http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/Other_Voices/bush-hitler.htm

BUSH AND HITLER:
Is History Repeating Itself?

No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about
everything he had ever undertaken until he discovered politics. In the
world of spin and power plays, a superficial gift of gab and bullish
determination could replace intelligence and idealism without missing a
beat. Hitler found that the path to the top was short: Just tell a discontent
people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention to keep.

In Hitler's first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30,
1933, he pledged [this is a direct quote from that address] "to revive
in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation" and invoked God's
blessing on the German government. (Hitler was a fervent Christian - a
fact too many have either forgotten or never knew, thanks to sanitized
school history books). But, the Fuhrer soon proved he had no intention
of being a uniter. The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had
been "down with the liberals!" Once in office, Hitler made "liberals" (a
mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any
threat to Hitler's model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.

As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action
after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels,
head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains
behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: "The struggle is a light one
now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the
judiciary]. In addition, he noted, "Radio and press are at our disposal."

See link for more

Neoconservatism and National Socialism are one in the same.

Originally posted by Blackshirt
Neoconservatism and National Socialism are one in the same.
Just remember people, Blackshirt said that and not me...:D

Originally posted by Blackshirt
Neoconservatism and National Socialism are one in the same.


You are absolutely correct..


And to answer Criminals post, yes, history is unfortuneately repeating itself..

Originally posted by Blackshirt
Neoconservatism and National Socialism are one in the same.

Ultra-nationalism, free market, heavy anti marxism / socialism, racial scapegoating, massive propaganda campaigns, secret societies... tsk tsk.

Horowitz and Hitler, strange bedfellows.

Not another Hitler-of-the-Month!

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030227.shtml

The United States seems to have a Hitler-of-the-Month Club. As the Soviet Union waned and collapsed, a new series of enemies began to emerge, each in turn likened to Hitler as a global threat: the Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar al-Qaddafi, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, and now Saddam Hussein again. Globally, these were equivalent to Joe Louis’s bums, but U.S. propaganda has dignified them as Hitlers.

Just as the United States has had its 9/11, even Joe sometimes got a rude shock. In 1942, I believe it was, Tony Galento, a roly-poly slugger from New Jersey who trained on beer, landed a punch that knocked Joe on the seat of his trunks, but by round four Tony had been rendered unconscious. (The history-minded will note that he later took bit parts in movies like On the Waterfront.)

Today Joe’s legend has faded; he is best remembered for beating Max Schmeling, Hitler’s boy. Today, in fact, Hitler still defines just about everything, one way and another. His name is invoked to settle all arguments. You want war? So did Hitler. You don’t want war? You’re like the people who appeased Hitler.

Hitler was not only bad, but infinitely bad. No price is too great to pay for vanquishing a Hitler — even a metaphorical Hitler. Thus Andrew Sullivan, urging war on Iraq in Time, points out, “The war against Hitler killed millions — but it was just.”

Was it ever! Not only did World War II cost 50 million lives, it gave Stalin a huge swath of Europe and brought the world into the nuclear era. But it was all worth it! We got rid of Hitler!

Once Hitler is introduced into the conversation, and he usually is, any sense of measure disappears. All-out war becomes imperative, and it’s petty to ask what the consequences may be. When you’re budgeting for Hitler, cost is no object.

Nazi alert.




















:D

Out of those three paragraphs, only one sentence and an iota of truth to it. I think I'll pass on that link. You'd learn more reading the National Enquirer.

All this historical parallels to Hitler is making me sick, “Bush is Hitler” “Saddam is Hitler” “Sharon is Hitler” “Osama is Hitler”. I was Hitler I would’ve felt insulted.

Hannibal is Hitler.

You bastard, who told you? :P

Originally posted by Blackshirt
Neoconservatism and National Socialism are one in the same.

------------------------Neoconservatism-----------National Socialism

Socialist-----------------------------------------------------X

Relativist----------------------------------------------------X

Revolutionary ------------------------------------------------X

Class/Race Dichotomy----------------------------------------X

Authoritarian------------------------------------------------X

Nationalistic---------------------X--------------------------X

Imperialist---------------------------------------------------X

Statist---------------------------------------------------------X



Sorry but no.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



You are absolutely correct..


And to answer Criminals post, yes, history is unfortuneately repeating itself..

How can that be correct when, fundamentally, radical leftism has far far more in common with naitonal socialism, than any conservative ideology? From socialism, to social engineering, to the class.race dichotomy, to group think....there is almost no difference.

Now, except for nationalism, how is free market counterrevolutionary conservatism and revolutionary SOCIALISM similar in any way? Perhaps you are just trying to slander conservatism? :rolleyes:

Take a read:



Leftist Racism
By John J. Ray

Introduction


In various articles that I have written from time to time, I have alluded to the fact that there are plenty of racially discriminatory attitudes and behaviour on the political Left and that Leftist racism is at least as vicious as any other form of racism. Leftists of course constantly condemn the slightest suspicion of racism in others in an apparent claim that they are holier than others in that respect. In this article, therefore, I draw together much of what I have said before in different sources and added a lot of new material in the hope of giving a single more comprehensive treatment of Leftist racism.


Nazism was Leftist


Probably the ultimate racist creed was Nazism. And one of the great confidence tricks of the 20th Century is the way in which 20th century intellectuals managed to get Nazism labelled as "Rightist". This is however utter nonsense. Take this description of a political programme: 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". You could hardly get a more change-oriented or revolutionary programme than that. So whose programme was it? Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? Mao? No. It was how Hitler described his programme towards the end of "Mein Kampf". And the Left pretend that Hitler was some sort of conservative!


And who was it who described his movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, … no permanency, only eternal change'. It could very easily have been Trotsky or Mao but it was in fact Hitler (O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138). Clearly, Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.


To reinforce the point that Nazism was in fact Leftist, we might also note: Hitler always campaigned as a socialist and champion of the worker and the full name of Hitler's political party — generally abbreviated as "Nazi" — says it all: Die Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei ("The National Socialist German Worker's Party"). So, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of "the people" (Das Volk). The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful, and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, supervised German industry minutely. And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler's Panzers as they stormed through France was Soviet fuel.


