The unrecognized Holocaust

[padisha emperor]

Insein :
In fact, at the beginning, the Nazis were socialists : NSDAP (the party name) means National-sozialist Deutsch Arbeit partei >> German national-socialist Labour party.

but everybody is agree on this point, the nazis were extrem right wingers.
Not on the economical side, but on the ideological point of view.

Look : in Germany, the NPD, neo-nazi party, is on the extrem right wing.

About anarchy and extrem right, for me anarchy is more for the extrem left.
but anyway, the 2 extrem, and it is a paradow, are often not far from them (between them).
And they are not the clue.


And the Communist holocaust is a reality, Stalin killed about 50 millions people.
But it is an error to call it "communist". stalinist is a better word.
Because the communism, in theory, is quite nice. but it is an utopy. Stalin did a "personnal communism".


Now, a joke (sorry, I'll translate from french, so.... )

4 men are in a gulag.
The first ask the second to know why he's here.
- I took 4 years of gulag because I came late at the factory. They accused me of sabotage and criome against the party. And you ?
- I took 5 years because I came early at the factory. they condamned me for espionage for the imperialist mights.
- wow ! And you ?
the third man answers :
- I was punctual, always at the good hour. So, I took 5 years for burgess conformity.
And you, guy ? he says, asking the 4th man.
- Oh, me, I don't understand. I took 4 years but without motive.
- what, 4 years without motive ? normally, it is 6 !

 

[KarlMarx]

Insein :
In fact, at the beginning, the Nazis were socialists : NSDAP (the party name) means National-sozialist Deutsch Arbeit partei >> German national-socialist Labour party.

but everybody is agree on this point, the nazis were extrem right wingers.
Not on the economical side, but on the ideological point of view.

Look : in Germany, the NPD, neo-nazi party, is on the extrem right wing.

About anarchy and extrem right, for me anarchy is more for the extrem left.
but anyway, the 2 extrem, and it is a paradow, are often not far from them (between them).
And they are not the clue.


And the Communist holocaust is a reality, Stalin killed about 50 millions people.
But it is an error to call it "communist". stalinist is a better word.
Because the communism, in theory, is quite nice. but it is an utopy. Stalin did a "personnal communism".


Now, a joke (sorry, I'll translate from french, so.... )

4 men are in a gulag.
The first ask the second to know why he's here.
- I took 4 years of gulag because I came late at the factory. They accused me of sabotage and criome against the party. And you ?
- I took 5 years because I came early at the factory. they condamned me for espionage for the imperialist mights.
- wow ! And you ?
the third man answers :
- I was punctual, always at the good hour. So, I took 5 years for burgess conformity.
And you, guy ? he says, asking the 4th man.
- Oh, me, I don't understand. I took 4 years but without motive.
- what, 4 years without motive ? normally, it is 6 !

Padisha....

You can call it what you will... Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism. The fact is that in every communist regime, people have been killed, their rights taken away. There was the Cultural Revolution in China that killed millions, the purges in the Soviet Union that killed millions.

Yes, communism's goal is a utopia, but it does it by having a "dictatorship of the proletariat" first. Anyone that understands human nature will tell you, that people will not voluntarily give up power, and dictators even moreso.

Secondly, communism does not address how to make a society operate once it acheives its goals of utopia, it does not address the means of production to generate wealth for the people, nor how to deal with the issues of justice. Instead, it addresses how to overthrow the current one, how to take wealth away from those who possess it, and how to use violence to spread its doctrine.

For these reasons Communist countries are always poor and backward. The exception, China, became wealthy only AFTER it adopted free market capitalism which is the exact opposite of Marx's vision of communism. In addition, Communist countries are always guilty of human rights abuses on a grand scale.

How could it be otherwise? If you give a small group of people unlimited power, control over the entire economy and then have absolutely no accountability for their actions, the result will always be what you see in communism.

