Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[Foxfyre]

Did anybody watch President Obama's press conference at close of the G-12 summit tonight? The press corps got to ask maybe three really good, thought provoking questions. In response, I can honestly say I listened to 20 some odd minutes of the most boring press conference that I have ever heard in my lifetime during which the President did not answer a single question asked. It was amazing to watch. So many many MANY words, peppered with a lot of uncomfortable ums and ahs, that said absolutely nothing whatsoever and I daresay not one good sound bite was obtained.

This is the President who galloped onto the national scene on the strength of his glowing oratory? It was positively embarrassing to watch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is a time for change, it is a time for no more extremism.

Romney is the logical choice.

 

[Dr Grump]

No offense to ya Old top? But WHY are you arguing with someone that has ZERO vested interest In the United States from New Zealand?

It's the Global Village baby!

and you still don't have a vested interest in American Politics

Oh, yes we do...every time Obama farts, the world notices...

 

[Dr Grump]

I usually called them a fucking dumb ass foreigner who fuck sheep

Which is why no-one takes you seriously.

There are a few that take me seriously.

There are a very few that take me seriously.

There, fixed it for you....now say thank you

 

[francoHFW]

By DAVID OSHINSKY Review of "Liberal Fascism"
Published: December 30, 2007
Coming of age in the 1960s, I heard the word “fascist” all the time. College presidents were fascists, Vietnam War supporters were fascists, policemen who tangled with protesters were fascists, on and on. To some, the word smacked of Hitler and genocide.

Forty years have passed and not much has changed, complains Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist and contributing editor for National Review. Leftists still drop the “f word” to taint their opponents, be they global warming skeptics or members of the Moral Majority. The sad result, Goldberg says, is that Americans have come to equate fascism with right-wing political movements in the United States when, in fact, the reverse is true.

To his mind, it is liberalism, not conservatism, that embraces what he claims is the fascist ideal of perfecting society through a powerful state run by omniscient leaders. And it is liberals, not conservatives, who see government coercion as the key to getting things done.


“Liberal Fascism” is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.


According to Goldberg, fascism in America predated the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. He believes that Woodrow Wilson turned the United States into a “fascist country, albeit temporarily” during World War I. Americans in 1917 were reluctant to join the slaughter in Europe. Their nation hadn’t been attacked; there was no defining event — a Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor — to rally public support. So Wilson formed the country’s first propaganda ministry, the Committee on Public Information, to teach people what they were up against. The devil became German militarism — the merciless Hun — and Americans were encouraged to lash out at those of German ancestry inside the United States.

Vigilante groups arose to mete out justice and spy on fellow citizens. Congress passed draconian laws banning “abusive” and “disloyal” language against the government and its officials. The Post Office revoked the mailing privileges of hundreds of antiwar publications, effectively shutting them down. Rarely if ever in American history has dissent been so effectively stifled.


At the same time, Wilson formed numerous boards to regulate everything from the production of artillery pieces to the price of a lamb chop. The result, Goldberg argues, was the birth of a socialist dictatorship that “whipped, cajoled and seduced American industry into the loving embrace of the state.” Though partly dismantled after the war, this model, we are told, became the blueprint for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Goldberg is less convincing here because he can’t get a handle on Roosevelt’s admittedly elusive personality. He treats Wilson as a serious thinker, rigidly focused on his goals, but portrays Roosevelt as a classic dilettante, shallow and detached. For Goldberg, even the president’s greatest skill — his ability to communicate with the masses — was negated by his failure to chart a steady course and stick to it. One is left to ponder how the outlines of America’s modern welfare state emerged from such a lazy, superficial mind.


In attempting to link Roosevelt to the fascism that enveloped Europe in these years, Goldberg highlights examples like the Civilian Conservation Corps, which offered a paycheck and military discipline to unemployed young men from the cities, and the National Recovery Administration, which was intended to spur industrial production through centralized planning. But it’s absurd to view the C.C.C. as the American version of Hitler Youth, and the N.R.A. — heavy on slogans, light on coercion — was so ineffective that Roosevelt heaved a sigh of relief when it was declared unconstitutional in 1935. Oddly, Goldberg has less to say about issues more likely to bolster his case, like the enormous growth of executive power under Roosevelt and his ill-fated attempt to “pack” the United States Supreme Court.


