Holocaust: victim numbers could be up to 20 million.

[celtic_crippler]

Those daggum fact thingy's don't suit my position.. therefore.. I'll ignore them. ROFL

 

[Big Don]

Those daggum fact thingy's don't suit my position.. therefore.. I'll ignore them. ROFL

Close, to say, "I like socialism, ergo, those bad people clearly weren't socialists" is more on point

 

[Makalakumu]

The Japanese in the United States were lucky...they were in the United States.

Fifty years before, US soldiers were mowing down innocent women and children at wounded knee and the smiling faces around the terrified Iraqis in Abu Ghraib should tell you that not a damn thing has really changed. The Japanese were lucky...but not because the US is special in any way. This State has created it's own crops of morally twisted drones and at a certain point, guns won't help you. Guns won't help you if you let the State get so powerful that it can snuff out resistance to tyranny with lies, disinformation, ignorance, and overwhelming force. Conservatives want to be big government military Keynesians and pretend like all they need to ward of tyranny is the 2nd amendment. Yeah right.

America, unfortunately, has way too much in common with the Nazis for reasonable and rationale people to be comfortable. You want to see where your freedom is lost, check this out. You want to see how good people can be twisted morally, check this out. It starts with the children...

The Prussian school system, the same one exported all throughout the West, the same one that immolated Europe twice in the 20th century, was exported here in 1840. The same men who mowed down women and children at Wounded Knee and laughed at Abu Ghraib were shaped here.

 

[granfire]

OK, I'll take your word for it, you are wrong.
Hitler:

The National Socialist Party will prevent in the future, by force if necessary, all meetings and lectures which are likely to exercise a depressing influence on the German state.

We are Socialists, we are enemies of the 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.

National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.

Goebbels:
As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.
​

Next you will tell us Islamic terrorist groups like al qaeda aren't Islamic
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

Consolidating all unions into one super sized union is hardly eliminating unions.

No, no relation to the Nazis at all

Oh, Hai Ray, telling of color again?


You let yourself get blinded by labels, fall fr pretty words.

In case you have missed it, it part of my family history, from the other side from Tez.

You have 3rd hand information, from tainted sources.

Say hi to your French Model girl friend for me, will you....because you found it on the internet does not make it so.

BTW, I don't need to have a translator to read their filth....

 

[Big Don]

Because people should NEVER be taken at their own words.

 

[Tez3]

Oh look the hysteria fairy has landed again.

Given that the word 'liberal' means something different in America to what it does everywhere else it doesn't occur to you that when the Nazis called their party 'socialist' it didn't mean what you are saying it does? Oh right that's because you are never wrong.


The Nazi party was a facist organistion, your ideas of socialism are way off, which is fine when it comes to decribing your own politics, call them what you what but what the world knows as socialism isn't what you know it as, so the Nazis weren't socialists. They were right wing facists. I know that doesn't fit with your love fest for the right wing but there you are we all have to face uncomfortable facts sometimes.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rememberingnazism/was_nazi_germany_fascist_

http://www.nazism.net/about/ideological_theory/

"The ideological roots which became German "National Socialism" were based on numerous sources in European history, drawing especially from Romantic 19th Century idealism, and from a biological misreading of Friedrich Nietzsche's thoughts on "breeding upwards" toward the goal of an Übermensch (Superhuman). Hitler was an avid reader and received ideas that were later to influence Nazism from traceable publications, such as those of the Germanenorden (Germanic Order) or the Thule society."

[url]http://phdoctopus.com/2012/04/22/nazism-and-fascism-were-ideologies-of-the-right/[/URL]

"I was spurred to write this post after listening to right-wing talk radio, where the announcer described fascism as an ideology of the left, the result of the expansion of Big Government. These scare tactics are used to form a slippery slope argument, namely that the welfare state leads to the gas chambers. Friedrich Hayek advanced a version of this argument in his famous and erroneous work, The Road to Serfdom, particularly in his chapter “The Socialist Roots of Nazism.” It is certainly true that fascism represents the worship and expansion of state power. Yet it can and did exist alongside capitalism, as was the case in Nazi Germany. Though Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi), Hitler was not a socialist."