And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the '60s was the 1958 book "The Affluent Society" by influential "liberal" Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith — in which he fulminated about what he saw as our "Private affluence and public squalor". But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz (Common use before private use).


It is also a matter of historical record that, after the Nazi-Soviet pact, Communists worldwide immediately became vigorously pro-Hitler. So Leftist "principles" are obviously very flexible. It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that, if Hitler had won and Stalin lost the war, Leftists would now be justifying their constant clamour for change and their bids for power as furthering Nazi ideals rather than "humanitarian" ideals.


And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don't we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women — the Lebensborn project? Good Leftists recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler's day? In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century were the "Progressives". And who were the Progressives? Here is one summary of them:
Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization. Progressivism ... asserted that the social order could and must be improved... Some historians, like Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry, have argued that the progressive movement attempted to return America to an older, more simple, agrarian lifestyle. For a few progressives, this certainly was true. But for most, a humanitarian doctrine of social progress motivated the reforming spirit.
Sound familiar? The Red/Green alliance of today is obviously not new. So Hitler's eugenics were yet another part of Hitler's LEFTISM! He got his eugenic theories from the Leftists of his day. He was simply being a good Leftist intellectual in subscribing to such theories.


The summary of Progressivism above is from De Corte (1978). Against all his own evidence, De Corte also claims that the Progressives were "conservative." More Leftist whitewash! See also Pickens (1968).


And are feminists conservative? Hardly. And feminists are hardly a new phenomenon either. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, they were very active in the USA in first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. And Margaret Sanger was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They shared Hitler's view that Jews were genetically inferior and opposed moves to allow into the USA Jews fleeing from Hitler (Richmond, 1998). So if Hitler's eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were Leftists and feminists, rather than conservatives.


But surely Hitler was at least like US conservatives in being a "gun nut"? Far from it. Weimar (pre-Hitler) Germany did have restrictions on private ownership of firearms but the Nazis introduced even further restrictions when they came to power. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz), which restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license, was passed by the Reichstag on March 18, 1938.


Hitler was in fact even more clearly a Leftist than he was a nationalist or a racist. Although in his speeches he undoubtedly appealed to the nationalism of the German people, Locke (2001) makes a strong case that Hitler was not in fact a very good nationalist in that he always emphasized that his primary loyalty was to what he called the Aryan race — and Germany was only one part of that race. Locke then goes on to point out that Hitler was not even a very consistent racist in that the Dutch, the Danes etc. were clearly Aryan even by Hitler's own eccentric definition yet he attacked them whilst at the same time allying himself with the very non-Aryan Japanese. And the Russians and the Poles (whom Hitler also attacked) are rather more frequently blonde and blue-eyed (Hitler's ideal) than the Germans themselves are! So what DID Hitler believe in? Locke suggests that Hitler's actions are best explained by saying that he simply had a love of war but offers no explanation of WHY Hitler would love war. Hitler's extreme Leftism does explain this however. As the quotations already given show, Hitler shared with other Leftists a love of constant change and excitement — and what could offer more of that than war?



The idea that Nazism was motivated primarily by a typically Leftist hunger for change and excitement and rejection of the status quo is reinforced by the now famous account of life in Nazi Germany given by a young "Aryan" who lived through it. Originally written before World War II, Haffner's (2002) account of why Hitler rose to power stresses the boring nature of ordinary German life and observes that the appeal of the Nazis lay in their offering of relief from that: "The great danger of life in Germany has always been emptiness and boredom ... The menace of monotony hangs, as it has always hung, over the great plains of northern and eastern Germany, with their colorless towns and their all too industrious, efficient, and conscientious business and organizations. With it comes a horror vacui and the yearning for 'salvation': through alcohol, through superstition, or, best of all, through a vast, overpowering, cheap mass intoxication." So he too saw the primary appeal of Nazism as its offering of change, novelty and excitement.
And how about another direct quote from Hitler himself?
We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.


(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by John Toland, Adolf Hitler, 1977, p. 306)


Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century. He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all.


Leftist denial about Nazism


The way contemporary "Western" Leftists constantly hurl the labels "Nazi" and "Fascist" at anybody they disagree with suggests almost an obsession with Nazism. Such an obsession is also suggested by the way TV programs about Hitler and Nazism always seem to be available from our Left-dominated media. Programs about Stalin's Russia are as rare as hen's teeth by comparison.


This continuing Leftist obsession with Nazism might make some sense if Nazism were uniquely evil but, horrible and massive though the Nazi crimes were, they were anything but unique. For a start, government by tyranny is, if anything, normal in human history. And both anti-Semitism and eugenic theories were normal in prewar Europe. Further back in history, even Martin Luther wrote a most vicious and well-known attack on the Jews. And Nazi theories of German racial superiority differed from then-customary British beliefs in British racial superiority mainly in that the British views were implemented with typical conservative moderation whereas the Nazi views were implemented with typical Leftist fanaticism and brutality (cf. Stalin and Pol Pot). And the Nazi and Russian pogroms differed mainly in typically greater German thoroughness and efficiency. And waging vicious wars and slaughtering people "en masse" because of their supposed group identity have been regrettably common phenomena both before and after Hitler (e.g. Stalin's massacres of Kulaks and Ukrainians, the unspeakable Pol Pot's massacres of all educated Cambodians, Peru's "Shining Path", the Nepalese Marxists, the Tamil Tigers and the universal Communist mass executions of "class-enemies"). Both Stalin and Mao Tse Tung are usually "credited" with murdering far more "class enemies" than Hitler executed Jews.
It seems an obvious conclusion, then, that the constant Leftist excoriation of Hitler and the Nazis stems not from the unique horribleness of Nazism but has as its main aim an effort at camouflage — an effort to disguise or hide from public awareness the real kinship that exists between Nazism and other forms of Leftism. Modern-day Leftists do not want people to know that Nazism is their ugly twin. They just cannot afford to have people realize that ALL the great mass-murders of the 20th century were the product of Leftism.


Modern day Leftists of course hate it when you point out to them that Hitler was one of them. They deny it furiously — even though in Hitler's own day the orthodox Leftists who represented the German labor unions (the SPD) often voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag (German Parliament).


