No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and the Democrat the villain.
Bumpy
No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and
the Democrat the villain.
Here are the movies that I am familiar with that have the Republicans
as the Villians. I know of no movie where the Democrat is not the
hero.
1. TV Show West Wing.
2. Contender
3. An American President
4. All the President's Men
5. Wag the Dog
6. Primary Colors
7. Any movie about the socialist FDR.
8. Any movie about JFK
9. Any movie about Johnson.
10. Murder at 1600 (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
Rep)
11. Absolute Power (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
Rep)
.
.
Ever wonder what 2% of your income will grow to in a
privatized Social Security plan? Click below and download
the easy to use spreadsheet. Then pass it on.
http://www.usedcollegebooks.net/GWB.htm
http://usedcollegebooks.net/OrwellWVA.htm
http://usedcollegebooks.net/ANWR.htm
http://usedcollegebooks.net/PresClouseau.htm
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and
> the Democrat the villain.
There have been a few--if you broaden it a bit to be liberal vs.
conservative, not just Dem vs. Repub. See below.
> Here are the movies that I am familiar with that have the Republicans
> as the Villians. I know of no movie where the Democrat is not the
> hero.
>
> 1. TV Show West Wing.
> 2. Contender
> 3. An American President
> 4. All the President's Men
> 5. Wag the Dog
> 6. Primary Colors
I thought that Clinton was the symbolic TARGET of "Primary Colors," not
the HERO.
> 7. Any movie about the socialist FDR.
False. The 1970 movie "Tora Tora Tora!", about the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, implied that FDR had known about the attack in advance and
allowed it to happen. I'll supply a spoiler if you insist.
> 8. Any movie about JFK
> 9. Any movie about Johnson.
> 10. Murder at 1600 (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
> Rep)
> 11. Absolute Power (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
> Rep)
The movie "Advise and Consent" (from the Allen Drury novel) specifically
had an ultra-liberal Senator as the VILLAIN.
The movie "The Longest Day" (about the World War II "D-Day" invasion)
portrayed Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander, favorably.
The movie "The Right Stuff" portrayed Eisenhower more favorably than
they portrayed Lyndon Johnson. (LBJ was played as a buffoon.)
The movie "Forrest Gump" was a Horatio Alger story of a guy (Gump) who
succeeds on his own. The New Left radicals were portrayed as violent
and abusive to women.
And there have been a number of movies (including TV movies) that
portrayed Communism unfavorably: "One Two Three," "When Hell Was In
Session," "Gulag," "The Killing Fields," "The Green Berets," "Red Dawn,"
etc. And in the TV series "Mission Impossible," the target of the IMF
force was often some socialist regime ("East European People's
Republic," etc.)
[By the way, "The Longest Day" was a much better depiction of D-Day than
"Saving Private Ryan." And "Tora Tora Tora!" was a much better
depiction of Pearl Harbor than the eponymous movie that just got
released.]
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
"I guess I could have paid a little closer attention when I was in
English class, but it all worked out OK. I'm gainfully employed."
-- President George W. Bush
mmn...@mmnnoo.org
I have thought about this, and I don't think it's coincidence. People
watch TV and movies to relax and be entertained, and Hollywood makes TV
shows and movies in order to make money. Neither party is there to be
inspired, educated, or challenged. The only 'positive' message consistent
with these aims is to tell people that they're great and don't need to
change a thing, and that any problems they have are just bad luck
or somebody else's fault, and that nothing is bad or wrong, except of
course finding fault with yourself or others. Liberalism is is obviously a
good match for this 'value system.'
Wester
Most film critics agree that Hollywood is in a "realist phase" (see italian
neo-realism - rosellini's bicycle thief, etc..)
where everything they are cranking out is less fantasy and more concerned
with depicting life and the world as it really is....
Simply put, republicans are cowards and liars
and hollywood -- unlike madison ave. - is pre-disposed to depict them as
they are.
Enjoy!
Jason Kauppinen
Wester wrote:
>
> Dear USC film student:
>
> Most film critics agree
Which film critics?
> that Hollywood is in a "realist phase" (see italian
> neo-realism - rosellini's bicycle thief, etc..)
> where everything they are cranking out is less fantasy and more concerned
> with depicting life and the world as it really is....
>
> Simply put, republicans are cowards and liars
> and hollywood -- unlike madison ave. - is pre-disposed to depict them as
> they are.
Whatever
Jason
noncomp...@nuthouse.org
name on modern Republican hero first
Frodo
republican propaganda. Anti-cloning, pro-death, etc. And Arnold IS a
republican
William PF
draw a conclusion about your republiKKKans.
wpf
______________
Jason Kauppinen
>
> The Sixth Day with Arnorld Swarzeneggar. The whole movie plays out like
> republican propaganda. Anti-cloning, pro-death, etc. And Arnold IS a
But that's not a movie about politics, is it?
Jason
MichalFoucoult
Adam Russell
just more believable.
"MichalFoucoult" <revolut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B2D824D...@yahoo.com...
Steven Litvintchouk
Colin Powell
John McCain
Norm Schwartzkopf (probably)
Sooner or later, these folks will get biopics of their own.
Steven Litvintchouk
Adam Russell wrote:
>
> It could be a hollywood conspiracy. Or it could be that that scenario is
> just more believable.
No, he is right about Hollywood's left-wing slant. Michael Medved, the
movie critic, has written about this frequently.
If you remember the British TV series "Monty Python" frequently poked
fun at the British Health Service (socialized medicine) for its bumbling
bureaucracy. You could never get American comedy writers to poke fun at
our welfare programs that way.
Steven Litvintchouk
"Bumpy" didn't ask only about movies dealing with politics.
But you jogged my memory. I just remembered two more movies with
conservative points of view:
"Rambo: First Blood Part II"
"Uncommon Valor"
Steven Litvintchouk
Wester wrote:
>
> Dear USC film student:
>
> Most film critics agree that Hollywood is in a "realist phase" (see italian
> neo-realism - rosellini's bicycle thief, etc..)
> where everything they are cranking out is less fantasy and more concerned
> with depicting life and the world as it really is....
"Battlefield Earth"?