That's human nature, people will not do good naturally, they will do evil, they will do what it takes to survive, to feel good etc. Only society and it's rule provides the mechanisms for keeping this horrible nature of ours under control. And the best way to do that, is through democratic means, with checks and balances, with a justice system that addresses the administration of justice by the law instead of the whims of a small oligarchy and free market capitalism to produce wealth (which is not by any means perfect, but the closest thing to it).

 

[insein]

Insein :
In fact, at the beginning, the Nazis were socialists : NSDAP (the party name) means National-sozialist Deutsch Arbeit partei >> German national-socialist Labour party.

but everybody is agree on this point, the nazis were extrem right wingers.
Not on the economical side, but on the ideological point of view.

Look : in Germany, the NPD, neo-nazi party, is on the extrem right wing.

I am not in agreement padisha. Explain how the nazi's were an extreme right wing group? What aspects did they possess that showed that they promoted even the idealogies of the right? Simply stating "everbody agrees on this point" does not make it so. The aspects i see and have stated tell me that nazism is another form of communism. I feel that its conviently painted as right wing to allow communists in this country and in Europe to dissassociate their failed religion/government with the practices of Hitler.

About anarchy and extrem right, for me anarchy is more for the extrem left.
but anyway, the 2 extrem, and it is a paradow, are often not far from them (between them).
And they are not the clue.

Anarchy is the lack of authority or government. The right idealogy is to have as little government as possible conflicting with the will of free people. The extreme version of that would be to have ZERO government. Therefore, anarchy is the EXTREME right wing.

The ideology of the left is to have a totalitarian government that controls all resources, all property, all will and distributes it fairly amongst the people. The extreme version of that is utopia. The problem with utopia is the human instinct to better themselves and to survive. If the status quo is defined and people only have to work as hard as the group, then what prevents some from doing less while others do more? How then do you have those that are doing more keep doing more if their only incentive is to make up for those doing less? It is a failed system.

 

[dilloduck]

I am not in agreement padisha. Explain how the nazi's were an extreme right wing group? What aspects did they possess that showed that they promoted even the idealogies of the right? Simply stating "everbody agrees on this point" does not make it so. The aspects i see and have stated tell me that nazism is another form of communism. I feel that its conviently painted as right wing to allow communists in this country and in Europe to dissassociate their failed religion/government with the practices of Hitler.



Anarchy is the lack of authority or government. The right idealogy is to have as little government as possible conflicting with the will of free people. The extreme version of that would be to have ZERO government. Therefore, anarchy is the EXTREME right wing.

The ideology of the left is to have a totalitarian government that controls all resources, all property, all will and distributes it fairly amongst the people. The extreme version of that is utopia. The problem with utopia is the human instinct to better themselves and to survive. If the status quo is defined and people only have to work as hard as the group, then what prevents some from doing less while others do more? How then do you have those that are doing more keep doing more if their only incentive is to make up for those doing less? It is a failed system.

I've always seen Nazism as fascism that was hijacked by an insane dictator. I disagree with it being another form of communism. The Nazis were scared shitless of the Stalin commies.

 

[freeandfun1]

First Dillo, it wasn't the Stalin commies they were scared of.... it was the Russians period, no matter what political party the belonged. The Germans and the Russians have a long history of brutality against each other.

Also, this is just a thought, but in Australia and other places, what we consider libs are called right-wingers. So maybe there is just a "language" problem occurring here.....

 

[dilloduck]

First Dillo, it wasn't the Stalin commies they were scared of.... it was the Russians period, no matter what political party the belonged. The Germans and the Russians have a long history of brutality against each other.

Also, this is just a thought, but in Australia and other places, what we consider libs are called right-wingers. So maybe there is just a "language" problem occurring here.....

For sure they knew that when the Russians moved in from the east they were in trouble for all the atrocities they had commited in Russia but Hitlers' idea of a perfect world was nearly a polar opposite of communism

 

[Bonnie]

Here's some food for thought.....

Everyone knows that "The Holocaust" was the systematic extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. The number of victims - 6 million.

Everyone knows by now the gays were also killed by the Nazis (although the number of gays killed probably numbered less than 10,000).

Now... according to conservative estimates, Communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths during the last century.

