Nazi - Left or Right wing ?
Musky Killer
Is the National Socialist Party ( NAZI ) a left wing or right wing party ?
Socialism is left wing, however; I believe that the Nazi's are considered
right wing !
Is Nazism the same as faschism ?
--
alt.fishing.muskellunge
Could you please request your ISP to add it!
http://musky_killer13.tripod.com/alt.fishing.muskellunge.htm
Mr. Noodle
"Musky Killer" <muskykiller[NOSPAM]@anonymous.to> wrote in message
news:5ibf9.32045$V_5....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Is the National Socialist Party ( NAZI ) a left wing or right wing party ?
Right wing
>
> Socialism is left wing, however; I believe that the Nazi's are considered
> right wing !
Correct
>
> Is Nazism the same as faschism ?
No
Joshua Heard
control.
Hitler was a dictator, which is total government control.
Thus, Nazi's were on the left.
"Musky Killer" <muskykiller[NOSPAM]@anonymous.to> wrote in message
news:5ibf9.32045$V_5....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
Anonymous
http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
"Musky Killer" <muskykiller[NOSPAM]@anonymous.to> wrote in message
news:5ibf9.32045$V_5....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Is the National Socialist Party ( NAZI ) a left wing or right wing party ?
We say we are right wing. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the
problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the scene."
"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie and
their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse
their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only to break
them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five
to eight hundred opponants against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists;
yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than
capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic
resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteeen or twenty men
would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponants known
that three or four times as many of themselves would first get their skulls
cracked. And that was a risk they were not willing to run."
When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he carried
a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones and things,
but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick. This was the signal
to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And soon there was not a Red
left to be found.
>
> Socialism is left wing, however; I believe that the Nazi's are considered
> right wing !
That is not what I mean by left and right. This is what I mean:
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in Soylent
Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not interested and insist
that nothing could be more important than the freedom of individuals to be
as decadant as they want. They are like the children in the old black and
white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>
> Is Nazism the same as faschism ?
>
National Socialism was more racial than Fascism, but Hitler was in favor
of Italian Fascism. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three principle
weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been consciously
understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the best proof
that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State boundaries
are being drawn, even though in an indirect way. The prohibition of
Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of the supernational Press
and the definate abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily
increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State--all this will
enable the Italian Government, in the course of some years, to advance more
and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention to
the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which
has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained
but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
.BitHead.
>
>
>
>http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
>www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>
>"Musky Killer" <muskykiller[NOSPAM]@anonymous.to> wrote in message
>news:5ibf9.32045$V_5....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>> Is the National Socialist Party ( NAZI ) a left wing or right wing party ?
>
> We say we are right wing.
You're wrong.
-->
BitHead,
Associate Editor, www.grey-sanctuary.com
While grey-sanctuary is being re-hosted, pick up this weeks BIT at
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/
BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world.
Remember, Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
Anonymous
"Norm³©®" <stor...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:1mbf9.60415$2L.31...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> IMO, Neither its just a label. Nazism was just Nationalist Communism
No, we were highly against Communism. Here are some quotes from Mein
Kampf:
with
> Racism added!
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror
than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is
thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become
so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of
American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a White
Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students
are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national
controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he
would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert
for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it,
America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word.
They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior
to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race.
When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding
what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the
current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to
the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard-
working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely
wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks,
for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their
poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial
differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black
failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone,
and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else
could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any
explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness
threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.
Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress
blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not
consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no
obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions
must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there
simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are
working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality
leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some
fashion, an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe
that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time
a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White
society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or
misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed
in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition,
thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to
strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman
from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit,
have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the
affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a
company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that
only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced
into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What
appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it
hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism
depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when
done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse
is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious
to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger"
while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its
collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual
murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991).
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist,"
but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent,
it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically
black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name
of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly
integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that
could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It
is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction
and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to
ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the
law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in
favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are
thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or
association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly
for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns
merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set
up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc,
and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the White
students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that
non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today,
any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members
simply happen all to be White is branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of
American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few
people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and
sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.
