Liberal Fascists Versus Gold
∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who
sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to
do with sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold,
in a bill too big for most people to read.
Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to
extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard
cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print
when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be
exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold.
When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how
much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive
national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of
government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with
which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat
people as easily.
That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped
politicians' style-- and just one of the reasons they got rid of it.
One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the
United States off the gold standard in 1933.
But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private
individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal
the value of their money by printing more money.
Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer
resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred
dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the
1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those
years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can
keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing
presses.
That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the
government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is
either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start
transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the
ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation.
Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of
gold have nevertheless skyrocketed. Ordinarily, most gold is bought
for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than
as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold
has been bought by investors.
What that suggests is that increasing numbers of people don't trust
this administration's economic policies, especially their huge and
growing deficits, which add up to a record-breaking national debt.
When a national debt reaches an unsustainable amount, there is always
a temptation to pay it off with inflated dollars. There is the same
temptation when the Social Security system starts paying out more
money to baby boom retirees than it is taking in from current workers.
Whether gold is a good investment for individuals, and whether the
gold standard is the right system for a country, are much more
complicated questions than can be answered here. But what is clear is
that the Obama administration sees people's freedom to buy and sell
gold as something that can limit what the government can do.
Indeed, freedom in general cramps the government's style. Those on the
left may not be against freedom in general. But, at every turn, they
find the freedoms granted by the Constitution of the United States
hampering the left's agenda of imposing their superior wisdom and
virtue on the rest of us.
The desire to restrain or control the buying and selling of gold is
just one of the many signs of the inherent conflict between the
freedom of the individual and the left's attempts to control our
lives.
Sneaking a provision on gold purchases and sales into massive
legislation that is supposedly about medical care is just one of the
many cynical tricks used to circumvent the public's right to know how
they are being governed. The Constitution begins, "We the people" but,
to the left, both the people and the Constitution are just things to
circumvent in order to carry out their agenda.
http://www.tsowell.com/cv.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/28/politics_versus_gold
John Smith
>> ...
> in a bill too big for most people to read.
>
Excellent point! Why should I have to constantly be demanding my public
servants first read what they vote on? I mean a moron usually can
figure that out; What is up with them?
> Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to
> extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard
> cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print
> when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be
> exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold.
>
The is one rule, the golden rule ... but then, there is a second rule
which deserves honorable mention, "If you want to keep your money though
all this, without chance of loss, PUT IT IN GOLD!
> When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how
> much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive
> national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of
> government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with
> which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat
> people as easily.
>
There are problems with the gold standard, but in lieu of the present
money system, it would be better ... at least until we get a handle on
the crooks, banking into the hands of our government, and the government
back in the hands of the people.
> That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped
> politicians' style-- and just one of the reasons they got rid of it.
> One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the
> United States off the gold standard in 1933.
>
Give me a list of the republi-crats demanding to return to the gold
standard, I will vote for them ... as far as I can tell, I won't be
doing that anytime soon, demo-cans just as bad ...
> But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private
> individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal
> the value of their money by printing more money.
>
I am not aware of any laws which keep you from trading your good and/or
services for gold, silver, platinum, or any precious metal (well, not
uranium or plutonium, etc.) Just refuse to take worthless dollars ...
> Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer
> resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred
> dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the
> 1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those
> years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can
> keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing
> presses.
>
Inflation is the carrot before the horse ... when you are in danger of
achieving the "American Dream", they hit the inflation button and you
stay with your nose to the grindstone ... if you are just figuring that
out, bud, it is too late for you ... we had price controls which
prevented this from happening, indeed, the price controls had been
implemented because of the great depression ... regan tore 'em off and
it has been downhill ever since.
> That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the
> government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is
> either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start
> transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the
> ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation.
>
When idiots will trade goods and services for worthless paper promises,
you use those ... when they won't, you are forced to use gold ... don't
make it sound complicated ...
> Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of
> gold have nevertheless skyrocketed. Ordinarily, most gold is bought
> for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than
> as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold
> has been bought by investors.
>
There is little inflation because no one is buying the homes, cars, etc.
at the current prices ... since wages always trail inflation, it is
nonsensical to ever think that inflating those prices will cure the
problem which inflated prices caused ... but hey, you are dealing with a
government which gave the wealthiest >1% of the people money to bail
them out of the "recession" (depression.) With that type of logic, what
do you expect?
>...
The rest is just kinda redundant, repetitive and bitchy--you imply no
recourse's, fixes, cures, etc. ... a response is unnecessary ...
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberals,
trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
conservative movement:)
Nickname unavailable
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings
http://www.buy.com/prod/hitler-and-his-secret-partners/q/loc/106/3042...
Chapter 1: Financing the 1933 Elections
On the cold winter weekend of January 28, 1933, Germany was officially
without a government. Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his cabinet
had resigned on Saturday afternoon, and eighty-six-year-old President
von Hindenburg had not yet appointed a new chancellor. A nervous
tension spread over Berlin. Everyone waited for news; most felt
Germany was at an historic turning point.
Who would be the next chancellor? Hitler - the leader of the largest
party, the Nazis, who pledged to destroy democracy? Papen - the
aristocratic horseman who had been chancellor before Schleicher, but
who had no popular following? Perhaps Schleicher again, if he could
persuade the Social Democrats, the second largest political party in
the country, to join him in a coalition? Governing Germany in the
middle of an economic depression with nine million unemployed was not
an enviable task. The country had just had three different chancellors
in rapid succession. By tradition, the leader of the largest party was
usually appointed chancellor. But the Nazis had been the largest party
for over a year, and so far intrigues and political maneuvering had
succeeded in keeping Hitler out of power. Everyone guessed what a
Hitler government would mean. He had not kept his militarism, anti-
Semitism, and dictatorial ambitions a secret.
Political intrigues were so numerous that weekend that no one really
knew what was going on. Sensational rumors were being spread
throughout the city. Some said an army coup was imminent, that
Schleicher and the generals were about to abduct President von
Hindenburg and declare martial law. There were also rumors of an armed
Nazi uprising and a general strike by the socialist workers.
Hitler and Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Nazi
party, stayed up all night on Sunday, January 29, trying to figure out
what Hindenburg might do. It was not until after 10 A.M. on Monday
that Hitler received a summons to the president's office. Even at that
point, the Nazis were not certain whether Hitler would be appointed
chancellor or Hindenburg would ask him to serve as vice-chancellor.
Across the street from the Chancellery, in the Kaiserhof Hotel,
Hitler's lieutenants were waiting, unsure of what was going on.
Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, said:
In the street the crowd stands waiting between the Kaiserhof and the
Chancellery. We are torn between doubt, hope, joy and despair. We have
been deceived too often to be able, wholeheartedly, to believe in the
great miracle. [S.A.] Chief of Staff Roehm stands at the window (with
binoculars) watching the door of the Chancellery from which the
Fuehrer [the leader, Hitler] must emerge. We shall be able to judge by
his face if the interview was a success. Torturing hours of waiting.
At last, a car draws up in front of the entrance. The crowd cheers.
They seem to feel that a great change is taking place....
A few moments later, he is with us. He says nothing. His eyes are full
of tears. It has come! The Fuehrer is appointed Chancellor. He has
already been sworn in by the President of the Reich. All of us are
dumb with emotion. Everyone clasps the Fuehrer's hand....Outside the
Kaiserhof, the masses are in a wild uproar....The thousands soon
become tens of thousands. Endless streams of people flood the
Wilhelmstrasse. We set to work...at once.
Hitler's victory was not a complete one by any means. He had been
appointed chancellor in a coalition government. Papen was to be his
vice-chancellor, and all the powerful cabinet posts were held by
Papen's conservative allies, rather than the Nazis. But at the moment,
Hitler's followers weren't worried about the details; for them the
only thing that mattered was that Hitler was chancellor. They had come
to power! All day, crowds gathered in the square outside the Kaiserhof
Hotel and the Chancellery.
At dusk Nazi storm troopers in their brown uniforms gathered in the
Tiergarten park, along with men of the Stahlhelm, an
ultranationalistic veterans' organization, for a torchlight victory
parade through the center of Berlin. As soon as it was dark, they came
marching by the thousands through the Brandenburg Gate, carrying
swastika flags and the black, white, and red flags of the German
empire. Bands marched between the units, beating their big drums as
the men sang old German military songs. But as each band came to the
Pariser Platz, where the French embassy was located, they stopped
whatever they were playing and, with an introductory roll of drums,
broke into the tune of the challenging war song "Victorious We Will
Crush the French."
The torches carried by the marchers glowed hypnotically in the
darkness. To foreign witnesses, it was a frightening sight. "The river
of fire flowed past the French Embassy," Ambassador François-Poncet
wrote, "whence, with heavy heart and filled with foreboding, I watched
this luminous wake." Liberal Germans found it an "ominous sight." It
was, wrote one German reporter, "a night of deadly menace, a nightmare
in...blazing torches."
As the marchers came by the Chancellery, there were tumultuous cheers
for Hitler, who stood in an open window saluting them. He was so
excited that night, he could hardly stand still. He was raising his
arm up and down heiling, smiling, and laughing so much, his eyes
filled with tears. "It was an extraordinary experience," recalled
Papen, who was standing behind Hitler. "The endless repetition of the
triumphal cry: 'Heil, Heil, Sieg Heil!' rang in my ears like a
tocsin." When Hitler turned to speak with Papen, his voice choked with
emotion. "What an immense task we have set for ourselves, Herr von
Papen - we must never part until our work is accomplished." Hitler and
Papen were much closer allies than anyone at the time imagined.
It was after midnight when the parade ended. Being too excited to
sleep, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and a few other Nazis sat up talking
for hours. They could hardly believe it had actually happened: they
were in the Chancellery at last. That evening, Hitler said to
Goebbels, "No one gets me out of here alive." It was one of the few
promises he kept.
On the morning of January 31, Hitler's storm troopers gave the German
people a glimpse of what Nazi rule would be like. All over Germany,
thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up
Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and
officials out of government buildings and even broke into the private
homes of their political enemies. When people complained to Papen, he
laughed. "Let the storm troopers have their fling." Among his friends
at the Herrenklub, an exclusive gentlemens club, he boasted: "We've
hired Hitler." To a skeptic he replied: "What do you want? I have
Hindenburg's confidence. Within two months we will have pushed Hitler
so far in the corner that he'll squeak."
The facts seemed to support Papen's optimism. Not only did Papen have
Hindenburg"s confidence, but in fact the old president had promised
never to receive Hitler unless he was accompanied by his vice-
chancellor. Papen also held the important post of minister-president
of Prussia, Germany's largest and most powerful state. From the
composition of the cabinet, it seemed all the real power was in the
hands of the conservatives: the aristocratic General von Blomberg was
minister of defense, Baron von Neurath, a career diplomat, was foreign
minister, and the old archreactionary Hugenberg was both minister of
economics and minister of agriculture. The Nazis were outnumbered six
to two.
The two Nazis in the cabinet, Wilhelm Frick and Goering, held posts
that were thought to be insignificant. Frick was minister of the
interior, but he did not control the police, which in Germany was
under the jurisdiction of the individual state governments. Goering
was made minister without portfolio, but with the promise that he
would be minister of aviation as soon as Germany had an air force. He
was also named minister of the interior of Prussia, an office that did
not receive much notice by the public but did control the Prussian
police.
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did. These men belonged to the old ruling class of the kaiser's
Germany. They wanted to regain their old position of supremacy, lost
in 1918. They wanted to restore the monarchy, suppress the socialist
unions, avenge the loss of World War I, and make Germany the dominant
power in Europe. It was obvious why such reactionary nationalists
helped put Hitler in power: their goals and his were very similar.
Few people knew the full extent of Papen's collaboration with Hitler.
Historians have said he "did more than anyone else outside the Nazi
party to help Hitler to power." Papen helped Hitler because he was
trying to control him and use the Nazis for his own aims.
Papen was a handsome aristocratic-looking man with distinguished gray
hair and an officer's mustache. From an impoverished family of the
Westphalian nobility, he became a General Staff officer, a skillful
horseman, and a man of great charm. After a successful marriage to the
daughter of a wealthy Saar industrialist, he bought a large block of
shares in the Center party's newspaper, Germania. For a short time in
1932, Papen was chancellor, but his government had no popular support.
Papen believed it would be rather easy for an aristocratic officer
like himself to manipulate a former corporal, like Hitler, and thus be
able to use the Nazi's mass following to accomplish the aims of the
upper-class conservative nationalists.
Hitler immediately began to outmaneuver his conservative colleagues.
He reported to the cabinet that the Center party was making impossible
demands and could not be counted on to form a coalition with the Nazis
and the Nationalists that would have a majority in the Reichstag.
Because of this situation, Hitler argued he would have to call for new
elections. The only "demand" the Center party made was that Hitler
promise to govern constitutionally, but none of the other members of
the cabinet bothered to check Hitler's statement. They agreed to new
elections on the condition that Hitler promise that the composition of
the cabinet would not change regardless of the outcome of the voting.
New elections would provide Hitler with a chance to improve on the
poor results the Nazis had received at the polls the past November. If
the Nazis won a clear majority in the elections, they might be able to
get rid of their coalition partners. Hitler had every reason to
believe the election campaign would be a big success. The entire
machinery of government, including the radio, was now under Nazi
control and could be used for campaigning. The party had been flooded
with new applicants for membership since he had become chancellor. In
the cabinet meeting on February 2, Hitler discussed his preparations
for the elections. Wilhelm Frick, the Nazi minister of the interior,
proposed that the government set aside a million marks for the
election campaign. Count von Schwerin von Krosigk, the minister of
finance, rejected this suggestion. Hitler did not force the issue. He
would have to get the money elsewhere.
The theme of the Nazi election campaign was to be the fight against
communism. Hitler opened the attack in a late-night radio broadcast to
the nation on February 1. He blamed the hard times Germany had gone
through since 1918 on the Social Democrats, which had been the largest
party in the Reichstag during most of those years. The Social
Democrats, he reminded his listeners, were actually a Marxist party.
"Fourteen years of Marxism," he said, "have ruined Germany; one year
of bolshevism [communism] would destroy her. The richest and fairest
territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins.
Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be
compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag
of destruction has been hoisted." He went on to promise to put the
unemployed back to work and save the peasants from bankruptcy.
On his fourth day in office, just after opening the election
campaign, Hitler took time off to attend a very important dinner. He
had been invited to the home of General von Hammerstein, chief of
staff of the army, to meet the leading officers of the army and navy.
In a speech that lasted almost two hours, Hitler explained his plans
for rebuilding German military power.
The generals were the real power in Germany during the Weimar period.
After World War II, many Germans tried to cover up the role certain
members of the Officer Corps had played in helping to put Hitler in
power. Many historians naively accepted this view, but the real story
is quite different. Traditionally, the German Army ruled from behind
the scenes and had the final "power to veto" any important issue.
After the loss of World War I, the Versailles Treaty severely
restricted the size of the German Army. The only way the generals
could maintain mass training and develop new weapons was to finance
private paramilitary units, like the Free Corps, with secret army
funds.
Hitler not only began his career as an army agent, but even in the
1930s he was supported by a powerful faction in the army. Over several
years, General von Schleicher, who was in charge of a secret informal
political department of the army, funneled over ten million marks to
Hitler. Why? Many military officers wanted an authoritarian government
that could unify the nation. The people needed to be infused with a
new spirit of patriotism because powerful interests were planning a
war of revenge against the Allies. Naturally there was a division of
opinion among the generals as to how much power to give Hitler.
Hindenburg originally had strong reservations about appointing a man
from a lower-class background, like Hitler, chancellor. However, the
aggressive action the Nazis took against Communists was admired by
Hindenburg, and his relationship with Hitler rapidly improved.
One day, Hindenburg summoned Hitler when Papen was away from Berlin.
Hitler informed the president that Papen was out of town and reminded
him of the rule he (Hindenburg) had made, that the chancellor could
visit him only when accompanied by the vice-chancellor. "The old
gentleman [Hindenburg]," said Hitler, "replied that he wished to see
me alone, and that in the future the presence of Papen could be
regarded as unnecessary. Within three weeks, he had progressed so far
that his attitude towards me became affectionate and paternal. Talking
of the elections fixed for the 3rd of March, he said, 'What are we
going to do if you fail to get a majority? We shall have the same
difficulties all over again.'"
At the beginning of the election campaign, Hitler and Papen persuaded
old President von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree to protect
law and order. The decree gave Nazi officials the right to prohibit
public meetings. Newspapers could be suppressed if they "incited"
civil disobedience or published "false" reports.
Nickname unavailable
here are the three 3 phases of conservative decay.
1.conservatism(policies always fail)
2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and
those that implemented them, were not pure enough)
3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity), the
strongman
will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade
unionists, communists, socialists, those with mental and physical
defects,
gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened
to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies, and
came up millions of workers and soldiers short.
Nickname unavailable
there is only one rule that you need to know, and that is those that
own the gold, write the rules. cash is king in a deflating economy.
oh the irony:gold bugs are getting screwed by the private sector that
is selling debased coins:They include false gradings on the quality of
the coins, the use of cheaper alloys instead of pure gold and even
brazen scams where you don't actually even own the gold that you buy
gee, i thought gold based money could not be debased,
SNICKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank god for conservatives/libertarians/fascists, without their
stupidity in the market place, the con artists would starve:)
Five Hidden Costs of Gold
by Jeff Reeves
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Commentary: Investing in gold isn't as easy as it looks
There's a lot of talk right now about how gold is booming, and how
gold bugs who have been stashing bullion under their mattresses over
the last decade or so have made a killing.
That may be true if you look at the price of the yellow stuff per
ounce. The price of an ounce of gold is up about 30% in the last year,
or over 400% in the last 10 years. How does that relate to actual
returns for investors?
The truth is that gold has steep hidden costs, and that looking at the
numbers on paper doesn't tell the whole story. Here are big costs many
investors overlook.
Higher taxes
The affinity for gold investing and a dislike of the government seem
to go hand in hand, from predictions that massive government debt will
render the dollar worthless to conspiracy theories that there will be
another Executive Order 6102 in which Uncle Sam loots your safe
deposit box and seizes your gold.
But the biggest reason for gold investors to get mad at the feds is
their tax bracket. The IRS taxes precious metal investments —
including gold ETFs like the SPDR Gold Trust (NYSE: GLD - News) and
iShares Silver Trust (SLV - News) — as collectibles. That means a long-
term capital gains tax of 28% compared with 15% for equities (20% if
and when the Bush tax cuts expire next year).
While you may see your gold as a bunker investment, the IRS will treat
you the same as if you were hoarding Hummel figurines. And that means
a bigger portion of your gold profits go to the tax man.
Zero income
Just as the math game on gold price appreciation doesn't tell the
whole story, the lack of regular payouts is another reason why the
long-term profits quoted in gold are incomplete. Many long-term
investors can't afford to stash their savings in the back yard for 20
years. Income is a very valuable feature of many investments and gold
simply doesn't provide that.
Remember, simply looking at returns in a vacuum can't tell you whether
an investment is "good" or "bad." Is it a good idea for a 70-year-old
retiree on a fixed income to bet on penny stocks because they could
generate huge profits? Even if those trades pay off, 99 out of 100
advisers would say something akin to "You got lucky this time, but
don't tempt fate. Quit while you're ahead and don't be so aggressive."
Similarly, the volatile and income-starved gold market is not a place
for everyone. Just because past returns for gold have been so stellar,
that does not mean that gold is low risk or that investors who need a
secure source of regular income will be well-served.
Gold scams take a toll
In a previous article, I detailed gold coin scams in detail. They
include false gradings on the quality of the coins, the use of cheaper
alloys instead of pure gold and even brazen scams where you don't
actually even own the gold that you buy. And that's just on the coins
front. Scams abound in pawn shops and "cash for gold" enterprises that
refuse to give you a true value for your jewelry or other gold items.
You'd think it would be obvious that precious metals should never be
purchased from anyone other than a broker or seller of good repute who
provides proper documentations. But many investors fail to do their
homework, or worse, can't tell forged documents from real ones.
Gold is ready-made to be a retail sales item, and with that comes all
manner of unscrupulous activity. Vigilant investors can protect
themselves, but do not underestimate the very real price of being
taken to the cleaners by a gold scam if you don't do your homework.
High ownership and storage costs
Maybe through some creative accounting or selective amnesia at tax
time you can mitigate the tax burden of gold. But one expense you
can't as easily avoid is the high ownership cost of gold. After all,
it's not like you mined it yourself — and all those middlemen between
the ore and you want to get paid.
The first is that old tightwad Uncle Sam again. Even if you can avoid
him going on the capital gains front, he gets you coming into gold via
sales tax on most jewelry and coins. And then there are the high
transaction costs and commissions that gold can carry. Anyone who has
bought jewelry knows significant markups are part of the precious
metals trade, and that's the same for investment gold as it is for
engagement rings. The bottom line is that some of your initial buy-in
goes towards the business of gold and you'll never get it back, not
unlike realtor fees or broker fees.
And then there's the additional cost of storing your gold. You have to
pay a fee for a safe deposit box, and if you have a lot of gold, that
can run you a few hundred bucks a year for a good-sized box. Of course
if you're afraid of that Order 6102 scam pulled by FDR you likely have
your gold at home in a safe — so that's a one-shot deal. But are you
really foolish enough to distrust the government but trust your gold
stash to be safe without insurance?
The presumed "safety" of gold is good on paper, but obtaining the
actual metal and keeping it safely stored is a costly endeavor.
Yes, gold can lose value
Proponents of gold love to claim that gold has never been worthless
like Lehman Bros. or GM. And while this is true on its face, it is
actually a half-truth. While gold may never become worthless, it is
foolish to think it will never lose value.
Consider that after reaching a record high of $850 per ounce in early
1980, gold plummeted 40% in two months. The average price for gold in
1981 fell to a mere $460 an ounce — and continued nearly unabated
until bottoming with an average price of around $280 in 2000. For
those folks in their 40s and 50s who bought gold at that 1980 high, it
took them 28 years to reclaim the $850 level. That's hardly much of a
retirement plan, unless they lived to be 80 or 90 and just cashed out
recently.
Gold is an investment, period. And no matter how gold bugs spin the
metal as a hedge against inflation and a sure thing that will only go
up, gold can lose its value — sometimes in a hurry, as in the early
1980s.
Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com. Follow him on Twitter
at twitter.com/JeffReevesIP
___
John Smith
>> ...
You buy gold to protect yourself, it works well. If you are a damned
fool which buys a piece of paper that says you own gold, count on it
being worth the paper and ink ... and, if you are that stoopid, you
ain't fooling me--you won't even have the money to buy gold with! ROFLOL
Further, if some sells you a gold plated lead coin, you are a fool in
the first place ... indeed, I think you are a fool for buying coins in
the first place ... gold has value ... the fact it is in the shape of a
coin only has value in someones' mind.
My gawd man, if you are really all that stoopid, you should NOT even be
in charge of your own finances! Can't the court appoint someone to care
for you?
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 2:25 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> You buy gold to protect yourself, it works well. If you are a damned
> fool which buys a piece of paper that says you own gold, count on it
> being worth the paper and ink ... and, if you are that stoopid, you
> ain't fooling me--you won't even have the money to buy gold with! ROFLOL
>
but, the ones who are telling you to buy gold to protect yourself,
are the ones who are selling you gold for little green pieces of
paper. i wonder who is smarter:) so go ahead, spend your little green
pieces of paper in a deflating economy for your over priced asset,
then later on when cash is even more scarce, then you maybe forced
into selling your over priced asset at a reduced price to raise scarce
cash to pay your bills. only a fool will overspend on a asset, when
the money supply is contracting.
> Further, if some sells you a gold plated lead coin, you are a fool in
> the first place ...
gee, i only thought governments debased money. you are a fool. it
went WHOOOOSH way over your head.
indeed, I think you are a fool for buying coins in
> the first place ... gold has value ... the fact it is in the shape of a
> coin only has value in someones' mind.
>
gold is a commodity that has value in electronics, jewelry, art,
etc.
> My gawd man, if you are really all that stoopid, you should NOT even be
> in charge of your own finances! Can't the court appoint someone to care
> for you?
>
that refuted nothing. cash is king in a deflating economy.
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
> ...
> but, the ones who are telling you to buy gold to protect yourself,
> are the ones who are selling you gold for little green pieces of
> paper. i wonder who is smarter:) so go ahead, spend your little green
> pieces of paper in a deflating economy for your over priced asset,
> then later on when cash is even more scarce, then you maybe forced
> into selling your over priced asset at a reduced price to raise scarce
> cash to pay your bills. only a fool will overspend on a asset, when
> the money supply is contracting.
>
That is a fools fear, they sell it because they make a commission above
the price of the worth of the gold ... DUH! Buy some, you will find
out. On small quantities you might pay 10% above, fools will even pay more!
If you buy a substantial quantity you can negotiate 1% or even less ...
you really need to know, at least a little, about what you are talking
about, will save you from being the fool.
>
>> Further, if some sells you a gold plated lead coin, you are a fool in
>> the first place ...
>
>
> gee, i only thought governments debased money. you are a fool. it
> went WHOOOOSH way over your head.
>
Huh, my mind must have tried following your rational, somewhere in
outerspace ...
>
>
> indeed, I think you are a fool for buying coins in
>> the first place ... gold has value ... the fact it is in the shape of a
>> coin only has value in someones' mind.
>>
>
>
> gold is a commodity that has value in electronics, jewelry, art,
> etc.
>
Uh yeah, surprises me you would think others would have to be
enlightened to that fact ... I took it for granted all would know,
unless living on another planet. That is what I mean, a very little
thought would save you from being a very BIG fool ...
>
>> My gawd man, if you are really all that stoopid, you should NOT even be
>> in charge of your own finances! Can't the court appoint someone to care
>> for you?
