Hitler and the right

[edthecynic]

He also drew the support of a lot of progressives, including George Bernard Shaw.

George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder - YouTube

Go ahead, try to tell me that Shaw, a noted socialist and member of the Fabian Society, was a conservative.

Don't you mindless brainwashed assholes ever check CON$ervoFascist lies for yourselves? Satirist Shaw was MOCKING Eugenicists in that video, as all you lying scum know full well!!

But if you really want someone spouting the Nazi rhetoric, here is your guy!

May 25, 2012
RUSH: And I know that 88 million Americans are not working but they're eating, and it's a statistic that worries me.
It's quite telling that 88 million are not working but they're eating.

Yeah cuz it's fascist to expect people to work for money, instead of being fed and bred by the state.

Cuz it's Fascist to say that people who don't work are useless eaters. Your MessiahRushie was attacking the disabled and women today, 2 parts of the 88 million, and I would guess that made you very proud.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

Adolf Hitler : Biography

Well, he sure fooled buggerreb, but not all those French, American and British conservatives.

Keep posting you are supporting what I am saying.

More in common with obama than you think.

I pointed this out on your epic fail thread. Hitler used social programs to garner support but he never followed through. In other words, he lied, much like you do here on a regular basis.

But still, the right wing all supported him and/or wanted to appease him....because AFTER he came to power he quit pretending he was a socialist.

Why is it when someone get's their ass kicked by the OP of a thread the person who get their ass kicked calls it an epic fail thread?

Take the hat off you're pea brain needs blood.

 

[koshergrl]

Don't you mindless brainwashed assholes ever check CON$ervoFascist lies for yourselves? Satirist Shaw was MOCKING Eugenicists in that video, as all you lying scum know full well!!

But if you really want someone spouting the Nazi rhetoric, here is your guy!

May 25, 2012
RUSH: And I know that 88 million Americans are not working but they're eating, and it's a statistic that worries me.
It's quite telling that 88 million are not working but they're eating.

Yeah cuz it's fascist to expect people to work for money, instead of being fed and bred by the state.

Cuz it's Fascist to say that people who don't work are useless eaters. Your MessiahRushie was attacking the disabled and women today, 2 parts of the 88 million, and I would guess that made you very proud.

When did Rush say that?

Oh, that's right. He didn't.

However, I've heard abortion proponents say exactly that about the babies they delight in butchering.

What's your stance on that?

 

[Political Junky]

Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's interesting that Neo-Nazis are considered Right Wing, and use the Swastika.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's interesting that Neo-Nazis are considered Right Wing, and use the Swastika.

Considered by the southern law proverty.
and the BLACK PANTHERS AREN'T TERRORISTS.

 

[Neotrotsky]

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak,
with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility
and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306). Yet they destroyed the socialists, the communists, the democrats, cozied up to the capitalists, never nationalized industry, and so forth.

What History you reading? They did indeed nationalize much Of Germany Industry.

Concerned trolls/ left have spent decades trying to marginalize it to cover for the fact that, it is a creature of the left.
They make the rather weak and limited argument that socialism is just pure nationalization of industry.
This argument is either intentionally misleading or based on a rather simplistic and ignorant view of economics
Something tells me in this case, it is the later....shallow people can get lost in discussions on socialism



They did as most modern socialists do today, they regulated it to the point where
private ownership meant very little and central gov't power was increased

For example

March 1937 a special law authorised the RNS (Reichsnährstand) to determine what crops were to be grown in order to increase the output of scarce produce

February 1935 all employment came under the exclusive control of government.
Gov't offices which determined who would work where and for how much.

June, 1938, the Office of the Four Year Plan instituted guaranteed employment by conscripting labor. Every German worker was assigned a position from which he could not be released by the employer, nor could he switch jobs, without permission of the government employment office.

Absenteeism was met with fines or imprisonment-all in the name of job security.
A Nazi slogan at the time was "the Common Interest before Self"!​

What the left is trying to hide from....