"Independence Day"?
"Lara Croft"?
So far, the major motion pictures (whether hits or flops) seem to be
wallowing in fantasy aimed at the adolescent set.
Even "Pearl Harbor" is dumbed down compared to "Tora Tora Tora".
And "Saving Private Ryan" is dumbed down compared to "The Longest Day."
Frankly, I don't see realism. I see total drivel coming out of
Hollywood's scriptwriters.
Steven Litvintchouk
> . . .
>
> name on modern Republican hero first
In my previous post, I named three.
Now let's see who you think the modern Democrat "heroes" are:
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Joe Biden
Mike Dukakis
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Of all of these, the only one that they made a movie of (symbolically of
course) was Bill Clinton: "Primary Colors"
I doubt there will be affectionate biopics made of any of the others.
Even Hollywood's best scriptwriters couldn't put together a
ninety-minute movie that anyone would pay to see.
hopefuller
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3B2D90E6...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Adam Russell wrote:
> >
> > It could be a hollywood conspiracy. Or it could be that that scenario
is
> > just more believable.
>
> No, he is right about Hollywood's left-wing slant. Michael Medved, the
> movie critic, has written about this frequently.
Even some conservatives are to the left of Michael Medved.
xofpi
CaptnJaq1
>Hollywood's scriptwriters.
So quit your whining and write your own damn script.
David Friedman
Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Adam Russell wrote:
> >
> > It could be a hollywood conspiracy. Or it could be that that scenario is
> > just more believable.
>
> No, he is right about Hollywood's left-wing slant. Michael Medved, the
> movie critic, has written about this frequently.
>
> If you remember the British TV series "Monty Python" frequently poked
> fun at the British Health Service (socialized medicine) for its bumbling
> bureaucracy. You could never get American comedy writers to poke fun at
> our welfare programs that way.
Another British example would be "Yes, Minister."
One American film in which the side you would identify with the
Democratic party (a big labor union) is the villains is Ken Kesey's
"Sometimes a Great Notion." There's a passage where the suited
representative of the big international lumber workers union is talking
to the patriarch of a small family owned lumber company. After the
latter gives his side of the argument, the union president responds with
"That's a fine philosophy--for the 19th century."
And is answered with:
"Do you have a better century?"
But it is my impression that that is very much the exception, not the
rule.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Mark Neglay
> The Sixth Day with Arnorld Swarzeneggar. The whole movie plays out like
> republican propaganda. Anti-cloning, pro-death, etc.
I was not aware that opposing human cloning is part of the Republican
platform any more than it is a part of the Democratic platform. And
what is "pro-death"?
> And Arnold IS a
> republican
Yes, he considers himself liberal on social issues and conservative on
fiscal issues. Arnold is one of 3 conservatives in Hollywood. (The
other two are Bruce Willis and Tom Selleck.)
Bumpy
POLITICAL MOVIE. Keep reaching. This proves my favorite method of
stumping a liberal. They always claim no bias, but once you ask them
to prove it they are at a loss for words. Two words liberals hate?
"PROVE IT."
"Frodo" <fr...@d.net> wrote in message news:<2jcX6.13883$aV1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Jason Kauppinen
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> Jason Kauppinen wrote:
> >
> > Frodo wrote:
> > >
> > > The Sixth Day with Arnorld Swarzeneggar. The whole movie plays out like
> > > republican propaganda. Anti-cloning, pro-death, etc. And Arnold IS a
> > > republican.
> >
> > But that's not a movie about politics, is it?
>
> "Bumpy" didn't ask only about movies dealing with politics.
>
> But you jogged my memory. I just remembered two more movies with
> conservative points of view:
>
> "Rambo: First Blood Part II"
> "Uncommon Valor"
I'd say that "a conservative point of view" doesn't really cut it.
Does Rambo ever say at any point in Rambo II that he's a Republican??
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
William PF wrote:
>
> Well you're very observant!!! Now use these observations of your's to
> draw a conclusion about your republiKKKans.
What in the hell are you saying here? You make no sense.
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
>
> Triumph of the Will.
Yup, in that movie, the heroes are Socialist as well.
Jason
Brandon J. Van Every
"Bumpy" <bum...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b2d0d45...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and
> the Democrat the villain.
Easy. Rambo.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Morgands1
(not to mention those from South of the Border) on our own turf.
For action/war films int he 80s/90s, the categories seem to split between
"conservative" celebrations of victory (John Milius) and "liberal" ruminations
of moral quagmires (Oliver Stone). But to actually paint films with these broad
strokes is a lot more difficult.
Notice, for example, in the Lethal Weapon films, how "liberal" issues (such as
Apartheid, the environment) are introduced in an otherwise politically
unencumbered story. That satisfies both audiences -- the "conservatives" who
like to see criminals trashed, and "liberals" who like to see their heroes
stand up against evil government agents and greedy corporations. But politics
per se does not play nearly as big a role in commercial films today as it
perhaps should, for fear that it will alienate one half of the audience or the
other regardless of the quality of the story.
I recall when The Contender came out Gary Oldman (a self-professed Republican)
did some interviews where he claims his character was made to seem more evil
than origianlly appeared in the script thanks to some editing, which he blamed
on Dreamworks. I never saw the film so I'm not sure how the
liberal/conservative slant played out in that, although I'm assuming it was the
conservatives who hounded Joan Allen's character vis a vis the sex scandal,
which isn't far from the truth is it?
Natty Bumppo
> Triumph of the Will.
"Swordfish",Travolta is the hero!!
classicliberal2
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Bumpy" didn't ask only about movies dealing
> with politics.
>
> But you jogged my memory. I just remembered
> two more movies with conservative points of
> view:
>
> "Rambo: First Blood Part II"
> "Uncommon Valor"
___
Uncommon Valor most certainly does NOT
have a conservative viewpoint. Don't
confuse it with its cinematic bastard children.
classicliberal2
>> The Sixth Day with Arnorld Swarzeneggar.
>> The whole movie plays out like republican
>> propaganda. Anti-cloning, pro-death, etc.
