"Hopeless Alert Call from Brazil" [Nazi Socialism Out of Control in Brazil --A.L.]

Olavo de Carvalho ^ | 24MAR03 | Olavo de Carvalho

[familyop]

Hopeless Alert Call from Brazil

by Olavo de Carvalho

http://www.olavodecarvalho.org

When I wrote that Brazilian people was being indoctrined into furious anti-American rage by local press, some readers said I was overstating my argument.

Now to the facts.

This poll was made last week among the readers of O Globo, one of the main Brazilian newspapers. The question was: 'Which of these three men is the more dangerous for mankind?' The answers were:

Saddam Hussein (7.31%);

Osama bin Laden (11.46%);

George Bush (81.23%).

So, I insist: (1) All Brazilian newspapers and TV channels are utterly anti-American. You can?t imagine the huge amount of pro-Saddam lies we have been reading and hearing here since the war started. (2) Even the Brazilian remaining right, specially among the military, is anti-American. (3) Brazilian government is closely associated to Colombian Farc, to Fidel Castro and to Hugo Chávez. Its seemingly moderate behaviour in economy matters is no more than a diversionist tactics adopted in order to gain time while the creation of a revolutionary police state is being carefully prepared. (4) Your Ambassador here does absolutely nothing to fight anti-American lies and she even gave the leftwing candidate Lula a generous helping hand in 2002 elections, saying to the press he was 'the incarnation of the American dream?' (so was also the poor indian boy Hugo Chávez, I presume). (5) It's really dangerous, both professionally and physically, to be pro-American in Brazil.

If American conservatives don't take consciousness of the present state of things in Brazil, some sort of Latin-American Saddam Hussein will rise against them very soon.

[familyop]

Nazi: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei--National Socialist Labor Party

A socialist government that controls all business and publication (like that of the Nazis) is no better than a socialist government that also owns the commerce and publication (communist). Both impose censorship and disallow free trade. Socialism is also necessary to keep Nazis, as with feminazis, in governmental power for any noticable length of time.

And now that more people are waking up to the importance to a free country of preserving History without leftist omissions, the efforts of various nests of revisionists are more obviously ridiculous.

It has also become obvious common knowledge that various kinds of socialists (Nazi/surrender-monkey and otherwise) under despotic governments are behind most contemporary anti-American and anti-Jewish propaganda.

[familyop]

"However they have seen American military muscle exercised in their neighborhood...thus the dislike for President Bush"

Consider the political opponents of those particular Central American and South American leaders supported by the USA. Would you prefer that those opponents had been in power, instead? They and their political supporters are all much as Hitler was. And why should we allow another Hitler to gain military strength?

And on the issue of our President. Would you prefer that one of Hillary Clinton's associates--AlGore, for example--be our President? Those are the alternatives. In the situations being discussed, one is either for those alternatives or against them.

Our USA is great, because we, as a freer and more generous people, on average (not so given to various strains of paganism), often vote to choose the lesser of two evils. The alternative to choosing the lesser of two evils in an election is to choose the worse of two evils (or the worst of six in some countries).

Take Colombia, for example. Would you rather that FARC took total control of the government there? Most decent families and their government representatives in that country begged for over a decade for our troops to assist them against the AT-weapon-toting drug gangs.

And most of our work in Central and South America in recent decades was humanitarian--that of building roads, community centers, schools, delivering medicines, services and other help. As for the rampant government and business corruption down there, we cannot stop that, as much as we wish we could. Such improvement needs the requisite of fundamental cultural and religious change.

All of that said, I agree that we in the USA should stay out of the business of other countries for a time--especially with our private, commercial businesses. I despise communism and any other totalitarian government and wish people in Central and South America would take the initiative to ignore pre-socialist propaganda from any party long enough to elect better officials.

But if it were up to me, I would keep us off of the ground in those countries while paying much more attention to building a more adequate US defense. People who have this now common (in countries where they allow nasty leaders to rule) generalized, ignorant hatred and jealousy against US citizens should begin to pay attention to their own urgent affairs and get out of the business of our government. As much as they wish for us to have someone like Hillary Clinton (who would like to rule the world) as President, we don't share that desire.

[Qwinn]

Communists also despise Trotskyites. Does that make Trotskyites right-wingers?

Your entire argument rests on the idea that A) Communism is left-wing (true), B) Hitler hated Communists (true), therefore C) Hitler was not left-wing (false). This presumes that the left wing is always united and never fights among themselves.

The only part about Nazism that was "right-wing" was the Nationalist part. The part of the left wing that survived World War II was the INTERnationalist Socialist Worker's Party.

If your entire definition of left wing vs. right wing rests solely on distinctions between nationalism vs. internationalism, then you might be able to make a case. Unfortunately, while that -is- true to a -small- extent, that is not the -primary- definition held to by 99% of the population. Most people perceive the left-right spectrum to range from socialism on the left to capitalism on the right. That puts Hitler firmly on the Left.