No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA)
would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one
suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the
NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from
a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a town, a
school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack
of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites
have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so
often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In
fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our
current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent
of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million
illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all
non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable
contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are
called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of
this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens
across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that
Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were
losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who
demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for
"affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are
supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their
country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their
own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession,
for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites
advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating"
another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be
activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can
agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone
ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative
action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are
clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually
go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that
they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage,
they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own
kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of
the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought
to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial
interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar
of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and
culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible
terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit
racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly
natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people
and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are
doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United
States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that
they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters
to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the
once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and
is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be
convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to
work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a
dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that
there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away
to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites
have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is
racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is
somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their
own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families
more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their
neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards
non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding
of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural.
They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races
and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to
forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do
otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial
preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own
people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a
minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in
short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined
nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations
are those of whites.
>Communists & Nazi's are really the same.
Not at all.
Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels at
the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote the
Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22, 1937. That
one sentance precisely defines the international significance of the Spanish
problem. It states exactly what the Spanish problem is. Here the final
decision must lie either with Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On
the one side stands ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive
development."
"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to the
startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one day
experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact that we,
German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising protaganists
against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to play the part of a
preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf ears--this cannot prevent us
from seeing things as they are and calling them by their right names. For if
the constantly increasing extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe
should cause still greater disaster, then future historians will be in a
position to record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not
among those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen by an
insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make us deviate in
the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the subversive
forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage when we clearly
and dispassionately lay bare the background of this revolutionary
developement which is extending through the world. For, after all, they are
the only people who are drawing profit forn the chaotic ruin which
Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this account they will swamp us
with a torrrent of abuse and lies and calumnies is only an honour for us and
a further proof that we are right in warning Europe against this peril."
"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all the
constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native land is at
the same time a fight for civilization."
"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public opinion
thoughout the world the theory that the national movement, which on July 17,
1936, intervened in the seething developements in Spain, was a military
rising oragnised by reactionary generals and that this rising was definately
repudiated by the Spanish people. The truth however is that this national
movement was in reality an act of self-defence on the part of the people,
against the revolt which had been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for
that time and was subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist
revolt had been planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from
Moscow and directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice
from Moscow today."
"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the support of
the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million pesetas, of which two
millions were officially acknowledged as having been paid by the Comintern
itself. At the 7th World Congress of the Comintern in Moscow, in 1935,
Dimitroff gave instructions for the formation of a Front Populaire in Spain.
Between February 16 and April 19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of
red revolutionaries, and 529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before
the Bolshevic Revolution officially broke out."
"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration between
Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we assume it to be
some form of mental disease."
"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped from
Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet Russia were
brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large consignment of was
material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain included 100 heavy tanks,
500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks, 4000 heavy machine guns, 6000
light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes, with their pilots."
"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an idea of
the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support of the Reds
in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the marriage between
Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny features; indeed one might
call them downright perverse. In the historical developement of its
activities Democracy has more and more become the political facade of World
Capitalism. Bolshevism now carries the democratic principle to its ultimate
logical application. We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases
the pace of that sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism
had already mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather
drastic comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the
counting of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The heads
are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and left prey to
international Jews, who are now free to exercise their dictatorship by the
employment of terrorization and money."
"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the workers but
when the communist leaders came into power social terror became the rule of
the day. Among the workers and peasant classes hunger prevailed, as symbol
and sign of the Bolshevic rule."
"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and the
instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague. Degradation of
married women, the socialization of women, the martyrdom of children--these
are the principles which are in vogue here."
"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight nuns
from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable tortures by
relays of red maniacs."
"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most frightful
find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the hatred of the
underworld agianst all those who are representative of Western civilization
and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can never hope to attain."
"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."
"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not seem to
have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that threatens them. This
is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the incarnation of evil. Its
destructive influence on the popular religious instinct goes to the very
roots of that instinct itself. And this ruthless atheistic campaign spares
nothing whatsoever which might serve to remind the people of God and
religion. The one fact alone that the Fuerer has saved the German churches
from this fate should be enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally
thankful to him. But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the
sphere of their religious duties, interfering in political matters and
making their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."
"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on Bolshevic
statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up to February
2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven bishops were
murdered in Spain."
"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen churches
on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung, nuns that had
been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed in rows to the
church walls."
"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of February 27,
1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish children are at the
present moment wandering through Spanish provinces, abandoned and in rags.
All public activities for the welfare of the youth have been abolished. And
so the youngsters, very often no more than four or five years old, are left
no alternative. They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold
and are nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"
"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this system
became universal throughout the world."
"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of terror in
countries which are governed according to the principles of authority. The
whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for example, a Jew in
Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But what is this when
compared with the terror that disrupts whole nations"
"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party, what
were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be to the
advantage of the Revolution.'"