Goldberg acknowledges that Wilson and Roosevelt faced legitimate national emergencies — a world war and an economic collapse. But subsequent presidents have invented false crises to roil the masses, he claims, and John F. Kennedy did it best. “It is not a joyful thing to impugn an American hero and icon with the label fascist,” Goldberg writes, but how else does one explain his popularity? The answer lies not in Kennedy’s record, which Goldberg assures us was slim, but rather in his cold-war brinkmanship, his “adrenaline-soaked” appeals to national service and martial values, and, of course, the Nazi-like cult of personality that he buffed to gleaming perfection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

 

[francoHFW]

Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease. This allows him to dispose of the politics of the 1920s in a single sentence. “After the Great War,” he writes, “the country slowly regained its sanity.” What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane.

This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal?

For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better&#8221. But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do.

The final chapters of “Liberal Fascism” are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites. In unexciting times, when there are no calamities to be addressed, liberals push a more robust social agenda, Goldberg claims, using the state and the friendly news media to tar opponents of, say, affirmative action or same-sex marriage as bigots, fanatics and fools. The task facing conservatives, he adds, is to hold liberals accountable for these jackboot tactics. “For at some point,” Goldberg writes, “it is necessary to throw down the gauntlet, to draw a line in the sand, to set a boundary, to cry at long last, ‘Enough is enough.’”

These are familiar words, eerily reminiscent of the “adrelaline-soaked” clichés of John F. Kennedy as he railed against Soviet expansion around the globe. But I dare not call them fascist. That would be unfair.
David Oshinsky, who holds the Jack S. Blanton chair in history at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

or the Economist: "Absolute drivel."

 

[Polk]

Real men shake hands firmly....

You only shake a womans hand gently....

Your handshake is your caricature. If you have a limp handshake no one will respect you because you're obviously a person who has never done blue collar work...

When you shake a mans hand you can tell by the shake what they do, where they come from and what their background is.

As if there is something particularly virtuous about blue collar work.

It is just a sign....

It means "we do the same shit and work hard doing it and we don't use band aids"

It means you're fucking reliable and do what it takes to get the job done. It means you're you're not lazy, it means you're loyal to your friends and family..... It means you work fucking hard and take pride in it...

A limp handshake means you would drag a 2x4 instead of pick it up and carry it like a man. It means you're fucking weak....

And this is why we fall further behind in the world. Forget science, math, or any practical knowledge, you can't be a real American unless you're carrying lumber.

 

[Polk]

It is just a sign....

It means "we do the same shit and work hard doing it and we don't use band aids"

It means you're fucking reliable and do what it takes to get the job done. It means you're you're not lazy, it means you're loyal to your friends and family..... It means you work fucking hard and take pride in it...

A limp handshake means you would drag a 2x4 instead of pick it up and carry it like a man. It means you're fucking weak....

I know plenty of lazy blue collar workers...like, super lazy
A handshake means nothing, and tells you little...

Sure, I'm not saying a handshake is 100% accurate but 90% of the time it is.

I'll say this - I've never seen a guy with a sissy handshake pull his weight at a job site.

Besides, the ones who don't come through have drug problems.... They're not lazy they just have issues. If they were sober they definitely would take pride in their work...

But you do realize there are plenty of people that are perfectly dependable at their jobs that have weak handshakes, right? Figuring out the formulas for rocket fuel isn't going to give you a better grip.

 

[idb]

I know plenty of lazy blue collar workers...like, super lazy
A handshake means nothing, and tells you little...

Sure, I'm not saying a handshake is 100% accurate but 90% of the time it is.

I'll say this - I've never seen a guy with a sissy handshake pull his weight at a job site.

Besides, the ones who don't come through have drug problems.... They're not lazy they just have issues. If they were sober they definitely would take pride in their work...

But you do realize there are plenty of people that are perfectly dependable at their jobs that have weak handshakes, right? Figuring out the formulas for rocket fuel isn't going to give you a better grip.

Anyone with learnin' is not to be trusted.