Now, what are the chances that Communism has killed more Jews (and for that matter more gays) than the Nazis? My guess is that there is a very good chance that is true. Yet, no one talks about the Communist Holocaust.

Well, I have an answer to that, too. Nazis were extreme right wing thugs and murderers, while Communists are extreme Left wing thugs and murderers. The Main Stream Media, many politicians and celebrities and, most of our universities have been supporters of the Communists, so what do you think? Do you think that they will ever acknowledge this 2nd Holocaust? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

Castro's Supporters in the United States

As in former communist countries, Castro began drawing people in 1959 who could help spread his communist propaganda and criticize those who escape and survive communism. He has developed and perfected the technique of attracting and making the most of them. In the communist inside-jargon, those people are classified as "useful fools."

When his supporters visit him in Cuba, Castro gives them a standard tour of facilities that the state approves for foreigners to see. During the Holocaust, Hitler's Nazis also gave standard tours of concentration camps that the state approved for outsiders to see. One reason that the Holocaust lasted as long as it did is that the outsiders accepted those state-approved tours as proof that nothing inappropriate was happening in Germany.

The regime courts the individuals below, because Castro knows he can advance his propaganda more efficiently through Hollywood celebrities and other famous persons.

[For articles and much more information about Dictator Castro's supporters, go to Articles and more info.]

Click on the picture of the person you wish to read about,
or just scroll down the page:


Rev. Jesse Jackson

News anchor Katie Couric
Congresswoman Maxine Waters

Rev. Jesse Jackson
Joan Brown Campbell
(National Council of Churches)
Congressman Charlie Rangel

Actor Kevin Costner
Entertainer Harry Belafonte
(Center for Cuban Studies)
Senator Christopher Dodd

Actress Shirley McClaine
Director Frances Ford Coppola
Congressman Jose Serrano

News anchor Dan Rather

Supermodel Naomi Campbell
Actor Jack Nicholson


Actor Leonardo DiCaprio

Singer Alanis Morrisette

Andrew Young
(National Council of Churches, and Archer Daniels Midland Corporation)


Author Alice Walker

Rev. Lucius Walker
(Pastors for Peace)

Actor Danny Glover

Director Oliver Stone


News anchor Katie Couric:
In March, April, and May of 2000, she repeatedly advocated hate and racism on the Today Show, toward those Cubans who had escaped and live in Miami.

In her opening of the Today Show on April 3, 2000, Katie Couric defended the statement that someone would be better off in Castro's regime than in Miami, living among Cubans who escaped island and found freedom.

Referring to Miami, she repeated the statement that "it's wrong to expect [someone] to live in a place that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression." She referred to Miami as "an out of control banana republic."

Americans consider it racist and offensive to judge an entire race of persons concentrated in a particular city. Ms. Couric would not have condemned a city in which African Americans live, by saying that a person would be better off in a slave plantation than in that "Black" American city. She would consider that racist. Yet she does not hold the same standard toward Cuban Americans.

Her statements imply that she believes Castro's regime to be a better place to live than Miami.

When Cubans are still within the island, Couric does not insult them. But as soon as Cubans escape the island, she begins advocating hate toward them.

The logic seems somewhat ridiculous, to the point that one must ask with a hint of sarcasm (recalling Kafka's Metamorphosis): At what point exactly does she begin attacking a Cuban who escapes? At what point exactly does the Cuban individual transform into a person worthy of hatred? While the Cuban is on the raft? Midway between the island and the United States? When the person actually places a foot on our shore? How does this radical transformation occur? How long does it take? a day? a minute?

Katie Couric is a friend of Joan Brown Campbell--Campbell is a leader of the National Council of Churches. Campbell and the NCC have a long history of supporting Castro and other communist regimes worldwide.

Following the ideology of the Marxist-Leninism, National Council of Churches preys upon the poor and uneducated, using them as "useful fools." In communist ideology, in order to further the agenda of communism, the intellectual, powerful, communist elite (the select few) must recruit "idiots" or "fools" who are hungry for guidance. Unfortunately, National Council of Churches considers some Protestant ministers to fit that description. Therefore, its mission is to recruit those Protestant ministers to further its communist agenda.

