# Learning From Hitler



## Flanders

*In my mind these two articles have a single theme: *



> Why Aren't Murderous Communists Condemned Like Nazis Are?
> Tue, Aug 07 2012 00:00:00 E A13_ISSUES
> By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
> Posted 08/06/2012 06:58 PM ET
> 
> Socialists And Communists Are Even Bigger Murderers Than Hitler's Nazis Were - Investors.com
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> August 7, 2012
> Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> James Simpson
> 
> Blog: Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties



*Walter E. Williams asks:*



> Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught  and possibly is covered up  is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history.
> 
> One answer can be seen in those who rant against war while calling for bigger government. The number of dead caused by all of the wars in the past five centuries is less than the total the number of murders modern totalitarian governments committed against their own people in just the last century.  The totals cited by Professor Williams should shock every so-called pacificist out of their cherished benevolent-government fantasies:
> 
> Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
> 
> The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph J. Rummel's website, at Freedom, Democide, War: Home Page, and in his book "Death by Government."
> 
> How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle.
> 
> Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.



*Interestingly, it was Adolf Hitler, not Lenin or Stalin, who clearly stated everything Hussein & Company personify. Hitler reduced everything they do to the four words in the final sentence:*



> "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories?* We socialize human beings.*"



*Williams identifies the worst offenders:*



> *Path To Genocide*
> 
> Whether it's the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism  a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.



*I want to separate the children from the others by turning to Hitler again:*



> When an opponent declares, I will not come over to your side, I calmly say, Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.



*If you doubt where American Communists were going long before Hussein came along apply Hitlers Children to Communist control of the public education system in this country. 

Ninety-nine percent of Socialist education is formulated especially to indoctrinate young children into the joys of collectivism. Implanting the idea that there is good totalitarian government and bad totalitarian government is critical. All of the propaganda apparatus at the governments disposal cannot bury the bad. There is too much known about totalitarian governments to hide the bad; more so since the Internet. 

Further education all the way through higher education reinforces the concept of good and bad totalitarian governments. Proof: Professor Williams et al., exposing totalitarianisms innate cruelty drives Socialists to point to Communist China and say See, communism is working. Thats good totalitarian government.  

Obviously, the media elite, along with stalwarts of the Democrat party, totally ignore the Mao cited by Professor Williams, and the incomprehensible brutality Mao initiated against his own people in order to make communism work. 

To Socialists/Communists there is but one sin: Pointing out that totalitarian governments must kill everyone who resists no matter how slight that resistence might be, and they must kill quickly, without mercy, lest they be overthrown by revolution.  In the end, every totalitarian government will always do what Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Castro and others did best  murder, torture and enslave.  Regardless of the evidence some still insist that a benevolent totalitarian government is possible. 

Moving on

I learned something from James Simpsons piece that surprised me:* 



> This working relationship, and how it developed, was explained in depth by a prominent Soviet KGB defector, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, who spoke on his report, Communists and Muslims, the Hidden Hand of the KGB. For example, he describes the work of Karim Hakimov, a Soviet KGB operative who was one of the first of many "Muslims with a communist heart". An expert in Islam, he helped found the modern state of Saudi Arabia and befriended King Saud. He was instrumental in forming an anti-West group which was the precursor to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. As a result, Russia has "Observer" status with the group.
> 
> He also cites Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB agent murdered by the Kremlin with Polonium 210, who charged that al Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, was a trained agent of the KGB. Preobrazhensky further discusses a Taliban leader and close advisor to Osama bin Laden, Juma Namangoniy. Namangoniy was born in Soviet Uzbekistan and was also a KGB-trained communist. He was supposedly killed by coalition forces but his body has not been found.



*I was surprised to learn there were Muslim Communists with so much political influence, while I understand the marriage between the two ideologies perfectly.  Islam and Communism are totalitarian theocracies. 

Again, one can turn to Hitler who sanctioned marriage between totalitarians in a different context: Nazi Party recruiters had one standing order: Recruit new members from the ranks of the Communists because they always make the best Fascists. The context is different because Communists will not make the best Muslims, nor will Muslims make the best Communists. 

Identical methods of subjugation aside, Muslims are asking for the dirty end of the stick on this one. A Muslim Communist might believe that Communist ideology can be adapted to accommodate Islam, while Communists will never allow any Supreme Deity religion to survive after Socialists/Communists consolidate political power. Indeed, Muslims will be slaughtered first because Communists fear all other forms of totalitarian government. Hitler covered that one, too.* 



> The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.



*There is no way in hell one totalitarian government will share power with another for very long. Hitler understood what had to be done; so he invaded the Soviet Union. Hitler well-knew that Stalin would have done it to Nazi Germany at the first opportunity. In fact, the very nature of totalitarian government abhors power-sharing. In that same vain it is logical to assume Mussolinis Italy was first on Hitlers hit list after Germany won the war.  

WWII

Ive always said the wrong side won WWII in Europe. Communism is still alive and well while Fascism has disappeared. There is not one openly Fascist country today although many countries are dictatorships. There are several Communist countries. 

Had Nazi Germany won WWII in Europe I doubt very much if that brand of totalitarian government would have survived after Hitler and Mussolini died. It is certain Nazism would not be a worldwide movement today as is socialism/communism.  Fascists most certainly never would have infiltrated our government to the extent Communists have succeeded. In short: Hussein the Fascist would not have come as far as did Hussein the Communist.  

Finally, the single theme I referred to in the first sentence of this thread:* 



> It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans  who would have cringed at the thought of genocide  who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.  _Walter E. Williams_
> 
> *And this:​*
> . . . a huge network of U.S. and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America.  _James Simpson_


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I've been saying this for a while now:

"You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"

Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.

Every time

Every single time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"

Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"


----------



## Flanders

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've been saying this for a while now:
> 
> "You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"
> 
> Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.
> 
> Every time
> 
> Every single time.





CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"
> 
> Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"



*To CrusaderFrank: Good responses. I would add Who Lost China. is an ongoing debate. After much reading over the past six decades my personal believe is that a lot of bad advice was deliberately given to FDR, Truman, military leaders, etc., by career State Department officials in order to quietly support Mao and communism. Regardless of what this informative analysis says about Who Lost China says, I think it was deliberate:* 



> The United States' role in the fall of China, then, was not any one particular mistake, but a broader failure of U.S. policy. During World War II almost everyone in United States policy-making positions blinded himself to the reality of Communism because the Soviet Union was our ally in the war against the Nazis. It would have taken men of great vision and courage to have been able to say, in the atmosphere of necessary and justified determination to destroy Nazi Germany, that the Communists were the greater enemy and that we must never lose sight of the moral imperative of helping countries avoid a Communist takeover. But it is in such vision and courage that historical greatness consists. Precisely the opposite happened, however. At the Teheran and Yalta conferences the U.S. and Great Britain gave Stalin all he asked as a means of keeping him in the war against Germany (it was never a realistic possibility that he would make a separate peace) and bringing him into the war against Japan (in which, as we have seen, the Soviets made no contribution to victory). After the war, it was not until the Truman Doctrine that the U.S. faced up to the reality of Communist imperialism, but only in Europe, not in Asia, though there was a chance that China could even then have been saved. Therefore the responsibility for the U.S. role in the loss of China cannot be placed on the shoulders of any one individual person or policy. The responsibility lies with all those in our country who have refused to face the reality of Communism. For the choice was not, as some wanted to believe, between democracy and anti-democracy, or even between Communist authoritarianism and Nationalist authoritarianism, but between Chiang's anti-Communism, corrupt and inefficient as it might be, and the revolutionary destruction which is Communism. The contrasting histories of mainland China and Taiwan since 1949 clearly show the true nature of the choice.
> 
> <All of the Above>
> 
> Is the answer to the question "Who lost China?" then "All of the above"? To say that would be to take the easy way out. Even admitting all the other factors and Chiang's considerable responsibility, the fact remains that the U.S. could have done far more to save China than it did. Even an excellent Chinese leader (a Chinese Jonas Savimbi, for example) wouldn't have been able to defeat the Communists without any U.S. aid, given all the obstacles he faced. With full-scale aid, based on the premise that the Communists must be defeated, Chiang could have won. Therefore U.S. aid was crucial. America was the one country that could have prevented the Communist conquest of China, but we didn't know why we should and so we didn't.
> 
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/FR89102.TXT



*The birth of the United Nations provided added incentive for American Communists. Younger Americans probably do not know that Admit China to the UN was a top priority for the American Left until President Nixon eventually gave Nationalist Chinas seat in the UN, and on the Security Council, to Communist China.  Nobody ever thought Nixon was soft on Communists, yet he caved in to the Left. *


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Flanders said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been saying this for a while now:
> 
> "You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"
> 
> Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and unarmed citizenry.
> 
> Every time
> 
> Every single time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"
> 
> Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *To CrusaderFrank: Good responses. I would add Who Lost China. is an ongoing debate. After much reading over the past six decades my personal believe is that a lot of bad advice was deliberately given to FDR, Truman, military leaders, etc., by career State Department officials in order to quietly support Mao and communism. Regardless of what this informative analysis says about Who Lost China says, I think it was deliberate:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States' role in the fall of China, then, was not any one particular mistake, but a broader failure of U.S. policy. During World War II almost everyone in United States policy-making positions blinded himself to the reality of Communism because the Soviet Union was our ally in the war against the Nazis. It would have taken men of great vision and courage to have been able to say, in the atmosphere of necessary and justified determination to destroy Nazi Germany, that the Communists were the greater enemy and that we must never lose sight of the moral imperative of helping countries avoid a Communist takeover. But it is in such vision and courage that historical greatness consists. Precisely the opposite happened, however. At the Teheran and Yalta conferences the U.S. and Great Britain gave Stalin all he asked as a means of keeping him in the war against Germany (it was never a realistic possibility that he would make a separate peace) and bringing him into the war against Japan (in which, as we have seen, the Soviets made no contribution to victory). After the war, it was not until the Truman Doctrine that the U.S. faced up to the reality of Communist imperialism, but only in Europe, not in Asia, though there was a chance that China could even then have been saved. Therefore the responsibility for the U.S. role in the loss of China cannot be placed on the shoulders of any one individual person or policy. The responsibility lies with all those in our country who have refused to face the reality of Communism. For the choice was not, as some wanted to believe, between democracy and anti-democracy, or even between Communist authoritarianism and Nationalist authoritarianism, but between Chiang's anti-Communism, corrupt and inefficient as it might be, and the revolutionary destruction which is Communism. The contrasting histories of mainland China and Taiwan since 1949 clearly show the true nature of the choice.
> 
> <All of the Above>
> 
> Is the answer to the question "Who lost China?" then "All of the above"? To say that would be to take the easy way out. Even admitting all the other factors and Chiang's considerable responsibility, the fact remains that the U.S. could have done far more to save China than it did. Even an excellent Chinese leader (a Chinese Jonas Savimbi, for example) wouldn't have been able to defeat the Communists without any U.S. aid, given all the obstacles he faced. With full-scale aid, based on the premise that the Communists must be defeated, Chiang could have won. Therefore U.S. aid was crucial. America was the one country that could have prevented the Communist conquest of China, but we didn't know why we should and so we didn't.
> 
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/FR89102.TXT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The birth of the United Nations provided added incentive for American Communists. Younger Americans probably do not know that Admit China to the UN was a top priority for the American Left until President Nixon eventually gave Nationalist Chinas seat in the UN, and on the Security Council, to Communist China.  Nobody ever thought Nixon was soft on Communists, yet he caved in to the Left. *
Click to expand...


The very people McCarthy tried to warn us about were in fact dictating US State to support Mao.


----------



## Douger

CrusaderFrank said:


> I've been saying this for a while now:
> 
> "You'll always find mass graves at the end of every Progressive rainbow"
> 
> Stalin and Mao didn't start out with mass murder, it's just a natural consequence of a Progressive government and *unarmed citizenry.*
> 
> Every time
> 
> Every single time.


You nailed it !


----------



## blimpo

What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?

When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.


----------



## Political Junky

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"
> 
> Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"


Stalin was our ally in WW2. You must know that.


----------



## Flanders

> blimpo;5769543]What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?



*To blimpo: Whats with all of the stupid people who dont like Hitler threads but still comment on them? *



> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.



*To blimpo: You sound like I owe you insight. If youre looking for insight get yourself  reading glasses.*


----------



## GHook93

First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil! 

Second, you adhor Socialism, but the National SOCIALIST Worker's Prty was a socialist movement that believed STRONGLY in a LARGE CENTRAL CONTROLLING BIG-BROTHER GOVERNMENT!!!  SOCIALIST TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIPS (which really what communist is) would have been spring up EVERYWHERE!!! A follow like you believes NAZI German victory would have been better. State your real reason! You believe the absolute falsity that (1) The Holocaust never happened and (2) Jews control everything from the world governments, banks, media and military! That is the reason you think Hitler is a swell guy.

Third, Hitler is JUSTIFIABLY VIEWED worse, because he invaded all his neighbors and started a WORLD WAR!!! The worse destruction in WORLD HISTORY!!! 

Lastly, are you really saying, Britian and the US weren't beacons of freedom, capitalism and prosperity during in the 40s? If so your a bigger fool than I thought.


----------



## GHook93

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR Called Stalin "Uncle Joe"


Unfair attack! Stalin's USSR help win the war against Nazi Germany!




CrusaderFrank said:


> Mao would have lost to Chek but for the US believing that Mao was "Democratic" and "Progressive"


That is also and unfair attack. This was right after WW II. No much they could have done!


----------



## Flanders

> GHook93;5770661
> 
> First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!



*To GHook93: You clearly lack reading comprehension skills. Try again: *



> Quote OP
> 
> In the end, every totalitarian government will always do what Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Castro and others did best  murder, torture and enslave.  Regardless of the evidence some still insist that a benevolent totalitarian government is possible.



*You did not understand what I said about dictators; so you cannot possibly know what the hell you are talking about on more complicated topics. Had you read and understood Walter E. Williams column that I quoted you would not have said this:*



> GHook93;5770661
> 
> Third, Hitler is JUSTIFIABLY VIEWED worse, because he invaded all his neighbors and started a WORLD WAR!!! The worse destruction in WORLD HISTORY!!!



*As for the rest of your response spare me the psychoanalysis. Should I ever feel the need to have someone tell me what I think Ill go see a professional idiot not a semi-literate half-wit on a message board. In the future try researching my messages if you want to know where I stand. *



> GHook93;5770670
> 
> Unfair attack! Stalin's USSR help win the war against Nazi Germany!



*To GHook93: Wrong. America made the mistake of saving communism in the Soviet Union. Then-Senator Truman had the right way to go: *



> "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."





> GHook93;5770670
> 
> That is also and unfair attack. This was right after WW II. No much they could have done!



*To GHook93: Hallelujah brothers and sisters!  At long last somebody answered the question Who lost China?.*


----------



## ginscpy

TheLeft are MASS _ MURDERERS  without souls................................


----------



## mememe

GHook93 said:


> First Flounders, Hitler, *Stalin*, Pol Pot and *Castro *are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!



Really? How?

Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?


----------



## drtywhtboy

mememe said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Flounders, Hitler, *Stalin*, Pol Pot and *Castro *are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How?
> 
> Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? ?Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?
Click to expand...



 So you would have invaded 'the Home island' of Japan, killed millions of them and millions of your 'fellow Americans', to win WW2. 

 Napalm in Vietnam, I'm not sure what to call you now. How about Hanoi MEME? The decisions made by those people (President Truman and not sure about Vietnam) saved lives. 

