The Holocaust: Where Are All of the Bodies??

[Saigon]

[QUOTE="emilynghiem, post: 9961438, member: 22295"

Hi Saigon
I think you make the same mistake by saying limited govt = corporate control run amok due to rightwing deregulation
as people who say Hitler holocaust = leftwing
?[/QUOTE]

I have never said anything even remotely like that. I didn't even comment on the topic of deregulation or corporate control.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Saigon
I think you make the same mistake by saying limited govt = corporate control run amok due to rightwing deregulation
as people who say Hitler holocaust = leftwing
?

I have never said anything even remotely like that. I didn't even comment on the topic.

RE: "The whole idea of streamlining and downsizing adminsitrations, both public and private, really only came into focus during the 1980s or even 1990s - largely because of the global economic meltdown accompanying the fall of the Berlin wall, and the Reagan-Thatcher views on free market economics."

^ I thought you were criticizing the Reagan approach to deregulation ^
as the "demonizing of big government" for the purpose of "free market"
that has been in turn demonized as just enabling corporate abuses.

Sorry if this isn't what you meant.

I disagree, and cite the longterm conflict
that existed since the onset and founding of American govt,
between Federalists who pushed for powerful centralized govt
vs. AntiFederalists who wanted limited federal govt and maximum state.

If you want to say this argument only came back later, that's fine.
But it's still the same age old argument just resurfacing over
and over because we've never solved the problem:

how do we maintain and manage collective resources under a central uniform law and govt
WITHOUT having abuse of power from concentrating in a central source.

How do balance both the local democracy and sovereignty of states and people
with
a United states under one Constitutional law and one federal govt.

And what caused the big upset in disrupting checks and balances with govt
was the introduction of the Corporate personhood that
allowed these entities to act as both Collective forces
(with as much power and influence as Government over individuals in comparison),
but acting as Individuals with private rights of citizens under the Constitution
without the same checks and balances and due process required of Government.

These corporations in bypassing the checks and balances
between govt and individuals, then are abused in conflicts of interest
to sway decisions politically legally and financially in courts, congress and parties and media.

So this has upset the Constitutional limits on collective power
and protections of individual rights from such abuses.

And as long as the right blames the left for the monopoly on corporate media,
and the left blames the right for the monopoly through corporate interests,
then nobody is solving the problem but just blaming the other parties.

Both the media corporate interests are running amok profiting
from the conflicts either way,
and also the legal profession continues to profit from conflicts.

So until all these conflicts of interest are addressed
and not just blamed back and forth on left and right,
how can we start pinning down the abuses
and demanding restitution owed to taxpayers for the debts and damages caused.

Sorry Saigon I thought you were trying
to blame the crackdown on "big government"
as just a rightwing problem the same way
people were trying to say the leftwing problem
is linked to marxism and Hitler.

The best explanation of where the leftwing came from
is from Rousseau's version of radical liberalism,
(where the govt is used to impose the will of the people
as the common good determined for everyone to follow),
vs. the classic liberalism of Locke where people want
to preserve freedom from govt tyranny that is the
source of Conservative limited govt.

One depends on govt to ensure the rights of the people
and one depends on rights as given by God with
the purpose of the Constitution to limit and protect this from
govt. That is how I understand the founding fathers
and same historic struggle that we have today.

(And the progressive push came from recovery
after the Depression, to use federal govt to manage
the resources and services for the welfare of the people,
but it became a "dependent relationship on govt," instead of a temporary
fix while working toward financial independence through the private sector.)

 

[Saigon]

Emily -

ok, I get your point now!

My point is not whether or not it was a good or bad thing for governments to sell assets, privatise departments or slash bureaucracy in the Reagan-Thatcher era - only to point out that these changes took place in the 1980s, and not in the 1940s.

Hence, the mistake a couple of posters are making here is a little like asking why the Founding Fathers did not refer to internet porn or assailt weapons in the constiution. I.e., Because one can not apply a principle or policy decades before anyone has thought of it.

Additionally, to this day, the idea of big small government is not widely used in Europe to determine left vs right sing thinking. It is bot, and never has been, the determining factor that it is in the US.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily -

ok, I get your point now!

My point is not whether or not it was a good or bad thing for governments to sell assets, privatise departments or slash bureaucracy in the Reagan-Thatcher era - only to point out that these changes took place in the 1980s, and not in the 1940s.

