some damn dumb you don't even know the difference.
>
>> Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
>> society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
>
> No, that's not true at all, sociofascism can be arrive at from either
oh yes it is true. Fascism is corporate rule.
>direction, all that is required is a strong, well armed central
>government that allows government controlled corporations, and voila!
nope fascism is a top down revolution.
Its rule by the rich and corporate owners.
>
>> What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
>> hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
>> a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist.
>
> It would be hard for me to hide history, it is ripe with sociofascist
>activities; FDR was a notorious sociofascist.
no FDR was only a liberal hardly a socialist and vehenmently opposed
to fascism. After all its you right wingers that accused him of
plotting to get into the war.
>
>> The plot failed and then in 42 his brother dressed fascism up in a smiley face
>> and called it free enterprise.
>
> I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
>fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
>
>> It is a fact that the drooling idiot raygun read the script written
>> by Hitler as it concerns domestic policy.
>
> Ronald Reagan as a NAZI? Now that is ridiculous, he was a least bad
>sociofascist, possibly the least bad since Woodrow Wilson.
raygun worked for a front group after the war thats sole purpose was
to help Nazi war criminals escape from Europe and justice. Of course
you can always say that he was even a dimwitted idiot even then and
claim he may not have known what he was doing. But then you run into a
problem with him paying homeage to his heros in that SS cemetery.
>
>> lower the tax on big business
>
> This is ust an indirect tax on salaries and wages, passed on to both
>the employee and consumer.
another right wing lie
>
>> lower the tax on the rich
>
> YEs, so that we can all be rich, the top ten percent of the population
>pay over 70% of the taxes.
they should pay 100%
>
>> raise the tax on the poor
>
> No, eliminate taxes all together.
ever get the feeling patty is playing with a few loafs short of a
bakery?
>
>> lower unemployment benefits
>
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
wrong unemployment is an earned benefit.
>
>> lower social welfare benefits
>
> TANSTAAFL.
so you want to leave the poor starve in the streets.
>
>> privatization of government
>
> All but the police, local only, and the militia, again local only.
and let jack booted corporate whores run things? not a chance in hell.
>
>> union busting
>> court packing
>>
>> that was the script written by Hitler in the 30s and the one followed
>> by raygun.
>
> Yeah, right! Hitler "lowered" taxes all through the war, sheesh where
>do the come from?
too bad for you patty that you can't refute the facts.
>
> No garbage lie is too great for these sociofascists.
translation patty lost and is pouting
***********************************************
azazel
fas...@home.com wrote:
> government schools.
>
> > of something so basic as the difference between Communist and Nazi,
> > left wing or right wing. It is like trying to convince a
> > "flat-earther" that the world is actually an oblate spheroid. Some
> > people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of known facts.
>
> wisdom, which as anyone can tell you is often the product of vested interests.
>
> The National Socialist Workers Party was merely the German answer to
> the international communists who wanted a Moscow oriented, socialist
> movement. All loyalties within the Communist Party of the 1920's and
> later were required to pay homage to Moscow. Germans, being quite
> xenophobic when it comes to politics and military trappings, were by and
> large opposed to this foreign born and Russian dominated form of socialism.
>
> The NSDAP offered them the choice of socialist philosophy with a German
> accent, and it sold very well during the World War One recovery period.
>
> That's a short history, what is interesting to me is the convergence
> seen here in the US of the old socialists that had profoundly Moscow
> orientation, shifting their methodology and leanings into a profoundly
> Fascist direction. Their complete sell out to the military operations
> in Yugoslavia and Iraq, their willingness to sit by and watch the
> murders of over 80 people in Waco, TExas; keeping in mind that these are
> the same people that still mourn the Kent State deaths, this shift in
> their thinking and actions is stunning.
>
> Like the Chinese Communists, the American leftists have become
> fascists, and that is where the term Sociofascism is derived.
>
> Pat Hines
he's right and he's wrong. The German Nazi Party was an answer to communism.
The type of politics the nazi's are in are indeed rightwing, however it can
be referred to as Third Positionist, in modern terms, the type of socialism
the nazi's wanted was a religious socialism. a person wasn't to care about
the rich's riches, let them get rich and let yourself get closer to God. The
nazi party was a nationalist movement, so it is rightwing. and the
resemblances between the "left" (a better term, Democrat Partyist) and the
German Nazi Party is growing, true the Democrats, aren't nationalist, but
they do support an elite.
--
"When an anarchist is taken seriously, the NRA will believe
guns are evil."- the old punks webzine
"The violence associated with alcohol Prohibition, and the threat of
Communist and anarchist subversion during the 1930s, prompted in 1934
the restriction of so-called "gangster weapons" from availability
to the general public. "-talk.politics.guns FAQ
Why the Left fears the Right http://www.duke.org
Why the Right fears the left http://flag.blackened.net/anarpics/blkred2.gif
Zepp, Son of Weasel
>"Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>> >>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>> >>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>> >>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>> >>> extreme right.
>> >>
>> >>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>> >>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>> >>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>> >>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
>> >>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
>> >>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
>> >>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
>> >>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>> >
>> >Poor Pat.
>> >
>> >He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
>>
>> Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
>> the Big Lie.
>
> Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
>NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
>
> TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
>Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
>conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
>restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
>preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
>the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
>fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
>direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
>educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
>forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
>
> In order to demonstrate that the National Socialists were conservatives
>you need to show exactly where they attempted to retain the German
>monarchy or return to it, and why their socialist programs were
>different than those implemented by their alleged communist enemies, at
>least one of which they were allied with for over two years.
>
> So where is the proof of your "conservative nazi's, Hmmmm?
>
>
>Pat Hines
**********************************************************
NM
Pat Hines wrote:
---many snips---
> > > That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
> > >Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
> > >Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
> >
> > yuo fucking idiot the Nazis were right wing extremist like you patty.
Oh yeah "socialist" is right wing.
> I love this, you always know they have no argument at all when they
> start out calling you names, here sliverback admits total moral vacuousness.
Again.
> > In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
>
> No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
> purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
> socialist government without encouraging capitalism have collapsed into
> dust. Only when some capitalism is encouraged, does the financing of
> their socialist programs become feasible, hence nearly all so-called
> socialist/communist governments are in fact fascist governments, it is
> almost inevitable.
>
> > Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
> > society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
>
> No, that's not true at all, sociofascism can be arrive at from either
> direction, all that is required is a strong, well armed central
> government that allows government controlled corporations, and voila!
>
> > What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
> > hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
> > a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist.
>
> It would be hard for me to hide history, it is ripe with sociofascist
> activities; FDR was a notorious sociofascist.
All the major powers demonstrated fascist practices in combatting BOTH
the depression and the avowed fascists.
> Ronald Reagan as a NAZI? Now that is ridiculous, he was a least bad
> sociofascist, possibly the least bad since Woodrow Wilson.
Weasels are idiots, what do you expect?
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
I love Heinlein.
---bandwidth snip---
NM
petestaunton
The anti-Gore media blitz is absolutely astounding.
Stick to reporting, will you?
CNN recently publicized an incredibly stupid "cookie"
poll, where participants buy a cookie of Bush or Gore,
[or something stupid like that] and according to their
mega-phone broadcast, George Bush is leading Al Gore
in the polls by 2 to 1.
Message: promoted over and over: George Bush is way
ahead in the polls. Reality check please.
If CNN likes to emphasize obscure websites, why don't
they promote this poll?
Take the poll and send the results to CNN. In the meantime,
if CNN continues to distort polls, the message is:
One, two, three, four
we don't need your fucken poll
Five, six, seven, eight
we're sick and tired of media-gate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Edmund M. Jakopchek
silverback wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:39:30 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >sliverback wrote:
> >> SNIP<<
>
> >> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
> >
> > No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
>
> whoops that puts them on the opposite side of the political spectrum
> than communism you damn fool.
You will have trouble with your propaganda when you look at Early American Patriots - believed in
freedom and left-wing corporate/govermental mergers like ADM which believe in control and special
privileges. It is extremely easy to equate NAZI's with Socialist/communist especially when taken in the
context of freedom vs. control.
Nazis - control, democrats - control, fascists - control, capitalism - freedom, yeah some abuses, but
for the most part freedom. Now for the special variant of managed capitalism which is the US, we are no
longer the free-ist country in the world, now we are number 7 or 8 on the list...
Are you going to argue for freedom or are you a propagandist that will argue against it? You make the
call...
> >purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
>
> there are no pure capitalistic societies either. In fact such a system
> is so damn fatally flawed it has never been tried.
What are you proposing? or are you too busy slamming the BEST system of distribution invented, or do
you want to be one of the elite distributors?
> SNIP
>
> no FDR was only a liberal hardly a socialist and vehenmently opposed
> to fascism. After all its you right wingers that accused him of
> plotting to get into the war.
Lets see, did the big.gov have more control of individuals lives after FDR? Yes, No?
> > I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
> >fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
>
> wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
> fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
> outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
Wrong, liberals, socialist, love fascism, more control for big.gov, look at the many left wing
corporate/government mergers and you can get my drift, if your theories were true ADM would be financing
the right, instead the finance demoncrats.
> > No, eliminate taxes all together.
>
> ever get the feeling patty is playing with a few loafs short of a
> bakery?
This is a argument, your losing it if you have to be insultin'.
> >> lower unemployment benefits
> >
> > There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
>
> wrong unemployment is an earned benefit.
Ahh. now we are finding your true stripes, the anti-freedom slaver, who hides behind the taxman to give
gifts and buy votes, why didn't you say your a socialist in the first place.
>> lower social welfare benefits
> >
> > TANSTAAFL.
>
> so you want to leave the poor starve in the streets.
and you want big.gov to have more control
> >
> >> privatization of government
> >
> > All but the police, local only, and the militia, again local only.
>
> and let jack booted corporate whores run things? not a chance in hell.
and again, your suggestion for a solution will always have big.gov in it, this is the classic socialist
propaganda ploy, ho-hum, wake me when you get a real argument, this one is getting old!
> SNIP
>
> >> >> Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
> >> >> were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
> >> >> Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in WW2.
Whoopee and you fail to note USSR were allies with Hitler during the beginning of the war, is this
association thing substitute for true thinking. If I recall correctly, after power grabs, the ruling
party usually kills some of the revolutionaries that participated in the revolution as insurance they
will not do it again.
> >> >> 8==> I must admit that I am getting increasingly curious why some of
> >> >> the people on misc.survivalism refuse to see the obvious differences
> >> >> between Communism and Nazism. I don't know if they don't care about
> >> >> the truth and don't think that truth matters, or if they refuse to see
> >> >> the difference, or do see it and simply won't admit it.
Admit it your opposed to freedom, with it you have to paint the 'right' as NAZI's, you associate
yourself with the practices of socialist/communist which have killed more people in the last century
than the Church. Can you honestly tell me your policies lead to more freedom or more taxes to pay for
all the entitlements you propose earlier, the freedom of a slave I suppose. 1984 doublespeak! I knew
you were capable of it!
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps they don't want to see that history shows that the extreme
> >> >> right can be just as much of a danger as the extreme left.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the German people had seen the danger of the extreme right they
> >> >> wouldn't have let their fear of communism lead them into voting the
> >> >> Nazis into power. If the centre and middle class parties in the
> >> >> German parliament had seen the danger of the right wing NSDAP gaining
> >> >> total power they wouldn't have voted for the Enabling Act of 23 March
> >> >> that handed total power to Hitler.
Now we know the form of the big lie.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> 9==> All this is taught as high school history here, and admit am
> >> >> surprised that it isn't taught there.
Who were the big AMERICAN financial supporters of Hitler's NAZI's, are they still enjoying life here,
why do you not take your arguments out against them? Your failure to do so paints a very interesting
picture.
Ed J. I believe in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, these beliefs are contestant with the
people that wrote the constitution, that is what I judge others by, and most of them are lacking! More
freedom or less, simple as that!
Roger P Williams
> No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
> purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
> socialist government without encouraging capitalism have collapsed into
> dust. Only when some capitalism is encouraged, does the financing of
> their socialist programs become feasible, hence nearly all so-called
> socialist/communist governments are in fact fascist governments, it is
> almost inevitable.
Iceland.
Of course, they also have as much free geothermal energy as they want,
which helps.
But they have policies that (1) everyone is entitled to a place to live
and a living wage whether they work or not, (2) everyone who wants a job
is entitled to one whether there is any work to do or not, and (3)
everyone who wants an education is entitled to one. Their markets are
controlled and an acquaintance of mine whose politics are very right-wing
and anti-socialist was able to spend a week there without noticing that
they have a socialist government. In fact he came back completely
convinced that they _must_ be a capitalist democracy precisely because
they are so industrious and literate. It took several reference books to
convince him otherwise.
In all fairness, nearly all analyses I have ever read call Iceland the
exception and credit their success to the limitless free energy they have
available to power their industries. They just plain have enough wealth
to pay for their socialist programs without rooting in their productive
citizens' pockets to do it.
--
--Roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
silverback
>The weasels don't have a clue Pat....
>
>Pat Hines wrote:
>---many snips---
>> > > That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>> > >Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>> > >Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>> >
>> > yuo fucking idiot the Nazis were right wing extremist like you patty.
>
>Oh yeah "socialist" is right wing.
there was nothing socialist about the Nazis, idiot.'
They were right wing extremists like yerself that favored allowing
people to starve in the streets or the camps.
>
>> I love this, you always know they have no argument at all when they
>> start out calling you names, here sliverback admits total moral vacuousness.
>
>Again.
>
>> > In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
>>
>> No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
>> purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
>> socialist government without encouraging capitalism have collapsed into
>> dust. Only when some capitalism is encouraged, does the financing of
>> their socialist programs become feasible, hence nearly all so-called
>> socialist/communist governments are in fact fascist governments, it is
>> almost inevitable.
>>
>> > Fascism is corporate rule and the end product of a capitalistic
>> > society that fails to reign in the power of the rich elite.
>>
>> No, that's not true at all, sociofascism can be arrive at from either
>> direction, all that is required is a strong, well armed central
>> government that allows government controlled corporations, and voila!
>>
>> > What patty wants you to forget that it was Irene du Pont that
>> > hatched a fascist plot against FDR in the 30s. he was going to set up
>> > a fascist government ruled by a few rich industrialist.
>>
>> It would be hard for me to hide history, it is ripe with sociofascist
>> activities; FDR was a notorious sociofascist.
>
>All the major powers demonstrated fascist practices in combatting BOTH
>the depression and the avowed fascists.
The only thing fascist about FDR's administration was to allow dollar
a year men from big business positions inside the government. Of
course he was forced into doing so because otherwise corporate America
and their rich owners refused to manufacture war munitions.
>
>> Ronald Reagan as a NAZI? Now that is ridiculous, he was a least bad
>> sociofascist, possibly the least bad since Woodrow Wilson.
>
>Weasels are idiots, what do you expect?
>
>> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
>
>I love Heinlein.
>
>---bandwidth snip---
>
>NM
***********************************************
Christopher Morton
(silverback) wrote:
>
>why lookie I must have hurt patty's feelings. But the fact is he
>cannot refute a single point so he tries a diversion.
Is Ralph Nader a "nazi" because he's neither a Republican or a
Democrat? Yes or no?
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
silverback
<em...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:39:30 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >sliverback wrote:
>> >> SNIP<<
>>
>> >> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
>> >
>> > No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
>>
>> whoops that puts them on the opposite side of the political spectrum
>> than communism you damn fool.