As part of that denial, an essay by Steve Kangas is much reproduced on the internet. Entering the search phrase "Hitler was a Leftist" will bring up multiple copies of it. Kangas however reveals where he is coming from in his very first sentence: "Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production". It does? Only to Marxists. So Kangas is saying only that Hitler was less Leftist than the Communists — and that would not be hard. Surely a "democratic" Leftist should see that as faintly to Hitler's credit, in fact.


Some other points made by Kangas are highly misleading. He says for instance that Hitler favoured "competition over co-operation". Hitler in fact rejected Marxist notions of class struggle and had as his great slogan: "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer" (One State, one people, one leader). He ultimately wanted Germans to be a single, unified, co-operating whole under him, with all notions of social class or other divisions forgotten. Other claims made by Kangas are simply laughable: He says that Hitler cannot have been a Leftist because he favoured: "politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy". Phew! So Stalin was not political, not a militarist and not a dictator? Enough said.


What I have said so far about the Leftist character of Nazism is in fact only a small part of the evidence. A more detailed historical account can be found in my paper about Hitler



REFERENCES

Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N.
(1950). The authoritarian personality New York: Harper.
Blanchard, W.H. (1984) Karl Marx and the Jewish question. Political Psychology 5, 365- 374.
Brewer, M.B. & Collins, B.E. (1981) Scientific enquiry and the social sciences. San Fran.: Jossey Bass
Brown, R., Condor, S., Matthews, A., Wade G. & Williams, J. (1986) Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. J. Occupational Psychology. 59, 273-286
Brown, R. (1986) Social psychology. (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press
Burke, E. (1790) Reflections on the revolution in France. Any edition.
Clausewitz, C. von (1976) On war. Princeton, N.J.: University Press
Dalrymple, T. (2002) The British Left goes antisemitic. City Journal. Vol. 12 (3), 23rd, July. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_7_23_02td.html
De Corte, T.L. (1978) Menace of Undesirables: The Eugenics Movement During the Progressive Era", University of Nevada, Las Vegas. http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/4278/eugenics.htm
Duckitt, J. (1993) Further validation of a subtle racism scale in South Africa. South African J. Psychology 23, 116-119.
Eisenman, R. & Sirgo, H.S. (1993) Racial attitudes and voting behavior in the 1988 national elections: Liberals versus conservatives. J. Psychonomic Society 31, 268-270
Gaertner, S.L. (1973) Helping behavior and racial discrimination among Liberals and Conservatives. J. Personality & Social Psychology 25, 335-341.
Gough, H. & Bradley, P. (1993) Personal attributes of people described by others as intolerant. In P.M. Sniderman, P.E. Tetlock & E.G. Carmines (Eds.) Prejudice, politics and the American dilemma (pp. 60-85) Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Haffner, S. (2002) Defying Hitler: A memoir. N.Y.: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Hechter, M. (1986) Rational choice theory and the study of race and ethnic relations. Ch. 12 in J. Rex & D. Mason (Eds.) Theories of race and ethnic relations. Cambridge: U.P.
Horowitz, D. (1999) Calibrating the culture wars. Salon. May 24th.
Kramer, H. (1999) The Twilight of the Intellectuals: Politics and Culture in the Era of the Cold War. N.Y.: Ivan R. Dee.
Levi-Straus, C. (1983) Le Regard Eloigne Paris: Plon.
Locke, R. (2001) Rethinking History: Were the Nazis Really Nationalists?
FrontPageMagazine.com. August 28.
Marx, K. (1844) On the Jewish question. In most editions of Marx's works.
Mercer, G.W. & Cairns, E. (1981) Conservatism and its relationship to general and specific ethnocentrism in Northern Ireland. British J. Social Psychology 20, 13-16.
Mihalyi, L.J. (1984/85) Ethnocentrism vs. nationalism: Origin and fundamental aspects of a major problem for the future. Humboldt J. Social Relations. 12(1), 95-113.
O'Sullivan, N. (1983) Fascism. London: Dent.
Park, R.E. (1950) Race and culture. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Pickens, D. (1968) Eugenics and the Progressives. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press
Raden, D. (1989) Interrelationships between prejudice and other social attitudes in the General Social Survey. Sociological Focus 22, 53-67.
Ray, J.J. (1984). Half of all racists are Left-wing. Political Psychology, 5, 227-236.
Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. Ethnic & Racial Studies 7, 406-412.
Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1986). The generality of racial prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 563-564.
Redding, R.E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56, 205-215.
Richmond, M. (1998) Margaret Sanger's eugenics. Life advocate. January.
http://lifeadvocate.com/1_98/feature.htm
Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A. & Kuklinski, J.H. (1984) Policy reasoning and political values: The problem of racial equality. American J. Political Science 28, 75-94.
Sommers, C.H. (2002) For more balance on campuses. Christian Science Monitor. May 6th.
Stephan, W.G. (1985) Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds.)
The handbook of social psychology. N.Y.: Random House
Turner, J.C. (1978) Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In: H. Tajfel (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14. London: Academic.
Van den Berghe, P.L. (1981) The ethnic phenomenon. N.Y.: Elsevier
Volkan, V.D. (1985) The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach. Political Psychology 6, 219-247.
Volkan, V. (1988) The need to have enemies and allies: From clinical practice to international relationships. Dunmore, Pa.: Jason Aronson.
Weigel, R.H. & Howes, P.W. (1985). Conceptions of racial prejudice: Symbolic racism reconsidered. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 117-138.
Weil, F.D. (1985) The variable effects of education on liberal attitudes: A comparative-historical analysis of Anti-Semitism using public opinion survey data. American Sociological Review 50, 458-474.
Williams, R.J. & Wright, C.R. (1955) Opinion organization in a hetero-geneous adult population. J. Abnormal & Social Psychology 51, 559-564.




Can you counter that?

Thank you Kontra!

It's amazing how some of these leftists are so disgusting as to try to compare the President of the United States to one of the most vile, despicable people to ever live. Shouldn't be surprised though. As the left becomes more and more isolated they will continue to make absurd comments like this in order to try to give the illusion that they hold the moral high ground.

