New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

This is as offensive as a Swastika

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Really? I'd suggest to you that someone pointed out to the leaders of StormFront, Identity Europa and other groups that their support for Trump actually hurts him with people in the middle who might have supported him then, but are on the fence now.
Pure speculation. Maybe it makes you feel better but it's simply not true. Be aware that i communicate often with the leadership of two American NS organizations. What you suggest didn't happen. Trump lost NS support because of his failures at controlling illegal entry, failure to get troops out of the Mid-East, and blind support for Israel.
If the German Nazis of the 1930s were truly socialists they wouldn't have gotten the support of the Krupps, Thyssens, Schacht, Hitler also had the support of the military, the churches and the aristocracy. Hardly bastions of liberal thought. Hitler was eager to round up gays, minorities and Jews. How does that fit in with socialism?
You limit "socialism" to the Marxist conception and it's direct offshoots. NATIONAL Socialism is a different model. Lefties always point to the aspects of it that fit the typical right-wing positions and righties always point to the aspects of it that fit the typical left-wing model. Both use "the Nazis" as a bludgeon against the other. And both stubbornly, ignorantly, and stupidly refuse to acknowledge the plain truth that NS is a full philosophy of politics, economy, and life that fits neither left- nor right-wing.

If it weren't for a handful of people here who aren't such close-minded bigots or small-minded Luddites, and the possibility of some intelligent people who read posts without ever joining the forum seeing my posts and acknowledging that just maybe a "Nazi" knows what she's talking about when she talks about "Nazis," i'd have given up bothering to show the truth to people who refuse to see.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Except when people show up at pro-right rallies carrying swastika flags....
Simply: Righties are feeling more disaffected right now than lefties. Because conservative-leaning folks are the ones unhappy about the direction of Western society toward globalism and communism, and NS staunchly opposes both, one NS group has targeted conservatives for possible recruitment. With a success rate of zero, essentially, i might add. That was the impetus behind Charlottesville.
Contending any deeper connection is, once again, ignorant, agenda-driven, and wrong.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Pure speculation. Maybe it makes you feel better but it's simply not true. Be aware that i communicate often with the leadership of two American NS organizations. What you suggest didn't happen. Trump lost NS support because of his failures at controlling illegal entry, failure to get troops out of the Mid-East, and blind support for Israel.

You limit "socialism" to the Marxist conception and it's direct offshoots. NATIONAL Socialism is a different model. Lefties always point to the aspects of it that fit the typical right-wing positions and righties always point to the aspects of it that fit the typical left-wing model. Both use "the Nazis" as a bludgeon against the other. And both stubbornly, ignorantly, and stupidly refuse to acknowledge the plain truth that NS is a full philosophy of politics, economy, and life that fits neither left- nor right-wing.

If it weren't for a handful of people here who aren't such close-minded bigots or small-minded Luddites, and the possibility of some intelligent people who read posts without ever joining the forum seeing my posts and acknowledging that just maybe a "Nazi" knows what she's talking about when she talks about "Nazis," i'd have given up bothering to show the truth to people who refuse to see.
I see that you want to defend Naziism and would like to redefine the events of 1933 to 1945...but you can't. While many want to define socialism by the standard of the Fascists in Germany, Spain, Argentina, Italy and others...they can't do that either.
So the first thing is to look at policies, both of the Nazis and of other socialistic regimes...
Some degree of socialism exists in practically every nation. The extreme is communism...a regimentation of socialism that does away with private property entirely. Fascism doesn't do that at all.

Here is a bit of reading for you. By today's definition of socialism...Hitler wasn't one.
Based on any rational definition of right vs left policies...He was far right, militaristic, nationalistic, anti-gay, pro-religion, pro-private property (unless you were a Jew)...