 

[Dr Grump]

Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease. This allows him to dispose of the politics of the 1920s in a single sentence. “After the Great War,” he writes, “the country slowly regained its sanity.” What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane. This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal? For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do.
The final chapters of “Liberal Fascism” are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites. In unexciting times, when there are no calamities to be addressed, liberals push a more robust social agenda, Goldberg claims, using the state and the friendly news media to tar opponents of, say, affirmative action or same-sex marriage as bigots, fanatics and fools. The task facing conservatives, he adds, is to hold liberals accountable for these jackboot tactics. “For at some point,” Goldberg writes, “it is necessary to throw down the gauntlet, to draw a line in the sand, to set a boundary, to cry at long last, ‘Enough is enough.’”
These are familiar words, eerily reminiscent of the “adrelaline-soaked” clichés of John F. Kennedy as he railed against Soviet expansion around the globe. But I dare not call them fascist. That would be unfair.
David Oshinsky, who holds the Jack S. Blanton chair in history at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html

or the Economist: "Absolute drivel."

There are those on this very board who have championed McCarthy...

 

[Polk]

Well you'll have to take it up with the history textbook publishers, the Encyclopedia Britannica, reputable historical websites and other scholarly history publications that I use for my sources. Both 'conservative' and 'right wing' were defined quite differently in most of Hitler's eastern and western Euriope than the definitions we use in modern day America.

I have never seen a history text that defines the parties the Nazis allied with as anything but the right. The standard breakdown of major German parties of the time is the DNVP and the Nazis on the right, the SDP and the KDP on the left, with Centre (Catholic party) in the middle.

It is not the terms themselves that are in question, but the definitions attached to them that are impotant to know. LWC for instance defines modern American conservatism in very uncomplimentary terms generally dictated by leftwing websites and/or other sources too partisan to be objective about anything. But it is important to know that 'conservatives' in Nazi Germany were a very different thing from modern American conservatives.

. . . Supported by the pan-German nationalism of 1848, the Prussian state was able to assert its centralizing, authoritarian control over the bulk of the Reich. The traditional Imperial idea of transnational lordship which had characterized the Imperial Crown from Charlemagne's time fell under the sword of Prussian aggression in 1866; shortly thereafter, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf against the Church. In response to this maneuver, which anticipated Hitler's own assault against the religious bodies, the Center Party leader Ludwig Windthorst stated succinctly the conservative position, "My loyalty to the Royal family of Hanover will last until my dying day, and nothing in the world, not even the most powerful Chancellor of Germany, will be able to make me depart from it." Conservative in Germany, as elsewhere, meant an adherence to legitimate and traditional institutions ‹ the very opposite of the Nazi ideology. . . .

--excerpted from In Hitler's Shadow - The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots by By Elbridge Colby, Deputy Editor of "The Harvard Salient"

Three things here.
1. The description of German conservatives of that era equally fits American conservatives today. You're thinking of "legitimate and traditional institutions" too narrowly. What are the two most "traditional" institutions in American society? Churches and the military, both of which are placed in very high esteem by modern American conservatives.
2. I would question the idea that the Nazis represented a rejection of "legitimate and traditional institutions". It's important to remember that from their perspective, they were rejecting the Weimar Republic, which they saw as illegitimate and whose leaders they saw as traitors to the nation.
3. None of the similarities make modern American conservatives bad. They only show that any idea taken to an extreme can be harmful. The good life, first and foremost, is about balance.

 

[Polk]

Did anybody watch President Obama's press conference at close of the G-12 summit tonight? The press corps got to ask maybe three really good, thought provoking questions. In response, I can honestly say I listened to 20 some odd minutes of the most boring press conference that I have ever heard in my lifetime during which the President did not answer a single question asked. It was amazing to watch. So many many MANY words, peppered with a lot of uncomfortable ums and ahs, that said absolutely nothing whatsoever and I daresay not one good sound bite was obtained.

This is the President who galloped onto the national scene on the strength of his glowing oratory? It was positively embarrassing to watch.

I only watched the first question and stopped. Then again, I thought the first question was painfully stupid.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I have never seen a history text that defines the parties the Nazis allied with as anything but the right. The standard breakdown of major German parties of the time is the DNVP and the Nazis on the right, the SDP and the KDP on the left, with Centre (Catholic party) in the middle.