 Its only your foolish and twisted mind that makes those decisions look wrong


----------



## mememe

drtywhtboy said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Flounders, Hitler, *Stalin*, Pol Pot and *Castro *are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How?
> 
> Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? ?Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have invaded 'the Home island' of Japan, killed millions of them and millions of your 'fellow Americans', to win WW2.
> 
> Napalm in Vietnam, I'm not sure what to call you now. How about Hanoi MEME? The decisions made by those people (President Truman and not sure about Vietnam) saved lives.
> 
> Its only your foolish and twisted mind that makes those decisions look wrong
Click to expand...


1. The USSR defeated Japan TWICE in 1930-s without "killing millions". US dropping atomic bombs had nothing to do with "saving American lives"; it was about a) testing a new weapon on unsuspecting CIVILIANS; b) defeating Japan BEFORE the USSR got there, thus claiming it for US; c) showing the USSR "who's the daddy".

2. Two questions for you: what US was doing in Vietnam in the first place? Is it OK' with you to use chemical weapons, especially on civilians?


----------



## whitehall

Hitler subscribed to the "eugenics" theory just like Wilson and FDR and a hundred other US and international liberals. Hitler expanded Eugenics to the point where everyone would be subject to execution for the good of society instead of just the unborn. The "eugenics" movement evolved into "planned parenthood" and the abortion industry.


----------



## Flanders

> mememe;5778062
> 
> 1. The USSR defeated Japan TWICE in 1930-s



*To mememe: Nice misdirection. The Soviets won several border skirmishes in the late 30s because the Japanese military was tied up in China. In 1941 the USSR signed a neutrality pact with Japan that made Manchukuo Japans puppet state.*



> mememe;5778062
> 
> without "killing millions".



*To mememe: Soviets were busy killing millions of their own people at the time. They would have used the A-bomb if they had it.*



> mememe;5778062
> 
> US dropping atomic bombs had nothing to do with "saving American lives"; it was about a) testing a new weapon on unsuspecting CIVILIANS;



*To mememe: Get off it. That phoney liberal talking point was designed to show moral superiority. It  was discredited a long time ago. *



> mememe;5778062
> 
> b) defeating Japan BEFORE the USSR got there, thus claiming it for US; c) showing the USSR "who's the daddy".



*To mememe: The USSR wasnt going anywhere without Americas help. *



> mememe;5778062
> 
> 2. Two questions for you: what US was doing in Vietnam in the first place? Is it OK' with you to use chemical weapons, especially on civilians?



*To mememe: Surprise, surprise! Another clever liberal asking questions as a debating technique. Make your own case, dont expect others to do it for you by answering loaded questions. *


----------



## mememe

Flanders said:


> 1. *To mememe: Nice misdirection. The Soviets won several border skirmishes in the late 30s because the Japanese military was tied up in China. In 1941 the USSR signed a neutrality pact with Japan that made Manchukuo Japans puppet state.*
> 
> 
> 2. *To mememe: Soviets were busy killing millions of their own people at the time. They would have used the A-bomb if they had it.*
> 
> 
> 3. *To mememe: Get off it. That phoney liberal talking point was designed to show moral superiority. It  was discredited a long time ago. *
> 
> 
> 4. *To mememe: The USSR wasnt going anywhere without Americas help. *
> 
> 
> 5. *To mememe: Surprise, surprise! Another clever liberal asking questions as a debating technique. Make your own case, dont expect others to do it for you by answering loaded questions. *



1. Thanks to the Soviet victories over Japan in 1930-s, Japan did not contribute to European aggression. And that was achieved without using WMD on civilians or "millions" of military casualties.

2. According to US propaganda? Because, according to the OFFICIAL records:

At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were criminals. The remaining %% were there for commiting contr-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.

In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.

The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.

For comparison: now, in peaceful times in the most democratic and free democracy of all -- USA 2.3 million people are in prisons and camps. And that's not taking into account Guantanamo and other CIA prisons!

3. So, for Americans it is permissible to commit mass murder of civilians in other countries! May I ask, why? Is it because other nations are subhuman in Americans' eyes?

4. Why? 
O! Please, don't tell me you think it is US lend lease that enable the USSR to end WW2? Because, if you really think so, I would have to ask you for numbers for lend lease in comparison with the USSR military production; also I would have to ask you for particulars of US help to Hitler (and it went as far as 1944!).

5. see point 3.


----------



## Flanders

mememe said:


> 1. Thanks to the Soviet victories over Japan in 1930-s, Japan did not contribute to European aggression. And that was achieved without using WMD on civilians or "millions" of military casualties.
> 
> 2. According to US propaganda? Because, according to the OFFICIAL records:
> 
> At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were criminals. The remaining %% were there for commiting contr-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.
> 
> In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.
> 
> The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.
> 
> For comparison: now, in peaceful times in the most democratic and free democracy of all -- USA 2.3 million people are in prisons and camps. And that's not taking into account Guantanamo and other CIA prisons!
> 
> 3. So, for Americans it is permissible to commit mass murder of civilians in other countries! May I ask, why? Is it because other nations are subhuman in Americans' eyes?
> 
> 4. Why?
> O! Please, don't tell me you think it is US lend lease that enable the USSR to end WW2? Because, if you really think so, I would have to ask you for numbers for lend lease in comparison with the USSR military production; also I would have to ask you for particulars of US help to Hitler (and it went as far as 1944!).
> 
> 5. see point 3.



*To mememe: Number 1. makes no sense at all.

Gulag statistics came from Soviet records. That makes them complete fabrications. There is no way anyone else could get accurate numbers, or the brutal conditions that existed in Gulag, or an accurate percentage of political prisoners.  Stalin sure as hell wasnt letting anyone snoop around.  Ditto Stalins successors.

As to number 4: American Communists went nuts the day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Prior to June 22, 1941 Hitler was a prince of a fellow to Communists the world over because of the non-aggression pact the two dictators had agreed upon in 1939. After Hitler made the mistake of declaring war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor  all Communist efforts in America  political pressure, media and Hollywood propaganda, etc.   were directed towards bullying FDR into establishing a second front. Even though Japan attacked the US 90 percent of Americas went to fighting the war in Europe:* 



> In November, 1943, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt met together in Teheran, Iran, to discuss military strategy and post-war Europe. Ever since the Soviet Union had entered the war, Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. Churchill and Roosevelt argued that any attempt to land troops in Western Europe would result in heavy casualties. Until the Soviet's victory at Stalingrad in January, 1943, Stalin had feared that without a second front, Germany would defeat them.
> 
> Second Front



*Had Hitler never double-crossed Stalin the Soviet Union would have remained neutral for the duration. As far as Stalin was concerned in 1939 Hitler could have the rest of Europe so long as he stayed out of those countries the Soviets coveted.  Stalin knew he couldnt stop Hitler anyway; so he thought he got a good deal with the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact. Stalin was basically correct. Had the war been fought between Germany and the Soviet Union alone Germany would have won hands down. 

The rest of your nonsense is too convoluted to respond to. *


----------



## mememe

Flanders said:


> 1. *To mememe: Number 1. makes no sense at all.
> 
> 2. Gulag statistics came from Soviet records. That makes them complete fabrications. There is no way anyone else could get accurate numbers, or the brutal conditions that existed in Gulag, or an accurate percentage of &#8220;political prisoners.&#8221;  Stalin sure as hell wasn&#8217;t letting anyone snoop around.  Ditto Stalin&#8217;s successors.
> 
> 3. Prior to June 22, 1941 Hitler was a prince of a fellow to Communists the world over
> 
> 4. because of the non-aggression pact the two dictators had agreed upon in 1939.
> 
> 5. 90 percent of America&#8217;s went to fighting the war in Europe:*
> 
> 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In November, 1943, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt met together in Teheran, Iran, to discuss military strategy and post-war Europe. Ever since the Soviet Union had entered the war, Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. Churchill and Roosevelt argued that any attempt to land troops in Western Europe would result in heavy casualties. Until the Soviet's victory at Stalingrad in January, 1943, Stalin had feared that without a second front, Germany would defeat them.
> 
> 
> 7. *Had Hitler never double-crossed Stalin the Soviet Union would have remained neutral for the duration. As far as Stalin was concerned in 1939 Hitler could have the rest of Europe so long as he stayed out of those countries the Soviets coveted.  Stalin knew he couldn&#8217;t stop Hitler anyway; so he thought he got a good deal with the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact. Stalin was basically correct. Had the war been fought between Germany and the Soviet Union alone Germany would have won hands down.
> 
> 8. The rest of your nonsense is too convoluted to respond to. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The fact that after two defeats Japan had to abstain from attacking the Soviet Union make no sense to you? Then you need to re-examine your understanding of "sense".
> 
> 2. Brilliant! So, the OFFICIAL records are bollox? Then what your claims of "millions of billions" of "victims" are based on? Wishful thinking or speculations?
> 
> What your claims of Stalin's brutality are based on? The numbers of "GULAG victims" that are based on your wishful thinking?!
> 
> "Political prisoners" is yet another crud devised by your propaganda: there was no such article under the law -- "political"! What your propaganda merchants call "political" were very particular crimes such as TREASON, TERRORISM, ANTI-SOVIET AGITATION, SABOTAGE!
> Tell me what would happen to a terrorist under the US law? What would happen to a traitor under the US law?
> 
> 3. Ford was a Communist?! Bush was a Communist?! I didn't know that! Are you sure?
> 
> 4. Shall I remind you what happened prior to Soviet-German non-aggression pact? I mean, like UK and France giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler and Poland? Polish-Hitler negotiations of cooperation in aggression against the Soviet Union? UK-Hitler agreement to divide spheres of influence under which UK and France let Hitler take over Poland?
> 
> Btw, what possesses you to call Stalin a "dictator"? Western tradition?
> 
> 5. Approximately 16 million men and women served in the US Military during WW 2. Out of that number only 7 million were sent into action! What "90% of America&#8217;s" are you talking about?!
> 
> 6. The turning point of WW2 was the SOVIET victory in Stalingrad! Only after that, when US and Britain realised that the Soviet Union is not going to be defeated, they decided to claim at least some of European territory: opened the second front and negotiated their piece of the post-war world!
> 
> 7. What duration?! Do they teach you anything at school? The whole of the WW2 was designed to destroy the Soviet Union! The USSR was Hitler's PRIME TARGET -- and he never made a secret out of it!
> Britain and France knew it, and they decided to use it to do away with both of their historic geopolitial competitors: USSR/Russia and Germany, by making them fight each other, and then move for the kill on whoever will end up a winner.
> 
> *. France, USSR and Czechoslovakia had an agreement of mutual assistance.
> *. In 1939 the USSR offered France to honour the agreement and defend Czechoslovakia against Hitler. France refused.
> *. On Hitler's demand (he was in need of natural resources, industrially developped land with loyal population) UK and France put pressure on Czechoslovakian government not to accept Soviet help.
> *. The Soviet Union offered military help to Czechoslovakia, disregarding France&#8217;s position, provided Poland or Romania let Soviet troops pass through its territory. Poland and Romania refused.
> *. In 1939 UK, France, Germany and Italy (Czechoslovakian representatives were not invited) divided Czechoslovakia between Germany and Poland.
> *. Poland with the encouragment of Britain was discussing with Hitler a free passage for German troops through its territory towards the USSR in return for Belarus and Ukraine.
> *. Poland and Germany fell out over a "Dantsug corridor". Poland was encouraged by its mutual assistance agreements with UK and France and started testing Hitler's patience.
> *. The USSR offered Poland to sign an agreement of mutual assistance. Poland refused.
> *. Germany signed a agreement with UK where they divided zones of influence: Germany was given the East of Europe. In seperate talks (Wohltat, Sir Horace Wilson, Hudson), Britain was to refrain from helping Poland, thus to enable Hitler to get on the borders with the Soviet Union in exchange for Hitler not  extending his appetites to the West.
> *. UK and France sabotaged signing an agreement with the USSR.
> *. After the signing of an agreement between the Soviet Union, UK and France was sabotaged the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany to buy so much needed time to finish military reforms and re-arm.
> *. When Hitler attacked Poland Britain DECLARED war on Germany, but done nothing beyond declaration.
> *. Only when Hitler attacked France the following year (instead of continuing eastwards into the USSR) UK became actively involved against Germany.
> 
> 
> 8. What, you don't want to remind us how US was supporting Hitler way into 1944? Why?
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

It's interesting to note that Hitler developed his criminal hold on Germany right under the nose of the FDR administration. FDR refused to alter US immigration policies even after it became obvious that Jews were being persecuted and would surely die unless they could emigrate to other countries including the US. When FDR appointed a college professor to be ambassador to Germany just before the War the ambassador reported atrocities and all the FDR administration seemed interested in was pestering Berlin for war reparations from WW1.


----------



## Flanders

whitehall said:


> It's interesting to note that Hitler developed his criminal hold on Germany right under the nose of the FDR administration. FDR refused to alter US immigration policies even after it became obvious that Jews were being persecuted and would surely die unless they could emigrate to other countries including the US. When FDR appointed a college professor to be ambassador to Germany just before the War the ambassador reported atrocities and all the FDR administration seemed interested in was pestering Berlin for war reparations from WW1.



*To whitehall: Then there is the German liner MS St. Louis carrying 937 Jewish refugees who were not allowed to land in Canada, Cuba, or here:*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_yGf5UBlE8&feature=player_detailpage]Trailer: When Canada Said No: The Abandoned Jews of the MS St. Louis - YouTube[/ame]

*I often think today&#8217;s open-borders, in part, is a perverse guilt trip for the St. Louis. Open-borders and the St. Louis are not remotely connected. *


----------



## jillian

GHook93 said:


> First Flounders, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!
> 
> Second, you adhor Socialism, but the National SOCIALIST Worker's Prty was a socialist movement that believed STRONGLY in a LARGE CENTRAL CONTROLLING BIG-BROTHER GOVERNMENT!!!  SOCIALIST TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIPS (which really what communist is) would have been spring up EVERYWHERE!!! A follow like you believes NAZI German victory would have been better. State your real reason! You believe the absolute falsity that (1) The Holocaust never happened and (2) Jews control everything from the world governments, banks, media and military! That is the reason you think Hitler is a swell guy.
> 
> Third, Hitler is JUSTIFIABLY VIEWED worse, because he invaded all his neighbors and started a WORLD WAR!!! The worse destruction in WORLD HISTORY!!!
> 
> Lastly, are you really saying, Britian and the US weren't beacons of freedom, capitalism and prosperity during in the 40s? If so your a bigger fool than I thought.



*sigh* Nazi's were NOT socialists... that is rightwing revisionism. they were fascists. there are similarities between the two because they were totalitarian societies. but just because two things have *something*n in common does not mean one of these things is like the other.

it's not even worth entertaining this type of discussion though...

the effort to somehow make hitler a 'leftie' is counter to reality.


----------



## mememe

whitehall said:


> It's interesting to note that Hitler developed his criminal hold on Germany right under the nose of the FDR administration. FDR refused to alter US immigration policies even after it became obvious that Jews were being persecuted and would surely die unless they could emigrate to other countries including the US. When FDR appointed a college professor to be ambassador to Germany just before the War the ambassador reported atrocities and all the FDR administration seemed interested in was pestering Berlin for war reparations from WW1.



FDR administration as well as the US itself were of no major significance at the time.

And what makes you think that Hitler developed a CRIMINAL hold on Germany?

As for Jews... I'll repeat myself:
After Nazis started printing their own banknotes that were not supported by gold, and took Germany out of the clatches of international bankers who were mostly Jewish, the US Jewish financial clans of Wall Street declared war on Germany on behalf of all Jews. 