>> And Arnold IS a republican
>
> This proves my point. The best you can do
> is "Sixth Day" IT ISN'T A POLITICAL
> MOVIE. Keep reaching. This proves my
> favorite method of stumping a liberal. They
> always claim no bias, but once you ask
> them to prove it they are at a loss for words.
____
Hold on, Bumpy; you seem to be using an
agonizingly narrow definition of what constitutes
a conservative (or, for that matter, liberal) film. I
don't think that can be justified. I haven't seen
the 6th Day, so I'll defer on it, but movies with
conservative themes permeate the market.
The formula "slasher film," for example, is an
undisguised conservative morality play, wherein
bad little boys and girls who get naked, drink,
smoke, and have parties while the parents are
away are cut to pieces by indistructible
killers--the force of stern, absolutist morality
personified. At one point, from the mid-1980s
to the mid-1990s, the horror market was
completely overwhelmed by these movies.
The second Rambo movie had a similar
effect on the action film market. Suddenly
there was a whole class of action hero
devoted to destroying evil commie
stereotypes. And, of course, avenging
Vietnam (how many hundreds of "let's
go rescure the P.O.W." movies were there?).
Prior to that, there had been the vigilante
and vigilante-cop genre, touched off by
movies like the Death Wish and Dirty
Harry series. These films often veered
well beyond a mere conservative
"law n' order" approach into open fascism.
The world, in them, was a simplistic place
where lawbreakers were sadistic predators
who preyed upon the innocent for no
reason at all. Only our hero could protect
the public, and he must act outside The
System, because The System doesn't
work. Constitutional protections are
inevitably presented as "technicalities"
that serve no other purpose but to allow
the guilty to go free.
There is an entire genre of right-wing
revisionist historical films. They have
nothing to do with real history, but they
shovel the Patriotically Correct bullshit
conservatives want to hear. The big
examples from the last few years are
"The Patriot" and "Saving Private Ryan"
(directed by a liberal!). The latter is the
biggest recent example of a series of
war films that trace their lineage all the
way back to World War II, when
Hollywood teamed up with the U.S.
government to produce propoganda
films (and bears every ounce of
baggage such a lineage suggests).
This could turn into a really good thread.
Let's dance!
xofpi
Just as Socialist as the Republicans, you mean?
Bumpy
> Hold on, Bumpy; you seem to be using an
> agonizingly narrow definition of what constitutes
> a conservative (or, for that matter, liberal) film. I
> don't think that can be justified. I haven't seen
> the 6th Day, so I'll defer on it, but movies with
> conservative themes permeate the market.
Maybe I should have used ebonics or somehow dumbed down the question.
Watch the movie "The Contender" it has a FICTIONAL president and
FICTIONAL politicians, and IT IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS, not some action
film, not some pseudo-documentary, simply a POLITICAL Story with a
villian and a hero. It is not a documentary, it is a story made up
straight out of the mind of Hollywood. Now, given the chance to
express their innerselves, how does Hollywood reflect itself? Look at
West Wing as a good example. BTW, can you name me one singe TV show
with the Republican as the Hero, as the Democrat clearly is in
West/Left Wing? Basically, use Contender and West Wing as examples,
not freaking Rambo which takes place about as far from Wash D.C. as
possible.
classicliberal2
>> Hold on, Bumpy; you seem to be
>> using an agonizingly narrow
>> definition of what constitutes a
>> conservative (or, for that matter,
>> liberal) film. I don't think that can
>> be justified. I haven't seen the 6th
>> Day, so I'll defer on it, but movies
>> with conservative themes
>> permeate the market.
>
> Maybe I should have used ebonics or
> somehow dumbed down the question.
___
Or maybe you should try a little
common courtesy, for a change.
History won't care what you or I
thought about movies in June 2001.
___
> Watch the movie "The Contender" it
> has a FICTIONAL president and
> FICTIONAL politicians, and IT IS ALL
> ABOUT POLITICS, not some action
> film, not some pseudo-documentary,
> simply a POLITICAL Story with a
> villian and a hero.
___
If you squeeze your focus any tighter,
it's going to squeal.
___
> It is not a documentary,
> it is a story made up straight out of the
> mind of Hollywood.
___
IOW, is just like everything else
Hollywood turns out, including the
ones I mentioned in the part you
snipped.
___
> Now, given the
> chance to express their innerselves, how
> does Hollywood reflect itself?
___
With your narrow focus, all you're
dealing with is how the makers of
one film "express their innerselves."
___
> Look at
> West Wing as a good example. BTW,
> can you name me one singe TV show
> with the Republican as the Hero,
___
Do you understand that you aren't
proving anything, though, with such
a narrow focus? Even if what you
say is true, all it proves is that
conservatives prefer genres outside
of political thrillers.
___
> as the
> Democrat clearly is in West/Left Wing?
___
I know very little about television. I'm
a movie buff. I've heard of the West
Wing; I know nothing about it, other
than that it stars Martin Sheen and has
a large number of devoted fans in my
hometown.
___
> Basically, use Contender and West Wing
> as examples, not freaking Rambo which
> takes place about as far from Wash D.C.
> as possible.
___
Wherever they take place, the Rambo
sequels were explicitly written as political
films, and there's no justification for
dismissing them in this way (except to
sufficiently narrow the focus to conceal
the larger picture).
classicliberal2
> Here are the movies that I am familiar with
> that have the Republicans as the Villians.
> I know of no movie where the Democrat
> is not the hero.
>
> 4. All the President's Men
___
In that one, the heroes were a pair of
reporters, one a Democrat and one
who had been a Republican. Read
the book and you'll come across an
incredible passage wherein Woodward,
who, at that point, knew more about
what kind of evil he was dealing with
in Nixon than maybe anyone, still
can't bring himself to vote against him
in the 72 election.
___
> 5. Wag the Dog
___
The only liberals in Wag The Dog
were with the villains, plotting the
phony war. Dustin Hoffman, Dennis
Leary, etc. The funniest scene in the
movie is when Anne Heche's character
dresses down Dustin Hoffman's,
throwing every anti-liberal cliche at
him she can think of.
___
> 6. Primary Colors
___
If you're saying Clinton is a liberal, you
can hardly call Primary Colors a
flattering portrait, now can you?