>>
>
>
> that refuted nothing. cash is king in a deflating economy.
>
Back in the gold rush, a $20 dollar gold piece would buy you a very nice
suit, it still will today ... a $20 dollar bill would not even buy you a
decent silk tie today ... like I said, know what you are talking about,
try to give it a bit of thought -- save yourself from being a fool ...
that is my final warning, you are on your own.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
> Back in the gold rush, a $20 dollar gold piece would buy you a very nice
> suit, it still will today ... a $20 dollar bill would not even buy you a
> decent silk tie today ... like I said, know what you are talking about,
> try to give it a bit of thought -- save yourself from being a fool ...
> that is my final warning, you are on your own.
>
> Regards,
> JS
>
I should point out, that 1 Troy OZ., $20 gold coin is still worth the
$20 it was back then. You just need a lot of $20 dollar bills, today,
to be worth what one was back then ... sorry, that was an IMPORTANT
point to ignore.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> I should point out, that 1 Troy OZ., $20 gold coin is still worth the
> $20 it was back then. You just need a lot of $20 dollar bills, today, to
> be worth what one was back then ... sorry, that was an IMPORTANT point
> to ignore.
>
> Regards,
> JS
And, for you, I am sure, I will have to point out, that IS called
inflation! It is a most practical example too.
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 4:24 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > but, the ones who are telling you to buy gold to protect yourself,
> > are the ones who are selling you gold for little green pieces of
> > paper. i wonder who is smarter:) so go ahead, spend your little green
> > pieces of paper in a deflating economy for your over priced asset,
> > then later on when cash is even more scarce, then you maybe forced
> > into selling your over priced asset at a reduced price to raise scarce
> > cash to pay your bills. only a fool will overspend on a asset, when
> > the money supply is contracting.
>
> That is a fools fear, they sell it because they make a commission above
> the price of the worth of the gold ... DUH! Buy some, you will find
> out. On small quantities you might pay 10% above, fools will even pay more!
>
but if gold is so valuable, and the price is rising, only a fool
would sell their gold:) feverish beliefs will not substitute that
sellers of gold, regardless if they are the salesmen, or owners of the
mines, would not sell their gold for worthless little green pieces of
paper. remember, in a deflating economy, cash is king.
> If you buy a substantial quantity you can negotiate 1% or even less ...
> you really need to know, at least a little, about what you are talking
> about, will save you from being the fool.
>
>
a fool is someone who cannot understand the facts, that the owners of
gold, will gladly sell you their gold, for little green pieces of
paper. they are also the ones who are driving your fears.
>
> >> Further, if some sells you a gold plated lead coin, you are a fool in
> >> the first place ...
>
> > gee, i only thought governments debased money. you are a fool. it
> > went WHOOOOSH way over your head.
>
> Huh, my mind must have tried following your rational, somewhere in
> outerspace ...
>
>
well, gold has never stopped a debasement, depression, recession, nor
inflation. in fact, the gold standard is deflationary in nature, and
can make a recession, into a depression. its why no country will touch
the stuff. cash is king, and in a deflating economy, only fools over
pay for commodities and other assets.
>
> > indeed, I think you are a fool for buying coins in
> >> the first place ... gold has value ... the fact it is in the shape of a
> >> coin only has value in someones' mind.
>
> > gold is a commodity that has value in electronics, jewelry, art,
> > etc.
>
> Uh yeah, surprises me you would think others would have to be
> enlightened to that fact ... I took it for granted all would know,
> unless living on another planet. That is what I mean, a very little
> thought would save you from being a very BIG fool ...
>
>
i am not driven by feverish fears. cash is king in a deflating
economy.
>
> >> My gawd man, if you are really all that stoopid, you should NOT even be
> >> in charge of your own finances! Can't the court appoint someone to care
> >> for you?
>
> > that refuted nothing. cash is king in a deflating economy.
>
> Back in the gold rush, a $20 dollar gold piece would buy you a very nice
> suit, it still will today ... a $20 dollar bill would not even buy you a
> decent silk tie today ... like I said, know what you are talking about,
> try to give it a bit of thought -- save yourself from being a fool ...
> that is my final warning, you are on your own.
>
except, wages have risen dramatically since then. i bet if you adjust
the prices, it will turn out to be almost the same. cash is king in a
deflating economy.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices. gold goes
up in price, gold falls in price. suckers who bought gold in the early
80's, still have not recouped their losses. its a poor investment,
pays no dividends, makes no income, and is only valuable for
electronics and jewelery.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency
collapse.
John Smith
> ...
> the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency
> collapse.
A bizarre meaningless comment does you no good ... if you want to hold
on to a piece of paper, after noting the importance of gold, even to
industry, you must be an idiot ... what circular logic and reasoning ...
nothing short of bizarre ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices. gold goes
> up in price, gold falls in price. suckers who bought gold in the early
> 80's, still have not recouped their losses. its a poor investment,
> pays no dividends, makes no income, and is only valuable for
> electronics and jewelery.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
Wrong, again ... up until the 1960's, or around there, it was
universally known in America, the rule, "A fair days pay for a fair days
work." This is no longer so ...
Minimum wage, still in 1970, would buy you about 10 gallons of gas--it
was $1.65 p/hr; Gas is now 10x as much. A fair 1 bedroom apartment
would run you ~$80.00 a month--utilities included; Today, it would cost
you in excess of 10x as much. A nice new car would run you
$1,800-$2,000; Today, a car of "equal" value would be 10x as much.
The point to all the above? For minimum wage to have kept up with
inflation, minimum would have to be ~$16.50 p/hr.
Now, I believe minimum wage is less than 1/2 of that ... only a fool
would attempt to sell, as fact, that wages have kept any where near the
rate of inflation. Sell that chit to some fool ... real wages have even
suffered worse!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
For some reason, you just don't get it ... perhaps the others can
explain it to you ... you only look like the fool to me ... I accept you
are either unwilling or you are unable.
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 5:33 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency
> > collapse.
>
> A bizarre meaningless comment does you no good ...
really. then pray tell why the dollar collapsed in 1930, when it was
backed by gold. only a few coutries stayed on the gold standard after
1930. and their economies imploded. you are way out of your league.
if you want to hold
> on to a piece of paper, after noting the importance of gold, even to
> industry, you must be an idiot ... what circular logic and reasoning ...
> nothing short of bizarre ...
>
then why will the owners of gold, gladly sell you their valuable
gold, for little green pieces of paper. you are driven by fears. those
fears are being driven by those who sell gold, for little green pieces
of paper.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 5:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices. gold goes
> > up in price, gold falls in price. suckers who bought gold in the early
> > 80's, still have not recouped their losses. its a poor investment,
> > pays no dividends, makes no income, and is only valuable for
> > electronics and jewelery.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
>
> Wrong, again ... up until the 1960's, or around there, it was
> universally known in America, the rule, "A fair days pay for a fair days
> work." This is no longer so ...
>
what does that have to do with the price of gold.
> Minimum wage, still in 1970, would buy you about 10 gallons of gas--it
> was $1.65 p/hr; Gas is now 10x as much. A fair 1 bedroom apartment
> would run you ~$80.00 a month--utilities included; Today, it would cost
> you in excess of 10x as much. A nice new car would run you
> $1,800-$2,000; Today, a car of "equal" value would be 10x as much.
>
yes wages have fallen, it has nothing to do with fiat currency, or
gold. it has to do with a rising economic aristocracy.
> The point to all the above? For minimum wage to have kept up with
> inflation, minimum would have to be ~$16.50 p/hr.
>
so. that still does not mean a thing about fiat currencies and gold.
> Now, I believe minimum wage is less than 1/2 of that ... only a fool
> would attempt to sell, as fact, that wages have kept any where near the
> rate of inflation. Sell that chit to some fool ... real wages have even
> suffered worse!
>
wages are a problem. demand is wage driven, deflation is a lack of
demand. as long as wages are not addressed, assets and prices will
fall, including gold. gold has nothing to do with wages. i think this
stuff is way over your head. no wonder the gold bugs are plundering
you.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
yea, its way over your head. if one day you are forced into selling
your way over priced asset(gold), at a reduced price to raise scarce
cash someday to pay your bills, remember me:)
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
> ...
> yea, its way over your head. if one day you are forced into selling
> your way over priced asset(gold), at a reduced price to raise scarce
> cash someday to pay your bills, remember me:)
>
>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
You are an idiot, choose another like yourself to carry on your BS with
... insane ranting does not interest me. I suspect you are another
"guest" they let use the dayroom computer ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
It is thinking like yours that got us here ... you go on ahead. I think
enough know what to do now ...
Regards,
JS
RHF
- - On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, John Smith <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
- - And, for you, I am sure, I will have to point out,
- - that IS called inflation!
- - It is a most practical example too.
- - Regards,
- - JS
- the gold standard has never stopped inflation,
- nor a currency collapse.
But Gold Itself Has NOT Collapsed : Just the
worthless paper currency.
Something of Value Will Retain It Value
and Be Of Value.
Currency exists as a medium to easily and readily
Acquire Something of Value. Currency is a Means
to an End and the End is Always Something of Value.
Gold Can Be Something of Value provided that
someone has everything they need and wants
some Gold in exchange for something they wish
to sell for the Gold.
Would You Sell :
Your Last Bottle of Clean Water for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Loaf of Bread for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Chicken for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Box of Matches for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Package of Vegetable Seeds for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Fishing Hook for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Gallon of Gasoline for Gold ?
Would You Sell :
Your Last Gun and a Box of Ammo for Gold ?
yes there are times when gold has little or no value
-wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF
.
.
John Smith
Actually, we would still be on the gold standard if the government had
not made it illegal and abolished it ... a clear example of how the
people are never wrong, whenever there is a question, "Who is wrong?"
It will ALWAYS be the government ...
Regards,
JS
arthr...@webtv.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
And we can always blame China for inventing paper money. And they are
still buying US Treasury bonds- isn't that funny !
RHF
"NA" -says- "it is impossible for liberals to be fascists"
.
¡ LET THERE BE A REPLY !
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/af4569002bba33ca
Question : Can It Exist? {Is It Possible ?}
Are We Allowed* To Consider The Possibility !
* Your Answer seems to be NO.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6d17c9a3b64e6263
Question : Does It Exist ? {Is It Possible ?}
Are We Allowed* To Consider That Possibility !
* Your Answer seems to be NO.
My Follow-Up -remains- Liberal-Fascism :
Denying It's Existence : Won't Make It Go Away
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/c98b88996b751c6d
.
"Liberal-Fascism" with over 6-Million 'Hits' :
Liberal-Fascism is a Virtual Reality in the 21st Century
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6a0dba38cddc6d10
.
Try to use 1930s Definitions to Deny that Liberal-Fascism
Does Exist in the 21st Century is an Tired Old Argument.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7fd91b4a2e4429c9
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal Fascist"
? Can It Exist? & ? Does It Exist ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/af4569002bba33ca
Liberal Fascism : Denying It's Existence
Won't Make It Go Away
.
Liberals & Democrats and Their Fascist [NAZI]
Alliance : The Rest of the Story . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5719a62f36bcbbe8
.
Liberal+Fascism 'Ping-Pong' Fascism-Liberal :
Ad Nauseum
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/153a237ca9ac6d19
.
May the Spirit and Oneness of "The Obama" Transform
Your Evil Hateful Liberal-Fascism Thoughts©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9847bea150e12417
.
National Socialism and International Socialism {World
Communism} the Top-&-Bottom of the Same Extreme©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/0d1b36d6a97c6355
.
The Alliance Between the Liberal-Fascist and National
Socialism Leading To World Communism©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/c4c044e3423630ca
.
"Liberal-Fascism" an Evolved Political Concept
of the 21st Century©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/a3166feb059f9d28
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/14d9270671063cf6
.
Help Prez Obama and the Liberal-Fascist Defeat the Tea
Party-ites and All Those Who Believe In God and Country
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/d9f1c971f1e2cd17
-aka- "T" Party Pay-Tree-Odds {Patriots}
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/15852010435b5586
Independent' Voters Have Shifted
from 2-to-1 for Obama in 2008
to 1-to-2 for Anybody but Obama in 2012
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/65cd2e06d0352446
.
Obama-U-Nism© There Is No Deception
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e39e54fe4774d794
.
Praise Be The Obama ! - my prez-a-duntz ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K17kA50c1zs
All Hail to Our Lord and Savior Prez Obama !
http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
-for- all those unbelievers : the truth will set you free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
.
.
RHF
> On Oct 2, 2:24 pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung <0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
> Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
> Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
> the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
> chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings
NnUa,
So "Fascism" can ONLY be Define and Understood
in the Context of the NAZIs and Germany of the
1920s/30s/40s . . .
Fascism has not evolved since them . . .
Political Thought has not evolved since them . . .
Political Theory has not evolved since them . . .
Society has not evolved since them . . .
The World has not evolved since them . . .
Words have not evolved since them . . .
The Means of Words have not evolved since them . . .
WE ARE ALL STUCK IN NAZI GERMANY IN THE 1930s
.
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Is It Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4bc858344efbacb1
.
.
- = NnUa = -
You Have Entered the "Arguing with Idiots" Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguing_with_Idiots
There is a sign post up ahead . . .
-and-it-reads- "You Are An Idiot !"
-for- Arguing with someone that you
reasonably believe to be an I D I O T [.]
.
*OMG/OMA* Let Us Pray . . .
This Has Been A 'Teachable Moment'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachable_moment
.
.
> like ...
>
> read more »
John Smith
> ...
> yes there are times when gold has little or no value
> -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF
> .
> .
Whenever gold has no value, only food, shelter, water, clothes, etc.
will continue to have value. But as soon as their is a desire for
money, gold is king. Not only that, but you can bury gold for an
eternity and dig it back up and spend it. Paper money will deteriorate
rather quickly ... again, gold is king.
But, I suspect you waste your time ... this idiot only argues for the
sake of "being right" ... it has no bearing on if what he says is even
close to correct, or not.
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
that does not refute one thing i have proven. also,i have been active
on alt.politics.economics for well over a decade and a half.
Nickname unavailable
still does not refute a thing. and the last 30 years of thinking is
what has ruined america.
Nickname unavailable
> On Oct 2, 5:33 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> - - On Oct 2, 7:00 pm, John Smith <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - - And, for you, I am sure, I will have to point out,
> - - that IS called inflation!
> - - It is a most practical example too.
> - - Regards,
> - - JS
>
> - the gold standard has never stopped inflation,
> - nor a currency collapse.
>
> But Gold Itself Has NOT Collapsed : Just the
> worthless paper currency.
>
sure its collapsed. if the paper it backs goes down in value, so does
gold. see 1930. it collapsed in the early 1980s also. explain that
away:)
> Something of Value Will Retain It Value
> and Be Of Value.
>
maybe, maybe not. you have to be able to sell your asset, and a lot
of assets are not selling well today.
> Currency exists as a medium to easily and readily
> Acquire Something of Value. Currency is a Means
> to an End and the End is Always Something of Value.
>
and it does not need to be backed by gold to attain this.
> Gold Can Be Something of Value provided that
> someone has everything they need and wants
> some Gold in exchange for something they wish
> to sell for the Gold.
>
i could say that about baseball cards also.
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Bottle of Clean Water for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Loaf of Bread for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Chicken for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Box of Matches for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Package of Vegetable Seeds for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Fishing Hook for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Gallon of Gasoline for Gold ?
>
> Would You Sell :
> Your Last Gun and a Box of Ammo for Gold ?
>
> yes there are times when gold has little or no value
> -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF
> .
> .
if you believe that the country and currency will collapse, and its
possible. gold will do you little good. food and ammo will be better
assets.
Nickname unavailable
explain away the private sector screwing people over gold. gold is a
impossible way to back a modern economy. its deflationary in nature.
no country is willing to go back to the gold standard and starve.
Nickname unavailable
it sure is. the owners of gold will gladly sell you their gold for
little green pieces of paper. now who is the fool:)
Nickname unavailable
you are simply projecting again.
the GOP, its not fascism when we do it:)Back to the ‘30s:how the GOP
uses Nazi techniques to rally the mob:New agencies all the world over
are for the most part in the hands of Jews:If you substitute liberal
for jew you have the same language
http://moronia.us/front/2009/12/back-to-the-30’s-how-the-gop-uses-nazi-techniques-to-rally-the-mob/
Back to the ‘30s: how the GOP uses Nazi techniques to rally the mob
December 10, 2009
Posted by Jules Siegel
By Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Instead of Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News
and World Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg
we have Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout
anti- liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propa
ganda organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad
hominem attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name- calling
to actual news.
Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street- fighting techniques
in front of minions through use of glossy modern technology.
Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the
attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D- LA) for her stance on the healthcare
debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based
on its merits, and by offering a cogent counter- argument. Instead,
both called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh
Show November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009).
This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the
tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
• Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a
shovel.” In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he
“would want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the
head,” including Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY). (Glenn Beck Program,
3/ 9/ 01)
• The Republican Tea- Party mobs embrace this principle.
Ideological rhetoric backs it up: We see for example from Ann
Coulter, Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?
Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these
days. (FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/ 6)
• “Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about
killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to
hire somebody to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be
looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the
life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band
— Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be
able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the lit
tle band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you
wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to
death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Program, 5/
17/ 05)
• Beck, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker
Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind?
Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink
it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poison in your —” (Glenn
Beck Program, 8/ 6/ 09)
• Bill O’Reilly, of people who criticize him, The Radio Fac
tor, September 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could strangle these
people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can’t.”
• Bill O’Reilly — radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish Kat
rina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just
had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.”
• Rush Limbaugh October 20, 2009, The Rush Limbaugh Show:
“This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity
is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that
human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the
extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t
you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?”
• Right Wing blogger Roger Erickson March 31, 2009: “At what
point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what
point do they get off the couch, march down to their state
legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp
for being an idiot?”
Part 2: Liberal/Jewish Media and Right Wing Propaganda. This is the
second installment of a detailed examination of the parallels between
the Nazi movement in Germany and the new Republican methodology since
the election of Obama. Also see parts 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Now that we’ve examined the street-level thuggery in Part One, let’s
look at some examples of how the Republican “elite” work.
NSDAP and GOP: Two Medias; One Tactic
Everyone is familiar by now with the Right-wing rhetoric concerning
the “liberal media elite.” Personal responsibility goes right out the
window if you can just blame the other guy for lying about you. Again
we see a striking similarity between the National Socialists and the
Republicans – fix blame, and then accuse them of controlling the
media. The two seem to go hand-in-hand.
“Barack Obama only won because the media favored him and unfairly
denigrated the abilities and accomplishments of John McCain and Sarah
Palin.” We’ve heard this before, of course. It probably won’t surprise
you to know where:
Hitler, July 5, 1942, “New agencies all the world over…are for the
most part in the hands of Jews.”1
If you substitute “liberal” for “Jew” you have the same language.
Again, the liberals, like the Jews, are guilty of “fabrications”:
Sarah Palin, June 3, 2009, Anchorage: Palin spoke of “the entrenched
bureaucrats and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the smug
lobbyists who dominate Washington, and the liberal media that is
imposing its will on Washington, embracing that status quo, that
business as usual…” 2
This is the same language Hitler used of the “Jewish intellectuals”
and communists who dominated Weimar government. As an aside, she was
displaying typical intellectual dishonesty by lifting much of her
speech from “an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and
Craig Shirley without attribution.”3
The Conservapedia echoes Hitler: “The Liberal media elite is the
clique of highly paid, left-leaning executives and journalists who
directly control most output of the main newspapers and broadcasting
organizations.”4
The media is in the hands of the Jews (communists)! The media is in
the hands of the liberals (communists)! I don’t have to make this
stuff up. This is like shooting ducks in a pond or fishing with a hand
grenade.
If that is not enough, surely you remember the Nazi (mis)use of the
press. The National Socialist media became an outlet not for news, but
for propaganda. There is the most famous newspaper owner of all,
Joseph Goebbels and his paper Der Angriff (The Attack – aptly named).
Then there is the Völkischer Beobachter (Folkish [Ethnic] Observer)
edited first by Dietrich Eckart, an infamous “Jew-baiter”, then by
crank-ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.
Today, media has moved on to television and the Internet. Instead of
Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News and World
Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg we have
Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout anti-
liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propaganda
organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad hominem
attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name-calling to actual
news.
Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street-fighting techniques in
front of minions through use of glossy modern technology.
Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the
attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her stance on the healthcare
debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based on
its merits, and by offering a cogent counter-argument. Instead, both
called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh Show
November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009).
This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the
tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
Vilification is the order of the day. Analysis of the facts, when it
takes place at all, comes in a distant second. As Media Matters for
America reports,
Under its president, Roger Ailes, Fox News routinely employs racially
charged appeals to foment opposition to the Obama administration and
other progressive figures, such as Glenn Beck’s comments that
President Obama is a “racist” and “has a deep-seated hatred for white
people or the white culture.” Before launching the Fox News Channel,
Ailes worked as a media consultant for several Republican campaigns
where evidence shows he similarly appealed to racial fears and biases
for political gain, and as executive producer for Rush Limbaugh’s
television show, during which Limbaugh made several controversial
statements.5
And of course, just as National Socialist ideologues and leaders
motivated the mob, so do Republican ideologues. As I noted above,
Republican objections are not generally issued as cogent and well-
thought-out rebuttals of liberal positions but as ad hominem attacks,
character assassinations, and even suggested violence. This is true
not only of the rank-and-file but of the leadership, the party
ideologues, as can be seen from the examples below.
• Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a
shovel.” In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he “would
want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the head,”
including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). (Glenn Beck Program, 3/9/01)
• The Republican Tea-Party mobs embrace this principle.
Ideological rhetoric backs it up: We see for example from Ann Coulter,
Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all? Coulter: I
think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. (FOX News
Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6)
• “Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing
Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire
somebody to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be looking
me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is
this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and
I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say,
‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What
Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael
Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know,
well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Program, 5/17/05)
• Beck, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker
Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind?
Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink
it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poison in your —”
(Glenn
Beck Program, 8/6/09)
• Bill O’Reilly, of people who criticize him, The Radio Factor,
September 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could strangle these people
and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can’t.”
• Bill O’Reilly - radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish
Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just
had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.”
• Rush Limbaugh October 20, 2009, The Rush Limbaugh Show: “This
guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is
destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human
beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of
life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill
yourself and help the planet by dying?”
• Right Wing blogger Roger Erickson March 31, 2009: “At what
point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point
do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s
house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an
idiot?”
Sources:
1Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 tr. By Norman Cameron and
R.H. Stevens (New York 2000 [1953]), 561.
2The Conservative Book Service even has this offering: Matthew
Continetti , The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried
to Bring Down a Rising Star (2009) which makes the case that, “Palin
was a strong and popular conservative with traditional values-work,
family, and religion-and Washington Democrats and their allies in the
so-called mainstream media decided she had to be destroyed. These
elite liberals attacked everything from Palin’s clothing to her
parenting style to her church. They spread one malicious and untrue
rumor after another…”
3Huffington Post, June 6, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palin-plagiarizes-gingric_b_212228.html
4Consevapedia, http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_media_elite
5Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270001
6Fox News, Your World with Neal Cavuto, November 11, 2009.
7The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 1, 2005.
8Glenn Beck Program, April 27, 2006.
9The O’Reilly Factor, May 29, 2007.
10Hitler’s Table Talk, 47.
RHF
> On Oct 2, 2:24 pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung <0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
- 1.conservatism(policies always fail)
- 2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and
- those that implemented them, were not pure enough)
- 3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity), the
- strongman
- will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade
- unionists, communists, socialists, those with mental and physical
- defects,
- gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened
- to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies,
and
- came up millions of workers and soldiers short.
Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
1. Liberalism (Well Meaning, Nice Sounding,
"Do-Gooder" Policies Always Doomed to Fail)
2. Liberal-Progressivism (The Drive for Social
Improvement through Change and Promising Hope;
More Draconian Liberal Polices are Implemented
to Transform The People into a New Society that
Is Guided by 'The Party') The Party Elite Have
Complete Power and Rule Un-Checked.
3. Liberal-Fascism (The Rise of the Party Leader
over 'The Party' Ensuring the Unity and Uniformaty
of 'The Party' and Enforcing The Will of 'The Party'
Over the People.) The Party Leader will Cleanse
'The Party' of All those Who Are NOT of 'The Party';
and 'The Party' Will Cleanse the People of All Those
Who Do NOT Support 'The Party' and The Party Leader
The Party Leader Now Has Complete and Total
Power and Rules by the Force of His Iron Will.
Brother/Sister Are You "OF" 'The Party' ?
Does The Teaching Of 'The Party' Abide Within You ?
Does The Thoughts Of 'The Party' "Leader"
Guide Your Thoughts ?
Let 'The Party' Change Your Life and Transform You !
Let 'The Party' Give You Hope and Renew You !
.
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Is It Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4bc858344efbacb1
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist"
- = The Liberal Rule = -
It Is Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/02c2600097def3e3
.
- = NnUa = -
You Have Entered the "Arguing with Idiots" Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguing_with_Idiots
There is a sign post up ahead . . .
-and-it-reads- "You Are An Idiot !"
-for- Arguing with someone that you reasonably
believe to be a Total and Complete I D I O T [.]
.
*OMG/OMA* Let Us Pray . . .
This Has Been A 'Teachable Moment' ~ RHF©*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachable_moment
.
* © This is another Copy-Righted 'Brain Fart' of RHF
-wrt- 'Brain Fart' -yeah- This Idea(s) Stinks -pew(pu)-
.
.
Nickname unavailable
i realize that this is most probably a waste of time. your type, are
almost un-educational. as mussolini stated, fascism should be renamed
corporatism.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm
What Fascism Is & Isn't
No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated
debate in politics than fascism. The term has been applied to many
individuals such as McCarthy, Hoover, and others. It is frequently
used to describe government policies and government themselves, often
incorrectly. What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary
defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized
dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent
nationalism." But the author takes exception with that definition. At
best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition
seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism.