>
>You will have trouble with your propaganda when you look at Early American Patriots - believed in
>freedom and left-wing corporate/govermental mergers like ADM which believe in control and special
now a damn fool wants to rewrite history and tell us he knows
sumpthing about the founding fathers. too bad that yer as ignorant as
they come. First off the founding fathers had a deep seat distrust and
hate of corporations. Or maybe you just forgot that about half of the
colonies were founded as corporations.
So tell us again how much they trusted the mass Bay Company?
come on open up and stick the other foot in that big babzo.
>privileges. It is extremely easy to equate NAZI's with Socialist/communist especially when taken in the
>context of freedom vs. control.
>
>Nazis - control, democrats - control, fascists - control, capitalism - freedom, yeah some abuses, but
>for the most part freedom. Now for the special variant of managed capitalism which is the US, we are no
>longer the free-ist country in the world, now we are number 7 or 8 on the list...
so move to Somalai and the write to us how you like it. Well go on get
now scat. We won't be a missing yer kind.
>
>Are you going to argue for freedom or are you a propagandist that will argue against it? You make the
>call...
>
>> >purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
>>
>> there are no pure capitalistic societies either. In fact such a system
>> is so damn fatally flawed it has never been tried.
>
>What are you proposing? or are you too busy slamming the BEST system of distribution invented, or do
>you want to be one of the elite distributors?
couldn't refute the point huh?
>
>> SNIP
>>
>> no FDR was only a liberal hardly a socialist and vehenmently opposed
>> to fascism. After all its you right wingers that accused him of
>> plotting to get into the war.
>
>Lets see, did the big.gov have more control of individuals lives after FDR? Yes, No?
nope
>
>> > I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
>> >fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
>>
>> wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
>> fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
>> outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
>
>Wrong, liberals, socialist, love fascism, more control for big.gov, look at the many left wing
yer lying and you don't even know the difference between liberalism
and socialism.
>corporate/government mergers and you can get my drift, if your theories were true ADM would be financing
>the right, instead the finance demoncrats.
>
>> > No, eliminate taxes all together.
>>
>> ever get the feeling patty is playing with a few loafs short of a
>> bakery?
>
>This is a argument, your losing it if you have to be insultin'.
another right winger lying at the side of the info superhighway belly
up.
>
>
>> >> lower unemployment benefits
>> >
>> > There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
>>
>> wrong unemployment is an earned benefit.
>
>Ahh. now we are finding your true stripes, the anti-freedom slaver, who hides behind the taxman to give
>gifts and buy votes, why didn't you say your a socialist in the first place.
its an earnt benefit
>
>>> lower social welfare benefits
>
>> >
>> > TANSTAAFL.
>>
>> so you want to leave the poor starve in the streets.
>
>and you want big.gov to have more control
wrong again little lying sack of shit.
>
>> >
>> >> privatization of government
>> >
>> > All but the police, local only, and the militia, again local only.
>>
>> and let jack booted corporate whores run things? not a chance in hell.
>
>and again, your suggestion for a solution will always have big.gov in it, this is the classic socialist
the federal government is the only entity capable of providing an
equalable solution from coast to coast.
>propaganda ploy, ho-hum, wake me when you get a real argument, this one is getting old!
>
>> SNIP
>
>>
>> >> >> Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
>> >> >> were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
>> >> >> Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in WW2.
>
>Whoopee and you fail to note USSR were allies with Hitler during the beginning of the war, is this
>association thing substitute for true thinking. If I recall correctly, after power grabs, the ruling
>party usually kills some of the revolutionaries that participated in the revolution as insurance they
>will not do it again.
it was the Russians that really defeated Hitler, they had a little
help from the Brits in North Africa.
>
>> >> >> 8==> I must admit that I am getting increasingly curious why some of
>> >> >> the people on misc.survivalism refuse to see the obvious differences
>> >> >> between Communism and Nazism. I don't know if they don't care about
>> >> >> the truth and don't think that truth matters, or if they refuse to see
>> >> >> the difference, or do see it and simply won't admit it.
>
>Admit it your opposed to freedom, with it you have to paint the 'right' as NAZI's, you associate
>yourself with the practices of socialist/communist which have killed more people in the last century
damn fool doesn't even know the difference between socialism and
communism. Typical right winger, dumb and liar they are.
>than the Church. Can you honestly tell me your policies lead to more freedom or more taxes to pay for
>all the entitlements you propose earlier, the freedom of a slave I suppose. 1984 doublespeak! I knew
>you were capable of it!
>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps they don't want to see that history shows that the extreme
>> >> >> right can be just as much of a danger as the extreme left.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the German people had seen the danger of the extreme right they
>> >> >> wouldn't have let their fear of communism lead them into voting the
>> >> >> Nazis into power. If the centre and middle class parties in the
>> >> >> German parliament had seen the danger of the right wing NSDAP gaining
>> >> >> total power they wouldn't have voted for the Enabling Act of 23 March
>> >> >> that handed total power to Hitler.
>
>Now we know the form of the big lie.
>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 9==> All this is taught as high school history here, and admit am
>> >> >> surprised that it isn't taught there.
>
>Who were the big AMERICAN financial supporters of Hitler's NAZI's, are they still enjoying life here,
duPont, Morgans, Rockefeller, the rich elite.
>why do you not take your arguments out against them? Your failure to do so paints a very interesting
>picture.
>
>Ed J. I believe in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, these beliefs are contestant with the
>people that wrote the constitution, that is what I judge others by, and most of them are lacking! More
>freedom or less, simple as that!
>
***********************************************
don
>
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:59:29 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
snip....
> > Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
> >NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
> >
> > TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
> >Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
> >conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
> >restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
> >preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
> >the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
> >fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
> >direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
> >educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
> >forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
>
> Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
> conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
> gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
Not only to you not read what is written, you are history deficient to
an extreme degree. Hitler rose on the promise to recover..there was none
until he stepped on to the political stage in Germany. And the economy
was about to crash again. Are you so wrapped in your bitter hatred of
free men and women that you cannot understand the simplest of concepts?
don
--
"Tender-handed stroke the nettle, And it stings you for your pains;
Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." Aaron Hill,
1685-1750
Zepp, Son of Weasel
My hatred of Hitler translates to hatred of free men? That's an
interesting take.
You might want to read a few books about your boy. "Rise and Fall of
the Third Reich" by Toland is a good place to start.
The German economy crashed hard in 1921. It, and not the Market Crash
in 1929, was the reall beginning of the world depression. Germany was
the only country to pull out before 1940, and it did so by din't of a
massive military buildup (spending itself into prosperity) followed by
plunder economy of the slave states Hitler raped.
But lets get back to Patty's curious notion that Hitler was a
communist. Among the first to be massacred by Hitler were communists
in Germany. Followed by trade unionists and socialists.
Doesn't really sound like old 'Dolf was a big fan of communism or
socialism, does it? Why, if he was living in America today, he would
be a hero to the American right because of his stand against
communists and socialists.
But I always wonder about this one discontinuity in the American
right: there's people like you, and then there's people like Pat.
Pat is ignorant, and probably a bit stupid, and he believes what
people like Rush Limbaugh tell him.
So what do YOU think when he refers to Hitler as a socialist?
silverback
>"Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:59:29 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>
>snip....
>
>> > Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
>> >NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
>> >
>> > TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
>> >Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
>> >conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
>> >restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
>> >preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
>> >the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
>> >fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
>> >direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
>> >educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
>> >forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
>>
>> Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
>> conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
>> gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
>
>Not only to you not read what is written, you are history deficient to
>an extreme degree. Hitler rose on the promise to recover..there was none
>until he stepped on to the political stage in Germany. And the economy
yer the dumb ass that is historicaly deficient. The German economy was
under going a slight recovery by the time the Hitler assumed the
chancellorship. The earlier election in the depths of economic crisis
the Nazis polled more than they did in the last free election. That
lost of strength of the Nazi party at the polls is directly
attributable to that small recovery that was under way.
>was about to crash again. Are you so wrapped in your bitter hatred of
>free men and women that you cannot understand the simplest of concepts?
>don
>
>
>--
>"Tender-handed stroke the nettle, And it stings you for your pains;
>Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." Aaron Hill,
>1685-1750
***********************************************
lar...@ozemail.com.au
and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
appear on our monitors:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:39:30 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >sliverback wrote:
>> >> SNIP<<
>>
>> >> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
>> >
>> > No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
>>
>> whoops that puts them on the opposite side of the political spectrum
>> than communism you damn fool.
>
>You will have trouble with your propaganda when you look at Early American Patriots - believed in
>freedom and left-wing corporate/govermental mergers like ADM which believe in control and special
>privileges. It is extremely easy to equate NAZI's with Socialist/communist especially when taken in the
>context of freedom vs. control.
1==> When people try to "equate" opposing terms they often have a
propaganda motive of some sort. Just what is your agenda?
>Nazis - control, democrats - control, fascists - control, capitalism - freedom, yeah some abuses, but
>for the most part freedom. Now for the special variant of managed capitalism which is the US, we are no
>longer the free-ist country in the world, now we are number 7 or 8 on the list...
2==> Unusual view for an American. Are you going to list the six or
seven that you consider more free? Am sure that there many of us on
misc.survivalism who would like to know.
>
>Are you going to argue for freedom or are you a propagandist that will argue against it? You make the
>call...
>> >purely left wing, socialists governments that have survived since all
>>
>> there are no pure capitalistic societies either. In fact such a system
>> is so damn fatally flawed it has never been tried.
3==> 18th century England came pretty close. Life was fine for the
upper middle class and upper class. Not great if lower on the pecking
order, though. If male, the military was one option. Could join the
Royal Navy at age 6 or 7. The powder magazines in naval ships were
connected to the main deck by small passageways just large enough for
a child to wiggle through dragging bags of powder.
Enlistment in the military was very long term, I think it was 25 or 30
years. Perhaps Phil will know.
A male might be lucky enough to be apprenticed to a tradesman, where
he worked for 4 or 5 years on little or no wages learning the trade.
If less lucky, might end up starting work in the mines and mills at
about age 6. The coal mines had been worked for centuries and the
large seams had pretty well been mined out. So miners often followed
veins of coal only a couple of feet thick and chopped coal out with a
pick while lying down. Children were favored as they could work
narrower seams. Cave-ins and mine explosions were pretty common.
Mine owners did worry much about safety. Life was pretty cheap.
Females had even fewer opportunities. Might get a job in the mills,
or perhaps as a servant. For being on call 24 hours a day 7 days a
week with the occasional day off, got a tiny room in the attic and
some food. Wages were usually well under a pound a year. [Originally
the price of a pound of silver, although am not sure of the silver
price at the time. A male servant might progress to the position of
butler, which made him boss of the other servants. He might get 2 or
3 pounds a year.
For people who couldn't get work, there was always prostitution or the
poorhouse. One of the few consolations of the poor was that drink,
usually gin, was cheap. Pubs [Public houses] of the time advertised
"drunk for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence". [ "tuppence" = two
pence. One pound was equal to 20 shillings, and there were 12 pence
to the shilling, so one pound = 240 pence.
4==> Of course, most people on misc.survivalism are Americans, and
this is probably the case in the other groups as well. I cannot
expect you to be interested in English conditions in the 18th century,
so how about factory conditions in the 20th century in the US?
Have a copy of "Darkest Hours, an Encyclopedia of Disasters From
Ancient Times to the Present", by J. Robert Nash, pub by Nelson Hall,
Chicago, 1976 ISBN 0-88229-140-8.
Any of you ever heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire? The
book gives a couple of pages on it, but will pick some key paragraphs.
"Background: The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, occupying the
eighth, ninth and tenth floors of the Asch Building on the corner of
Washington Place and Greene Street in New York, caught fire at 4:45
P.M. on March 25, 1911. The building was gutted in eighteen minutes;
145 employees, mostly young females, were killed. Safety regulations
and devices were all but nonexistent. Indicted for manslaughter were
factory owners Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, who were later acquitted.
Most of these girls were Italian and Jewish immigrants who spoke
little English, and at the time, were earning a total of $5 for a 6
day working week. The shirtwaists, or fitted shirts, were too
expensive for employees to afford, and the odd one was stolen. To
prevent this, all exits from the factory were so narrow that only one
employee could get through at a time and could be checked when
leaving.
There was only one fire escape, and it reached only down to the
second floor, ending above a concrete courtyard. The architect had
argued against a fire sprinkler system, as would have cost $5000 to
install when building completed in 1901. (Asch later paid $400,000 to
have one installed, but this was long after the fire.) There was only
one roof to street internal staircase.
"When flames erupted on the ninth floor, the work force there,
all 250 persons, bolted for a single door leading to the Washington
Place staircase. The door was locked. (It would be later claimed by
those prosecuting Blanck and Harris for manslaughter that they
purposely locked the door to prevent employees from leaving the
premises until they had been checked to see if they were smuggling out
shirtwaists.) Most of the employees here raced to the windows and
screamed to those below for help."
5==> Unfortunately, wasn't much the fire department could do. They
didn't have ladders that would reach beyond the 6th floor. Those
that made it to the fire escape found that it didn't reach to the
ground, and knew that the jump to the concrete would probably kill
them. So they hung on until the fire escape started to melt and
separated from the building. Those that didn't make it to the fire
escape jumped from windows.
"Outrage on part of the public and press brought about the
trials of Max Blanck and Isaac Harris on charges of first and second
degree manslaughter. They were exonerated on the specific charge that
they had locked their employees in to prevent pilfering of their
goods. Harris admitted on the stand that the total loss to the firm
over the years had amounted to no more than $25."
6==> So 145 people died because of precautions designed to prevent
loss of goods that had totalled the grand sum of $25 over the years.
Human life was pretty cheap in those days, even in the USA.
"Eventually much good would come from this horrible calamity,
but it would take years before stricter safety regulations and devices
were instituted. The strengthening of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, a direct result of the fire, would help
mightily to change conditions.
But in that winged-collar and cane-wielding time of 1911, the
great Triangle fire did not immediately effect vital changes on behalf
of the misery-encompassed workers. It was still the age of the
totemic boss, and almost no one took issue with the legally correct
Joseph J. Asch, who coldly stated to reporters following the fire: "I
have obeyed the law to the letter. There was not one detail of the
construction of my building that was not submitted to the building and
fire departments. Every detail was approved, and the fire marshall
congratulated me."
Then there was a safety expert, H.F. Porter, who had contacted
the Triangle owners to institute fire drills--operations never begun.
"The neglect of factory owners in the matter of the safety of
employees is absolutely criminal," Porter told the New York Times,
"One man whom I advised to install a fire drill replied to me: 'Let
'em burn. They're a lot of cattle, anyway.'" And in 1911 almost no
one took issue with that either.
7==> Have quoted rather extensively above to point out attitudes of
the times involved. There is almost nothing that someone won't do for
a dollar, and damn the consequences. If wasn't for union demands and
government regulation, we would have the same situation today.
Sometimes governments go too far with regulation, but some is
necessary. If go through the fire disasters in the book will find
that owners of theaters and night clubs will pack as many people in as
will pay admission, and simply don't give a damn about possible
hazards.
This is just one case from a book that contains many such cases.
Survivalists should find it interesting as it gives a lot of insight
into how people react to survival situations. I highly recommend the
book. Interested readers can probably access a copy from their local
library.
>
>What are you proposing? or are you too busy slamming the BEST system of distribution invented, or do
>you want to be one of the elite distributors?