"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to express
his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in London. The
world and the League of Nations are hypocritically appealed to. Before these
tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays the part of the civilised
philistine and fills Europe with cries of protest."
"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was the Jew,
General Kleber."
"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer, the
instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."
"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as director
of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms and munitions,
comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed, sitting by his side. His
Paris agents are his racial compatriots, Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At
Hirtenberg in Austria their collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the
Jew, Wolf. In Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In
Denmark the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."
"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil portent
is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."
"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family and
God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing, for order,
moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives and our daily bread
, has begun. In Germany it has already been brought to a triumphant issue."
The Establishment
> acts like their different, but they are basically the same. Even Italy's
> Mussolini was an ex- communist.
>
No, the Fascists fought the Communists in the streets, just like the
National Socialists did, and Communism was Jewish.
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party during
the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception of the
four who had recieved the largest number of votes. Lenin--133 out of a
possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the Jew,
Bela Kun (Cohen).
In Hungary, IIRC, the head of their VERY bloody communist secret
police, Farkas (Wulf) was a Jew. In fact, nearly all the highest ranking
communist officials in post-war Hungary were Jews.
The leaders of communist Poland were the Jews Minc, Skryeszewski,
Modzelewski, and Berman.
The leader of communist Roumania was the Jewess Anna Pauker
The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf Slansky.
The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
Communism in America was also Jewish.
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the Amerasia
case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at one
time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the ringleader of
the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party in the
U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers of
the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress and
sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten were
communist party members and the other four were flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of the
American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three nationality
unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was convicted
for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on information obtained
from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of the ring. All of them were
convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published
in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither Reform
or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there was
Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of Israel than
most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born in Germany in
1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not himself reared as a
Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized a Christian by his
father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him thoughout his days, for
he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby, Gabriel
Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish lineage
played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout Europe in this
period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being waged, whether in
France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there the Jew was to be found.
It was little wonder that the enemies of social progress, the monarchists
and the Churchmen, came to speak of the whole liberal movement as nothing
but a Jewish plot."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most
of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920)> "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
itself, in the fact that so
many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with
many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
April, 4, 1919) "Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Anonymous
"Joshua Heard" <jhe...@novacron.com> wrote in message
news:O5of9.2399$Pf7....@news1.west.cox.net...
> Left believe in more government control, right believe in less government
> control.
Would outlawing homosexual perversion be left or right?
Would outlawing abortion be left or right?
Would outlawing prostitution be left or right?
Would outlawing racial inter-marriage be left or right?
> Hitler was a dictator, which is total government control.
> Thus, Nazi's were on the left.
In America we should keep the checks and balances, but it is not
necessarily bad to have a leader. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the multitude.
They are exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency."
"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the
composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual
personality?"
"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might not
easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader
has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself.
This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre
people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man
who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain
from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the
situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive
statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the
favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and
will attract them accordingly."
"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can
never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also
cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom,
so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that
requires moral strength and fortitude."
"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to
bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed deputies. Not at
all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are
dependant on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led,
the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way
in which a party policy, according the the evil meaning it has to-day, can
be put into effect. And by this method alone is it possible for the
wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that
personally he can never be brought to account for his actions."
"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone should
attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man responsible for it
were Frederick the Great and even though the politicians for the time being,
who constituted the parlimentary majority, were small and incompetent men or
maybe even on a lower grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for
abstract principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of
the nation."
"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the
best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the
community."
Anonymous
".BitHead." <bit...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d7e83c2...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:44:55 -0500, Anonymous <Nobody> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
> >www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
> >
> >"Musky Killer" <muskykiller[NOSPAM]@anonymous.to> wrote in message
> >news:5ibf9.32045$V_5....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >>
> >> Is the National Socialist Party ( NAZI ) a left wing or right wing
party ?
> >
> > We say we are right wing.
>
>
> You're wrong.
>
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist Party
Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism in
Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham, Dr.
Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of a notary
public, members were requested to register their declaration of withdrawal
from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the fight for atheism was
carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the withdrawals from the German
Evangelical Churches alone amounted to two-and-a-half million persons in
Germany. The programme which these atheistic societies laid down in regard
to sexual matters is amply charcterized in the following demands publicly
expressed at meetings and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with the
crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of charge in
State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard to
marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be educated by
the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to be
granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the wilful
destruction of the nations and their civilization and the substitute of
barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world movement?
Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted this ensemble
into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it prevail in other
countries? The answer to these question discloses the actual secret of our
anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight against Jewry; for the
Bolshevic International is in reality nothing less than a Jewish
International."
.BitHead.
>
>
>
>http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
>www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>
>".BitHead." <bit...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3d7e83c2...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:44:55 -0500, Anonymous <Nobody> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
>> >www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>> >
>> >"Musky Killer" <muskykiller[NOSPAM]@anonymous.to> wrote in message
>> >news:5ibf9.32045$V_5....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> >>
>> >> Is the National Socialist Party ( NAZI ) a left wing or right wing
>party ?
>> >
>> > We say we are right wing.
>>
>>
>> You're wrong.
>>
>
> Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
You're still wrong, until you can explain the similarty of both goals
and means of attaining them, between the Nazis and the American Lieft
wing.
Anonymous
".BitHead." <bit...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d7e885e...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:04:05 -0500, Anonymous <Nobody> wrote:
>
> You're still wrong, until you can explain the similarty of both goals
> and means of attaining them, between the Nazis and the American Lieft
> wing.
>
Our goal is to have a White nation that is based on Christian
principles such as outlawing homosexual perversion and feminism. If that is
the same goal as the American Left wing I guess I should send them a
donation.
" Following a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
(10th May 1933) the nation gathered up masses
of pornographic, communist, seditious and anti-German
publications and burnt them
at public bonfires attended by enthusiastic patriots.
Interestingly Germanys student population initiated
the book burning. Thousands of university students,
fired by the ministers speech, formed a torchlight
procession and entered the Unter den Linden Square
opposite Berlin University to light bonfires which
sent the signal across Germany. "
The Michael Walsh News Desk
www.etc.com/HRP
eflorack
> http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>
> ".BitHead." <bit...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3d7e885e...@news-server.rochester.rr.com...
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:04:05 -0500, Anonymous <Nobody> wrote:
> >
> > You're still wrong, until you can explain the similarty of both goals
> > and means of attaining them, between the Nazis and the American Lieft
> > wing.
> >
> Our goal is to have a White nation that is based on Christian
> principles such as outlawing homosexual perversion and feminism. If that is
> the same goal as the American Left wing I guess I should send them a
> donation.
Your goals are to impose these on the people, and meanwhile the left's
goals are to destroy what's left of white America, and to allow for
the rest of your list.
Only one problem; both of these extremes are the wrong approach, and
both think nothing for the existing social structure, which certainly
ios more inclusive than your stated goals, and less so than the
American left.
But consider it this way; both of you are social liberals because
you're both about using government for your goal changing society away
from what it is, and always has been. The primary ingrediant in
liberalism, is that of CHANGE.
And again, it appears to me, you cannot argue that your methods, both
the nazis and the liberals, are quite similar.
Alan McIntire
>
> Socialism is left wing, however; I believe that the Nazi's are considered
> right wing !
>
> Is Nazism the same as faschism ?
You can't classify political philosophies one dimensionally without
oversimlpification to the point of meaninglessness. See
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
Anonymous
"eflorack" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bd154db5.02091...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Your goals are to impose these on the people, and meanwhile the left's
> goals are to destroy what's left of white America, and to allow for
> the rest of your list.
Your goal is to impose whatever you want on people. You can't please
everybody. Liberarians also try to impose their goals on people.
Libertarianism would legalize heroin and prostitution. A lot of people don't
want to live in that kind of country but libertarianism would impose it on
them.
>
> Only one problem; both of these extremes are the wrong approach, and
> both think nothing for the existing social structure, which certainly
> ios more inclusive than your stated goals, and less so than the
> American left.
>
> But consider it this way; both of you are social liberals because
> you're both about using government for your goal changing society away
> from what it is, and always has been. The primary ingrediant in
> liberalism, is that of CHANGE.
>
> And again, it appears to me, you cannot argue that your methods, both
> the nazis and the liberals, are quite similar.
Illogical.
Suppose we accept your terms and say that liberalism is for CHANGE.
What happens after these liberals get what they want and things do
change? (Actually this has already happened).
After the liberals get all the changes they want then they are no longer
liberals?
And what happened to the conservatives who didn't want the change? Now
they are the liberals because they want to change things back to the way
they were before the change?
.BitHead.
The left loses traction, loses their way, loses elections, loses
power.
>
> After the liberals get all the changes they want then they are no longer
>liberals?
Just so.
>
> And what happened to the conservatives who didn't want the change? Now
>they are the liberals because they want to change things back to the way
>they were before the change?