 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
I see that you want to defend Naziism and would like to redefine the events of 1933 to 1945...but you can't.
Can. Have. Will again.
While many want to define socialism
Hitler wanted to RE-define "sozialistische" -- He stated so plainly and i've quoted it here several times. What bothers you is that socialism is considered "left-wing" and Democrats are considered "left-wing," and so you absolutely MUST demand that the evil, evil, evil, greatest evil of all time ever really, really, really wah wah wah "Nazis" be labeled "right-wing," facts-be-damned. Learn the real truth of NS philosophy or just keep playing with yourself; your choice.
Here is a bit of reading for you.
Here's a bit of reading for you:
By today's definition of socialism...Hitler wasn't one.
Funny thing: Hitler isn't in power today.
Based on any rational definition of right vs left policies...He was far right
Rationality has nothing to do with your position, or just about anyone's when it comes to anything appertaining to Hitler, NS, or WWIi. Cognitive dissonance has a lot to do with it.

Listen -- My grandchild will be here soon and spending the holiday weekend with us. It's probably going to be Monday or Tuesday before i'll be back on PJ. Can we take a mutually-respectful break from this 2-thread debate? We'll certainly pick it again elsewhere soon enough. If you insist on getting in some final licks for now, it's fine.
 

EatTheRich

President
I would be laughing hysterical but it's actually not funny. The supposed anti-fascist movement is actually the biggest and violent FASCIST group in a generation.

No sense in even trying to explain that to them being that they are beyond incredibly f-cking stupid.
The biggest fascist group today is Golden Dawn. The biggest American fascist group is the tiny Traditionalist Workers’ Party. Antifa is an ultraleftist group.
 

EatTheRich

President
Nazism is a race based socialism.
According to Nazi propaganda. Not in reality.
Communism (Antifa is a communist movement) is class based socialism.

They are both faces on the same coin. They murder in the millions and they are both authoritarian totalitarian ideologies.

People have to understand this. They both have to be dealt with and confronted. They need to be buried neck deep forever.
Communism is a movement of liberation, fighting for the justice that alone can secure everlasting peace. Nazism is violence and repression to keep a failing system from being overthrown by communism.
 

EatTheRich

President
National Socialists oppose eugenics. Hitler toyed with the idea for a while after reading some American writings on the subject then abandoned it. Some of the NSDAP leadership continued to support it.

National Socialists don't now and never did support killing people with Downes Syndrome or any other birth defect. We oppose aborting children with detected Downes Syndrome or any other birth defect. We oppose abortion generally except in certain extreme circumstances.

Hair and eye color have always been irrelevant in National Socialism.
Lies
 

EatTheRich

President
Really? I'd suggest to you that someone pointed out to the leaders of StormFront, Identity Europa and other groups that their support for Trump actually hurts him with people in the middle who might have supported him then, but are on the fence now.

If the German Nazis of the 1930s were truly socialists they wouldn't have gotten the support of the Krupps, Thyssens, Schacht, Hitler also had the support of the military, the churches and the aristocracy. Hardly bastions of liberal thought. Hitler was eager to round up gays, minorities and Jews. How does that fit in with socialism?
Don’t forget being appointed chancellor by a conservative President after entering a coalition with a conservative party.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
NAZI'S are not socialists.

"Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."

You should read the whole article.
more ammo
 
According to Nazi propaganda. Not in reality.
I'm sorry but the Mises article makes a clear case you haven't debunked. And likely haven't read. Even the public discussion at the bottom or the article is informative on the matter.

Communism is a movement of liberation, fighting for the justice that alone can secure everlasting peace.
This reads like pure propaganda and belies the historical facts on the ground every time communism was instituted in some place.

Nazism is violence and repression to keep a failing system from being overthrown by communism.
More propaganda reading? Stop, the intellectual dishonesty is killing me with laughter.:D
 

EatTheRich

President
Ad hominem. Go after the argument. Never mind that I dispute your characterization.
As you know, it’s been addressed many times. The fundamental power of ownership is the power to dispose of profits, which the private owners enjoyed to an even greater extent when, by market demand, the state relieved them of the burdens of management. Not to mention that companies could and often did turn down government contracts that were not lucrative enough. And if the fascist states were so socialist, why did von Mises himself praise them for stopping the advance of socialism?
 
