Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[edthecynic]

One of many definitions, none of which mention Left-Wing ideology at all.

Take another civics class, dumb fucks.


Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

Sorry, but you're wrong. Tell me the difference between Hitler, Musulini and Stalin. hint: NOTHING (and dont answer something gay like date of birth)

There is no difference between those three Gods of CON$ervoFascism. They were all united by their hatred of Marxism.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
- Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
-Adolf Hitler

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
*Benito Mussolini

 

[edthecynic]

One of many definitions, none of which mention Left-Wing ideology at all.

Take another civics class, dumb fucks.


Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

So is this why the word "Cool" when used towards Obama is suddenly racist after 4 years of it being a compliment?

What a disingenuous fucktard.

Because, as you well know, CON$ervoFascists for years do not use "cool" as hip when talking about President Obama, but as cold, robotic and nonhuman!

Robot Obama Is Cold, Not Cool
October 16, 2008
RUSH: Like I said in the last hour, if I'd have heard one more time from the Fox All-Stars about how cool Obama was -- David Brooks said Obama is a mountain. He's a rain forest. You get up every morning and the mountain is just there. I didn't see cool. I don't see elegant. I see somebody not even really human.

Dehumanization | Beyond Intractability
By
Michelle Maiese
July 2003
The Psychology of Dehumanization

Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]

Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.

Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.

Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.

Dangers of Dehumanization

While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives.

Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people.[9] Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia.

It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.

 

[Big Fitz]

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

Sorry, but you're wrong. Tell me the difference between Hitler, Musulini and Stalin. hint: NOTHING (and dont answer something gay like date of birth)

There is no difference between those three Gods of CON$ervoFascism. They were all united by their hatred of Marxism.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
- Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
-Adolf Hitler

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
*Benito Mussolini

And Trotskyites weren't wiped out by Leninites.


Internicene warfare doesn't change the fact they're kith and kin to each other in the leftist rainbow. THey only have differen flavors of how they enforce their totalitarianist collective strategies. Some like the veneer of private ownership as long as you obey. Others prefer to not hide the control. Some pretend that they're going to 're-educate' those who do not obey, others say 'fuck it' and ship you to the ovens.

Dog and pony show.

 

[Big Fitz]

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

So is this why the word "Cool" when used towards Obama is suddenly racist after 4 years of it being a compliment?

What a disingenuous fucktard.

Because, as you well know, CON$ervoFascists for years do not use "cool" as hip when talking about President Obama, but as cold, robotic and nonhuman!

Robot Obama Is Cold, Not Cool
October 16, 2008
RUSH: Like I said in the last hour, if I'd have heard one more time from the Fox All-Stars about how cool Obama was -- David Brooks said Obama is a mountain. He's a rain forest. You get up every morning and the mountain is just there. I didn't see cool. I don't see elegant. I see somebody not even really human.

Dehumanization | Beyond Intractability
By
Michelle Maiese
July 2003
The Psychology of Dehumanization

Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]

Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.

Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.

Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.

Dangers of Dehumanization

While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives.

Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people.[9] Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia.

It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.

Right. You've never dehumanized Rush, have you psychopath? Once again trying to control the conversation with the language and hypocrisy. Quelle Suprise!

 

[edthecynic]

So is this why the word "Cool" when used towards Obama is suddenly racist after 4 years of it being a compliment?

What a disingenuous fucktard.

Because, as you well know, CON$ervoFascists for years do not use "cool" as hip when talking about President Obama, but as cold, robotic and nonhuman!

Robot Obama Is Cold, Not Cool
October 16, 2008
RUSH: Like I said in the last hour, if I'd have heard one more time from the Fox All-Stars about how cool Obama was -- David Brooks said Obama is a mountain. He's a rain forest. You get up every morning and the mountain is just there. I didn't see cool. I don't see elegant. I see somebody not even really human.

Dehumanization | Beyond Intractability
By
Michelle Maiese
July 2003
The Psychology of Dehumanization

Dehumanization is actually an extension of a less intense process of developing an "enemy image" of the opponent. During the course of protracted conflict, feelings of anger, fear, and distrust shape the way that the parties perceive each other. Adversarial attitudes and perceptions develop and parties begin to attribute negative traits to their opponent. They may come to view the opponent as an evil enemy, deficient in moral virtue, or as a dangerous, warlike monster.

An enemy image is a negative stereotype through which the opposing group is viewed as evil, in contrast to one's own side, which is seen as good. Such images can stem from a desire for group identity and a need to contrast the distinctive attributes and virtues of one's own group with the vices of the "outside" group.[4] In some cases, evil-ruler enemy images form. While ordinary group members are regarded as neutral, or perhaps even innocent, their leaders are viewed as hideous monsters.[5]

Enemy images are usually black and white. The negative actions of one's opponent are thought to reflect their fundamental evil nature, traits, or motives.[6] One's own faults, as well as the values and motivations behind the actions of one's opponent, are usually discounted, denied, or ignored. It becomes difficult to empathize or see where one's opponent is coming from. Meaningful communication is unlikely, and it becomes difficult to perceive any common ground.