In 1977, a year before his election as NCC president, James Armstrong led a delegation of American church officials to Cuba, where they supported the regime's repressions. Said their report:

"There is a significant difference between situations where people are imprisoned for opposing regimes designed to perpetuate inequities, as in Chile and Brazil, for example, and situations were people are imprisoned for opposing regimes designed to remove inequities, as in Cuba."

In 1980, Campbell's group (NCC) published a book claiming:

"Cubans are the only Latin Americans who have broken with dependent capitalism and its accompanying dehumanization of the common people." Further, the efforts of the Cuban government "affirm that the gospel's command to feed the hungry and preach good news to the poor is being fulfilled."

On the Today Show in April of 2000, Katie Couric interviewed Joan Brown Campbell regarding the Elian Gonzalez situation. (Joan Brown Campbell played an active role during that situation on behalf of Castro.) Couric did not ask Campbell about her long-time affiliation with Castro, did not ask Campbell about her many trips to visit him, and did not ask Campbell about her long-time work to spread communist propaganda throughout the world. Why did Katie Couric not mention any of this during her interview with Campbell? Why did Katie mislead Today Show viewers by interviewing Campbell very gently as an unbiased church lady, who only came forward for religious beliefs? Any Today Show viewer knows that Ms. Couric conducts tough interviews. But she asked not one challenging question to this long-time communist supporter
more.........

http://www.iitsllc.com/fa/castrosupporters.htm

Id say not very likely Karl..........

 

[Zhukov]

First things first:

The russian czars were all beheaded down to the youngest heir by the people who they ruled.

Actually the immeadiate royal family (the Romanovs), the Czar, his wife, and children, were placed under house arrest by the Reds. They were frequently, and with little notice, moved secretly about to prevent their liberation by certain royalist elements of the White faction.

Finally, in the middle of the night, the Romanovs were awakened, told they were to assemble for a family photograph, and then they would be moved to a new location. None of this was particularly unusual, all things considered.

They were led into the basement of the house where they were being kept, then two men walked in with machine guns and mowed the whole family down.

Their bodies were burned and the remains were buried in the back yard, to be unearthed and moved later on.

I dont know that nazis were right wingers.

We all understand that the Nazi's were in reality little different from the Communists they claimed were their anti-thesis, and bitterest rivals, but for the purpose of Karl's original post, and in regards to the point he is trying to make, I think we can all agree that today the Nazi's are typically referred to as 'right wing'.

Now, naturally this doesn't make much sense to normal americans who considered themselves conservatives, but you have to understand that as far as Europeans are concerned (and therefore the attitudes of our homegrown lefties who idolize them) 'right wing' means only one thing, and that is: Nationalist.

This is particular ignorant, but nevertheless it is the reality of contemporary nomenclature.

Now, the Russian people were no less Nationalistic than the Germans during the Second World War. In fact Stalin (not an ethnic Russian, just as Hitler was not an ethnic German) played the Nationalist card every bit as much as the Nazis.

That war was not (is not to this day) portrayed as the struggle of the proletariat against the war dog (Germany) of the western capitalist imperialists (U.S. and U.K.). Early on, before war actually broke out, the coming conflict was commonly portrayed in that light. But ultimately, and quite the contrary, it was in the end propagated as a war of Russian patriotism and Russian nationalism. The Russians don't call it World War Two; they call it 'The Great Patriotic War'. Indeed many ethnic groups (before and/or after consumed by the Soviet Union or part of it's predescesor, the Russian Empire) actively aided the Nazis, including the Ukrainians, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, and the Estonians.

Throughout the existence of the Soviet Union the Russians considered themselves superior to all non-Russian ethnic people within the sphere of influence of Moscow. Most of them still do.

Despite all this the Soviet Union is called left-wing even though it was just as Nationalist as any 'right-wing' fascist state.




National Socialism did allow a certain limited autonomy in the private sector, unlike the Communists.