>
>> SNIP
>>
>> no FDR was only a liberal hardly a socialist and vehenmently opposed
>> to fascism. After all its you right wingers that accused him of
>> plotting to get into the war.
>
>Lets see, did the big.gov have more control of individuals lives after FDR? Yes, No?
8==> Aren't you being a bit simplistic here? The answer, of course,
is yes. ....But what were the alternatives?
I realise that a few readers of misc.survivalism will complain if I
quote some facts about the Great Depression from Encarta. Some people
seem to hate disrupting good emotional, propagandistic arguments with
cold hard facts, but some of us like facts. :-) Following quotes are
from "Great Depression in the United States," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R)
98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
"Great Depression in the United States, worst and longest
economic collapse in the history of the modern industrial world,
lasting from the end of 1929 until the early 1940s. Beginning in the
United States, the depression spread to most of the world's industrial
countries, which in the 20th century had become economically dependent
on one another. The Great Depression saw rapid declines in the
production and sale of goods and a sudden, severe rise in
unemployment. Businesses and banks closed their doors, people lost
their jobs, homes, and savings, and many depended on charity to
survive. In 1933, at the worst point in the depression, more than 15
million Americans-one-quarter of the nation's workforce-were
unemployed."
9==> Lets pause here for a moment, and suppose that FDR had done
nothing about these 15 million out of work. Many if not most would
have been married with wives and children to support. It wasn't a
matter of them being "too lazy" to find work. There were no jobs.
Will quote from "Alistair Cooke's America", published by the BBC
[British Broadcasting Corporation] 1973 ISBN 0 563 12182 3.
"Nowhere, in the following months and years, was the going so rough
as in the idle factories, for this nation had been the first to
transfer skill on a massive scale from man to the machine. Yet,
within three months of the crash, men who worked in big factories,
small men who had merrily played the market, were warming their hands
before scrap wood fires in the underpass beneath the Chicago Opera
House. (Samuel Insull, the man who had made a present of it to the
city, saw some hungry and muttering mobs and quietly increased his
bodyguard from two to thirty). But the Great Depression in America
was not just a blow to the extremes of the millionaire and coal miner.
It blighted everybody, even the very poor who had nothing to lose.
When steel stocks went from ninety down to twelve, the automobile
manufacturers simply let half their workers go. There were
skyscrapers just finished that lacked tenants. A secretary was a
ridiculous luxury. There were truckers with nothing to truck, crops
that went unharvested, milk that went undelivered to people who
couldn't afford it. When I first arrived here, as a student in a
college town, I couldn't go out in the evening to mail a letter
without being stopped by nicely dressed men who had told their wives
they were out looking for night work. So they were--they were out on
the streets cadging dimes and quarters."
10==> Unfortunately, dimes and quarters wouldn't necessarily go far if
had rent to pay and food to buy to feed a family. Without some form
of government assistance or government supported work, what were these
people going to do? When they get thrown out of their homes because
they can't pay the rent or keep up the mortgage payments they aren't
all going to live on the sidewalks and either freeze or starve to
death. Nor are they all likely to suicide. With no assistance, crime
probably would have been their only alternative, although some sort of
a revolution may have been a possibility.
"The stock market crash was just the first dramatic phase of a
prolonged economic collapse. Conditions continued to worsen for the
next three years, as the confident, optimistic attitudes of the 1920s
gave way to a sense of defeat and despair. Stock prices continued to
decline. By late 1932 they were only about 20 percent of what they had
been before the crash. With little consumer demand for products,
hundreds of factories and mills closed, and the output of American
manufacturing plants was cut almost in half from 1929 to 1932.
Unemployment in those three years soared from 3.2 percent to 24.9
percent, leaving more than 15 million Americans out of work. Some
remained unemployed for years; those who had jobs faced major wage
cuts, and many people could find only part-time work. Jobless men sold
apples and shined shoes to earn a little money.
Many banks had made loans to businesses and people who now could not
repay them, and some banks had also lost money by investing in the
stock market. When depositors hit by the depression needed to withdraw
their savings, the banks often did not have the money to give them.
This caused other depositors to panic and demand their cash, ruining
the banks. By the winter of 1932 to 1933, the banking system reached
the point of nearly complete collapse; more than 9000 banks, nearly 40
percent of the national total of 25,000, had failed, wiping out the
savings of millions of people."
11==> On this point, Cooke says, in writing about FDR:
"In the month before his inauguration banks were failing every
hour, and for two weeks gold and currency were being withdrawn at the
appalling rate of $15,000,000 a day. The government, which had lent
over $850,000,000 to the banks, now started to lend heavily to the
railroads. On March 4, the day of his inauguration, Roosevelt hurled
a thunderbolt at the headlines by closing--without any sure legal
sanction--every bank in the country. He would decide which banks
deserved federal support and which would have to go under. It was the
day the money stopped; literally, you had to cadge a meal, live on the
tab in places that knew you, pay with a check for a cab ride and
once--I remember--for a shoeshine."
12==> OK, what would have happened if FDR hadn't closed the banks?
Even these days, only a small percentage of money on deposit is
available in liquid assets. Most is loaned out on long term loans and
mortgages and simply isn't available. A bank might have had $1,000,000
on deposit. How much of this would have been in realizable liquid
assets, immediately available to depositors? Perhaps $80,000. [ In
those unregulated days, perhaps not that much, but will assume $80,000
for purposes of discussion.]
If the banks hadn't been closed, the first depositors to start taking
their money out would have been OK. They could close their accounts
and get all they had on deposit. However, once the panic started,
others would do the same, creating a run on the bank, and forcing its
closure when the bank runs out of money. The other depositors are
simply out of luck. I suppose some people might say that is just
"evolution in action, and devil take the hindmost".
"As people lost their jobs and savings, mortgages on many homes
and farms were foreclosed. Homeless people built shacks out of old
crates and formed shantytowns, which were called "Hoovervilles" out of
bitterness toward President Herbert Hoover, who refused to provide
government aid to the unemployed.
The plight of farmers, who had been in a depression since 1920,
worsened. Already low prices for their goods fell by 50 percent
between 1929 and 1932. While many people went hungry, surplus crops
couldn't be sold for a profit.
Natural forces inflicted another blow on farmers. Beginning in
Arkansas in 1930, a severe drought spread across the Great Plains
through the middle of the decade. Once-productive topsoil turned to
dust that was carried away by strong winds, piling up in drifts
against houses and barns. The area became known as the Dust Bowl, as
the drought destroyed the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of small
farmers. Packing up their families and meager possessions, many of
these farmers migrated to California in search of work. Author John
Steinbeck created an unforgettable fictional portrait of their fate in
the novel The Grapes of Wrath (1939)."
>
>> > I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
>> >fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
>>
>> wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
>> fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
>> outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
>
>Wrong, liberals, socialist, love fascism, more control for big.gov, look at the many left wing
>corporate/government mergers and you can get my drift, if your theories were true ADM would be financing
>the right, instead the finance demoncrats.
13==> Sorry, Jakopchek, you are in error here if you equate socialism
and fascism. Completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. You
can, if you wish, accuse one of your local political movements of
supporting one or the other, but, logically speaking, not both.
>
[snip, see original]
>> >> >> Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
>> >> >> were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
>> >> >> Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in WW2.
>
>Whoopee and you fail to note USSR were allies with Hitler during the beginning of the war, is this
>association thing substitute for true thinking.
14==> You, Jakopchek, have the unmitigated gall to accuse others of
ignorance of history when you can't even be bothered to check easily
available encyclopedic references? The USSR were never "allies" with
the Nazis. In 1938, the Japanese had conquered Manchuria, and the
Soviets were engaged in a border war with Japan. To again quote
Encarta: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," Microsoft(R)
Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
" Engaged in a border war with Japan in the east and fearing
Germany would turn on it in the west, the Soviet government began
secret negotiations for an arrangement with Germany, meanwhile
continuing talks, begun in April 1939, with France and Great Britain
for an anti-German entente (understanding). On August 23, 1939, the
Soviet government shocked the Western democracies as well as many
Communists around the world by signing a nonaggression pact with Nazi
Germany."
German Invasion
Hitler began planning an attack on the Soviet Union in mid-1940 and
signed the directive for Operation Barbarossa in December. Stalin,
refusing to believe the worst, disregarded copious messages from his
intelligence services about an impending aggression. When Germany
finally invaded, on June 22, 1941, it came as a tactical surprise and
caught the Red Army, already weakened by Stalin's purges, at a
terrible disadvantage.
The German assault changed the military and political alignment of the
entire war, which now assumed global proportions. Italy, Romania,
Hungary, Finland, and other Axis countries declared war on the USSR.
The United States extended lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union; it
ultimately provided some $12 billion worth of equipment and food.
After the United States entered World War II in December 1941, it,
Britain, and the Soviet Union became military allies. In January 1942,
four months after it accepted the principles of the Atlantic Charter,
the USSR and 25 other Allied countries signed the United Nations
Declaration, formally subscribing to the program and purposes of the
Atlantic Charter and pledging their cooperation in the defeat of the
Axis powers. In May 1943 the USSR dissolved Comintern.
The USSR's war with Germany and its allies-the Great Patriotic War, as
Stalin's government called it-was a savage fight to the finish. The
Axis assault was launched from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea,
striking for Leningrad, Moscow, and Ukraine. As the Red Army reeled
back in disarray, Stalin began frantic efforts to remove industrial
plants and workers from the path of the invaders and relocated them in
and behind the Ural Mountains. Much of what could not be removed was
intentionally laid waste.
For a time the German blitzkrieg (offensive) appeared successful, as
millions of Soviet soldiers were encircled and annihilated or
captured. In the Baltic States, Belorussia, and Ukraine, the invaders
met a friendly reception from those who had suffered most under the
Stalinist yoke. German atrocities, however, stiffened Soviet
resistance. The advance on Leningrad was checked in September 1941,
although the city was besieged until January 1944; casualties there
exceeded 1.25 million. The drive on Moscow was stopped in December
1941 with German tanks about 30 km (20 mi) from the city center.
15==> The USSR lost an estimated 20,000,000 citizens in WW2, and the
idea that they were "allies" with the fascists demonstrates a truly
breathtaking ignorance of history. Which propagandist did you pick up
your knowledge of history from?
> If I recall correctly, after power grabs, the ruling
>party usually kills some of the revolutionaries that participated in the revolution as insurance they
>will not do it again.
>
>> >> >> 8==> I must admit that I am getting increasingly curious why some of
>> >> >> the people on misc.survivalism refuse to see the obvious differences
>> >> >> between Communism and Nazism. I don't know if they don't care about
>> >> >> the truth and don't think that truth matters, or if they refuse to see
>> >> >> the difference, or do see it and simply won't admit it.
>
>Admit it your opposed to freedom, with it you have to paint the 'right' as NAZI's, you associate
>yourself with the practices of socialist/communist which have killed more people in the last century
>than the Church.
16==> That, Jakopchek, is an entirely unwarranted and untrue
accusation. It might offend me more if you were intellegent enough to
spell "you're" correctly. ....I don't "have to paint the 'right' as
Nazis" nor have I done so. I have said that the Nazis are right wing,
which is true. Nor do I associate myself with socialism or communism,
although I don't suppose that anyone would have a chance of teaching
you that these aren't even the same thing.
I don't doubt for a moment that Communism has killed more people in
the last century than the Church. Did you have any particular church
in mind? AFIK, none of the churches have been particularly active in
killing people in the 20th century. [Unless, of course, we assume
that the Nazis might have belonged to the "church of Satan"]
> Can you honestly tell me your policies lead to more freedom or more taxes to pay for
>all the entitlements you propose earlier, the freedom of a slave I suppose. 1984 doublespeak! I knew
>you were capable of it!
17==> You really are a raving ratbag, aren't you? I haven't said
anything at all about my politics. Actually, I have very little
interest in politics of any description. I certainly have no
"policies".
I have outlined my motivations for posting in this thread in another
post which I suggest you consult if you are curious about my
motivations. Newsgroups: alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,
talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.libertarian // Subject: Re: Dubya
slaps the NRA // Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:08:34 +1000 //Message-ID:
<fa5gmsk97m1dklm3t...@4ax.com>
References: <9bndms4iq4fpmgqhu...@4ax.com>
<17937-39...@storefull-126.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps they don't want to see that history shows that the extreme
>> >> >> right can be just as much of a danger as the extreme left.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the German people had seen the danger of the extreme right they
>> >> >> wouldn't have let their fear of communism lead them into voting the
>> >> >> Nazis into power. If the centre and middle class parties in the
>> >> >> German parliament had seen the danger of the right wing NSDAP gaining
>> >> >> total power they wouldn't have voted for the Enabling Act of 23 March
>> >> >> that handed total power to Hitler.
>
>Now we know the form of the big lie.
18==> Yep, am sure we are all getting to know it, and it is coming
straight from "Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@usa.net>
>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 9==> All this is taught as high school history here, and admit am
>> >> >> surprised that it isn't taught there.
>
>Who were the big AMERICAN financial supporters of Hitler's NAZI's, are they still enjoying life here,
>why do you not take your arguments out against them? Your failure to do so paints a very interesting
>picture.
19==> How should I know? See that little ".au" at the end of my
address. What do you think that might stand for? ...No, on second
thought, I won't make you try to find it. It stands for "Australia".
Don't you pay any attention to URLs?
Although I could probably find the info on the Americans who were
supporting Hitler prior to WW2, I can't see that anything would be
gained in publishing the names at this late date. Everyone has the
right to be wrong and make asses of themselves in their public
pronouncements...for which you should be profoundly grateful.
>
>Ed J. I believe in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, these beliefs are contestant with the
>people that wrote the constitution, that is what I judge others by, and most of them are lacking!
> More freedom or less, simple as that!
20==> And why should everyone in the world be judged by your
perception of the American Constitution? If your perception of your
Constitution is as imperfect as your perception of history, I doubt
that you have much that is worthwhile to say about it anyway.
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:03:11 -0700, "Zepp, Son of Weasel"
>> <ze...@snowcrest.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
>> misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
>> following words to appear on our monitors:
>>
>> >On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>> >>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>> >>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>> >>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>> >>>> extreme right.
>> >>>
>> >>>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>> >>>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>> >>>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>> >>>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
>> >>>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
>> >>>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
>> >>>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
>> >>>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>> >>
>> >>Poor Pat.
>> >>
>> >>He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
>> >
>> >Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
>> >the Big Lie.
>>
>> Wasn't sure if it was that or if Pat was simply as full of crap as the
>> bottom of a parrot cage. :-)
>
> You have been taught a lie by sociofascist propaganda camps, known as
>government schools.
1==> Like the US, Australia has mainly public schools, but a few
private ones. I suspect that most people on this group attended
public schools. A few, with wealthier parents, probably attended
private schools. Which extreme right wing one did you attend?
It may come as a shock to you, but some of us have a university
education and have even read books since then. :-)
>
>> However, must admit that am getting tired of trying to convince people
>> of something so basic as the difference between Communist and Nazi,
>> left wing or right wing. It is like trying to convince a
>> "flat-earther" that the world is actually an oblate spheroid. Some
>> people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of known facts.
>
> Basic? Hardly. You are spouting nothing more than the conventional
>wisdom, which as anyone can tell you is often the product of vested interests.
2==> Whereas will agree that conventional wisdom may be the product of
vested interest, in this particular case we are talking about
historical facts which most people are not silly enough to try to
argue.