Prior to that "war" there were no mass mistreatments of Jews in Germany, even Germany's Jewish Central Association (Verein) was writing in it's statement: "The responsible government authorities are unaware of the threatening situation... we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews."
Even though there were no persecution of Jews in Germany of that time (and Verein confirmed it), Untermyer still made his famous speech where he first voiced an allegation that Hitler was on a mission to exterminate the Jews.

But these "excesses" came as the Wall Street continued pushing through with their economic war on Germany...

Economic war of Jews on  Germany brought about an allience of Nazis and Zionists who saw mass reprisals against Jews in responce to the "war" as an opportunity to encourage European Jews to flee to Palestine -- a Transfer Agreement.

But in order to continue with emigration of Jews to Palestine, Zionists needed Nazis to continue with their persecution of Jews on one hand, but on the other -- Zionists needed German economy to be stable and Nazis to remain in power... That's how Zionists came to boycot the "war on Germany" they themselves started in 1933.

Since then and all through the war Jewish bankers and industrialists were supporting Hitler.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Flanders said:


> Who Lost China. is an ongoing debate.



no it is not!!!!! Who is losing Syria is same question.

Of course liberals lost both

If Jefferson's shot heard 'round the world was not being blocked by Democrats the world would know our huge success was based on freedom from liberal government, but because of Democrats most people are looking to use revolution to establish some liberal version of Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot or George 111.

Indeed all the problems of world history can be laid at the liberals' bloody feet


----------



## mememe

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> If Jefferson's shot heard 'round the world was not being blocked by Democrats the world would know our huge success was based on freedom from liberal government, but because of Democrats most people are looking to use revolution to establish some liberal version of Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot or George 111.
> 
> Indeed all the problems of world history can be laid at the liberals' bloody feet



and again you are mixing everything together...

The reason the West hates Stalin so much is because he put an end to the spread of MILITANT LIBERALISM in the former Russian Empire/USSR. Stalin put an end to TROTSKISM -- an ideology that has currently overrun the West!


----------



## Flanders

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeed all the problems of world history can be laid at the liberals' bloody feet



*To EdwardBaiamonte: Certainly the history of the 19th & 20th centuries. All of history if you mean the parasite mentality?*


----------



## there4eyeM

Nazi Germany was totally overrun and every tiny detail laid bare. This has not happened in Russia or China. We haven't had the opportunity to pore over all the facts. 
That said, I have the impression that the massive elimination of huge population segments is pretty universally deplored in the west. 
I think Germany is a special case because it is so similar to our cultures (American, French, English, etc.) and we are horrified that our very cousins could act this way, whereas the others are more 'foreign'. It would be good to keep in mind the closeness and that what the Germans did was not different from the rest of Europe (including North America), only raised to an industrial level.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> drtywhtboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How?
> 
> Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? ?Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have invaded 'the Home island' of Japan, killed millions of them and millions of your 'fellow Americans', to win WW2.
> 
> Napalm in Vietnam, I'm not sure what to call you now. How about Hanoi MEME? The decisions made by those people (President Truman and not sure about Vietnam) saved lives.
> 
> Its only your foolish and twisted mind that makes those decisions look wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The USSR defeated Japan TWICE in 1930-s without "killing millions". US dropping atomic bombs had nothing to do with "saving American lives"; it was about a) testing a new weapon on unsuspecting CIVILIANS; b) defeating Japan BEFORE the USSR got there, thus claiming it for US;
Click to expand...

Yes, it's been awesome having Japan as a client state, utterly subservient to the US.

Oh, wait...


mememe said:


> c) showing the USSR "who's the daddy".
> 
> 2. Two questions for you: what US was doing in Vietnam in the first place? Is it OK' with you to use chemical weapons, especially on civilians?


Napalm is not a chemical weapon.  Don't be dumb.


----------



## Sallow

Another laughable thread about "history" that has nothing to do with real history.

China and Russia went commie because under the rule of nobility they were starving to death. That's what happens with top down economics. The top takes everything and leaves the bottom do die. The caveat is..that people don't die willingly. 

That SHOULD be the takeaway. But to conservatives, the takeaway is the aftermath. What happened before the respective revolutions goes down the memory hole.


----------



## mememe

there4eyeM said:


> I have the impression that the massive elimination of huge population segments is pretty universally deplored in the west.
> .



And yet, it is the West that does it -- the elimination of huge population segments ! Still!


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> Napalm is not a chemical weapon.  .



It is.

But it is not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention, because its destructive effects are primarily due to fire.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the impression that the massive elimination of huge population segments is pretty universally deplored in the west.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, it is the West that does it -- the elimination of huge population segments ! Still!
Click to expand...


MURDER BY COMMUNISM








I know, I know:


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Napalm is not a chemical weapon.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is.
> 
> But it is not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention, because its destructive effects are primarily due to fire.
Click to expand...

Then it's not a chemical weapon.

According to what you're using instead of logic, conventional explosives are chemical weapons, too -- because they're made out of chemicals!


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> MURDER BY COMMUNISM



Care to go over each one of them? Or are you not the one for questioning your propaganda mantras?


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Napalm is not a chemical weapon.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is.
> 
> But it is not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention, because its destructive effects are primarily due to fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it's not a chemical weapon.
> 
> !
Click to expand...


Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between a "chemical weapon" and a "Chemical Weapons *Convention*"?


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> MURDER BY COMMUNISM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to go over each one of them? Or are you not the one for questioning your propaganda mantras?
Click to expand...

How about you disprove each figure?

Communism is murderous.  There is no rational way to deny it.

But irrational people will anyway.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is.
> 
> But it is not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention, because its destructive effects are primarily due to fire.
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's not a chemical weapon.
> 
> !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between a "chemical weapon" and a "Chemical Weapons *Convention*"?
Click to expand...

If napalm was a chemical weapon, it would be covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention.  

Do you know what a chemical weapon is?


----------



## Londoner

This is a scary but instructive post. It proves the ideological nature of movement conservatism, which ignores history in favor of pure propaganda.

The author of this thread should research Jewish Bolshevism. And while he's at it, he should study Hitler's war with Russia. 

_"The label "Judeo-Bolshevism" was used in Nazi Germany to equate Jews with communists, implying that the communist movement served Jewish interests and/or that all Jews were communists. According to Hannah Arendt, it was "the most efficient fiction of Nazi Propaganda". In Poland before World War II, &#379;ydokomuna was used in the same way to allege that the Jews were conspiring with the USSR to capture Poland. According to André Gerrits, "The myth of Jewish Communism was one of the most popular and widespread political prejudices in the first half of the 20th century, in Eastern Europe in particular."_

Meaning: Nazi Germany's hatred of the communists was so deep that they tied the Jews to that hatred in order to make it easier to persecute them. Hatred of Jews and communists became one. The other thing Hitler hated was Liberals because of their multicultural tolerance of non-Germans. Hitler's singular obsession was protecting and saving and cultivating the Real Germany, which Liberals - _in his view_ - had destroyed by over-assimilating the Jews to positions of power within finance, politics, and the culture industry.

Hitler's criticism of the French Revolution were identical to those of the father of Conservatism, Edmund Burke. Both men thought that Enlightenment Liberalism, by favoring the rights and dignity of man in the abstract, contained a flaccid universalism that destroyed the organic structure and pride of a people. Meaning: Hitler didn't think all men and nations were created equal. He didn't think all languages were created equal. He didn't think all religions were created equal. He thought Christians were better than Jews. He and Germany felt superior - as do Americans - to the Soviets. He believed that if a nation didn't protect its borders, language and culture from outsiders like the Jews and Soviets, that the nation would die, to be replaced by the Liberal state where everyone is equal and nobody is special. 

Hitler believed that the Liberalism of the French Revolution deeply threatened Germany's Christian folk religion and traditions - the very things that tied people together and gave them something to defend; something worth dying for. He thought that Liberalism, by claiming that German language and traditions were no more special than any other, was the first step to losing Germany. He was emphatically on the Right, and no serious historian has ever claimed any different. He was not a fiscal Libertarian (like American conservatives), but he was deeply conservative when it came to preserving the Real Germany.

The thread is doing exactly what Hitler did - only it ties liberals rather than Jews to the communist demons. This is very old and tired propaganda. 

The author of this thread needs to turn off Rightwing propaganda and study history. 

Hitler hated Jews and Communists and Liberal tolerance more than anything else. All of his complaints came from the Right, from the desire to preserve what was special about _his_ Germany - the _Real_ Germany. Like the American Right and their constant call to _Real_ Americans, Hitler wanted to save Real Germans from external contagions which, he claimed, were destroying the Real Germany. 

(Wow, just wow)

(Help. The person who started this thread probably votes - and he lacks information.)

At least study the völkisch movement. It is pure conservatism. It seeks to preserve what is special, unique and great about a nation. It doesn't think all people and languages and cultures are equal. It is the literal opposite of Liberalism. The Tea Party is the American version of the völkisch movement only insofar as they think Liberal multiculturalism is destroying the Real America.

(God help us)


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> MURDER BY COMMUNISM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to go over each one of them? Or are you not the one for questioning your propaganda mantras?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about you disprove each figure?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OK', I'll make a start:

THERE WAS, and THERE IS NO COMMUNIST SOCIETY!!!!!!

That's your first bogus statement flies out of the window.

No, it's your turn: take your second line and explain the numbers.


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> If napalm was a chemical weapon,
> 
> it would be covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention.



It still is.

Not all chemical weapons are covered by Chemical Weapons Convention. Why? I already explained it.


----------



## there4eyeM

Don Quixote is still tilting at 'communists'? Reds are done with, guys. There is no menace from them. The menace is single-minded doctrinaire thinking. Gotta be flex in the up-to-date, modern world.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to go over each one of them? Or are you not the one for questioning your propaganda mantras?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you disprove each figure?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK', I'll make a start:
> 
> THERE WAS, and THERE IS NO COMMUNIST SOCIETY!!!!!!
> 
> That's your first bogus statement flies out of the window.
> 
> No, it's your turn: take your second line and explain the numbers.
Click to expand...

Wow.  You're so disconnected from reality, I don't think there's any way we can continue this conversation.  

Enjoy your "Communists are awesome!!" delusion.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If napalm was a chemical weapon,
> 
> it would be covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still is.
> 
> Not all chemical weapons are covered by Chemical Weapons Convention. Why? I already explained it.
Click to expand...

You were wrong.  Napalm is not a chemical weapon.  Period.  End of story.

Take your childish, petulant foot-stamping elsewhere.


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> Wow.  You're so disconnected from reality, I don't think there's any way we can continue this conversation.
> 
> Enjoy your "Communists are awesome!!" delusion.



And this means that you decline to comment the gibberish you posted earlier?

No surprise there...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

there4eyeM said:


> Reds are done with, guys.



Barry had 2 communist parents , voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, supports single payer, is beloved by the CPUSA, and spoke lovingly of Frank Marshall Davis, ( Communist Party number: 47544) in his autobiography.

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be stupid?? What other explanation is possible?


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You're so disconnected from reality, I don't think there's any way we can continue this conversation.
> 
> Enjoy your "Communists are awesome!!" delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this means that you decline to comment the gibberish you posted earlier?
> 
> No surprise there...
Click to expand...

You had a chance to disprove the research.

You failed.


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> You had a chance to disprove the research.
> 
> You failed.



When?

I agreed to take it in turns. After all, it's YOUR crap we suppose to look through!

You refused.


----------



## dilloduck

mememe said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Flounders, Hitler, *Stalin*, Pol Pot and *Castro *are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How?
> 
> Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?
Click to expand...


Dresden, the atomic bomb and Napalm COMBINED don't come close to the amount of civilians that Stalin and Mao murdered.


----------



## mememe

dilloduck said:


> Dresden, the atomic bomb and Napalm COMBINED don't come close to the amount of civilians that Stalin and Mao murdered.



I don't know much about Mao, neither do you.

*But I would like to see numbers with the source in support of your claim regarding Stalin.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

dilloduck said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Flounders, Hitler, *Stalin*, Pol Pot and *Castro *are all in the same boat when it comes to evil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How?
> 
> Btw, where would you put Clinton, Bush, Obama with regard to your understanding of evil? Remind me, who ordered to erase CIVILIAN Dresden off the face of the Earth? Who ordered to use atomic weapons on civilians of Japan? And what was that with napalm in Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dresden, the atomic bomb and Napalm COMBINED don't come close to the amount of civilians that Stalin and Mao murdered.
Click to expand...


so true!! The great 20th Century liberals, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao  killed maybe 50 million each!! The A-bomb was a mere 120,000 or so.


----------



## dilloduck

mememe said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dresden, the atomic bomb and Napalm COMBINED don't come close to the amount of civilians that Stalin and Mao murdered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about Mao, neither do you.
> 
> *But I would like to see numbers with the source in support of your claim regarding Stalin.*
Click to expand...


Anyone doubting the Stalin and Mao massacres should be sitting in prison with the holocaust deniers.


----------



## mememe

dilloduck said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dresden, the atomic bomb and Napalm COMBINED don't come close to the amount of civilians that Stalin and Mao murdered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about Mao, neither do you.
> 
> *But I would like to see numbers with the source in support of your claim regarding Stalin.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone doubting the Stalin and Mao massacres should be sitting in prison with the holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...


You sound like a parrot.

Can you stop throwing mantras at me and *support your statement with numbers and SOURCES!*


----------



## mememe

All right, knowing your tradition of holding discussion by throwing slogans and mantras around, I am not holding my breath in anticipation of you coming up with anything even remotely intelligible...

I have to repeat myself for the third time:

According to OFFICIAL records
At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were criminals. The remaining %% were there for commiting counter-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.

In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.

The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.


Between 1921 (before the USSR was formed! before the civil war was over!) and 1964 (10 years after Stalin's death!) for counter-revolutionary crimes (acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason) were sentenced to death *642 980* people!!!!!

There is for you a little "picture" from a document








Have a look at the numbers and find me your usual "millions of billions" of "victims"!

And there is something else for you co contemplate:

now, in peaceful times in democratic and free USA the inmate population is *2.35 million *EXCLUDING Guantanamo and other CIA prisons! In just one year in US 1304 people were sentenced to death! (according to US death penalty information centre)


----------



## Uncensored2008

GHook93 said:


> Unfair attack! Stalin's USSR help win the war against Nazi Germany!



It was a bad trade.

Without U.S. Intervention, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have destroyed each other. Instead we ended up with Soviet terror worse than the Nazis for our efforts.

Stalin butchered 65 million of his own people, far more than Hitler did.



> That is also and unfair attack. This was right after WW II. No much they could have done!



Actually, stopping Mao would have been relatively simple and cost far less lives than the Korean war, which was a direct result of our inaction, was. We were already mobilized in the area, due to Japan. The real reason we let Mao take over is that we feared enraging the Soviets.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> Another laughable thread about "history" that has nothing to do with real history.
> 
> China and Russia went commie because under the rule of nobility they were starving to death. That's what happens with top down economics. The top takes everything and leaves the bottom do die. The caveat is..that people don't die willingly.
> 
> That SHOULD be the takeaway. But to conservatives, the takeaway is the aftermath. What happened before the respective revolutions goes down the memory hole.



So there was a lot more starvation in Russia prior to the Communist takeover?

Is that your claim, Shallow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sallow said:


> China and Russia went commie because under the rule of nobility they were starving to death. .



and then Stalin and Mao starved about 100 million to death under the rule of liberal nobility! Had they switched to Republican capitalism those 100 million would have gotten rich rather than slowly starved to death under liberalism.

See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ?