There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label
fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to
attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to
Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it
allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in
common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but
dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to
distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very
beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the
same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much
sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His
second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or
liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political
systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are
inherently unstable, as is any system created by man.
From there, Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance,
he goes on to claim that by deliberate policy the United States by
allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this
date and time period is significant, but not for a move towards
socialism or liberalism. Rather, it's the opposite a move towards
fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge
of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning
of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the
type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem.
Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the
book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings.
The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated
assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a
supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial
elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign
corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe
liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism
in Germany and Italy.
In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini
stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which
it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state
should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out
through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such
matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service
and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the
private sector after returning them to profitability such as the
Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in
1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of
private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned
control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936
returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout
1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several
banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and
several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and
Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht,
the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the
privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were
especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been
prosperous even during the depression.
Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to
one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to
deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new
equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the
maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the
Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of
persecuting capital."73
Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more
akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any
liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich
industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United
States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing
attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance
themselves from their previous support of fascism.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature in Hayek's book is his
acknowledgement of environmental problems.72 Indeed this is
significant, considering the book was first published in the 1940s,
long before the birth of the environmental movement. Hayek readily
acknowledges the problem of industrial pollution and the harmful
effects of deforestation, yet he stops short of any meaningful
solution. Instead of offering a viable solution Hayek condemns
government regulation and would allow market forces to provide the
solution. However, it was these same market forces that produced the
problem. We have plenty of proof of such a fool hearty approach both
here and globally. As late as the 1970s rivers caught fire in the
United States, cities were smog stricken and harmful pollutants were
damaging the environment world wide. Today we face the problems of
global warming and ozone depletion, and the problem of environmental
estrogens, which has the potential of being even more threatening than
both global warming and ozone depletion.
But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong
comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his
beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago, the same
university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" who were the economic
brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no
question in the matter that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist.
More alarming, Hayek is an idol to several top-level officials in the
George W. Bush administration. They are dangerous close to imposing a
fascist style economy on the United States.
In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being socialists we need to
first define socialism. Socialism is rigidly defined as an economic
system in which the workers own the means of production and
distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that
the workers maintain political control over the production and
distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of
socialism, the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists as there simply
was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in
Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions. In
place of the original unions, the Nazis implemented quasi-like unions
that were controlled by the industrialists. In a déjà vu manner, the
Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure,
conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations.
Some writers and historians have argued that you cannot have fascism
without corporatism, as the corporate power structure has much in
common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII
it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English
society.
More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way",
in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and
socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly
labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as
socialism; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such
nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an
attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the
1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler
was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in
private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one
would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for
throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A
pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's
never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that
awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure
socialistic system. Human greed simply prevents it.
The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following
quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist's web page in their
labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist: However, Fascism is an
economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of
Production [factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials
[mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but
where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will
be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what
prices may be charged.1
Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied.
This description could past for the economic theory of the fascist
philosopher George Sorel. This is a description of syndicalism; it was
the economic model of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to a large
extent. Syndicalism does draw some aspects from socialism, but the
system is still a capitalistic system as ownership of the means of
production and distribution of goods remain in private hands. It is no
more socialism than the conclusion of the Robber Barons and the
corrupt politicians of Tammy Hall. The only difference between this
example of syndicalism is that the government participation is open
versus the backroom corruption of politicians in Tammy Hall.
Not only Japan invoke syndicalism, but almost all the Pacific Rim
nations do, to some extent. These are the same nations that the hard
right has held up in the past as darlings of capitalism and free
enterprise. Yet these are precisely the same economic policies of the
Nazis that they have tried to foist off as socialism. The key
distinction here is the means of production still remains in private
hands, just as it did in Nazi Germany. No capitalistic society has
ever existed without some form of syndicalism or government control
over the economy. The closest America came to an entirely capitalistic
system was either the 1890s and the Robber Barons or the laissez faire
policies of Herbert Hoover, and as we all know, that didn't end too
well in the Great Depression of the 1930s.
No where does the quote above refer to totalitarian control or extreme
nationalism. In fact, they have tried to define fascism in strictly
economic terms for their own purposes. But it does serve to point out
the dangers of inventing the "Third Way" or the use of syndicalism in
an attempt to label the Nazis. The problem here is determining where
syndicalism ends and capitalism begins. Is the trading of pollution
credits a form of syndicalism or is it free enterprise? In America
today, the hard right would attempt to label it as socialism, as they
try to do with any laws or regulations of business. In fact, the past
laws regulating corporations were much more severe and restrictive in
the 1800s than today. One could argue that it was through syndicalism
that the power elite and corporations gradually eroded those laws
until corporations now enjoy more freedoms than what an individual
enjoys. This is precisely what has happened in America.
But environmental and labor laws are not socialism. They are in fact
nothing more than an attempt to bring an out of control system hell
bent on exploitation of the environment and labor back to order. No
labor law or environment law was ever passed in a vacuum. All of these
laws were brought about by a need to correct an unhealthy or unsafe
situation. While there are some corporations that strive to provide a
clean and safe workplace, there are many whose only concern is the
bottom line and they turn a blind eye towards safety and view their
employees as expendable commodities.
Regulation of businesses or corporations by itself is not socialism. A
business entity such as a corporation has no rights other than what
privileges a society wishes to grant it. People have rights; a paper
creation of a society such as a corporation has no inherent rights.
Business entities such as corporations only have conditional
privileges based upon providing for the common good of the society,
which granted the charter. All such paper creations have an obligation
to serve the society, which created it. Failing to perform that
obligation, it loses any right for its continuing existence. It the
obligation of that society to restrict the rights of such entities to
promote equality for all and to prevent a ruling aristocracy from
developing. This view is hardly socialism or even radical, unless one
wishes to label Thomas Jefferson as a radical socialist as he more
eloquently stated it:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in
its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare
already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the
laws of our country."3
Perhaps one of the better definitions of fascism comes from Heywood
Broun, a noted American columnist in the 1930s:
"Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a
little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by
a small group of large industrialists and financial lords...I think it
is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public
leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for
fascism"75
A definitive definition of fascism is a totalitarian government with
extreme nationalist tendencies in which the government is controlled
and operated for the benefit of a few elite. However, it should be
noted that an all-encompassing definition of a complex system can not
be simply stated. Such simple definitions undoubtedly fail in time. A
caveat to the above definition would be anytime the government places
the rights of corporations or the elite above the rights of the
citizens, it represents a step towards fascism. A better insight into
what fascism is can be obtained by listing the traits that are common
to the classical fascist states of Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and
fascist Italy. A list of traits of fascism is presented below. Note
that the first two are the two most defining traits, obviously many of
the others can be applied to many other social-political systems as
one moves down the list.
1. Totalitarian
2. Extreme nationalism
3. Top down revolution or movement
4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare
5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism, and anti-liberal views
6. Extreme exploitation
7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab
power
8. Unbridled Corporatism
9. Reactionary
10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power
11. Cult-like figurehead
12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs
Not all fascists need exhibit all of the traits once again it should
be emphasized that all fascist states will exhibit a totalitarian
view. Most fascist states will have an extreme nationalism policy.
However, extreme nationalism is not mandatory. States such as Spain
under Franco and Chile under Pinochet were indeed fascist states, but
they could hardly be described as having a policy of extreme
nationalism.
A brief look at the above traits and how they relate to fascism will
convey a better understanding of what fascism really is, using Nazi
Germany as an example. First, because it was undisputedly fascist and
secondly because there is more literature available on the Nazis than
on either fascist Italy or Franco's Spain. Moreover, the use of the
Nazi's as an example is closer to the focus of this book, which is
creeping fascism in America.
Creeping fascism is the gradual lost of freedoms of the masses to the
power elite. Full-blown fascism has never appeared all at once. The
Nazis took several years to reach the final state of full-blown
fascism. It took the Nazis five years before Kristallnacht, which
marks the beginning of the "Final Solution." The Nazis gradually took
away the freedoms of the citizens of Germany until they were able to
launch the Holocaust. This was the reason for including the caveat in
the definition of fascism above, "Any action taken by the government
that places the rights of the elites and corporations above the
citizens is a step towards fascism."
Such actions will not look like fascism some may even appear to be
reasonable. Its only when the summation of many such actions ends in a
fascist state that such actions can be seen as a step towards fascism.
Make no mistake in understanding that the power elite, those that own
and run America's corporations, are fascist. They have forced war on
this country to protect their assets, they have over-exploited their
employees, they have used violence to bust unions, and they rely on
divisionist policies such as racism and class warfare to maintain
their power.
The erosion of our freedoms in the United States was prolonged by our
constitution. Nevertheless, over time the lost of freedoms has left
America at the edge of a chasm. Any further loss of freedoms and
America will begin an irreversible slide into the deep abyss of
fascism.
Before looking at the traits of fascism a brief review of the history
of fascism and its roots in modern philosophy is needed. By looking at
the roots of fascism in philosophy, we can gain an understanding why
fascism is often described as reactionary. By looking at the various
philosophers that have come to be associated with fascism, we will be
able to see that many of these traits come directly from fascism's
roots in philosophy. In that way, we can then see how some of these
traits that can be applied to other social-political system are
central to fascism.
Many writers have assumed that fascism has no intellectual or
philosophical roots due to its lack of a consistent ideology. But such
views are incorrect; the roots of fascism extend back to the French
Revolution. The French Revolution is one of those landmark events in
the history of Europe marking the beginning of a major shift in
European culture and governments. In essence, fascism was a reaction
to the French revolution. It was a reaction particularly to the slogan
of the revolution of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" that was hated
the most.
The concept of liberty from oppressive regimes in the daily lives of
the citizens, including forced religious values, and the concept of
voting and majority rule where the minority still retained a set of
inalienable rights, incensed the early philosophers of fascism. Such a
concept was a direct threat to the kings and nobles of the time, as
well as to the church. Remember this was a time for debtor's prisons,
indentured servants, and vassal states.
Equality, in the eyes of the law, was unspeakable. How could a mere
peasant have the same rights under the law as the kings, nobles, and
merchants? This was the time when the king's word was the law. Rights
were based on the social standing of one's birth. The only rights a
person had at the time were the rights that the king was willing to
extend, and they could be withdrawn at any moment.
Fraternity, in the sense that all men and women shared humanity was
considered heresy. It was a time when slaves were still considered and
treated as animals and women were considered property, and not part of
a greater humanity that needed to be shared.
All three terms meant a loss in power and control by those in power.
But, this is exactly what the philosophers that have come to be
associated with fascism were reacting to and rejecting. The period
following the French Revolution produced a virtual intellectual stew
of various philosophies, including those of Marx and Engels. A brief
look at some of the major philosophers of fascism will show how they
relate to the traits listed early, and how they were a reaction to the
French Revolution. This list of philosophers is by no means complete,
but it will suffice to show that many of the traits attributed to
fascism above have roots going back as far as the French Revolution.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher perhaps best
known for his The World as Will and Representation.4 His beliefs held
that the will is the underlying and ultimate reality. The whole
phenomenal world was only the expression of will. Individuals have
free will only in the sense that everyone is an expression of a will.
Thus we are not authors of our own destiny, character, or behavior,
according to Schopenhauer. His views parallel the development of
relativistic physics that came a century later. His views were
influential on Nietzche, among others.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher held pantheism as the
heart of his beliefs. The Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic
are two of his better-known works. He viewed that all existence and
all history was divine and that nature was sacred. He viewed God as an
absolute spirit that also manifested itself in material things and
individuals. He believed God acted through humans and embodied himself
first in nature, then in the rising stages of human consciousness and
civilization. He also had an ethnocentric and egocentric view. He
maintained that the German nation was the highest carrier of the wave
of God's development. He believed that the bureaucratic monarchy of
Prussia was the highest form of state. These later views were
certainly manifested in the Nazi's view of the Aryan race, as shown in
the following quote.
"Thus the highest purpose of the folkish state is concern for the
preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture
and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans,
can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality
which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by
the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the
highest freedoms."8
Fredrich Nietzche (1844-1900), also a German philosopher was best
known for his work Thus Spake Zarathustra.5 Hitler liked to be
photographed staring at a bust of Nietzche. Nietzche theorized two
sets of morals, one for the ruling class and another for the slave
class. Nietzche viewed that ancient empires grew out of the ruling
class and that religions arose out of the slave classes, (which
denigrates the rich, the powerful, rationalism, and sexuality.) He
developed a concept of an "overman," a superhuman, which symbolized
man at his most creative and highest intellectual development.
Obviously, the "overman" was manifested in the Nazi's view of the
Aryan race. He suffered a mental break down, most likely from the
advances of syphilis, and was cared for by his mother and later his
sister, Elisabeth. His sister painstakingly gathered his notes to
publish his latter works. However, she was active in the rising anti-
Semitic movement at the time and may have tainted his later work with
her views. From time to time, Nietzsche enjoys a rebirth of
popularity. Today is one such rebirth, fitting in well with the
unmitigated greed and corporatism of today's hard right. Nietzsche's
connection to the Nazis is obvious, as shown by the following
quotation.
"with satanic joy in his face, the black haired Jewish youth lurks in
wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus
stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the
racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as
he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink
back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large
scale. It was and it is Jews who bring Negroes into the Rhineland,
always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated
white race by necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down
from its culture and political height, and himself rising to be
master."9
Notice the similarity in this passage and the Council of Conservative
Citizens that Senator Lott and representative Barr supported before
becoming embroiled in the resulting scandal in late 1998.10 The web
site for this white supremacist group described interracial marriage
to the mixing of chocolate milk with plain milk, and labeled it as a
path to racial extinction. They also described Lincoln as a communist.
11
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher with a Jewish
father and an English mother. He was the winner of the Nobel Prize for
literature in 1927. He rejected the idea that scientific principles
could explain all existence. He was a promoter of what has become
known as Social Darwinism.6 Perhaps one of his better known works was
Time and Free Will. He was also a believer in pantheism. Once again,
we see the obvious connection with the Nazis of a master race in the
following quote concerning the Nazi's euthanasia program:
"...a secret circular went out from the Reich interior Ministry which
marked the beginning of a programme of euthanasia for mentally ill or
deformed children up to three years old. Doctors would be required to
report all such cases to the health authority on special forms; the
forms would then be forwarded to a panel of three medical assessors
who would adjucate over life or death by appending "-" or "+." Should
all three place a "+", a euthanasia warrant would be issued, signed by
the Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler of the Fuhrer's Chancellery or
SS_Oberfuhrer Dr Viktor Brack, head of the Chancellery's Euthanasia
Department II. And so it happened: infants marked for death were
transferred to what were referred to as Children's Special Departments
in political reliable clinics, there to be given a "mercy death" by
injection or in one institution at Eglfing-Haar simply starved by a
progressive reduction of diet."7
Geroge Sorel (1847-1922) was a French philosopher who had considerable
influence on Mussolini. His writings promoted an economic model based
on syndicalism. He also believed in the degeneration of societies and
believed that social decay could only be delayed by idealists who were
willing to use violence to obtain power. His views were extremely anti-
democratic and anti-liberal.
With this very brief review of philosophy has shown that the fascist
traits of nationalism, totalitarian, racist, violence, unbridled
corporatism, reactionary, and the top down nature of fascism all are
grounded in the works of past philosophers.
A totalitarian government is one that seeks to maintain control over
all aspects of public and private life by using propaganda, terror,
and technology. Totalitarian regimes seek control over political,
social, and the culture. However, economic control is left in the
hands of a few elites in the fascist state. While the means of
economic control is left in the private hands of a few elites, this
same group controls the government. In essence the government becomes
the tool by which the rich and the corporations maintain control. The
distinction is important to note as it separates communism from
fascism. In a communist state the control over the economy moves to
the inside of government, while in the fascist state it remains in
private hands. Dictatorships differ in seeking only limited control
over the political environment of a society.
There was only limited government ownership under the Nazis. Prior to
the Nazi take over, the German governments took over failing
businesses and continued to operate them. When the Nazis took over the
government already owned a large number of enterprises. When the Nazis
took over they began to privatize many of these businesses, especially
the ones that had remained profitable during the depression like the
electric utilities.
Once Hitler assured big business that they would be free to continue
to operate, they failed to raise any further objections to the Nazis.
The large German steel and coal industries especially welcomed the
Nazis. Hitler's plans for rearmament meant large contracts for new
ships, tanks, etc. Later during the war when a labor shortage
appeared, it was Krupp from the German steel industry that first
raised the question of using slave labor from the concentration camps.
At first the Nazis were reluctant to allow the inmates to be used as
slaves as it would slow the progress of the "final solution." However,
once Krupp offered to pay for the slaves the Nazis readily agreed and
soon there was no shortage of companies seeking slaves.
What is less understood about the totalitarian power Hitler achieved
was the path he took to obtain that power. There never has been
totalitarian regime that gained instant total control. Such a sudden
change would spawn sudden revolutions. Mussolini took three years
before consolidating his power in Italy. In case of the Nazis, it took
even longer. Nor did the path to totalitarian Nazi state start with
the elevation of Hitler to the position of chancellor. Some historians
trace the roots of the path all the way back into the 1800s. A
complete analysis of German history from the time of the monarchy to
the seating of Hitler is beyond the scope of this book, if not beyond
the scope of any single book, as volumes could be written. What
follows is a very brief look at the slow erosion of freedom and the
concentration of power as it relates to the final totalitarian state.
For the most part, the period following WWI was a period dominated by
raucous politics and a series of crisis in Germany. The two periods in
which the Nazis gained the most strength was the early 1920s, during
the hyper inflationary period, culminating with the Beer Hall Putsch
and the depression of 1929-1931. There is little need to examine the
raucous politics of that period, everyone is well aware of Hitler's SA
thugs breaking up political rallies of other parties which also
resorted to the same tactics. It would not be untrue to describe many
political rallies of the time as ending in brawls.
Hitler and the Nazis were extremists, and mostly rejected by the
German voters during the good economic times of the 1920s. For
example, in 1928 they only polled 2.6 percent of the vote, gaining
just 14 seats out of the 491 seats in the Reichstag by virtue of the
republic's proportional representation. By 1930 and the start of the
depression, the Nazis had increased their seats to 107 out of 577
seats in the Reichstag. In the July 1932 election, at the height of
the depression, the Nazis polled 37.4 percent of the vote winning 230
seats in the Reichstag, becoming Germany's largest party.13 In the Nov
1932 election, they only won 196 seats as an anemic economic recovery
was already underway, the people began rejecting the Nazis and their
radical views and actions.
Germany's plunge into a totalitarian state began before the Nazis took
over. It was as much a result of a lack of a strong leadership as
anything else. For the first eleven years of the German Republic there
had been seventeen cabinets headed by nine different chancellors.12
Undoubtedly, the country faced grave crisis in this period such as
hyperinflation, but the lack of strong leadership and an increased
polarization was readily apparent. The Nazis were the most notorious
radicals unwilling to compromise, but the other parties have to share
some of the blame for this polarization as well. The blame can be
extended beyond the parties to the vested interests behind each party,
including that of big businesses. Fracturing the electorate by
polarization was playing right into the divisionist character of the
Nazis, whose radical program lacked a broad base of support as the
election results from 1928 showed.
The policies of the German governments during the 1920s inadvertently
aided the rise of the Nazis. Throughout the 1920s the government
arrested many of the leaders from the left. It would not be unfair to
term these arrests as purges. The arrest of any strong leaders
emerging from the left only served to further polarize the country by
creating a vacuum on the left that was only filled with the more
radical communists. A similar situation is emerging in the United
States, throughout this century the United States has conducted purges
of the left: the Great Red Scare of 1919, McCartyism of the 1950s, and
COINTELPRO operations during the sixties. Without the voices from the
left to moderate policy, the political center in the United States has
shifted to the hard right.
The immediate result in the lack of strong leadership is frequent
chances in government, which only lead to more instability and chaos.
An ideal parallel is the long string one term Presidents ending with
Lincoln and the Civil War. The polarization of the Unite States
gradually increased from about 1820 on resulting in one term
presidents. Another string of one term Presidents ended with the
election of Roosevelt in the middle of the Great Depression. In both
U.S. case the ending result was not pleasant: a civil war and a
depression.
Such frequent change in government does not allow businesses to make
long range plans, nor does it allow for enough to time for programs
enacted by a government to work. These effects then act as negative
feedback, further increasing the polarization and the resulting chaos.
Additionally, the German constitution was flawed and did not account
for a negative parliament. Power in Germany was concentrated in the
office of the president, headed by Hindenburg, who initially had been
elected by conservatives and reactionary rightists. He was a member of
the aristocratics from the Junker class and had been a war hero; he
likewise held sentiments for the monarchy. The president had the power
to appoint cabinets and chancellors. Beginning in 1930, Hindenburg
began the practice of appointing chancellors of his choice that were
not beholding to the parliament. To allow the chancellors to
circumvent parliament, he granted these chancellors emergency powers
that had been given to the president by the constitution. Starting in
1930, almost all national laws, including the power to tax, were
enacted by presidential decrees and not by the parliament. Such
presidential decrees would be similar to the executive orders in the
United States.
Hence, even before Hitler was appointed to the chancellor position,
power was being concentrated into the two offices of the chancellor
and the president. At least twice before appointing Hitler as
chancellor, Hindenburg entertained ideas of violating the constitution
by not holding elections within the sixty days as required by the
constitution.
Hindenburg had also avoided appoint Hitler as chancellor twice before
January 1933. Even with the support of big business Hindeburg failed
to appoint Hitler when the Nazis held more seats in the Reichstag than
any other party.
It wasn't until after Hitler met in secret with von Pappen at the
Cologne home of Baron Kurt von Schroder that Hindenburg would relent
and appoint Hitler chancellor. The baron was the head of the
international Schroder banking empire and had previously raised funds
to pay off the Nazi's debt.
The secret meeting on January 4, 1933 allowed Hitler and von Pappen to
work out their differences and to agree to a new cabinet under the
direction of both. This secret meeting was the birthplace of the Third
Reich.
However, there were two Americans that also were in attendance: John
Foster Dulles and his brother Allen. The Dulles brothers were there as
legal representatives for Kuhn Loeb Company, which had extended large
short term credits to Germany. Their presence was to secure a
guarantee of repayment from Hitler.
Moreover, Kurt von Schroder had extensive financial contacts in New
York and London. He was a co-director of Thyssen foundry along with
Johann Groeninger, Prescott Bush's New York bank partner. Schroeder
was also the vice president and director of the Hamburg-Amerika Line,
the same shipping line seized from Prescott Bush for trading with the
enemy.
Throughout 1932, actions taken by the Bush-Harriman shipping line were
directly responsible for bringing Hitler to power. The constitutional
government tried to disarm the Nazi Brown Shirts to stop the mad
election melees and murders. The U.S. embassy in Berlin reported:
" Hamburg-Amerika Line was purchasing and distributing propaganda
attacks against the German government, for attempting this last-minute
crackdown on Hitler's forces."
During 1932, Hitler's thugs murdered thousands of Germans. Arms for
Hitler were shipped to Germany aboard Hamburg-Amerika Line. They were
transferred to river barges before reaching Antwerp and then
transported across Holland freely. Samuel Pryor, founder of Union Bank
and a partner in the Hamburg-America Line was also executive committee
chairman of Remington Arms. Hitler's Brown Shirts were armed primarily
with Remington arms and Thompson submachine guns. A Senate
investigation of Remington concluded that all of the political
factions in Germany were armed with mostly American made guns.
Once Hitler and von Pappen had reached an agreement on their future
course of actions. Pappen pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as
chancellor. The success of the meeting was recorded in Goebbels. On
January 5, 1933 Goebbels wrote in his diary "If this coup succeeds, we
are not far from power. . . . Our finances have suddenly improved."
Hindenburg appointed Hitler, as chancellor with the understanding
Hitler would be a parliamentary rather than a presidential chancellor.
Hitler immediately set about sabotaging the efforts to from a
parliamentary majority. Here is one of the first examples of fascism
and divisionism.
On February 1, 1933 the German parliament was dissolved and new
elections were scheduled for early March. Using his henchmen, Hilter
had the Reichstag building burnt. The fire was blamed on the
communist, his main revivals. Using the fire as an excuse, Hitler
banned the communist from the upcoming election. Additionally, Goring
deputized his storm troopers to harass any political opposition from
his position in the cabinet; even then the Nazis could not achieve a
majority in parliament as they polled only 43.9 votes.14 By summer,
all political parties except the Nazis had been dissolved. On the
death of Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler assumed the office of president
and further consolidated his gripe on power, but it would take a
couple of additional years before Hitler was a true totalitarian. He
purged the justice system of judges with adverse views, appointing
rabid Nazis in their place, and the storm troopers were given police
powers. Justice was now the Nazi party line.
One does not need to expound upon the extreme nationalism of the
fascist. The history of their invasion in a quest for world dominion
is well known. Mussolini turned his attention to Ethiopia and North
Africa; Hitler first to Austria, then Czechoslovakia, followed by
Western Europe and later to Norway and the east.
Hilter had left a blueprint for his extreme nationalism and the quest
for lebensraum in Mien Kampf as shown by the quote below.
"If the National Socialist movement really wants to be consecrated by
history with a great mission for our nation, it must be permeated by
knowledge and filled with pain at our true situation in this world;
boldly and conscious of its goal, it must take up the struggle against
the aimlessness and incompetence which have hitherto guided our German
nation in the line of foreign affairs. Then without consideration of
traditions and prejudices it must find the courage to gather our
people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead
this people from its present restricted living space to new land and
soil; and hence also free it from danger of vanishing from the earth
or of serving others as a slave nation.