Fascism, socialism are both Centrally Planned Economies.
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God or are innate
that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based on the Rousseauian vision

They have more in common than not
which the left is trying to run from...

Friedrich Hayek defined fascism best

"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization."​

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah cuz it's fascist to expect people to work for money, instead of being fed and bred by the state.

Cuz it's Fascist to say that people who don't work are useless eaters. Your MessiahRushie was attacking the disabled and women today, 2 parts of the 88 million, and I would guess that made you very proud.

When did Rush say that?

Oh, that's right. He didn't.

However, I've heard abortion proponents say exactly that about the babies they delight in butchering.

What's your stance on that?

I've already posted your MessiahRushie's rant on the lazy non-working useless people who are still eating, he rants about it all the time which is why you are so desperate to change the subject.

May 25, 2012
RUSH: And I know that 88 million Americans are not working but they're eating, and it's a statistic that worries me.
It's quite telling that 88 million are not working but they're eating.

May 17, 2012
RUSH: * How can 88 million people afford not to work in this country?* They can afford not to work because the ones who do work see enough of their income siphoned off to be redistributed to these people.*

July 03, 2012
RUSH: You might be surprised to learn that you are never kicked off once you are enrolled. You are on it for life. So we now have 8.7 million "workers" (as the story says) on disability.
We have 8.7 million Americans who are living off of federal disability insurance payments, and can for the rest of their lives. I don't know how much money it is. I don't know what an average monthly benefit is. But all it takes to qualify for a disability now is a half-decent lawyer to make the case for you

Sick verses Disablement | Disability Condition
Of the 8 million collecting Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, more than 57 thousand go back to work every year.* Sadly, over 231,000 terminate their benefits by dying.
Average benefit payment is $1090 per month and median payment is right at $1000 per month.* Maximum possible benefit is just over $2,300 per month; Hardly the kind of money to live in luxury, especially if you have high medical costs.
I seriously doubt that the 8 million beneficiaries want to be poor and dependent on others the rest of their lives would you?

 

[HUGGY]

Sorry ravi...if anyone gives me the hitler feeling.... its obama.

Really? You compare Obama and Hitler as equals? WOW! That's quite a statement. Well I guess it is true that ya learn something new each day. Thanks for the lesson.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You repeating the same thing over and over will never change the facts.
First thing hitler did was join the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Then gains control of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and kills his political rivals. Does he kill all socialist? No he doesn't just his rivals.

That is the work of a dictator, not a socialist. He did not nationalize industries, he made workers subservient to the bosses. He killed communists and socialists and leftists.

Show us what he DID as a socialist to gain power: nothing.

You're a fucking idiot Think about what I have been saying and what you just wrote.

We all grin when we see you have posted because we know you have been punted into the garbage dump, from where you yell, "you're wrong."

You are the perfect stooge for which those who know better use you as the punching bag.

Keep coming up for more punches, that is your only worth here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306). Yet they destroyed the socialists, the communists, the democrats, cozied up to the capitalists, never nationalized industry, and so forth.

What History you reading? They did indeed nationalize much Of Germany Industry.

Concerned trolls/ left have spent decades trying to marginalize it to cover for the fact that, it is a creature of the left.
They make the rather weak and limited argument that socialism is just pure nationalization of industry.
This argument is either intentionally misleading or based on a rather simplistic and ignorant view of economics
Something tells me in this case, it is the later....shallow people can get lost in discussions on socialism



They did as most modern socialists do today, they regulated it to the point where
private ownership meant very little

For example

March 1937 a special law authorised the RNS (Reichsnährstand) to determine what crops were to be grown in order to increase the output of scarce produce

February 1935 all employment came under the exclusive control of government.
Gov't offices which determined who would work where and for how much.

June, 1938, the Office of the Four Year Plan instituted guaranteed employment by conscripting labor. Every German worker was assigned a position from which he could not be released by the employer, nor could he switch jobs, without permission of the government employment office.