One could, in the middle of the war wish to construct and run a factory. They would then go to the responsible State office and inform them of their wishes.

The reply would be, "Certainly. What will your factory produce?"

One might say, "Well, I'd like to make baby shoes."

"No, no, no. How about army boots, and boot laces?"

You could either agree, make army boots for the State, be taxed, and be allowed to keep a portion of the profits, or you could decline and take a hike.

Some private ownership was allowed, but that which was allowed was required to conform to the needs and desires of the State.

Bussinesses and factories seized from the Jews were not always placed under permanent control of the state. Often they were sold to Germans who then used those assets to produce what the State wanted, and to make a profit for themselves.

That degree of economic freedom is another reason Fascism is typically described as 'right wing'.

Theoretically, in a Fascist state, all means of production are retained by individuals. However what the end result of these means of production will be is determined by commercial conglomerate councils, which are in turn 'advised' by the State.

The Main Stream Media, many politicians and celebrities and, most of our universities have been supporters of the Communists, so what do you think? Do you think that they will ever acknowledge this 2nd Holocaust?

No, because of the first reason you mentioned, but also because the Nazi's more explicitly made it about the Jews. Communists have probably killed more Jews all told, but for the most part they weren't killed solely because they were Jews.

Stalin killed many Jews, but it wasn't just about killing Jew's for the sake of killing Jews. He suspected their aims and the loyalties, just as he suspected the aims and loyalties of nearly every non-Russian ethnic group in the Soviet Union.

a buncha horeshit

Was the French revolution a creation of the Jews, or how about the American revolution?

The Russian people overthrew the autocracy because the autocracy had outlived both it's usefullness and it's ability to maintain order. It was a historical inevitability, not some kind of Jewish plot.

 

[dilloduck]

First things first:

Actually the immeadiate royal family (the Romanovs), the Czar, his wife, and children, were placed under house arrest by the Reds. They were frequently, and with little notice, moved secretly about to prevent their liberation by certain royalist elements of the White faction.

Finally, in the middle of the night, the Romanovs were awakened, told they were to assemble for a family photo, and then they would be moved to a new location. None of this was particular unusual, all things considered.

They were led into the basement of the house where they were being kept, then two men walked in with machine guns and mowed the whole family down.

Their bodies were burned and the remains were buried in the back yard, to be unearthed and moved later on.

We all understand that the Nazi's were in reality little different from the Communists they claimed were their anti-thesis, and bitterest rivals.

But for the purpose of Karl's original post, in regards to the point he is trying to make, I think we can all agree that today the Nazi's are typically referred to as "right wing."

Now, naturally this doesn't make much sense to normal americans who considered themselves conservatives, but you have to understand that as far as Europeans are concerned (and therefore the attitudes of our homegrown lefties who idolize them) 'right wing' means only one thing, and that is: Nationalist.

This is particular ignorant, but nevertheless it is the reality of contemporary nomenclature.

Now, the Russian people were no leass Nationalistic than the Germans during the Second World War. In fact Stalin (not an ethnic Russian, just as Hitler was not an ethnic German) played the Nationalist card every bit as much as the Nazis.

That war was not (is not to this day) portrayed as the struggle of the proletariat against the war dog (Germany) of the western capitalist imperialists (U.S. and U.K.). Early on, before war actually broke out, the coming conflict was commonly portrayed in that light. But ultimately, and quite the contrary, it was in the end propagated as a war of Russian patriotism and Russian nationalism. The Russians don't call it World War Two; they call it 'The Great Patriotic War'. Indeed many ethnic groups (before and/or after consumed by the Soviet Union or part of it's predescesor, the Russian Empire) actively aided the Nazis, including the Ukrainians, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, and the Estonians.

Throughout the existence of the Soviet Union the Russians considered themselves superior to all non-Russian ethnic people within the sphere of influence of Moscow. Most of them still do.

Despite all this the Soviet Union is called left-wing even though it was just as Nationalist as any 'right-wing' fascist state.




National Socialism did allow a certain limited autonomy in the private sector, unlike the Communists.

