The author is my sister-in-law. Military history professor.
Ping for future reference. Good history research.
It is good. Bernie supporters need to read it.
I’d never heard of the word “Nazi’’ being used as an insult or being meant to describe a backward or low brow German. Not at the time anyway. Most Germans were indifferent at first about the Nazis,thought they were a flash in the pan. They were however concerned more about Communism and the Nazis, especially with the brilliant , if devious mind of Goebbels would exploit that fear masterfully. I think after their first election run they only manged to get about a dozen seats in the Reichstag. Things changed though after Hindenburg died.
But yes, your sister-in-law is correct. Bernie’s ‘kiddie korps’’ have no clue to what they’re in for if, God forbid he is ever elected. But what I worry about is what comes after Bernie’s gone. There are legions of young Bernie Bots who will carry on ‘’the struggle’’.
Great post. Thanks.
Even the world socialists website, the comrades, don’t like YOU. Feel the Burn, FRAUD. Get out of your Bourgeois bubble, screwball.
By Patrick Martin
3 March 2020
World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/03/dems-m03.html
“Sanders’ response to the Democratic Party’s open and unrestrained hostility to him exposes the depth of his own political demagogy.”
Yep, I’ve said, Karl would spit on him...uncle Joe would put one in the back of Bourgeois Bernie’s head.
What a FRAUD that “INDEPENDENT”/”SOCIAL DEMOCRAT” for 20 years on the body politic.
His position papers on “the struggle” show it. Wait...what?...
C’mon septuagenarian...where’s your fight. Did CoVid-535 get you? He did extort some money from the Ukraine and the U.S.A. under the auspices of “foreign aide”, That Uke Puke. Yell it, Uke Pukes of the world UNITE! He’s been a pig at the trough longer (1973). C’mon Bern...shave your head, get some tats. Show him you mean biz for your hoodwinked. Good thing Karl and Uncle Joe weren’t around Bourgeois Bernie. You’d have been gone long ago. They didn’t like you either. Read the Manifesto, FRAUD. Why wasn’t Howard Zinn your campaign manager? Teach too expensive or is that golden parachute only for you. Don’t get fooled again, kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q
World Health Organization? No WHO
The Jewish question was written by Bruno Bauer Employee of Karl Marx whom they later learn to despise one another.
This was during the time when Eduard Bernstein (Jewish) was in agree with "the Jewish question." This is the time when he formulated most of his ideas which was similar to Pierre Biétry founder of Yellow socialism.
until about the time of Leo Frank lynching. After Bernstein disagreed with "the Jewish question." Though kept his basic concepts which mimics corporatism or Taylorism. Which Lenin used Taylorism for the bases of his communist system. Hitler used Fordism which are both very similar.
There is a lot more to this though this is the short version
"Irregardless"?
A good book on the subject is ‘the ominous parallels’ by peikoff.
See the Hayek quote on my FR profile page. 3rd one down, two paragraphs.
I always laugh when the left tries to put itself on a pedestal. By abortion alone, liberals have killed more human beings than the Nazis could ever have hoped to have killed, 50 million since 1973, and that’s just abortion alone. That’s not counting the welfare Holocaust that has decimated the black family unit and community destroying millions of lives.
Definitely not an English professor, irregardless, truth to bernie
As we all know NAZI Ais taken free r ok m “Nationalsozialistische” portion bbn of the NSDAP.
However, the swastika symbol itself historically appears original to Baal worship (Male organ worship), which fits very well with the long standing “Butch” sodomite NAZI hierarchy.
No, socialists/communists do not know anything about history else they would not be socialists/communists
Therein lies one of the many problems with socialism in whatever form or guise it is presented. Some people object to having the fruits of their labors confiscated and redistributed as someone else sees fit. These people must be forced to participate. Eventually any socialist government must start leaning very authoritarian in order to impose it's ideas and ideals on everyone.
Thanks for posting!
She wrote a great piece, regardless of her grammar mistake.
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under 'communism' and 'fascism'. As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939,'the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.’No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as 'the general welfare'. There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.
____________— F A Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (May, 1945 Reader’s Digest Condensed Version)
The man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by humanity and benevolence, will respect the established powers and privileges eVen of individuals, and still more those of the great orders and societies, into which the state is divided. Though he should consider some of them as in some measure abusive, he will content himself with moderating, what he often cannot annihilate without great violence. When he cannot conquer the rooted prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion, he will not attempt to subdue them by force; but will religiously observe what, by Cicero, is justly called the divine maxim of Plato, never to use violence to his country no more than to his parents. He will accommodate, as well as he can, his public arrangements to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people; and will remedy as well as he can, the inconveniencies which may flow from the want of those regulations which the people are averse to submit to. When he cannot establish the right, he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong; but like Solon, when he cannot establish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish the best that the people can bear.The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.
Some general, and even systematical, idea of the perfection of policy and law, may no doubt be necessary for directing the views of the statesman. But to insist upon establishing, and upon establishing all at once, and in spite of all opposition, every thing which that idea may seem to require, must often be the highest degree of arrogance. It is to erect his own judgment into the supreme standard of right and wrong. It is to fancy himself the only wise and worthy man in the commonwealth, and that his fellow-citizens should accommodate themselves to him and not he to them. It is upon this account, that of all political speculators, sovereign princes are by far the most dangerous. This arrogance is perfectly familiar to them. They entertain no doubt of the immense superiority of their own judgment. When such imperial and royal reformers, therefore, condescend to contemplate the constitution of the country which is committed to their government, they seldom see any thing so wrong in it as the obstructions which it may sometimes oppose to the execution of their own will. They hold in contempt the divine maxim of Plato, and consider the state as made for themselves, not themselves for the state. The great object of their reformation, therefore, is to remove those obstructions; to reduce the authority of the nobility; to take away the privileges of cities and provinces, and to render both the greatest individuals and the greatest orders of the state, as incapable of opposing their commands, as the weakest and most insignificant.