As you know, it’s been addressed many times. The fundamental power of ownership is the power to dispose of profits, which the private owners enjoyed to an even greater extent when, by market demand, the state relieved them of the burdens of management. Not to mention that companies could and often did turn down government contracts that were not lucrative enough. And if the fascist states were so socialist, why did von Mises himself praise them for stopping the advance of socialism?
The linked Mises article debunks everything you just said here.
 

EatTheRich

President
The linked Mises article debunks everything you just said here.
No, it doesn’t. Did you read it? Didn’t every capitalist power of the era adopt a wartime command economy? “Nothing so resembles a country at war as another country at war.”-Daniel Guerin.

Nixon adopted wage and price controls, was he a socialist too?
 
No, it doesn’t. Did you read it? Didn’t every capitalist power of the era adopt a wartime command economy? “Nothing so resembles a country at war as another country at war.”-Daniel Guerin.
You make it sound like Hitler's command economy started in 1939. It started virtually at the beginning of his acquisition of complete power.

Nixon adopted wage and price controls, was he a socialist too?
He was certainly getting there.

I steal, therefore I am. From the discussion section of the Mises article.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
writer:
Examine the primary documents of the Third Reich (or Fascist Italy, for that matter) and you discover not only did they refer to themselves as Socialists, their policy goals were socialistic. What is different is that they, Hitler and Mussolini, were not internationalists nor were they Marxist socialists.

However, they were competing for the same voters with the Communists. Look it up.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We'll start with a Pamphlet written by Joseph Goebbels, hosted on a University website (just so your ignorant ass can't excuse it as a "Right wing website", (cough), excuse me... delicate sensibilities aren't offended)

http://research.calvin.edu/...

Now, just so you don't hand wave away and fail to read it, as folks on the Left are oft want to do, I will copy and paste the relevant passages:

"Why Are We Socialists?

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I notice that you don’t attempt to refute the fact this document shows the
Nazis trying to appeal to voters by showing they are socialists. Not that you could. You try to impeach the document because it was written by Goebbels? Who else would write Nazi election pamphlets but the [Unwelcome language removed] in charge of selling their propaganda crap to the masses? (Oh,
and please learn how to spell. There is only one “o” in propaganda. Dumbass.)

But… since you asked for it, how about Hitler’s own words, hmmmm? Try and hand wave this, Sparky; here are two quotes by Hitler from Hitler Speaks by Hermann Rauschning, published in 1940:

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I
have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

Another quote:

"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline
they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

But let’s not stop there…

How about the Nazi party platform? http://www.scrapbookpages.c...

And again so you cannot hand wave without looking like a complete fool who is in an argument over his head (not that it has stopped you so far…):

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and
property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Hmmmm, sounds pretty Leftist to me. And what about this quote:

“A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against
the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a “revolutionary creative will” which had “no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change”.

Pretty Leftist sounding to me… and they are both from the second
volume, fifth chapter of “Mein Kampf”
 

EatTheRich

President
You make it sound like Hitler's command economy started in 1939. It started virtually at the beginning of his acquisition of complete power.
They feared the possibility of war in 1934, and organized their economy to ramp up military production as early as 1933. Anyway, did it? The hallmark of Hitler’s early economic policy was privatization of publicly owned institutions and elimination of public welfare programs. The only big economic roles for the government were to protect industry via tariffs and a big highway program.

He was certainly getting there.
What’s next? Eisenhower was an all-out commie?

I steal, therefore I am. From the discussion section of the Mises article.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
writer:
Respect.
Examine the primary documents of the Third Reich (or Fascist Italy, for that matter) and you discover not only did they refer to themselves as Socialists, their policy goals were socialistic. What is different is that they, Hitler and Mussolini, were not internationalists nor were they Marxist socialists.
Their primary stated goal was to make Germany great again by ridding it of “Jewish domination.” He may have fooled the others, but he doesn’t fool me.

However, they were competing for the same voters with the Communists. Look it up.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly. The masses wanted radical change, and Nazism emerged as the radical-right alternative to Communism.

We'll start with a Pamphlet written by Joseph Goebbels, hosted on a University website (just so your ignorant ass can't excuse it as a "Right wing website", (cough), excuse me... delicate sensibilities aren't offended)
Goebbels was also to the left of Hitler, befitting his role as propagandist for the regime.
http://research.calvin.edu/...