Typical leftist statement: "This guy has power, popularity, and is doing something that we who are morally better than don't like.....he MUST be Hitler!"

It's also strange how people can compare Bush to Hitler yet these very same people are silent when it comes to a man like Saddam Hussein.

Let's see:

George W. Bush:
Trying to enforce UN resolutions
Has made it a point to avoid civilian casualties
Attempting to free oppressed people in Afghanistan and Iraq
Hunting down the world's biggest terrorist
Has agreed that there should be a Palestinian state


Saddam Hussein:
Gassed his own countrymen, the Kurds
Oppresses, tortures, and murders people in his country who dare question him or look at him the wrong way
Starts wars of aggression for the sole purpose of land conquest
Launched Scud missile attacks on Israel during the first Gulf War in order to try to widen the conflict
Financially supports Palestinian terrorists who deliberately target women and children
Uses Iraqi civilians as human shields in a desperate attempt to hold on to power


Yeah, Bush is the evil one here :rolleyes:

Originally posted by kOnTrA


------------------------Neoconservatism-----------National Socialism

Socialist-----------------------------------------------------X

Relativist----------------------------------------------------X

Revolutionary ------------------------------------------------X

Class/Race Dichotomy----------------------------------------X

Authoritarian------------------------------------------------X

Nationalistic---------------------X--------------------------X

Imperialist---------------------------------------------------X

Statist---------------------------------------------------------X



Sorry but no.

:rolleyes:


Sorry but your way off...


Here are 12 defining traits of Fascism, notice how many align with Neo-conservatism..

1. Totalitarian..... Getting there quick, and neo-cons support it.

2. Extreme nationalism... Obvious

3. Top down revolution or movement.. Yup

4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare.. yup

5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism and anti-liberal views.. This should be obvious to you..

6. Extreme exploitation..

7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab power.. Yes

8. Unbridled Corporatism.. Yes

9. Reactionary.. Very

10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power.. Yes

11. Cult-like figurehead.. Yes

12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs.. Yes



So as you can see, neo-conservatism is basically fascism

Originally posted by kOnTrA


How can that be correct when, fundamentally, radical leftism has far far more in common with naitonal socialism, than any conservative ideology? From socialism, to social engineering, to the class.race dichotomy, to group think....there is almost no difference.

Now, except for nationalism, how is free market counterrevolutionary conservatism and revolutionary SOCIALISM similar in any way? Perhaps you are just trying to slander conservatism? :rolleyes:

Take a read:


It's amazing how neo-conservatives an try to paint the left as being fascist, it's completely ridiculous as is the stuff you posted below..



Leftist Racism
By John J. Ray

Introduction


In various articles that I have written from time to time, I have alluded to the fact that there are plenty of racially discriminatory attitudes and behaviour on the political Left and that Leftist racism is at least as vicious as any other form of racism. Leftists of course constantly condemn the slightest suspicion of racism in others in an apparent claim that they are holier than others in that respect. In this article, therefore, I draw together much of what I have said before in different sources and added a lot of new material in the hope of giving a single more comprehensive treatment of Leftist racism.



What horsecrap..



Nazism was Leftist


Probably the ultimate racist creed was Nazism. And one of the great confidence tricks of the 20th Century is the way in which 20th century intellectuals managed to get Nazism labelled as "Rightist". This is however utter nonsense. Take this description of a political programme: 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". You could hardly get a more change-oriented or revolutionary programme than that. So whose programme was it? Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? Mao? No. It was how Hitler described his programme towards the end of "Mein Kampf". And the Left pretend that Hitler was some sort of conservative!


And who was it who described his movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, … no permanency, only eternal change'. It could very easily have been Trotsky or Mao but it was in fact Hitler (O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138). Clearly, Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.



This guy obviously lives in a another universe.

"There is a resurgent widespread attempt by the far right to label fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to attempt labeling the Nazis as socialist in his book The Road to Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it as it allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly but dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the right to distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler by the far right prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Hayek’s book is first based on two erroneous assumptions from the very beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the same as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His second erroneous assumption lies in his believe that only socialism or liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact all political systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are inherently unstable as is any system created by man.

From there Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance he goes on to claim that the United States by deliberate policy allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this date and time period is significant but not for a move towards socialism or liberalism rather it’s the opposite a move towards fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem.

Mussolini stated shortly after the March on Rome; in various speeches "We must take from state authority those functions for which it is incompetent and which it performs badly… I believe the state should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters… We must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the private sector after returning them to profitability such as the Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925 and many of the public works."




To reinforce the point that Nazism was in fact Leftist, we might also note: Hitler always campaigned as a socialist and champion of the worker and the full name of Hitler's political party — generally abbreviated as "Nazi" — says it all: Die Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei ("The National Socialist German Worker's Party"). So, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of "the people" (Das Volk). The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful, and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, supervised German industry minutely. And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler's Panzers as they stormed through France was Soviet fuel.


This guy is reaching.. He isn't making any sense though..

" In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932 Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout the 1933-1936 period the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank and several others. In 1936 the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. Likewise in 1934 Dr. Schacht the Nazi Minister of Economy gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialist as they had been prosperous even during the depression."


"Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazi allowed industry to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment, rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."73

Such programs catering to big business and the rich elite is more akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any liberal administration including FDR’s. Likewise it was the rich industrialist that was behind the fascist movement in the United States during the 1930s. Thus its no surprise why the right wing today attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance themselves from their previous support of fascism."

"But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong about fascism being a form of socialism comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago the same university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" that were the economic brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no question in the mater that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist the result of a coup against a leftward government bent on reform.

In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being socialist we need to first define socialism. Socialism is defined rigidly as an economic system in which the workers own the means of production and distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that the workers maintain political control over the production and distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of socialism the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists, as there simply was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in Nazi Germany. In fact the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions and installed in their place quasi-like unions that were controlled by the industrialists. In a déjà vu manner the Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations. In fact some writers have stated that you cannot have fascism without corporatism as the corporate power structure has much in common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English society."