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> 1. Without U.S. Intervention, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have destroyed each other.
> 
> 
> 2. Stalin butchered 65 million of his own people,



1. Is that what they teach you in schools?! Why do you think Without U.S. Intervention, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have destroyed each other? Because of lend lease?! Have you ever compared the data for it with the USSR war time production? And what about the fact US was financing and supplying Hitler with raw materials and military equipment until 1944? Do you know about that?

"Bad trade"?!
US survived its economic catastrophe thanks WW2, and built itself into an empire! 


2. I think, you forgot few more "0" on the end. Come to that, 65 million Stalin had for his kebabs for breakfast! The true figure is million of billion of trillions!

Where do you get your numbers from?!  One should have no brain whatsoever just to repeat it, no wonder you, people, are so easily manipulated!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> So there was a lot more *starvation *in Russia prior to the Communist takeover?



Oh, -- STARVATION! I see...

In 1891 - 1892 in Russian Empire 30 million people were affected by famine;
in 1897 - 1898 ---- 27 million people were affected by famine;
in 1901 due to severe drought 24 regions of the Empire were affected;
in 1906 -- 49 regions of the Empire were affected;
in 1911 -- 20 million people were affected by shortage of food;
in 1913 ......

But if you think famine was exclusively "Russian" thing, think again:

in 1930-s famine affected Soviet Union, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechya, Germany, Britain and the US!
Are you about to tell me it was all because of "Stalin"?!


----------



## SayMyName

The one thing I know about Hitler is that I am tired of hearing about him. There were before Hitler menaces just like him, there were those that came after him, and there are many more that, unfortunately will come again. The only difference, for some reason, is we have a media love affair with hating him, all the while blinding us to those just like him that still lurk in every age amongst us, commiting attrocities on a scale, large or small, that we allow for them. They come in all creeds, colors, races, and religious beliefs, though we never allow ourselves to admit it when they may fall within our own ranks.


----------



## dilloduck

mememe said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about Mao, neither do you.
> 
> *But I would like to see numbers with the source in support of your claim regarding Stalin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone doubting the Stalin and Mao massacres should be sitting in prison with the holocaust deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a parrot.
> 
> Can you stop throwing mantras at me and *support your statement with numbers and SOURCES!*
Click to expand...



How dare you challenge what is common knowledge ? GET THEE TO PRISON, HATER !


----------



## mememe

dilloduck said:


> How dare you challenge what is common knowledge ? GET THEE TO PRISON, HATER !



Jawohl, mein kommandant!


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had a chance to disprove the research.
> 
> You failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> I agreed to take it in turns. After all, it's YOUR crap we suppose to look through!
> 
> You refused.
Click to expand...

I posted an image from an article, plus a link from the article, which is full of scholarly research to back it up.

You got a whiny that someone dared to criticize Communism and its murderous reality.

I've been saying it for years, and you do nothing but prove me right:  Communists are stupid.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know much about Mao, neither do you.
> 
> *But I would like to see numbers with the source in support of your claim regarding Stalin.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone doubting the Stalin and Mao massacres should be sitting in prison with the holocaust deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a parrot.
> 
> Can you stop throwing mantras at me and *support your statement with numbers and SOURCES!*
Click to expand...

I did.  You got all whiny.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> All right, knowing your tradition of holding discussion by throwing slogans and mantras around, I am not holding my breath in anticipation of you coming up with anything even remotely intelligible...
> 
> I have to repeat myself for the third time:
> 
> According to OFFICIAL records
> At the peak of "repressions" -- 1937 the whole system of GULAG contained 1.196.369 people. Out of that number 87% were criminals. The remaining %% were there for commiting counter-revolutionary crimes: acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason.
> 
> In 1947 GULAG contained 1.7 million inmates, out of that number -- 40% criminals, the rest were former Nazi police, trators, Nazi agents, OUN/UPA, Vlasovtsy, Forest Brothers and other "inocent" creatures.
> 
> The maximum number GULAG ever had was in 1950 -- 2 561 351; out of that number 77% were criminals, the rest: see paragraph above.
> 
> 
> Between 1921 (before the USSR was formed! before the civil war was over!) and 1964 (10 years after Stalin's death!) for counter-revolutionary crimes (acts of terrorism, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, treason) were sentenced to death *642 980* people!!!!!
> 
> There is for you a little "picture" from a document
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a look at the numbers and find me your usual "millions of billions" of "victims"!
> 
> And there is something else for you co contemplate:
> 
> now, in peaceful times in democratic and free USA the inmate population is *2.35 million *EXCLUDING Guantanamo and other CIA prisons! In just one year in US 1304 people were sentenced to death! (according to US death penalty information centre)




Soviet "criminals" were those whom the State didn't like for various reasons.

Remember, eating food you grew on a kollektive farm was a crime.

Communists are stupid.


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> I posted an image from an article,



I can see that you posted "an image" to some bullshit that even the article can't explain.

All right, Dave... I also posted "an image" of an official document and some translation for company, so you can memorise the data and avoid making an ass of yourself in future.


----------



## mememe

daveman said:


> Soviet "criminals" were those whom the State didn't like for various reasons.
> 
> .



Dave! Darling! Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union had a perfect society where the only crime was "someone did not like the state" (whatever that means to you)?!

Do you mean to say, that in the Soviet Union no one committed murders, robberies, no one was stealing or behaving disorderly in public; no one was driving carelessly or damaging someone's property???!!!

Is that what you think -- the USSR was a perfect society?!


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> 1. Is that what they teach you in schools?!



Sadly, no.

They teach the idiotic notion that our involvement in that European war was vital.

It wasn't.



> Why do you think Without U.S. Intervention, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have destroyed each other?



Because they were relatively evenly matched. 



> Because of lend lease?! Have you ever compared the data for it with the USSR war time production?



Lend lease was one aspect, but U.S. forces occupying part of the German war machine was another. 



> And what about the fact US was financing and supplying Hitler with raw materials and military equipment until 1944? Do you know about that?



What about the fact that your "fact" is utterly false?



> "Bad trade"?!
> US survived its economic catastrophe thanks WW2, and built itself into an empire!



War economies tend to create a boom, this is true. But the cost in lives was nowhere near worth it. Also the misery caused by the Evil Empire that could have been spared.



> 2. I think, you forgot few more "0" on the end. Come to that, 65 million Stalin had for his kebabs for breakfast! The true figure is million of billion of trillions!



I'll go with the University of Hawaii study on democide. They are considered authoritative.

Murder By Government--Democide



> Where do you get your numbers from?!  One should have no brain whatsoever just to repeat it, no wonder you, people, are so easily manipulated!



Do you use heavy drugs, or are you just an alcoholic?


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> 1. They teach the idiotic notion that our involvement in that European war was vital.
> It wasn't.
> 
> 
> 2. Because they were relatively evenly matched.
> 
> 
> 3. Lend lease was one aspect, but U.S. forces occupying part of the German war machine was another.
> 
> 
> 4. What about the fact that your "fact" is utterly false?
> 
> 
> 5. War economies tend to create a boom, this is true. But the cost in lives was nowhere near worth it.
> 
> 
> 6. I'll go with the University of Hawaii study on democide. They are considered authoritative.



1. It was vital for US: it pulled US out of an economic near-collapse.

2. Err?..  With such analytical skills, I hope you work for Pentagon!

3. The second front was open only after it became clear that the Soviet Union will roll through Europe and the whole of Germany. UK and US were eager not to let it happen. 

4. So, they didn't teach you that at school? I wonder, why?
From an article written by Paul Plaganis (Legislative Representative T.C.U. District #861 Albany, NY) based on a report presented to the Committee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, United States Senate, February 26, 1974, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1974, pp. 16-24.
&#8220;In 1938 Ford opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....

in September 1939 GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3- ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."....

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing...Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...&#8221; 
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...0IDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFrYrco08D5R_XZvfr7EmMoS3MiSw

&#8220;Ford vehicles were crucial to the revolutionary Nazi military strategy of blitzkrieg. Of the 350,000 trucks used by the motorized German Army as of 1942, roughly one-third were Ford-made. The Schneider report states that when American troops reached the European theater, "Ford trucks prominently present in the supply lines of the Wehrmacht were understandably an unpleasant sight to men in our Army." Indeed, the Cologne plant proved to be so important to the Reich's war effort that the Allies bombed it on several occasions. A secret 1944 US Air Force "Target Information Sheet" on the factory said that for the previous five years it had been "geared for war production on a high level."
&#8220;&#8230;the Nazis never nationalized Ford's German property&#8230; Dearborn maintained its 52 percent share through the duration of the war&#8230;. By 1943 half of Ford Werke's work force comprised foreign captives, including French, Russians, Ukrainians and Belgians. In August of 1944 a squad of SS men brought fifteen prisoners from the Buchenwald concentration camp to Ford Werke.&#8221; 
Major U.S. multi-nationals were also very well represented in the later Heinrich Himmler Circle and made cash contributions to the S.S. (the Sonder Konto S) up to 1944 &#8212; while World War II was in progress.

Almost a quarter of the 1944 Sonder Konto S contributions came from subsidiaries of International Telephone and Telegraph, represented by Kurt von Schröder. The 1943 payments from I.T.T. subsidiaries to the Special Account were as follows:

Mix & Genest A.G. 	5,000 RM
C. Lorenz AG 	20,000 RM
Felten & Guilleaume	25,000 RM
Kurt von Schroder	16,000 RM

And the 1944 payments were:
Mix & Genest A.G.	5,000 RM
C. Lorenz AG	20,000 RM
Felten & Guilleaume 	20,000 RM
Kurt von Schroder 	16,000 RM

Sosthenes Behn of International Telephone and Telegraph transferred wartime control of Mix & Genest, C. Lorenz, and the other Standard Telephone interests in Germany to Kurt von Schroder &#8212; who was a founding member of the Keppler Circle and organizer and treasurer of Himmler's Circle of Friends.&#8221; 

&#8220;Collaboration between American businessmen and Nazis in Axis Europe was paralleled by protection of Nazi interests in the United States. In 1939 American I.G. was renamed General Aniline & Film, with General Dyestuffs acting as its exclusive sales agent in the U.S. These names effectively disguised the fact that American I.G. (or General Aniline & Film) was an important producer of major war materials, including atabrine, magnesium, and synthetic rubber&#8230;.

An American citizen, Halbach, became president of General Dyestuffs in 1930 and acquired majority control in 1939 from Dietrich A. Schmitz, a director of American I.G. and brother of Hermann Schmitz, director of I.G. Farben in Germany and chairman of the board of American I.G. until the outbreak of war in 1939. After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Treasury blocked Halbach's bank accounts. In June 1942 the Alien Property Custodian seized Halbach's stock in General Dyestuffs and took over the firm as an enemy corporation under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Subsequently, the Alien Property Custodian appointed a new board of directors to act as trustee for the duration of the war. These actions were reasonable and usual practice, but when we probe under the surface another and quite abnormal story emerges.

Between 1942 and 1945 Halbach was nominally a consultant to General Dyestuffs. In fact Halbach ran the company, at $82,000 per year, Louis Johnson, former Assistant Secretary of War, was appointed president of General Dyestuffs by the 'U.S. Government, for which he received $75,000 a year. Louis Johnson attempted to bring pressure to bear on the U.S. Treasury to unblock Halbach's blocked funds and allow Halbach to develop policies contrary to the interests of the U.S., then at war with Germany. The argument used to get Halbach's bank accounts unblocked was that Halbach was running the company and that the Government-appointed board of directors "would have been lost without Mr. Halbach's knowledge."
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...74DYBQ&usg=AFQjCNHjDZIy0oKUB4IlXeny_fJn50hlrQ


&#8220;George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany&#8230;.
Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world. ..
More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz.&#8221;  
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...8oGABg&usg=AFQjCNFqGZbquPu6PD39S27TRcpdMSE71Q


5. To whom?! Your financial, industrial and military-industrial elites managed to re-built their empires out of WW2! 


6. "They are considered authoritative" by whom? By US propaganda consumers?
I asked you the SOURCES of your numbers! The PRIME sources! You know why you don't want to name them? Because the figure of "65 million" was thrown into circulation by Soldhenitsun -- a FICTION WRITER!!!!!!!! 
That's the prime source of all your "authoritative historians" -- FICTION! A FIGMENT of someone's IMAGINATION!  

Have a look at the figures for demographic changes in Russian Empire/Soviet Union, and show me your "murdered 65 million"!


----------



## Uncensored2008

^^Same old rehashed bullshit that has been rebutted a thousand times


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> ^^Same old rehashed bullshit that has been rebutted a thousand times



In other words: you had no clue that your country was helping both sides in WW2, and it hurts; you realised that "millions of billions of victims of Stalin" is a lot of bullshit, and you were (still are) fed crudely made propaganda that has no barring on reality, but it came as a shock to your system...

That's OK'... Maybe in time you will learn to think...


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> In other words: you had no clue that your country was helping both sides in WW2,



In other words, Ford is not the U.S. Government, your timeline is false, and the Communist propaganda you post is laughably false.

Ford America totally divested, by law, fro Fordwerks in 1941.

{All of these efforts failed to prevent the government from appointing executives at Ford in Germany who were more attuned and indebted to the Nazi Party than loyal to the company. A few members of management did retain their positions through the period spanning the Weimar Republic, the early Nazi period, and the war. But the power within the company clearly shifted from pre-Nazi or non-Nazi managers to government-sponsored managers, most pointedly Robert Schmidt, who was selected and appointed by the Nazi government. (Because, I believe, Fordwerke's senior management did not contest Schmidt's appointment, the company was officially allowed to remain under nominal American ownership.)

Who was in charge of Fordwerke when it used slave labor (it is now generally accepted that this occurred between 1941 and 1945)? By the time that slave labor was introduced, Fordwerke was clearly under the direct control of the Nazi government, though administered through the company headquarters in Cologne (albeit by Robert Schmidt). The meetings of the board of directors had already been suspended, and didn't resume until after the war. Although the American parent company desperately sought to retain control of their German assets, they failed to do so. Fordwerke became an instrument of the Nazi state. I certainly found no evidence that American management ever sanctioned the use of slave labor or that it even knew of the use of slave labor.}

The Ford Motor Company and the Third Reich



> and it hurts; you realised that "millions of billions of victims of Stalin" is a lot of bullshit, and you were (still are) fed crudely made propaganda that has no barring on reality, but it came as a shock to your system...



ROFL

Ah, you're a holocaust denier - a lying fuck of a Communist, how unique.

Stalin butchered around 65 million peace time civilians; including about 90% of the Kulaks in the forced starvation of the collectivization efforts.

Your attempts to alter history to a story more favorable to Communism is disgusting. Holocaust deniers such as you are the lowest form of scum. You piss on the graves of the victims and bare the stain of their murders by your attempt justify the horror you lie to cover.



> That's OK'... Maybe in time you will learn to think...



I think, you're a pile of shit.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> 1. In other words, Ford is not the U.S. Government,
> 
> 2. Stalin butchered around 65 million peace time civilians;
> 
> 3. including about 90% of the Kulaks
> 
> 4. in the forced starvation of the collectivization efforts.



1. So?!

Ford was US citizen! And his companies remained his throughout the war! Nazis NEVER had full control over Ford production!

US FINANCIAL CLANS were financing Hitler till 1944 through various schemes!

Are you to tell me US government had no control over its citizens?! Bollox! US politicos were whores as much then as they are now, and they depended on financial/industrial elites as much then as they are now. That's why they did nothing (apart from lip service) to stop US power clans from helping Hitler; and after the war, made US tax payers to pay Ford and Bush clans COMPENSATION for damage their businesses sustained in Germany at the hands of Americans US politicos sent to fight Nazis!