Hence, the mistake a couple of posters are making here is a little like asking why the Founding Fathers did not refer to internet porn or assailt weapons in the constiution. I.e., Because one can not apply a principle or policy decades before anyone has thought of it.

Additionally, to this day, the idea of big small government is not widely used in Europe to determine left vs right sing thinking. It is bot, and never has been, the determining factor that it is in the US.

OK but what about the history with
the Federalists vs. Antifederalists
and the Locke classic liberals (wanting natural rights from God and limiting govt to prevent overreaching)
vs. the Rousseau radical liberals (wanting the rights and will of the people established and protected through govt)

This same spit, whatever you call it (top down central mgmt vs. bottom up sovereignty of people and states rights first)
divided the Founders who fought about the Constitution (and why it needed the Bill of Rights before some states would
agree to ratify in advance under the condition the Bill of Rights would be added later)
and divided the Black leadership from Booker T. Washington to duBois (? I think, sorry if I cite the wrong name)
which carries forward to today's split between the liberal Black leadership in Democrat circles
depending on govt to uplift the people until they are back on equal track
vs. the Conservative Black leadership in Republic circles
depending on private business to uplift the people and not rely on govt to do that

Don't tell me this split between black liberal Democrats and black conservative Republicans
only started with Reagan in the 80s?

The split between classes has always happened
even before slavery used it to keep house slaves separated from field slaves,
which also carried down through the split today between liberal and conservative Blacks
calling each other slaves or Uncle Toms, but now it's expanded beyond race
and it's namecalling between whole parties blaming either the poor or the rich as a class.

This wasn't created new.
this class division has always been
but just manifests under different labels.

If we are going to argue which trend came from left or right,
isn't it going to flip around and get terribly confusing?
Since the southern slave owners and Jim Crowe laws
were pushed through the Dixiecrats (before the white
flight from the Democrats to the Republican side).

From what I understand
the Locke classic liberalism is what now aligns with conservative views of limited govt
and the Rousseau radical liberalism is what the Democrats follow with establishing and enforcing the
will of the people through govt as the means to the ends, while the conservatives believe govt
should reflect and respect the will of the people which is sovereign under God first and not granted by govt.

Is that close enough?

 

[DriftingSand]

Billc -

Here is what you somehow missed during all of years of study....something called a dictionary:

Fascism

noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3.
prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Let me guess...the dictionary is wrong, and you know better, am I right?

Dear Saigon and Billc:
Thanks for sticking to the topic.

I agree that the most threatening tyrannical takeovers of govt
are the ones that mix "religious fundamentalism" associated with rightwing.
* What made the Holocaust so frightening is to think these were people
who followed the Bible, even stopping to sing hymnals like a church choir
before returning to their posts running the extermination camps (Peter Loth shows video
footage of these who believed they were doing the work of God as believers following scripture)
* And now the genocide by extreme Jihadists is also mixing religion with govt and militant forces.
So people naturally make the connection with "right wing" religion
that has Similar "patriarchal" traits of putting dominant males as the heads of authority over women and other followers as
lower in the pecking order and pack.

However, I see it is Equally valid for people on the Right to complain of
the Liberal Left abusing Party Politics to push their own partisan agenda and Political Beliefs.

Although this is not visibly and physically as "violent" as the oppression of the Holocaust and now ISIS,
the similar factor of dismissing and oppressing the DISSENTING members of the population,
and only recognizing the authority and beliefs of Party leaders that tow the party line,
is DISTURBING. (On one hand the liberal Democrat politicians CLAIM to defend prochoice and separation of church and state, but then turn around and suppress the same free choice of other beliefs, as with dissenting beliefs on marriage and health care, and instead impose a national policy based on their party's beliefs as "the only way" and overriding other beliefs.)

So I acknowledge the equal need to recognize the "fascist" analogy made of the left
when this mob mentality is applied to push Leftwing party politics, agenda and beliefs
as national policies, while at the same time denying this and claiming only the rightwing has pushed ideology in oppressive ways.