Once formed, enemy images tend to resist change, and serve to perpetuate and intensify the conflict. Because the adversary has come to be viewed as a "diabolical enemy," the conflict is framed as a war between good and evil.[7] Once the parties have framed the conflict in this way, their positions become more rigid. In some cases, zero-sum thinking develops as parties come to believe that they must either secure their own victory, or face defeat. New goals to punish or destroy the opponent arise, and in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.

Enemy images are accentuated, according to psychologists, by the process of "projection," in which people "project" their own faults onto their opponents. This means that people or groups who tend to be aggressive or selfish are likely to attribute those traits to their opponents, but not to themselves. This improves one's own self-image and increases group cohesion, but it also escalates the conflict and makes it easier to dehumanize the other side.

Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual. Because people who are deindividuated seem less than fully human, they are viewed as less protected by social norms against aggression than those who are individuated.[8] It then becomes easier to rationalize contentious moves or severe actions taken against one's opponents.

Dangers of Dehumanization

While deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common, they form a dangerous process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumanization.

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives.

Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people.[9] Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia.

It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed through humanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.

Right. You've never dehumanized Rush, have you psychopath? Once again trying to control the conversation with the language and hypocrisy. Quelle Suprise!

Feel free to post examples of me dehumanizing your MessiahRushie as I post examples of his racist dehumanization of President Obama.

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

 

[Political Junky]

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

Sorry, but you're wrong. Tell me the difference between Hitler, Musulini and Stalin. hint: NOTHING (and dont answer something gay like date of birth)

There is no difference between those three Gods of CON$ervoFascism. They were all united by their hatred of Marxism.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
- Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
-Adolf Hitler

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
*Benito Mussolini

Yes, Hitler and Mussolini despised Socialism. Conservatives, of course, have attempted to rewrite history of late. After all, who'd want to be associated with those two?

 

[clevergirl]

He's a failure NOBAMA 2012​

 

[IndependntLogic]

Seriously, I love all the victim-complex psycho-babble. Anyone here "oppressed"? Pray tell, let us all know how you are oppressed!

 

[Flaylo]

Rightwingers don't know shit about socialism, proof is how they compare Obama to Hitler and forget that Hitler and his Nazism was bitterly opposed to communists in Soviet Union. They forget that Nazism was the ideological opposite of Communism.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Socialist or facist?

Actually, I think he's a Leo.

You're still an apologist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One of many definitions, none of which mention Left-Wing ideology at all.

Take another civics class, dumb fucks.


Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

So is this why the word "Cool" when used towards Obama is suddenly racist after 4 years of it being a compliment?

What a disingenuous fucktard.

Fitz we all know ed is bat shit crazy for obama.

 

[usmcstinger]

I will link the rest of the article in a while, but I'd like to see discussion on this much of it, before I attribute it.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

He is a Socialist. Once I heard him say "income redistribution", I knew he was a one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it was socialist, you moron. Hitler destroyed it. Your error is that you try to suggest that what BHO and others are doing are SS like. That is stupid.

Dumbass, I didnt say anything like Obama, I jumped in this thread to set the record straight about fascists, socialist, ect.
Yeah I do think they're pretty much the same, but what the hell, I do think Obama is an admirer of socialism, he's not doing what the SA did, no. But he does champion alot of their ideas and I think they suck. And those ideas incorporate the Government telling you what to do (cant buy an incandecent light bulb, which is cheap and most people can afford, or in California they want the govt to control you tstat, of couse only when it's "necessary". stuff like that is pretty much socialist, facist, communist, whatever label you want)

The other issue is the second amendment, which is in the Constitution, because the Founders didnt want another British are comming moment as well as you could say, they wanted the citizens to fight back if the government gets out of control, in fact they say IN the Constitution to scrap the government if it becomes tyranical. And while I dont own a firearm, I certainly support the right to do so. What's funny is the liberals say the Supreme Court makes the final say, yet on gun control they continue to try and implement thier unconstitutional laws, even when struck down

No, Obama does not champion anything like SA or SS actions. One, you have no examples of such, and, since you don't, two, you are simply rabble rousing.

Both parties, however, have signed onto the Patriot Act, and that threatens all of us.

All good American support the right to own a firearm, so why you are running this red herring is beyond me. If you think, though, hand and shoulder arms will stop the US government from taking over the country in a coup, you are wrong. It will take the AR and the NG refusing to carry out such orders.