2. I provided you with official statistics for USSR penal system and with demographic chart. Show me WHERE your "65 million" fit in! And name me the PRIME source for that number (I hope you understand what "prime source" means).

3. "Kulak" is a "wealthy peasant". Kulaks who were committing crimes such as murder or damage to the property were tried for these crimes; and included into statistics I provided. 
The absolute majority of "kulaks" either stayed in their respective villages or moved into towns!


4. Did Stalin also force Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Germany, Hungary, Britain, USA into starvation? Because, you see, all countries named above suffered from famine at the very time the USSR did.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> 1. So?!
> 
> Ford was US citizen! And his companies remained his throughout the war! Nazis NEVER had full control over Ford production!



In fact, you're lying. The regime assumed complete control as early as 39' 



> US FINANCIAL CLANS were financing Hitler till 1944 through various schemes!



Oh yes, you floated the old Bush lie.

Damn, that's sure original.



> Are you to tell me US government had no control over its citizens?! Bollox! US politicos were whores as much then as they are now, and they depended on financial/industrial elites as much then as they are now. That's why they did nothing (apart from lip service) to stop US power clans from helping Hitler; and after the war, made US tax payers to pay Ford and Bush clans COMPENSATION for damage their businesses sustained in Germany at the hands of Americans US politicos sent to fight Nazis!



What the fuck are you yammering about, fool?

So you lie, then you claim the lie is evidence of an absurd conspiracy.

Yep, you're a Communist alright.



> 2. I provided you with official statistics for USSR penal system and with demographic chart. Show me WHERE your "65 million" fit in! And name me the PRIME source for that number (I hope you understand what "prime source" means).



Who the fuck cares? You posted something in Russian that has no meaning to anyone.

I'll stick to the University or Hawaii, who fully documents their findings.



> 3. "Kulak" is a "wealthy peasant". Kulaks who were committing crimes such as murder or damage to the property were tried for these crimes; and included into statistics I provided.



ROFL

Yeah, 27 million of them...

Damned criminals.

BTW sparky, you're not thinking you have any credibility - with anyone, are you?



> The absolute majority of "kulaks" either stayed in their respective villages or moved into towns!



Where they were murdered by Stalin isn't relevant, moron.



> 4. Did Stalin also forced Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Germany, Britain, USA into starvation? Because, you see, all countries named above suffered from famine at the very time the USSR did.



Yep, millions died of starvation in America and Britain..


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So?!
> 
> Ford was US citizen! And his companies remained his throughout the war! Nazis NEVER had full control over Ford production!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, you're lying. The regime assumed complete control as early as 39'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US FINANCIAL CLANS were financing Hitler till 1944 through various schemes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, you floated the old Bush lie.
> 
> Damn, that's sure original.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you yammering about, fool?
> 
> So you lie, then you claim the lie is evidence of an absurd conspiracy.
> 
> Yep, you're a Communist alright.
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck cares? You posted something in Russian that has no meaning to anyone.
> 
> I'll stick to the University or Hawaii, who fully documents their findings.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Yeah, 27 million of them...
> 
> Damned criminals.
> 
> BTW sparky, you're not thinking you have any credibility - with anyone, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute majority of "kulaks" either stayed in their respective villages or moved into towns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where they were murdered by Stalin isn't relevant, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Did Stalin also forced Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Germany, Britain, USA into starvation? Because, you see, all countries named above suffered from famine at the very time the USSR did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, millions died of starvation in America and Britain..
Click to expand...


You did not read the links I provided! They display proofs of the fact that both Ford and Bush families were NEVER out of control over their German production facilities!
And the schemes run by US financial clans are also concisely explained.

The rest of your post is the usual American response to the information you were not exposed to for decades: slogans, personal abuse and incoherent mumblings.
No prime sources... didn't have a clue about the famine in Poland, Britain, US or Romania...

At least refrain from posting your stupidity outside of English speaking forums -- the world has moved on...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Same old lies by the same old liars...

{Bush was one of seven directors (including W. Averell Harriman) of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank that operated as a clearing house for many assets and enterprises held by German steel magnate Fritz Thyssen.[4][5] In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders.[6] A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the United States seized the bank under the Trading with the Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of World War II.[4]

According to the journalist Joe Conason Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and that he was not a Nazi sympathizer.[7][dead link] The Anti-Defamation League[8] and historian Herbert Parmet[5] agreed with that assessment.}

Prescott Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Same old lies



READ the links I provided for Ford, Bush and your financial clans. Do yourself a favour.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted an image from an article,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you posted "an image" to some bullshit that even the article can't explain.
> 
> All right, Dave... I also posted "an image" of an official document and some translation for company, so you can memorise the data and avoid making an ass of yourself in future.
Click to expand...


The ghost of Stalin is laughing at you for believing his bullshit.  

You're one of his useful idiots.  Meanwhile, you just keep blaming the millions of deaths caused by Communism on other things.  

You contemptible piece of shit.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet "criminals" were those whom the State didn't like for various reasons.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave! Darling! Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union had a perfect society where the only crime was "someone did not like the state" (whatever that means to you)?!
> 
> Do you mean to say, that in the Soviet Union no one committed murders, robberies, no one was stealing or behaving disorderly in public; no one was driving carelessly or damaging someone's property???!!!
> 
> Is that what you think -- the USSR was a perfect society?!
Click to expand...

No, you moron.  I'm saying that things that weren't illegal in normal nations were illegal in the Soviet Union.

You know, things like disagreeing with the government.  

Is that a crime worthy of sentencing to camps of strict regimen to you?

Yes.  It probably is.

Moron.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Same old rehashed bullshit that has been rebutted a thousand times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words: you had no clue that your country was helping both sides in WW2, and it hurts; you realised that "millions of billions of victims of Stalin" is a lot of bullshit, and you were (still are) fed crudely made propaganda that has no barring on reality, but it came as a shock to your system...
> 
> That's OK'... Maybe in time you will learn to think...
Click to expand...


People who can think agree that Communism is a murderous failure.

People who can't think believe it's swell.  You know, like you do.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mememe said:


> Are you about to tell me it was all because of "Stalin"?!



how nice to see  liberals defending Stalin again. I guess with Barry in the White House liberals can be more open about it again. It was so cool the way the liberals gave the world's most evil man the A- bomb. Way to go liberals!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> how nice to see  liberals defending Stalin again. I guess with Barry in the White House liberals can be more open about it again. It was so cool the way the liberals gave the world's most evil man the A- bomb. Way to go liberals!!!



He's the second one this month who has tried to rewrite history in favor of Uncle Joe.

Obviously the American left is returning to the dream of a Soviet style dictatorship, and wants to convince everyone that Stalin was a good guy.

The ghost of Jim Wright lives... (Whoops, the old fucking traitor is still alive.)


----------



## mememe

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you about to tell me it was all because of "Stalin"?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how nice to see  liberals defending Barry in the White House liberals liberals!!!
Click to expand...


Do me a favour: leave me out of your American mumbo-jumbo jargon; it makes no sense


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Uncensored2008 said:


> He's the second one this month who has tried to rewrite history in favor of Uncle Joe.



I guess its human nature. The French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and Italians supported Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, Tojo, and Mussolini, respectively.

A liberal wants authority and the rapid change it can bring, while Jefferson knew freedom from liberal change was the Holy Grail without seeing the great 20th Century liberals. 

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to comprehend the subject so believes in Stalin the way a child believes in Santa Claus.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Obviously the American left )



"American left", "American right"... 

What "left", what "right"? 

You have two types of shit, and the difference between your "left" directed by your globalist financial/industrial elites, and your "right" directed by the same globalist financial/industrial elites is like the difference between dog shit and cat shit -- very subtle.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mememe said:


> globalist financial/industrial elites



Does this include South Korea? Do we need a global government to stop them from making the cheapest best cars it the world?? Maybe we should just make their customers our enemy since they want to buy the cheapest best cars in the world and thus really cause all the problems!!

Consumer greed is the root problem !!!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mememe said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you about to tell me it was all because of "Stalin"?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how nice to see  liberals defending Barry in the White House liberals liberals!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do me a favour: leave me out of your American mumbo-jumbo jargon; it makes no sense
Click to expand...


do you have the IQ to say what "it" is and why it doesn't make sense or are you just a typical liberal.


----------



## mememe

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> A liberal simply lacks the IQ to comprehend the subject so believes in Stalin



"Believes"?

Americans BELIEVE. Others -- HAVE OPINIONS!

"Liberals" believe in Stalin?  Only a product of decades of US propaganda could lump together "liberal" and Stalin. 

Why do you insist on using the words the meaning of which you do not understand?!


Marxism is a true &#8220;child of Western civilisation&#8221; of the 19-20 century &#8212;a &#8220;dialectical view of social change&#8221; (Wiki). From the off it was picked up by different thinkers and applied to the realities of their respective countries. In Russia it was adopted by a militant group of Jews closely connected to their German counterparts and financial clans of US and Britain (Rockefellers and Rothschilds); later this group became known as &#8220;Bolsheviks&#8221;.

&#8220;In Soviet Russia itself, the Marxist revolutionaries were often denounced as a Western implant, dominated by Jews, backed by Western money and manipulated by German intelligence&#8221; (Norman Davies. Europe a History). Led by Lenin and Trotsky, Bolsheviks took power in two capital cities of the Russian Empire and started a new era in the history of Russia and the world. 

And here we come to an interesting question: why, so opposed to &#8220;commies&#8221; West comes like a ton of bricks on Stalin, but has nothing negative to say about neither Lenin nor Trotsky? Could it be because *Stalin* who followed his own brand of Marxism, *put an end to Westernised ideology of Lenin and Trotsky faction in Russia, and reversed some most damaging effects of their policies,* bringing Marxism in line with traditional Russian life-style, Orthodox values and open mind-set? 

The fact is -- *practically all the ideological paradigm of the modern West implemented by politicians of "Generation '68" and commonly referred to as Liberalism, is a derivative of Marxism, only not in its moderate (Stalin&#8217;s) manifestation, but in its extreme.* Calling a spade a spade, -- *the West now lives and acts according to the precepts of Trotsky, Gramsci, and the recommendations of Marcuse. *The brightest representative of this trend is *Bernard Henri Levy*; but he's only a junior student of *Sartre *who in his time blessed Pol Pot to "build a just society".  

*Sick, distorted, pushed to the absurd Trotskist dogma of Marxism is the main current ideological path of the West,* where - exactly in line with the precepts of Lev Davidovich Trotsky - a cruel doctrine of complete atomization of human beings and full control of them by society represented by the "selected intellectuals" (Levy)  is implemented. 
Abolition of gender differences; 
the destruction of the authority of a family; 
the destruction of a family as a fundamental unit of society; 
abolition of traditional cultural values; 
reliance of the elites on the newcomers from alien cultures in order to control the indigenous population; 
freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and actions; 
a ban on freedom of thought (thought crimes); 
and dictate of minority agenda groups (political correctness); 
denial of majority right; 
an all-consuming lie, which is to be accepted as truth without a question because &#8220;I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it&#8221; gave way to liberal Trotsky paradigm &#8220;*elite knows best*&#8221;... 
And, of course, the "export of revolution" &#8211; a spite of &#8220;coloured revolutions&#8221; and an &#8220;Arab Spring&#8221; &#8211; all in the name of &#8220;spreading democracy&#8221;... That is -- the forcible introduction of the "right" ideas in the "wrong" heads by means of the most "humane" in the world -- NATO military machine...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mememe said:


> "Liberals" believe in Stalin?  Only a product of decades of US propaganda could lump together "liberal" and Stalin.




dear, it was the liberals who spied for Stalin , not the Girl Scouts! How is it possible that you didn't know that unless you have a liberal's IQ??????????????


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> "Believes"?
> 
> Americans BELIEVE. Others -- HAVE OPINIONS!
> 
> "Liberals" believe in Stalin?  Only a product of decades of US propaganda could lump together "liberal" and Stalin.
> 
> Why do you insist on using the words the meaning of which you do not understand?!



Yeah, you're an ignorant buffoon alright.

You know absolutely nothing about Marxism or Lenin - but you'll spew leftist bullshit without regard.

Lemme guess, you're a fucking Chomskyite, ameyerite?


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> You know absolutely nothing about Marxism or Lenin



Really?!  



Enlighten me!


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Really?!
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten me!



So you're a Chomskyite, orncha?

I should have caught earlier, when you started spewing the most absurd bullshit....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mememe said:


> Stalin: Only in such a society [a wealthy communist society] personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not "on paper".



Republican: real freedom comes from capitalism and limited government while Hitler Stalin and Mao killed 150 million. China just switched to capitalism and proved it once again but still a liberal lacks the IQ to see the obvious.


----------



## mememe

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin: Only in such a society [a wealthy communist society] personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not "on paper".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican: real freedom comes from capitalism and limited government while Hitler Stalin and Mao killed 150 million. China just switched to capitalism and proved it once again but still a liberal lacks the IQ to see the obvious.
Click to expand...


What are you muttering on about?

How many people around the world were killed by Republican US administrations? How many people around the world were killed by Democratic US administrations? How many people around the world were killed by Conservative, Labour, and now -- Lib-Dem UK governments? French governments of all shades?..

NONE of the INTERNATIONAL wars was started by a country with a social economy! You know why? Because social economies are directed inwards: they need internal and external stability to develop.
While all capitalist economies go through periods of economic crisis and during these periods they need external conflicts -- wars -- to get them out of the crisis.

China did not "switch" onto anything; they simply are attempting to combine the elements of capitalist and socialist economies.

Name me one former socialist country that prospered after it turned to capitalism!


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> What are you muttering on about?



What he says is completely correct. There can be no freedom without economic freedom. No people can have liberty if they lack the freedom to engage in voluntary trade with others. Whether this is trade of goods, ideas, or trade of their time for wages.

A person assigned work by a government who cares for them, as Chomsky advocates, is a slave. The promise and reality of Communism is slavery. Chomsky promises that "Massah  Gubmint will takes care of y'all" so slavery is appealing. 

But slavery is never a good deal for the slave. 



> How many people around the world were killed by Republican US administrations? How many people around the world were killed by Democratic US administrations? How many people around the world were killed by Conservative, Labour, and now -- Lib-Dem UK governments? French governments of all shades?..



One U.S. Citizen has been murdered on order of a sitting president. One.

The president who ordered this murder, without charge, without arrest, without trial, without any hint of due process, is Barack Obama. You'll excuse him, since he promotes the slavery you desire. 



> NONE of the INTERNATIONAL wars was started by a country with a social economy! You know why? Because social economies are directed inwards: they need internal and external stability to develop.



Yeah, the Soviet Union sure never started wars - oh wait - you're telling lies again.

Hey, you're a Chomsky Commie - lying is part of the package. 



> While all capitalist economies go through periods of economic crisis and during these periods they need external conflicts -- wars -- to get them out of the crisis.



What nonsense. You've never been exposed to even elementary economics.



> China did not "switch" onto anything; they simply are attempting to combine the elements of capitalist and socialist economies.



China has a fascist economy, just a Lenin installed with the NEP. Well connected corporations entangled with the ruling government.

Can you say "GM" and "Obamacare?" I knew you could.



> Name me one former socialist country that prospered after it turned to capitalism!



East Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, ad infintium.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you about to tell me it was all because of "Stalin"?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how nice to see  liberals defending Barry in the White House liberals liberals!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do me a favour: leave me out of your American mumbo-jumbo jargon; it makes no sense
Click to expand...