"Others more recently tries to define it as the "Third Way", in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" essentially labels any regulations or government controls over businesses incorrectly as socialism; essentially it’s just a restatement of syndicalism. The writer rejects such nonsense whole heartily. It again represents an attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the 1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in private hands. Further following the logic of the "Third Way" one would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way." For throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it’s never been even tried. But that is to be expected for any system that awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure socialistic system human greed simply prevents it. The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist’s web page in their labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist:

However, Fascism is an economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of Production [Factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials [mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what prices may be charged.1

Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied. This description indeed could past for the economic theory of the fascist philosopher George Sorel. This is a description of syndicalism; it was the economic model of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to a large extent. Syndicalism does draw some aspects from socialism but the system is still a capitalistic system as ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods remain in private hands. It is no more socialism than the conclusion of the Robber Barons and the corrupt politicians of those days like those involved in Tammy Hall. The only difference between this example of syndicalism is that the government participation is open versus the backroom corruption of politicians in Tammy Hall.

Not only does Japan invoke syndicalism but almost all the Pacific Rim nations do to some extent. These are the same nations that the hard right has held up in the past as darlings of capitalism and free enterprise. Yet these are precisely the same economic policies of the Nazis that they have tried to foist off as socialism. The key distinction here is the means of production still remains in private hands just as it did in Nazi Germany. No capitalistic society has ever existed without some form of syndicalism or government control over the economy. The closest America came to an entirely capitalistic system was either the 1890s and the Robber Barons or the laissez faire policies of Herbert Hoover, and as we all know that didn’t end to well in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

No where does the quote above refer to totalitarian control or extreme nationalism in fact they have tried to define fascism in strictly economic terms for their own purposes. But it does serve to point out the dangers of inventing the "Third Way" or the use of syndicalism in an attempt to label the Nazis. The problem here is where does syndicalism end and capitalism begin. Is the trading of pollution credits a form of syndicalism or is it free enterprise? The hard right In America today would attempt to label it as socialism as they try to do with any laws or regulations of business. In fact the past laws regulating corporations were much more severe and restricting in the 1800s than today, as we’ll show in another chapter. One could argue that it was through syndicalism that the power elite and corporations gradually eroded those laws until corporations now enjoy more freedoms than what an individual enjoys."

"But environmental and labor laws are not socialism they are in fact nothing more than an attempt to bring an out of control system hell bent on exploitation of the environment and labor back to order. This writer takes the point of view that no labor law or environment law was ever passed in a vacuum. All of these laws were brought about only by a need to correct an unhealthy or unsafe situation.

Regulation of businesses or corporations by itself is not socialism. It is this writer’s opinion that a business entity has no rights other than what privileges a society wishes to grant it. People have rights; a paper creation of a society such as a corporation has no inherent rights. This writer takes the opinion that business entities such as corporations only have conditional privileges based upon providing for the common good. All such paper creations do have an obligation to serve the society, which created it, failing at that it has lost any right for its continuing existence. It is the right nay, the obligation of that society to restrict the rights of such entities to promote equality for all and to prevent a ruling aristocracy from developing. This view is hardly socialism or radical, unless one wishes to label Thomas Jefferson as a radical socialist as his words below show.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."3

. Perhaps one of the better definitions of fascism comes from Heywood Broun, a noted American columnist in the 1930s:

"Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords… I think it is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for fascism"75

The author if forced to define fascism in a single sentence or phrase would label fascism as a totalitarian government with extreme nationalism tendencies in which the government is controlled and operated for the benefit of a few elite."

And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the '60s was the 1958 book "The Affluent Society" by influential "liberal" Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith — in which he fulminated about what he saw as our "Private affluence and public squalor". But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz (Common use before private use).


It is also a matter of historical record that, after the Nazi-Soviet pact, Communists worldwide immediately became vigorously pro-Hitler. So Leftist "principles" are obviously very flexible. It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that, if Hitler had won and Stalin lost the war, Leftists would now be justifying their constant clamour for change and their bids for power as furthering Nazi ideals rather than "humanitarian" ideals.


And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don't we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women — the Lebensborn project? Good Leftists recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler's day? In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century were the "Progressives". And who were the Progressives? Here is one summary of them:
Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization. Progressivism ... asserted that the social order could and must be improved... Some historians, like Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry, have argued that the progressive movement attempted to return America to an older, more simple, agrarian lifestyle. For a few progressives, this certainly was true. But for most, a humanitarian doctrine of social progress motivated the reforming spirit.
Sound familiar? The Red/Green alliance of today is obviously not new. So Hitler's eugenics were yet another part of Hitler's LEFTISM! He got his eugenic theories from the Leftists of his day. He was simply being a good Leftist intellectual in subscribing to such theories.


The summary of Progressivism above is from De Corte (1978). Against all his own evidence, De Corte also claims that the Progressives were "conservative." More Leftist whitewash! See also Pickens (1968).


This guy's pathetic..

"Fredrich Nietzche (1844-1900) a German philosopher best know for Thus Spake Zarathustra.5 Hitler liked to be photographed staring at a bust of Nietzche. He theorized two sets of morals, one for the ruling class and another for the slave class. He viewed that ancient empires grew out of the ruling class and that religions arouse out of the slave classes, (which denigrates the rich, the powerful, rationalism and sexuality.) He developed a concept of an "overman" a superhuman, which symbolized man at his most creative and highest intellectual development. Obviously the "overman" was manifested in the Nazi’s view of the Aryan race. He suffered a mental break down most likely from the advances of syphilis and was cared for by his mother and later his sister Elisabeth. His sister painstakingly gathered his notes to publish his latter works. However, she was active in the rising anti-Semitic movement at the time and may have tainted his later work with her views. From time to time Nietzsche enjoys a rebirth of popularity. Today is one such rebirth of popularity fitting in well with the unmitigated greed and corporatism of today’s hard right. The connection to the Nazis is obvious as shown by the following quotation.