Absenteeism was met with fines or imprisonment-all in the name of job security.
A Nazi slogan at the time was "the Common Interest before Self"!​

What the left is trying to hide from....

Fascism, socialism are both Centrally Planned Economies.
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God or are innate
that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based on the Rousseauian vision

They have more in common than not
which the left is trying to run from...

Friedrich Hayek defined fascism best

"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization."​

OK, define socialism competently in political and historical terms, then go back and try again. And please give us a competent, accept site.

Your word is worth nothing, concerned troll.

 

[Neotrotsky]

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - George Reisman - Mises Daily

Mises Daily doesn't count and you know it. But you have admitted that it was not socialism.

Maybe if you would read and stop commenting you might comprehend what's being said and discussed.

That would be asking too much from concerned trolls
Staying with the template is all they are capable of....
Some of them even try to claim that statism exist nowhere in the world



Again, before the war, many Progressives. left and right
were fascinated with Fascism and Progressive leaders desperate
to get out of the Great Depression looked at their big gov't ways for guidance

For example
FDR said:

There seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy.​

Comment in early 1933 about Benito Mussolini to US Ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long, as quoted in Three New Deals : Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 (2006) by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, p. 31

I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.​

Comment on Benito Mussolini in 1933, as quoted in Three New Deals : Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 (2006) by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, p. 31

Mussolini himself praised the New Deal as following his own corporate state, as quoted in a July 1933 article in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation."

Which makes sense since the NRA, with its regulations and industry organizations, was nothing more than another creature of the left- corporatism.

Of course and for good reason, the Left tried to distance themselves from their early fascination with Fascism with the
war and the aftermath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed
Mussolini said

"The Fascist conception of life, stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only
in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the
State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

As said before,
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual
----------------------------------------------------------------




Here boy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mises Daily doesn't count and you know it. But you have admitted that it was not socialism.

Maybe if you would read and stop commenting you might comprehend what's being said and discussed.

That would be asking too much from concerned trolls
Staying with the template is all they are capable of....
Some of them even try to claim that statism exist nowhere in the world



Again, before the war, many Progressives. left and right
were fascinated with Fascism and Progressive leaders desperate
to get out of the Great Depression looked at their big gov't ways for guidance

For example
FDR said:

There seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy.​

Comment in early 1933 about Benito Mussolini to US Ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long, as quoted in Three New Deals : Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 (2006) by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, p. 31

I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.​

Comment on Benito Mussolini in 1933, as quoted in Three New Deals : Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 (2006) by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, p. 31

Mussolini himself praised the New Deal as following his own corporate state, as quoted in a July 1933 article in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation."

Which makes sense since the NRA, with its regulations and industry organizations, was nothing more than another creature of the left- corporatism.

Of course and for good reason, the Left tried to distance themselves from their early fascination with Fascism with the
war and the aftermath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed
Mussolini said

"The Fascist conception of life, stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only
in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the
State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

As said before,
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here boy

AT LAST somebody has given a source. Thank you.

1933? The first six months of FDR's presidency? Really? Give us something of worth, NeoTroll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a start for reviewing NeoTroll's book.

I was excited to begin this book, as I believed the author sought to compare the many similarities between these regimes and their greatly different outcomes. At points, he addressed the similarities successfully, particularly in chapters titled Leadership and Propaganda. My problem with the book is that not only does it lack virtually any reactions from ordinary citizens of these countries but, instead, it contains a lot of political science references with few definitions or explanations. The period quotations that are used are of an equally-dull and clinical perspective. It took me longer to read the 191 pages of true content (not including the Notes) in Three New Deals than it has taken me to read books three times as long. Every time I tried to get into a chapter, with few exceptions, I was driven to frustration by the tedium of trying to take a personal perspective from the torrential downpour of -isms (Communism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Fascism, Collectivism, Individualism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Regionalism, and Nomadism, to name just a few.) Throw in the fact that each of these terms must be reexamined by the reader, since they no longer mean what they did in 1935, and you're talking about anything but a leisurely read.

http://www.amazon.com/review/RK00IO1NXPRVU/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RK00IO1NXPRVU&tag=ff0d01-20

We also should have, for clarity, from NeoTroll, comments by FDR after the Ethiopian invasion by Italy, Germany's rearmament, and the Spanish Civil War.