As a progressive prochoice Democrat, myself, I find it not only disturbing and distressing,
but up and down Depressing that I seem to be the only person I know coming from the Left who is pointing this out as anti-choice and oppressive. Even the Greens, Progressives and Occupy who were trying to address corporate corruption of the Democrat party are silenced. Those opinions only count if they align with the liberal Politicians for their agenda; and if not, nobody ever hears from these members who don't agree but are censored and only used for their votes.

The religious groups may be more visibly and historically violent in terms of organizing military force, but the leftwing are also guilty of abusing similar tactics and just MASKING it better.
the media is used to paint the left and right the way people want to paint these, even though the Greens and Occupy pointed out this is all part of the corporate game to divide and conquer.
The media and politicians continue to benefit from campaigns that play this same game as is.

To keep pushing the Secular policies of the left as "the law of the land" (from the belief in health care as a right to beliefs in gay marriage to the point of excluding and discriminating against Christians and conservatives who believe otherwise)
It is still suppressing of equal religious freedom and due process.
So it is still violation of human rights, disguised as something else.

It is more insidious that the left CLAIMS to be separating church and state
and keeping laws neutral by staying secular; but have instead gone too far
by excluding and demonizing beliefs that should be equally respected and accommodated.

The leftwing does this, too, but gets away with it
by disguising it in secular terms so it doesn't look like religion.

Until we recognize the political religion and beliefs on the left
as equally inappropriate to establish through the state "as any other religion,"
this fight will continue.

I look forward to the day when I am not the Only Democrat
standing up for political freedom and equality of political beliefs.

Neither denying the tactics of either left or right that have gone too far, but recognizing both left and right wing parties have done this and both need to stop the bullying and abuses of power.

Beliefs (mixed with a sense of nationality) has always been a powerful motivator where land-grabbing, nation building, and national growth are concerned. Religion may or may not be implemented as a means to draw folks to the front lines. But not all religions, in and of themselves, seek to grab powers and dominate peoples. Christ and His Apostles never picked up arms as a means of overthrowing nations and forcing them to convert to Christianity. The three most aggressive belief systems that come to mind that DO seek world domination are Islam, Zionism, and Marxism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans were in combat in Germany for about two years and yet about 80,000 American bodies are still unaccounted for even though America was acutely involved in keeping track of US servicemen. The Jewish Holocaust was ongoing for about a decade with the German regime deliberately hiding identities of their victims and covering up atrocities with secret burials and incineration techniques. It's insulting to humanity to question the legitimacy of the Holocaust.

"...yet about 80,000 American bodies are still unaccounted for..."

. On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order: "Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment." This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army. Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned by FDR's pal, Joe Stalin.

a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." http://www.nationalalliance.org/wwii/wwii.htm

 

[2aguy]

Almost any dictionary will confirm that fascism is right wing,

And those definitions are wrong...

Fascism

noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3.
prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.

this describes socialism at its extreme which is what Germany, Russia, China and all the other socialist paradises became...

But actually it is the racism and nationalism that throws off the academics...since they see themselves as being anti racism and anti nationalsim how can the underlying common thread which is the government control of the economy be the same as the german model...the answer is simple...the racism of the German model of socialism was simply a peculiarity of that country, no more no less, the nationalism becomes a tool used in socialism around the world...look at China and the Soviet Union...they used nationalism as did the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Damn, what a sick thread.

Well, now we know PC is a Holocaust Denier. All else pales in comparison to that.

Learn to read.

 

[2aguy]

Some of the mystery as to why academics find "fascism" so hard to define...it comes down to hiding the fact that it is actually socialism, the thing they support....

Articles Dusting Off the Political F-Word

I later learned from reading Solzhenitsyn that "fascist" first became a pejorative term in the Soviet Union. Communists branded everyone a "fascist" who wasn't one hundred percent supportive of Comrade Stalin's plan for global socialism under the control of the Soviet Communist party.

This led to such absurdities as lumping together such champions of individual rights and liberties as Reagan and Thatcher with the Hitlers and Mussolinis who trampled individual rights and liberties, and whose policies were far more similar to Stalin's than to Reagan's and Thatcher's. In a way, the word "fascist" was ripe for this kind of sloppy usage, because fascism, unlike socialism, was never a complete, coherent political philosophy. That made it easier to co-opt the term as a catch-all of condemnation.

All anti-liberty ideologies and movements -- communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, environmentalism, and Orwellian, misnamed "liberalism" -- are opposed to liberty; therefore, they are literally illiberal.