___
> 8. Any movie about JFK
___
PT-109 is the only one that really
comes to mind, and that was a
movie without so much as a
smidgeon of politics.
___
> 9. Any movie about Johnson.
___
Care to name a single one?
___
> 10. Murder at 1600 (Not sure if
> he was Rep or Demo, but bet
> he was Rep)
___
You could just as easily change
the labels here and be just as
accurate.
___
> 11. Absolute Power (Not sure if
> he was Rep or Demo, but bet he
> was Rep)
___
The President in that movie is a
sexually reckless man whose latest
affair turns into a rape and ends with
the woman being killed (and the whole
thing being covered up). One doesn't
need to see the Clinton Chronicles to
see the obvious inference here (or
maybe you do).
Insomniatrix
Here's a quote:
"The only reason "Absolute Power" may be worth remembering is as ammunition
when some conservative starts pontificating on the liberal bias of movies
and bemoaning liberals' lack of civility. If a liberal filmmaker had made a
similarly murderous fantasy about a sitting Republican president,
conservatives would be howling for blood."
--- CHARLES TAYLOR
http://www.salon.com/feb97/absolute970214.html
classicliberal2 wrote in message ...
James A. Donald
> revisionist historical films. They have
> nothing to do with real history, but they
> shovel the Patriotically Correct bullshit
> conservatives want to hear. The big
> examples from the last few years are
> "The Patriot" and "Saving Private Ryan"
You probably believe that Pol Pot is a right wing tool of US
imperialism.
"The Patriot" presented the revolutionaries as patriots, instead of
evil capitalist imperialist exploiters of the masses.
How terribly right wing of them :-)
Natty Bumppo
> "Bumpy" <bum...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3b2d0d45...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> > No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and
> > the Democrat the villain.
>
> Easy. Rambo.
The new movie "Swordfish" with Travolta gets my vote.
Grinch
wrote:
Not to mention the politically correct bullshit conservatism of
fighting Hitler!
No "classic liberal" would "want to hear" about that! ;-)
(Especially in a version told by that famously rabid right-winger
Steven Speilberg.)
Jason Kauppinen
The Nazi's were unabashedly socialist... the Republicans are sliding
towards it but aren't quite there yet.
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
This is a wonderful example of "Jello" in practice. The question is
whether or not there exists a movie wherin Republican politicians are
portrayed as heroes and Democratic politicians are portrayed as
villans. Classicliberal2 fails to provide an example under this
criteria, but instead of admitting that he/she can't, s/he evades the
question and critiques Bumpy's "narrow focus".
Way to go, Jello.
Jason
Bumpy
>
>Not to mention the politically correct bullshit conservatism of
>fighting Hitler!
>
>No "classic liberal" would "want to hear" about that! ;-)
>
>(Especially in a version told by that famously rabid right-winger
>Steven Speilberg.)
NAZI National Socialists Worker's Party, the NAZI's origin was in the
labor movement. It was the political wing of a labor union. Left Wing
all the way.
.
.
Ever wonder what 2% of your income will grow to in a
privatized Social Security plan? Click below and download
the easy to use spreadsheet. Then pass it on.
http://www.usedcollegebooks.net/GWB.htm
http://usedcollegebooks.net/OrwellWVA.htm
http://usedcollegebooks.net/ANWR.htm
http://usedcollegebooks.net/PresClouseau.htm
Bumpy
studies on this subject, and yet it causes such hysteria. Who knows, a
large Ozone Hole may actually be beneficial, we simply do not know.
That total lack of understanding did not stop the knee jerk reaction
of stamping out CFCs however, and many jobs along with it. We have not
even studies the Ozone Hole over a single solar cycle. for all we know
the Ozone Hole may be at historically small levels, and vari with the
sun cycles and solar winds.
Jon Juzlak
> > If you remember the British TV series "Monty Python" frequently poked
> > fun at the British Health Service (socialized medicine) for its bumbling
> > bureaucracy. You could never get American comedy writers to poke fun at
> > our welfare programs that way.
>
> Another British example would be "Yes, Minister."
Except that Yes Minister doesn't portray the private sector any
better. Most private sector people come across as incompetent or
crooked or both. At one point, one of the Civil Servants mentions that
City firms are either honest and incompetent or dishonest and
competent, going on to mention that he'd never met a firm that was
both honest and competent.
You might therefore find a commentary on whether the Health Service
was well run or not, but you wouldn't find one challenging the very
reason for the existence of the Health Service.
Both Yes, Minister and Monty Python were both a reflection of British
humor styles rather than any particular political bias.
Jon Juzlak
> No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and
> the Democrat the villain.
>
> as the Villians. I know of no movie where the Democrat is not the
> hero.
>
> 4. All the President's Men
Well, this one was based on real life. Hardly Hollywood's fault if the
President was the villain.
> 5. Wag the Dog
> 6. Primary Colors
The Democrat was the hero ? Not likely.
> 7. Any movie about the socialist FDR.
Other than cameos in WW-II movies, there's hardly any FDR appearance.
> 8. Any movie about JFK
Practically all movies about JFK deal with his death or after.
> 9. Any movie about Johnson.
Only a couple of cameos.
> 10. Murder at 1600 (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
> Rep)
> 11. Absolute Power (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
> Rep)
Why don't you also bet that Hannibal Lector in
Silence of the Lambs was Rep ? It would make as much sense.
Dan Listermann
> NAZI National Socialists Worker's Party, the Nazi's origin was in the
> labor movement. It was the political wing of a labor union. Left Wing
> all the way.
> .
I suppose that because East Germany called itself the German Democratic
Republic, you believe it was a democratic republic.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
ishka bibble
>
>
>No Bias? Name me one MODERN movie where the Republican is the hero and
>the Democrat the villain.
>
>Here are the movies that I am familiar with that have the Republicans
>as the Villians. I know of no movie where the Democrat is not the
>hero.