Consider things this way;
THe phrases left and right are relative to the condition of the
cultulre, the society, the country at the time of it's founding.
As a quick and obvious example, the founders of our country were
certainly liberal, in that context. But what do people who want to
uphold the intent of the founders today, called? Conservative.
Perhaps it would hekllp you understand the context if you understood
what was being conserved.
But I've started to suspect such concepts to be a bit over your head.
Keynes
Folks, pay no attention to florack-bithead-zola.
He has it upside down and backwards again.
( This has been a public service anouncement.
If florack really had something factual or intelligent to say,
we wouldn't have to give this warning. )
Keynes
.BitHead.
wrote:
>>Your goals are to impose these on the people, and meanwhile the left's
>>goals are to destroy what's left of white America, and to allow for
>>the rest of your list.
>>
>>Only one problem; both of these extremes are the wrong approach, and
>>both think nothing for the existing social structure, which certainly
>>ios more inclusive than your stated goals, and less so than the
>>American left.
>>
>>But consider it this way; both of you are social liberals because
>>you're both about using government for your goal changing society away
>>from what it is, and always has been. The primary ingrediant in
>>liberalism, is that of CHANGE.
>>
>>And again, it appears to me, you cannot argue that your methods, both
>>the nazis and the liberals, are quite similar.
>
>Folks, pay no attention to florack-bithead-zola.
>He has it upside down and backwards again.
You have demonstrated frequently enough your slant on things is well
off base. This is one more example.
eflorack
So, you think the Nazi is right?
Interesting.
jslater
I swear Bithead is the only person I've ever encountered who could
lose a political debate to a fascist. Yes, fascism is right-wing; as
"Anonymous" shows, they even identify themseves that way.
Bithead, why don't you talk about the things you have in common with
Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions, for
example: hint, that's another reason why you're both right wing;
although in fairness to Bithead I won't label him a fascist.--Joe
Anonymous
"jslater" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
news:b4bed0cf.02091...@posting.google.com...
>
> Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions
Hitler was not against the ideas or principles of unions. He was
against the unions because the unions were controlled by leftists, and they
still are. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
tkdowning
>
> Socialism is left wing, however; I believe that the Nazi's are considered
> right wing !
>
> Is Nazism the same as faschism ?
Are Communism and Fascism alike. ie both "left wing" or "right wing"?
Good arguments can be made on both sides. I'll take a crack at it...
A) The simmilarities:
1) Collectivism (Anti-individualism)
2) Totalitarianism
Two *HUGE* hallmarks of both systems, and the key basis for those who
argue that the systems are simmilar to each other. Anti-freedom,
anti-individual, Central planning, top-down management of politics and
economy, CULT-OF-GOVERNMENT.
B) The differences:
1) Nationalism vs Internationalism.
Russia annexed half of Europe under "Internationalist" communism.
Germany annexed half of Europe under "Nationalist" fascism. I doubt
that the people being killed, raped, robbed, and repressed by the
respective parties were very interested about whether they were being
killed, raped, robbed, and repressed in the name of "Internationalism"
or "Nationalism"
2) Collective (government) ownership and control vs. Private ownership
and government control.
In the Soviet Union, the state served as the corporation. Cronyism
flourished, people with "party connections" were given the important,
high paying management jobs. Yes, under Fascism, private ownership of
property and captital was allowed. But price and production controls
were levied, taxes skyrocketed, Nazi party hacks and spies were
infused into important industries against the will of the owners, and
many small businesses were forced to close down or consoladate against
their will. It is beyond ridiculous, almost laughable to call such a
system "free-enterprise".
3) "Aryan supremicy" vs. "Brotherhood of humanity"
While the Soviets gave lip service to being multicultiral, Russian
culture was definitely imposed on conquered nations. Jews were also
persecuted by the Soviets.
I lean towards the side that says both systems are more alike than
different, but like I said, I can see it both ways. To me, the
Anti-freedom, anti-individual, colectivist, and totalitarian aspects
that these systems have in common outweigh their differences. These
differences, while interesting and noteable, fade to almost
meaninglessness when compared to the human slavery and misery which
was so created under both Fascism and Communism.
Finally, please dont give the the tired old "But the Soviets didn't
implement communism correctly" line. One could say the same about the
Nazis. The truth is that any political system which is based on
collectivism, anti-individualism, and hero-worship will end up with a
bunch of power-hungry dictators repressing their "subjects".