>
> The National Socialist Workers Party was merely the German answer to
>the international communists who wanted a Moscow oriented, socialist
>movement. All loyalties within the Communist Party of the 1920's and
>later were required to pay homage to Moscow. Germans, being quite
>xenophobic when it comes to politics and military trappings, were by and
>large opposed to this foreign born and Russian dominated form of socialism.
2==> Sure, Germans were anti-communist. That is precisely why they
fell into the trap of electing the far right NDASP.
>
> The NSDAP offered them the choice of socialist philosophy with a German
>accent, and it sold very well during the World War One recovery period.
3==> You seem to have a very eccentric definition of socialism. Are
you claiming that all encyclopedic definitions of the term are in
error and only you are correct? Will quote some bits from
"Socialism," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Socialism, economic and social doctrine, political movement
inspired by this doctrine, and system or order established when this
doctrine is organized in a society. The socialist doctrine demands
state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and
distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the
existing capitalist or other political system of a country through
peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine
specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic
industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It
places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches
of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public
welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which
the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial
personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under
private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be
encouraged."
4==> Compare this with #8, below.
"These are the tenets of the Socialist party of the U.S., the
Labour party of Great Britain, and labor or social democratic parties
of various other countries. Therefore they constitute the centrist
position held by most socialists. Some political movements calling
themselves socialist, however, insist on the complete abolition of the
capitalist system and of private profit, and at the other extreme are
socialist programs having objectives entailing even fewer changes in
the social order than those outlined above. The ultimate goal of all
socialists, however, is a classless cooperative commonwealth in every
nation of the world."
5==> Note that these are socialist party objectives. However, there
are policies of other parties which some define as "socialist". The
definition is very elastic, and many individuals simply label any
policy they don't like as being "socialistic" whether it is or not.
If you are going to define everything in the US that the US Gov't is
involved in as being "socialistic" am sure you can find a lot of
policies you can apply your label to.
Socialism Versus Fascism
During the 1920s and '30s socialist and Communist parties were in
continuous conflict. One point of contention was the question of
support for the USSR. Socialists castigated Communists as agents of
the Soviet Union and traitors to their own countries.
6==> Note here that even socialists and Communists are often at odds.
Also during the '20s and '30s, Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy
caused both socialists and Communists to develop new tactics. Attempts
were made in several countries to form a united front of all
working-class organizations opposed to fascism, but the movement had
limited success, even in France and Spain, where it did well in the
1936 elections. Failure of the Communists and socialists of Germany to
unite is regarded as one cause of the success of the National
Socialists. The fragile alliance that was achieved between socialists
and Communists in some countries during this "Popular Front" period
was destroyed in 1939 by the conclusion of a nonaggression pact
between Germany and the USSR. Socialists condemned this act as a
demonstration of the community of interest between two totalitarian
governments. In August 1939, Germany invaded Poland, precipitating
World War II, and socialists in the Allied countries immediately
expressed full support for their governments.
7==> Again note that both Communists and socialist opposed fascism,
but their failure to unite helped the National Socialists [who were
not, in fact, "socialist" at all] to succeed.
8==> If you have read quotes in other posts you will know that Nazi
fascism was nothing like this. There was no state ownership or
control of the means of production, there was denationalization rather
than nationalization. To quote from "National Socialism,"
Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved
"Private property rights were preserved, and previously
nationalized enterprises were "reprivatized"-that is, returned to
private ownership but all owners were subject to rigid state controls.
By all of these and related means the Hitler regime eliminated
competition. Ultimately the "new order" was economically dominated by
four banks and a relatively small number of huge conglomerates,
including the vast munitions and steel-manufacturing empire of the
Krupp family and the notorious Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie,
known as I. G. Farben, which produced dyes, synthetic rubber, oil, and
other products and participated in or dominated almost 400
enterprises. Some of these enterprises made use of millions of
prisoners of war and inhabitants of conquered countries as slave
laborers in German industry. The cartels also supplied materials for
the systematic and scientific extermination by the Hitler government
of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, and others. See Genocide;
Holocaust."
> That's a short history, what is interesting to me is the convergence
>seen here in the US of the old socialists that had profoundly Moscow
>orientation, shifting their methodology and leanings into a profoundly
>Fascist direction. Their complete sell out to the military operations
>in Yugoslavia and Iraq, their willingness to sit by and watch the
>murders of over 80 people in Waco, TExas; keeping in mind that these are
>the same people that still mourn the Kent State deaths, this shift in
>their thinking and actions is stunning.
>
> Like the Chinese Communists, the American leftists have become
>fascists, and that is where the term Sociofascism is derived.
9==> I think I see: Merely because you interpret political events in
the US in your own way you are going to try to redefine the accepted
meanings of "Socialism", "Fascism", "Nazism", etc.
10==> From memory, there was a character in "Alice in Wonderland" who
said something along the lines of "A word means exactly what I want it
to mean, no more and no less."
11==> People who deliberately misuse the language to mislead others
are often propagandists pushing a particular cause. Are you an
apprentice propagandist? What is your particular agenda? Who are you
trying to mislead? Do tell us, Pat, people on misc.survivalism would
like to know.
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>>
>> That's a short history, what is interesting to me is the convergence
>> seen here in the US of the old socialists that had profoundly Moscow
>> orientation, shifting their methodology and leanings into a profoundly
>> Fascist direction. Their complete sell out to the military operations
>> in Yugoslavia and Iraq, their willingness to sit by and watch the
>> murders of over 80 people in Waco, TExas; keeping in mind that these are
>> the same people that still mourn the Kent State deaths, this shift in
>> their thinking and actions is stunning.
>>
>> Like the Chinese Communists, the American leftists have become
>> fascists, and that is where the term Sociofascism is derived.
>>
>> Pat Hines
>
>he's right and he's wrong. The German Nazi Party was an answer to communism.
>The type of politics the nazi's are in are indeed rightwing, however it can
>be referred to as Third Positionist, in modern terms, the type of socialism
>the nazi's wanted was a religious socialism. a person wasn't to care about
>the rich's riches, let them get rich and let yourself get closer to God.
1==> The Nazis wanted to "get closer to God"? That's why they killed
six million people? If the Nazi party had any official "god" it
certainly wasn't the God of the Bible. Some have suggested that the
Nazis were, in fact, Satanists. Those interested in this aspect might
like to check their local library for a copy of "The Sword of Destiny"
by Trevor Ravenscroft.
> The
>nazi party was a nationalist movement, so it is rightwing.
2==> It certainly was, and hard to get any further right. :-)
>and the
>resemblances between the "left" (a better term, Democrat Partyist) and the
>German Nazi Party is growing, true the Democrats, aren't nationalist, but
>they do support an elite.
3==> This is still no excuse to deliberately try to confuse the
meanings of "socialist", "communist", "fascist", etc. for propaganda
purposes, as Pat seems to be trying to do.
—larryn
[misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<ze...@snowcrest.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:59:29 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>"Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>> >>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>> >>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>> >>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>> >>> extreme right.
>>> >>
>>> >>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>>> >>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>>> >>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>>> >>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
>>> >>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
>>> >>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
>>> >>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
>>> >>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>>> >
>>> >Poor Pat.
>>> >
>>> >He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
>>>
>>> Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
>>> the Big Lie.
>>
>> Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
>>NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
>>
>> TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
>>Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
>>conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
>>restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
>>preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
>>the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
>>fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
>>direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
>>educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
>>forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
>
>Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
>conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
>gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
1==> Pat can be a male or female name, so I don't know which pronoun
to use when referring to her or him. I note from Pat's header that
the organization line is "Nurses for Defense Rights", but he/she could
still be either sex. [You might let us know, Pat, so we don't
inadvertently insult you by using the incorrect pronoun.]
2==> AFIK, you didn't call Nazi's "conservative". This seems to be
yet another unwarranted assumption on Pat's part. Whatever school Pat
attended, he/she certainly didn't learn much about history, and needs
to read a lot of it, not just a little of it. Although if Pat would
even consult an encyclopedia this would help avoid making some of the
more major errors.
3==> If Pat is working as a nurse, I sincerely hope that he/she is far
more accurate and precise in his/her medical duties than he/she is in
his/her use of the English language.
4==> If by "nut" you mean "psychotic", this might be a harsh judgement
of Pat. We really can't remotely judge his/her mental state. It is
possible to be misled, confused, or deluded without being clinically
psychotic.
—larryn
[misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<ze...@snowcrest.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:45:04 -0700, don <d...@nettlepatch.net> wrote:
>
>>"Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:59:29 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>snip....
>>
>>> > Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
>>> >NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
>>> >
>>> > TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
>>> >Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
>>> >conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
>>> >restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
>>> >preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
>>> >the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
>>> >fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
>>> >direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
>>> >educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
>>> >forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
>>>
>>> Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
>>> conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
>>> gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
>>
>>Not only to you not read what is written, you are history deficient to
>>an extreme degree. Hitler rose on the promise to recover..there was none
>>until he stepped on to the political stage in Germany. And the economy
>>was about to crash again. Are you so wrapped in your bitter hatred of
>>free men and women that you cannot understand the simplest of concepts?
>>don
>
>My hatred of Hitler translates to hatred of free men? That's an
>interesting take.
>
>You might want to read a few books about your boy. "Rise and Fall of
>the Third Reich" by Toland is a good place to start.
>
>The German economy crashed hard in 1921. It, and not the Market Crash
>in 1929, was the reall beginning of the world depression.
1==> Um, well, can't quite agree here, as the German economic crash
didn't have much effect on the rest of the world. Quoting a bit from
"Weimar Republic," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
War Problems
"World War I had left Germany with many economic, social,
and political problems. In addition to enduring high inflation and a
large national debt, Germans were deeply embittered by the harsh terms
of the Versailles Treaty, signed in June 1919, which formally ended
the war. Among other things, the treaty called for German disarmament
and huge reparation payments to the Allies. Unable to meet the
payments, Germany's currency collapsed and the German people suffered
large financial losses. In January 1923 French and Belgian forces
occupied Germany's main industrial region, the Ruhr, claiming that
Germany had defaulted on reparation deliveries."
2==> In discussing history, nothing can really be taken in isolation.
Had the terms of the Versailles treaty been less harsh, then the
Germans might have been able to make the payments and not suffered the
currency collapse. If it hadn't, then Hitler might not have come to
power and the world might have avoided WW 2. [However, this is just
conjecture. We will never really know.]
3==> Encarta has a good article on "Great Depression in the U.S."
which maintains that the depression wasn't just caused by the market
crash, but by fundamental problems in the economy. However, this is
too long (and controversial) for me to quote here.
> Germany was
>the only country to pull out before 1940, and it did so by din't of a
>massive military buildup (spending itself into prosperity) followed by
>plunder economy of the slave states Hitler raped.
4==> It has been argued that if it hadn't been for WW2, world recovery
from the Great Depression might have taken a lot longer...which is a
pretty uncomfortable thought.
>But lets get back to Patty's curious notion that Hitler was a
>communist. Among the first to be massacred by Hitler were communists
>in Germany. Followed by trade unionists and socialists.
>
>Doesn't really sound like old 'Dolf was a big fan of communism or
>socialism, does it? Why, if he was living in America today, he would
>be a hero to the American right because of his stand against
>communists and socialists.
>But I always wonder about this one discontinuity in the American
>right: there's people like you, and then there's people like Pat.
>Pat is ignorant, and probably a bit stupid, and he believes what
>people like Rush Limbaugh tell him.
5==> Is that where Pat's history is coming from? Doesn't it occur to
Pat that Limbaugh might just be a teensy-weensy bit biased and hardly
a reliable source of historical info? :-)
>So what do YOU think when he refers to Hitler as a socialist?
>
6==> Will be interested to see how Don answers that one.
様arryn
>**********************************************************
>
>"Omigosh! It's large Negroes with guns! Wait! Wait! We don't believe in
>the second amendment after all!" -- Texas GOP, as Armed Black Panthers
>marched toward their convention.
>
>
>George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
>
>**********************************************************
>Not dead, in jail or a slave?
>Thank a liberal!
>For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
>Warning: Contains ideas
>For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
>************************************************************
>Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
"/ Simul Justus et Peccator / "
Zepp, Son of Weasel
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:03:11 -0700, "Zepp, Son of Weasel"
><ze...@snowcrest.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
>misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
>following words to appear on our monitors:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>>>> extreme right.
>>>>
>>>>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
>>>>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
>>>>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
>>>>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
>>>>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
>>>>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
>>>>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
>>>>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>>>
>>>Poor Pat.
>>>
>>>He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
>>
>>Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
>>the Big Lie.
>
>Wasn't sure if it was that or if Pat was simply as full of crap as the
>bottom of a parrot cage. :-)
>
>However, must admit that am getting tired of trying to convince people
>of something so basic as the difference between Communist and Nazi,
>left wing or right wing. It is like trying to convince a
>"flat-earther" that the world is actually an oblate spheroid. Some
>people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of known facts.
It -is- tiresome, but it's what these promoters of the "big lie" want.
They hope to erode resistance to their efforts to rewrite history.
>
>—larryn
>[misc.survivalism]
>
>>>
>>> =====================================
>>>
>>>"Among the principles of the [Nazi] party were ... the annihilation
>>>of Germany's 'greatest enemies,' the Jews and Communists."
>>>
>>>-The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
>>>
>>>
>>>"The Leninist-Stalinist principles of complete state bureaucracy,
>>>almost total state collectivism (with minor exceptions) and
>>>philosophical materialism [are] cardinal principles absolutely opposed
>>>to fascism."
>>>
>>>-Fascism: Comparison and Definition. S. Payne, p. 209
>>>
>>>
>>>"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, public ownership of
>>>property, and atheism, if put into practice, would destroy Germany as
>>>a nation-state."
>>>
>>>-- "Political Ideologies" Thobaben and Funderburk, 3rd edition, p.
>>>187:
>>>
>>>
>>>"Despite the proletarian flavor of it's title, the Political Workers
>>>Circle was in fact a radical right-wing grouping with extreme
>>>anti-Semitic views."
>>>
>>>"The DAP remained a largely paper organization until the summer of
>>>1919. Then in the climate of anti-socialist and anti-Semitic hysteria
>>>induced by the suppression of the Workers Republic and the public
>>>trials of it's leaders, the German Workers Party gradually gained the
>>>confidence to expand its activities and even to stage public rallies."
>>>
>>>"The party began to attract the interest of other Bavarian right-wing
>>>organizations, and before long it came to the attention of the
>>>Bavarian Reichswehr (army) who were ever on the look out for suitable
>>>paramilitary organizations to swell their ranks."
>>>
>>>-Simon Taylor, The Rise of Hitler,
>>>Universe Books New York, 1983 p 61
>>>
>>>
>>>"Communists and socialists come from the Marxist tradition whose aim
>>>was proletarian revolution, while Fascist values were nationalistic
>>>with its goal an 'organic" society."
>>>
>>>-Fascism in Western Europe 1900-1945 H. Kedward p. 241
>>>
>>>
>>>"Fascism...took ideas, methods, and attitudes from conflicting sides
>>>and presented the world with a unity so full of contradictions that
>>>an early collapse was widely expected."
>>>
>>>- ibid.p.6
>>>
>>>
>>>"Nazism: Like Italian Fascism, it was dictatorial, nationalistic, and
>>>terroristic. What national socialism added to Fascism was a fanatical
>>>racism and a policy of incessant international aggression. It is
>>>doubtful that one can speak of a philosophy or theory of national
>>>socialism."