"with satanic joy in his face, the black haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its culture and political height, and himself rising to be master."9

A note here to the reader notice the similarity in this passage and the Council of Conservative Citizens that Senator Lott and representative Barr supported before becoming embroiled in the resulting scandal in late 1998.10 The web site for this white supremacist group described inter racial marriage to the mixing of chocolate milk with plain milk and labeled it as a path to racial extinction. They also described Lincoln as a communist.11

Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher of a Jewish father and an English mother. He was the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature in 1927. He rejected the idea that scientific principles could explain all existence. He was a promoter of what has become known as Social Darwinism.6 Perhaps one of his better know works was Time and Free Will he was also a believer in pantheism. Once again we see the obvious connection with the Nazis of a master race in the following quote concerning the Nazi’s euthanasia program:

"…a secret circular went out from the Reich interior Ministry which marked the beginning of a programme of euthanasia for mentally ill or deformed children up to three years old. Doctors would be required to report all such cases to the health authority on special forms; the forms would then be forwarded to a panel of three medical assessors who would adjucate over life or death by appending "-" or "+." Should all three place a "+", a euthanasia warrant would be issued, signed by the Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler of the Fuhrer’s Chancellery or SS_Oberfuhrer Dr Viktor Brack, head of the Chancellery’s Euthanasia Department II. And so it happened: infants marked for death were transferred to what were referred to as Children’s Special Departments in political reliable clinics, there to be given a "mercy death" by injection or in one institution at Eglfing-Haar simply starved by a progressive reduction of diet."7

Geroge Sorel (1847-1922) was a French philosopher who had considerable influence on Mussolini. As we have already noted his writings promoted an economic model based on syndicalism. He also believed in the degeneration of societies and believed that social decay could only be delayed by idealists who were willing to use violence to obtain power. His views were extremely anti-democratic and anti-liberal.

With this very brief review of philosophy we have shown that the fascist traits of nationalism, totalitarian, racist, violence, unbridled corporatism, reactionary and the top down nature of fascism all are grounded in the works of past philosophers. We can now at each of the traits as how it relates to the overall ideology of fascism."



And are feminists conservative? Hardly. And feminists are hardly a new phenomenon either. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, they were very active in the USA in first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. And Margaret Sanger was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They shared Hitler's view that Jews were genetically inferior and opposed moves to allow into the USA Jews fleeing from Hitler (Richmond, 1998). So if Hitler's eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were Leftists and feminists, rather than conservatives.


Still reaching...


"Besides the normal hate groups based on racism or anti-Semitism the religious right has emerged in the 1990s as a venomous hate group basing their hate on gays and abortion. Abortion clinics increasingly are becoming targets of bombings, arson and vandalism. Late in 1998 Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming after being tie to a fence and then pistol whipped, for being gay. Below are some quotes from Pat Robertson on gays.

"This conduct [homosexuality] is anti-social, and it is a pathology. It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated. It doesn’t need to be taught in the classroom as a preferred way of life..." - 700 Club, 3-7-90

"...the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of Gentile civilization." --Pat Robertson, of the Christian Broadcasting Network, warned that hurricanes could hit Orlando, Fla., because of gay events there. Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998

"If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all suffer for it." - 700 Club, 9-6-9534

Compare that last quote of Robertson’s to the following quote of Hitler on syphilis.

"…they speak of this whole field as if it were a great sin, and above all express their profound indignation against ever sinner caught in the act, then close their eyes in pious horror to this godless plague and pray God to let sulfur and brimstone preferably after their own death rain down on this Sodom and Gomorrah, thus once making an instructive example of this shameless humanity."39

The reader should not ask himself if he seriously doubts that if the religious right came into power that they would not lead a movement to deny the civil rights of gays. The evidence abounds that they would persecute gays, it abounds in the numerous ballot measures in various states that would deny gays their civil rights. Such a measure passed in Colorado only to be overturned by the Supreme Court, another measure in Oregon led by Lon Mabon failed state wide but was reintroduced on local ballots in the following election. Mabon lately has led ballot measures to limit the concept of a family and limiting abortions to only the first trimester. The first was another attempt to limit the rights of gays."


But surely Hitler was at least like US conservatives in being a "gun nut"? Far from it. Weimar (pre-Hitler) Germany did have restrictions on private ownership of firearms but the Nazis introduced even further restrictions when they came to power. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz), which restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license, was passed by the Reichstag on March 18, 1938.


Meaningless..

Leftists don't hold the defining traits neo-cons do, nor do all of them favor gun control laws. I am fiercely against gun control and the taking away of our guns..

Hitler was in fact even more clearly a Leftist than he was a nationalist or a racist. Although in his speeches he undoubtedly appealed to the nationalism of the German people, Locke (2001) makes a strong case that Hitler was not in fact a very good nationalist in that he always emphasized that his primary loyalty was to what he called the Aryan race — and Germany was only one part of that race. Locke then goes on to point out that Hitler was not even a very consistent racist in that the Dutch, the Danes etc. were clearly Aryan even by Hitler's own eccentric definition yet he attacked them whilst at the same time allying himself with the very non-Aryan Japanese. And the Russians and the Poles (whom Hitler also attacked) are rather more frequently blonde and blue-eyed (Hitler's ideal) than the Germans themselves are! So what DID Hitler believe in? Locke suggests that Hitler's actions are best explained by saying that he simply had a love of war but offers no explanation of WHY Hitler would love war. Hitler's extreme Leftism does explain this however. As the quotations already given show, Hitler shared with other Leftists a love of constant change and excitement — and what could offer more of that than war?


This last bit of drivel is laughably ridiculous..


Hitler loved war because it brought change, and Leftists suppsedly hunger for change, therefore Hitler was a Leftist. How stupid is this guy???

Just look who is cheering war right now in this country, it sure isn't Leftists, it's the right. No question about that!!




The idea that Nazism was motivated primarily by a typically Leftist hunger for change and excitement and rejection of the status quo is reinforced by the now famous account of life in Nazi Germany given by a young "Aryan" who lived through it. Originally written before World War II, Haffner's (2002) account of why Hitler rose to power stresses the boring nature of ordinary German life and observes that the appeal of the Nazis lay in their offering of relief from that: "The great danger of life in Germany has always been emptiness and boredom ... The menace of monotony hangs, as it has always hung, over the great plains of northern and eastern Germany, with their colorless towns and their all too industrious, efficient, and conscientious business and organizations. With it comes a horror vacui and the yearning for 'salvation': through alcohol, through superstition, or, best of all, through a vast, overpowering, cheap mass intoxication." So he too saw the primary appeal of Nazism as its offering of change, novelty and excitement.
And how about another direct quote from Hitler himself?
We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.