Communism and Fascism are two flavors of totalitarianism.
jslater
> http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>
> "jslater" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
> news:b4bed0cf.02091...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions
>
> Hitler was not against the ideas or principles of unions. He was
> against the unions because the unions were controlled by leftists, and they
> still are. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
> "And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
> the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
> became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
> the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
>
people in the trade unions could determine their own leadership and
politics, including supporting Social Democrats. A political system
that only allows unions if they support the political party currently
in power does not allow "free" trade unions.--Joe
.BitHead.
wrote:
>Anonymous <Nobody> wrote in message news:<3d81c84c_3@anonymous>...
>> http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
>> www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>>
>> "jslater" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
>> news:b4bed0cf.02091...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions
>>
>> Hitler was not against the ideas or principles of unions. He was
>> against the unions because the unions were controlled by leftists, and they
>> still are. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>>
>> "And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
>> the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
>> became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
>> the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
>>
>As I said, the Nazis opposed *free* trade unions: "free" meaning the
>people in the trade unions could determine their own leadership and
>politics, including supporting Social Democrats.
LOL. Let's examine this in light of the teamsters....
Keynes
We have the examples of history.
They show that fascism was properly applied, while communism
wasn't. Both were repressive totalitiarian regimes.
In theory, communism is a democratic one party system of
representative government, without the capitalist profit motive.
Communes meet and elect representatives to higher and
higher deliberative bodies, finally selecting the top leadership.
This was corrupted and never applied in the USSR.
The USA has two parties, but many folks complain that
both parties are serving monied interests and not the people.
This would be an aristocratic oligarchy, very nearly totalitarian,
but with the feeble protections of the bill of rights.
But has anybody really won a fight with city hall or Boss Hog?
Central planning in Stalinist-communist countries has always
failed due to ignorance, corruption and incompetence.
In fact it is likely to fail in any case, because overall control
is too complex to actually deal with. Never the less, the USA
does much the same thing with it's taxes and subsidies of
essentially non-productive make-work jobs and 'profitable'
industries. (The profits of subsidized industries are really
nothing but welfare for the rich.)
The allocation of taxes and spending is theoretically
in the hands of legislators elected by the people. However
the majority of US citizens realize that however they vote,
their will will not be done, so they don't vote at all.
Stalinist-communist workers are faulted for lack of motivation
and productivity, since wages did not reflect one's talent
or eagerness to get the job done. (Reminds me of the
DMV and much of the US bureaucracy.)
The US uses the notion of meritocracy and rewarding folks
according to their contributions to society. This is also an
ideal system that has never really been practical or realized
in action. It DOES work - you can point to many cases.
But you can point to as many cases where it doesn't work also.
Whenever a glaring flaw in the US system is pointed out,
it's defenders recite the ideal system and point to Bill Gates,
and not Mike Millican or Ken Lay, or even GW Bush.
Both Stalinist-communism and US capitalism have been
expansionist empires, dueling for idealogical and material
dominance. In effect the cold war was a religious war over
control of the hearts and minds and Resourses of the world.
Russian 'communism' was finally rejected by the people.
It was replaced with crony capitalism of the US and Japanese
sort. Most of the russians are still waiting for benefits to
trickle down.
The American system has never been completely realized
from it's ideal. It has failed in many ways. But we hope
we can make it better. It's the best chance we have.
Keynes
jslater
> On 14 Sep 2002 09:39:00 -0700, jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
> wrote:
>
> >Anonymous <Nobody> wrote in message news:<3d81c84c_3@anonymous>...
> >> http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
> >> www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
> >>
> >> "jslater" <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:b4bed0cf.02091...@posting.google.com...
> >> >
> >> > Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions
> >>
> >> Hitler was not against the ideas or principles of unions. He was
> >> against the unions because the unions were controlled by leftists, and they
> >> still are. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
> >>
> >> "And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
> >> the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
> >> became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
> >> the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
> >>
> >As I said, the Nazis opposed *free* trade unions: "free" meaning the
> >people in the trade unions could determine their own leadership and
> >politics, including supporting Social Democrats.
>
> LOL. Let's examine this in light of the teamsters....
Do you have any evidence that the last couple of national elections in
the Teamsters--the one that elected Ron Carey and the one that elected
James Hoffa, Jr., were not free and fair? Didn't think so.--Joe
.BitHead.
wrote:
Oh, please.
So, you're telling me tha the crime connections of the father, have no
bearing on the son's getting elected? This from the same end of the
political spectrum that claims Bush stole the election with the help
of a criminal move?
(Shake of the head)
Anonymous
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6sr6ou0vjk6tkq9vc...@4ax.com...