>
>2. Contender
>3. An American President
>4. All the President's Men
>6. Primary Colors
>Rep)
>11. Absolute Power (Not sure if he was Rep or Demo, but bet he was
>Rep)
>
so is your contention that the world is biased or hollywood? i mean if you want
to talk about news media being biased that is one thing they have an obligation
to report. hollywood is private industry - if they want to show only movies
that are about republicans being evil and democrats being saints . . . so
what? don't watch.
>
>.
classicliberal2
wrote:
>> There is an entire genre of right-wing
>> revisionist historical films. They have
>> nothing to do with real history, but they
>> shovel the Patriotically Correct bullshit
>> conservatives want to hear. The big
>> examples from the last few years are
>> "The Patriot" and "Saving Private Ryan"
>
> You probably believe that Pol Pot is a
> right wing tool of US imperialism.
___
The U.S. government was providing
direct and indirect aid to the Khmer
Rouge since the early 1970s.
___
> "The Patriot" presented the revolutionaries
> as patriots, instead of evil capitalist
> imperialist exploiters of the masses.
>
> How terribly right wing of them :-)
___
I can't help but think of "The Patriot" as
one of the great missed opportunities of
cinema. The American Revolution is one
of my favorite subjects, and an epic film
about it is a great idea; turning it over to
the third-rate hacks who gave us
Independence Day and Godzilla was
not such a good one. From an historical
standpoint, what they created is an
atrocity; utterly indefensible (it has as
much to do with the American Revolution
as a Power Rangers episode).
classicliberal2
wrote:
>>> There is an entire genre of right-wing
>>> revisionist historical films. They have
>>> nothing to do with real history, but they
>>> shovel the Patriotically Correct bullshit
>>> conservatives want to hear. The big
>>> examples from the last few years are
>>> "The Patriot" and "Saving Private Ryan"
>>
>> You probably believe that Pol Pot is a
>> right wing tool of US imperialism.
>>
>> "The Patriot" presented the revolutionaries
>> as patriots, instead of evil capitalist
>> imperialist exploiters of the masses.
>>
>> How terribly right wing of them :-)
>
> Not to mention the politically correct bullshit
> conservatism of fighting Hitler!
>
> No "classic liberal" would "want to hear"
> about that! ;-)
>
> (Especially in a version told by that famously
> rabid right-winger Steven Speilberg.)
____
What was the theme of Saving Private Ryan?
classicliberal2
<jkaup...@home.com> wrote:
>>>> Triumph of the Will.
>>>
>>> Yup, in that movie, the heroes are Socialist
>>> as well.
>>
>> Just as Socialist as the Republicans, you mean?
>
> The Nazi's were unabashedly socialist... the
> Republicans are sliding towards it but aren't
> quite there yet.
____
DO let us know when the shuttle lands, Jason...
David Cross
news:sdNX6.16309$9r1.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> You'll love this review of Absolute Power.
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> "The only reason "Absolute Power" may be worth remembering is as
ammunition
> when some conservative starts pontificating on the liberal bias of movies
> and bemoaning liberals' lack of civility. If a liberal filmmaker had made
a
> similarly murderous fantasy about a sitting Republican president,
> conservatives would be howling for blood."
> --- CHARLES TAYLOR
Huh? It's not even made clear in the movie WHAT political persuasion the
President is. How the hell can this guy make those assumptions anyway?
Steven Litvintchouk
Grinch wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2001 13:38:11 -0700, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
> wrote:
>
> >classic...@my-deja.com (classicliberal2) wrote in message
> >> There is an entire genre of right-wing
> >> revisionist historical films. They have
> >> nothing to do with real history, but they
> >> shovel the Patriotically Correct bullshit
> >> conservatives want to hear. The big
> >> examples from the last few years are
> >> "The Patriot" and "Saving Private Ryan"
> >
> >You probably believe that Pol Pot is a right wing tool of US
> >imperialism.
> >
> >"The Patriot" presented the revolutionaries as patriots, instead of
> >evil capitalist imperialist exploiters of the masses.
> >
> >How terribly right wing of them :-)
>
> Not to mention the politically correct bullshit conservatism of
> fighting Hitler!
If anything, "Saving Private Ryan" was an antiwar movie. It certainly
depicted war as the horror that it really is, and it didn't really dwell
much on the political reasons we were fighting the war. ("Hitler" got
mentioned only once, and in passing.)
If you want to see a more pro-war, pro-American version of D-Day, see
the film "The Longest Day" the next time they rerun it on TV. (It also
was a much more accurate treatment of the events of the invasion than
"Saving Private Ryan" was.)
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
"I guess I could have paid a little closer attention when I was in
English class, but it all worked out OK. I'm gainfully employed."
-- President George W. Bush
classicliberal2
>> 8. Any movie about JFK
>
> Practically all movies about JFK deal
> with his death or after.
>
>> 9. Any movie about Johnson.
>
> Only a couple of cameos.
___
In the movie JFK, Kennedy is killed within
10 minutes of the credits. Johnson makes
one appearance, and it's hardly favorable.
One of the characters is imagining what it
must have been like when Johnson signed
the order reversing the withdrawal policy
Kennedy had instituted WRT Vietnam.
Johnson is in a shadowy room with a
bunch of advisors. He signs the paper,
says something like "Just get me elected;
I'll give you a damn war." At several points
in the movie, it is suggested that he may
have had something to do with the
Kennedy murder.
Morgands1
>President is. How the hell can this guy make those assumptions anyway?
Perhaps the assumption was made given the politics of its star. Would Clint
Eastwood make a film in which a conservative President were a murderer?
I don't think the politics of the president in IN THE LINE OF FIRE was
mentioned, but the political persuasion of the assassin (John Malkovich) didn't
seem to matter much -- he was someone who just wanted to be able to get close
enough to the Prez to kill him.
Jason Kauppinen
Sure, I'll radio you from here on planet Earth.
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
>
> >
> >Not to mention the politically correct bullshit conservatism of
> >fighting Hitler!
> >
> >No "classic liberal" would "want to hear" about that! ;-)
> >
> >(Especially in a version told by that famously rabid right-winger
> >Steven Speilberg.)
>
> NAZI National Socialists Worker's Party, the NAZI's origin was in the
> labor movement. It was the political wing of a labor union. Left Wing
> all the way.
Damn straight.