(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by John Toland, Adolf Hitler, 1977, p. 306)


Complete nonsense...


"This brings us to the trait of opportunistic ideology of fascism. Its perhaps one of the more confusing aspects of fascism. Mussolini appears to have been indeed a socialist before founding the fascist party. Mussolini likewise went from a pacifist to a rabid warmonger. Clearly such dramatic changes in ideology could only be based in an opportunistic grab for power. Mussolini started supporting a syndicalism economy, but by 1923 with clear objections from business leaders he concluded the Palazzo Chigi Pact. This pact’s main intent was to simplify business relations by making the fascist the sole representatives of labor. In 1925 the Plazzo Vidoni agreement was signed. This agreement made Rossoni’s union the sole representative of labor. It likewise prohibited the challenging of factory management, by the close of the year the grateful employer’s federation publicly announced adherence to the fascist regime.48 Such transformations illistrates the opportunistic ideology or is it a lack of ideology as well as further dispels the myth that fascism is another form of socialism.

Part of the problem with the ever-changing ideology of fascism arises from the divided party that was mentioned earlier. Strasser was a socialist and it seems that Goebbels was a Marxist. Both were allowed almost free reign in promoting their own economic views as long as it gathered more support of served Hitler’s purpose. But once their views failed to serve Hitler, they were then brow beaten severely. An example of such reversal in party ideology of the Nazis occurred on February 14,1926. Prior to this date both Strasser and Goebbels had approved of a plebiscite campaign to deprive former royalty of their possessions. A measure, that was popular with the common citizens. On the given date Hitler summoned both men to a meeting in Bamberg. Before those gathered Hitler forced both to capitulate and abandon the program.49 Similar events have already been given in which various Nazis were allowed to promote socialism in efforts to appease the lower classes in an effort to gain their support.

Examples abound throughout the history of the Nazis where they adopted their ideology to suit the audience. In October 1932 Strasser announced a new program that was a stark reversal of the program the Nazis had advocated in July. Higher taxes on the rich had been replaced with a general reduction of taxes, instead of price controls it centered on freeing prices, instead of protectionism trade policy export and global trade was now promoted. Likewise much of the inflammatory rhetoric had been dropped.50

Hitler seems to have sensed the explosive nature of economics and tried to avoid the subject both publicly and within the party. From all indications he was dissatisfied with the party planks on economic matters. The only official stance on economic matters was the 1920 twenty-five point program. However, he only referred to this policy document disparaging in Mein Kampf and distanced himself from the document.51 Likewise Hitler would never take a aggressive stance on minor issues, he played to his audience to win their support.

Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the opportunistic character of the Nazis is illustrated by the actions of thirty-nine businessmen in November 1932. The group contained such notables as Krupp, Thyssen, Bosch, Siemens and others. In a signed letter to Hindenburg they urged him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. In essence they were placing a bet that the socialism ideology was a fraud and that once in power he would be a tool of capitalist.52 This group had previously opposed Hitler for the most part.

The only other reversal in policy that could rival the bet that the leaders of big business made was Hitler’s writings. In the first book of Mein Kampf he argued that France was the sworn and greater enemy of Germany. However, the second book of Mein Kampf he reversed course and argues forth that Russia is the enemy as opposed to the first book in which he proposed an alliance with Russia.53 This then was a complete change in his foreign policy. One can only speculate as to the reasons behind such a switch.

Many writers have tried to label the Nazis as socialists in a folly to distance themselves from fascism theory. They are quick to point to the syndicalism policy as proof of socialist regulation of business. They are in error, of course. Syndicalism is neither left or right in itself. It can be either depending upon the structure. Syndicalism with labor groups or consumers dominating the issues would indeed be socialistic in nature. On the other hand syndicalism with only industry or business groups dominating is certainly from the right wing of the political spectrum. The issuing of controls or goals over the production of war material by the government in a syndicalism system is neither left or right, it’s simply self-preservation. The goals and controls including the 4-Year Plan issued by Goring was nothing more than gearing the economy up for war time production. In essence they were merely self-preservation measures.

Secondly they will point to many of the public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis as examples of socialism. An example being the construction of the autobahn, a project that had been planned by previous governments, as were many of the public work projects. The likewise forget that the Nazis took over at the bottom of a depression, public work projects were enacted not only in Germany but in the U. S. as well as a means to end the depression. Many of those projects in the U. S. were the construction of useful infrastructure such as the building of the high school in New Ulm, Mn. Others had a definite commercialism bent to them, such as the construction of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood. Labeling the construction of a facility for a commercial business as socialism is simply fools folly. The same applies to many of the public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis.

Labeling such programs as socialism would be the same as labeling the construction of the interstate highway system as socialism. If the Eisenhower administration has one shinning moment it would be his support and urging for the construction of the freeway system. For those that are silly enough to label such work as socialism, let them be reminded that no other single event other than the construction of the cross continental railroad aided the development of business. Today it would be inconceivable to ship material coast to coast without the interstate highway. Besides the obvious advantage to shippers the interstate highway system has spawned many new businesses. Think of the number of motels/hotels as well as the tourist traps, service stations and others that have grown up along the freeway system. The same applies to Germany and the autobahn.

Finally the same writers that label fascism as socialism would like their readers to believe that these government regulations and bureaucratic offices held ultimate power. Failure to comply would result in the owners being shot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Nazis for a large part lived in fear of the leaders of big business, they were aware that they had no comprehensive economic plan and would defer to the judgement of the business leaders.

