"Nein. You hang up first, Eva."
Posted on 09/06/2018 2:50:06 PM PDT by rktman
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on court nominees last year, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, 85, went on record that “there isn’t any good in Nazism.” Still, millennials and such should know that it does stand for something.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is the National Socialist German Workers Party, whose objective was Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism. Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) had seen this storm cloud coming for some time.
The socialist policy of Germany “was generally held up by progressives as an example to be imitated,” Hayek wrote in 1944 in “The Road to Serfdom.” He noted that while there was a natural progression that most intellectuals denied, “few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
>>t’s almost like the real nazis were all for socialism or something. Of course ‘nazisplaining’ will, or would, be lost on the assclowns who THINK they’re fighting nazis and fascism.<<
They fight the labels while embodying EVERY FACET of those philosophies.
What is difficult to make clear to those with a vested interest in believing otherwise, the Nazis were entirely socialist in the beginning, morphing only slightly into fascism once Hitler began getting support from industrialists who looked askance at the outright confiscation of their property. Mussolini grandly declared himself a capitalist - he wasn’t anything of the sort - in order to mask the degree to which his intended state would take over the running of the companies they didn’t quite confiscate. But the two - socialism and fascism - are not the opposite poles of any political spectrum. Consider their commonalities: both believe in the collective (”social”) domination of the means of production, the primacy of the state over the individual, command economies, rigid party regulation of every aspect of daily life - yes, both are inherently totalitarian - and extreme violence in political life justified by their stated ends. Peas in a pod.
If you call people Nazis, you may be one.
"Nein. You hang up first, Eva."
Nice to read something of substance written by someone who knows what they are talking about.
Is there anything you mentioned that does not apply to today's oppressive globalist left?
The Junkers are still wielding power.
Mussolini was a loyal member of Italy's socialist party until he was removed as editor of their daily paper for disagreeing with the party's desire for Italy to stay out of WW I. It was foreign policy, not economic, which caused his break with the socialists. Fascism has always been a branch of socialism.
Does she mean we should do the exact opposite of everything the Nazis did?
The Fokkers, not so much?
Fokjers were dutch. So no. Junkers were and are nobility. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker_(Prussia). But yeah, I see what you did there.
The communists greatest propaganda victory was branding themselves as the polar opposites of the Nazis.
Nazis - far right on the political spectrum
Communists - left (note that lack of a word here) on the political spectrum.
Truth is, they were really competing brands of the same product. That’s why they hated each other so much. (Gator; your beer comment is always welcome here).
Nazis - National Socialists
Communists - International Socialists
It doesn’t matter what’s on the wrapper, its still a s*** sandwich inside.
You just described ANTIFA to a tee!
Like the Brown shirts they’re the violent arm of the Democratic Socialists of America, though the DSA is communist that hides behind the Socialist label.
Nazis and Communists, just like Bloods and Crips fighting over turf.
Bill,
Seems that as Hayek stated, that NAZISM is a natural by-product of (failing) Socialism. Socialism shares the wealth of a nation via government programs, one step or so below Communism, and as wealth erodes (the government consumes rather than multiplies it) the state must declare and demand increasing control of the production of wealth in order to maintain that socialism, when push comes to shove, the govt kills those who resist.
Furthermore when you look at how Stalin ran the Soviet Union, he was much closer in approach to Hitler, than to Lenin.
Whereas Lenin was an Internationalist and believed in World Revolution. Stalin’s goals were more aligned with the traditional Russian geopolitical goals, under the guise of ‘Socialism in One Country’. He also, in spite of being Georgian, was a Russian supremacist, who instilled Russification throughout the Soviet Union, and uprooted entire ethnic populations who lived for centuries in favor of ethnic Russians.
In reality, the only difference between Stalin and Hitler’s regimes was the nature of their propaganda.
Stalin was also highly anti-Semitic and killed more Jews than Hitler. But he had more time to work on it and killed everyone anyway; truly an ecumenical misanthrope.
Stalin found Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives” inspirational. He privately commended Hitler for the purge. It wasn’t too long after Kamenev and Zinoviev were arrested.
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.