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
> Republic, you believe it was a democratic republic.
It was a one party state too; just like Socialist Nazi Germany.
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
jimk2 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:38:21 GMT, bum...@mindspring.com (Bumpy) wrote:
>
> >
> >NAZI National Socialists Worker's Party, the NAZI's origin was in the
> >labor movement. It was the political wing of a labor union. Left Wing
> >all the way.
>
> Fascism n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical
> government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
Just like Communism/Socialism.
> The Nazi Party was centered in Munich which had become a hotbed of ultra
> right-wing German nationalists. This included Army officers determined to crush
> Marxism and undermine or even overthrow the young German democracy centered in
> Berlin.
Sounds like the Russian Communist party under Stalin.
Jason
classicliberal2
<jkaup...@home.com> wrote:
>>> The Nazi's were unabashedly socialist... the
>>> Republicans are sliding towards it but aren't
>>> quite there yet.
>>
>> DO let us know when the shuttle lands, Jason...
>
> Sure, I'll radio you from here on planet Earth.
___
Oh, you're back already? How was the
weather on Saturn?
xofpi
Sure. Whatever you say.
Jon Juzlak
Garbage. Hitler called the Nazi Party the National Socialist party,
but it did not in any way come from a labor union. Nor was it remotely
left wing.
Jon Juzlak
> > I suppose that because East Germany called itself the German Democratic
> > Republic, you believe it was a democratic republic.
>
> It was a one party state too; just like Socialist Nazi Germany.
That doubtless explains why just about the first thing that Hilter did
on coming to power was to arrest, try and sometimes shoot socialists,
trade unionists, Communists and the like.
Dan Listermann
Profit Limbaugh. So you believe that East Germany was a democratic republic
because that is what it called itself like the Nazis calling themselves
socialists?
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
"Jason Kauppinen" <jkaup...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B30C084...@home.com...
bush six sixty six
> Triumph of the Will.
Well one thing is for sure if they ever did make a movie about a
Republicans as the hero it would be a work of PURE FICTION!
John Shafto
news:7662d153.01062...@posting.google.com...
As if all the movies where the socialists and leftists
are the heros aren't PURE FICTION. <heh>
--
"Crisis is the rallying cry of tyrants"
-- James Madison
Dan Listermann
Don't look for anything about George W. Harding for quite some time.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
"bush six sixty six" <bus...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7662d153.01062...@posting.google.com...
xofpi
"We're in the midst of an energy crisis."
-- GW Cheney
John Shafto
> John Shafto says...
> >--
> >"Crisis is the rallying cry of tyrants"
> > -- James Madison
>
>
> "We're in the midst of an energy crisis."
> -- GW Cheney
"We need more control of energy companies"
-- Gray Daschle
Jason Kauppinen
And that's just so fundamentally different from Lenin and Stalin's own
domestic liquidations, isn't it?
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
>
> Some people's grasp of history is formed around the rantings of the Grate
> Profit Limbaugh. So you believe that East Germany was a democratic republic
> because that is what it called itself like the Nazis calling themselves
> socialists?
> --
> Dan Listermann
Perhaps you missed my previous post.
> > It was a one party state too; just like Socialist Nazi Germany.
> >
> > Jason
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
Well, it liquidated domestic enemies, just like the left wing regimes of
Russia, China, and Cambodia...
Jason
Jason Kauppinen
I never left... you however, seem to have your hands full with samples
from Uranus.
Jason
Dan Listermann
Germany was a democratic republic because it called itself a democratic
republic? Do you think that the Nazis were socialists because they called
themselves socialists? Is a country who only has one party necessarily
socialist? You are dancing around the subject. Kinda sad. . .
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
"Jason Kauppinen" <jkaup...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B326F6D...@home.com...
Jason Kauppinen
>
> I don't think that you are addressing my point. Do you think that East
> Germany was a democratic republic because it called itself a democratic
> republic? Do you think that the Nazis were socialists because they called
> themselves socialists? Is a country who only has one party necessarily
> socialist? You are dancing around the subject. Kinda sad. . .
>
> --
> Dan Listermann
How were they not socialist then?
Jason
classicliberal2
<jkaup...@home.com> wrote:
>> I don't think that you are addressing
>> my point. Do you think that East
>> Germany was a democratic republic
>> because it called itself a democratic
>> republic? Do you think that the Nazis
>> were socialists because they called
>> themselves socialists? Is a country
>> who only has one party necessarily
>> socialist? You are dancing around
>> the subject. Kinda sad. . .
>
> How were they not socialist then?
___
How's that for textbook logical fallacy?
Guess what, Jason: He doesn't have
to prove they were not socialists--you
have to prove they were.
classicliberal2
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> I don't think that you are addressing my
> point. Do you think that East Germany
> was a democratic republic because it
> called itself a democratic republic? Do
> you think that the Nazis were socialists
> because they called themselves
> socialists? Is a country who only has
> one party necessarily socialist? You
> are dancing around the subject.
> Kinda sad. . .
___
"For [Hitler] the Nazi socialist slogans had
been merely propoganda, means of winning
over the masses on his way to power."
--William Shirer,
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
Dan Listermann
socialists because they called themselves socialists. They were far from
socialists. Now tell us about the East Germans.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
"Jason Kauppinen" <jkaup...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B32971A...@home.com...
Mark Neglay
> Jon Juzlak wrote:
> > Garbage. Hitler called the Nazi Party the National Socialist party,
> > but it did not in any way come from a labor union. Nor was it remotely
> > left wing.
>
> Well, it liquidated domestic enemies, just like the left wing regimes of
> Russia, China, and Cambodia...
Hitler also convinced the people to blame all of their problems on the
rich Jews, to sieze their wealth, and eventually to eliminate them.
Socialists also want to blame all of their problems on the rich people
(they just aren't necessarily antisemites) and sieze their wealth.
And many communists have killed or "reeducated" the wealthy who would
not surrender their belongings to the state and recognize the
supremecy of the state.
...only a few parallels there.
(Credit goes to Shafto for originally writing something like this)
Jason Kauppinen
I've already put 2 comparisons down. The one party state, and the
social liquidations that occured in both places.