The Nationalist Socialist movement must strive to eliminate the
disproportion between our population and our area-viewing this later
as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics---between
our historical past and the helplessness of our present impotence."15
The third trait of fascism is that it consists of a top down
revolution or movement. It is becoming more accepted today that the
Nazis drew support from all classes. Indeed, this seems a reasonable
assumption when looking at all of the evidence. The storm troopers for
the most part drew their numbers from the lower and middle classes.
They were typically were unemployed laborers, inept middle management,
or failed businessmen. Likewise, given the vote tally of over thirty
percent in the 1932 elections, the Nazis had to have drawn votes from
all social classes. But this has no bearing on who controlled the
direction of the party. Control of the party rested solely with Hitler
and whom he allied with. He chose to ally with the upper class and big
business as borne out by his policies after gaining power. There is
little controversy over the considerable support Hitler drew from the
aristocrats, the military, or the Junkers.
Telltale signs forewarning of the elite control was evident from the
very formation of the party until the final days before gaining power.
A brief look at those that financed the Nazis rise to power will
reveal the real support behind Hitler. This is becoming an increasing
issue of contention as American hard right tries to distance
themselves from the similarities of their policies with fascism.
Hitler himself did not form the Nazi party initially. He joined an
existing party and then molded it according to his wishes. In fact,
his company commander had ordered him to attend a meeting of what was
the German Workers Party. Here was Hitler's initial reaction to the
party.
>"My impression was neither good or bad; a new organization like so many others. This was the time in which anyone who was not satisfied with developments and no longer had confidence in the existing parties felt called upon to found a new party. Everywhere these organizations sprang from the ground, only to vanish silently after a time. The founders for the most part had no idea what it means to make a party---let alone a movement---out of a club. And so these organizations nearly always stifle automatically in their absurd phillistinism."16
The order from his company commander provides the first evidence that
the elite backed Hitler from the very beginning. At any point from
this date the German military could have withdrawn its support of
Hitler and disbanded the Nazi party
Hitler was a good orator by all reports, as well as an astute
political observer. He knew how to motivate the masses in his name and
how to sustain a movement. Someone once remarked recently that you
needed only gain control of the 3Ms to gain power. The three "Ms" are
the military, media, and money. Hitler had all three behind him. As
shown by the passage from Mein Kampf, Hitler started with the blessing
of the military. The military, as well as big business, played a
behind the scenes role in the appointment of Hitler as chancellor.
It's the last of the 3Ms where much confusion and debate arise,
Hitler's source of funds or money.
Big business likewise had a large hand in bringing down Bruning in
1930. In a large part, it was the constant bickering by special
interest groups that led to the falling of Bruning's cabinet. Big
business was urging the following demands on the Bruning government:
>1. The government must take steps to lower the cost of production and widen the profit margin.
2. Lower taxes
3. Reduce the size of government.
4. Lower unemployment insurance benefit
5. The government must allow wages to progress to lower levels, by
voiding labor contracts and binding arbitration.26
If these demands from the business community seem familiar to the
reader, it's because in a large part they are the same policies that
the Republican Party has been advocating for the last twenty years.
Throughout the 1920s and up until Hitler was appointed chancellor the
Nazi party was plagued with a shortage of money. After release for
prison for the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's only known source of
income was from the sale of Mein Kampf and fees for newspaper articles
he would write. The first edition of Mein Kampf was published July 18,
1925 in an edition of 10,000 copies selling for 12 marks. By the end
of the year almost all copies had been sold. A new edition was printed
but sales in the following year plummeted.
Nevertheless, almost immediately after being pardoned he bought a new
super-charged Mercedes-Benz for 28,000 marks.17 Additionally, Hitler
did not drive, so he had the additional expense of a chauffeur.
Likewise, from 1925 until his appointment as chancellor in 1933,
Hitler lived in increasing comforts, if not outright lavishness for
the times. Certainly, the royalties from Mein Kampf and fees for his
other writings were insufficient to cover even his living expenses,
not to mention the party's expenses.
Also, the funding for an ever-increasing number of SA troopers (many
of which were unemployed) had to be secured. Turner has suggested that
the Nazis were self sufficient from dues, speaker's fees, and
donations at rallies. However, this seems almost improbable looking at
the numbers from 1930. In 1930 there were about 100,000 storm troopers
that had to be fed, housed and otherwise supported. Additionally there
were 15,000 in the SS. Nazi membership at the beginning of 1931 was
only 389,000.18 Thus it seems very reasonable that outside sources of
funding was needed to maintain the SA and SS, as well as the ever
increasing lifestyle of Hitler. Membership fees in the Nazi party
started at a mark per month, non-paying members were quickly dropped
from the party.
From the very beginning of the Nazi party Hitler showed a knack for
obtaining funding from the more privileged members of German society.
For instance, everyone is well aware of the trial following the Beer
Hall Putsch, but less well known was a secondary trial following the
putsch. In the secondary trial, several businessmen that had donated
money or other support for Hitler were put on trial. Some have
attributed much of this early funding of the Nazis to the secret Thule
Society.19 Another early source of funds in the early 20s came from
the efforts of Scheubner-Richter, who was adept at gaining funds from
Bavarian aristocrats, big businessmen, bankers, and leaders of heavy
industry.20 Another source of early funds came indirectly from Fritz
Thyssen. Henry Ford also exerted a considerable influence over Hitler
in the early 1920s, as well as money. Some passages from Ford's
International Jew are nearly identical to passages in Mein Kampf.
Ford's book is reported to have had a large effect on many of the
school children of the time that were suffering through hyperinflation
and economic hard times while reading a book written by the world's
foremost capitalist.
>
The extent of Ford's financial donations to Hitler still remains a mystery. The U. S. ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, was quoted saying "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."21 The extent of corporate America's collaboration with the Nazis before the war and even during the war, in some cases, is not fully known. However, as time goes by and more information becomes available, the collaboration begins to appear significant, as shown in the following article.
"Bernd Greiner said 26 of the top 100 US companies in the 1930s
collaborated to some degree with the Nazis before, and in some cases
after, Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941.
Company headquarters in the US have denied they knew what was going on
in Germany, but there is evidence to suggest they knew their German
subsidiaries used slave labor, tolerated it and in some cases were
actively involved, Greiner said.
Greiner confirmed a report in the newspaper Die Zeit, based on his
findings of US corporate involvement in Nazi Germany. The findings
went beyond allegations of US lawyers and historians last year that
automakers General Motors and Ford collaborated with the Nazi
regime."22
One of the more historically accurate, but shamefully apologetic to
big business sources is the book, German Big Business and the Rise of
Hitler by Turner.23 Turner does a good job in detailing the extensive
participation of the leaders of business with the Nazis. However, he
reaches the conclusion that big business did not support Hitler with a
rather contrived definition of what big business is. He based his
definition on the value of the float of stock on the market. His
definition limited the number of companies that he would classify as
big business to only 14 companies in the Ruhr industrial area and a
smattering of companies located elsewhere. Essentially, his definition
would be the equivalent of saying that only the Dow 30 companies in
the U. S. could truly be called big business. This of course is
nonsense. The majority of people would certainly consider Chrysler,
Texas Instruments, Hewitt Packard, John Deere and Chase Manhattan Bank
to be big business, but according to Turner's book they are not. It is
from this group of second and third tier businesses (in keeping with
Turner's definition) that provided the most help and support for
Hitler. Furthermore, Turner neglects the effect of cartel agreements
as well as subsidiaries in his analysis. Many of these second and
third tier corporations were owned and controlled by the 14
corporations, he considered to be big business.
Secondly, Turner focuses much of his attention on the period of
1920-1928, when the Nazis were at best a minor noisy party. During
this time, the Nazis were lucky to poll more than three percent of the
vote. Yet Turner tries to use this as proof that big business did not
support Hitler's rise to power, although he does admit that Fritz
Thyssen and Kirdolf were supporters of the Nazis during this time. An
equivalent situation would be today's Libertarian Party, a party that
draws support from Koch, head of Koch refinery (a second tier company
by Turner's reasoning). But no one is rushing to fund the Libertarians
today when they cannot even poll five percent of the vote.
Finally, when the source of funds were unquestionably from big
business Turner attempts to discredit them by claiming the source of
the funds was a junior level executive that couldn't be responsible
for overall company policy. Or he attempts to say they were given to
an individual Nazi. In one shameful passage Turner attempts to
discredit the funds given to Nazi fund-raiser Walther Funk by claiming
they were not a donation to the party as they may have been spent by
Funk for entertainment. Turner describes a particular drunken binge
across town by Funk in which he passed out some rather large tips and
then draws the conclusion that perhaps none of the funds given Funk
ever reached the Nazis.24 This is not the work of a historian, as
Turner claims to be. This is nothing more than conjecture by a
propagandist. There is also one other speculative conclusion one could
draw from this passage, and that is that the amount of money Funk was
receiving was so enormous that it permitted such behavior.
Turner does a good job in showing that it was those second and third
tier businesses that supported the Nazis. In Duren, a Rhenish
manufacturing town, the Nazis received considerable support from local
industrialists such as the millionaire dynasties (a term in use from
the 1820s in describing these two families) of the Schoellers and the
Schulls. Another area in which the Nazis received broad support from
businesses was Solingen, an industrial town.25 Overall, Turner
documents the participation of business leaders and their support for
the Nazis, leaving no question in the reader's mind that business
leaders exerted a considerable influence on the Nazis. Unfortunately,
he ends his study just as the Nazis seize power.
Many businesses chose to align with and support the Nazis after they
gained power. Krupp and I.G. Faben were both executors' of Goring's
Four-Year Plan to make Germany militarily self-sufficient by 1940. One
can view the details of Krupp's involvement and support for the Nazis
after March 1933 in the documents from the War Crimes Tribunal at
Nuremberg.31 The full set of available documents from Nuremberg is
also available on the Internet.32 By 1939, I.G. Faben provided the
Nazis with 90 percent of their foreign exchange, 95 percent of
imports, and 85 percent of all military and commercial goods. In 1932,
Hermann Schmitz Faben's joint chairman joined forces with Kurt von
Schroder, director of a wealthy private bank. Schroder was a fanatical
Nazi, often times dressed in his black SS uniform. Schroder is the man
that is closely linked with Chase Bank, Standard Oil and William
Teagle, and ITT. In 1932, Schroder and Wilhelm Keppler formed the
group known as "The Fraternity." This group guaranteed a source of
money to the Gestapo. Members agreed to contribute an average of one
million marks a year to Himmler's personally marked "S" account and
the transferable secret "R" account of the Gestapo.27
In April of 1933, Gustav Krupp sought out a private meeting with
Hitler. Krupp agreed to become Hitler's chief fundraiser and chairman
of the Adolf Hitler Fund. In return Hitler promised to appoint Krupp
as the fuehrer of Germany industry. Over the years, Krupp contributed
over six million marks of his own money to the Nazis, and his
correspondence shows that he truly enjoyed his job as chairman.28
Likewise, it is common knowledge that after Hitler was appointed
chancellor Krupp greeted people cheerfully with the Heil Hitler
salutation.
Schirer writes that in 1931, when Hitler decided to cultivate
relationships between influential industrial leaders, he kept their
identity a secret.
"The party still had to play both sides of the tracks. The party had
to allow Strasser, Goebbels and Feder to beguile the masses with
socialist talk and denigrating the industrial magnates."
Some of the meetings were so secretive that they were held in forest
glades."29
Further proof of the industrialist involvement and support of the
Nazis comes from the testimony of Funk at Nuremberg. The entire list
implicated by Funk is far too long to reproduce here, but besides
Thyssen and Krupp it included Georg von Schnitzler-I.G. Farben, August
Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry, Cuno of the Hamburg
Amerika Line, Otto Wolf, Kurt von Schroder, and many other wealthy
industrialists30
On May 2, 1933, the Nazis raided and occupied all trade union
headquarters. The leaders were beaten and arrested; some were placed
in the concentration camps. Union funds were confiscated and the
unions were dissolved. Members of the communist party and the social
democrats had already been arrested. On June 20, 1934, in what has
become known as the Night of Long Knifes, Hitler purged the socialists
within the Nazi party, chief among them Roehm.
With the broad financial support from the leaders of the business
community as well as from the military leaders and aristocrats, the
Nazis were truly a top down organization, while the Nazis used the
lower class as foot soldiers to gain power. They did so in a deceiving
manner, and once in power, immediately set about betraying the lower
classes
We have already shown one example of divisionism by the Nazis in their
rise to power. But what sets fascist divisionism apart from the
ordinary divisionism of any other political ideology? Certainly any
politician in a democracy appeals to some sort of divisionism, as he
is fully aware that he can not possibly appeal to the entire
electorate. The difference lies in the fact that divisionism is always
destructive in fascism and serves only as a means to gain and maintain
power. Even after gaining power, Hitler went to great pains in
dividing power, playing one follower against another, creating
rivalries in the party in the process. In short, Hitler kept the Nazi
party divided as if it was a set of small fiefdoms. One of the biggest
myths about the Nazis is that they were a single unit, when in fact
they were a conglomeration of various fractured parts. Eatwell states
the paradox within Hitler's power structure as: "because the party was
so divided that he had power and in turn the party was divided from
other key centers of power such as the army." 47 In other ideologies,
the divisionism is not inherently destructive. Rather, it's based on
differing approaches coming together to reach an equable solution to a
problem. In his rise to power, Hitler had no intention of compromising
with the other parties to form a parliamentary president. His moves
were calculated to destroy any chance of that.
A couple of examples from the present can further delineate the
difference between the two. Certainly many of the tax proposals coming
from the Republican party today could be classed as divisionism as
they favor the upper income earners over the lower income groups.
While the measures are divisive they can hardly be labeled as
destructive divisionism. They are more a reflection of difference in
opinion.
However, an example of an act that could be termed a fascist
divisionism was the Republican caused shut down of the government in
November 1995 after Clinton vetoed the budget bill. Clinton had
previously warned Congress that unless changes were made in the budget
he would veto the bill. Members of the hard right Council for National
Policy and many of their Republican members openly had declared they
would shut down the government. In essence, the Republicans adopted
the same policy that Hitler had in his bid to dismiss parliament; they
refused to negotiate honorably.
Just as Hitler had taken a position to subvert democracy, so had the
Republicans, led by Gingrich. The constitution defines the passing of
the budget in detail. The spending bills originate in the House after
passage by both the House and the Senate. It is then sent to the
President, who may either veto it or sign it. If the bill is vetoed,
it is up to Congress and the President to reach a compromise bill.
Otherwise, Congress must pass a bill with a two-thirds majority. The
failure of Congress to pass a bill to advert a government shutdown was
a dereliction of their constitutional duty. Fortunately, the outrage
coming from the general public forced the Republicans back to the
negotiation table. The point to be made is the only difference between
the two events---the Republicans feared the wrath of the people and
capitulated, Hitler had no such fear and parliament was dismissed.
The Republican shut down of the government also serves to point out a
flaw in our constitution, just as there was a flaw in the German
constitution. In the case of the U. S. constitution there is no other
mechanism other than shutting down the government if Congress fails to
pass a budget. If the fascists in America can be successful in
polarizing American politics to such an extent that the public, or at
least a considerable portion of it, tolerates a government shut down,
then the entire budget process becomes a fracas. And after observing
the behavior of the Republicans in their ill fated attempt to impeach
Clinton such a possibility does not appear so remote.
Another example of divisionism that is solely destructive that is not
based on racism or class warfare was the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
It served no purpose other than to smear the president, the articles
of impeachment fell far short of what the founding fathers had defined
in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase refers back
to the misuse of offices in England under the king. Additionally, the
investigation of Ken Starr has been plagued by civil rights abuse and
possible criminal action by Starr himself. It resembles a coup headed
by the multi millionaire Scaife with the aid of the religious right,
more than it resembled a justified impeachment.
But perhaps, the greatest illustration of the divisionism was seeing
support for the impeachment evaporate like rain on hot pavement in the
Senate following the State of the Union address and a thorough defense
of the charges by Clinton's legal team. The House prosecutors with the
conclusion of Ken Starr questioned Monica Lewinsky further in secret.
This single action by the House Republicans invoked criticism from
even members of their own party in the Senate. It was conducted
against the agreed upon rules, and it was unconstitutional in that the
power of investigation is delegated to the Senate. Likewise, it is
against the statute of the Independent Council. It served no purpose
other than to further divide and disgust the country. In short, it is
nothing but an attempt at a power play.
Often times, this divisionism takes the form of racism or class
warfare. It is often stated that Mussolini tried to eliminate class
distinctions in fascist Italy. But the reality is that he only
reinforced those distinctions. Certainly the Nazis practiced racism in
an outrageous manner, ending in the Holocaust. On the other hand,
fascist Italy was not racist in nature until after Mussolini adopted
Hitler's Jewish solution. Fascism doesn't necessary have to be racist
in nature, but racism is often used to divide the citizens, as their
radical platform isn't appealing to the broad masses. In addition,
racism is violent in nature and the resulting chaos from the violence
serves to further divide the masses. Whether or not a fascist state is
racist seems to depend more upon the culture of the society in which
it arises. Before fascism, Italy had a long history of generally
equable racial relationships, going all the way back to the old Roman
Empire. For instance, even the slaves were eventually given full
rights in Rome. However, the roots of anti-Semitism goes back much
further in Germany as shown in the following quote.
"This is a good month to reflect on the toxicity of words meant to
kill. Nov. 9 marks the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the 1938
'Night of Shattered Glass' unleashed by the Nazis to terrorize
Germany's Jews. The date was chosen specially by Josef Goebbels,
Hitler's propagandist, to honor the birthday of Martin Luther, the
16th century monk who was a father of the protestant Reformation and
the founder of what became the Lutheran church.
Hitler greatly admired Luther: "He saw the Jew as we are only
beginning to see him today." Indeed. Luther saw the Jews as 'hopeless,
wicked, venomous, and devilish... our pest, torment, and misfortune.'
Initially, certain that his version of Christianity would appeal to
Jews, he expected large numbers of them to covert. When that failed to
happen, he turned violently against them. In 1543, Luther Published
"On the Jews and Their Lies," a work that would become known
throughout Germany, perhaps the most widely disseminated work of anti-
Semitism by a German until the rise of the Nazis 400, years later.
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?" Luther asked.
"First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not
burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt, so that no one may
ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it...
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed...
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds, in
which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more...
Fifthly, passports and traveling privileges should be absolutely
forbidden to the Jews...
Sixthly, I advise that...all cash and treasure of silver and gold be
taken from them...
Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier,
force them to work, and deal harshly with them... If this does not
help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so we do not become
partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices. I
have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his."
This is hate speech.
< Sixty years ago next Monday on the night of Luther's birthday, Nazi
gangs rampaged across Germany. In every Jewish neighborhood, windows
were smashed and buildings were torched. All told, 101 synagogues were
destroyed, and nearly 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses were demolished.
On that night, 91 Jews were murdered; 26,000 were rounded up and sent
to concentration camps. It was the greatest pogrom in history. And it
was nothing compared with what was to come."33
The question then remains whether the fascism in America can be
considered racist or not. The past history of racism in the United
States would tend to support such. As a nation, we was one of the last
industrial nations to allow slavery, and it took the Civil War to end
slavery. It has been less than fifty years since "separate but equal"
was the rule of the land. It's only been sixty years since Japanese
citizens and immigrants were interred in camps following the bombing
of Pearl Harbor. The Rosewood incident happened less than a hundred
years ago, and lynching of blacks was common well into the 20th
century. This country has had a long, incredulous history of bigotry
and even genocide. There is no question of the genocide of Native
Americans in the efforts of the U. S. Army in passing out blankets
infected with small pox, or the slaughter of the Plains Indian's
primary source of food, the buffalo. Then there was the Trail of
Tears, as well. The Irish immigrants, following the potato famine,
were greeted by the Know Nothings, a party that based its support on
the hate of Catholics.
All of the hard right groups are racist, although more than one tries
to play their racism down or to hide it, such as the John Birch
Society and some of the various militia groups. Others are openly
racists, such as the Klan, the Nazis and the skinheads. The great
unifier of the far right, the Identity religion, links many of the
hard right groups. The Identity religion is based on anti-Semitic
belief that the true followers of Jesus immigrated to Britain and
northern Europe, that today's Jews are the descendents of Satan. It's
the mainstay religion among the militias, the Posse Comitatus, and
even among some of the Klan groups.
Besides the normal hate groups based on racism or anti-Semitism. the
religious right has emerged in the 1990s as a venomous hate group
basing their hate on gays and abortion. Abortion clinics increasingly
are becoming targets of bombings, arson, and vandalism. Late in 1998,
Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming after being tie to a fence and
then pistol whipped, for being gay. Below are some quotes about gays
from one of the leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson.
"This conduct [homosexuality] is anti-social, and it is a pathology.
It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated. It doesn't need to be
taught in the classroom as a preferred way of life..." - 700 Club,
3-7-90
"...the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of
Gentile civilization." --Pat Robertson, of the Christian Broadcasting
Network, warned that hurricanes could hit Orlando, Fla., because of
gay events there. Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998
"If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the
entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be
sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath
of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all
suffer for it." - 700 Club, 9-6-9534
Compare that last quote of Robertson's to the following quote of
Hitler on syphilis.
"...they speak of this whole field as if it were a great sin, and
above all express their profound indignation against every sinner
caught in the act, then close their eyes in pious horror to this
godless plague and pray God to let sulfur and brimstone preferably
after their own death rain down on this Sodom and Gomorrah, thus once
making an instructive example of this shameless humanity."39
Such evidence, as Robertson's words, abounds that they would persecute
gays, it abounds in the numerous ballot measures in various states
that would deny gays their civil rights. Such a measure passed in
Colorado, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Another measure,
led by Lon Mabon in Oregon failed state wide, but was reintroduced on
local ballots in the following election. Mabon has also led ballot
measures to limit the concept of a family and limiting abortions to
only the first trimester. The first was another attempt to limit the
rights of gays.
In June 1998, near Jasper, Texas a black man named James Byrd was
dragged behind a pickup. Body parts were found over a two mile length
of the roadway.35 It is too early for trends in hate crimes to emerge,
as the FBI only began tracking hate crimes in 1991. The one trend that
does seem to be emerging is the hate crimes are becoming increasingly
violent as evident from the murders of Shepard and Byrd. The real
danger of these two murders is they serve to desensitize us, leading
to more numerous and increasing levels of violence, just as the Nazis
used increasing levels of violence against the Jews.
Racism is reemerging in various forms in the 1990s in political issues
and in the Republican Party. "English only" laws are being promoted
with increasing frequency by various Republican candidates, including
Robert Dole, and have even appeared on some ballot measures such as
California Prop 187. The obvious targets are immigrants from Mexico.
In effect, its nothing more than the reemergence of nativism. Other
forms of nativism have appeared, such as denying immigrants access to
welfare and the school system for children of immigrants. Nativism is
also behind various immigration bills and the increasing efforts
directed at illegals.
Perhaps the most dangerous form of racism to emerge has been the
Republican efforts to 'monitor' the polls. And videotape those
leaving. Cases have arisen in the 1998 election in North Carolina,
Georgia, Michigan, Maryland, Kentucky, Texas and Maine. The efforts
are directed primarily at districts in which have a high percentage of
minorities. Such efforts serve no useful purpose and do constitute a
violation of the Voting Rights Act.36 More disturbing is the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, served as the
director of Republican 'ballot security' in the poor areas of Phoenix,
Arizona between 1958-1962.37 He likewise wrote a pro separate but
equal memo as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. All of which was
brought out in his confirmation hearings.
An even more subtle effort on the part of Republicans in denying votes
to the minorities and the poor is centered on the debate to allow a
statistical correction to the 2000 census. Such effort on the part of
the Republicans goes far beyond the election of 2000. The census will
be used to reapportionment of the congressional districts for the
decade. Thus, by denying the correction, they in effect are
perpetuating their power to 2010 by undercounting groups that
historically vote for Democrats
n Dec 1998, Republican House member Bob Barr and Senator Trent Lott
were exposed as keynote speakers before the Council of Conservative
Citizens, a racist organization. Lott was later determined to have
been an honorary member and had written several articles for their
paper dating back to the early 1990s. In January, Republican National
Chairman, Jim Nicholson asked members to dissociate themselves from
this group and directly appealed to national committee member Buddy
Witherspoon from South Carolina to resign. The request was refused.38
Once before, the Republicans were asked to denounce the radical John
Birch Society at their National Convention in the early 1960s.
Moderate members such as the former President Jerry Ford, did so.
However the measure failed.
>Another Republican that deserves mention here is Pat Buchanan and his anti-Semitic views. Buchanan has opposed virtually all civil rights bills and favorable court decisions; he has supported apartheid in South Africa; he has spewed forth views of Holocaust denial; he has called fascists such as Franco and Pinochet soldier-patriots. And Buchanan was a key figure in urging Reagan to visit the SS cemetery in Bitburg.40
Thus as we prepare to enter a new century, the Republican Party has
adopted racism as a divisionist tool to divide the electorate in an
attempt to maintain power and enact their extremist agenda. Not all
members of the Republican Party are racist, but many of the members
from the hard right that controls the party are racists. There are
honorable members of the party, but they are being forced into lesser
and lesser roles. The extremists have gained control. It is the burden
of those honorable members to take back control of their party and
denounce the extremist before it becomes too late.
Perhaps the best assessment of the use of destructive divisionism by
fascist in the United States comes from a 1945 War department
publication:
"Three Ways to Spot U.S. Fascists.
Fascists in America may differ slightly from fascists in other
countries, but there are a number of attitudes and practices that they
have in common. Following are three. Every person who has one of them
is not necessarily a fascist. But he is in a mental state that lends
itself to the acceptance of fascist aims.