It is not the terms themselves that are in question, but the definitions attached to them that are impotant to know. LWC for instance defines modern American conservatism in very uncomplimentary terms generally dictated by leftwing websites and/or other sources too partisan to be objective about anything. But it is important to know that 'conservatives' in Nazi Germany were a very different thing from modern American conservatives.

. . . Supported by the pan-German nationalism of 1848, the Prussian state was able to assert its centralizing, authoritarian control over the bulk of the Reich. The traditional Imperial idea of transnational lordship which had characterized the Imperial Crown from Charlemagne's time fell under the sword of Prussian aggression in 1866; shortly thereafter, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf against the Church. In response to this maneuver, which anticipated Hitler's own assault against the religious bodies, the Center Party leader Ludwig Windthorst stated succinctly the conservative position, "My loyalty to the Royal family of Hanover will last until my dying day, and nothing in the world, not even the most powerful Chancellor of Germany, will be able to make me depart from it." Conservative in Germany, as elsewhere, meant an adherence to legitimate and traditional institutions ‹ the very opposite of the Nazi ideology. . . .

--excerpted from In Hitler's Shadow - The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots by By Elbridge Colby, Deputy Editor of "The Harvard Salient"

The place is a far right extremist journal that wishes to redefine the political and historical terms of Western culture. The above is an excellent example of it. Here is the front plant from its web site.

The Harvard Salient is a fortnightly journal of political thought. Naturally conservative but free from political allegiances, the Salient was founded in 1981 by Harvard students who sought to provide a journalistic alternative to a predominantly liberal campus press. Opportunities abound for writers, artists, photographers, production assistants, and advertising salesmen. The Salient's goal is to return to the Harvard campus, through thoughtful discourse, the ancient principles underpinning Western civilization: tradition, family, property, and respect for ordered liberty.

Harvard Salient

"The Myth" itself is a myth, but that is obvious. What is nice is that Harvard has its own extremist right wing voice. Good. No more carping about a left dominated educational and university universe.

The real point is that German conservatism, as a philosophy, of course adhered to legitimacy and traditional institutions, but the fact remains that conservatives and their parties and the corporations belied all that and supported Hitler.

The real point is that Romney and the mainstream Republican Party rejects the politics and philosophy of the far extremist right of political and cultural America. Our difference with German conservatism is that we won't let extremist reactionary right wing perversion corrupt the party.

Starkey stop bagging on people.
You already said Nazis were socialists.....then you make the play that facism is right wing, because it;s conservative? I dont think he was that conservative.
you say leftwing politics has nothing to do with Marxism
you said the French Revolution didnt have communists
and I'm still waiting for your take on the left wing and what and who the "Rational" left are
But you say nothing, because you have nothing

 

[buckeye45_73]

I have never seen a history text that defines the parties the Nazis allied with as anything but the right. The standard breakdown of major German parties of the time is the DNVP and the Nazis on the right, the SDP and the KDP on the left, with Centre (Catholic party) in the middle.

It is not the terms themselves that are in question, but the definitions attached to them that are impotant to know. LWC for instance defines modern American conservatism in very uncomplimentary terms generally dictated by leftwing websites and/or other sources too partisan to be objective about anything. But it is important to know that 'conservatives' in Nazi Germany were a very different thing from modern American conservatives.

. . . Supported by the pan-German nationalism of 1848, the Prussian state was able to assert its centralizing, authoritarian control over the bulk of the Reich. The traditional Imperial idea of transnational lordship which had characterized the Imperial Crown from Charlemagne's time fell under the sword of Prussian aggression in 1866; shortly thereafter, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf against the Church. In response to this maneuver, which anticipated Hitler's own assault against the religious bodies, the Center Party leader Ludwig Windthorst stated succinctly the conservative position, "My loyalty to the Royal family of Hanover will last until my dying day, and nothing in the world, not even the most powerful Chancellor of Germany, will be able to make me depart from it." Conservative in Germany, as elsewhere, meant an adherence to legitimate and traditional institutions ‹ the very opposite of the Nazi ideology. . . .

