Posted on 01/18/2008 11:23:43 AM PST by Postal Dude
First of all, I am a German conservative who gives the CDU [Christian Democratic Union] his vote. I like my chancellor Angela Merkel, and I like my country. I DO like EUROPEAN diversity. This excludes Muslims! I consider myself a right-winger and I am pro-Israel. But I also do admit, that the Nazis were, after all, right-wing.
Fact is: The Nazis were ULTRA-right-wing extremistic, white supremacistic facists! Yes, their political party was called the "National Socialist German Workers Party", but it was neither a socialist nor a workers party! This name was purely propaganda to gain the people's votes to win the elections!
You can't judge a party by it's name anyway! For example: The "State Peace and Development Council" is the name of the ruling party of Burma [Myanmar]! The country is in fact ruled by a military dictatorship! They slaughtered thousands of innocent monks not long ago [you all heard about this disgusting story]! Burma ISN'T peaceful, and for sure it ISN'T developing, no matter what name their ruling party has!
What does THE LEFT stand for: Diversity by all means, Internationality, Multiculturalism, Pacifism, Racial Equality, Equal Rights for Homosexuals, Abortion, and so on! So that's, what ADOLF HITLER and his NAZI PARTY standed for?! HELL NO! THE OPPOSITE WAS TRUE!
Yes, there ARE a few points, where the socialist and the nazi politics meet! One point is "the Jews"! Well, do they really meet? The socialists, the leftists, do hate Israel, yes, but the Nazis DO HATE THE JEWS! The majority of the American Jews vote Democrat! So does that mean they all hate themselves? No! They dislike the American and Israeli intervention doctrine [I don't know why, really], but for sure they don't want to get rid of themselves! That's BS! Of course there are some idiotic self-hating Jews [Naturei Karta], but they are a MINORITY!
In WWII Hitler did pact with Stalin, but solely for strategic reasons. In the end, Hitler wanted to exterminate over 100 million Soviet citizens, of all ethnic groups, he deemed SUBHUMAN [see "Generalplan Ost"]. Do socialists deem other races, DOES Hillary Clinton deem Mexicans or African-Americans SUBHUMAN?! Do socialists want to get rid [BY MASSMURDER] of the diverse nation? NO! Their views are diametral opposed to that of the nazis! These idiots LOVE the diverse nation! They promote it! They live the diversity! But NAZIS deem human beings "unworthy of life"! Only NAZIS talk about "lesser races" and the "master race"! The Soviet Union was the most diverse nation on earth back then, whereas Nazi Germany was one of the most UNdiverse nations on earth! The Nazis literally KILLED the diversity!
Fact is: the Nazis did were right-wing. But that DOESN'T mean, all right-wing people are the same. That's MSN BS! Even an idiot has to recognice the difference between us GOOD christian, pro-Israel right-wingers and the "Stormfront, white supremacist, anti-semitic right-wingers"!
Nazi for short.
- Bill Vance
I would add Islamo-ism to the above group.
Did the Nazi’s take control of the means of production within the state? Case closed.
I think you're wrong. Many of those Jews who vote with the Dims reject almost everything about Judaism. Some of those many may attend synagogue two or three times a year out of a sense of guilt, but the rest of the year they certainly live their lives as if Judaism is irrelevant. Coincidentally I began a thread yesterday which illustrates this.
Related to your thread, also, is Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism. Check out the reviews and comments.
ML/NJ
Yes, they were.
IBFNZ*
(In before Nazi Zot)
Step away from the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The amount of upper case letters you use does not reverse the unpleasant truth. By EVERY definition, the Nazis were socialists and so is the current German government.
Is this really so difficult to understand? Lenin and Stalin preached class-based socialism, and directed their followers to harass, then imprison, then massacre the sub-human “enemies of the people” — kulaks/the bourgeoisie — for the greater glory of their god, The State; Hitler preached race-based socialism and directed his followers to harass, then imprison, then massacre the sub-human “enemies of the people” — Jews, Slavs, etc. — for the greater glory of his god, The State. Were there differences between the two systems? Of course, but from the perspective of anyone who believes in personal, economic or political liberty, constitutional government, the rule of law, etc., they were unquestionably two sides of the same coin.
See, this is where you go off track. The left may use those items in their rhetoric, but what the left stands for is:
Government control over every aspect of life.
That, my friend, is socialism. And that is exactly what the NAZI's were after. Control, not freedom.
Please read my post, before posting!
“State Peace and Development Council”. That’s the name of the ruling party of Burma. For short: peace and development! Utter BS! Burma is a communist military dictatorship! Don’t judge a party BY IT’S PROPAGANDA NAME!
(2) An essential component of Anglo-American rightism is a limited government with strongly defined individual rights.
(3) It is hardly a denial of history to point out that the National Socialist system was diametrically opposed to the Anglo-American system.
The fundamental building block of American civil society is the church, not race or party.
The fundamental principles of American government are representative bodies and federalism, not a system under which the there is no representative body and all laws derive from a Fuehrer.
The fundamental principles of American law are individual rights, not subordination of individual rights to the state by means of secret police apparati.
(4) In all these particulars, the National Socialist model resembles the Soviet model: one leader appointed for life, all laws deriving from the will of the leader or the central committee of his party, the outlawing of any party besides the leader's party, the abolition of representative bodies, the elimination of federal powers, the abolition of guarantees of individual rights, the government cooptation or persecution of the church as an organizing principle of civil society.
The Soviet model is, in the Anglo-American view, the quintessential leftist model. The National Socialist model resembles it closesly in nearly every particular - therefore by Anglo-American standards, National Socialism was a "left wing" phenomenon, or a "socialist" phenomenon, or a "jacobin" phenomenon or whatever term one wants to use to designate the left.
Nazis believed in socialism for all good Germans and death for the rest of us—this particular strain of socialism is called ‘national socialism’ and is surely different from ‘international socialism’ which advocates socialism for all good sheeple and death for the rest of us.
Do Socialists deem other races [Mexicans, Afro-Americans] SUBHUMAN?
Case closed.
The Soviet Union “diverse”? I guess they had a bunch of gay composers and ballet dancers, but their blacks must have been really light-skinned.
The Nazis didn’t believe in Socialism at all. That was purely propaganda for the masses. All Nazi Party members who took the “Socialist” part too serious in “National Socialist German Workers Party” were KILLED!
Like Woodrow Wilson.
Who was a socialist.
Of course, unlike Hitler, Wilson didn't call himself one. He called himself a "Democrat".
The Soviet Union was in fact the most diverse nation by ethnicity. Look it up in the internet, doesn’t matter where. Russia today is still one of the most diverse nations of the world.
That dude is going postal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.