1.Pitting religion, racial, and economic groups against one another in
order to break down the national unity is a device of the divide and
conquer technique used by Hitler to gain power in Germany and in other
countries. With slight variations, to suit local conditions, fascists
everywhere have used this Hitler method. In many countries, anti-
Semitism is a dominant devise of fascism. In the United States native
fascists have often been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-
Labor and anti-foreign born. In South America native fascists use the
same scapegoats except that they substitute anti-Protestantism for
anti-Catholicism.
Interwoven with the master race theory of fascism is a well planned
hate campaign against minority races, religions, and other groups. To
suit their particular needs and aims, fascists will use any one or a
combination of such groups as a convenient scapegoat.
2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as the
brotherhood of man. Fascists deny the need for international
cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the master
race. The color, race, creed or nationality-have rights. International
cooperation, as expressed in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, run counter
to the fascist program of war and world domination. Right now our
native fascists are spreading anti-British, anti-Soviet, anti-French
and anti-United nations propaganda.
3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a communist.
For short, he is often called a Red. Indiscriminate pinning of the
label Red on people and proposals which one opposes is a common
political device. It is a favorite trick of native as well as foreign
fascists.
Many fascists make the spurious claim that the world has but two
choices---either fascism or communism and they label as communist
everyone who refuses to support them. By attacking our free
enterprise, capitalist democracy and by deny the effectiveness of our
way of life they hope to trap many people."74
The extreme anti-communism and anti-socialism stance of the fascist is
beyond dispute among honest historians. Both communists and socialists
were the first to enter the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Both
Mussolini and Franco fought against communist influence. From the
brief survey of the fascist philosophers and extreme anti-liberal
stance has been a factor in fascism from the beginning. The Nazi used
socialism as a ruse to gain power, but once in power they purged the
socialists within their party. The following quotes taken from Mein
Kampf will illuminate the anti-communism, anti-parliamentary
democracy, and the social darwinism of Hitler.
"Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in 1914 and
1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of Marxist serpent once
and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the
spring of 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt
the activity of the Marist traitors and murders of the nation for
good"41 >
"As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I
beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic
majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but to the
contrary is to be found only in brief periods of history, which are
always epochs of decay of peoples and states."42
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the
most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national
community to leading position and leading influence.
But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above,
but must struggle through for themselves,..."43
The second quote certainly is anti-liberal as it shows Hitler's
contempt for the democratic process. The last quote reveals Hitler as
a social Darwinist of which Turner makes the point in several places
in his book.44 Social Darwinism runs counter to the aims of socialism.
In fact it is the antithesis. It allows the elite to gain further
power, it willingly discards the poor and the weak as expendables.
With the anti-communism stance and social Darwinism character of
Hitler, it is not surprising that the fascist in America would come
from the extreme right. The United States was right in opposing
communism. But to what links? As with anything else moderation is an
admirable quality, excesses of any nature are damaging. Truman or
Eisenhower were not fascists for their anti-communism actions.
However, Tail Gunner Joe was either a fascist or a willing dupe of
fascists. The type of anti-communism of McCarthy served no other
purpose than to further his political career. He openly violated the
right to free speech and assembly of his victims. His aim was to
destroy them with out any regard to the evidence.
The social Darwinism as initiated by Reagan and his attacks on the
poor, and the dismantling of the welfare program led by Newt Gingrich
will also be labeled as examples of creeping fascism. Throwing people
into the streets arbitrarily to fend for themselves is destructive; it
is social Darwinism at its worst. Forcing them to except wages below
the minimum wage law is denying them their equal rights. But it was
precisely the economic woes of Germany that allowed the Nazis to rise
to power. Currently America is enjoying good economic times, but when
the economy takes a turn to the south the full impact of the lack of a
social safety net is going to be felt hard.
The next trait of fascism, extreme exploitation, is a direct result of
one of the primary traits of fascism, extreme nationalism. The form of
nationalism promoted by fascism not only concerns the standing in the
world but also applies to the sacrifices that are expected of
citizens. In short, the fascist state reigns supreme while the
individuals are subordinate to the state. The subordination of
individuals to the state is the antithesis of liberalism. Once again
some quotes from Mein Kampf will suffice.
"Since for us the state as such is the only form, but the essential is
its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else
must be subordinated to its sovereign interests."45
"a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist
female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people,
putting the world into the service of a higher culture."46
Certainly from those two quotes there can be no question of the
subordination of individuals as practiced under the Nazis or to any
limits short of world domination by the Nazis. It is often stated that
Hitler left a road map to his future goals in Mein Kampf. There is no
greater evidence of that than in the last quote. How then did he rise
to power? The problem was nobody was listening. Nobody challenged his
aggressive views toward war, or at best they believed that they could
control or contain him. Only later did they find out the errors of
that false assumption.
This writer can find only two instances of this extreme exploitation
in America. Thanks to the efforts of CBS 60 Minutes and Evening News,
the story broke about the Tomb of the Unknown and how the Reagan White
House pressured the military to find an unknown to bury on Memorial
Day 1984. Turns out that in their haste to respond to the pressure
coming from the White House, they deliberately buried a fallen soldier
that wasn't so unknown. The unknown was Michael Bassie. This man had
given everything to his country except for his name. And the lowlife
filth occupying the White House had that stripped from him so he could
have a photo op on Memorial Day in an election year. This writer can
think of no other action that is more despicable; it's unforgivable.
Of course Reagan made sure he was the star of this photo op and used
it to promote and build support for his extremist military agenda.
The second instance comes at the hands of Newt Gingrich and the
Republicans of the 104th and 105th Congress. They have stripped the
rights of welfare recipients and required that they participate in
workfare. The problem comes in that these poor souls are not even
entitled to be paid the minimum wage or the right to unionize in some
cases. In other words, the Republican's answer to the poor is to force
the to work in perpetual slavery with no chance of ever breaking out
of poverty.
But this event is much more dangerous and goes much further than it
appears. The danger here lies in the suspension of the constitutional
equality under the eyes of the law. The Republicans have in effect
created a sub-class in which one of the very fundamental tenets of our
constitution, equality under the eyes of the law was ignored and
thrown out the window. Nor is this the only example of unequal
treatment of the poor at the hands of the Republicans. They also have
advocated cut backs in the budget for the public defender's office.
The Republicans have been very successful in their propaganda in
demonizing the poor. There seems to be an almost gutter level hatred
of the poor and any aid to assist them. Instead of reaching out a
compassionate helping hand towards the poor, the Republicans have
adopted a mean spirited social Darwinist view.
This brings us to the trait of opportunistic ideology of fascism. It
is perhaps one of the more confusing aspects of fascism. Mussolini
appears to have been indeed a socialist before founding the fascist
party. Mussolini likewise went from a pacifist to a rabid warmonger.
Clearly such dramatic changes in ideology could only be based in an
opportunistic grab for power. Mussolini started supporting a
syndicalism economy, but by 1923, with clear objections from business
leaders, he concluded the Palazzo Chigi Pact. This pact's main intent
was to simplify business relations by making the fascist the sole
representative of labor. In 1925, the Plazzo Vidoni agreement was
signed. This agreement made Rossoni's union the sole representative of
labor. It likewise prohibited the challenging of factory management.
By the close of the year, the grateful employer's federation publicly
announced adherence to the fascist regime.48 Such transformations
illistrate the opportunistic ideology present in fascism or is it a
lack of ideology, as well as further dispeling the myth that fascism
is another form of socialism.
Part of the problem with the ever-changing ideology of fascism arises
from the divisionism. Strasser was a socialist and it seems that
Goebbels was a Marxist. Both were allowed almost free reign in
promoting their own economic views as long as it gathered more support
of serve Hitler's purpose. But once their views failed to serve
Hitler, they were then brow beaten severely. An example of such
reversal in party ideology of the Nazis occurred on February 14,1926.
Prior to this date, both Strasser and Goebbels had approved of a
plebiscite campaign to deprive former royalty of their possessions, a
measure, that was popular with the common citizens. On the given date,
Hitler summoned both men to a meeting in Bamberg. Before those
gathered, Hitler forced both to capitulate and abandon the program.49
Similar events have already been given, in which various Nazis were
initially allowed to promote socialism in efforts to appease the lower
classes in an effort to gain their support.
Examples abound throughout the history of the Nazis where they adopted
their ideology to suit the audience. In October 1932, Strasser
announced a new program that was a stark reversal of the program the
Nazis had advocated in July. Higher taxes on the rich had been
replaced with a general reduction of taxes, instead of price controls
it centered on freeing prices. Instead of protectionism trade policy,
export and global trade was now promoted. Likewise, much of the
inflammatory rhetoric had been dropped.50
Hitler seems to have sensed the explosive nature of economics and
tried to avoid the subject both publicly and within the party. From
all indications, he was dissatisfied with the party planks on economic
matters. The only official stance on economic matters was the 1920
twenty-five point program. However, he only referred to this policy
document disparagingly in Mein Kampf and distanced himself from the
document.51 Likewise Hitler would never take an aggressive stance on
minor issues, he played to his audience to win their support.
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the opportunistic character of
the Nazis is illustrated by the actions of thirty-nine businessmen in
November 1932. The group contained such notables as Krupp, Thyssen,
Bosch, Siemens, and others. In a signed letter to Hindenburg they
urged him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. In essence they were
placing a bet that the socialism ideology was a fraud and that once in
power he would be a tool of capitalist.52
The only other reversal in policy that could rival the bet that the
leaders of big business made was Hitler's writings. In the first part
of Mein Kampf he argued that France was the sworn and greater enemy of
Germany. However, the second part to Mein Kampf he reversed course and
argued that Russia was the enemy as opposed to the first book in which
he proposed an alliance with Russia.53 This was a complete change in
his foreign policy. One can only speculate as to the reasons behind
such a switch.
Many writers have tried to label the Nazis as socialists in a folly to
distance themselves from fascist theory. They are quick to point to
the syndicalism policy as proof of socialist regulation of business.
They are in error, of course. Syndicalism is neither left nor right in
itself. It can be either, depending upon the political structure.
Syndicalism with labor groups or consumers dominating the issues would
indeed be socialistic in nature. On the other hand, syndicalism with
only industry or business groups dominating is certainly from the
right wing of the political spectrum. The issuing of controls or goals
over the production of war material by the government in a syndicalism
system is neither left nor right, it's simply self-preservation. The
goals and controls, including the 4-Year Plan issued by Goring, were
nothing more than gearing the economy up for war time production. In
essence, they were merely self-preservation measures.
>
Secondly, they will point toward many of the public works projects
that were implemented under the Nazis as examples of socialism. An
example of this is the construction of the autobahn, a project that
had been planned by previous governments, as were many of the public
work projects. They likewise forget that the Nazis took over at the
bottom of an economic depression, public work projects were enacted
not only in Germany, but in the U. S. as well as a means to end the
depression. Many of those projects in the U. S. were the construction
of useful infrastructure, such as the building of the high school in
New Ulm, Minnesota. Others had a definite commercialism bent to them,
such as the construction of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood in Oregon.
Labeling the construction of a facility for a commercial business as
socialism is simply fools folly. The same applies to many of the
public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis.
Labeling such programs as socialism would be the same as labeling the
construction of the interstate highway system as socialism. If the
Eisenhower administration had one shinning moment, it was his support
for the construction of the freeway system. For those that are silly
enough to label such work as socialism, let them be reminded that no
other single event, other than the construction of the cross
continental railroad aided the development of business. Besides the
obvious advantage to shippers, the interstate highway system has
spawned many new businesses. Think of the number of motels/hotels as
well as the tourist traps, service stations, and others that have
grown up along the freeway system. The same applies to Germany and the
autobahn.
Finally, the same writers that label fascism as socialism would like
their readers to believe that these government regulations and
bureaucratic offices held ultimate power. Failure to comply would
result in the owners being shot. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The Nazis for a large part lived in fear of the leaders of big
business. They were aware that they had no comprehensive economic plan
and would defer to the judgement of the business leaders.
This point can be driven home with one simple example. Goering was one
of the Nazis that had little economic knowledge, but harbored some of
the more radical economic ideas and was fond of using regulatory
offices. Goering tried first to persuade the steel industry, both the
smelters and miners, to use low-grade German ore as opposed to the
high-grade Swedish ore. Importation of ore from Sweden would use up
precious foreign currency, as well as being a less reliable source in
the event of war. The invasions of Denmark and Norway were conducted
solely to protect the Nazis shipping routes for the Swedish ore. Most
of the industrialists politely refused Goering's request; even under
threats of arrest for sabotage, they still declined.54 None were
arrested for refusal. Instead Goering formed the Herman Goering Works
to take on the task. By the time of the outbreak of the war it had
evolved to be one of the largest companies in Germany.
Farben is another example of the Nazis bowing to the expertise of
leading corporations. With the advent of the first 4-Year Plan, they
realized they needed the cooperation of business leadership in order
to achieve self-sufficiency in a series of raw materials and finished
products. Most of which were items would be crucial to wartime
production. By the end of the war Farben, had a series of factories
around concentration camps, were major users of slave labor, along
with Krupp and many other corporations.
But the most damning evidence of the Nazi's unbridled corporatism was
evident shortly after passage of the Enabling Act, when Hjalmar
Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank. Schacht was a
brilliant financier who helped negotiate the Dawes Plan and was
largely responsible for stabilizing the currency in 1923; he also
detested democracy and parliamentarianism. His first official act was
the creation of Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G. (Mefo), a dummy
corporation of four armament firms. The state assumed the liability
for their debts. The Mefo bills were not unlike promissory notes, they
were issued to government contractors and could be extended to five
years.55 Such favoritism of business is certainly not socialism. Today
in America such corporate aid is labeled as corporate welfare. Note
the similarity here not only to the present corporate welfare that's
being doled out, but also to Eisenhower's warning of the military-
industrial complex. The American military-industrial complex didn't
need to invent a new plan, they were simply free to follow the example
the Nazis used. In fact fascism is inseparatable from corporatism. You
simply cannot have a fascist government without corporations and a
capitalistic economy.
Schacht was later appointed to minister of economics in 1934, a post
he retained until he resigned in 1937 over policy disputes. He was not
an anti-Semitic and was conscious of the negative aspects of the
takeover of Jewish business on both the economy and world opinion. By
1936, he was advocating slowing down the rearmament program, fearing
the return of inflation.56 The return of inflation dispenses with the
myths that the Nazis maintained strict control of corporations and the
prices of goods in short order. In effect, such controls were non-
existent. It should also be pointed out here that the economy at this
time had taken on considerable shades of a consumer economy.
Italy used their form of syndicalism to eliminate labor unions; the
Nazis followed a similar path. The workers benefited little from this
unbridled corporatism. Unemployment went from an official figure of
six million unemployed in 1933, to 2.7 million in 1937, and by the
time of the outbreak of war there was a serious shortage of workers.
But growth in wages was far less spectacular, real wages rose only
sparingly. The index of wages rose from 92.5 in 1933 to 103 in 1937,
an increase of a meager eleven-percent.57 Much of the increase in
wages was achieved only from working longer hours. The only real
increases in the plight of the workers came with more unpaid leave.
Many of the other benefits produced no real benefits to the worker,
such as the factory beautification program.
From looking at the philosophers of fascism, it was revealed that
fascism was a reactionary movement. What then was the fascist reacting
to that led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Many people
responding to the question would simply answer the Treaty of
Versailles. But such an answer is only partially correct. It doesn't
account for the widespread rise of fascism in many European countries
following WWI. In fact, during the period between the two world wars,
every government from the Rhine to the Pacific underwent drastic
changes. In many of those fascism had ample support but in the end was
rejected. Some of the problem can be laid to the beginning dissolution
of the British Empire and the arbitrary way in which maps were redrawn
following WWI without regard to ethnic or natural barriers. An example
would be the cobbled mess of ethnic groups that formed the former
republic of Yugoslavia, an area that remains a hot spot today.
Britain and the United States were about the only two governments that
did not undergo a major change during the period between the wars.
However, neither was immune to the rise of fascism. The U. S. saw a
rise of a great many fascist groups and groups closely aligned with
the fascist in the period between the wars. The German Bund, the
Silver Shirts and the mother's movement were all aligned closely with
fascism. It was also this period that seen the greatest membership in
the Ku Klux Klan.
The United States avoided full-blown fascism by essentially adopting
fascist methods on a milder scale. This was a shameful period in the
history of America. The infamous Palmer raids rounded up those with
communist connections. The I.W.W was harassed constantly by Hoover and
the FBI. In short, only those with non-approved political beliefs
would be prosecuted. This suppression of liberty had actually begun
around 1900. At the turn of the century, both conservative and liberal
elements combined to pass a blizzard of new laws. This effort aimed at
curbing lawless quickly became dominated by conservative elements and
evolved in a tool for the right wing for the remainder of the century.
As head of the FBI, Hoover quickly targeted the leaders of the left
for prosecution, ignoring the criminal actions of the hard right
groups. This has left the United States without any noticeable left
wing compared to the rest of the industrial world.
Perhaps one of the first and most notable events was the trial of
Sacco and Vanzetti, two immigrants charged with murder in
Massachusetts. They were found guilty more on their political beliefs
than on evidence. They were anarchists, atheists, and reportedly draft
dodgers, beliefs that threatened the industrialists of the time.64
Both were executed after considerable protest. Their trial set a
dangerous standard that people could be prosecuted for their political
beliefs. The inclusion of this trial here is to serve as a reminder of
a new problem that is emerging to confront the hard right, jury
nullification. Today there is considerable debate from both sides of
the political spectrum on jury nullification arising in death penalty
and drug cases. It warrants close observation. If the public becomes
too polarized, it could spell the end to the trial by jury system,
which has served admirably for over 200 years.
Various members of the right wing are now using this as an issue in
another attempt to polarize the electorate for their own selfish
purposes. These members of the right wing are promoting a system of
justice backed by mob or vigilante justice. Essentially, it's a system
backed by violence that is not unlike the tactics used by the Posse
Comitatus, the Freemen, or various militias to corrupt the justice
system.
The first example of political repression came in Minnesota. The then
Republican Governor Burnquist used the newly created Minnesota
Commission of Public Safety to suspend New Ulm's Mayor Fritsche and
City Attorney Pfaender for their pacifist views after war had been
declared on Germany in 1917. The following quote details some of the
shameful actions taken by the commission and its connection to the
hard right.
In April 1917, soon after America declared war on Germany, the
Minnesota Legislature, following ferocious debate, created the
Minnesota Commission of Public Safety. This remarkable body, chaired
and appointed by the governor, was given "all necessary power" to
maintain order and enhance Minnesota's contribution to the war effort.
Technically limited by the state and federal constitutions, the
commission essentially wielded all the authority of state government
during the 18 months of its active existence. >
The commission came to be dominated by representatives of the Twin
Cities business community. It used its sweeping authority with gusto,
not only to root out ``disloyalty'' but to combat labor unionism and
agrarian activism as well.
The commission dispatched detectives throughout Minnesota to
investigate people and organizations suspected of disloyalty. It
regulated food prices and the liquor trade, imposing prohibition in
some parts of the state. It banned union organizing and intervened on
the side of management in a bitter Twin Cities streetcar strike. It
created a ``Home Guard'' of some 8,000 troops to back up its decrees.
The commission served as a virtual campaign committee for Republican
Gov. Joseph Burnquist in his 1918 re-election bid. It turned a blind
eye toward frequent mob harassment of his opponents. It interrogated
and intimidated Minnesotans who declined to purchase Liberty Bonds to
finance the war effort.63
Nor was such action confined to just Minnesota, many states set up
similar commissions. State sponsored violence against leaders from the
left was common place. One group that suffered immeasurably was the
I.W.W, the Wobblies. On Nov 5, 1916, Washington State suffered its
bloodiest labor battle of all time. The resulting carnage between a
local sheriff and the Wobblies left seven dead and over fifty wounded
in the city of Everett.65
All three of these events illustrate that the United States repressed
those with radical ideas in the time period of WWI and immediately
thereafter. Pacifist, labor leaders, and leftist political leaders
were all prosecuted with equal zeal. Remember, this was the time
period of the Rosewood incident and other atrocities. The prosecution
was lead by the hard right and business leaders.
But the real answer to the question is that fascism following WWI was
a reaction to the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of liberalism
ideals. Up until the Russian revolution, the only economic system was
capitalism. Communism was a new revolutionary system. It threatened
the power elite directly and gave way to a rise not only in communism
but socialism and liberalism as well. It was no accident that fascism
arose first in Italy, where in the period of 1919-1922, socialists
ruled in many localities. Here fascism arose in the countryside were
old practices such as sharecropping were giving way to new methods. In
1920, the largest strike in Italian agriculture ever was settled when
the landowners capitulated. Elsewhere, unions were wringing out
concessions from the owners through strikes and boycotts.58
>
The real appeal of European fascism was the protection it afforded
against working class movements, socialism, and communism.59 Hobsbawm
states it even more forcefully in claiming that without the October
revolution and Leninism there would have been no need for fascism. For
up until that time, the demagogic right, although politically active
and noisy in many countries, had been kept in check.60 The entire Nazi
movement was a reactionary movement. The reaction to the Treaty of
Versailles is well known and needs no further comment, as is the
opposition of fascism to liberalism, socialism and communism. Rather,
the following quote will show how complete the reaction was to the
events of the time.
"Today Christians... stand at the head of Germany... I pledge that I
never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity...We
want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit... We want to
burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the
theater, and in the press- in short, we want to burn out the poison of
immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a
result of liberal excess during the past...few years."61 <
The quote above was taken from a speech delivered by Hitler. It
provides the illustration that the Nazi movement was completely a
reactionary movement, reacting not only to global power politics and
the rise of the left, but also to the changes in arts and culture of
the time. It also provides the link to demonstrate that today's hard
right movement in the U. S. is equally reactionary, in particular, the
element of the so-called religious right. Contrast it with the quote
by Pat Robertson below.
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous
document for self-governmentby Christian people. But the minute you
turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people
they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."-Pat
Robertson (The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981)62
Apparently, Robertson is under the impression that the constitution
applies to only those he chooses and is null and void for the rest of
us. Hitler held a similar contempt for democracy. However, the point
that the Nazis were reactionary has been established beyond any doubt.
The reaction was not just confined to the global political scene or
economic conditions, but extended into the very roots of the culture.
Starting around 1980, fascism reared its ugly head globally. Unlike
the rise of fascism in the 1920s, this time the Reagan administration
embraced it. The administration openly promoted class warfare, allowed
the LaRocuhians access to security and intelligence agencies, filled
the EPA with Coor's lackeys, and openly supported none but the elite.
In essence, the Reagan administration was the American equivalent of
the passage of the Enabling Act.
There is no need to expand on the violent behavior of the Nazis or
fascists, as there is no dispute of their long history of violence.
Instead, the violence of various groups in the United States will be
explored. Many readers will immediately think of the violence that
arose in the 60s during the war protests. In fact, that is the great
illusion of the media. The truth is that little violence was directly
attributed to war protestors. In fact much of the violence that did
come out of the war protests was the work of the FBI.
The real story of violence in the 60s was the violence inflicted upon
the civil rights workers by the Klan. The early part of the 60s was
marred by violence, inspired by the Klan and racial hatred of right
wing groups. Eisenhower had to use National Guards to integrate the
Little Rock school system. Kennedy had to use federal marshals to
integrate Old Miss. When the Supreme Court order that busing was to be
used as a tool for integration, the violence spread nationally. The
Klan burnt school busses in Michigan to prevent integration.
Since 1980, right wing groups such as the Order, which murdered the
Denver talk show host, Berg, likewise have dominated the violence. The
leader of the Order was killed in a shoot out with law enforcement.
Another right wing group, the Posse Comitatus became a household word
only after the Kahl shoot out with law enforcement in North Dakota.
And of course there was the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building
by the right winger McVeigh. Perhaps the greatest widespread use of
violence since the Klan has been the bombing and violence directed
against abortion clinics by members of the religious right.
Violence has been the hallmark of the hard right in America dating
back at least as far as the Know Nothing Party in the 1800s and their
hatred of Catholics. It was business leaders that hired Pinkertons to
murder union organizers in earlier times. Yet there is relatively
little in the way to support that left wing groups were equally
violent. Groups like the Weathermen were violent, but the group was
never more than a small fringe group. Its extremely small size limited
the extent of its violence. One of the reasons for the lack of
widespread violence from leftist groups has already been mentioned,
the suppression of left wing groups by the FBI.
The last two traits of fascism will be explored together, as they are
related by an underlying use of symbols and the inseparable nature of
cults and religions. There is no doubt that both Hitler and Mussolini
were in effect leaders of a cult. Their extremist views would rule out
a major following otherwise. In fact, both promoted imagines
consistent with cults. Both chose to use propaganda to promote larger
than life imagines of themselves. Both Hitler and Mussolini were
Catholics; neither appeared to be particularly active members of the
church. Hitler referred to Christianity throughout Mein Kampf, as
already shown by quotes of which a few more will be included here.
"The sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily
bread of future generations will grow."
"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament,
the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this
Babylonian Empire and with it the hour of freedom for my German-
Austria people."
< " the Lord's grace smiled on his ungrateful children." >
Officially, the Nazis were a Christian group, if one can assign a
religion to the group by the public policies they enacted. In this
case, the assignment is based on the following prayer that the Nazis
required to be recited in all public schools.
"Almighty God, dear heavenly Father. In Thy name let us now, in pious
spirit, begin our instruction. Enlighten us, teach us all truth,
strengthen us in all that is good, lead us not into temptation,
deliver us from all evil in order that, as good human beings, we may
faithfully perform our duties and thereby, in time and eternity, be
made truly happy. Amen."67
It is also true that the Nazis dabbled in mysticism as well. Certainly
some of the philosophers were pantheistic. But what really underlies
both the religious and mysticism aspects of the Nazis is the symbolism
buried underneath. In fact, one follower of fascism believed that the
masses were unable to understand anything other than mere slogans.