Now, just so you don't hand wave away and fail to read it, as folks on the Left are oft want to do, I will copy and paste the relevant passages:

"Why Are We Socialists?

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Not what socialism means. Does demonstrate the obsession with racial cleansing though. As well as defending bourgeois “political freedom” and the bourgeois state.

I notice that you don’t attempt to refute the fact this document shows the
Nazis trying to appeal to voters by showing they are socialists.
Yeah, smoke and mirrors. that tried to appeal to newly radicalized middle-class “socialists” by embodying every middle-class stereotype about socialism, repackaged as a battering ram aimed at the heart of Marxism.

Not that you could. You try to impeach the document because it was written by Goebbels? Who else would write Nazi election pamphlets but the [Unwelcome language removed] in charge of selling their propaganda crap to the masses? (Oh,
and please learn how to spell. There is only one “o” in propaganda. Dumbass.)
Oh, and please learn your parts of speech, Mr. Bryant. “Want” is a verb or noun. “Wont,” as used in the phrase, “ ... as people on the left are oft wont to do ... ,” is an adjective (in other contexts it can be a noun as well).

But… since you asked for it, how about Hitler’s own words, hmmmm? Try and hand wave this, Sparky; here are two quotes by Hitler from Hitler Speaks by Hermann Rauschning, published in 1940:
Hitler Speaks was long ago established as unreliable anti-Hitler conservative propaganda.

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists.
If he indeed said this, perhaps he made the common petit-bourgeois error of conflating the Bolshevik revolutionary feeling he reviled as the work of “Jewish Marxists” with the Stalinist counterrevolutionary spirit he no question did admire and emulate.

I
have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."
Communists and Nazis are people of action, the difference between them is believing in and loving humanity vs. giving up and trying to survive a capitalist nightmare at the expense of others.

Another quote:

"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline
they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
In other words, the economic aspirations of the working masses weren’t the least bit important to the party, but general subordination to the bourgeois state (underlaid by capitalist ownership arrangements) was. Trotsky wrote, “Anything is moral that increases the power of man over nature, or diminishes the power of man over man.” Hitler boasted about doing just the opposite and forsaking the socialist program of nationalization in order to mockingly call making slaves of the masses “socialism” instead.

But let’s not stop there…

How about the Nazi party platform? http://www.scrapbookpages.c...
The one the party outlawed discussion of on pain of expulsion even before taking power, and that many Brown Shirts among many others were killed for bringing up?

And again so you cannot hand wave without looking like a complete fool who is in an argument over his head (not that it has stopped you so far…):
Why does it begin at 9? Are the prior ones inconvenient?

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.
What is your point? Only socialists believe in equal rights?

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.
Only socialists believe that everyone should pull their own weight and not seek to get ahead at the expense of others?

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Which they didn’t come close to doing, ever.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and
property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
Which they never did.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
Which they never did. Quite the opposite.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
They claimed this meant a tariff on foreign imports.
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
Already developed under Bismarck and one of the Nazis’ concessions to continued anticapitalist agitation.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class
A “socialist” proposal?

, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
So, subsidies to help private business succeed as the main strike against big business?

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
Never happened.

Hmmmm, sounds pretty Leftist to me. And what about this quote:

“A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against
the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a “revolutionary creative will” which had “no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change”.

Pretty Leftist sounding to me… and they are both from the second
volume, fifth chapter of “Mein Kampf”
Yes, they sound very much like the right-wing caricature of the left, you know, the way a right-winger on this board would sound if they role-played as a left-wing member of Congress far more intelligent and honest than themselves.
 
Communists and Nazis are people of action, the difference between them is believing in and loving humanity vs. giving up and trying to survive a capitalist nightmare at the expense of others.
This is the best part of all your rather forgetable rejoinders. :rolleyes:

You sound very much like our very own @Emily talking up her ideology. Even in this communists are very much like the Nazis.

You are two sides of the same coin.
 
Top