"Most important, we know Nazism was an ideology of the far right because of the very logic behind it. Unlike socialism, Nazism was a hierarchical, Socially Darwinistic vision that encouraged competition, and showed disdain for the masses, who Hitler called “mentally lazy.” Most crucially, it did not denigrate individualism, but in fact celebrated it. This is evident in Hitler’s major work, Mein Kampf. "


You can mock, sneer and deny as much as like, you'll still be wrong. Although I would say someone's propaganda department is doing a sterling job in your country.

 

[billc]

Now who is dealing in fairy tales....can't let all the mass murderers be a part of socialism...that tends to give socialism a bad reputation...

 

[Makalakumu]

War is something socialist countries do well because the whole State is consumed to perform a single activity. This is why war results in more socialism, it greases the skids of tyranny by destroying individual freedom. FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Europe, Japan, the whole West lurched toward socialism after WWII. Even the "conservatives" became socialists as they supported more and more militarism/security. This is the ugly legacy of WWII. It wasn't a war against socialism, it was a war between socialists.

 

[Tez3]

War is something socialist countries do well because the whole State is consumed to perform a single activity. This is why war results in more socialism, it greases the skids of tyranny by destroying individual freedom. FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Europe, Japan, the whole West lurched toward socialism after WWII. Even the "conservatives" became socialists as they supported more and more militarism/security. This is the ugly legacy of WWII. It wasn't a war against socialism, it was a war between socialists.

Look I know the Untied States has a short history but really I wouldn't pontificate about world history when you obviously don't actually know much about it! I know too that Americans have been brain washed for decades about the dangers of socialism and it's the big bad wolf to you guys but a war between socialist states, really? America has never had nor I think ever will have a socialist President or even politician, not by any definition of socialism outside the States. Hitler was a facist and Stalin a communist dictator not a socialist. Churchill a socialist, you're having a Steffi Graf mate. You guys get confused because your political definitions aren't the same as everyone elses, you call Obama a socialist yet if he were in any other country he'd be quite a right wing conservative. You call liberals left wing when anywhere else they are centre to right wing.
If you are going to commentate on world and European affairs I'm afraid you have to use our definitions not yours, then you will see how things really were. use your definitions by all means when you commentate on your domestic affairs but don't confuse the two which is what you are doing and so making a right dogs dinner of summing up World and European history.

You could also explain why anything you don't like is called 'socialist' and assume that someone who doesn't agree with you is a socialist? Really, that is quite a leap. You all seem so brainwashed that you think because someone rightly defines Hitler as right wing they must be defending the left wing, I know it's what you do...right always defends right.. but funnily enough it doesn't work for the rest of us. Stalin is as equally hated as Hitler was and quite rightly, no one defends Stalin any more than they defend Hitler, both were monsters, both were responsible for millions of deaths, both will be remembered with a shuddering hatred and some fear.

 

[Makalakumu]

Look I know the Untied States has a short history but really I wouldn't pontificate about world history when you obviously don't actually know much about it! I know too that Americans have been brain washed for decades about the dangers of socialism and it's the big bad wolf to you guys but a war between socialist states, really? America has never had nor I think ever will have a socialist President or even politician, not by any definition of socialism outside the States. Hitler was a facist and Stalin a communist dictator not a socialist. Churchill a socialist, you're having a Steffi Graf mate. You guys get confused because your political definitions aren't the same as everyone elses, you call Obama a socialist yet if he were in any other country he'd be quite a right wing conservative. You call liberals left wing when anywhere else they are centre to right wing.
If you are going to commentate on world and European affairs I'm afraid you have to use our definitions not yours, then you will see how things really were. use your definitions by all means when you commentate on your domestic affairs but don't confuse the two which is what you are doing and so making a right dogs dinner of summing up World and European history.

You could also explain why anything you don't like is called 'socialist' and assume that someone who doesn't agree with you is a socialist? Really, that is quite a leap. You all seem so brainwashed that you think because someone rightly defines Hitler as right wing they must be defending the left wing, I know it's what you do...right always defends right.. but funnily enough it doesn't work for the rest of us. Stalin is as equally hated as Hitler was and quite rightly, no one defends Stalin any more than they defend Hitler, both were monsters, both were responsible for millions of deaths, both will be remembered with a shuddering hatred and some fear.