From Mein Kampf the following quote concerns the symbolism hidden
behind the Nazi flag.
" Not only that the unique colors, which all of us so passionately
love and which once won so much honor for the German people, attest
our veneration for the past; they were also the best embodiment of the
movement's will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our
flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the
nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for
victory of the Aryan man, and by the same token, the victory of the
idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will
be anti-Semitic."66
At first in the quote above, Hitler is referring to the old flag of
Germany. The choice of red was based on stealing from the communists
and was chosen deliberately to enflame the Marxists. Throughout Mein
Kampf, Hitler refers to the value of propaganda and made extensive use
of symbols to convene a subtle message of hatred.
The similarities to the right wing in America is seen. The Republicans
have introduced a flag desecration amendment to protect their
symbolism. Even more revealing was the letter Newt Gingrich
distributed to members of GOPAC. In this letter, members were to use
the following words to impart a negative image: decay, failure, sick,
liberal, unionized, welfare, corrupt, greed and intolerant. The
following words were to impart a positive imagine: share, legacy,
control, truth, and courage.68
Cults are inherently fascist in nature. The leader demands total
submersion into the cult. America today has seen far too many examples
of cults and cult behavior. A recent example, would be the Waco
incident that ended badly. However, there are several right wing
groups that do exhibit cult behavior besides the religious groups; the
LaRouchians, many of the militias, and the Order would all qualify as
cults. In addition, much of the hard right inside the Republican Party
has taken on a cult like behavior in their idolizing Reagan. The 105th
Congress renamed the Washington airport after him. In the present
Congress Congressman Matt Salmmon of Arizona has introduced a bill to
deface Mt Rushmore by adding Reagan's imagine to the monument.69
It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler and the
Nazis were right wing extremists best described as social darwinists,
the antithesis of socialism. It was showed that the Nazis were best
described by syndicalism model and that syndicalism is neither
socialistic nor capitalistic, inherently. Syndicalism can be either
depending upon the makeup; the Nazis were definitely capitalists in
that there was no input from labor. All input was reserved for the
industrialist. Further, it was shown that the industrialists openly
defied Nazi desires in the case of the use of low-grade ores. It was
also shown that many of the businesses that was government owned were
taken over by the government prior to the Nazis, some dating all the
way from the monarchy. Likewise, it was shown that many of the Nazi
programs would be classified as corporate welfare today. And it was
shown that the real power behind the Nazi movement was the top
elitist. This should be sufficient for anyone to dispel the myth that
the Nazis were socialist, when in fact they were capitalistic
extremists.
In defining fascism, three traits stand above all others,
totalitarian, nationalism, and extreme corporatism. In fact, one can
not have fascism without corporatism. Other traits of fascism, such as
destructive divisionism and the use of violence are secondary. As
fascist ideology evolved in the later half of the 20th Century, a
happy face was put on fascism by its leaders as they down played the
violence and racism. This can be seen best in the far right wing
extremist groups currently active in the United States.
Additionally, there is one fact that absolutely places the Nazis and
fascism in the extreme right wing portion of the political spectrum,
and not the left. No one disputes that a communist revolution attacks
the ruling elite of a country. Similarly, socialism and liberalism
also attacks the same ruling elite, but the right wing extremists try
to claim the opposite. In reality these systems merely seek methods to
ease the burden and allow the lower classes to prosper rather than
attacking the elite. The Nazis, on the other hand, did not attack the
ruling elite of Germany. The rich industrialists were allowed to
continue their ways, eased by laws that the Nazis enacted for their
benefit. Likewise, the nobility of Germany was supported by the Nazis.
In short, the Nazis adopted the ruling elite in Germany and supported
them, the exact opposite of what a left leaning political ideology
would support.
There is no better proof of the Nazi support for the ruling elite than
looking at who supported Hitler in the 1930s in America. Granted, many
lower class people were involved in the pro-Hitler movement just as in
Germany. But like Germany, it was the rich industrialists that funded
these groups. Hearst ordered his newspapers to print pro-Nazi
articles. In fact, he had them print the Nazi propaganda directly from
Gobbels. Irenee du Pont funded several pro-fascist groups. Henry Ford
was well known for his praise of Hitler and funded many pro-Nazis in
the 30s. Andrew Mellon and John D. Rockefeller were supporters of
Hitler as well. No one is foolish enough to argue that these men were
not part of the ruling elite or rich industrialists in America at the
time. In fact, support for Hitler among the rich industrialists was
rampant.
The continued propagation of such nonsense by the present right wing
is nothing short of propaganda. It fits closely with the Nazis' use of
propaganda and the symbolism proposed by Gingrich and his negative
words. nor will it change the history of the right wing support of the
Nazis.
1. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1124.cfm
2. Why Americans Hate Politics, E. J. Dionne, Touchstone, 1991,
p152-154.
3. Thomas Jefferson: In his Own Words, Maureen Harrison & Steve
Gilbert, Barnes & Noble, 1996, p369.
4. http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm
5. http://www.miami.edu/phi/schopnh.htm
http://members.aol.com/KathorenaE/private/philo/Nietz/nietz.html
http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri/nietz.html
http://users.aol.com/Irdetrigen/index4.html
< http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/zar/
http://www.pitt.edu/~wbeurry/nietzsche.html
http://www.ewu.edu/~millerj/nietzsche.index.html
6. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bergson.htm
7. Himmler, Peter Padfield, MJF books,1990, p260.
8. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p 394.
9. Mein Kampf, p325.
< 10. Lott renounces White Racialist Group He praised in 1992, Thomas
Edsell, Washington Post, Dec 16,1998.
11. http://www.cofcc.org/
12. Thirty Days, Henry Ashby Turner, Addison-Welsey, 1996, p5.
13. Thirty Days, p9-15.
14. Thirty Days, p164.
15. Mein Kampf, p645-646.<
16. Mein Kampf, p218.
17. Adolf Hitler, Robert Payne, Barnes & Noble,1995, p213.
18. Adolf Hitler, p237
19. Who Financed Hitler, James Pool, Pocket Books, 1997, p11.
< 20. Who Financed Hitler, p45
21. Who Financed Hitler, p83.<
22. U. S. Firms' Connections to Nazis Detailed, Reuters, 1/14/1999.
Appeared in Boston Globe of same date
23. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Henry Ashby Turner,
Oxford University Press, 1985.
24. German Big Business, p151-152.
25. German Big Business, p198-200.
26. German Big Business, p159.
27. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble,
1983,p131-132.
28. Hitler and His secret Partners, James Pool, Pocket Books,1997,
p52-53
29. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Schirer, Fawcett,
1992, p202.
30.The Rise and Fall, p203.
31. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02-16-13-index.html
32. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/
33. What Real Hate Speech Sounds Like, Jeff Jacony, Boston Globe, 11,
2, 1998.
34. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page4.htm
35. A Trial of Alleged hate to Begin in Texas, AP wire, Boston Globe,
1, 24, 1999 .
36. Minority Voter Intimidation Becomes election Eve Issue, AP wire,
11, 3, 1998.
37. Quite and Odd Couple to Sit in Judgement, Jim Dwyer, New York
Daily news, 1, 7, 1999.
38. RNC Chiarman Urges Party Member to Leave Conservative Group, Glen
Johnson, AP wire, Boston Globe, 1, 19, 1999.
39. Mein Kampf, p248.
40. http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html<
41. Mein Kampf, p678.
42. Mein Kampf, p651.
43. Mein Kampf, p449.
44. Big Business &
45. Mein Kampf, p575.
46. Mein Kampf, p396.
47. Fascism, Roger Eatwell, Penguin, 1995, p149.
48. >Fascism, p77.
49. The Rise and Fall, p181. <
50. Big Business, p288.
51. Big Business, p 81
52. Hitler, John Toland, Doubleday, 1976, p276.<
53. Hitler, p221.
54. Fascism, p156.
55.Hitler, p308.
56. Fascism, p155.
57. Fascism, p160.
58. Fascism, p53-54.
59. The Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm, Vintage Books, 1996, p 175.
60. The Age of Extremes, p124.
61. http://www.isrp.org/
62. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page6.htm
63. http://www.pioneerplanet.com/archive/cent/dox/cent13.htm
64. http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afries/88/sacvan.html
65. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~n9517146/everettmassacre.html
66. Mein Kampf, p498-499.
67. http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.alert.html
68. http://www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html
69. Reagan Wanted on Mt Rushmore, Rueters wire appearing in the 2/2/99
Boston Globe
70. The Road To Serfdom, F..A. Hayek, University of Chicago Press,
1994, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.
71. The Road to Serfdom, p52.
72. The Road to Serfdom, p44. <
73. Fascism and Big Business, Daniel Guerin, Pathfinder, 1973,
p208-213
74. Time Bomb, E.A. Piller, Arco Publishing, 1945, p13-14.
75. Southern Exposure, Stetson Kennedy, DoubleDay, 1946, p189
RHF
>
> read more »
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 9:17 PM, RHF wrote:
>
> > ...
> > yes there are times when gold has little or no value
> > -wrt- the necessities of day to day survival ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
>
> Whenever gold has no value, only food, shelter, water, clothes, etc.
> will continue to have value. But as soon as their is a desire for
> money, gold is king.
cash is king today. its in shortage. people want it. if gold was so
desirable, all extra stocks would be exhausted by now.
Not only that, but you can bury gold for an
> eternity and dig it back up and spend it. Paper money will deteriorate
> rather quickly ... again, gold is king.
>
how many people are willing to bury their gold for decades:) cash is
king in a deflating economy.
> But, I suspect you waste your time ... this idiot only argues for the
> sake of "being right" ... it has no bearing on if what he says is even
> close to correct, or not.
>
that still does not refute what i have been saying. gold is
deflationary in nature, gold has never stopped a currency from being
debased, gold has never stopped inflation, gold and silver have caused
inflation, gold can make a recession, into a depression. cash is in
shortage right now, cash is king, the owners of gold, will gladly sell
you their gold, for your worthless little pieces of green paper, in a
deflating economy, you might be forced into selling your over priced
assets(gold), at a reduced price to raise scarce cash to pay your
bills. refute them.
> Regards,
> JS
RHF
- i realize that this is most probably a waste of time.
- your type, are almost un-educational.
- as mussolini stated, fascism should be renamed
- corporatism.
- = NnUa = - "your {my} type" & "un-educational"
You Have Entered the "Arguing with Idiots" Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguing_with_Idiots
There is a sign post up ahead . . .
-and-it-reads- "You Are An Idiot !"
-for- Arguing with someone that you reasonably
believe to be a Total and Complete I D I O T [.]
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Is It Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists ?
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4bc858344efbacb1
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist"
- = The Liberal Rule = -
It Is Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists !
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/02c2600097def3e3
.
Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
Ending in Liberal-Fascism
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/84f4b03c6765f814
.
*OMG/OMA* Let Us Pray "NnUa" . . .
This Has Been A 'Teachable Moment' ~ RHF©*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachable_moment
.
* © This is another Copy-Righted 'Brain Fart' of RHF
-wrt- 'Brain Fart' -yeah- This Idea(s) Stinks -pew(pu)-
.
.
=OBTW=
"Liberal-Fascism" -by- Jonah Goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
> This description could past for the economic ...
>
> read more »
Ray Fischer
>Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
Fascists hate liberalism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Nickname unavailable
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Socialism_and_Nazism/
• Socialism and Nazism
Nazism and socialism refers to a polemical, and political claim that
Nazism, or the "German National Socialism" of the 1930s to mid 1940s
is comparable in some way to the ideology of socialism. Political
figures —in the US, Britain, and elsewhere —may at times employ the
comparison as a rhetorical device aimed at discrediting pro-labor and
otherwise socially liberal platforms, by implying a guilt by
association between socialist economic philosophy and the tyrannical
rule of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
While the claim has little meaning among educated scholars, the
argument has some social resonance among "layman majorities" who tend
to be less able to discern (or have less access to) factual claims and
materials related to history and economics —easy to sway with polemic
rhetoric, even if the claim has little substance or merit.
The definition of Nazism
The name "National Socialist German Workers Party," was a misnomer,
much like the "Peoples Republic of China," the "Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics," the "German Democratic Republic" and the
"Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Few would argue that any of the
above countries were infact democracies or republics, and it is to
this above category that the Hitlerian self-image as a "National
Socialist German Workers Party," belongs.
The shortened term, "National Socialism," is a misnomer as well, and
by itself simply means a 'nationalist flavor of socialism.' But
because it is a very general term, it has some current resonance in
popular discourse —particularly when it's used synonymously with
Nazism.
It's polemical use within Western capitalist societies, is designed to
evoke the twin demons of Naziism and (Soviet) "socialism," perhaps
generating a Pavlovian response to the common "enemy", in this case .
The accusation of political liberals as "socialists," (and hence by
implication "Nazis" and "Soviets Communists") is a rather typical and
well-documented cornerstone of conservative rhetoric in the United
States and other capitalist democracies. (See smear campaign, Red
scare, McCarthyism)
The Nazi party-appropriated-term "socialism," like "democracy" in the
cases above, was used to appeal to German workers for political
support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power.
Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric,
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true
socialism, in the sense (democratic socialism) that it's used today.
Within the context of Hitler's unified, "racially-pure" Germany,
Hitler instituted and supported social programs that on their surface
had socialist structure. For example, his youth programs, education
and indoctrination programs, reproduction programs, all borrowed some
of their structure from existing "socialist" ideas, but insead of
keeping the democratic spirit of socialist ideals, he simply borrowed
what was popular to serve is quest for power. Whatever appeals Nazism
made to the German worker, family, culture, and society —while in a
very general sense were socialist —they were simply components in the
totalitarian rule of the Nazi party.
The claim that socialism and nazism are one in the same are an example
of the ignatoriao ilenchi fallacy —for example, the same could be said
of the United States military industrial complex, which operates with
socialist/communist-like safeguards and protections, though its a part
of a capitalist system.
Ad-Hominem
The term Nazism typically has such a bad name that to link it to
anything tends to tarnish the reputation of that other thing. A "law"
of internet culture called Godwin's Law humorously states that whoever
first brings up Hitler or the Nazis in a usenet discussion
automatically loses the argument.
[1] [2] (tarring them with the same brush, as it were). Those who see
a connection insist that rather then being driven by ideology, they
seek only greater accuracy in political science.
Reasons Nazism is considered socialist
• Self-depiction: the German Nazi Party called itself the "National
Socialist Worker's Party", and in 1927, Hitler said, "We are
socialists."
•
• The Left Wing (examples include Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm),
and working class brownshirts (or Sturmabteilung) within the Nazi
Party supported socialist programs.
•
• One writer, Lew Rockwell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
suggests that the chief difference beween Nazism and (as he puts it)
others forms of socialism is that the Hitler's socialism was
nationalistic while other forms (such as Communism) were
internationalist. [3]
Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist
• Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly
opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was
virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social
democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism
and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against
Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and
political support from industrialists and conservatives.
•
• The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish
conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist
principle.
•
• Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure"
or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as
contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.
•
• In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that
he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the
extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to
"socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some
democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all)
socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private
property and have labor unions.
•
• Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling
Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.
•
• After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social
democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist
leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate
profits for Krupp & Co.
•
• The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the
exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist
enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in
private hands.
•
• The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality
(either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans),
collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler
biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and
asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual
would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common
good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations,
in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl
Marx.
•
• During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing"
Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were ruthlessly purged
and even killed.
Nickname unavailable
> RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
>
> Fascists hate liberalism.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
correct. its something the conservatives cannot explain away. in
fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they
are simply projecting again.
Kevin Alfred Strom
> On Oct 2, 6:58 pm, John Smith<assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I should point out, that 1 Troy OZ., $20 gold coin is still worth the
>> $20 it was back then. You just need a lot of $20 dollar bills, today,
>> to be worth what one was back then ... sorry, that was an IMPORTANT
>> point to ignore.
>>
>
>
> who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices.
Wages have risen in terms of the Fed trading stamps that we are now
compelled to use instead of money, but nowhere near as much as
prices have.
That is because the boobs are easily fooled into thinking, because
there's an extra zero after the dollar amount on their paycheck now,
that they're actually making "more money." What they forget is that
the dollar, in the same period, has fallen well below the value of a
five-cent piece in the days when America was still a nation.
But, boobs were apparently born to be fooled -- and a lot more of
them are being born these days than ever.
The biggest victims of this theft, this con game on an gigantic
scale, are those who worked their lives away for a retirement, or
whole life insurance, or annuities, or other fixed assets that are
denominated in dollars.
The money that the banks pumped into the securitized real estate
casino, and the money that Barack Hussein Fetchit spends on his
"social programs" and "aid" to Israel, and the money that pays for
the Predator drones that incinerate whole apartment blocks full of
innocent people in Pakistan, was largely stolen from them.
With every good wish,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
Kevin Alfred Strom
[...]
>
> the gold standard has never stopped inflation, nor a currency
> collapse.
You're partly right. The gold standard by itself doesn't prevent
bankers or politicians from irresponsibly creating money out of nothing.
But it does provide some discipline. You have to be able to pay out
real money to those few depositors who actually request it.
Although there were manias, panics, and recessions due to the
ability of the fractional reserve banking system to create credit
dollars even under a gold standard, those up and down variations
were centered around a fairly stable baseline.
The years from 1790 to 1913 saw a remarkably stable price structure
compared to the years since. Around the time that the bankers
wrested total control of the currency from Congress with their
Federal Reserve, the curve describing the value of the soiled pieces
of paper with the word "dollar" printed on them began to go down,
down, down, and now there is no end in sight.
The way to end this theft need not necessarily involve a metallic
standard, though it might. But it does necessarily involve honest,
honorable men. And these are in short supply, especially in
Washington and on Wall Street.
With all good wishes,
John Smith
> ...
> it sure is. the owners of gold will gladly sell you their gold for
> little green pieces of paper. now who is the fool:)
That is probably how children see things, I will give you that. But no,
the owners of gold, which want to buy something, will trade you a
portion of their gold for dollars so they can go get a home, a car, a
yacht, an island, an airplane, etc.
The gold mines will gladly sell you gold, it is their business. Gold,
for the most part, stays in places such as fort knox (yeah, I know, it
is empty, or else someone elses gold is stored there) or the large
holdings in china, middle east, etc. in large storage areas. Just like
people with money, people with gold have to trade part of their wealth
for things they purchase. People also go broke on large gambles, and
supplies of gold come onto the market.
Gold is a way to secure and hold wealth in a stable form, where years,
decades, centuries, etc. it can be liquidated and spent and used.
You logic of "people with gold would hang on to their gold" is only as
valid as "people with dollars would hang on to their dollars." Both of
these statements are correct, you only get gold or dollars when they are
spent ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> explain away the private sector screwing people over gold. gold is a
> impossible way to back a modern economy. its deflationary in nature.
> no country is willing to go back to the gold standard and starve.
Gold works just as any other currency or medium of exchange. You can
scam people with stocks, bonds, dollars, etc. Naturally, you can do it
with gold also ...
Truth is, the wealthy have large holding of gold and other valuable
metals. They don't wish the slaves to have them. You are one of those
slaves who just doesn't realize the game ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
If you want to hold your financial security through these bad times, buy
gold, it will still have value when things blow over and you can redeem
it for the Amero which will replace the dollars which have been declared
worthless and bankrupt. If such doesn't happen, don't worry, the gold
has kept your money just as safe ... just don't be a fool and pay too
much for the gold--I realize that will be the next mistake idiots will
make ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
VERY well said, and right on. When you are right, YOU ARE RIGHT!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> still does not refute a thing. and the last 30 years of thinking is
> what has ruined america.
That is because you will never see anything as a valid repudiation of
the things you wish to believe. That is only obivious ... and the last
30 to 40 years of the present system is what has ruined America. And,
that system has been kept in operation by BOTH republi-crats and
demo-cans; It will remain so ... perhaps Ron Paul, or such a man with
such beliefs can change things. But, the entrenched powers which be are
so abhorrent to change which would free the financially enslaved will
never allow that. Even if they must bring down many more buildings,
assassinate many more people, cause many more wars, steal more oil, sell
more drugs, etc., etc.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> [...]
>
>
> Wages have risen in terms of the Fed trading stamps that we are now
> compelled to use instead of money, but nowhere near as much as prices have.
>
> That is because the boobs are easily fooled into thinking, because
> there's an extra zero after the dollar amount on their paycheck now,
> that they're actually making "more money." What they forget is that the
> dollar, in the same period, has fallen well below the value of a
> five-cent piece in the days when America was still a nation.
>
> But, boobs were apparently born to be fooled -- and a lot more of them
> are being born these days than ever.
>
> The biggest victims of this theft, this con game on an gigantic scale,
> are those who worked their lives away for a retirement, or whole life
> insurance, or annuities, or other fixed assets that are denominated in
> dollars.
>
> The money that the banks pumped into the securitized real estate casino,
> and the money that Barack Hussein Fetchit spends on his "social
> programs" and "aid" to Israel, and the money that pays for the Predator
> drones that incinerate whole apartment blocks full of innocent people in
> Pakistan, was largely stolen from them.
>
>
> With every good wish,
>
>
> Kevin Alfred Strom.
> --
> http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
You are one of those rare individuals who have pulled back their covers,
exposed them and are now describing the bare naked truth which the blind
cannot fathom ...
Regards,
JS
deepdudu
<rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On Oct 2, 2:15=C2=A0pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
:
>>
>> =C2=A0it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberal=
>s,
>> trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
>> liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
>> intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
>> racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
>> conservative movement:)
>
>"NA" -says- "it is impossible for liberals to be fascists"
Of course. The words are opposites.
John Smith
> ...
> that does not refute one thing i have proven. also,i have been active
> on alt.politics.economics for well over a decade and a half.
Here we go, again ... as I stated, nothing will ever be good enough to
repudiate anything you believe. You have chosen to believe what you
choose to believe and that is that ... I accept that, indeed, don't feel
alone. How do you think we got here, why do you think we are staying
here, and why do you think many believe we will be here in the future?
It is because many have been brain washed like you and no amount of
sanity, logic and reason will dislodge the mind-screwing which has been
done by the system ... they haven't spent trillions on plans which don't
work!
Regards,
JS
deepdudu
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 1:13=A0am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RHF =A0<rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
>>
>> Fascists hate liberalism.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
>> rfisc...@sonic.net =A0
>
> correct. its something the conservatives cannot explain away. in
>fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they
>are simply projecting again.
The recently coined term "liberal fascism" is nothing more than yet
another attempt by the right wing propagandists to blame everything
bad that ever happened in the world on liberalism. The corporatists
can't come to an admission that the worst mass murderer ever in the
world was one of them, so they try to make fascism into a left wing
phenomenon in order to brainwash the lemmings.
Franklin Hummel
> On Oct 2, 2:15 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 2:24 pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung <0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
> > liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
> > intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
> > racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
> > conservative movement:)
>
> "NA" -says- "it is impossible for liberals to be fascists"
He's right.
> ¡ LET THERE BE A REPLY !
All of your so-called "proofs" are from REC.ARTS.RADIO.SHORTWAVE!
You actually *believe* postings to a shortwave newsgroup should
somehow be considered a SERIOUS source of political discussion?!
Will youtr next source be rec.sport.pro-wrestling?!
Ha ha.
John Smith
> •
> • The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the
> exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist
> enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in
> private hands.
> •
> • The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality
> (either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans),
> collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler
> biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and
> asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual
> would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common
> good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations,
> in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl
> Marx.
> •
> • During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing"
> Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were ruthlessly purged
> and even killed.
>
>
Man, that is nothing but distilled BS. What a friggin' idiot! This is
some homosexual mental case ... one of the worst I have yet seen.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> correct. its something the conservatives cannot explain away. in
> fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they
> are simply projecting again.
What a friggin' idiot to even spend so much time on such an
infinitesimally small point ... I suspect meth, crack cocoaine or a
mental disorder which mimics the drugs effects ... I just love these
idiots, reminds me of why things are the way they are ...
Regards,
JS
Chas. Chan
and Judiciary] in a single party [Liberal Fascist Democrats] headed by
an absolute dictater [0baMa0 Tse Dung].
............................sound
familiar?............................
Anyone who is not a ComuSexual-(Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/
Communist)
is a Fascist according to Useful Liberal Idiots.
Anyone who refutes a ComuSexual-(Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/
Communist)
is a moron according to Useful Liberal Idiots.
Liberal Fascism
Pt.1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsFoiVZDSRs
Pt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hdqjDIfyfo
Pt.3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqdf7Wz-Pe4
Pt.4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfJSub3CDJk
Pt.5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmAMVyNuVa0
Pt.6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE-4VDpwYwk
Pt.7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCJqnwZPc0Q
If you haven't read the book, watched all of the above and understood
what was said don't bother responding with your ComuSexual propaganda
lies.
Left-wing roots of the Nazis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4758sBZLC5k
Marxism, National Socialism [NAZI] and Juche [N.Korea] are left-wing
brothers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa1sj0gwnuQ
When Liberals and NAZIs were Allies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-URfx_k9uU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XrscWjPYs
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Pt.1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk9WQaAIbOg
Pt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmDXuA1-8FE
Pt.3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eeNB_rWqpk
Pt.4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4maXhvSm4fQ
The Liberal's Path to Socialism
Pt.1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPyoEbU_wc4
Pt.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvuxr7v4xzk
"Just as the Left was drawn to the communist killing machines of
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro, so too it is now attracted to
radical Islam."