Qwinn

[Maimonides]

Look. The idea of right and left comes from where they used to sit in the parliament. So, it is an imperfect definition. However, traditionally right has been defined as capitalistic, while left has been defined as socialistic or communistic. It is important to notice that other modes of production have existed in human history. Feudalism for instance. Hunter gatherers, etc. Nazis are capitalists. They are populists and tend to encourage a larger state than most capitalist countries. However the state does not detain the ownership of the means of production (the classic definition of a soviet, Cuban, etc type of state). That was not the case of Nazi Germany. Capitalist states can be totalitarian. Nazism is a version of totalitarian capitalism, the same that the soviet system would be a version of totalitarian socialism. i.e. the Nazis are right wingers...because they are capitalistic. The Bolshevik are left-wingers because they are socialistic. That is the key definition of right and left. Admiting that these are imperfect terms. however if I don't convince you. Go ahead and read a book. As a person with background in political science i can tell that every political science textbook will place Nazism as a right wing ideology.

[Maimonides]

Trotskysts are communists/socialists. Lenin advocated the existence of small capitalists firms. Does does not negate that the state is "the dictatorship of the proletriat." Trotsky was still a marxist. So the proletariat controls the state. There are many currents within socialism and commuinism. Maoists, albanian model, christian marxists, environmental marxists...trotskists, etc...they advocate the ownership of the means of production collectively. Thus they are all marxists. As opposite to capitalists (private ownership of the means of production.)

As far as what 99% of the population thinks that's irrelevant. The fact is that nazis are capitalists...thus right wingers. Again this is a well defined point in any political science book (even ones written by conservatives).

[Maimonides]

look Nazi germany was a capitalist state. There was a greater presnce of the state than in most capitalist countries, however it was still a capitalist nation. It was a stratified society. The only property confiscated was taken from jews, gypsis, homosexulas, jehovah's witnesses and a few others. So that is the core definition today of right and left. There was no attempt to redistribute income. They still had class and poor people. If all this doesn't work read any political science bopok.

[DefCon]

"...Nazis are a right wing group while Socialism is left wing...."
- - -
The NAZIonal Socialist Party was NOT a right wing party.

[DefCon]

"...Does not mean that all left wingers are socialists and communists...."
- - -
In my book, yes, it most surely does.
The democratic party of the U.S. are all socialist left wingers.

[Petronski]

The NAZIonal Socialist Party was NOT a right wing party.

In Germany in 1933-45, it most certainly was a right wing party.

[cynicom]

"Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order"

So did Bush the elder.

[cynicom]

Have to disagree with Nazi being rightwing. They were socialist, just that the communists did not want to claim them as brethern.

[Petronski]

Have to disagree with Nazi being rightwing. They were socialist, just that the communists did not want to claim them as brethern.

The Nazi party in Germany was right wing. They might not fit in with how many define right and left today, in America. But in Germany in the pre-war era, they were most definitely right wing. In Germany at the time, there was no doubt of this.

[Southack]

"The NAZIonal Socialist Party was NOT a right wing party."

Yes and no.

Back then, "right" and "left" only applied to socialists. The Socialists on the "right" were those socialists who favored keeping private property in the hands of law abiding citizens, while the socialists on the "left" were those who favored the state owning all property.

But today, "right" is used to denote nationalists and anti-socialists, whereas "left" is used to denote all socialists...with some being more "left" than others.

So you've got two different standards of useage...and that dual standard is crafted that way so that the "left" of today can claim that all anti-socialists are in the same place (i.e. the "right") as the hated NAZIs of the past.

That we would fight amongst ourselves about such historical and current definitions is an added bonus, to those on the left, of their clever crafting of that dual standard.

[Alas Babylon!]

Correction: Nazi: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei--National Socialist German Workers Labor Party.

Deutsche = German
Arbeiter = Worker

[cynicom]

Petronski...

I have close friends that were born and raised in Germany, traveled on the fringe of the Hitler circles and considered themselves and the party as "socialist", conservative or rightwing has never been mentioned.

[Petronski]

Whatever you say.


What you described is not the consensus view, and 'anecdotal' is not a synonym for 'small sample size.'

[Petronski]

That we would fight amongst ourselves about such historical and current definitions is an added bonus, to those on the left, of their clever crafting of that dual standard.

Hear hear.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The fact is that nazis are capitalists...thus right wingers.

Not true. The Nazis condemned capitalism as jewish. They did not believe in free enterprise. Their economy was controlled by the state. They rejected individualism. They were socialists.

[Tailgunner Joe]

In Germany at the time, there was no doubt of this.

This is not really true either. Roehm's brownshirts were considered common rabble very much like the communists they fought in the streets and this is why they were put down at the beer hall putsch by von Seekt, the same Reichswehr commander who refused to fire upon Ludendorff and the Freikorps years before at the Kapp putsch.

Hitler considered Nazism a Hegelian synthesis of the forces of revolution and reaction.

[hosepipe]

#20
You're out of your depth here.. Backhoes post is documented and is general knowledge and can be researche easily. As long as you are careful to read non socialist pap. By the way Joseph McCarthy was a true american hero. No doubt you are behind the times on the new information exposeing his persecutors payed directly and indirectly by Uncle Joe Stalin too.