And yet you feel qualified to discuss American politics on an American message board.

Perhaps you should just go away.


----------



## daveman

mememe said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> A liberal simply lacks the IQ to comprehend the subject so believes in Stalin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Believes"?
> 
> Americans BELIEVE. Others -- HAVE OPINIONS!
> 
> "Liberals" believe in Stalin?  Only a product of decades of US propaganda could lump together "liberal" and Stalin.
> 
> Why do you insist on using the words the meaning of which you do not understand?!
> 
> 
> Marxism is a true child of Western civilisation of the 19-20 century a dialectical view of social change (Wiki). From the off it was picked up by different thinkers and applied to the realities of their respective countries. In Russia it was adopted by a militant group of Jews closely connected to their German counterparts and financial clans of US and Britain (Rockefellers and Rothschilds); later this group became known as Bolsheviks.
> 
> In Soviet Russia itself, the Marxist revolutionaries were often denounced as a Western implant, dominated by Jews, backed by Western money and manipulated by German intelligence (Norman Davies. Europe a History). Led by Lenin and Trotsky, Bolsheviks took power in two capital cities of the Russian Empire and started a new era in the history of Russia and the world.
> 
> And here we come to an interesting question: why, so opposed to commies West comes like a ton of bricks on Stalin, but has nothing negative to say about neither Lenin nor Trotsky? Could it be because *Stalin* who followed his own brand of Marxism, *put an end to Westernised ideology of Lenin and Trotsky faction in Russia, and reversed some most damaging effects of their policies,* bringing Marxism in line with traditional Russian life-style, Orthodox values and open mind-set?
> 
> The fact is -- *practically all the ideological paradigm of the modern West implemented by politicians of "Generation '68" and commonly referred to as Liberalism, is a derivative of Marxism, only not in its moderate (Stalins) manifestation, but in its extreme.* Calling a spade a spade, -- *the West now lives and acts according to the precepts of Trotsky, Gramsci, and the recommendations of Marcuse. *The brightest representative of this trend is *Bernard Henri Levy*; but he's only a junior student of *Sartre *who in his time blessed Pol Pot to "build a just society".
> 
> *Sick, distorted, pushed to the absurd Trotskist dogma of Marxism is the main current ideological path of the West,* where - exactly in line with the precepts of Lev Davidovich Trotsky - a cruel doctrine of complete atomization of human beings and full control of them by society represented by the "selected intellectuals" (Levy)  is implemented.
> Abolition of gender differences;
> the destruction of the authority of a family;
> the destruction of a family as a fundamental unit of society;
> abolition of traditional cultural values;
> reliance of the elites on the newcomers from alien cultures in order to control the indigenous population;
> freedom for anti-Christian propaganda and actions;
> a ban on freedom of thought (thought crimes);
> and dictate of minority agenda groups (political correctness);
> denial of majority right;
> an all-consuming lie, which is to be accepted as truth without a question because I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it gave way to liberal Trotsky paradigm *elite knows best*...
> And, of course, the "export of revolution"  a spite of coloured revolutions and an Arab Spring  all in the name of spreading democracy... That is -- the forcible introduction of the "right" ideas in the "wrong" heads by means of the most "humane" in the world -- NATO military machine...
Click to expand...

When you steal posts from other message boards, you really should post the source.

Marxism-Trotskism, Neo-Liberalism and their historic roots - Historum - History Forums


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> East Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, ad infintium.



2009 poll: 57% of East Germans want socialism back;

Hungary is begging for a "safety net" to avoid economic collapse;

50% of Poles live and work outside of Poland for lack of jobs; 25% of Polish kids who still live in Poland grow up in poverty; Polish health system that was set up during socialist era and is still functioning, is "worn out" (over 20 years on!);

Czech Republic is better off then any other former socialist state, but it still has 8.3% unemployment; national debt in 2011 was 41.2% and rising; 

In 2011 Latvian MP said in an interview to Latvijas av&#299;ze:

"When one thinks about the EU and begins to understand what they have done to us, one wants to quickly get out of this union. First, they made us uncompetitive. Yes, due to the inadequately low payments to agricultural workers, due to the elimination of the sugar industry and the destruction of fisheries.

I think we should leave. Where to next? We should think about it "- said Kalnins. "At the moment we can not do anything" - he added, stressing that the EU has also deprived Latvia of its sovereignty.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the first thing we did was to rush headlong away from it all, turning our backs to the past and turning sharply to the west. But is it all so good on the "west side"? Today I can not find anything out there with the sign "plus". There we lost our independence. The only thing that's left out of our independence is a declaration of May 4 and August 21.

You can criticise the collective farms, the "iron curtain" on the borders, but in those days there was life in the villages. There were plenty of manufacturing, schools and children, health and social care, but we did not defend that life. The situation now is that we are implementing economic policies determined by Brussels and financial lenders, and political affairs are dictated by Washington.

*Looking at what happened in the villages and towns of Latvia, how things are with my friends and colleagues in music and art, I am having great grievances about where this Western orientation has led us...* "

next...


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yeah, the Soviet Union sure never started wars - oh wait - you're telling lies again.
> 
> .



Name one.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> One U.S. Citizen has been murdered on order of a sitting president. One.



What about bloody coups and civil wars in Africa and Latin America orchestrated and financed by US?

What about Vietnam? Grenada?

What about US war on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria?

What about US support of international terrorism and militant Islamic groups?

What about US (CIA) encouraging drug production directed at Russia, Europe and inevitably ending in US itself? All just to raise some revenue...


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> China has a *fascist economy*,



After this remark there is no point in discussing anything more complicated than McDonald's menu with you...


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Soviet Union sure never started wars - oh wait - you're telling lies again.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...


Angola, Afghanistan, Vietnam....

Seriously, you try to peddle the most absurd bullshit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> What about bloody coups and civil wars in Africa and Latin America orchestrated and financed by US?



What about Angola, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada.



> What about Vietnam? Grenada?



Soviet aggression, pretty shameful.



> What about US war on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria?



Serbia, enslaved by the Communists for 50 years. Afghanistan, invaded by the Soviet Empire. 

Seriously dude, you have some fucked up ideas.



> What about US support of international terrorism and militant Islamic groups?



More lies? Kewl.



> What about US (CIA) encouraging drug production directed at Russia, Europe and inevitably ending in US itself? All just to raise some revenue...



Yeah, right...

And what about the faked moon landing or water fluoridation?


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> China has a *fascist economy*,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After this remark there is no point in discussing anything more complicated than McDonald's menu with you...
Click to expand...


Yes, because you're a stupid fuck that doesn't grasp that a fascist economy is the merger of corporate and state power structures.

You know nothing of Mussolini or economic systems. You spout mindless rhetoric with no grasp of the concepts involved.

Typical Chomskyite.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the Soviet Union sure never started wars - oh wait - you're telling lies again.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Angola, Afghanistan, Vietnam....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Err...?...

War in Angola? Which one? I only assume you mean the CIVIL WAR. Yes, both USSR and US were feeding their respective groups of support, but the war itself was a result of DECOLONISATION!

In 1979 the USSR fulfilled its OBLIGATION under a TREATY to come to the aid of a LEGITIMATE government! After the US stirred up a coup there!

Vietnam?! Are you really THAT ignorant?! The Vietnam war started as a war of LIBERATION from French and Japanese occupiers! Fearful of the spreading populiarity of communist and socialist ideas after WW2, the US took sides with the French and in 1964 invaded Vietnam.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about bloody coups and civil wars in Africa and Latin America orchestrated and financed by US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about Angola, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about Vietnam? Grenada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soviet aggression, pretty shameful.
Click to expand...


Soviet aggression in ANGOLA? When did USSR invade it?
Same for Cuba and Vietnam.

In Grenada (the ONLY war the US actually won!) Americans were fighting CIVIL WORKERS that were trying to build an airport! Even UK was embarrassed by US actions in Grenada!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Serbia, enslaved by the Communists for 50 years.



Hold on!

I got it: in your mind "communists" are aliens that parachuted on Earth from outer-space! 


Have a look at the names of the members of the communist party of Serbia (or shall we say -- YUGOSLAVIA!!!!!) and find those who were NOT citizens of Yugoslavia.
Communists of Yugoslavia were YUGOSLAVS!

How can CITIZENS of a country "enslave" THEMSELVES?????!!!!!!! 

More to it: after the WW2 communist and socialist parties were VERY popular throughout Europe because they were the ones' who organised anti-Nazi/fascist resistance!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> What about US support of international terrorism and militant Islamic groups?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More lies? Kewl.
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


Excuse me?!

Are you about to tell us it was not the US who armed and trained future Taliban? Maybe OBL wasn't CIA creation? 
US still supports Islamic terrorists in Northern Caucasus.
And are we to close our eyes on the fact that the US is assisting Islamic militants (Al-Q) in Libya and Syria?
Or are you expecting people to forget how US/NATO fought on a side of KLA in Serbia?!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yes, because you're a stupid fuck that doesn't grasp that a fascist economy *is the merger of corporate and state power structures.*
> 
> .



a) a "merger of corporate and state power structures" is an accurate description of the US (and Western in general) economy; but has nothing to do with China;

b) "fascist economy" is as much an oxymoron as "American intelligence".


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Soviet aggression in ANGOLA? When did USSR invade it?



Seriously, the shit you try to pull...

{The government of the Soviet Union, well aware of South African activity in southern Angola, flew Cuban soldiers into Luanda one week before November 11, the date on which Angolan nationalists had agreed to declare independence. While Cuban officers led the mission and provided the bulk of the troop force, 60 Soviet officers in the Congo joined the Cubans on November 12. The Soviet leadership expressly forbid the Cubans from intervening in Angola's civil war, focusing the mission on containing South Africa.[2]}

Angola



> Same for Cuba and Vietnam.



Yes, in all cases the Soviets created a puppet force backed and funded by the Kremlin.



> In Grenada (the ONLY war the US actually won!) Americans were fighting CIVIL WORKERS that were trying to build an airport! Even UK was embarrassed by US actions in Grenada!



Spetsnaz - it's Spanish for "civil worker."

ROFL.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Hold on!
> 
> I got it: in your mind "communists" are aliens that parachuted on Earth from outer-space!



???

I thought you Chomskyites said they were angels from Heaven, perfect and without flaw?



> Have a look at the names of the members of the communist party of Serbia (or shall we say -- YUGOSLAVIA!!!!!) and find those who were NOT citizens of Yugoslavia.
> Communists of Yugoslavia were YUGOSLAVS!
> 
> How can CITIZENS of a country "enslave" THEMSELVES?????!!!!!!!



Dunno, why don't you ask Tito? Or how about Stalinist thug, Milosovic?



> More to it: after the WW2 communist and socialist parties were VERY popular throughout Europe because they were the ones' who organised anti-Nazi/fascist resistance!



Especially when Soviet Tanks crushed all opposition under their treads...


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Excuse me?!
> 
> Are you about to tell us it was not the US who armed and trained future Taliban?



Fucking morons, trotting out the same old tired lies, again and again, and again.

The Mujahadeen was not the Taliban. Never was - despite the lies. The Taliban was formed in 1995 - LONG after the Soviet invasion was repelled. 



> Maybe OBL wasn't CIA creation?



ROFL

Stupid lies from stupid liars..

Damn, you trot out every bit of repeatedly refuted bullshit in the book.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi creation. The CIA never trained, funded, engaged, or anything else him. He was a radical Islamist, a Wahabbi, who brought LOTS of CASH to play holy warrior. The Muja were cool with that, as long as he paid.



> US still supports Islamic terrorists in Northern Caucasus.



Sure they do - it's not like you would blatantly lie - oh wait, you're a Chomskyite - you lie as a matter of course...



> And are we to close our eyes on the fact that the US is assisting Islamic militants (Al-Q) in Libya and Syria?



That is questionable. 



> Or are you expecting people to forget how US/NATO fought on a side of KLA in Serbia?!



I haven't forgotten. And the bombing of the Kosovo commuter train was probably a war crime - still that doesn't make the bullshit you post true.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mememe said:


> a) a "merger of corporate and state power structures" is an accurate description of the US (and Western in general) economy; but has nothing to do with China;



This is true under the Democrats with Obamacare being a perfect  example. 

This is  not true under Republicans who have been opposed to state power since Jefferson founded the party in 1793


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet aggression in ANGOLA? When did USSR invade it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the shit you try to pull...
> 
> {The government of the Soviet Union, well aware of South African activity in southern Angola, flew Cuban soldiers into Luanda one week before November 11, the date on which Angolan nationalists had agreed to declare independence. While Cuban officers led the mission and provided the bulk of the troop force, 60 Soviet officers in the Congo joined the Cubans on November 12. *The Soviet leadership expressly forbid the Cubans from intervening in Angola's civil war, focusing the mission on containing South Africa.*[2]}
Click to expand...


So," the Soviet leadership *expressly forbid *the Cubans from *intervening in Angola's civil war*" is, in your opinion an INVASION and AGGRESSION???!!!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yes, in all cases the Soviets created a puppet force backed and funded by the Kremlin.
> 
> .



Of course the Soviet Union supported the people's choice, but did not "create" it.
Wonder, how I know it? 
1. Vietnamese made up their mind as far back as 1941, when the USSR had major problems far from that part of the globe.

2. 20 years AFTER the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Cubans still stand by their choice!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spetsnaz - it's Spanish for "civil worker."
> 
> .



"Spetsnaz" existed only in delusional minds of Americans. BRITISH were building that airport!!!!! Yes, they were using Cubans. But they were NOT military. And Britain warned US about it on few occasions. 

US trashed UK project in Grenada!!!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on!
> 
> I got it: in your mind "communists" are aliens that parachuted on Earth from outer-space!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> I thought you Chomskyites said they were angels from Heaven, perfect and without flaw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a look at the names of the members of the communist party of Serbia (or shall we say -- YUGOSLAVIA!!!!!) and find those who were NOT citizens of Yugoslavia.
> Communists of Yugoslavia were YUGOSLAVS!
> 
> How can CITIZENS of a country "enslave" THEMSELVES?????!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunno, why don't you ask Tito? Or how about Stalinist thug, Milosovic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to it: after the WW2 communist and socialist parties were VERY popular throughout Europe because they were the ones' who organised anti-Nazi/fascist resistance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially when Soviet Tanks crushed all opposition under their treads...
Click to expand...


Does your incoherent speech mean you realised how ridiculous your statement was?

Do you agree that the citizens of a country (any country) can not "invade", or "enslave" themselves?

Communist party of Serbia was the force behind anti-Nazi/fascist people's war in what later became Yugoslavia. Naturaly, the people chose communists to lead them in peace as well.

And what happened in Yugoslavia is called COLOURED REVOLUTION. It was orchestrated by the US and performed by the same scenario later used in the USSR, other countries of Europe, Africa and the ME.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> a) a "merger of corporate and state power structures" is an accurate description of the US (and Western in general) economy; but has nothing to do with China;



ROFL

Are you daft? NO corporation exists in China without the involvement of the Communist party and the government. Corporations are simply an arm of the central government, which still sets production levels. It's been shown that workers (iSlaves) at the Apple Foxconn plant in Shenzen risk the lives of their FAMILIES should they anger the Apple lords. The Communists will kill the family to ensure that Apple is happy,



> b) "fascist economy" is as much an oxymoron as "American intelligence".



You are a moron.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?!
> 
> Are you about to tell us it was not the US who armed and trained future Taliban?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking morons, trotting out the same old tired lies, again and again, and again.
> 
> The Mujahadeen was not the Taliban. Never was - despite the lies.
Click to expand...