Jason
Ron Peterson
> > How were they not socialist then?
> ___
> How's that for textbook logical fallacy?
> Guess what, Jason: He doesn't have
> to prove they were not socialists--you
> have to prove they were.
Someone has to look up the amount of privately owned businesses versus
the amount of publicly owned businesses. I couldn't find any hard
numbers, but Ford and IBM are listed as owners of German businesses
at the time.
Ron
classicliberal2
wrote:
>>> How were they not socialist then?
>>
>> How's that for textbook logical fallacy?
>
>> Guess what, Jason: He doesn't have
>> to prove they were not socialists--you
>> have to prove they were.
>
> Someone has to look up the amount
> of privately owned businesses versus
> the amount of publicly owned
> businesses. I couldn't find any hard
> numbers, but Ford and IBM are listed
> as owners of German businesses at
> the time.
____
The fascists in both Italy and Germany
instituted large-scale privatization of
previously public businesses. The major
capitalists, who were largely responsible
for the rise of fascism in the first place,
were absolutely unrelenting in their
enthusiasm for fascism before--and, for
the most part, after--the war began.
"General Motors was far more important
to the Nazi war machine than
Switzerland. Switzerland was just a
repository of looted funds. GM was an
integral part of the German war effort.
The Nazis could have invaded Poland
and Russia without Switzerland. They
could not have done so without GM."
--researcher Bradford Snell
in the Washington Post, 11/30/98
Henry Ford was an enthusiastic supporter
of Hitler and the Nazis, sentiment Hitler
reciprocated. Four months after the
Germans annexed Autria, Hitler awarded
Ford the Grand Cross of the German
Eagle, the highest honor the Nazis
bestowed upon a foreigner. James
Mooney, over at General Motors, also
got one of those, for his "distinguished
service to the Reich." DuPont, ITT,
Chase National Bank,and a slew of
American big money too long to list all
collaborated with the fascists.
It's little remembered now, but there
was actually a fascist coup plot against
the Roosevelt administration at that
time, involving some of the wealthiest
and most powerful men in the United
States.
Lee Higdon
> classicliberal2 wrote:
> > Guess what, Jason: He doesn't have
> > to prove they were not socialists--you
> > have to prove they were.
>
> I've already put 2 comparisons down. The one party state, and the
> social liquidations that occured in both places.
>
> Jason
Getting hung up on labels is pointless and a waste of bandwidth. There are
clear differences, obvious to anyone whose brain hasn't been eaten by
Hannibal Lecter, between the socialism you see in Nazi Germany and most
contemporary thinkers. F*** the labels; look at the "system"; find the
essence.
--
Peace
Lee Higdon,
Plano, TX.
Dan Listermann
one party state, and the
>
> Jason
So you somehow believe that only socialist states are one party and
liquidate opponents? This show a lot about you. Ever hear of the "Dirty
Wars" of South America? Tell us all how they were run by socialists and how
many parties they tolerated.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
"...
Jason Kauppinen
Naturally Snell doesn't say _which_ businesses were privatized, does he?
> Henry Ford was an enthusiastic supporter
> of Hitler and the Nazis, sentiment Hitler
> reciprocated. Four months after the
> Germans annexed Autria, Hitler awarded
> Ford the Grand Cross of the German
> Eagle, the highest honor the Nazis
> bestowed upon a foreigner. James
> Mooney, over at General Motors, also
> got one of those, for his "distinguished
> service to the Reich." DuPont, ITT,
> Chase National Bank,and a slew of
> American big money too long to list all
> collaborated with the fascists.
Irrelevant.
> It's little remembered now, but there
> was actually a fascist coup plot against
> the Roosevelt administration at that
> time, involving some of the wealthiest
> and most powerful men in the United
> States.
Also irrelevant.
So basically you are putting forward % of private ownership and
occurrences of privatization (if they actually did exist) as evidence
that Nazi Germany wasn't Socialist. Well, contemporary Sweden has
private companies as well, and yet many people describe it as a
socialist nation.
To answer Ron Peterson's post, the essence I'm looking at is the
political philosophy behind Socialism. Within it, individual rights are
regarded as unimportant when compared with the interests of the nation.
Nazi Germany, East Germany, the USSR, China etc. share this
characteristic.
Jason
classicliberal2
<jkaup...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>> How were they not socialist then?
>>>>
>>>> How's that for textbook logical fallacy?
>>>
>>>> Guess what, Jason: He doesn't have
>>>> to prove they were not socialists--you
>>>> have to prove they were.
>>>
>>> Someone has to look up the amount
>>> of privately owned businesses versus
>>> the amount of publicly owned
>>> businesses. I couldn't find any hard
>>> numbers, but Ford and IBM are listed
>>> as owners of German businesses at
>>> the time.
>>
>> The fascists in both Italy and Germany
>> instituted large-scale privatization of
>> previously public businesses. The major
>> capitalists, who were largely responsible
>> for the rise of fascism in the first place,
>> were absolutely unrelenting in their
>> enthusiasm for fascism before--and, for
>> the most part, after--the war began.
>>
>> "General Motors was far more important
>> to the Nazi war machine than
>> Switzerland. Switzerland was just a
>> repository of looted funds. GM was an
>> integral part of the German war effort.
>> The Nazis could have invaded Poland
>> and Russia without Switzerland. They
>> could not have done so without GM."
>>
>> --researcher Bradford Snell
>> in the Washington Post, 11/30/98
>
> Naturally Snell doesn't say _which_
> businesses were privatized, does he?
___
He didn't say the moon isn't made of green
cheese, either; does that mean it isn't? The
point is that capitalists don't back
socialism--they DID back fascism.
___
>> Henry Ford was an enthusiastic supporter
>> of Hitler and the Nazis, sentiment Hitler
>> reciprocated. Four months after the
>> Germans annexed Autria, Hitler awarded
>> Ford the Grand Cross of the German
>> Eagle, the highest honor the Nazis
>> bestowed upon a foreigner. James
>> Mooney, over at General Motors, also
>> got one of those, for his "distinguished
>> service to the Reich." DuPont, ITT,
>> Chase National Bank, and a slew of
>> American big money too long to list all
>> collaborated with the fascists.