This point can be driven home with one simple example. Goring was one of the Nazis that had little economic knowledge but harbored some of the more radical economic ideas and was fond of using regulatory offices. Goring tried first to persuade the steel industry both the smelters and miners to use low-grade German ore as opposed to the high grade Swedish ore. Importation of ore from Sweden would use up precious foreign currency as well as being a less reliable source in event of war. The invasions of Denmark and Norway were conducted solely to protect the Nazis shipping routes for the Swedish ore. Most of the industrialist politely refused the request; even under threats of arrest for sabotage they still declined.54 None were arrested for refusal instead Goring formed the Herman Goring Works to take on the task. By the time of the outbreak of the war it had evolved to be the largest company in Germany.

Farben is another example of the Nazis bowing to the expertise of leading corporations. With the advent of the first 4-Year Plan they realized they needed the cooperation of their leadership in order to achieve self-sufficiency in a series of raw materials and finished products. Most of which were items that would be crucial to wartime production. By the end of the war Farben had a series of factories around concentration camps, were major users of slave labor along with Krupp and many other corporations. In short they were a major prop for the Nazis even before the start of the war.

But the most damning evidence of the Nazi’s unbridled corporatism was evident shortly after passage of the Enabling Act. That would be the appointment of Hjalmar Schacht as president of the Reichsbank. Schacht was a brilliant financier who helped negotiate the Dawes Plan and was largely given credit for stabilizing the currency in 1923; he also detested democracy and parliamentarianism. His first official act was the creation of Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G. (Mefo) a dummy corporation of four armament firms. The state assumed the liability for their debts. The Mefo bills were not unlike promissory notes, they were issued to government contractors and could be extended to five years.55 Such favoritism of business is certainly not socialism, today in America such corporate aid is labeled as corporate welfare. The reader should note the similarity here not only to the present corporate welfare that’s being doled out but also to Eisenhower’s warning of the military-industrial complex. The American military-industrial complex didn’t need to invent a new plan they were simply free to follow the example the Nazis used. In fact fascism is inseparatable from corporatism, you simply cannot have a fascist government without corporations and a capitalistic economy.

Schacht was later appointed to minister of economics in 1934, a post he retained until he resigned in 1937 over policy disputes. He was not an anti-Semitic and was conscious of the negative aspects of the takeover of Jewish business on both the economy and the world opinion. By 1936 he was advocating slowing down the rearmament program fearing the return of inflation.56 The reader should have heard bells ringing when he read the words the return of inflation. That short phrase dispenses with the myths that the Nazis maintained strict control of corporations and the prices of goods in short order. In effect such controls were non-existent. It should also be pointed out here that the economy at this time had taken on considerable shades of a consumer economy.

It has already been stated that Italy used their form of syndicalism to eliminate labor unions, the Nazis followed a similar path. The workers benefited little from this unbridled corporatism. Unemployment went from an official figure of six million unemployed in 1933 to 2.7 million in 1937 and by the time of the outbreak of war there was a serious shortage of workers. But growth in wages was far less spectacular, real wages rose only sparingly. The index of wages rose from 92.5 in 1933 to 103 in 1937 an increase of a meager eleven-percent.57 Much of the increase in wages was achieved only from working longer hours. The only real increases in the plight of the workers came with more unpaid leave. Many of the other benefits produced no real benefits to the worker such as the factory beautification program."


"
Many businesses chose to align and support the Nazis after they gained power. Krupp and I.G. Faben were both executors’ of Goring’s Four-Year Plan to make Germany self-sufficient militarily by 1940. One can view the details of Krupp’s involvement and support for the Nazis after March 1933 in the documents from the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg.31 The full set of available documents from Nuremberg is also available on line.32 By 1939 Faben provided the Nazis with 90 percent of their foreign exchange, 95 percent of imports and 85 percent of all military and commercial goods. In 1932 Hermann Schmitz Faben’s joint chairman joined forces with Kurt von Schroder director of a wealthy private bank. Schroder was a fanatical Nazi often times dressed in his black SS uniform. Schroder is the man that is closely linked with Chase Bank, Standard Oil and William Teagle and ITT. Schroder and Wilhelm Keppler in 1932 formed the group known as "The Fraternity." This group guaranteed a source of money to the Gestapo and members agreed to contribute an average of one million marks a year to Himmler’s personally marked "S" account and the transferable secret "R" account of the Gestapo.27

In April of 1933 Gustav Krupp sought out a private meeting with Hitler. Krupp agreed to become Hitler’s chief fundraiser and chairman of the Adolf Hitler Fund in return Hitler promised to appoint Krupp as the fuehrer of Germany industry. Over the years Krupp contributed over six million marks of his own money to the Nazis, and if his correspondence shows that he truly enjoyed his job as chairmen.28 Likewise it is common knowledge that after Hitler was appointed chancellor he greeted people cheerfully with the Heil salutation.

Schirer writes that in 1931 when Hitler decided to cultivate relationships between influential industrial leaders, he kept their identity a secret.

"The party still had to play both sides of the tracks. The party had to allow Strasser, Goebbels and Feder to beguile the masses with socialist talk and denigrating the industrial magnates."

Some of the meetings were so secretive that they were in forest glades.29

Further proof of the industrialist involvement and support of the Nazis comes from the testimony of Funk at Nuremberg. The entire list is far too long to reproduce here but besides, Thyssen and Krupp it included Georg von Schnitzler—I.G. Farben, August Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry, Cuno, Otto Wolf, Kurt von Schroder and many other wealthy inudtrials30

On May 2, 1933 the Nazis raided and occupied all trade union headquarters. The leaders were beaten and arrested, some were placed in the concentration camps. Union funds were confiscated and the unions were dissolved. Members of the communist party and the social democrats had already been arrested. On June 20, 1934 in what has become known as the Night of Long Knifes, Hitler purged the socialists within the Nazi party, chief among them Roehm.

With the broad financial support from the leaders of the business community as well as from the military leaders and aristocrats the Nazis was truly a top down organization. As already shown the Nazis used and the lower class as foot soldiers to gain power. They did so in a deceiving manner and once in power immediately set about betraying their interest."




Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century. He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all.


It's the TRUTH. And it isn't suprising the rightists would try to revise history just as the current executive branch is turning the United states into a fascist state..

And the fact that this guy used a fascist like David Horowitz as a supposed credible source discredits everything he says...


And here is info about Cointelpro... Notice who supports it... >>> http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23633