>>>
>>>"The Nazis abandoned not only liberal democracy but the whole humanist
>>>belief in rational politics. They saw conflict and violence as the
>>>basic laws of life and they appealed to passion and emotion as
>>>instruments in the struggle. Such putative 'philosophies' as those
>>>expressed in Hitler's Mein Kampf make it abundantly clear that theory
>>>served the Nazis simply as a rationalization of their fundamentally
>>>irrational faith."
>>>
>>>"On the one hand the Nazis shared with the conservatives the belief in
>>>authority, hierarchy, and aggressive foreign policy. ... They
>>>departed from the conservatives in refusing to set limits on either
>>>means or ends in the realization of their beliefs."
>>>
>>>-Encyclopedia Americana
>>>
>>>
>>>"National Socialism: It attracted the bankers and industrialists by
>>>its anti-Communism and by its promise to rebuild the German economy.
>>>The party began in 1920 with GOERING, GOEBBELS, and HIMMLER among
>>>Hitler's followers. Its bible was Hitler's Mein Kampf (1923), and its
>>>official philosopher was Alfred ROSENBERG.
>>>
>>>-The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
>>>
>>>****Any questions, Pat?
>>>
>>> Volt
>>>
>>>Ecrasons l'infame
>>>
>>>Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
>>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>>>
>>>Campaign 2000
>>>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>>>
>>>=============================================================
>>>"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
>>>
>>> --Tom Waites
>>>=============================================================
>>
>>**********************************************************
>>
>>"Omigosh! It's large Negroes with guns! Wait! Wait! We don't believe in
>>the second amendment after all!" -- Texas GOP, as Armed Black Panthers
>>marched toward their convention.
>>
>>
>>George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
>>
>>**********************************************************
>>Not dead, in jail or a slave?
>>Thank a liberal!
>>For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
>>Warning: Contains ideas
>>For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
>>************************************************************
>>Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
>*************************************************************************
>And the bush hath friends to meet him, and their kindly voices greet him
>In the murmur of the breezes and the river on its bars,
>And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,
>And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.
>
>["Clancy of the Overflow" A.B."Banjo" Paterson]
>*************************************************************************
Zepp, Son of Weasel
>In article <c84gmsk3ffkac99e5...@4ax.com>,
>ze...@snowcrest.net wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:19:01 -0400, "Terry Jameson"
>> <ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Permit an uneducated view of fascism. I draw from memory of a Joseph
>> >Sobran column from several years ago, so errors are likely. Apologies in
>> >advance to Mr. Sobran.
>> >
>> > As I recall, he defined fascism as the coupling of overwhelming
>> >government power with a belief that our overlords know far better than we
>> >what's best for us. Right now that fits American liberalism quite well,
>> >though his definition isn't tied to any left/right criteria.
>>
>> All your defining is authoritarianism. Your jejune efforts to attach
>> it to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are
>> non-authoritarian.
>
>Well, I haven't met "most liberals", but of the liberals I've met, 100% are
>authoritarian; I've never yet seen the liberal program that one could opt
>out of. It's true that one seldom sees "cults of personality" in liberalism
>(though the Clintons come close). Instead, liberalism claims the authority
>of "the people" (an abstract noun with no correlate in the real world)
>Certainly the current administration has shown more and more of a tendency
>to rule by fiat than by legislation; that makes it more than authoritarian
>enough for me.
Actually, Clinton has issued considerably less executive orders than
did Ronnie.
Wanna get back to us on that one, little Dittohead?
>
>I once knew a Democrap bitch who told me that people with IQs of 100 or
>below were incapable of taking care of themselves, and that the reason we
>have laws to take care of them is the same reason why adults childproof
>their houses, and if it means a little inconvenience to the adults to keep
>the children safe, oh well. Being treated like a 2 yea old is NOT
>authoritarian??
And you proceed to display your true colors. Gonna tell us about the
welfare Cadillac next?
Zepp, Son of Weasel
wrote:
>"Zepp, Son of Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>All your defining is authoritarianism. Your jejune efforts to attach
>>it to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are
>>non-authoritarian.
>>>
>Bah! Pure Liberal Jingoism, from a source that is already tainted.. The Ruptured Zeppelin would try
>to rationalize or redefine the rape of a nun if it suited his purpose or world view.
Poor old Gunner. Just getting shriller and more brittle as your
paranoid fantasies keep getting challenged, aren't you?
>
>Gunner
>
>----------
> "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
>maturity."
> Sigmund Freud
Zepp, Son of Weasel
<ter...@highpoint.net> wrote:
>Zepp, Son of Weasel scattered this across numerous newsgroups:
> "All your defining is authoritarianism. Your jejune efforts to attach it
>to liberalism are pathetic, given that most liberals are non-authoritarian."
>
>
> Did you miss that bit about whoever it is in power this time, knowing so
>much better than the rest of us what's best for us? That's today's
>liberals' signature.
No, that's the signature of the howling, whining "I-gotta-be-a-VICTIM"
conservative.
Zepp, a weasel in the corn
It didn't have much effect on America. As you own article notes,
America was pretty much unaffected by what was happening outside its
own borders, cloistered, a fortress. Or so it thought.
All the article really shows is that Germany was not in America.
>—larryn
>
>>**********************************************************
>>
>>"Omigosh! It's large Negroes with guns! Wait! Wait! We don't believe in
>>the second amendment after all!" -- Texas GOP, as Armed Black Panthers
>>marched toward their convention.
>>
>>
>>George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
>>
>>**********************************************************
>>Not dead, in jail or a slave?
>>Thank a liberal!
>>For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
>>Warning: Contains ideas
>>For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
>>************************************************************
>>Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
>"/ Simul Justus et Peccator / "
**********************************************************
"There seems to be growing awareness that the death penalty
is just another government program that doesn't work very well."
- Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights.
For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
msm...@my-deja.com
> Basic? Hardly. You are spouting nothing more than the
conventional
> wisdom, which as anyone can tell you is often the product of vested
interests.
This statement is hard to back up, but based on my personal experience,
it rings true.
<snip>
> That's a short history, what is interesting to me is the
convergence
> seen here in the US of the old socialists that had profoundly Moscow
> orientation, shifting their methodology and leanings into a profoundly
> Fascist direction. Their complete sell out to the military operations
> in Yugoslavia and Iraq, their willingness to sit by and watch the
> murders of over 80 people in Waco, TExas; keeping in mind that these
are
> the same people that still mourn the Kent State deaths, this shift in
> their thinking and actions is stunning.
This is interesting. Speaking as someone from the way-left, I too
find it not a little disappointing that the same people who were
marching against Vietnam in the 1960s are now supporting restrictions
on our freedoms in the 2000s. Thus we see an accelerated drug war,
Internet censorship, music censorship, so-called gun control, etc.
The mayor of Seattle was himself an anti-war protester; look how he
handled protesters when it was he who had to give the orders.
Ultimately, one comes to the conclusion that while there were persons
of principle leading the protest movements in the 1960s, the vast
majority of the student demonstrators were led not so much by principle,
as by self-interest.
> Like the Chinese Communists, the American leftists have become
> fascists, and that is where the term Sociofascism is derived.
I'm not sure that these people are socialists anymore. Fascists maybe.
Opportunists for sure.
>
> Pat Hines
>
Mike Smith
--
Email: maxomenos@SPAM=DEATH.mindspring.com
Member, National Rifle Association
Member, American Civil Liberties Union
Member, The Witches' Voice (http://www.witchvox.com)
Petition against gun control measures: http://www.d2a.org/petition.htm
Matt Nichols
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:25:34 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols) ,
>sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
>comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
>monitors:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:27:30 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:08:15 GMT, David Hughes
>>><david_ga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <o9kbms8sit0hipbb4...@4ax.com>,
>>>> lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
>>>>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
>>>>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
>>>>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
>>>>> extreme right.
>>>>>
>
>Whereas a dictionary can be useful in determining the meaning of
>unfamiliar words, it is hardly the most useful reference source when
>discussing complex subjects. Most serious students use encyclopedias
>and other sources for this purpose.
>
>For abstractions such as "freedom", "democracy", "socialism",
>"republicanism", "monarchism", etc there are simply no short
>definitions that are very meaningful.
There is that, but there is also the potential of letting the
definitions get in the way of the reality of the situation. To get
back to the "Are Nazis and Communists brethren" question, I can't help
but compare the *similarities* and see that they are greater in
*practical effect* than the differences.
Both systems presume to achieve an "end state" of social perfection
Both systems seek to "eliminate" ideas and people opposed to the goal
Both systems demand individual subservience to "the state"
Both systems are completely intolerant of dissent
Both systems use brutality and overwhelming force to coerce behavior
as a matter of routine, not exception
Both systems cultivate atmospheres of fear and suspicion to protect
organs of government
Both systems seek practical control over material production
Both systems seek practical control over all aspects of citizen
behavior
The list goes on and on. We can quibble about how much control over
industry a bureaucrat has versus a corporate head, or whether using
racial classifications for scapegoating is substantially different
than using political affiliation for the same, but I don't see these
as being terribly important differences.
To the me key, and critical, similarity is the first item on my list
above. This ultimate act of hubris on the part of those promoting
*any* form of "planned society" has a long history of directly
creating destruction and suffering. I believe that such a political
philosophy can not avoid causing this destruction. The whole idea of
"designing utopia" should be relegated to the attic of "stupid ideas"
for all eternity.
-Matt
don
Your association of conservatives with Hitler and sociofacism is the
subject here.
> You might want to read a few books about your boy. "Rise and Fall of
> the Third Reich" by Toland is a good place to start.
Read it before you were born I'd wager.
>
> The German economy crashed hard in 1921. It, and not the Market Crash
> in 1929, was the reall beginning of the world depression. Germany was
> the only country to pull out before 1940, and it did so by din't of a
> massive military buildup (spending itself into prosperity) followed by
> plunder economy of the slave states Hitler raped.
You did read it didn't you, or had someone read it too you. Do you
understand that you are describing the current state of affairs in the
world today. Now many times must our fearless leader send american men
and women out to police the world before you get it?
>
> But lets get back to Patty's curious notion that Hitler was a
> communist. Among the first to be massacred by Hitler were communists
> in Germany. Followed by trade unionists and socialists.
Yes. They weren't his kind of socialist, that's all. Be care you don't
become that to Klintoon's gang.
> Doesn't really sound like old 'Dolf was a big fan of communism or
> socialism, does it?
What part of National Socialist Party do you not understand?
> Why, if he was living in America today, he would
> be a hero to the American right because of his stand against
> communists and socialists.
He is living in America today, in the form of a president that proceeds
with the most egregious bedeviling of the american citizens but
maintains a wonderfully populist propaganda machine. He's so cute.
>
> But I always wonder about this one discontinuity in the American
> right: there's people like you, and then there's people like Pat.
> Pat is ignorant, and probably a bit stupid, and he believes what
> people like Rush Limbaugh tell him.
I doubt that.
>
> So what do YOU think when he refers to Hitler as a socialist?
Sociofascist. Or are you still so in denial that you forget the name of
his party? You are currently, if you American, living under just such a
system in its infancy. We are trying to stop it. Socialism is a sick and
depraved philosophy whose time has come to be squashed.
By the way, I am not "people like you". I am a moderate with an
understanding of propaganda and know it when I see it, and you have
swallowed it whole. You'll choke on it, as I notice you so often do with
your rants that assign and assume attitudes and beliefs that your
opponents here do not have.
Twit boy! don
lar...@ozemail.com.au
1==> Any system of government has characteristics in common, just as
any living thing has characteristics in common with other living
things. There are many similarities between elephant and elk, or
these and eggplant and the bacterium /Estereschia coli./
However, when trying to understand and classify thought or nature we
usually look for points of difference rather than points of
similarity.
We are usually more interested in differentiating elephant from elk or
eggplant rather than looking at the points they have in common.
>
>Both systems presume to achieve an "end state" of social perfection
>Both systems seek to "eliminate" ideas and people opposed to the goal
>Both systems demand individual subservience to "the state"
>Both systems are completely intolerant of dissent
>Both systems use brutality and overwhelming force to coerce behavior
>as a matter of routine, not exception
>Both systems cultivate atmospheres of fear and suspicion to protect
>organs of government
>Both systems seek practical control over material production
>Both systems seek practical control over all aspects of citizen
>behavior
>
>The list goes on and on. We can quibble about how much control over
>industry a bureaucrat has versus a corporate head, or whether using
>racial classifications for scapegoating is substantially different
>than using political affiliation for the same, but I don't see these
>as being terribly important differences.
>
>To the me key, and critical, similarity is the first item on my list
>above. This ultimate act of hubris on the part of those promoting
>*any* form of "planned society" has a long history of directly
>creating destruction and suffering. I believe that such a political
>philosophy can not avoid causing this destruction. The whole idea of
>"designing utopia" should be relegated to the attic of "stupid ideas"
>for all eternity.
2==> Will agree that all political systems have their weaknesses, and
that democracy is the best one we have going. Which makes it all the
more important to avoid both left wing and right wing extremes.
Unfortunately, no matter how well a society is working, there are
always some people who want to try to "improve" it.
3==> If people are going to suggest ways of improving it, I still
think it important that they recognize the mistakes that have been
made in the past. IMO, they will fail to recognize these mistakes if
they cannot discriminate between the dangers of the extreme left and
the dangers of the extreme right.
_larryn
Stuart Dunn
does whatever is neccessary to preserve its own power and protect its
highest ranking bureaucrats.
Stuart Dunn
caused by a lack of an ideology.
> >> >>That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German) Workers
> >> >>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
> >> >>Communists and are leftists.
If you go far enough to the left you get to the right, and vice versa.
That's what's so strange about the idea of a political spectrum. Let's
replace the political spectrum with a 2 dimensional political compass.
The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
> >> >>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
> >> >>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
> >> >>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
> >> >>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
> >> >>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
> >> >
> >> >Poor Pat.
> >> >
> >> >He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
> >>
> >> Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
> >> the Big Lie.
> >
> > Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
> >NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
> >
> > TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
> >Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
> >conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
> >restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
> >preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
> >the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
> >fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
> >direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
> >educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
> >forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
NAZI economic policies were fascist. There's no question about that.
The real question is whether or not Nazism qualifies as an ideology. If
it does, that would mean that Nazi Germany wasn't fascist.
>
> Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
> conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
> gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
> >
> > In order to demonstrate that the National Socialists were conservatives
> >you need to show exactly where they attempted to retain the German
> >monarchy or return to it, and why their socialist programs were
> >different than those implemented by their alleged communist enemies, at
> >least one of which they were allied with for over two years.
> >
> > So where is the proof of your "conservative nazi's, Hmmmm?
> >
> >
> >Pat Hines
Phil
>
> That's profoundly not true. The National Socialist (German)
> Workers Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers
> begun by both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from > the Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
> International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves > by portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal > leftists.
Oh don't be so bloody silly! Just go and look at a dictionary and you
will see how ludicrous your statement is!
Phil
Peace, Bread, Land
Phil
>
> "Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:14 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:36:38 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1==> I don't know why you and some others on this group insist on
> > >>> confusing Communists and Nazis. However, in the interests of truth,
> > >>> will again point out that there is a political spectrum of left and
> > >>> right, with Communists at the extreme left end and Nazis at the
> > >>> extreme right.