"The contempt that German Hitlerytes had for "Bolshevism" or "marxist
Jews" generally should also not mislead us in assessing the similarity
between National Socialism and Communism. Leftist sects are very prone
to rivalry, dissension, schism and hatred of one-another. One has only
to think of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks, Stalin versus
Trotsky, China versus the Soviet Union etc. Similarity does not
preclude rivalry. Hitler and Stalin were literally brothers in arms
BEFORE they became rivals. That socialist brothers sometimes fall out
should not prevent us from noting the brotherhood concerned."
___
"The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is
that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital
interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a
small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to
progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery,
oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it
enriches a class of idle and useless parasites."
"This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed
long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators
were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the
British Fabians, the German professors and the American
Institutionalists. And it is a very significant fact that the
correctness of this dogma was contested only by a few economists who
were very soon silenced and barred from access to the universities,
the press, the leadership of political parties and, first of all,
public office. Public opinion by and large accepted the condemnation
of capitalism without any reservation."
[...]
"The term 'planning' is mostly used as a synonym for socialism,
communism, and authoritarian and totalitarian economic management.
Sometimes only the German pattern of socialism-Zwangswirtschaft-is
called planning, while the term socialism
proper is reserved for the Russian pattern of outright socialization
and bureaucratic operation of all plants, shops, and farms. At any
rate, planning in this sense means all-around planning by the
government and enforcement of these plans by the police power.
Planning in this sense means full government control of business. It
is the antithesis of free enterprise, private initiative, private
ownership of the means of production, market economy, and the price
system. Planning and capitalism are utterly incompatible. Within a
system of planning production is conducted according to the
government's orders, not according to the plans of capitalists and
entrepreneurs eager to profit by best filling the wants of the
consumers.
"But the term planning is also used in a second sense. Lord Keynes,
Sir William Beveridge, Professor Hansen, and many other eminent men
assert that they do not want to substitute totalitarian slavery for
freedom. They declare that they are planing
for a free society. They recommend a third system, which, as they say,
is as far from socialism as it is from capitalism, which, as a third
solution of the problem of society's economic organization, stands
midway between the two other systems, and while retaining the
advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each.
"These self-styled progressives are certainly mistaken when they
pretend that their proposals are new and unheard of. The idea of this
third solution is very old indeed, and the French have long since
baptized it with a pertinent name; they call it interventionism.
Hardly anybody can doubt that history will link the idea of social
security, more closely than with the American New Deal and with Sir
William Beveridge, with the memory of Bismarck whom our fathers did
not precisely describe as a liberal. All the essential ideas of
present-day interventionist progressivism were neatly expounded by the
supreme brain-trusters of imperial Germany, Professors Schmoller and
Wagner, who at the same time urged their Kaiser to invade and to
conquer the Americas. Far be it from me to condemn any idea only on
account of its not being new. But as the progressives slander all
their opponents as old-fashioned, orthodox, and reactionary, it is
expedient to observe that it ,vould be more appropriate to speak of
the clash of two orthodoxies; the Bismarck orthodoxy versus the
Jefferson orthodoxy.
[...]
"The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is
that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital
interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a
small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to
progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery,
oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it
enriches a class of idle and useless parasites. This doctrine was not
the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered
the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian
authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the
German professors and the American Institutionalists. And it is a very
significant fact that the correctness of this dogma was contested only
by few economists who were very soon silenced and barred from access
to the universities, the press, the leadership of political parties
and, first of all, public office. Public opinion by and large accepted
the condemnation of capitalism without any reservation.
[...]
Dr. Ludwig von Mises - 1952 - http://mises.org/books/planningforfreedom_mises.pdf
___
The following is from The World Book Encyclopedia, 1947 edition:
The chief characteristics of Fascism are as follows:
*THE CULTIVATION OF IGNORANCE*
Fascism, like all forms of government, rests firmly on the sincere
consent of a large part of the population... To maintain this consent,
the Fascist leadership must cut off the people from any information
which might cause them to doubt the complete rightness of the fixed
Fascist principles... All forms of communication are carefully
censored, so that the public will receive only those facts that the
dictators want known... Travel to other countries must be controlled,
and freedom of speech and assembly must be rigorously suppressed...
*SUPPRESSION OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY*
Fascism in Italy and Germany at first won the support of the wealthy
classes, both landed and industrial... These people saw in Fascism a
protection against the demands of farmers and other workers... Both
regimes at first upheld the rights of private property... They
subjected the working classes to a rigorous discipline... As soon as
they were firmly established, the dictators began to limit profit,
impose capital levies, and regulate business in great detail...
Employment Rates under Liberal Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssIhiD8kKM
............................sound
familiar?............................
*THE POLICE STATE*
Fascism depends upon the police to crush all opposition or dissent.
Secret police spy on the whole population, and any casual remark
against the regime leads to swift and severe punishment... Opposition
parties are dissolved. Intellectual, athletic and recreational
organizations are usually brought under the control of the Fascist
authority... The ruthlessness of the police gradually becomes less
noticeable... This is because within a year or so after a Fascist
government takes power, vigorous opponents of the regime have either
left the country, been killed or jailed...
(Both Fascist and Communist leaders make use of the police state...
Every absolute government has used the police state to some degree...
It was highly developed among the ancient Assyrians...)
*EXTREME NATIONALISM*
Fascism is highly nationalistic... It tries to identify its principles
with the country, so that disagreement will look like treason... Some
other country, or some group within the country, is chosen to serve as
the "enemy" and made to appear as the cause of all evils or
misfortunes... For example, the Nazis in Germany represented their
movement first as a crusade against the Jews, then as a fight against
Communism and later as a struggle against the "attacks" from whatever
neighboring country they wished to subdue or occupy... Extreme
nationalism often becomes a kind of racial fanaticism... Sometimes it
combines racial and religious bigotry...
When you hear the Liberal Fascist propaganda that THEY are the true
patriots then you know the time is near. Look for it!
*MILITARISM*
Fascism maintains among the people a permanently warlike frame of
mind... Every citizen feels that he is mobilized against enemies of
the regime from within, and against possible foreign foes... The
dictator usually comes to power during a period of economic crisis or
depression... He relieves the depression partly by employing many
people in the making of armaments... To justify this procedure, he
must convince the people that the country is threatened, and must
point toward some of the enemies against whom the armaments may be
needed...
Listen to 0baMa0's rhetoric and his fascistic support from the
Liberals
............................sound
familiar?............................
When you vote on Tuessday, November 2nd, cut the Liberal Fascists off
from your Tax Dollars and vote with your wallet.
John Smith
> Fascism is a form of government which centers all power [House, Senate
> and Judiciary] in a single party [Liberal Fascist Democrats] headed by
> an absolute dictater [0baMa0 Tse Dung].
> ...
You have it correct, and such is our government. However, some are
confused since the party can be referred to by two different
names--republi-crat and demo-can ... but, in the shadows the same
figure(s) pull the strings ...
Regards,
JS
Topaz
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have 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 suppression
of the supranational Press and the definite 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 favorable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
deepdudu
<tianm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fascism is a form of government which centers all power [House, Senate
>and Judiciary] in a single party [Liberal Fascist Democrats] headed by
>an absolute dictater
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 10:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > it sure is. the owners of gold will gladly sell you their gold for
> > little green pieces of paper. now who is the fool:)
>
> That is probably how children see things, I will give you that.
are you saying that children can identify a scam quicker than a adult
can:)
But no,
> the owners of gold, which want to buy something, will trade you a
> portion of their gold for dollars so they can go get a home, a car, a
> yacht, an island, an airplane, etc.
>
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gold is
not money. you figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now what
happens when money is in short supply? why, the owners of assets sell
said assets, to raise scarce cash to pay bills. and they snicker at
those who over pay for a asset in deflationary times. like gold bugs,
who are being goosed into over paying for a commodity used in
electronics and jewelery.
> The gold mines will gladly sell you gold, it is their business.
then little green pieces of paper, mean more to them than gold:)
Gold,
> for the most part, stays in places such as fort knox (yeah, I know, it
> is empty, or else someone elses gold is stored there) or the large
> holdings in china, middle east, etc. in large storage areas. Just like
> people with money, people with gold have to trade part of their wealth
> for things they purchase. People also go broke on large gambles, and
> supplies of gold come onto the market.
>
you are making my arguments, thank you so very much.
> Gold is a way to secure and hold wealth in a stable form, where years,
> decades, centuries, etc. it can be liquidated and spent and used.
>
that is not true. it can hold wealth sometimes, sometimes it leads to
massive wealth loss. and it pays no income or dividends, its a very
poor way to hold wealth. anyone who bought gold in the early 80's can
testify to that.
this article says it all, you still have not beaten a checking
account.
gold is a lousy investment, cash is scare in a deflating economy, cash
is king:since 1980:Gold Can’t Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After
Peak, average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an
inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away
from getting their money back
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axdpxBrQ9JTg&pos=3
Gold Can’t Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After Peak (Update1)
By Nicholas Larkin and Millie Munshi
Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Gold’s best year in three decades has yet to
match the returns of an interest-bearing checking account for anyone
who bought the most malleable of metals coveted for at least 5,000
years during the last peak in January, 1980.
Investors who paid $850 an ounce back then earned 44 percent as gold
reached a record $1,226.56 on Dec. 3 in London. The Standard & Poor’s
500 stock index produced a 22-fold return with dividends reinvested,
Treasuries rose 11-fold and cash in the average U.S. checking account
rose at least 92 percent. On an inflation-adjusted basis, gold
investors are still 79 percent away from getting their money back.
“You give up a lot of return for the privilege of sleeping well at
night,” said James Paulsen, who oversees about $375 billion as chief
investment strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis. “If
the world falls into an abyss, gold could be a store of value. There
is some merit in that, but you can end up holding too much gold
waiting for the world to end. From my experience, the world has not
ended yet.”
While gold’s nine-year bull market is attracting hedge-fund managers
John Paulson, Paul Tudor Jones and David Einhorn, strategists and fund
managers at Barclays Plc, HSBC Holdings Plc, SCM Advisors LLC and
Brinker Capital Inc. say buy-and-hold investors shouldn’t always own
bullion. The accumulation of gold is part of a record $60 billion
Barclays estimates will flow into commodities this year.
Hoarding Bullion
The SPDR Gold Trust, the biggest exchange-traded fund backed by
bullion, has amassed more metal than Switzerland’s central bank,
spurred by a plunging dollar and concern that the at least $12
trillion of government spending to lift economies out of the worst
global recession since World War II will spur inflation. The collapse
of U.S. real estate in 2007 froze credit markets and left the world’s
biggest financial companies with $1.72 trillion of losses and
writedowns, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
The U.S. Mint suspended production last month of some American Eagle
coins made from precious metals because of depleted inventories. The
U.K.’s Royal Mint more than quadrupled production of gold coins in the
third quarter. Harrods Ltd., the London department store, began
selling gold bars and coins for the first time in October.
Those sales contributed to a 30 percent rally in gold this year,
beating the 25 percent gain in the S&P 500, with dividends reinvested,
and a 2.4 percent drop in Treasuries. Investors bought gold as the
U.S. economy, the world’s biggest, shrank 3.8 percent in the 12 months
ended in June, the worst performance in seven decades. Gross domestic
product expanded at a 2.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter.
Longest Winning Streak
A weakening dollar also contributed to bullion’s longest winning
streak since at least 1948. The U.S. Dollar Index, a measure against
six counterparts, dropped in six of the last eight years, including a
6.6 percent decline in 2009, bolstering demand for a hedge. Gold fell
1.6 percent to $1,143 an ounce by 11:08 a.m. in London. Before today,
the metal had risen 32 percent this year, the most since 1979.
Buy-and-hold investors may not have done so well. One dollar put into
a U.S. checking account in 1983 would be worth at least $1.92 today,
based on annual average interest rates from Bankrate.com. The Federal
Reserve target rate from 1980 to 1982 was 8.5 percent to 20 percent.
Banks were paying 5 percent on the accounts in January 1981, according
to a report in the New York Times.
Dividends Reinvested
The S&P 500 returned 2,182 percent from the beginning of 1980 through
the end of the third quarter this year, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg. The calculation assumes dividends reinvested on a gross
basis. Treasuries returned 1,089 percent through the beginning of this
month, according to Merrill Lynch’s Treasury Master Index.
“Gold is a useless asset to hold long term,” said Charles Morris, who
manages more than $2 billion at HSBC Global Asset Management’s
Absolute Return fund in London. “I’m not a gold bug who believes that
you want to own this thing in your portfolio at all times. We should
own it when the going is good, and the going right now is great.”
Those who bought gold when it reached a two-decade low of $251.95 in
August 1999 have seen a 387 percent return, more than four times the
82 percent gain in Treasuries. An investment in the S&P 500 lost 0.4
percent through the end of last month. Interest on checking accounts
shrank to 0.14 percent this year from 0.89 percent in 1999.
Since the S&P 500 peaked in October 2007, investors in the index lost
25 percent, holders of Treasuries made 16 percent and gold buyers are
up 64 percent.
‘Very Conservative Investments’
“There are people that just stayed in very conservative investments in
cash and government bonds,” said Larry Hatheway, global head of asset
allocation at UBS AG in London, who recommends investors hold about 1
percent of their assets in bullion. “Surely they would have been a lot
better off being in gold.”
Buying bullion at $35 when U.S. President Richard Nixon abandoned the
gold standard in 1971 would have given a 35-fold return, about the
same performance as the S&P 500.
Gold will average $1,070 next year, according to the median in a
Bloomberg survey of 19 analysts. The metal may jump to $2,000 in the
next five years, said HSBC’s Morris. Ian Henderson, manager of $5
billion at JPMorgan Chase & Co., said he’s adding to his gold-related
holdings because of “the momentum behind it.” Jim Rogers, the investor
who predicted the start of the commodities rally in 1999, has said
bullion will surge to at least $2,000 over the next decade.
Touradji Capital
“Our sense is that this bubble is more at the beginning stages than on
the brink of collapse,” said Thomas Wilson, head of the institutional
and private client group at Brinker Capital in Berwyn, Pennsylvania,
which manages about $8.5 billion.
Touradji Capital Management LP, the New York hedge fund founded by
Paul Touradji, bought 2.23 million shares of Barrick Gold Corp., the
world’s biggest producer, during the third quarter, according to a
Nov. 13 filing with regulators. The stake, Touradji’s biggest equity
holding, is worth $95 million.
Paulson & Co., the hedge-fund firm run by billionaire Paulson, will
start a gold fund on Jan. 1 investing in mining companies and bullion-
related derivatives, according to a person familiar with the plan.
Einhorn, who runs New York-based Greenlight Capital Inc., told a
presentation in New York in October that he’s buying gold to bet
against the dollar.
Paul Tudor Jones, in an Oct. 15 letter to clients of his Tudor
Investment Corp., said gold is “just an asset that, like everything
else in life, has its time and place. And now is that time.”
Net Gold Buyers
Central banks will become net buyers of gold this year for the first
time since 1988, according to New York-based researcher CPM Group.
India, China, Russia, Sri Lanka and Mauritius have all added to their
reserves.
Gold should be held when governments cease to function and currencies
are worthless, or when inflation is surging, said Brian Nick, a New
York-based investment strategist at Barclays Wealth, which manages
$221 billion. He doesn’t recommend increasing gold holdings, which are
a “very small” part of commodity allocations.
Inflation has yet to accelerate. U.S. consumer prices will rise 2
percent next year, the smallest expansion since 2002, according to the
median estimate of 63 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Prices will
shrink 0.4 percent this year.
‘Knee-Jerk Reaction’
“People have this knee-jerk reaction and say that you want gold as a
hedge against inflation,” said Maxwell Bublitz, who helps oversee $3.5
billion as the chief strategist at San Francisco-based SCM Advisors
LLC and recommends investors hold no more than 5 percent of their
assets in the metal. “But the history of gold in regard to inflation
shows that it’s not a great hedge.”
Investors seeking to protect themselves against inflation should buy
commodities, which are cheaper than gold, said Wells Capital’s
Paulsen. Copper, after more than doubling this year, is still 28
percent away from the record $8,940 a metric ton reached in July 2008.
“Theoretically, it does have a spot in portfolios, a small one,”
Bublitz said. “You’re probably going to get entry points that are a
lot better than where gold is now.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Nicholas Larkin at
nlar...@bloomberg.net; Millie Munshi in New York at
mmu...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 7, 2009 06:48 EST
> You logic of "people with gold would hang on to their gold" is only as
> valid as "people with dollars would hang on to their dollars." Both of
> these statements are correct, you only get gold or dollars when they are
> spent ...
>
but cash is king in a deflating economy, and you may have to sell
your gold at a reduced price, to raise scarce cash to pay your bills.
we are not facing hyper-inflation at the moment, and have not been
facing it for a couple of years now. in fact, we are facing deflation.
in deflation, cash is scarce, and cash is king. what is everybody
short of right now, well, its cash. so spend your scarce cash on gold.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 10:27 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > explain away the private sector screwing people over gold. gold is a
> > impossible way to back a modern economy. its deflationary in nature.
> > no country is willing to go back to the gold standard and starve.
>
> Gold works just as any other currency or medium of exchange. You can
> scam people with stocks, bonds, dollars, etc. Naturally, you can do it
> with gold also ...
>
then its not a good way to back money then, if it can be a scam. you
just helped me blow away the gold backed money scam, thank you.
> Truth is, the wealthy have large holding of gold and other valuable
> metals. They don't wish the slaves to have them. You are one of those
> slaves who just doesn't realize the game ...
>
in a free market economy, where the wealthy are vastly under taxed,
the wealthy will take their money out of productive activities that
they were forced into by a progressive tax, and put said money in non-
productive things such as antiques and other things that they think
will hold value in a depression. of course that is the wrong way to do
things, and invites a depression, and antiques and other so-called
hedges that were, or still are in a bubble due to under taxation,
plummet. just look at the antique artwork these days, the bubbles
popped, and prices have deflated.
the same will happen to gold and other commodities sooner or later.
cash will become even more scarce, and those commodities will have to
be sold at fire sale pieces to raise scarce cash to pay bills.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 10:19 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > still does not refute a thing. and the last 30 years of thinking is
> > what has ruined america.
>
> That is because you will never see anything as a valid repudiation of
> the things you wish to believe. That is only obivious ... and the last
> 30 to 40 years of the present system is what has ruined America.
what has ruined america is the free market cult.
And,
> that system has been kept in operation by BOTH republi-crats and
> demo-cans; It will remain so ... perhaps Ron Paul, or such a man with
> such beliefs can change things. But, the entrenched powers which be are
> so abhorrent to change which would free the financially enslaved will
> never allow that. Even if they must bring down many more buildings,
> assassinate many more people, cause many more wars, steal more oil, sell
> more drugs, etc., etc.
>
the free market is a feverish cult, like all cults, reality will
never trump ideology.
> Regards,
> JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/2/2010 10:18 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > that does not refute one thing i have proven. also,i have been active
> > on alt.politics.economics for well over a decade and a half.
>
> Here we go, again ... as I stated, nothing will ever be good enough to
> repudiate anything you believe.
not really, i am a liberal, liberals are open minded. i own gold, i
did back in the early 1970's. but after many years of watching the
gold market. i have come to the conclusion that its really a poor
investment. that investment is being driven by fear, the same fear
that conservatives are so successful with the ignorant. i hope gold
goes thru the roof, then i will sell mine that i bought almost 40
years ago. otherwise, its been a really poor investment, a real money
loser. like any other bubble, yes gold is in a massive bubble right
now. you have to be lucky enough to get out when the getting is good.
You have chosen to believe what you
> choose to believe and that is that ... I accept that, indeed, don't feel
> alone. How do you think we got here, why do you think we are staying
> here, and why do you think many believe we will be here in the future?
> It is because many have been brain washed like you and no amount of
> sanity, logic and reason will dislodge the mind-screwing which has been
> done by the system ... they haven't spent trillions on plans which don't
> work!
>
i have a long history of understanding economics.
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
> ...
> are you saying that children can identify a scam quicker than a adult
> can:)
>
NO! I am saying a child can recognize reason and logic quicker than YOU
can ...
> ...
> BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gold is
> not money. you figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now what
> happens when money is in short supply? why, the owners of assets sell
> said assets, to raise scarce cash to pay bills. and they snicker at
> those who over pay for a asset in deflationary times. like gold bugs,
> who are being goosed into over paying for a commodity used in
> electronics and jewelery.
>
Gold = money. Indeed, there can be no money without precious metals or
things of value. The money only represents the gold. You can back
money with other things, those other things just don't have a lifespan
of eternity ... indeed, you can back money with a promise ... and that
promise can have a very short lifespan, indeed!
> ...
> then little green pieces of paper, mean more to them than gold:)
>
That logic is why I consider you insane ... and a damn good example at that!
> Gold,
>> for the most part, stays in places such as fort knox (yeah, I know, it
>> is empty, or else someone elses gold is stored there) or the large
>> holdings in china, middle east, etc. in large storage areas. Just like
>> people with money, people with gold have to trade part of their wealth
>> for things they purchase. People also go broke on large gambles, and
>> supplies of gold come onto the market.
>>
>
> you are making my arguments, thank you so very much.
>
Indeed, at least you agree with me here ...
>
>> Gold is a way to secure and hold wealth in a stable form, where years,
>> decades, centuries, etc. it can be liquidated and spent and used.
>>
>
>
> that is not true. it can hold wealth sometimes, sometimes it leads to
> massive wealth loss. and it pays no income or dividends, its a very
> poor way to hold wealth. anyone who bought gold in the early 80's can
> testify to that.
>
You attempt to make gold and the actions and transactions surrounding
gold one and the same ... they are not ... gold is gold ... paper is
paper ... scams are scams ... other than money being a representation of
gold, a heavy substance hard to carry, gold has little to do with scams
which can be created to steal wealth or the fact a dollar actual worth
is the paper and ink ...
> this article says it all, you still have not beaten a checking
> account.
>
> gold is a lousy investment, cash is scare in a deflating economy, cash
> is king:since 1980:Gold Can’t Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After
> Peak, average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an
> inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away
> from getting their money back
>
Gold is an excellent investment to hold wealth in a stable form, indeed,
only precious metals will work for that. An OZ of gold in 1849 would
buy a very nice suit, today in 2010 it still will buy that very nice
suit ... indeed, it will even buy a nicer suit today. A $20 bill might
buy you a polyester tie to go with that suit (and look tacky!)
> ...
All the rest of your crap is mainly obfuscation meant to tire one out
and you win by "the last man standing rule." Lose that childs' ploy to
be taken seriously ... a fool needs a book to describe his point(s), a
wiseman a paragraph ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
More tiring obfuscation and desperation ...
Truth is, dig up an old Roman gold coin, it will still hold near the
same value it had back then ... dig up the first gold coin ever created,
it will still hold near the value it was given then.
You won't be digging up any dollars from then ... but it you did manage,
they would only have a collectors value ... they financial worth would
be ZERO!
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
its called projecting. hitler and mussolini turned german and italian
society upside down, murder became legal, theft became legal, slavery
became legal, and were all viewed upon as admirable ways to make a
living. conservatives are doing the same thing today to american
society. night is day, day is night, black is white, white is black.
John Smith
> ...
> the free market is a feverish cult, like all cults, reality will
> never trump ideology.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
Free market? There is no such thing, hasn't been for half a century or
more. Just start looking at the rules and regulations which cause the
system to be molded in fine detail and you will know this is fact ...
the tax code itself consists of many volumes and stacked, vertically,
upon the floor, stands taller than me, I suspect ... and the is but a
tiny fraction of the rules and regulations governing wealth, finances,
banking, commerce, etc. ... get real.
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
then refute it right wing stooge.
John Smith
>> ...
Your text is nothing but drivel ...
And, you certainly are NOT a liberal. You are just a fool supporting
the status quo ...
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
refute it then. it seems when your type has nothing, you resort to
insults. me thinks that you see some disturbing similarities between
fascism and conservatism:)
John Smith
> ...
> then refute it right wing stooge.
I am for tearing up ALL government. I am for interpreting the
Constitution though the interpretation which would be held by rational,
logical and reasoning average Americans--the same which accepted and
held the Constitution to be valid in the first place--rule by majority
of the people, and absolute rule by the people, whos' will is carried
out by their public servants. I believe most of the congressmen,
senators and the president should be jailed and charged with crimes of
treason against the people.
I am simply here waiting the revolution ... be it peaceful, or not ...
but things need to be put back in order.
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
look who he uses for a cite. mises. a known shill for restoring
eurpean aristocracy. these guys are such nut cases, that they expose
themselves using non-credible cites. their so-called empirical
evidence, cannot stand up to credible outside sources.
The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
Hitler, and how they spread free market economics and think tanks
Mont Pelerin Society ~ among its founders were some of the oldest and
most powerful families in Europe, such as the von Hapsburgs, former
rulers of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Thurn und Taxis family,
which ran the intelligence and postal system for that Empire since the
Sixteenth Century.
The Mont Pelerin Society called for a "conservative revolution" - for
the "elimination" of nation states and the return to FEUDALISM a goal
which has characterised all the various European fascist movements of
the 1920s and 1930s, of which the Nazis were merely the most
successful variant...The Mont Pelerin Society is a relic of the
fascist movements of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The Mont Pelerin
Society's own members such as Professor Milton Friedman, have
"emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf Hitler [meaning
from Hitler's policies in the 1920's and 1930's].