Lol. Americans are just as socialist, if not more, then European states in most of the ways that really matter. The history of European socialism is something I've read extensively about, from European sources. I suggest you try reading an Austrian named Mises. Perhaps he can straighten out your misconceptions.

Mises fled the empire ahead of Hitler because he understood what was happening and recognized the danger.

 

[Tez3]

Lol. Americans are just as socialist, if not more, then European states in most of the ways that really matter. The history of European socialism is something I've read extensively about, from European sources. I suggest you try reading an Austrian named Mises. Perhaps he can straighten out your misconceptions.

Mises fled the empire ahead of Hitler because he understood what was happening and recognized the danger.

I love the way you think we know nothing, I do actually know of and have read Mises. the thing is, you read things about Europe and from a European point of view as you say but you understand it from an American point of view, your education and experience of living is all American so everything you see and understand is American-centric.

I think you may well have death threats for calling Americans socialists, at the very least I expect you to get neg rep!!

 

[Makalakumu]

I love the way you think we know nothing, I do actually know of and have read Mises. the thing is, you read things about Europe and from a European point of view as you say but you understand it from an American point of view, your education and experience of living is all American so everything you see and understand is American-centric.

I think you may well have death threats for calling Americans socialists, at the very least I expect you to get neg rep!!

From Mises perspective, Americans are socialists. From Mises perspective, militarism is socialism. Or, "war is the health of the state" as they say in the Austrian School of Economics.

Anyway, I don't think my perspective is very American anymore. Not many people in my country share it.

 

[Tez3]

From Mises perspective, Americans are socialists. From Mises perspective, militarism is socialism. Or, "war is the health of the state" as they say in the Austrian School of Economics.

Anyway, I don't think my perspective is very American anymore. Not many people in my country share it.

#

You see, that's the magic word! it's all about persepctive, Americans see the Nazis as socialist, not just because of the name but because that's how they perceive socialism to be, they can't see that socialism could be anything as good as capitalism, theyve never needed to see any other system in their short history. Europe, with it's centuries of war, empires, ravages of famines and plagues etc etc have a different perspective, for us the Nazi's are very right wing. Austrians btw are just Germans by another name, Nazism went down a treat there, they loved it, well, of course as we all know Hitler was Austrian not German but he felt the two countries were the same place.

Spain under Franco was facist, he was right wing his views were so similiar to Hitler's that Germany helped them out killing the Spanish who protested and fought against Franco's troops. I don't see people saying 'oh Franco was a socialist!'

 

[granfire]

Spain under Franco was facist, he was right wing his views were so similiar to Hitler's that Germany helped them out killing the Spanish who protested and fought against Franco's troops. I don't see people saying 'oh Franco was a socialist!'

Oh, give billie half a chance with his google-foo and copy-pasta...

 

[Tez3]

Oh, give billie half a chance with his google-foo and copy-pasta...

True enough, he's on ignore but to me he's still the man who thinks Maggie Thatcher is a socialist!! Imagine the Iron Lady as a commie roflmao!

 

[sopraisso]

#

You see, that's the magic word! it's all about persepctive, Americans see the Nazis as socialist, not just because of the name but because that's how they perceive socialism to be, they can't see that socialism could be anything as good as capitalism, theyve never needed to see any other system in their short history. Europe, with it's centuries of war, empires, ravages of famines and plagues etc etc have a different perspective, for us the Nazi's are very right wing.
[...]
Spain under Franco was facist, he was right wing his views were so similiar to Hitler's that Germany helped them out killing the Spanish who protested and fought against Franco's troops. I don't see people saying 'oh Franco was a socialist!'

Some people truly don't understand the difference. Some do, but try to deceive themselves and pretend they don't see such difference (some kind of cognitive dissonance). Some understand, but pretend they don't and try to deceive others, out of interests that would not be spoken out loud. The cold war is over, but many of its products live up today, and one of them is the misinformation propaganda that both sides made about each other - with some prevalence, naturally, of the propaganda of the winning side.

I've learned that being capitalism or socialism is more about whether the means of production are public or private, not about the political system. So there can be socialist democracies and capitalist dictatorships. In Latin America we have some kind of experience on many of those nuances, I believe. The most important thing is: there aren't only extreme positions, and I usually believe the moderate ones tends to be more lucid.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

True enough, he's on ignore but to me he's still the man who thinks Maggie Thatcher is a socialist!! Imagine the Iron Lady as a commie roflmao!