One could, in the middle of the war wish to construct and run a factory. They would then go to the responsible State office and inform them of their wishes.

The reply would be, "Certainly. What will your factory produce?"

One might say, "Well, I'd like to make baby shoes."

"No, no, no. How about army boots, and boot laces?"

You could either agree, make army boots for the State, be taxed, and be allowed to keep a portion of the profits, or you could decline and take a hike.

Some private ownership was allowed, but that which was allowed was required to conform to the needs and desires of the State.

Bussinesses and factories seized from the Jews were not always placed under permanent control of the state. Often they were sold to Germans who then used those assets to produce what the State wanted, and to make a profit for themselves.

That degree of economic freedom is another reason Fascism is typically described as 'right wing'.

Theoretically, in a Fascist state, all means of production are retained by individuals. However what the end result of these means of production will be is determined by commercial conglomerate councils, which are in turn 'advised' by the State.


No, because of the first reason you mentioned, but also because the Nazi's more explicitly made it about the Jews. Communists have probably killed more Jews all told, but for the most part they weren't killed solely because they were Jews.

Stalin killed many Jews, but it wasn't just about killing Jew's for the sake of killing Jews. He suspected their aims and the loyalties, just as he suspected the aims and loyalties of nearly every non-Russian ethnic group in the Soviet Union.

Was the French revolution a creation of the Jews, or how about the American revolution?

The Russian people overthrew the autocracy because the autocracy had outlived both it's usefullness and it's ability to maintain order. It was a historical inevitability, not some kind of Jewish plot.

yet the Jews always are in the autocracy for some reason

 

[Zhukov]

yet the Jews always are in the autocracy for some reason

What autocracy? Certainly not within the house of the Romanovs.

 

[dilloduck]

What autocracy? Certainly not within the house of the Romanovs.

nope--the commie elite that in turn purged them too!

 

[Zhukov]

nope--the commie elite that in turn purged them too!

That's 'always'?

There were some prominent bolsheviks who were also Jews, but as you pointed out, they didn't last too long.


There were alot of men in the highest echelons of power within the CPSU. Come to think of it there are alot of men in the highest echelons of most power structures worldwide......

Must be some kind of global male conspiracy.......



Yes, there were jews in the Bolshevik party. So what?

 

[dilloduck]

That's 'always'?

There were some prominent bolsheviks who were also Jews, but as you pointed out, they didn't last too long.


There were alot of men in the highest echelons of power within the CPSU. Come to think of it there are alot of men in the highest echelons of most power structures worldwide......

Must be some kind of global male conspiracy.......



Yes, there were jews in the Bolshevik party. So what?

NP still on my search for an answer to why Jews seem to get the shit end of the stick so often.

 

[KarlMarx]

What autocracy? Certainly not within the house of the Romanovs.

You're absolutely correct.... the Romanov dynasty, from Ivan the Terrible (in the 15th century) to Nicholas II (who reigned until 1917) was entirely Russian. Not only that, but the Russian Orthodox Church was THE state church, even during czarist days.

In fact, Czar Alexander III and Nicholas II may have initiated pograms against Jews.

Czar Nicholas II and his family (including the enigmatic Anastasia) were executed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1918 because the communists were afraid that they might return to power. In addition, servants, relatives of the Czar were also executed or exiled to different countries.

Source: my son ..... Karl Marx Jr. who read the book "The Fate of the Romanovs" by Greg King and Penny Wilson 2003 J.W. Wiley Publisher

 

[freeandfun1]

NP still on my search for an answer to why Jews seem to get the shit end of the stick so often.

You keep saying this and I keep telling you, read the Bible. It clearly explains in the Bible that the Jews will endure until Christ's return. They are being punished (given a lesson?) by G-d.

 

[dilloduck]

You keep saying this and I keep telling you, read the Bible. It clearly explains in the Bible that the Jews will endure until Christ's return. They are being punished (given a lesson?) by G-d.

Then why do they insist that it's man that is punishing them?

 

[freeandfun1]

Then why do they insist that it's man that is punishing them?

Pride and because they have turned their back on G-d.