--excerpted from In Hitler's Shadow - The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots by By Elbridge Colby, Deputy Editor of "The Harvard Salient"

Three things here.
1. The description of German conservatives of that era equally fits American conservatives today. You're thinking of "legitimate and traditional institutions" too narrowly. What are the two most "traditional" institutions in American society? Churches and the military, both of which are placed in very high esteem by modern American conservatives.
2. I would question the idea that the Nazis represented a rejection of "legitimate and traditional institutions". It's important to remember that from their perspective, they were rejecting the Weimar Republic, which they saw as illegitimate and whose leaders they saw as traitors to the nation.
3. None of the similarities make modern American conservatives bad. They only show that any idea taken to an extreme can be harmful. The good life, first and foremost, is about balance.

So you're saying Hitler saw himself as a Kaiser? And I dont think he was big on religion, atheism wasnt much of a hallmark of traditional German society.

Sure any extremism can be bad, for the right it's anarchy, for the left communism, both suck and should be tossed aside

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

PURE bullshit...

Jonah Goldberg's book is a sham, just like the author. Goldberg, who has no credentials beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. .

FACTS about 'Back in the 1920s'...

The Hard Road to Fascism

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

 

[francoHFW]

It's true that Hitler's Christianity was a temporay sham propaganda, just like the socialism in his party's name. NOT A SOCIALIST, that's VERY recent PUBCRAPPE for the dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

Don't fall for ANYTHING he said LOL

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's true that Hitler's Christianity was a temporay sham propaganda, just like the socialism in his party's name. NOT A SOCIALIST, that's VERY recent PUBCRAPPE for the dupes.

Come on Franco, The SA was socialist and the Nazis were socialist, but the main point, is was Hitler differnet than Stalin?

 

[Bfgrn]

It's true that Hitler's Christianity was a temporay sham propaganda, just like the socialism in his party's name. NOT A SOCIALIST, that's VERY recent PUBCRAPPE for the dupes.

Come on Franco, The SA was socialist and the Nazis were socialist, but the main point, is was Hitler differnet than Stalin?

No, they were both social Darwinists, just like today's right wing 'Marketists'.

Darwinism was critically important, not only in supporting the development and rise of Nazism and communism (and in producing the Nazi and communist holocausts), but also in the rise of the many ruthless robber baron capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s.1 As Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kittlewell concluded, social Darwinism has led to many evils, including ‘the glorification of free enterprise, laissez faire economics2 and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology’. A major aspect of this form of capitalism was the Darwinian belief which concluded that it is natural and proper to exploit without limits both ‘weaker’ persons and weaker businesses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al:
The Role of Darwinian Evolution in Their Lives

The whole Hitlerian idea of the “master race” of “supermen” was based on the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest” which Hitler proposed to speed up by various policies. Jews and Blacks were singled out as retards on the evolutionary scale who must not be allowed to contaminate the more evolved, i.e., the more advanced “aryan master race”.

Dr. Bergman’s conclusion: “The evidence is very clear that Darwinian ideas had a tremendous impact on German thought and practice.... In fact, Darwinian ideas had a tremendous influence on causing WWII, the loss of 40 million lives, and the waste of about 6 trillion 1945 dollars. Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern savior of mankind.... By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolution.”

Deep dyed evolutionists who embrace Communism and Socialism and Humanism, on the other hand, tend to officially promote atheism, seek to get rid of nationalism and install globalism, and ostensibly denounce capitalism while using it for their own ends in an otherwise government run economy. The “fall” of Soviet Communism, by-the-way, effected nothing as far as the evolutionary underpinning of these non-Fascist isms is concerned. Everybody just became Socialist-Humanists, which sounds a lot better, and the march away from nationalism toward globalism has now gone to afterburners.

NIKOLAI LENIN: (b. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov,1870; d. 1924.) Lenin, the first murderous communist dictator of the USSR said: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God , and hence immutable.” (The heart of this statement is: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species..were created by God....”)

Lenin was “...a confirmed atheist, dedicated to the destruction of...all religious worship...he regarded Christ with undisguised hatred.”

On his desk Lenin had a statue displayed in a “prominent position for all to see...its vivid presence dominated the room.” (What kind of statue?)