 

[Ernie S.]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Tell me the difference between Hitler, Musulini and Stalin. hint: NOTHING (and dont answer something gay like date of birth)

There is no difference between those three Gods of CON$ervoFascism. They were all united by their hatred of Marxism.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
- Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
-Adolf Hitler

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
*Benito Mussolini

Yes, Hitler and Mussolini despised Socialism. Conservatives, of course, have attempted to rewrite history of late. After all, who'd want to be associated with those two?

Hitler and Mussolini despised Russia or any other ideology competing for power in Europe. Mussolini saw the trap Marxist socialism had built in; that if the State owns the means of production, any failure is the fault of the State.
By controlling the means of production from the sidelines through regulations, funding and compelling corporations to produce government "approved" products. they achieved the same goals but retained the corporations as scapegoats.

 

[Big Fitz]

Part of the absolute control of CON$ervoFascism is control of the meanings of words. CON$ervoFascism must control everything!!!

October 11, 2011
RUSH: * I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate.* He who controls the language controls the debate.*

“Words build bridges into unexplored regions.”
― Adolf Hitler

So is this why the word "Cool" when used towards Obama is suddenly racist after 4 years of it being a compliment?

What a disingenuous fucktard.

Fitz we all know ed is bat shit crazy for obama.

It's okay. You can drop the qualifier.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no difference between those three Gods of CON$ervoFascism. They were all united by their hatred of Marxism.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
- Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
-Adolf Hitler

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
*Benito Mussolini

Yes, Hitler and Mussolini despised Socialism. Conservatives, of course, have attempted to rewrite history of late. After all, who'd want to be associated with those two?

Hitler and Mussolini despised Russia or any other ideology competing for power in Europe. Mussolini saw the trap Marxist socialism had built in; that if the State owns the means of production, any failure is the fault of the State.
By controlling the means of production from the sidelines through regulations, funding and compelling corporations to produce government "approved" products. they achieved the same goals but retained the corporations as scapegoats.

That is exactly the point I've made on the Leftist rainbow.

They only vary in HOW they achieve the same results: Totalitarian control of a collective which they (the enforcing power) are exempt from.

It's a return to Feudalism with a screwy concept of succession and facade of democracy.

 

[clevergirl]

The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Nazism was an ideology of wishing to have their cake and eat it too...

source

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Nazism was an ideology of wishing to have their cake and eat it too...

source

From the same source

Support of anti-Communists for Fascism and Nazism "Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. Among these supporters in the 1920s and early 1930s was the Conservative Party in Britain. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France. A Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (LVF) and other anti-Soviet fighting formations, were formed. . . . The British Conservative party and the right-wing parties in France appeased the Nazi regime in the mid- and late-1930s, even though they had begun to criticise its totalitarianism. Some contemporary commentators suggested that these parties did in fact still support the Nazis."

Nazi Ideology


Nazism

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the same source

Support of anti-Communists for Fascism and Nazism "Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. Among these supporters in the 1920s and early 1930s was the Conservative Party in Britain. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France. A Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (LVF) and other anti-Soviet fighting formations, were formed. . . . The British Conservative party and the right-wing parties in France appeased the Nazi regime in the mid- and late-1930s, even though they had begun to criticise its totalitarianism. Some contemporary commentators suggested that these parties did in fact still support the Nazis."

Nazi Ideology

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Nazism was an ideology of wishing to have their cake and eat it too...

source

From the same source

Support of anti-Communists for Fascism and Nazism "Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. Among these supporters in the 1920s and early 1930s was the Conservative Party in Britain. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France. A Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (LVF) and other anti-Soviet fighting formations, were formed. . . . The British Conservative party and the right-wing parties in France appeased the Nazi regime in the mid- and late-1930s, even though they had begun to criticise its totalitarianism. Some contemporary commentators suggested that these parties did in fact still support the Nazis."

Nazi Ideology


Nazism

Combines extreme nationalism, racism and some socialist concepts.

Unification of Greater Germany (Austria + Germany)
Land + expansion
Anti-Versailles - abrogation of the Treaty.
Land and territory - lebensraum.
Only a "member of the race" can be a citizen.
Anti-semitism - No Jew can be a member of the race.
Anti-foreigner - only citizens can live in Germany.
No immigration - ref. to Jews fleeing pograms.
Everyone must work.
Abolition of unearned income - "no rent-slavery".
Nationalisation of industry
Divison of profits
Extension of old age welfare.
Land reform
Death to all criminals
German law, not Roman law (anti- French Rev.)
Education to teach "the German Way"
Education of gifted children
Protection of mother and child by outlawing child labour.
Encouraging gymnastics and swimming
Formation a national army.
Duty of the state to provide for its volk.
Duty of individuals to the state
Internet History Sourcebooks

The History Place - Rise of Hitler: The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party