> > >>
> > >>Party (NSDAP), AKA NAZI's, were and still are blood brothers with the
> > >>Communists and are leftists. The placement of the NSDAP on the ar
> > >>rights as conservatives is just so much propaganda repetition begun by
> > >>both the NSDAP as a method of differentiating themselves from the
> > >>Communists/Socialists of their day, and further used by the
> > >>International Communists as a method o getting support for themselves by
> > >>portraying all opposition as NAZI's. NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
> > >
> > >
> > >He wears his ignorance like a poorly fitted jock strap:
> >
> > Looks like the only thing Pat learned from the Nazis was how to tell
> > the Big Lie.
>
> Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
> NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
>
> TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
> Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
> conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
> restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
> preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
> the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
> fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
> direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
> educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
> forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
>
> you need to show exactly where they attempted to retain the German
> monarchy or return to it, and why their socialist programs were
> different than those implemented by their alleged communist enemies, at
> least one of which they were allied with for over two years.
>
> So where is the proof of your "conservative nazi's, Hmmmm?
I would just LOVE to you see prove the Nazis were liberal!!
Bwahahahahahahaha
Phil
Peace, Bread, Land
Strabo
Pat Hines wrote:
>
> lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:03:11 -0700, "Zepp, Son of Weasel"
> > <ze...@snowcrest.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
<snipped>
>
> You have been taught a lie by sociofascist propaganda camps, known as
> government schools.
>
> > However, must admit that am getting tired of trying to convince people
> > of something so basic as the difference between Communist and Nazi,
> > left wing or right wing. It is like trying to convince a
> > "flat-earther" that the world is actually an oblate spheroid. Some
> > people believe what they want to believe, irrespective of known facts.
>
> Basic? Hardly. You are spouting nothing more than the conventional
> wisdom, which as anyone can tell you is often the product of vested interests.
>
> The National Socialist Workers Party was merely the German answer to
> the international communists who wanted a Moscow oriented, socialist
> movement. All loyalties within the Communist Party of the 1920's and
> later were required to pay homage to Moscow. Germans, being quite
> xenophobic when it comes to politics and military trappings, were by and
> large opposed to this foreign born and Russian dominated form of socialism.
>
> The NSDAP offered them the choice of socialist philosophy with a German
> accent, and it sold very well during the World War One recovery period.
>
> That's a short history, what is interesting to me is the convergence
> seen here in the US of the old socialists that had profoundly Moscow
> orientation, shifting their methodology and leanings into a profoundly
> Fascist direction. Their complete sell out to the military operations
> in Yugoslavia and Iraq, their willingness to sit by and watch the
> murders of over 80 people in Waco, TExas; keeping in mind that these are
> the same people that still mourn the Kent State deaths, this shift in
> their thinking and actions is stunning.
>
> Like the Chinese Communists, the American leftists have become
> fascists, and that is where the term Sociofascism is derived.
>
> Pat Hines
And let us not ignore the so-called conservatives who today play the
same game using different words to rationalize their inherent fears.
The Nazis took pride in their strong law and order stance and saw
themselves as conservative. It was this combination of Nationalism
and Socialism that united the German people. And it is this
combination that confuses people today and causes them to see a
"left" and a "right".
Zepp, Son of Weasel
>"Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:45:04 -0700, don <d...@nettlepatch.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Zepp, Son of Weasel" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:59:29 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >snip....
>> >
>> >> > Your lack of education and understanding of the overall methodology of
>> >> >NSDAP and their liberal cronies in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's is monumental.
>> >> >
>> >> > TAking only one issue which refutes your lie, if the National
>> >> >Socialists were conservatives which monarchy were they trying to
>> >> >conserve? The Italian one? The Spanish one? Or would that have been a
>> >> >restoration of the Kaiser? Conservatism implies a return or a
>> >> >preservation of some closely held ideal, the National Socialists hated
>> >> >the old monarchies and proposed one socialist program after another. In
>> >> >fact, the German economy was headed for a crash of huge proportions as a
>> >> >direct result of the National Socialist make work and socialist
>> >> >educational programs, their entry into war was a desperate measure to
>> >> >forestall economic collapse, the end game of all socialist schemes.
>> >>
>> >> Oh my, you really are a nut, aren't you? When did I call Nazis
>> >> conservative? BTW, the German economy crashed long before Hitler
>> >> gained power. You really should read a little bit of history.
>> >
>> >Not only to you not read what is written, you are history deficient to
>> >an extreme degree. Hitler rose on the promise to recover..there was none
>> >until he stepped on to the political stage in Germany. And the economy
>> >was about to crash again. Are you so wrapped in your bitter hatred of
>> >free men and women that you cannot understand the simplest of concepts?
>> >don
>>
>> My hatred of Hitler translates to hatred of free men? That's an
>> interesting take.
>
>Your association of conservatives with Hitler and sociofacism is the
>subject here.
Let's see a quote, child.
>
>> You might want to read a few books about your boy. "Rise and Fall of
>> the Third Reich" by Toland is a good place to start.
>
>Read it before you were born I'd wager.
>
I doubt that. I read it when it first came out.
>>
>> The German economy crashed hard in 1921. It, and not the Market Crash
>> in 1929, was the reall beginning of the world depression. Germany was
>> the only country to pull out before 1940, and it did so by din't of a
>> massive military buildup (spending itself into prosperity) followed by
>> plunder economy of the slave states Hitler raped.
>
>You did read it didn't you, or had someone read it too you. Do you
>understand that you are describing the current state of affairs in the
>world today. Now many times must our fearless leader send american men
>and women out to police the world before you get it?
>
Oh oh. Looks like you're drifting off into John Birch paranoid
fantasy land here, Donny.
I read my paragraph, and then I read yours. I don't see much in
common between the two.
Um, where did you learn to read? Just curious.
>>
>> But lets get back to Patty's curious notion that Hitler was a
>> communist. Among the first to be massacred by Hitler were communists
>> in Germany. Followed by trade unionists and socialists.
>
>Yes. They weren't his kind of socialist, that's all. Be care you don't
>become that to Klintoon's gang.
So ALL socialists and communists "weren't his kind". This must be one
of those Usenet kook things, like Snort's liberalism. So it's your
position that Hitler was a socialist because he hated and despised all
other socialists? Is that correct?
>
>> Doesn't really sound like old 'Dolf was a big fan of communism or
>> socialism, does it?
>
>What part of National Socialist Party do you not understand?
Does the name mean that Hitler was secretly John Beluchi? A PARTY
animal?
>
>> Why, if he was living in America today, he would
>> be a hero to the American right because of his stand against
>> communists and socialists.
>
>He is living in America today, in the form of a president that proceeds
>with the most egregious bedeviling of the american citizens but
>maintains a wonderfully populist propaganda machine. He's so cute.
>
Ah. You are a nut, aren't you?
So tell us, tell us: what do Hitler and Clinton have in common?
>>
>> But I always wonder about this one discontinuity in the American
>> right: there's people like you, and then there's people like Pat.
>> Pat is ignorant, and probably a bit stupid, and he believes what
>> people like Rush Limbaugh tell him.
>
>I doubt that.
>
>>
>> So what do YOU think when he refers to Hitler as a socialist?
>
>Sociofascist. Or are you still so in denial that you forget the name of
>his party? You are currently, if you American, living under just such a
>system in its infancy. We are trying to stop it. Socialism is a sick and
>depraved philosophy whose time has come to be squashed.
>
>By the way, I am not "people like you". I am a moderate with an
>understanding of propaganda and know it when I see it, and you have
>swallowed it whole. You'll choke on it, as I notice you so often do with
>your rants that assign and assume attitudes and beliefs that your
>opponents here do not have.
>
>Twit boy! don
**********************************************************
Ilja Schmelzer
> NAZI's were and are liberal leftists.
>> "The economically threatened middle classes in particular, the
>> traditional supporters of the liberal parties, turned their backs
>> on the Republic and moved to the the right. The right wing
>> opposition, which was grouped around the NSDAP,"
The current mainstream describes the NSDAP as right, the Nazis
themself not (note: S for socialist, A for Arbeiter = working people).
Note also that the German meaning of liberal used in the citation is
different from the American (where it is close to social-democratic).
In Germany, "liberal" is much closer to moderate libertarian, the
center.
To increase confusion, Austrian "liberals" are right-wing, Russian
"liberal-democratic" party (Shirinovsky) is extremistic right wing,
and left and right are reversed in Russia. ;-)
>> Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
>> were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
>> Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in
>> WW2.
There was a time they have cooperated - the beginning of WWII,
agression against Poland.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Joe Steve Swick III
definition. The only way they can be considered "RIGHT" wing is if you place
them RIGHT of Communism way out there on the LEFT. ;^)
JSW
"Stuart Dunn" <dun...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:396B62...@erols.com...
Tom S.
"Joe Steve Swick III" <jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8kjl3b$rcm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> Actually, Fascism is national SOCIALISM, and therefore LEFT wing by
> definition. The only way they can be considered "RIGHT" wing is if you
place
> them RIGHT of Communism way out there on the LEFT. ;^)
>
Fascism is virtually total state control of privately owned production
resources. Marxism/Communism/Leninism is virtually state ownership and
control of production resources.
Both overlap to a very great extent in that the individual is subservient to
the state in all aspects of his life.
Don't even think that rightists are capitalists. In essence, "laissez-faire
capitalism" is redundant. What the rightists want is a mixed economy more
akin to fascism in most aspects or protection from competition much like the
fascists in Italy. Capitalism, on the contrary, means no state control
(other than torts, fraud, etc.) and freedom of association, but no
protection, no bailouts. Succeed or fail on your own.
Tom S.
--
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Edmund M. Jakopchek
silverback wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >silverback wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:39:30 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >sliverback wrote:
> >> >> SNIP<<
> >>
> >> >> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
> >> >
> >> > No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
> >>
> >> whoops that puts them on the opposite side of the political spectrum
> >> than communism you damn fool.
> >
> >You will have trouble with your propaganda when you look at Early American Patriots - believed in
> >freedom and left-wing corporate/govermental mergers like ADM which believe in control and special
>
> now a damn fool wants to rewrite history and tell us he knows
> sumpthing about the founding fathers. too bad that yer as ignorant as
> they come. First off the founding fathers had a deep seat distrust and
> hate of corporations. Or maybe you just forgot that about half of the
> colonies were founded as corporations.
> So tell us again how much they trusted the mass Bay Company?
> come on open up and stick the other foot in that big babzo.
Typical straw man argument, or arguments, personal attack, spout more propaganda...
The constitution was written to restrict government or corporations? I don't need to rewrite history or
sprout straw man arguments. Lets focus here, if you say the constitution was written to restrict
corporations, OK educate me where?
You can't, I win, this was too easy!
Ed J.
Lou Boyd
> If you go far enough to the left you get to the right, and vice versa.
> That's what's so strange about the idea of a political spectrum. Let's
> replace the political spectrum with a 2 dimensional political compass.
The problem with using a compass as an analogy is that on a political
compass there is no direction that is desirable to go.
--
Lou Boyd
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>Stuart Dunn wrote:
>
>> If you go far enough to the left you get to the right, and vice versa.
>> That's what's so strange about the idea of a political spectrum. Let's
>> replace the political spectrum with a 2 dimensional political compass.
>
>The problem with using a compass as an analogy is that on a political
>compass there is no direction that is desirable to go.
Love that one, Lou! ROTFL!
—larryn
Edmund M. Jakopchek
silverback wrote:
> >> > I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
> >> >fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
> >>
> >> wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
> >> fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
> >> outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
> >
> >Wrong, liberals, socialist, love fascism, more control for big.gov, look at the many left wing
>
> yer lying and you don't even know the difference between liberalism
> and socialism.
More straw man arguments, liberalism before the 60's and liberalism today are two different things, many
socialists and communist are hiding behind liberals. I know liberalism, to bad they use the power of the
government to get what they want, THAT makes them socialist, communist. There is no social contract in
existence in America to do the majority of shit that is happening now.
Thanks for insulting me again, it shows that your arguments can hack it! (I win again)
Ed J.
Edmund M. Jakopchek
silverback wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
> >> >> >> were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
> >> >> >> Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in WW2.
> >
> >Whoopee and you fail to note USSR were allies with Hitler during the beginning of the war, is this
> >association thing substitute for true thinking. If I recall correctly, after power grabs, the ruling
> >party usually kills some of the revolutionaries that participated in the revolution as insurance they
> >will not do it again.
>
> it was the Russians that really defeated Hitler, they had a little
> help from the Brits in North Africa.
Thank You again, your selective memory and lack of refutation really shows your mettle, I destroy your
argument and this is all you come back with, jeez, (I win again!)
Ed J.
Tom S.
"Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:396D6AD0...@pacbell.net...
>
> More straw man arguments, liberalism before the 60's and liberalism today
are two different things,
around the late 1800's.
> many
> socialists and communist are hiding behind liberals. I know liberalism,
to bad they use the power of the
> government to get what they want, THAT makes them socialist, communist.
There is no social contract in
> existence in America to do the majority of shit that is happening now.
>
There is one hell of an overlap between fascists and communists. For the
most part, America is becomming generally fascist.
Tom S.
--
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to
permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these
organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed
agents also belong to the human race?" -- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1848
Edmund M. Jakopchek
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
> appear on our monitors:
>
> >
> >You will have trouble with your propaganda when you look at Early American Patriots - believed in
> >freedom and left-wing corporate/govermental mergers like ADM which believe in control and special
> >privileges. It is extremely easy to equate NAZI's with Socialist/communist especially when taken in the
> >context of freedom vs. control.
>
> 1==> When people try to "equate" opposing terms they often have a
> propaganda motive of some sort. Just what is your agenda?
Presupposition, you are being devious, or are you just trying simple misdirection when suggesting I have a
agenda. Why don't you answer the implied question and save me the time.
When viewed in the context of freedom vs. control, how different are the NAZI's from the Communists? From
dictators, or monarchs. This is quite easily done, please elaborate.
Ed J.
Edmund M. Jakopchek
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
> appear on our monitors:
>
> >>Nazis - control, democrats - control, fascists - control, capitalism - freedom, yeah some abuses, but
> >for the most part freedom. Now for the special variant of managed capitalism which is the US, we are no
> >longer the free-ist country in the world, now we are number 7 or 8 on the list...
>
> 2==> Unusual view for an American. Are you going to list the six or
> seven that you consider more free? Am sure that there many of us on
> misc.survivalism who would like to know.
Why is the analysis of freedom unusual for a American, this analysis has been done by others, they had a
rational basis and have found the general standard of living is also linked to freedom. If I find the work
I'll post it, but the tone of you tome suggests to me that that would be a waste of my time.
Ed J.
Edmund M. Jakopchek
silverback wrote:
> >> >> >> 8==> I must admit that I am getting increasingly curious why some of
> >> >> >> the people on misc.survivalism refuse to see the obvious differences
> >> >> >> between Communism and Nazism. I don't know if they don't care about
> >> >> >> the truth and don't think that truth matters, or if they refuse to see
> >> >> >> the difference, or do see it and simply won't admit it.
> >
> >Admit it your opposed to freedom, with it you have to paint the 'right' as NAZI's, you associate
> >yourself with the practices of socialist/communist which have killed more people in the last century
>
> damn fool doesn't even know the difference between socialism and
> communism. Typical right winger, dumb and liar they are.
Wonderful, another personal attack, which means I win again, but who is keeping score!
I know the results of liberals, socialists, communists, and dictators, it means less freedom, and often
death. What don't you know the result of big.gov control in the 20th century?
Ed J.