> We have the examples of history.
> They show that fascism was properly applied, while communism
> wasn't. Both were repressive totalitiarian regimes.
What we have in America is a repressive totalitarian regime. Fascism
was not repressive because it was for the good of the people. In America
money talks and the money power is the highest power. In Italy they made
another power and put it above the money power.
Fascism was good. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three principle
weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been consciously
understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes the best proof
that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends all State boundaries
are being drawn, even though in an indirect way. The prohibition of
Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of the supernational Press
and the definate abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily
increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State--all this will
enable the Italian Government, in the course of some years, to advance more
and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention to
the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country which
has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost unrestrained
but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
>
jslater
> >> >> > Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions
> >> >>
> >> >> Hitler was not against the ideas or principles of unions. He was
> >> >> against the unions because the unions were controlled by leftists, and they
> >> >> still are. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
> >> >>
> >> >> "And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
> >> >> the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
> >> >> became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
> >> >> the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
> >> >>
> >> >As I said, the Nazis opposed *free* trade unions: "free" meaning the
> >> >people in the trade unions could determine their own leadership and
> >> >politics, including supporting Social Democrats.
> >>
> >> LOL. Let's examine this in light of the teamsters....
> >
> >Do you have any evidence that the last couple of national elections in
> >the Teamsters--the one that elected Ron Carey and the one that elected
> >James Hoffa, Jr., were not free and fair? Didn't think so.--Joe
>
>
> Oh, please.
> So, you're telling me tha the crime connections of the father, have no
> bearing on the son's getting elected? This from the same end of the
> political spectrum that claims Bush stole the election with the help
> of a criminal move?
>
> (Shake of the head)
>
recognition of their fathers, but my point was that Hoffa, Jr. was
elected in a fair election (whether Bush did is another argument
entirely). My broader point was that free trade unions--which you and
the fascist both oppose--have fair elections. I grant you the
Teamsters of several decades ago was corrupt but my assertion is that
this was highly exceptional, and apparently that's your only example.
I could also say that the elections in the city of Chicago were
corrupt in the same era as the Teamster problems. They were, but that
doesn't mean that all American democracy is a sham.--Joe
tkdowning
> http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
>
> "Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6sr6ou0vjk6tkq9vc...@4ax.com...
> > We have the examples of history.
> > They show that fascism was properly applied, while communism
> > wasn't. Both were repressive totalitiarian regimes.
>
> What we have in America is a repressive totalitarian regime. Fascism
> was not repressive because it was for the good of the people. In America
> money talks and the money power is the highest power. In Italy they made
> another power and put it above the money power.
> Fascism was good. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
{snip}
I have proposed all along that their is not really much difference
between the extreme left and extreme right. Thank you for helping me
prove my point
.BitHead.
wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Anonymous? You and fascists both oppose free trade unions
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hitler was not against the ideas or principles of unions. He was
>> >> >> against the unions because the unions were controlled by leftists, and they
>> >> >> still are. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
>> >> >> the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
>> >> >> became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
>> >> >> the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
>> >> >>
>> >> >As I said, the Nazis opposed *free* trade unions: "free" meaning the
>> >> >people in the trade unions could determine their own leadership and
>> >> >politics, including supporting Social Democrats.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. Let's examine this in light of the teamsters....
>> >
>> >Do you have any evidence that the last couple of national elections in
>> >the Teamsters--the one that elected Ron Carey and the one that elected
>> >James Hoffa, Jr., were not free and fair? Didn't think so.--Joe
>>
>>
>> Oh, please.
>> So, you're telling me tha the crime connections of the father, have no
>> bearing on the son's getting elected? This from the same end of the
>> political spectrum that claims Bush stole the election with the help
>> of a criminal move?
>>
>> (Shake of the head)
>>
>Bush, Jr. and Hoffa, Jr. both got a push because of the name
>recognition of their fathers,
And far more if you listen to the left, at least as regards Bush.
Funny how they get really quiet when talking about their union thugs,
though.
but my point was that Hoffa, Jr. was
>elected in a fair election (whether Bush did is another argument
>entirely). My broader point was that free trade unions--which you and
>the fascist both oppose--have fair elections.
And my point is that's simply not true. Hoffa is merely one example.
>I could also say that the elections in the city of Chicago were
>corrupt in the same era as the Teamster problems.
And so they were. And guess what? Democats again.