I think, your naivety exceeds even your ignorance!

 Examples: 
Mullah Omar (remember him?) was mujahed, then a leader of taliban government.

Nek Muhammad. Was a mujahed; then joined taliban, run their military training in Waziristan; was close to OBL. 

Rashid Dostum was fighting on the side of the Soviets against mujaheds; then joined them.

Malik was fighting against mujaheds; then joined them; then was fighting against taliban; then joined taliban; then again fought against them and fought against Dostum.

OBL... well, you know his story.

Hekmatyar was given around $1 billion to fight the Soviets, which he did; but he also fought other mujaheds; worked closely with OBL; now is supporting taliban and other groups fighting against the current invasion.

If you want more examples of "mujaheds/talibs/etc" let me know.


Oh, and OBL was not a Saudi creation. He was an ENEMY of the house of Saud!


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And are we to close our eyes on the fact that the US is assisting Islamic militants (Al-Q) in Libya and Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you expecting people to forget how US/NATO fought on a side of KLA in Serbia?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't forgotten. And the bombing of the Kosovo commuter train was probably a war crime - still that doesn't make the bullshit you post true.
Click to expand...


1. How is it "questionable" when it is splattered even across WESTERN media! During war on Libya your media was keeping quiet; but with Syrians DISPLAYING Al-Q militants who came all the way from Libya and are openly supported by the US even your media could no longer keep the fact under the wraps. 


2. Yes, it was a war crime; as was the bombing of other civilian targets across Serbia and contamination of the land by DU.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> Are you daft? NO corporation exists in China without the involvement of the Communist party and the government.



Is that your understanding of how economy works?


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> I think, your naivety exceeds even your ignorance!
> 
> Examples:
> Mullah Omar (remember him?) was mujahed, then a leader of taliban government.



Your lies are pretty stupid.

It's why you are a pariah here.

{Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of Najibullah's Soviet-backed regime in 1992, the country fell into chaos as various mujahideen factions fought for control. Omar returned to Singesar and founded a madrassah.[21] According to one legend, *in 1994 he had a dream in which a woman told him:* "We need your help; you must rise. You must end the chaos. Allah will help you."[21] Mullah Omar started his movement with less than 50 armed madrassah students, known simply as the Taliban (Students). His recruits came from madrassahs in Afghanistan and from the Afghan refugee camps across the border in Pakistan. }

Mohammed Omar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Oh, and OBL was not a Saudi creation. He was an ENEMY of the house of Saud!



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Fool.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, your naivety exceeds even your ignorance!
> 
> Examples:
> Mullah Omar (remember him?) was mujahed, then a leader of taliban government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lies are pretty stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and OBL was not a Saudi creation. He was an ENEMY of the house of Saud!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Fool.
Click to expand...


What, you didn't know that Mullah Omar was a mujahed who fought against the Soviets and was trained by the US/UK instructors? 
Or you didn't know that Mullah Omar lead Taliban government in Afghanistan prior to US invasion?



Do you read your own papers? There for you: 2009. The Washington Times: "A brazen attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabias top counterterrorism official shows that al Qaeda has not been eliminated in its birthplace and is redirecting its efforts to target members of the Saudi royal family, analysts and U.S. counterterrorism officials say."


----------



## Uncensored2008

You're a fucking moron - and a waste of time.


----------



## mememe

Uncensored2008 said:


> You're a fucking moron - and a waste of time.



Does it mean, you finally realised that Mullah Omar, a leader of Taliban government, indeed was trained by US as a mujahed? And OBL and his Al-Q were attempting to assassinate Saudi royals?

At last!...


----------



## logical4u

Flanders said:


> *In my mind these two articles have a single theme: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Aren't Murderous Communists Condemned Like Nazis Are?
> Tue, Aug 07 2012 00:00:00 E A13_ISSUES
> By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
> Posted 08/06/2012 06:58 PM ET
> 
> Socialists And Communists Are Even Bigger Murderers Than Hitler's Nazis Were - Investors.com
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> August 7, 2012
> Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> James Simpson
> 
> Blog: Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Walter E. Williams asks:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught  and possibly is covered up  is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history.
> 
> One answer can be seen in those who rant against war while calling for bigger government. The number of dead caused by all of the wars in the past five centuries is less than the total the number of murders modern totalitarian governments committed against their own people in just the last century.  The totals cited by Professor Williams should shock every so-called pacificist out of their cherished benevolent-government fantasies:
> 
> Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
> 
> The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph J. Rummel's website, at Freedom, Democide, War: Home Page, and in his book "Death by Government."
> 
> How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle.
> 
> Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Interestingly, it was Adolf Hitler, not Lenin or Stalin, who clearly stated everything Hussein & Company personify. Hitler reduced everything they do to the four words in the final sentence:*
> 
> 
> 
> *Williams identifies the worst offenders:*
> 
> 
> 
> *I want to separate the children from the others by turning to Hitler again:*
> 
> 
> 
> *If you doubt where American Communists were going long before Hussein came along apply Hitlers Children to Communist control of the public education system in this country.
> 
> Ninety-nine percent of Socialist education is formulated especially to indoctrinate young children into the joys of collectivism. Implanting the idea that there is good totalitarian government and bad totalitarian government is critical. All of the propaganda apparatus at the governments disposal cannot bury the bad. There is too much known about totalitarian governments to hide the bad; more so since the Internet.
> 
> Further education all the way through higher education reinforces the concept of good and bad totalitarian governments. Proof: Professor Williams et al., exposing totalitarianisms innate cruelty drives Socialists to point to Communist China and say See, communism is working. Thats good totalitarian government.
> 
> Obviously, the media elite, along with stalwarts of the Democrat party, totally ignore the Mao cited by Professor Williams, and the incomprehensible brutality Mao initiated against his own people in order to make communism work.
> 
> To Socialists/Communists there is but one sin: Pointing out that totalitarian governments must kill everyone who resists no matter how slight that resistence might be, and they must kill quickly, without mercy, lest they be overthrown by revolution.  In the end, every totalitarian government will always do what Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Castro and others did best  murder, torture and enslave.  Regardless of the evidence some still insist that a benevolent totalitarian government is possible.
> 
> Moving on
> 
> I learned something from James Simpsons piece that surprised me:*
> 
> 
> 
> *I was surprised to learn there were Muslim Communists with so much political influence, while I understand the marriage between the two ideologies perfectly.  Islam and Communism are totalitarian theocracies.
> 
> Again, one can turn to Hitler who sanctioned marriage between totalitarians in a different context: Nazi Party recruiters had one standing order: Recruit new members from the ranks of the Communists because they always make the best Fascists. The context is different because Communists will not make the best Muslims, nor will Muslims make the best Communists.
> 
> Identical methods of subjugation aside, Muslims are asking for the dirty end of the stick on this one. A Muslim Communist might believe that Communist ideology can be adapted to accommodate Islam, while Communists will never allow any Supreme Deity religion to survive after Socialists/Communists consolidate political power. Indeed, Muslims will be slaughtered first because Communists fear all other forms of totalitarian government. Hitler covered that one, too.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no way in hell one totalitarian government will share power with another for very long. Hitler understood what had to be done; so he invaded the Soviet Union. Hitler well-knew that Stalin would have done it to Nazi Germany at the first opportunity. In fact, the very nature of totalitarian government abhors power-sharing. In that same vain it is logical to assume Mussolinis Italy was first on Hitlers hit list after Germany won the war.
> 
> WWII
> 
> Ive always said the wrong side won WWII in Europe. Communism is still alive and well while Fascism has disappeared. There is not one openly Fascist country today although many countries are dictatorships. There are several Communist countries.
> 
> Had Nazi Germany won WWII in Europe I doubt very much if that brand of totalitarian government would have survived after Hitler and Mussolini died. It is certain Nazism would not be a worldwide movement today as is socialism/communism.  Fascists most certainly never would have infiltrated our government to the extent Communists have succeeded. In short: Hussein the Fascist would not have come as far as did Hussein the Communist.
> 
> Finally, the single theme I referred to in the first sentence of this thread:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans  who would have cringed at the thought of genocide  who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.  _Walter E. Williams_
> 
> *And this:​*
> . . . a huge network of U.S. and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America.  _James Simpson_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Always paid attention to what Walter Williams had to say, I will have to look for more of James Simpson's stuff.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mememe said:


> Does it mean, you finally realised that Mullah Omar, a leader of Taliban government, indeed was trained by US as a mujahed? And OBL and his Al-Q were attempting to assassinate Saudi royals?
> 
> At last!...



It means that like most Chomskyites, you throw out bullshit, when refuted, you toss out unrelated factoids and act as if it has some relevance.

You're dishonest and stupid - which makes engaging you boring.


----------



## Flanders

*Jim ONeill wrote a fabulous piece that includes a question I have been trying to answer most of my adult life: *

Now you tell me, how do the Nazis, an offshoot of Big Government fascism, end up on the right side of the political spectrum (let alone the far right)?

Right Wing Nazis: The Big Lie
       By Jim ONeill
       November 3, 2015

Right Wing Nazis: The Big Lie​
*One answer I told myself is that the United States fought alongside the Soviet Union during WWII; hence, Communism gained respectability by association in this country. America’s victory in WWII is praised as it should be, but Hollywood liberals did it for an obvious reason. Without ever mentioning the Soviet Union they told us “Communism is good because Fascism was so bad.” 

In all of the times I wrote messages on the topic, I never found a comprehensive answer to Jim ONeill’s question, This excerpt from #1 permalink addresses why Communists succeeded without answering ONeil’s  question:*


Flanders said:


> Had Nazi Germany won WWII in Europe I doubt very much if that brand of totalitarian government would have survived after Hitler and Mussolini died. It is certain Nazism would not be a worldwide movement today as is socialism/communism. Fascists most certainly never would have infiltrated our government to the extent Communists have succeeded. In short: Hussein the Fascist would not have come as far as did Hussein the Communist.


*NOTE: Back in 2012 I called Taqiyya the Liar by his middle name —— Hussein.  *


----------



## Political Junky

Flanders said:


> *Jim ONeill wrote a fabulous piece that includes a question I have been trying to answer most of my adult life: *
> 
> Now you tell me, how do the Nazis, an offshoot of Big Government fascism, end up on the right side of the political spectrum (let alone the far right)?
> 
> Right Wing Nazis: The Big Lie
> By Jim ONeill
> November 3, 2015
> 
> Right Wing Nazis: The Big Lie​
> *One answer I told myself is that the United States fought alongside the Soviet Union during WWII; hence, Communism gained respectability by association in this country. America’s victory in WWII is praised as it should be, but Hollywood liberals did it for an obvious reason. Without ever mentioning the Soviet Union they told us “Communism is good because Fascism was so bad.”
> 
> In all of the times I wrote messages on the topic, I never found a comprehensive answer to Jim ONeill’s question, This excerpt from #1 permalink addresses why Communists succeeded without answering ONeil’s  question:*
> 
> 
> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had Nazi Germany won WWII in Europe I doubt very much if that brand of totalitarian government would have survived after Hitler and Mussolini died. It is certain Nazism would not be a worldwide movement today as is socialism/communism. Fascists most certainly never would have infiltrated our government to the extent Communists have succeeded. In short: Hussein the Fascist would not have come as far as did Hussein the Communist.
> 
> 
> 
> *NOTE: Back in 2012 I called Taqiyya the Liar by his middle name —— Hussein.  *
Click to expand...

Many on the Right supported Hitler.
Bush's grandfather got in trouble for financing him.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Political Junky said:


> Many on the Right supported Hitler.
> Bush's grandfather got in trouble for financing him.



You sir, are a shameless liar.

You are a proud member of the demagogue - sociopath party and lie as a matter of course.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Political Junky said:


> Many on the Right supported Hitler.
> .



of course thats 100% stupid, illiterate, and liberal. Hitler was a National Socialist for a huge powerful govt, exactly the opposite of the right.

See why we are 100% positive that a liberal will be stupid. What other conclusion is possible??


----------



## Flanders

Political Junky said:


> Many on the Right supported Hitler.
> Bush's grandfather got in trouble for financing him.


*To Political Junky: A long list of loyal Americans supported Hitler before Dec. 7, 1941 because they saw Soviet Communism as the greater evil in Europe. None betrayed their country before or after WWII began. 

American Communists loved Hitler until he invaded the Soviet Union. None of them would have fought for this country had Hitler not double-crossed Stalin. Every American Communist has been betraying this country since the end of WWII —— first with the Soviet Union, then Communist China, then North Vietnam, then North Korea. Cuba is he most recent betrayal. *


----------



## Political Junky

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on the Right supported Hitler.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats 100% stupid, illiterate, and liberal. Hitler was a National Socialist for a huge powerful govt, exactly the opposite of the right.
> 
> See why we are 100% positive that a liberal will be stupid. What other conclusion is possible??
Click to expand...


How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

*How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power*
Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
<more>


----------



## Flanders

Political Junky said:


> His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.


*To Political Junky: No American did anything wrong before the war as your excerpt implies. As a matter of fact, had Hitler never declared war on America until four days after Pearl Harbor FDR would not have been able to go to the Soviet Union’s aid in Europe. No war against Germany meant that business would of been legal while Nazi Germany was busy defeating the Soviet Union. 

NOTE: It was illegal to do business with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.  If objecting to trading with the enemy is your shtick, Al Gore’s father, Senator Albert Gore, Sr., was a lot guiltier than Bush’s grandfather. Gore senior was known as Armand Hammer’s senator: *

But the most remarkable thing about Armand Hammer is that he created this personal empire largely by negotiating extraordinary deals with nations that have usually been hostile to the United States - and even more hostile to American capitalists. The son of one of the founders of the American Communist Labor Party, Hammer became a multimillionaire capitalist, thanks in large measure to his relations with the leaders of the Soviet Union. He has maintained cordial relations with Soviet leaders for more than half a century, providing Moscow with a vital link to Western industry and technology. (Six years ago Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev gave Hammer a luxurious Moscow apartment, and Kremlin officials have proposed that he be named United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. Such recommendations have made some members of the Reagan Administration uneasy. Says one member of the President's inner circle, who asked not to be identified by name, ''We simply don't know which side of the fence Hammer is on.'')

THE RIDDLE OF ARMAND HAMMER
     Published: November 29, 1981

THE RIDDLE OF ARMAND HAMMER​
*XXXXX*​
   Mr. Epstein's Times article suggested that Hammer's trade with the Soviet Union helped Soviet interests, including espionage, but he had no direct proof. Now the evidence is at hand, and in damning detail, straight from old Soviet archives. The account is of a man who bribed and cheated his way to great wealth --- and started with Soviet gold.

DOSSIER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF ARMAND HAMMER
by Edward Jay Epstein

DOSSIER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF ARMAND HAMMER​


Political Junky said:


> The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
> <more>


*To Political Junky: If you want aid and comfort to the enemy start with John Kerry after he returned from Vietnam. If you want something more current take a good look at the piece of garbage in the White House. If that offends your sensibilities read this:*

Soros: National Borders Are The Enemy
   By Matthew Vadum
   November 3, 2015

Soros: National Borders Are The Enemy​


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Political Junky said:


> How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power



100% stupid, liberal and proud of it!! If Bush helped he was not a conservative since conservatives are for tiny tiny govt, the opposite of what Hitler was for.

Simple for human beings to grasp  just not for liberals!!


----------



## koshergrl

blimpo said:


> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.


 That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

kiyiiyhikl;


koshergrl said:


> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
Click to expand...


lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???


----------



## The Great Goose

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiyiiyhikl;
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???
Click to expand...