Edmund M. Jakopchek
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
> appear on our monitors:
>
> >
> >> SNIP
> >>
> >> no FDR was only a liberal hardly a socialist and vehenmently opposed
> >> to fascism. After all its you right wingers that accused him of
> >> plotting to get into the war.
> >
> >Lets see, did the big.gov have more control of individuals lives after FDR? Yes, No?
>
> 8==> Aren't you being a bit simplistic here? The answer, of course,
> is yes. ....But what were the alternatives?
Ahh, alternatives, it has been suggested that FDR made the the depression worse due to his meddling, why do
all of the alternatives ALWAYS have big.gov as a solution, what ever happened to free associations? To
suggest that something would not exist or could not of happened if big.gov is not there, strikes me as
fictional thinking.
I want our fed.gov to work well within the bounds of the constitution, no more, no less, if there are pieces
left out that you think are important, then start the amendment process!
Ed J.
Edmund M. Jakopchek
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
> appear on our monitors:
>
> >
> >> > I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
> >> >fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
> >>
> >> wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
> >> fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
> >> outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
> >
> >Wrong, liberals, socialist, love fascism, more control for big.gov, look at the many left wing
> >corporate/government mergers and you can get my drift, if your theories were true ADM would be financing
> >the right, instead the finance demoncrats.
>
> 13==> Sorry, Jakopchek, you are in error here if you equate socialism
> and fascism. Completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. You
> can, if you wish, accuse one of your local political movements of
> supporting one or the other, but, logically speaking, not both.
> >
Please come up with something to refute me, you use a antiquated 'political spectrum' to disprove me, yet I
am waiting for your fact and counterpoint.
I can and do accuse both parties within the last 30 years to lean in the direction of big.gov, Nixon, price
controls, wage freezes, and on, Clinton, trying to federalize 1/7th of the economy. I know when I look in
the context of freedom vs. control where both of these idiots stand, and it's not with the writers of our
constitution.
The political spectrum is old and outdated, time to let it pass.
Ed J.
Edmund M. Jakopchek
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
> appear on our monitors:
>
> 14==> You, Jakopchek, have the unmitigated gall to accuse others of
> ignorance of history when you can't even be bothered to check easily
> available encyclopedic references? The USSR were never "allies" with
> the Nazis. In 1938, the Japanese had conquered Manchuria, and the
> Soviets were engaged in a border war with Japan. To again quote
> Encarta: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," Microsoft(R)
> Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All
> rights reserved.
You argue semantics to make your point, so I got it wrong by a little, they were not enemies as silverfish
asserted in the beginning, you and I made my point, thank you.
PS I like unmitigated gall, nice ring to it, do you feel you need it to win your point?
Edmund M. Jakopchek
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
> appear on our monitors:
> > If I recall correctly, after power grabs, the ruling
> >party usually kills some of the revolutionaries that participated in the revolution as insurance they
> >will not do it again.
> >
> >> >> >> 8==> I must admit that I am getting increasingly curious why some of
> >> >> >> the people on misc.survivalism refuse to see the obvious differences
> >> >> >> between Communism and Nazism. I don't know if they don't care about
> >> >> >> the truth and don't think that truth matters, or if they refuse to see
> >> >> >> the difference, or do see it and simply won't admit it.
> >
> >Admit it your opposed to freedom, with it you have to paint the 'right' as NAZI's, you associate
> >yourself with the practices of socialist/communist which have killed more people in the last century
> >than the Church.
>
> 16==> That, Jakopchek, is an entirely unwarranted and untrue
> accusation. It might offend me more if you were intellegent enough to
> spell "you're" correctly. ....I don't "have to paint the 'right' as
> Nazis" nor have I done so. I have said that the Nazis are right wing,
> which is true. Nor do I associate myself with socialism or communism,
> although I don't suppose that anyone would have a chance of teaching
> you that these aren't even the same thing.
I apologize, I did not know someone would take my response to silverfish and confuse it with something else,
not only do I have to do my thinking, I have to do yours for you!
> Can you honestly tell me your policies lead to more freedom or more taxes to pay for all the entitlements
you propose earlier, the freedom of a slave I suppose. 1984 doublespeak! I knew you were capable of it!
>
> 17==> You really are a raving ratbag, aren't you? I haven't said
> anything at all about my politics. Actually, I have very little
> interest in politics of any description. I certainly have no
> "policies".
>
> >> >> >> Perhaps they don't want to see that history shows that the extreme
> >> >> >> right can be just as much of a danger as the extreme left.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If the German people had seen the danger of the extreme right they
> >> >> >> wouldn't have let their fear of communism lead them into voting the
> >> >> >> Nazis into power. If the centre and middle class parties in the
> >> >> >> German parliament had seen the danger of the right wing NSDAP gaining
> >> >> >> total power they wouldn't have voted for the Enabling Act of 23 March
> >> >> >> that handed total power to Hitler.
> >
> >Now we know the form of the big lie.
>
> 18==> Yep, am sure we are all getting to know it, and it is coming
> straight from "Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@usa.net>
> >
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 9==> All this is taught as high school history here, and admit am
> >> >> >> surprised that it isn't taught there.
> >
> >Who were the big AMERICAN financial supporters of Hitler's NAZI's, are they still enjoying life here,
> >why do you not take your arguments out against them? Your failure to do so paints a very interesting
> >picture.
>
> 19==> How should I know? See that little ".au" at the end of my
> address. What do you think that might stand for? ...No, on second
> thought, I won't make you try to find it. It stands for "Australia".
> Don't you pay any attention to URLs?
No why should I, that would make me a URL racist.
>
>
> Although I could probably find the info on the Americans who were
> supporting Hitler prior to WW2, I can't see that anything would be
> gained in publishing the names at this late date. Everyone has the
> right to be wrong and make asses of themselves in their public
> pronouncements...for which you should be profoundly grateful.
Thank you for the personal attack, shows me your arguments don't stand for themselves.>
> >Ed J. I believe in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, these beliefs are contestant with the
> >people that wrote the constitution, that is what I judge others by, and most of them are lacking!
> > More freedom or less, simple as that!
>
> 20==> And why should everyone in the world be judged by your
> perception of the American Constitution? If your perception of your
> Constitution is as imperfect as your perception of history, I doubt
> that you have much that is worthwhile to say about it anyway.
The American constitution put dictators, monarchist in their place, set the standard for governing that has a
proven track record of freedom and liberty, allowed for a creative people to increase their standard of
living like which no one has seen before. I like that your warn against a certain group that may cause a
loss of freedom, your scope is limited, I don't trust many smucks in this world with power, be it left or
right.
Ed J.
silverback
<em...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
>> <em...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >silverback wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:39:30 GMT, Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >sliverback wrote:
>> >> >> SNIP<<
>> >>
>> >> >> In fact you cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
>> >> >
>> >> > No one argues this fact, but you must surely notice that there are NO
>> >>
>> >> whoops that puts them on the opposite side of the political spectrum
>> >> than communism you damn fool.
>> >
>> >You will have trouble with your propaganda when you look at Early American Patriots - believed in
>> >freedom and left-wing corporate/govermental mergers like ADM which believe in control and special
>>
>> now a damn fool wants to rewrite history and tell us he knows
>> sumpthing about the founding fathers. too bad that yer as ignorant as
>> they come. First off the founding fathers had a deep seat distrust and
>> hate of corporations. Or maybe you just forgot that about half of the
>> colonies were founded as corporations.
>> So tell us again how much they trusted the mass Bay Company?
>> come on open up and stick the other foot in that big babzo.
>
>Typical straw man argument, or arguments, personal attack, spout more propaganda...
translation he can't refute a single point.
>
>The constitution was written to restrict government or corporations? I don't need to rewrite history or
>sprout straw man arguments. Lets focus here, if you say the constitution was written to restrict
>corporations, OK educate me where?
>
>You can't, I win, this was too easy!
>
>Ed J.
>
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
silverback
<em...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>
>> >> > I don't care what they call it, government controlled capitalism is
>> >> >fascism, and that is embraced foursquare by todays liberal/socialists.
>> >>
>> >> wrong liberals and socialist oppose fascism. Another of the traits of
>> >> fascism is rabid opposition of liberalism and socialism. thanks for
>> >> outing yerself as a damn Nazi.
>> >
>> >Wrong, liberals, socialist, love fascism, more control for big.gov, look at the many left wing
>>
>> yer lying and you don't even know the difference between liberalism
>> and socialism.
>
>More straw man arguments, liberalism before the 60's and liberalism today are two different things, many
>socialists and communist are hiding behind liberals. I know liberalism, to bad they use the power of the
more john birch bullshit
>government to get what they want, THAT makes them socialist, communist. There is no social contract in
>existence in America to do the majority of shit that is happening now.
>
>Thanks for insulting me again, it shows that your arguments can hack it! (I win again)
>
silverback
wrote:
>
>"Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:396D6AD0...@pacbell.net...
>>
>> More straw man arguments, liberalism before the 60's and liberalism today
>are two different things,
>Ahhh, try the 1890's. Classic Liberalism, ala Jefferson and Co. changed
>around the late 1800's.
>
>> many
>> socialists and communist are hiding behind liberals. I know liberalism,
>to bad they use the power of the
>> government to get what they want, THAT makes them socialist, communist.
>There is no social contract in
>> existence in America to do the majority of shit that is happening now.
>>
>There is one hell of an overlap between fascists and communists. For the
>most part, America is becomming generally fascist.
there is no overlap between fascism and communism. They are polar
opposites on the left/right spectrum. But you are right the US is
becoming fascist and its the republiCONs leading that.
>
>Tom S.
>
>--
>"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to
>permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these
>organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed
>agents also belong to the human race?" -- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1848
>
>
>
***********************************************
silverback
<jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Actually, Fascism is national SOCIALISM, and therefore LEFT wing by
>definition. The only way they can be considered "RIGHT" wing is if you place
>them RIGHT of Communism way out there on the LEFT. ;^)
you stupid moron. You don't even know what fascism is. Fascism is a
right wing ideology based on corporate rule. it is the end product of
a capitalistic society gone mad. It has nothing to do with socialism
any more than the former east Germany had to do with democracy.
>
>JSW
>
>"Stuart Dunn" <dun...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:396B62...@erols.com...
>> Fascism isn't an ideology. Fascism is when a totalitarian government
>> does whatever is neccessary to preserve its own power and protect its
>> highest ranking bureaucrats.
>>
>>
>
>
***********************************************
silverback
wrote:
>
>"Joe Steve Swick III" <jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:8kjl3b$rcm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Actually, Fascism is national SOCIALISM, and therefore LEFT wing by
>> definition. The only way they can be considered "RIGHT" wing is if you
>place
>> them RIGHT of Communism way out there on the LEFT. ;^)
>>
>Wrong:
>
>Fascism is virtually total state control of privately owned production
>resources. Marxism/Communism/Leninism is virtually state ownership and
>control of production resources.
wrong again moron, it is corporate rule
>
>Both overlap to a very great extent in that the individual is subservient to
>the state in all aspects of his life.
more right wing bullshit. Hitler privatized many businesses just like
raygun did.
>
>Don't even think that rightists are capitalists. In essence, "laissez-faire
>capitalism" is redundant. What the rightists want is a mixed economy more
>akin to fascism in most aspects or protection from competition much like the
>fascists in Italy. Capitalism, on the contrary, means no state control
>(other than torts, fraud, etc.) and freedom of association, but no
>protection, no bailouts. Succeed or fail on your own.
>
>Tom S.
>
>--
>"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
>oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
>will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
>
>
>
>
>
>
***********************************************
Martin McPhillips
> there is no overlap between fascism and communism. They are polar
> opposites on the left/right spectrum. But you are right the US is
> becoming fascist and its the republiCONs leading that.
That's grotesque nonsense, of course. All of it.
The excerpt below is from a review in The New Republic by Michael
Ignatieff of The Passing of an Illusion by Francois Furet.
It responds to the supposed differences between Communism and
Fascism.
Use the url if you want to read the entire review.
The Era of Error
by Michael Ignatieff
http://www.tnr.com/magazines/tnr/archive/0899/080999/ignatieff080999.html
...
The central illusion was the idea that communism was a science of
history, capable of revealing Time's hidden logic; and that the
Communist Party was the agent of this science, helping Time to unfold as
it must, in the inevitable triumph of the proletariat. This illusion,
Furet writes, did not "accompany Communist history: it made it." Without
this illusion, the full nightmare of Communist power would never have
been achieved. Only the very faithful, the very credulous, could
continue in the service of a God that failed from the very beginning.
The moral message of Furet's essay is clear enough. If communism's root
illusion was the idea of historical necessity--which justified every
crime and excused every mistake--it follows that "a true understanding
of our time is possible only when we free ourselves from the illusion of
necessity." And, it might be added, from the necessity of illusion.
Why did generations of intelligent people succumb? Why did so many
intellectuals voluntarily put on the chains? Communism, Furet argues,
should be properly understood as a chapter in the history of European
bourgeois self-hatred. It appealed primarily to discontented bourgeois
because it diagnosed central contradictions in bourgeois life. The
bourgeoisie was committed to the universalistic ideals of 1789, but it
knew that it was living a lie.
Bourgeois society is thus animated by a corpuscular agitation,
constantly driving it forward. Yet this agitation tends to deepen the
contradictions in that society's very existence; for not only does the
bourgeoisie consist of associates who care little for the public
interest, but the idea of universality and the equality of man, which it
claims as its foundation and its primary innovation, is constantly
negated by the inequality of property and wealth produced by the
competition of its members. Its development belies its principle, and
its dynamic undercuts its legitimacy....They detested revolution, while
owing it everything.
And so they began also to detest themselves. "Far from incarnating what
is universal, the bourgeoisie had but one obsession, their own
interests, and but one symbol, money."
Communism's accomplishment, and the source of its appeal, was to
formalize the terms of the bourgeoisie's guilty conscience, its remorse
at its failure to practice what it preached. And communism expressed
also the aesthetic self-loathing of the bourgeoisie, its secret belief
that money twisted the soul and that it knew the price of everything and
the value of nothing. In this sense, the rise of communism was
inseparable from the rise of Romanticism, the artistic rejection of all
that was narrow, miserly, and vulgar about bourgeois capitalism.
Rage, self-loathing, and aesthetic disdain combined to generate an
eschatological longing for an escape from what Marx called the "narrow
horizon of bourgeois right." Though it purported to be a science of
history, communism actually promised its believers an escape from
history, a leap beyond the flat horizon of bourgeois life into a realm
of justice and equality, abundance and fraternity. This vision of
communist paradise may have been wholly unrealistic, but it certainly
mobilized the emotions of true believers and sustained their abiding
hatred of the world as it was.
Fascism shared the same furious hatred of the bourgeoisie, the same
loathing for bourgeois civility and order and profit and prudence, the
same intoxication with political violence and ideological extremism.
Furet treats communism as fascism's brother-enemy. He observes that
Hitler never stinted in his respect for Bolshevik fanaticism. As he told
Herman Rauschning in 1934, "there is more that binds us to Bolshevism
than separates us from it.... The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and
the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the
communist always will." But whereas communism saw itself as the
self-conscious bearer of the universal values of 1789, fascism
explicitly rejected the universal in favor of the nation and the
individual. If communism was, in Furet's phrase, "the pathology of the
universal," fascism was "the pathology of the national." Both ideologies
hated each other, in Furet's words, "not only for what separated them
but also for what made them alike."
They also shared a similar eschatology. Both conceived the public sphere
as a place deserted by religion, "as a pure creation of human will."