 

[Dot Com]

I don't think OP is as happy as you think she might be for you bumping this cringe thread.

 

[Saigon]

Billc -

Somehow I had a feeling that all of the dictionaries, the history books and indeed the views of the Nazis themselves would be wrong.

I have to ask though, given you've spent the entire thread claiming that socialists are trying to change the meaning of the word 'Nazi' - don't you feel just a little silly doing EXACTLY the same thing?

Or is it a coincidence that you think all of the dictionaries are wrong?

Really...what a child you are.

 

[2aguy]

I find this article helpful in describing nazism, fascism and communism...

Articles Rethinking the Political Spectrum

Thank Joseph Stalin

Indirectly yet powerfully, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is responsible for the classic political spectrum commonly used to show the relationships between schools of political thought and the systems they engender. This is what happened:

Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement was, as the name clearly says, a party of the left. While not explicitly Marxist-Leninist, National Socialism accepted the essentials of that worldview while adding Germanic racial supremacism to the mix. This is not the place to lay this out in detail, but it is part of the historical record. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism includes the best recent treatment of the subject. Thus it was not astonishing that in 1939 Hitler and Stalin found ample common interests to establish an alliance, nor did it astonish that Communist Party members in the West almost unanimously took up support for Nazi Germany. The alliance simply recognized the ideological kinship between the two.

Then in 1941, Hitler turned on his fellow socialist and invaded the Soviet Union. How was Stalin to explain or rationalize this turnabout? What ideological signboard could he put around Hitler's neck that would make sense in the Soviet political context?

Certainly Stalin could not let it appear he had been duped by a fellow socialist, nor could he allow Hitler to give socialism a bad name. The solution was to label the bad guys, Hitler and the Nazis, as polar opposites of the good guys, Stalin and the Communists. Fascism - a leftist, socialist doctrine - was abruptly and absurdly labeled a phenomenon of the extreme right.

From 1941 onward into the postwar era, Soviet propaganda, diplomacy, and scholarship consistently depicted Nazism as a right-wing phenomenon, communism on the left, with the Western powers arrayed on a vague spectrum somewhere in between. Western academics and journalists fell into the same practice, often but not always because of their own leftist sympathies.

Few bothered to contest the analysis and assumptions that underlay the new model, and it was a convenient way to depict and describe political camps. Thus the classic political spectrum of the 20thcentury became second nature to everyone, not just to communists.

The author gives a model of left and right which is actually accurate...it won't paste over...then he goes on to explain why the model is more accurate than previous models...It will actually paste...

Placing the political world into this more accurate framework yields a number of important corollary benefits and insights:

Placing the political world into this more accurate framework yields a number of important corollary benefits and insights:

• Gone is the muddled notion that if one moves too far from tyranny, one only encounters more tyranny. Liberty is the opposite of tyranny, and the more accurate spectrum makes that clear.
• Leftist critics become less persuasive when depicting conservatives as incipient fascists. They can no longer warn that if one becomes too conservative, one becomes a fascist tyrant. To the contrary, the conservative is identified with liberty, while the liberal has more affinity with tyranny, whether soft or hard.
• Moderates lose their hallowed position and aura of wisdom and restraint. They are simply a bit more conservative than liberals and more liberal than conservatives, i.e. they are less jealous of their liberty than are those to their right.
• Libertarianism has a home. It resides at the right end of the spectrum, reflecting the maximization of liberty.

Where is one to place oppressive regimes that are not particularly ideological? On the classic spectrum, they are often placed on the right, between conservatism and fascism. But consider their essential attributes: severe limits on liberty, the confiscation of productive assets by the government or cronies of the dictator, weak rule of law. These attributes have much more in common with socialism than with conservatism; indeed, many such regimes call themselves socialist, whether or not a political science purist would agree.

And the points above are a big part as to why academics want the right associated with fascism/nazism...

 

[Saigon]

Emily -

Again, I have not commented on Federalists, Rousseau or Locke - I am only talking about Fascist history, and why no historians apply the big government/small government concept to determine left vs right wing ideologies in 1940's Germany.

 

[Saigon]

I don't think OP is as happy as you think she might be for you bumping this cringe thread.