>
> Irrelevant.
___
No, important historical background;
these events would never, of course,
occur in connection with a socialist
regime (and right-wing capitalist
businessmen would neither be honored
by a "socialist" state, nor enthusiastically
accept such bizarre honors, if they were
ever offered).
___
>> It's little remembered now, but there
>> was actually a fascist coup plot against
>> the Roosevelt administration at that
>> time, involving some of the wealthiest
>> and most powerful men in the United
>> States.
>
> Also irrelevant.
___
No, more historical background. Besides
being some of the wealthiest and most
powerful men in the U.S. (not, to put it
mildly, of the usual class of socialist
plotters), they were also totally
reactionary in their politics, and their
coup was intended to repress what
they saw as a socialist threat, not
institute one.
___
> So basically you are putting forward
> % of private ownership and occurrences
> of privatization (if they actually did exist)
> as evidence that Nazi Germany wasn't
> Socialist.
___
The German fascists first announced that
no further nationalizations would take place
(which wasn't the case, if you were Jewish,
of course), then began privatization of
state-owned businesses, such as Deutsche
Bank, Dresdener Bank, and United Steel
Works (whose stock was owned by the
government). The argument I'm trying to
make is that even in the mockery of
"socialism" represented by the Bolshevist
regimes, EVERYTHING is
nationalized--that's really the only claim
these regimes have to the title of
"socialism." The opposite occured under
German fascism. The fascists come to
power only due to the machinations of the
capitalist money-men--another thing that
has never happened with socialism--and
the capitalists, rather than facing liquidation
(as under a Bolshevist regime), had their
needs catered to, and were made fat by
juicy government contracts, and, often,
official government posts.
___
> Well, contemporary Sweden
> has private companies as well, and yet
> many people describe it as a socialist
> nation.
___
Social democracy is a little different from
revolutionary socialism (and miles
different from any form of dictatorship).
___
> To answer Ron Peterson's post, the
> essence I'm looking at is the political
> philosophy behind Socialism.
___
It's a fascinating subject.
___
> Within it, individual rights are
> regarded as unimportant when
> compared with the interests of the
> nation.
___
There is frequently a dichotomy drawn,
in these discussions, between
"individualism" and "collectivism." This
is a false dichotomy. The two have no
mutually exclusive properties. Historically,
the classical liberals, who would represent
the "individualist" side of this, argued that
many things be done in the interests of
the nation that may seem to override
individual rights. On the other end of the
equation, the socialists are characterized
as you have done above--"collectivists"
who allow the public good to override the
individual. In point of fact, the most
ferocious defenders of "individualism"
have been those "collectivists"
themselves--the anarchists (who were
socialists).
___
> Nazi Germany, East Germany, the
> USSR, China etc. share this
> characteristic.
___
So does the United States, the
greatest capitalist country in the
history of the world. It isn't as simple
as all that.
James A. Donald
> > > There is an entire genre of right-wing revisionist historical
> > > films. They have nothing to do with real history, but they
> > > shovel the Patriotically Correct bullshit conservatives want to
> > > hear. The big examples from the last few years are "The Patriot"
> > > and "Saving Private Ryan"
James A. Donald:
> > You probably believe that Pol Pot is a right wing tool of US
> > imperialism.
classicliberal2
> The U.S. government was providing direct and indirect aid to the
> Khmer Rouge since the early 1970s
That is a ridiculous commie lie. Before 1979 quite a few on the
radical left would make little pilgrimages to Khmer Rouge Cambodia to
worship and adore.
Because the Khmer Rouge was in a state of war with the Soviet Union
from 1979 onwards, and the US in a state of near war with the Soviet
Union, the US indirectly aided the Khmer Rouge from 1979 onwards.
--digsig
James A. Donald
9jGv/rmKacWZDHPvm749xkzxlt+j8mCVGpDN4oNeMMD
xEdPGB+2RkgFxAQtmMDex1JDB5Rgh8lE1DshvtFv
4eAsFZiBTaxw6vYiOtxdGte7T4Dmn3ERcDfi8yMVq
classicliberal2
wrote:
> James A. Donald:
>>> You probably believe that Pol Pot is a right
>>> wing tool of US imperialism.
>
> classicliberal2
>> The U.S. government was providing direct
>> and indirect aid to the Khmer Rouge since
>> the early 1970s
>
> That is a ridiculous commie lie.
___
No, it was just a mistake--I wrote "early" 1970s,
instead of "late" 1970s.
Jason Kauppinen
>
> Jason Kauppinen" <jkaup...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B32C15A...@home.com> I've already put 2 comparisons down. The
> one party state, and the
> > social liquidations that occurred in both places.
> >
> > Jason
>
> So you somehow believe that only socialist states are one party and
> liquidate opponents? This show a lot about you. Ever hear of the "Dirty
> Wars" of South America? Tell us all how they were run by socialists and how
> many parties they tolerated.
> --
> Dan Listermann
What about them?
Jason
Dan Listermann
explanation?
Sometimes Rightists confuse totalitarianism with socialism. One is a means
of governing and the other is an economic system. They can be seen together
in a country or they can manifest themselves separately in a country.
Was East Germany a democratic republic because they called themselves a
democratic republic? Were the Nazis socialists because they used that word
in their name?
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our new E-tail site at http://www.listermann.com
Take a look at the anti-telemarketer forum. It is my new hobby!
"Jason Kauppinen" <jkaup...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B357A5C...@home.com...
Mark Neglay
> The fascists in both Italy and Germany
> instituted large-scale privatization of
> previously public businesses. The major
> capitalists, who were largely responsible
> for the rise of fascism in the first place,
> were absolutely unrelenting in their
> enthusiasm for fascism before--and, for
> the most part, after--the war began.
"Today I once again wish to express a prophecy, to ask myself whether
Jews, the capitalist Jews in Europe and beyond it, will succeed once
again in bringing to ruin the population of the world"
-Adolf Hitler
January 30, 1939
Hitler opposed "Jewish Capitalism" when speaking to German laborers
and he opposed "Jewish Communism" when speaking to the German middle
class.