Fascism filled the public square with a ranting demagogue, communism
with the tramping feet of the workers. Both wanted to turn the public
sphere from the realm of politics into the realm of spectacle, from the
deliberative sphere of citizens into the circus of true belonging. Both
fascism and communism loathed mere democracy as much as they loathed
mere accumulation. Both hated moral and political individualism: the
idea that a nation's destiny should depend on the sovereign judgment of
separate individuals. For the fascists, this meant that national destiny
would be decided by Jews, by individuals lacking a truly organic, racial
connection to the national interest. For the communists, political
individualism and popular sovereignty meant democracy rigged in favor of
the bourgeoisie.
Furet lays bare an unintended consequence of the European reckoning with
the Holocaust: that it gave renewed intellectual and moral validity to
communism. By turning Nazism into the unique moral abomination of the
century, liberal thought inadvertently allowed the Soviet experiment a
further lease on life. A good deal of communism's moral credit after
1945 was owed to the Soviet Union's decisive role in defeating Hitler.
In the process, of course, a concentration camp universe stretching from
the Urals to the Pacific was hidden from view. By treating fascism and
communism as twin monsters, however, Furet breaks decisively with the
tradition that continued to defend the Soviet Union, even after its
crimes were known, simply because it had helped to defeat fascism. And
by insisting that communism shared with Nazism the same loathing for
liberal democracy and liberal decency, he helps also to dismantle the
idea of Nazism as either a specially German--or a specially insane--form
of the politics of hatred.
Furet also helps one to understand why it remains difficult for
bourgeois liberals to concede that communism was just as terrible a
tyranny as Nazism. For the pathology of the universal always seems more
pardonable to children of 1789 than the pathology of the national.
Communist brethren always claimed that they defended the same universals
as liberals did; and because liberals were uneasily aware of the failure
of liberal societies to live up to these ideals, many were
indulgent--criminally so--toward t he Soviet failure to do so. Furet's
analysis leads to the disturbing thought that universalistic
rhetoric--"mankind," "the human race," "workers of the world," and so
on--is probably responsible for more corpses than the particularistic
rhetoric associate d with "nation" and "race."
Neither communism nor fascism would ever have become ruling creeds in
the twentieth century, moreover, if bourgeois society had not thrown
itself into the abyss in 1914. It was World War I that transformed them
both into beliefs that spoke to the resentme nt, the exhaustion, and the
disgust of the men who returned from the trenches. Twentieth-century
democracy was a creation of war, and war gave democracy a totalitarian
inflection. The fascist rhetoric of the enemy race and the communist
rhetoric of the en emy class both derive from the moral imagination of
the trenches. As Furet writes, "the masses erupted onto the European
public scene, constituting a political civilization in which the fragile
mechanisms of constitutional regimes were short-circuited by primitive
forms of popular participation and of parliamentary representation by
the identification with a single leader." Without the trenches, neither
Hitler nor Lenin.
By locating the roots of the totalitarian temptation in the catastrophe
of war, Furet goes a long way toward explaining why the twentieth
century witnessed two such determined assaults on liberal democratic
principles. For those principles seemed disgrace d in 1918. In Furet's
words, "Lenin's Soviet Union took the reins of human progress and
assumed the spot that revolutionary France had been keeping warm for it
since the late eighteenth century." The October Revolution exerted a
universal spell over Weste rn European intellectuals--the Eastern
intellectuals learned the harsh realities more quickly--because it
seemed to rescue 1789 from the ashes of 1918. It seemed to restore faith
in the power of human agency at a moment when the carnage on the Western
Fro nt seemed to prove that human beings were the helpless playthings of
historical forces. Thanks to the association of 1917 with 1789, October
could be seen as something more exalted than a coup d'etat in a
war-ravaged country far away in the East. For the whole European left,
it symbolized the resumption of History's forward march. And so it was
seen, through thick and mostly through thin, until 1989.
To be sure, Soviet reality soon made this mythology look absurd. And the
contradictions were apparent to a few early observers, such as Bertrand
Russell in 1920. He came away from a visit to Moscow with scorn for the
Soviet regime's weak-minded defenders in the West, who supposed that the
dictatorship of the proletariat was merely a new form of representative
government. If the nature of Soviet tyranny was apparent to Russell, why
was it not apparent to the European intellectuals--to Wells, to Shaw, to
th e Webbs--who made pilgrimages to Moscow in the 1920s and 1930s? These
were founder figures of the British social democratic tradition, and
their credulity about the Soviet Union casts the whole social democratic
tradition's understanding of democracy into doubt. If these founding
fathers and mothers could have been so wrong about Russia, could they
have been right about anything else? The whole story is a dolorous case
study in the psychology of self-deception. As Saul Bellow once remarked,
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need
for illusion is deep."
...
Zepp, a weasel in the corn
<em...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>silverback wrote:
>
>>
>> >> >> >> Further proof, if any is still needed, that communists and marxists
>> >> >> >> were considered enemies of Nazism, not allies. ...And _surely_
>> >> >> >> Americans realise that the USSR was an ally against the Nazis in WW2.
>> >
>> >Whoopee and you fail to note USSR were allies with Hitler during the beginning of the war, is this
>> >association thing substitute for true thinking. If I recall correctly, after power grabs, the ruling
>> >party usually kills some of the revolutionaries that participated in the revolution as insurance they
>> >will not do it again.
>>
>> it was the Russians that really defeated Hitler, they had a little
>> help from the Brits in North Africa.
>
>Thank You again, your selective memory and lack of refutation really shows your mettle, I destroy your
>argument and this is all you come back with, jeez, (I win again!)]
According to their own records, 88% of German personnel losses came
against the Russians.
>
>Ed J.
**********************************************************
"There seems to be growing awareness that the death penalty
is just another government program that doesn't work very well."
- Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights.
For political commentary by Zepp, visit
http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
For links to all things Liberal/Leftist, go to
http:/www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
silverback
<em...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 13:44:30 -0700, "Edmund M. Jakopchek"
>> <em...@usa.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism,
>> and inviting comments from others, caused the following words to
>> appear on our monitors:
>>
>> >
>> >> SNIP
>> >>
>> >> no FDR was only a liberal hardly a socialist and vehenmently opposed
>> >> to fascism. After all its you right wingers that accused him of
>> >> plotting to get into the war.
>> >
>> >Lets see, did the big.gov have more control of individuals lives after FDR? Yes, No?
>>
>> 8==> Aren't you being a bit simplistic here? The answer, of course,
>> is yes. ....But what were the alternatives?
>
>Ahh, alternatives, it has been suggested that FDR made the the depression worse due to his meddling, why do
no thats only right wing bullshit
>all of the alternatives ALWAYS have big.gov as a solution, what ever happened to free associations? To
>suggest that something would not exist or could not of happened if big.gov is not there, strikes me as
>fictional thinking.
>
>I want our fed.gov to work well within the bounds of the constitution, no more, no less, if there are pieces
>left out that you think are important, then start the amendment process!
>
>Ed J.
>
***********************************************
Pat Hines
>
> "Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:396D6AD0...@pacbell.net...
> >
> > More straw man arguments, liberalism before the 60's and liberalism today
> are two different things,
> Ahhh, try the 1890's. Classic Liberalism, ala Jefferson and Co. changed
> around the late 1800's.
>
> > many
> > socialists and communist are hiding behind liberals. I know liberalism,
> to bad they use the power of the
> > government to get what they want, THAT makes them socialist, communist.
> There is no social contract in
> > existence in America to do the majority of shit that is happening now.
> >
> There is one hell of an overlap between fascists and communists. For the
> most part, America is becomming generally fascist.
>
Abraham Lincoln, the most murderous US President ever having killed
nearly half a million citizens of the Union and another half a million
citizens of the Confederacy, was the Illinois Central Railroads
corporate lawyer, essentially began the corporate takeover of the US
fedgov which resulted in the powerful sociofascist state we have today.
He began the IRS, the involuntary servitude known as the draft,
suspended "habeas corpus" throughout the Union, closed newspapers
opposing his blatantly illegal war against the Confederacy, and
arrested state officers in the Union states that opposed him. He was,
for all practical purposes, a dictator for four years and was rightfully
put into the ground by a man that should be seen as a hero, John W. Booth.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> >
> >"Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:396D6AD0...@pacbell.net...
> >>
> >> More straw man arguments, liberalism before the 60's and liberalism today
> >are two different things,
> >Ahhh, try the 1890's. Classic Liberalism, ala Jefferson and Co. changed
> >around the late 1800's.
> >
> >> many
> >> socialists and communist are hiding behind liberals. I know liberalism,
> >to bad they use the power of the
> >> government to get what they want, THAT makes them socialist, communist.
> >There is no social contract in
> >> existence in America to do the majority of shit that is happening now.
> >>
> >There is one hell of an overlap between fascists and communists. For the
> >most part, America is becomming generally fascist.
>
> opposites on the left/right spectrum. But you are right the US is
> becoming fascist and its the republiCONs leading that.
They are siblings from the same litter of totalitarian government
philosophies, the socialists have killed more in total than have the fascists.
The NAZI's managed to kill only 12 million in their camps, while the
socialists have killed nearly 100 million in their camps.
They are blood brothers of the worst sort, with the major difference
being that the fascist allow corporations to exist, while pure
socialists require the government to be the sole corporation.
To the average citizen under each of the above governments there is NO DIFFERENCE.
The governments most nearly purely socialist today are economic basket
cases while those like China have become fascist, and much more successful.
Keeping in mind that I don't advocate either.
Yours in libertarianism,
Pat Hines
> >
> >Tom S.
Pat Hines
Matt Nichols
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:38:25 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols) ,
>sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
>comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
>monitors:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:08:38 +1000, lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:25:34 GMT, ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols) ,
>>>sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
>>>comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
>>>monitors:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:27:30 GMT, Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 03:08:15 GMT, David Hughes
>>>>><david_ga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <o9kbms8sit0hipbb4...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>There is that, but there is also the potential of letting the
>>definitions get in the way of the reality of the situation. To get
>>back to the "Are Nazis and Communists brethren" question, I can't help
>>but compare the *similarities* and see that they are greater in
>>*practical effect* than the differences.
>
>1==> Any system of government has characteristics in common, just as
>any living thing has characteristics in common with other living
>things. There are many similarities between elephant and elk, or
>these and eggplant and the bacterium /Estereschia coli./
>
>However, when trying to understand and classify thought or nature we
>usually look for points of difference rather than points of
>similarity.
>
>We are usually more interested in differentiating elephant from elk or
>eggplant rather than looking at the points they have in common.
However, governmental systems are not natural creatures, they are
artificial technology. More importantly, the only real significance of
government is *how* it affects the people being governed. The "actions
speak louder than words" here as much as anywhere else, and no matter
how the written definitions may differ, the *effects* are the same.
>3==> If people are going to suggest ways of improving it, I still
>think it important that they recognize the mistakes that have been
>made in the past. IMO, they will fail to recognize these mistakes if
>they cannot discriminate between the dangers of the extreme left and
>the dangers of the extreme right.
The past disasters created by planned societies are not indications of
improper application, they are inimical to the entire idea itself, and
inevitable no matter *how* the idea is applied.
-Matt
Bill
> "Tom S." wrote:
> >
> > "Edmund M. Jakopchek" <em...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:396D6AD0...@pacbell.net...
> > >... sniped the BS... America is becomming generally fascist.
I'd have to agree, but it's not just the USofA, it's every government.
Governments will always try to gain as much power as we let them, why do you
think our 'founding fathers' wanted us civilians to own our own firearms? for
hunting, hardly, they are for controlling governments.
Pat:
You must be a Southern... Get over it the South Lost. Humm let's see the
Union started the Draft / Involuntary servitude --- just what do you call Slavery
you white redneck southern boys where living off of ? I think most would call
that Involuntary Servitude too. Get a life, quit living in the past, the South
lost the North won. It makes no difference 'who' started it ('SocioFascist
State'), what matters is that we figure a way to end it.
Booth was just another sorry ass racist who was pissed his 'side' lost the
war. He's no more a role model for Heroes then a lump of horse shit. He got
what he deserved. Maybe Lincoln did too, but who cares, one less lawyer...
Yes the poor 'South' was so abused by the 'North', I guess that made it easy
for them to own slaves. Makes sense doesn't it? Mean old men in the 'North'
putting down good-old white boys in the 'South', so the good old White boys buy
themselves some slaves to put down. If the South had won (not very likely...)
the US surely would be a more fucked up place then it is today.
But thanks to all the men and women who died & fought to make this country
what it is today (good or bad) you have to right to express your opinion just as
I do mine, ain't life in the USofA great?, But please remove your white hood
first it makes it easier to hear what you are saying.
silverback
<cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>silverback wrote:
>
>> there is no overlap between fascism and communism. They are polar
>> opposites on the left/right spectrum. But you are right the US is
>> becoming fascist and its the republiCONs leading that.
>
>That's grotesque nonsense, of course. All of it.
wrong mcfly fascism is a right wing ideology it is the polar opposite
of communism. You cannot have fascism without first having capitalism.
Fascism is nothing more than corporate rule and the extreme form of
capitalism that fools like you call free enterprise.
>
>The excerpt below is from a review in The New Republic by Michael
>Ignatieff of The Passing of an Illusion by Francois Furet.
How gives a damn what some right wing ideogue has to say?
nope it was supported and funded by the bourgeoise. Tysen and others
from the rich elite as well as the rich from this country like Ford
funded Hitler all the way back into the 1920s. In fact Hitler joined
the NAZI party at the orders of the lap dogs of the German rich elite,
his commanding officer of the army.
>loathing for bourgeois civility and order and profit and prudence, the
>same intoxication with political violence and ideological extremism.
and as a pay off Hitler to the rich elite Hitler outlawed unions.
>Furet treats communism as fascism's brother-enemy. He observes that
so he's an idiot like yerself.
>Hitler never stinted in his respect for Bolshevik fanaticism. As he told
so you haven't read Mien Kampf. Anyone that has would know how
ridiculous and stupid that statement is.
>Herman Rauschning in 1934, "there is more that binds us to Bolshevism
>than separates us from it.... The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and
more right wing trash. by 1934 the communist, socialist and others
with a liberal ideology were already condemned to the camps.
>the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the
yup thats for damn sure as they were the first condemned to the camps.
>communist always will." But whereas communism saw itself as the
>self-conscious bearer of the universal values of 1789, fascism
>explicitly rejected the universal in favor of the nation and the
>individual. If communism was, in Furet's phrase, "the pathology of the
>universal," fascism was "the pathology of the national." Both ideologies
>hated each other, in Furet's words, "not only for what separated them
>but also for what made them alike."
>
>They also shared a similar eschatology. Both conceived the public sphere
>as a place deserted by religion, "as a pure creation of human will."
more nonsense. The nazis required a christian pray every day in school
>Fascism filled the public square with a ranting demagogue, communism
>with the tramping feet of the workers. Both wanted to turn the public
>sphere from the realm of politics into the realm of spectacle, from the
>deliberative sphere of citizens into the circus of true belonging. Both
>fascism and communism loathed mere democracy as much as they loathed
>mere accumulation. Both hated moral and political individualism: the
>idea that a nation's destiny should depend on the sovereign judgment of
too bad yer this twit didn't study history or he would know that
communism never was an nationalistic ideology.
And once again it was Irenee du Pont that hatch a fascist plot in this
country to overthrow FDR. He along with the Morgans and a few other
rich elite was going to replace FDR witha groups of corporate leaders
in a fascist government.
>...