It was a “...bronze statue of an ape gazing at an oversized human skull.” This symbolized the evolutionary core of Lenin’s atheism. It further symbolized the core of Marx’s Communism which Lenin set about imposing on Russia and much of the rest of the world. When Lenin died in 1924, control of the Soviet Union passed to Joseph Stalin.

Let’s glance at the role evolutionism played in Stalin’s mind (a mind, all agree, which conceived and carried out the calculated murder of at least ten--and more likely--twenty to thirty million people, mostly Christians):

JOSEPH V. STALIN: (b. IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH DZHUGASHVILI, b.1879; d. 1953; Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.”

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s relates: “I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....’”

Gludjidze reported: “I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. How can you say such things, Soso?” he asked Stalin, who replied:

“I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

“What book is that?” his friend inquired.

“Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's true that Hitler's Christianity was a temporay sham propaganda, just like the socialism in his party's name. NOT A SOCIALIST, that's VERY recent PUBCRAPPE for the dupes.

Come on Franco, The SA was socialist and the Nazis were socialist, but the main point, is was Hitler differnet than Stalin?

No, they were both social Darwinists, just like today's right wing 'Marketists'.

Darwinism was critically important, not only in supporting the development and rise of Nazism and communism (and in producing the Nazi and communist holocausts), but also in the rise of the many ruthless robber baron capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s.1 As Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kittlewell concluded, social Darwinism has led to many evils, including ‘the glorification of free enterprise, laissez faire economics2 and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology’. A major aspect of this form of capitalism was the Darwinian belief which concluded that it is natural and proper to exploit without limits both ‘weaker’ persons and weaker businesses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al:
The Role of Darwinian Evolution in Their Lives

The whole Hitlerian idea of the “master race” of “supermen” was based on the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest” which Hitler proposed to speed up by various policies. Jews and Blacks were singled out as retards on the evolutionary scale who must not be allowed to contaminate the more evolved, i.e., the more advanced “aryan master race”.

Dr. Bergman’s conclusion: “The evidence is very clear that Darwinian ideas had a tremendous impact on German thought and practice.... In fact, Darwinian ideas had a tremendous influence on causing WWII, the loss of 40 million lives, and the waste of about 6 trillion 1945 dollars. Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern savior of mankind.... By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolution.”

Deep dyed evolutionists who embrace Communism and Socialism and Humanism, on the other hand, tend to officially promote atheism, seek to get rid of nationalism and install globalism, and ostensibly denounce capitalism while using it for their own ends in an otherwise government run economy. The “fall” of Soviet Communism, by-the-way, effected nothing as far as the evolutionary underpinning of these non-Fascist isms is concerned. Everybody just became Socialist-Humanists, which sounds a lot better, and the march away from nationalism toward globalism has now gone to afterburners.

NIKOLAI LENIN: (b. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov,1870; d. 1924.) Lenin, the first murderous communist dictator of the USSR said: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God , and hence immutable.” (The heart of this statement is: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species..were created by God....”)

Lenin was “...a confirmed atheist, dedicated to the destruction of...all religious worship...he regarded Christ with undisguised hatred.”

On his desk Lenin had a statue displayed in a “prominent position for all to see...its vivid presence dominated the room.” (What kind of statue?)

It was a “...bronze statue of an ape gazing at an oversized human skull.” This symbolized the evolutionary core of Lenin’s atheism. It further symbolized the core of Marx’s Communism which Lenin set about imposing on Russia and much of the rest of the world. When Lenin died in 1924, control of the Soviet Union passed to Joseph Stalin.

Let’s glance at the role evolutionism played in Stalin’s mind (a mind, all agree, which conceived and carried out the calculated murder of at least ten--and more likely--twenty to thirty million people, mostly Christians):

JOSEPH V. STALIN: (b. IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH DZHUGASHVILI, b.1879; d. 1953; Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.”

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s relates: “I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....’”

Gludjidze reported: “I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. How can you say such things, Soso?” he asked Stalin, who replied:

“I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

“What book is that?” his friend inquired.

“Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

HAHA I dont think the right believes in eugenics my friend. Sorry that's a "progressive" idea. And that would be another reason Hitler was a lefty. Sorry man but you lose.