Indeed...you just know this is one of those threads the OP was hoping would simply die quietly with 0 views!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think OP is as happy as you think she might be for you bumping this cringe thread.

Indeed...you just know this is one of those threads the OP was hoping would simply die quietly with 0 views!!

Hmmm......I sense projection on your part.

Twice you were given the opportunity to answer this:


I'll answer for you:

"Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism

All are based on big government, command and control economic principles, collectivism, dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives.

That's right: it disingenuous and arbitrary to claim that they are not on the same end of the political scale.

The conclusion: you are a fraud.


As for " which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society"...

None of them.


Now, back under your rock.

 

[Saigon]

P. Chic -

And as I have explained to you twice already, I will be more than happy to explain this to you, at such point as you are willing to listen and discuss the topic sensibly.

Actually, if you look back through the past couple of pages, you will find a couple of your most extraordinary errors explained already in #135 and #143.

 

[PoliticalChic]

P. Chic -

And as I have explained to you twice already, I will be more than happy to explain this to you, at such point as you are willing to listen and discuss the topic sensibly.

Actually, if you look back through the past couple of pages, you will find a couple of your most extraordinary errors explained already in #135 and #143.

Stop tap-dancing and admit that I answered the question that you wouldn't.

And admit that you wouldn't because it proved that I am correct.


Fascism is but one more iteration of communism, socialism, progrssivism, and Modern Liberalism.

 

[Dot Com]

P. Chic -

And as I have explained to you twice already, I will be more than happy to explain this to you, at such point as you are willing to listen and discuss the topic sensibly.

Actually, if you look back through the past couple of pages, you will find a couple of your most extraordinary errors explained already in #135 and #143.

in Op's defense, she does that a lot

As to the OP, the fusion of big biz & gov't would be a dream come true for Establ. Repubs. In fact, it has already occurred.

 

[PoliticalChic]

P. Chic -

And as I have explained to you twice already, I will be more than happy to explain this to you, at such point as you are willing to listen and discuss the topic sensibly.

Actually, if you look back through the past couple of pages, you will find a couple of your most extraordinary errors explained already in #135 and #143.

in Op's defense, she does that a lot

As to the OP, the fusion of big biz & gov't would be a dream come true for Establ. Repubs. In fact, it has already occurred.

You actually believe he had any points in 135 and 143?

You're dumber than I thought.

 

[Saigon]

P.Chic -

Your questions were answered in posts #135 and #143.

You are more than welcome to reply to those posts.I'll even post them again for you here.

One of the other (many) mistakes made on this thread is to apply 21st century US terminology and thinking to Europe in 1939.

If big government = tyranny, then ALL governments in 1940 were tyrannical.

The whole idea of streamlining and downsizing adminsitrations, both public and private, really only came into focus during the 1980s or even 1990s - largely because of the global economic meltdown accompanying the fall of the Berlin wall, and the Reagan-Thatcher views on free market economics. Since then, the focus on 'big government' has maintained a high profile in the US, but less so elsewhere. In Europe, the idea of small government has never really been a big issue. It certainly isn't a major left/right issue as it is in the US, probably because a lot of left-wing adminstrations also slashed public sector jobs in the 1990s.

So on this thread we see posters claiming Hitler must be left wing because he ran a massive public sector. The problem with this thinking is that so did every other country in the developed world.

The schism between left and right wing thinking in Europe in 1940 did not depend on big vs small government, but on the role of a) class and b) capital.

In these senses, the various administrations in Europe fall quite clearly into left and right wing camps, with the right wing backing a class-based society with a strong upper and middle class; while the left looked to smash class structures. The right wing promoted the ownership of shares and used dividends to ensure the wealthy elite remained wealthy, thus ensuring their political support; the left wing looked to remove capital from the equation altogether.

* * *

My point is not whether or not it was a good or bad thing for governments to sell assets, privatise departments or slash bureaucracy in the Reagan-Thatcher era - only to point out that these changes took place in the 1980s, and not in the 1940s.

Hence, the mistake a couple of posters are making here is a little like asking why the Founding Fathers did not refer to internet porn or assault weapons in the constiution. i.e., Because one can not apply a principle or policy decades before anyone has thought of it.

Additionally, to this day, the idea of big small government is not widely used in Europe to determine left vs right wing thinking. It is not, and never has been, the determining factor that it is in the US.