Needless to say, Hitler's economic policies were NOT worker friendly
at all, and Friedman's policies in Chile mirrored those of Hitler.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnporg.htm
Mises Institute > http://www.mises.org [libertarian] or called Ludwig
von Mises Institute~[Ludwig von Mises, is a CNP/reconstructionist
connected libertarian institute which esteems notables such as
Friedrich von Hayek. Friedrich von Hayek, protégé and colleague of
Mises, is one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin Society, with Mises
a member for at least 13 years.] Jon Basil Utley
Atlas Foundation Project ~ Jon Basil Utley, Charles H. Brunie
LewRockwell.com > http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ~ Dr. Gary North
Center for Libertarian Studies > http://www.libertarianstudies.org~
Dr. Gary North
Mont Pelerin Society, > http://www.montpelerin.org/[ was formed at
Mont Pelerin in Switzerland in 1947, at a meeting of some of the
leading families of the ancient European oligarchy, chaired by the
economist, Friedrich von Hayek. Mont Pelerin's main thinktank is the
London-based Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA). From there it
expanded worldwide creating thinktanks. Ludwig von Mises, is a CNP/
reconstructionist connected libertarian institute which esteems
notables such as Friedrich von Hayek. Friedrich von Hayek, protégé and
colleague of Mises, is one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin
Society.
The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 at a meeting in
Switzerland, in a chalet on the slopes of Mt. Pelerin. According to
various sources, among its founders were some of the oldest and most
powerful families in Europe, such as the von Hapsburgs, former rulers
of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Thurn und Taxis family, which ran
the intelligence and postal system for that Empire since the Sixteenth
Century...those present such as Max von Thurn und Taxis, had supported
Hitler during the 1920s and 1930s. The Mont Pelerin Society called for
a "conservative revolution" - for the "elimination" of nation states
and the return to FEUDALISM a goal which has characterised all the
various European fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s, of which
the Nazis were merely the most successful variant...The Mont Pelerin
Society is a relic of the fascist movements of Europe in the 1920s and
1930s. The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
Hitler 43 [meaning from Hitler's policies in the 1920's and 1930's].
Soon after it was founded in 1947, the Mont Pelerin Society moved to
London... Beginning in the mid-1970s, with lavish corporate financing,
the Mont Pelerin Society, spawned a series of "think tanks"
43. Von Hayek, the founder, wrote The Road to Serfdom in London in
1944, while teaching at the British Fabian Society's London School of
Economics.
"...in London Friedrich Hayek was creating an organization that would
later re-form as the Mont Pelerin Society. The early group was formed
in 1939 and was known as the Society for the Renovation of Liberalism.
Members of the organization included Frank Knight and Henry Simons of
the University of Chicago, the slavishly pro-British American Fabian
Socialist Walter Lippman, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, Sir John
Clapham of the Bank of England, and of course, Ludwig von Mises. [a
founding member and for at least 13 years]
All of these early members of Hayek's group then met at Mont Pelerin,
Switzerland to form the influential, highly-secretive, and elitist
Mont Pelerin Society in 1947...From the beginning the Mont Pelerin
Society worked hand-in-hand with the Pan European Union..." 43b See:
Footnotes ].~ Dr. Larry P. Arnn; Dr. Edwin J. Feulner, Jr; George C.
Roche III, Charles H. Brunie; Jameson Campaigne, Jr.; Dr. John A.
Howard; Dr. C. L. "Casey" Kay; Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas A. Roe,
"Father" Rev. Robert Sirico, Mark Skousen ,Dr. Lowell Smith
Nickname unavailable
man, you got it bad. the idiot just said the constitution was fascist.
John Smith
> ...
> refute it then. it seems when your type has nothing, you resort to
> insults. me thinks that you see some disturbing similarities between
> fascism and conservatism:)
You take despots out behind a run down shed and shoot them in the back
of the head ... then you get on with the important things in life ...
you leave idiots there to contemplate the dead body(s) for the time they
find necessary ...
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
conservative(fascists)hate jews, because most jews are liberal.
thanks for proving that fascists are not liberals:) rick sanchez let
loose on jews recently. isn't sanchez a conservative?
John Smith
>
> man, you got it bad. the idiot just said the constitution was fascist.
He did say this, "Anyone who is not a
ComuSexual-(Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist) is a Fascist
according to Useful Liberal Idiots."
I can sum it all up, and more, with less, "You are a fool. You are an
excellent example, in the reverse ..."
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> conservative(fascists)hate jews, because most jews are liberal.
> thanks for proving that fascists are not liberals:) rick sanchez let
> loose on jews recently. isn't sanchez a conservative?
It is so trivial, it boggles the mind. The same money lenders in the
temples, since ancient times, their bloodlines, their motivations, their
methods, etc., etc. are still alive and well today ... the weapons which
work against them are still just as effective. As then, only men of
principal and real worth are necessary to end their influence ... the
process was last instituted, on a grand scale, here in 1776, let us hope
it is instituted again, and soon.
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/3/2010 9:13 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > are you saying that children can identify a scam quicker than a adult
> > can:)
>
> NO! I am saying a child can recognize reason and logic quicker than YOU
> can ...
>
then ask any child which they would want, gold to hold, or money to
spend. i bet i know which one will win.
> > ...
> > BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gold is
> > not money. you figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now what
> > happens when money is in short supply? why, the owners of assets sell
> > said assets, to raise scarce cash to pay bills. and they snicker at
> > those who over pay for a asset in deflationary times. like gold bugs,
> > who are being goosed into over paying for a commodity used in
> > electronics and jewelery.
>
> Gold = money.
yes, like any other commodity. except, commodities have wild swings
up and down. if you over pay, watch out.
Indeed, there can be no money without precious metals or
> things of value.
that is a lie. society has used all sort of things as money, even sea
shells. and it has nothing to do with metals. money is simply the
lubricant or lifeblood for a economy.
The money only represents the gold.
lie. money represents the life blood of a economy.
You can back
> money with other things, those other things just don't have a lifespan
> of eternity ...
nether does gold. cash was king during the great depression:) so far
all you have parroted to me are conservative/libertarian talking
points for the indoctrinated. try some real empirical evidence. while
you are at it, try a intervention, cults can be broken.
indeed, you can back money with a promise ... and that
> promise can have a very short lifespan, indeed!
>
same with gold backed money. its not worth the paper its printed on.
> > ...
> > then little green pieces of paper, mean more to them than gold:)
>
> That logic is why I consider you insane ... and a damn good example at that!
>
then why are they willing to sell you their precious gold for little
green pieces of paper, and since they are the same scammers who are
scaring you, you would think they would walk the talk. you still have
not answered me why they are willing to sell their money for paper,
when its obvious that the fiat currency is going to collapse. only a
fool would sell their money for paper then.
> > Gold,
> >> for the most part, stays in places such as fort knox (yeah, I know, it
> >> is empty, or else someone elses gold is stored there) or the large
> >> holdings in china, middle east, etc. in large storage areas. Just like
> >> people with money, people with gold have to trade part of their wealth
> >> for things they purchase. People also go broke on large gambles, and
> >> supplies of gold come onto the market.
>
> > you are making my arguments, thank you so very much.
>
> Indeed, at least you agree with me here ...
>
>
yep, you do not even understand what you have done.
>
> >> Gold is a way to secure and hold wealth in a stable form, where years,
> >> decades, centuries, etc. it can be liquidated and spent and used.
>
> > that is not true. it can hold wealth sometimes, sometimes it leads to
> > massive wealth loss. and it pays no income or dividends, its a very
> > poor way to hold wealth. anyone who bought gold in the early 80's can
> > testify to that.
>
> You attempt to make gold and the actions and transactions surrounding
> gold one and the same ... they are not ... gold is gold ... paper is
> paper ... scams are scams ... other than money being a representation of
> gold, a heavy substance hard to carry, gold has little to do with scams
> which can be created to steal wealth or the fact a dollar actual worth
> is the paper and ink ...
>
you are a tower testament to the on going gold is money scam. gold is
a commodity like copper, oil, etc. it has its uses, it can be a store
of value, but its not money. and the prices wildly go up and down.
> > this article says it all, you still have not beaten a checking
> > account.
>
> > gold is a lousy investment, cash is scare in a deflating economy, cash
> > is king:since 1980:Gold Can’t Beat Checking Accounts 30 Years After
> > Peak, average U.S. checking account rose at least 92 percent. On an
> > inflation-adjusted basis, gold investors are still 79 percent away
> > from getting their money back
>
> Gold is an excellent investment to hold wealth in a stable form, indeed,
> only precious metals will work for that. An OZ of gold in 1849 would
> buy a very nice suit, today in 2010 it still will buy that very nice
> suit ... indeed, it will even buy a nicer suit today. A $20 bill might
> buy you a polyester tie to go with that suit (and look tacky!)
>
i already debunked that scam.
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/3/2010 9:20 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> More tiring obfuscation and desperation ...
>
> Truth is, dig up an old Roman gold coin, it will still hold near the
> same value it had back then ... dig up the first gold coin ever created,
> it will still hold near the value it was given then.
>
i am glad you brought up rome. rome was a super power till it went on
the gold standard, then it was all down hill from there. when they
used copper, they did really well. they paid their bills. once on
gold, the economy started to deflate.
> You won't be digging up any dollars from then ... but it you did manage,
> they would only have a collectors value ... they financial worth would
> be ZERO!
>
really. ever hear of the antiques market? antiques are a commodity,
just like gold.
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
> ...
> i already debunked that scam.
> ...
Indeed, we stand at such opposite odds, you are not even on radar ...
Carry on ... it is America, you can choose to cry your message ... to
those who will pay attention. I am afraid, I no longer can.
Regards,
JS
dave
> On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Nickname unavailable<Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 2:24 pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung<0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
>> Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
>> Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
>> the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
>> chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings
>
> NnUa,
>
> So "Fascism" can ONLY be Define and Understood
> in the Context of the NAZIs and Germany of the
> 1920s/30s/40s . . .
>
> Fascism has not evolved since them . . .
Since the Romans, dumbass.
RHF
> On Oct 2, 11:38 pm, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> you are simply projecting again.
>
- the GOP, its not fascism when we do it:)Back to the ‘30s:how the
GOP
- uses Nazi techniques to rally the mob:New agencies all the world
over
- are for the most part in the hands of Jews:If you substitute liberal
- for jew you have the same language
NnUa,
So "Fascism" can ONLY be Define and Understood
in the Text of 'Mein Kampf'; the NAZI Propaganda
and Germany of the 1920s/30s/40s . . .
Fascism has not evolved since then . . .
Political Thought has not evolved since then . . .
Political Theory has not evolved since then . . .
Society has not evolved since then . . .
The World has not evolved since then . . .
Words have not evolved since then . . .
The Means of Words have not evolved since then . . .
SO WE ARE ALL FOREVER STUCK IN THE
'MEIM KAMPF' NAZI GERMANY IN THE 1920s
.
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Is It Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4bc858344efbacb1
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist"
- = The Liberal Rule = -
It Is Impossible for Liberals to be Fascists !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/02c2600097def3e3
.
Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
Ending in Liberal-Fascism©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/84f4b03c6765f814
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/ca03248f303cd11c
.
=OBTW=
"Liberal-Fascism" -by- Jonah Goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
.
- = Topaz = -
You Have Entered the "Arguing with Idiots" Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguing_with_Idiots
There is a sign post up ahead . . .
-and-it-reads- "You Are An Idiot !"
-for- Arguing with someone that you reasonably
believe to be a Total and Complete I D I O T [.]
.
*OMG/OMA* Let Us Pray . . .
This Has Been A 'Teachable Moment' ~ RHF©*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachable_moment
.
* © This is another Copy-Righted 'Brain Fart' of RHF
-wrt- 'Brain Fart' -yeah- This Idea(s) Stinks -pew(pu)-
.
.
>
> http://moronia.us/front/2009/12/back-to-the-30’s-how-the-gop-uses-nazi-techniques-to-rally-the-mob/
>
> Back to the ‘30s: how the GOP uses Nazi techniques to rally the mob
> December 10, 2009
> Posted by Jules Siegel
> By Hrafnkell Haraldsson
> Instead of Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News
> and World Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg
> we have Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout
> anti- liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propa
> ganda organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad
> hominem attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name- calling
> to actual news.
> Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street- fighting techniques
> in front of minions through use of glossy modern technology.
> Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the
> attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D- LA) for her stance on the healthcare
> debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based
> on its merits, and by offering a cogent counter- argument. Instead,
> both called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh
> Show November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009).
> This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the
> tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
> • Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a
> shovel.” In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he
> “would want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the
> head,” including Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY). (Glenn Beck Program,
> 3/ 9/ 01)
> • The Republican Tea- Party mobs embrace this principle.
> Ideological rhetoric backs it up: We see for example from Ann
> Coulter, Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?
> Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these
> days. (FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/ 6)
> • “Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about
> killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to
> hire somebody to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be
> looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the
> life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band
> — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be
> able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the lit
> tle band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you
> wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to
> death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Program, 5/
> 17/ 05)
> • Beck, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker
> Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind?
> Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink
> it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poison in your —” (Glenn
> Beck Program, 8/ 6/ 09)
> • Bill O’Reilly, of people who criticize him, The Radio Fac
> tor, September 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could strangle these
> people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can’t.”
> • Bill O’Reilly — radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish Kat
> rina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just
> had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.”
> • Rush Limbaugh October 20, 2009, The Rush Limbaugh Show:
> “This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity
> is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that
> human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the
> extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t
> you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?”
> • Right Wing blogger Roger Erickson March 31, 2009: “At what
> point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what
> point do they get off the couch, march down to their state
> legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp
> for being an idiot?”
>
> Part 2: Liberal/Jewish Media and Right Wing Propaganda. This is the
> second installment of a detailed examination of the parallels between
> the Nazi movement in Germany and the new Republican methodology since
> the election of Obama. Also see parts 1, 3, 4, and 5.
>
> Now that we’ve examined the street-level thuggery in Part One, let’s
> look at some examples of how the Republican “elite” work.
>
> NSDAP and GOP: Two Medias; One Tactic
> Everyone is familiar by now with the Right-wing rhetoric concerning
> the “liberal media elite.” Personal responsibility goes right out the
> window if you can just blame the other guy for lying about you. Again
> we see a striking similarity between the National Socialists and the
> Republicans – fix blame, and then accuse them of controlling the
> media. The two seem to go hand-in-hand.
> “Barack Obama only won because the media favored him and unfairly
> denigrated the abilities and accomplishments of John McCain and Sarah
> Palin.” We’ve heard this before, of course. It probably won’t surprise
> you to know where:
> Hitler, July 5, 1942, “New agencies all the world over…are for the
> most part in the hands of Jews.”1
> If you substitute “liberal” for “Jew” you have the same language.
> Again, the liberals, like the Jews, are guilty of “fabrications”:
> Sarah Palin, June 3, 2009, Anchorage: Palin spoke of “the entrenched
> bureaucrats and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the smug
> lobbyists who dominate Washington, and the liberal media that is
> imposing its will on Washington, embracing that status quo, that
> business as usual…” 2
> This is the same language Hitler used of the “Jewish intellectuals”
> and communists who dominated Weimar government. As an aside, she was
> displaying typical intellectual dishonesty by lifting much of her
> speech from “an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and
> Craig Shirley without attribution.”3
> The Conservapedia echoes Hitler: “The Liberal media elite is the
> clique of highly paid, left-leaning executives and journalists who
> directly control most output of the main newspapers and broadcasting
> organizations.”4
> The media is in the hands of the Jews (communists)! The media is in
> the hands of the liberals (communists)! I don’t have to make this
> stuff up. This is like shooting ducks in a pond or fishing with a hand
> grenade.
> If that is not enough, surely you remember the Nazi (mis)use of the
> press. The National Socialist media became an outlet not for news, but
> for propaganda. There is the most famous newspaper owner of all,
> Joseph Goebbels and his paper Der Angriff (The Attack – aptly named).
> Then there is the Völkischer Beobachter (Folkish [Ethnic] Observer)
> edited first by Dietrich Eckart, an infamous “Jew-baiter”, then by
> crank-ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.
>
> Today, media has moved on to television and the Internet. Instead of
> Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News and World
> Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg we have
> Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout anti-
> liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propaganda
> organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad hominem
> attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name-calling to actual
> news.
> Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street-fighting techniques in
> front of minions through use of glossy modern technology.
> Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the
> attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her stance on the healthcare
> debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based on
> its merits, and by offering a cogent counter-argument. Instead, both
> called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh Show
> November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009).
> This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the
> tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
> Vilification is the order of the day. Analysis of the facts, when it
> takes place at all, comes in a distant second. As Media Matters for
> America reports,
> Under its president, Roger Ailes, Fox News routinely employs racially
> charged appeals to foment opposition to the Obama administration and
> other progressive figures, such as Glenn Beck’s comments that
> President Obama is a “racist” and “has a deep-seated hatred for white
> people or the white culture.” Before launching the Fox News Channel,
> Ailes worked as a media consultant for several Republican campaigns
> where evidence shows he similarly appealed to racial fears and biases
> for political gain, and as executive producer for Rush Limbaugh’s
> television show, during which Limbaugh made several controversial
> statements.5
>
> And of course, just as National Socialist ideologues and leaders
> motivated the mob, so do Republican ideologues. As I noted above,
> Republican objections are not generally issued as cogent and well-
> thought-out rebuttals of liberal positions but as ad hominem attacks,
> character assassinations, and even suggested violence. This is true
> not only of the rank-and-file but of the leadership, the party
> ideologues, as can be seen from the examples below.
> • Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a
> shovel.” In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he “would
> want to kill ...
>
> read more »
RHF
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:38:39 -0700 (PDT), RHF
>
>
>
> <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 2:15=C2=A0pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> :
>
> >> =C2=A0it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberal=
> >s,
> >> trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
> >> liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
> >> intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
> >> racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
> >> conservative movement:)
- - "NA" -says- "it is impossible for liberals to be fascists"
- Of course. The words are opposites.
Deep Dudu,
NAH ! - Just the Up and Down of the Same
Political Extreme with one Extreme consuming
the lesser Extreme in order to purify the Extreme
and Consolidate Political Power.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2042c1756db9a173
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Let This Be A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4823663c64a2fc97
.
=OBTW=
"Liberal-Fascism" -by- Jonah Goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
.
.
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 3, 12:53 am, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Socialism_and_Nazism/
>
> • Socialism and Nazism
Nazism is socialism like the Democratic Republic of Korea is a Democracy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 10/3/2010 9:44 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>> ...
>> refute it then. it seems when your type has nothing, you resort to
>> insults. me thinks that you see some disturbing similarities between
>> fascism and conservatism:)
>
>You take despots out behind a run down shed and shoot them in the back
>of the head ... then you get on with the important things in life ...
And there is the insane hatred of the right wing fascist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
RHF
> On Oct 3, 10:03 am, "Chas. Chan" <tianmei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> look who he uses for a cite. mises. a known shill for restoring
> eurpean aristocracy. these guys are such nut cases, that they expose
> themselves using non-credible cites. their so-called empirical
> evidence, cannot stand up to credible outside sources.
- The Mont Pelerin Society's own members
- such as Professor Milton Friedman, have
- "emphasized" that its policies are those of
- Adolf Hitler, and how they spread free market
- economics and think tanks
NnUa,
So you are citing Milton Friedman as a proponent
of Fascist [NAZI] Ideas and Policies -rotfl-
http://www.nndb.com/people/645/000022579/
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2042c1756db9a173
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Let This Be A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4823663c64a2fc97
.
=OBTW=
"Liberal-Fascism" -by- Jonah Goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
.
.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mont Pelerin Society ~ among its founders were some of the oldest and
> most powerful families in Europe, such as the von Hapsburgs, former
> rulers of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Thurn und Taxis family,
> which ran the intelligence and postal system for that Empire since the
> Sixteenth Century.
>
> The Mont Pelerin Society called for a "conservative revolution" - for
> the "elimination" of nation states and the return to FEUDALISM a goal
> which has characterised all the various European fascist movements of
> the 1920s and 1930s, of which the Nazis were merely the most
> successful variant...The Mont Pelerin Society is a relic of the
> fascist movements of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The Mont Pelerin
> Society's own members such as Professor Milton Friedman, have
> "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf Hitler [meaning
> from Hitler's policies in the 1920's and 1930's].
>
> Needless to say, Hitler's economic policies were NOT worker friendly
> at all, and Friedman's policies in Chile mirrored those of Hitler.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.seekgod.ca/cnporg.htm
>
> Mises Institute >http://www.mises.org [libertarian] or called Ludwig
> von Mises Institute~[Ludwig von Mises, is a CNP/reconstructionist
> connected libertarian institute which esteems notables such as
> Friedrich von Hayek. Friedrich von Hayek, protégé and colleague of
> Mises, is one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin Society, with Mises
> a member for at least 13 years.] Jon Basil Utley
> Atlas Foundation Project ~ Jon Basil Utley, Charles H. Brunie
> LewRockwell.com >http://www.lewrockwell.com/~ Dr. Gary North
RHF
> RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
- - Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
- Fascists hate liberalism.
-
- --
- Ray Fischer
- rfisc...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer,
Fascist View the Liberals and the Progressives as
both Weak and Not Fully Committed Socialist [.]
Three (3) Phases To Liberal-Fascist Power :
Ending in Total Fascist-Socialism©
1st -Socialist Unity- They Work With Liberals and
Progressives to Eliminate their Common Political
Opponents {Non-Socialists}
2nd -Socialist Purity- They Next Work To Eliminate
The Liberals and Progressives as being a socially
corrupting influence preventing Social Progress.
3rd -Socialist Totality- One Party Rule :
Of 'The Party' & By 'The Party' & For 'The Party'
-result- Total Fascist-Socialism
.
Yes Fascist "Socialists" Eat Their Young Politically
Immature Liberal and Progressive 'co-socialists'. ~ RHF
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2042c1756db9a173
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Let This Be A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4823663c64a2fc97
.
=OBTW=
"Liberal-Fascism" -by- Jonah Goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
.
- = Ray Fischer = -
RHF
> On Oct 3, 1:13 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
>
>
> > --
> > Ray Fischer
>
- correct. its something the conservatives cannot explain away. in
- fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they
- are simply projecting again.
NnUa - More/Most Correct :
"Liberal-Fascism" Something the Liberals and
Progressives Can NOT Explain Away© :
* Its something the Liberals and Progressives Can
NOT Explain Away.
* In-Fact - We know that Liberal-Fascism is the Final
Decay of Liberalism and Progressivism.
* Liberals and Progressives are Simply in Denial
and Projecting Their Political Weakness on Their
Opponents Again.
.
Three (3) Phases To Liberal-Fascist Power :
Ending in Total Fascist-Socialism©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/18424e411a0b81c1
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2042c1756db9a173
.
The Validity of the Term "Liberal-Fascist" :
Let This Be A 'Teachable Moment'©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4823663c64a2fc97
.
=OBTW=
"Liberal-Fascism" -by- Jonah Goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html
.
- = NnUa = -
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 2, 11:18 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 1:13 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> > RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > >Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
>>
>> > Fascists hate liberalism.
>>
>- fact, we know that fascism is the final decay of conservatism. they
>- are simply projecting again.
>
>NnUa - More/Most Correct :
>
>"Liberal-Fascism" Something the Liberals and
Fascists hate liberalism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 2, 11:13 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>- - Here are the Three (3) Phases of Liberal Decay :
>
>- Fascists hate liberalism.
>
>both Weak and Not Fully Committed Socialist [.]
Fascists hate liberalism. They are anti-socialist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Nickname unavailable
you poor sot, please prove that regulation caused the housing bubble,
or the derivative bubble, or the to big to fail banks after the repeal
of glass-steagle. you really got it bad. i can make you a rich man if
you can prove that regulation was the cause of the housing bubble.
Nickname unavailable
the fouding fathers gained our independence with fiat money:)
Nickname unavailable
> On 10/3/2010 9:38 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ...
> > then refute it right wing stooge.
>
> I am for tearing up ALL government.
marx and hitler said the same things.
I am for interpreting the
> Constitution though the interpretation which would be held by rational,
> logical and reasoning average Americans--the same which accepted and
> held the Constitution to be valid in the first place--rule by majority
> of the people, and absolute rule by the people, whos' will is carried
> out by their public servants. I believe most of the congressmen,
> senators and the president should be jailed and charged with crimes of
> treason against the people.
>
the constitution is to protect the minorities, as well as majorities.
if we had majority rule on everything, the bill of rights would be
long gone. and we would have mob rule. now please tell me what is
original intent, and what is unconstitutional, and what is not. i will
be waiting on pins and needles for your well thought out intelligent
response:)
Nickname unavailable
only a insane person would interpret the constitution as you just
did. thank god we do not have mob rule yet on everything. i bet you
spew that crap, at the same time you are holding up a sign at a palin/
beck/tea party rally funded by the billionaire koch brothers, saying
mind the constitution.
John Smith
> ...
> you poor sot, please prove that regulation caused the housing bubble,
> or the derivative bubble, or the to big to fail banks after the repeal
> of glass-steagle. you really got it bad. i can make you a rich man if
> you can prove that regulation was the cause of the housing bubble.
Brother, if someone has to prove that to you ... well, we just don't
have the time ... you need to duck back into a decent college, perhaps
some remedial catch up work?
Regards,
JS
Nickname unavailable
if you embrace fascism, do not be to surprised if you are labeled
one. you just threw the constitution into the garbage, and wanted to
kill your opponents. something that fascists, as well as marxist are
really good at.
i see little difference between a free market economy(fascism), and a
communist economy(marxism), in either system, almost all wealth and
power ends up in the hands of a few.
John Smith
> ...
> the fouding fathers gained our independence with fiat money:)
Some great nations started out as a prison colony ... some volcanos
started out as a molehill ... some multi-millionaires started out with a
single dollar ... your logic is that of a childs ... the largest ocean
started but with a single drop ... the largest beach but with the first
grain of sand ... the while world population but with two people ... and
you make statements and stand back, what are you waiting for? The
weight of such great revelations striking everyone dumb? The applause?
A medal for genius?
You are a very shallow idiot, you tax the sane patience of reason ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> the fouding fathers gained our independence with fiat money:)
Perhaps a more pertinent statement would have been to quote the price
Manhattan sold for? Alaska? Ya' think?
Regards,
JS