Hitler had a lot of good policies. So does Sanders.


----------



## koshergrl

The Great Goose said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> kiyiiyhikl;
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler had a lot of good policies. So does Sanders.
Click to expand...

The only thing that Hitler did wrong, and the ONLY reason he's now reviled, is because he ADOPTED PROGRESSIVE POLICIES of population control, legalized human rights violations in the name of "science".... and legalized murder.


----------



## The Great Goose

koshergrl said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> kiyiiyhikl;
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitler had a lot of good policies. So does Sanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing that Hitler did wrong, and the ONLY reason he's now reviled, is because he ADOPTED PROGRESSIVE POLICIES of population control, legalized human rights violations in the name of "science".... and legalized murder.
Click to expand...

Either that or he disregarded the world financial system.


----------



## Indeependent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on the Right supported Hitler.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats 100% stupid, illiterate, and liberal. Hitler was a National Socialist for a huge powerful govt, exactly the opposite of the right.
> 
> See why we are 100% positive that a liberal will be stupid. What other conclusion is possible??
Click to expand...


Which is why Bill Gates and Larry Ellison can hand over legislation to Congress and get it passed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Indeependent said:


> Which is why Bill Gates and Larry Ellison can hand over legislation to Congress and get it passed.



 why can Bill Gates and Larry Ellison can hand over legislation to Congress and get it passed??????????????


----------



## Indeependent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Bill Gates and Larry Ellison can hand over legislation to Congress and get it passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why can Bill Gates and Larry Ellison can hand over legislation to Congress and get it passed??????????????
Click to expand...


Because they can give ENORMOUS contributions.
Oh, I get it...you're going to post that ENORMOUS contributions have no influence over legislators.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Indeependent said:


> ENORMOUS contributions have no influence over legislators.



Very little obviously which explains why our corporate tax is the highest in the world, the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes, Gates  and Ellison did make their competition illegal with contributions, etc etc.


----------



## Political Junky

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiyiiyhikl;
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???
Click to expand...

Inhumane Society
Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.


----------



## Indeependent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ENORMOUS contributions have no influence over legislators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little obviously which explains why our corporate tax is the highest in the world, the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes, Gates  and Ellison did make their competition illegal with contributions, etc etc.
Click to expand...


I explained that yesterday, Mr. Alzheimer's.
MNCs prefer a lifetime of Low Wages, No Time Off, No Pension Management, No Health Benefits.
Go ahead, make me repeat the same posting tomorrow.


----------



## HenryBHough

It's only for the fact that facial hair doesn't come easy to halfsies that Our Kenyan President doesn't have one of those cute little mustaches.


----------



## guno

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> kiyiiyhikl;
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inhumane Society
> Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Flanders said:


> *In my mind these two articles have a single theme: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Aren't Murderous Communists Condemned Like Nazis Are?
> Tue, Aug 07 2012 00:00:00 E A13_ISSUES
> By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
> Posted 08/06/2012 06:58 PM ET
> 
> Socialists And Communists Are Even Bigger Murderers Than Hitler's Nazis Were - Investors.com
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> August 7, 2012
> Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> James Simpson
> 
> Blog: Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Walter E. Williams asks:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? What goes untaught  and possibly is covered up  is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history.
> 
> One answer can be seen in those who rant against war while calling for bigger government. The number of dead caused by all of the wars in the past five centuries is less than the total the number of murders modern totalitarian governments committed against their own people in just the last century.  The totals cited by Professor Williams should shock every so-called pacificist out of their cherished benevolent-government fantasies:
> 
> Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.
> 
> The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii Professor Rudolph J. Rummel's website, at Freedom, Democide, War: Home Page, and in his book "Death by Government."
> 
> How much hunting down and punishment have there been for these communist murderers? To the contrary, it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle.
> 
> Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Interestingly, it was Adolf Hitler, not Lenin or Stalin, who clearly stated everything Hussein & Company personify. Hitler reduced everything they do to the four words in the final sentence:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories?* We socialize human beings.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Williams identifies the worst offenders:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Path To Genocide*
> 
> Whether it's the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism  a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I want to separate the children from the others by turning to Hitler again:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When an opponent declares, I will not come over to your side, I calmly say, Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you doubt where American Communists were going long before Hussein came along apply Hitlers Children to Communist control of the public education system in this country.
> 
> Ninety-nine percent of Socialist education is formulated especially to indoctrinate young children into the joys of collectivism. Implanting the idea that there is good totalitarian government and bad totalitarian government is critical. All of the propaganda apparatus at the governments disposal cannot bury the bad. There is too much known about totalitarian governments to hide the bad; more so since the Internet.
> 
> Further education all the way through higher education reinforces the concept of good and bad totalitarian governments. Proof: Professor Williams et al., exposing totalitarianisms innate cruelty drives Socialists to point to Communist China and say See, communism is working. Thats good totalitarian government.
> 
> Obviously, the media elite, along with stalwarts of the Democrat party, totally ignore the Mao cited by Professor Williams, and the incomprehensible brutality Mao initiated against his own people in order to make communism work.
> 
> To Socialists/Communists there is but one sin: Pointing out that totalitarian governments must kill everyone who resists no matter how slight that resistence might be, and they must kill quickly, without mercy, lest they be overthrown by revolution.  In the end, every totalitarian government will always do what Hitler, and Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Castro and others did best  murder, torture and enslave.  Regardless of the evidence some still insist that a benevolent totalitarian government is possible.
> 
> Moving on
> 
> I learned something from James Simpsons piece that surprised me:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This working relationship, and how it developed, was explained in depth by a prominent Soviet KGB defector, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, who spoke on his report, Communists and Muslims, the Hidden Hand of the KGB. For example, he describes the work of Karim Hakimov, a Soviet KGB operative who was one of the first of many "Muslims with a communist heart". An expert in Islam, he helped found the modern state of Saudi Arabia and befriended King Saud. He was instrumental in forming an anti-West group which was the precursor to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. As a result, Russia has "Observer" status with the group.
> 
> He also cites Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB agent murdered by the Kremlin with Polonium 210, who charged that al Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, was a trained agent of the KGB. Preobrazhensky further discusses a Taliban leader and close advisor to Osama bin Laden, Juma Namangoniy. Namangoniy was born in Soviet Uzbekistan and was also a KGB-trained communist. He was supposedly killed by coalition forces but his body has not been found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I was surprised to learn there were Muslim Communists with so much political influence, while I understand the marriage between the two ideologies perfectly.  Islam and Communism are totalitarian theocracies.
> 
> Again, one can turn to Hitler who sanctioned marriage between totalitarians in a different context: Nazi Party recruiters had one standing order: Recruit new members from the ranks of the Communists because they always make the best Fascists. The context is different because Communists will not make the best Muslims, nor will Muslims make the best Communists.
> 
> Identical methods of subjugation aside, Muslims are asking for the dirty end of the stick on this one. A Muslim Communist might believe that Communist ideology can be adapted to accommodate Islam, while Communists will never allow any Supreme Deity religion to survive after Socialists/Communists consolidate political power. Indeed, Muslims will be slaughtered first because Communists fear all other forms of totalitarian government. Hitler covered that one, too.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no way in hell one totalitarian government will share power with another for very long. Hitler understood what had to be done; so he invaded the Soviet Union. Hitler well-knew that Stalin would have done it to Nazi Germany at the first opportunity. In fact, the very nature of totalitarian government abhors power-sharing. In that same vain it is logical to assume Mussolinis Italy was first on Hitlers hit list after Germany won the war.
> 
> WWII
> 
> Ive always said the wrong side won WWII in Europe. Communism is still alive and well while Fascism has disappeared. There is not one openly Fascist country today although many countries are dictatorships. There are several Communist countries.
> 
> Had Nazi Germany won WWII in Europe I doubt very much if that brand of totalitarian government would have survived after Hitler and Mussolini died. It is certain Nazism would not be a worldwide movement today as is socialism/communism.  Fascists most certainly never would have infiltrated our government to the extent Communists have succeeded. In short: Hussein the Fascist would not have come as far as did Hussein the Communist.
> 
> Finally, the single theme I referred to in the first sentence of this thread:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans  who would have cringed at the thought of genocide  who created the Trojan horse for Hitler's ascendancy. Today's Americans are similarly accepting the massive consolidation of power in Washington in the name of social justice.  _Walter E. Williams_
> 
> *And this:*​
> . . . a huge network of U.S. and foreign communist and hard left organizations connected to this President has colluded with radical Islam for decades to oversee the destruction of their mutual enemy: America.  _James Simpson_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Seems like special pleading. The Nazis were out to conquer their sphere of influence. Communists were merely struggling, internally. It could be a fallacy of false Cause. Our Civil War killed many, no communism required.


----------



## Dante

Flanders said:


> *In my mind these two articles have a single theme: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Aren't Murderous Communists Condemned Like Nazis Are?
> Tue, Aug 07 2012 00:00:00 E A13_ISSUES
> By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
> Posted 08/06/2012 06:58 PM ET
> 
> Socialists And Communists Are Even Bigger Murderers Than Hitler's Nazis Were - Investors.com
> 
> *XXXXX*​
> August 7, 2012
> Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> James Simpson
> 
> Blog: Vetting Conference Exposes More of Obama's Marxist Ties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Walter E. Williams asks:*
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

Wow Walter is still relevant? He's a smart and funny guy. I wonder where all these communists are that need condemning?


----------



## koshergrl

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> kiyiiyhikl;
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blimpo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all the stupid Hitler posts on this forum?
> 
> When you start throwing Hitler around it generally doesn't mean any insight will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what idiots who support the same policies that the progressives (aka "Hitler supporters") of the WWI/WWII, pro-Nazi era always say. Of course you're going to object when people point out that you're still around, and still doing the same shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets see, Hitler was a socialist and Bernie Sanders was a socialist but that does not mean anything???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inhumane Society
> Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.
Click to expand...

 "Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”  Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks

"
Darling of the far left *Sen. Elizabeth Warren* released her *11 commandments of progressivism* this week during her stop at the Netroots Nation annual conference.
The National Journal reported:
– “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”
– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”
– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”
– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”
– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”
– “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”
– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”
– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”
– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”
And the main tenet of conservatives’ philosophy, according to Warren? “I got mine. The rest of you are on your own.”

*“The 25 Points of Hitler’s Nazi Party”*
1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.
6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.
9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.* We demand the nationalization of all trusts.*
14.* We demand profit-sharing in large industries.*
15. *We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.*
16.* We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class*, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20. *In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people.* The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21. *The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers*, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand..."

Elizabeth Warren's List for Progressives Is EERILY SIMILAR to Hitler's Nazi List - The Gateway Pundit


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Indeependent said:


> Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.



how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.

Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.


----------



## Political Junky

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.
> 
> Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.
Click to expand...

That statement is from Snopes. You omitted that.


----------



## Indeependent

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.
> 
> Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That statement is from Snopes. You omitted that.
Click to expand...


Something went haywire as I didn't post that.


----------



## Indeependent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though Hitler led a political party known as the "National Socialist German Workers' Party," he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.
> 
> Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.
Click to expand...


The server went haywire as I didn't post that.
But the server has not been operating optimally in the last day or two.


----------



## Flanders

danielpalos said:


> Seems like special pleading. The Nazis were out to conquer their sphere of influence. Communists were merely struggling, internally. It could be a fallacy of false Cause. Our Civil War killed many, no communism required.


*To danielpalos: Sounds like you are pleading for Communism. Research the Soviet Union “. . . *merely struggling, internally*” in the  Baltic States 1939 - 1940. *


----------



## danielpalos

Flanders said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like special pleading. The Nazis were out to conquer their sphere of influence. Communists were merely struggling, internally. It could be a fallacy of false Cause. Our Civil War killed many, no communism required.
> 
> 
> 
> *To danielpalos: Sounds like you are pleading for Communism. Research the Soviet Union “. . . *merely struggling, internally*” in the  Baltic States 1939 - 1940. *
Click to expand...

Nope; we already have the best form of socialism in the world; it even provides the least wealthy with steak and lobster. 

And, you make it seem like capitalism didn't do something similar with indigenous peoples.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Hitler was  a National Socialist liberal:
how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.

Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.


----------



## Political Junky

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Hitler was  a National Socialist liberal:
> how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.
> 
> Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.


BS


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Political Junky said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was  a National Socialist liberal:
> how totally stupid and liberal can you be?? Our genius Founders made no distinction between communism, liberalism, socialism, national socialism, monarchy, etc. They were all big govt and all equally illegal in America.
> 
> Simple concept but apparently too difficult for a treasonous liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> BS
Click to expand...


of course if it was BS the very stupid liberal would not be so afraid to say why. What does your fear teach you??


----------



## regent

Has any nation practiced Marxist communism?


----------



## jasonnfree

Homeland security sounds pretty hitlerian to me.  The homeland - the fatherland. This is  the 432nd  thread this year by loons on the right trying to equate hitler with liberals or socialists.


----------



## Flanders

jasonnfree said:


> Homeland security sounds pretty hitlerian to me. The homeland - the fatherland. This is the 432nd thread this year by loons on


*To jasonnfree: It was Democrats who created the Department of Homeland Security the country has today. More than anything else, Democrats wanted to get their hands on every intelligence agency —— something they dreamed of throughout the Cold War. Americans would be speaking Russian today if Democrats controlled the intelligence community before the Soviet Union imploded. Note that Communism is making a comeback in Russia now that Democrats control every intelligence agency. *

The White House acknowledged the new department — an idea Mr. Bush initially opposed — will face "growing pains" and will not be fully operational for at least a year and perhaps two.

*XXXXX*​ 
   Signing the homeland security bill ends an odyssey for legislation that started inching through Congress nearly a year ago against Mr. Bush's opposition, only to see him offer his own version after momentum became unstoppable.​
*Homeland Security turned out worse than predicted.*

Intelligence expert James Bamford says it's a knee-jerk reaction to the attacks, done for public relations purposes, created in a rush, and it doesn't fix the system for sharing intelligence. He claims it not only won't increase efficiency, but may turn out to be worse than no change at all.

By Joel Roberts CBS September 19, 2002, 3:12 PM
       Bush Signs Homeland Bill

Bush Signs Homeland Bill​
*NOTE: Democrats also got control of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. How come you do not rail against Right-wing loons for everything the Chicago sewer rat did?*


jasonnfree said:


> the right trying to equate hitler with liberals or socialists.


*To jasonnfree: The objective is to equate Hitler with every form of totalitarian government which is exactly what Socialism/Communism/liberalism is .

Incidentally, I said this on another board in 2003: *

The only mechanism we have in place to question Govt. policy is dissenting opinion. It is a very slippery slope that we are venturing onto with the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act. Without dissent we may just find ourselves stripped of all rights —— not by this administration but by a future one.​
*And just laughs imagine John Kerry as “a future administration.” Listen to what John Kerry promised to do to protect the country when he was debating President Bush in 2004:*

KERRY: I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.

*XXXXX*​ 
   KERRY: I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.

   I‘ll never give a veto to any country over our security.  But I also know how to lead those alliances.

*XXXXX*​
   KERRY: I have a better plan for homeland security.  I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.  

   I know I can do a better job in Iraq.  I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this president has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table.

   We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves, and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections.

   All of these, and especially homeland security, which we‘ll talk about a little bit later.

*XXXXX*​
   KERRY:  I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.

Presidential debate​
*Read the transcript for the rest of it. One thing stands out in hindsight. John Kerry is a stupid man. He was a stupid man when he betrayed his country during the Vietnam War. He was a stupid man throughout his years in Congress. His tenure as secretary of state showed that he has become dangerously stupid.*


----------