Keep thinking, eventually, you'll see a pattern developing.
jslater
> >> >> >As I said, the Nazis opposed *free* trade unions: "free" meaning the
> >> >> >people in the trade unions could determine their own leadership and
> >> >> >politics, including supporting Social Democrats.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL. Let's examine this in light of the teamsters....
> >> >
> >> >Do you have any evidence that the last couple of national elections in
> >> >the Teamsters--the one that elected Ron Carey and the one that elected
> >> >James Hoffa, Jr., were not free and fair? Didn't think so.--Joe
> >> > >>
> >> Oh, please.
> >> So, you're telling me tha the crime connections of the father, have no
> >> bearing on the son's getting elected? This from the same end of the
> >> political spectrum that claims Bush stole the election with the help
> >> of a criminal move?
> >>
> >recognition of their fathers,
> >
> And far more if you listen to the left, at least as regards Bush.
> Funny how they get really quiet when talking about their union thugs,
> though.
Again with the "union thugs" line. Last time I asked you for evidence
of this you gave me several websites that had the words "union" and
"thugs" in them but had zero evidence or even allegations of unions
being thugs. I pointed this out to you and *you* got "really quiet"
after that.
>
>
> but my point was that Hoffa, Jr. was
> >elected in a fair election (whether Bush did is another argument
> >entirely). My broader point was that free trade unions--which you and
> >the fascist both oppose--have fair elections.
> >
> And my point is that's simply not true. Hoffa is merely one example.
But you have no evidence of this allegation; you don't even have
evidence of it in the case of Hoffa, Jr. All you have is hysterical,
knee-jerk anti-union ideology which blinds you to anything remotely
resembling reality.
I remind you again, around the anniversary of 9/11, that the police,
fire, EMT and other folks that responded so heroically to those tragic
events were union. I also remind you that over 600 people who lost
their lives on that tragic day were members of unions. These people
were real Americans, not ideological poseurs like you.--Joe
.BitHead.
wrote:
>> And far more if you listen to the left, at least as regards Bush.
>> Funny how they get really quiet when talking about their union thugs,
>> though.
>
>Again with the "union thugs" line.
Yep.
> Last time I asked you for evidence
>of this you gave me several websites that had the words "union" and
>"thugs" in them but had zero evidence or even allegations of unions
>being thugs. I pointed this out to you and *you* got "really quiet"
>after that.
Oh, come. Are we really to accept you deny unions ever get violent on
those workers who oppose them, or work outside their confines and
control??
jslater
> >> though.
> >
> >Again with the "union thugs" line.
>
> Yep.
> >
> > Last time I asked you for evidence
> >of this you gave me several websites that had the words "union" and
> >"thugs" in them but had zero evidence or even allegations of unions
> >being thugs. I pointed this out to you and *you* got "really quiet"
> >after that.
>
> Oh, come. Are we really to accept you deny unions ever get violent on
> those workers who oppose them, or work outside their confines and
> control??
Your assertion, some time ago, was that *all* unionists were thugs.
Even though that assertion is ludicrous on its face, I was polite and
asked you for evidence backing that up. You then gave me links to
cites that didn't even plausibly attempt to support your point. So
you succeeded in wasting some of my time, but your credibility as a
debater dropped considerably.
You now change your assertion to the question of whether unions have
*ever* used violence. Let's go through that claim, understanding
you've shifted the debate considerably.
There has been a lot of violence in American labor
relations--considerably more than in Europe, for example. Let me
stress that the VAST MAJORITY of this violence has been perpetrated by
EMPLOYERS on employees: the U.S. has a shameful history of employers
using thugs and spies to attack unions.
Fortunately, the level of violence in labor relations decreased
considerably after the National Labor Relations Act kicked in (in the
1940s). These days, there is not much violence on either side.
Sure, there have been *some* incidents of violence by union members in
modern times, but these are relatively rare and are almost always
prosecuted. What is actually *more* common is employers making
*accusations* of union violence which are subsequently disproved.
Crucially, you have no evidence otherwise. So your general point that
unions are "thugs" is wrong. Remember this: today 40% of union
members are women, and 40% of union members are in the public sector.
So the typical union member today is at least as likely to be a
kindergarten teacher as a longshoreman. Not a lot of beatings by
kindergarten teachers. Also, remember that the union movement
currently has over 16 million people; like any other institution of
that size, you can always find a few bad apples.
Finally, this has gone far afield from the original point about Nazis.
You have the right to follow me into various threads, make grossly
overbroad allegations about unions, and then fail to support them, but
at this point maybe you should hold off unless and until you find a
subject that you actually know something about.--Joe