Oh, wait we, do: By October, 1937, President Roosevelt understood that the world was in danger, but he found himself facing a dilemma: On the one hand, German and Italian aggression were threatening world peace, and it was no longer a question of which side the United States might eventually support. President Woodrow Wilson had faced that issue when World War I broke out in 1914; the German practice of unrestricted submarine warfare had decided the issue for Wilson as to which side the United States would support. But Hitler's belligerence, his rejection of the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles, his rearming of Germany, and his militant rhetoric, along with the participation of Italy and Germany and the Spanish civil war and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, made it clear that if there was to be an enemy, it would be a fascist states of Germany and Italy.

On the other hand, the spirit of isolationism was strong in the United States. The United States military establishment was pitifully small, and the neutrality acts which Congress had recently passed limited America's ability to support nations with whom President Roosevelt was sympathetic. He wanted to assist nations that were victims of aggression, but he also needed to keep the neutralist, antiwar contingent at arm's length. This quarantine speech was a step in the direction of taking a position that made it clear on which side the United States stood but at the same time was not warlike enough to arouse Roosevelt's political opponents.

For more, open the link. http://www.academicamerican.com/worldwar2/docs/FDRQuar.htm

 

[Dr.House]

AT LAST somebody has given a source. Thank you.

Why would you, someone who has used wikipedia, be so concerned about source?

 

[Neotrotsky]

And what did HITLER ultimately end up doing just as the Soviets did?

USE the useful idiots until they got ultimate power, and outlawed EVERYTHING that could be perceived as a threat to thier power and control.

Use liberty...then cut it off at the neck.

BAD analogy.

TRY AGAIN

I hear you
The Left has always tried to rewrite history
since the Left has so many failures

Which is part of the reason we have some of the issues today
Indeed, not learning from history we are doomed to repeat it....

See following quotations and match them to Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and FDR

A. "...above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual... By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."

B. "The [] people must march forward as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline."

C. "...moral law, binding together individual and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it is an ignorance of history from the left/concerned trolls
or just a simple and naive belief, that we will get it correct- ............this time

Good luck with that,





Here boy

 

[Neotrotsky]

AT LAST somebody has given a source. Thank you.

Why would you, someone who has used wikipedia, be so concerned about source?

Don't feed the concerned trolls

here boy

 

[JakeStarkey]

Notice the far right trolls cannot put their argument into context.

That is typical of Mises drones and followers.

Is what it is: a far right failure again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

AT LAST somebody has given a source. Thank you.

Why would you, someone who has used wikipedia, be so concerned about source?

Don't feed the concerned trolls

here boy

Says the King and Queen Troll of wiki? Too funny.

And they won't deal with a competent source that pulls the rug out for under them.

Worthless, worthless they are, but it's nice to know they will vote for Romney, who will then ignore them and their extremism.

 

[Dr.House]

Notice the far right trolls cannot put their argument into context.

That is typical of Mises drones and followers.

Is what it is: a far right failure again.

I'm asking you why you, a known poster that sources wikipedia, would be concerned about the sources posted by others?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Queen Troll my dear Dr. House: you are deflecting. My sources and information blew you trolls' arguments out of the water, as usual. Are they wikipedia? That your point doesn't matter.

See, House, this is why you get your butt spanked every time you mess with me.

I expect you to vote Romney and shut up, because you simply offer scat. So now scat Oh, and for once, please don't melt because you are fail yet again.