I can only imagine her response to that....:lol:

But considering that my Grandmother was very proud of her brother to have been party member before it became compulsory, and that she would have never touched anything socialist, no matter how long the pole.....I am sure she and her family are spinning in their graves everytime somebody says Nazi=Socialists!
of course for different reasons as the millions of communists and socialists killed in the camps.....

 

[Makalakumu]

I've been doing a lot of reading in the Austrian School of Economics lately and from their perspective, there are many different flavors of socialism that comprise modern politics. Left wing socialism is what people would identify with communism. Right wing socialism is what people would define as fascism. Middle of the road, centrist socialism is not fascist or communist, it's what most people would define as a social democracy. This is the brain child of the Fabian Socialists, a clique out of Britain, who were the actual ideological winners of the second world war.

We know through history that both ends of the perspective can lead to genocide, but I think it remains to be seen in regards to social democracies. We shall see...

 

[Tez3]

I've been doing a lot of reading in the Austrian School of Economics lately and from their perspective, there are many different flavors of socialism that comprise modern politics. Left wing socialism is what people would identify with communism. Right wing socialism is what people would define as fascism. Middle of the road, centrist socialism is not fascist or communist, it's what most people would define as a social democracy. This is the brain child of the Fabian Socialists, a clique out of Britain, who were the actual ideological winners of the second world war.

We know through history that both ends of the perspective can lead to genocide, but I think it remains to be seen in regards to social democracies. We shall see...

Okay, it's not 'Fabian socialists' it's the Fabian Society, it's a think tank, Britian's oldest formed in 1884. They aren't a clique btw but a well respected organisation. They are socialist in inclination but as they say.. "It is however editorially, organisationally and financially independent of the Labour Party and works with a wide range of partners of all political persuasions and none." Being a member I know about this. I am however a socialist being what you call classic liberal, something very different. Members have included HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Rupert Brooke, Oscar Wilde, Emmeline Pankhurst and Earnest Bevin.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying the Fabian Society was the idealogical winners of the Second World War, that doesn't make sense.

 

[Makalakumu]

This thread is about to get very interesting. Grab some popcorn. opcorn:

Okay, it's not 'Fabian socialists' it's the Fabian Society, it's a think tank, Britian's oldest formed in 1884. They aren't a clique btw but a well respected organisation. They are socialist in inclination but as they say.. "It is however editorially, organisationally and financially independent of the Labour Party and works with a wide range of partners of all political persuasions and none." Being a member I know about this. I am however a socialist being what you call classic liberal, something very different. Members have included HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Rupert Brooke, Oscar Wilde, Emmeline Pankhurst and Earnest Bevin.

Fabian socialism is just another type of socialism, but why should I bother saying much more, since you are actually a member of the society. For others, here's a description of this particular brand of socialism.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism/276343/Fabian-socialism

As the anarcho-communists argued for a form of socialism so decentralized that it required the abolition of the state, a milder and markedly centralist version of socialism, Fabianism, emerged in Britain. Fabian Socialism was so called because the members of the Fabian Society admired the tactics of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator (Fabius the Delayer), who avoided pitched battles and gradually wore down Hannibal’s forces. Instead of revolution, the Fabians favoured “gradualism” as the way to bring about socialism. Their notion of socialism, like Saint-Simon’s, entailed social control of property through an effectively and impartially administered state—a government ...

Clique was just my tongue in cheek description and I know about all of the famous members. They've had some famous quotations over the years...

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

It wasn't just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: "The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be "the most important question of all" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".
Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "procreation tickets" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.

I find it very disturbing a Jew would belong to an organization like this. Here we are talking about the Holocaust and about how millions of more people were murdered by their governments and I find out that the person who started the thread belongs to a group that is directly responsible for spreading the ideology that murdered her own people. This is how I know we are doomed to repeat genocide again and again and again. People don't learn. They don't understand how dangerous government is. They don't understand how powerful propaganda is. For all of the readers out there, I want you to bear witness to the fact that government propaganda can be so strong that it can suck in it's own victims and spit them out as allies.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying the Fabian Society was the idealogical winners of the Second World War, that doesn't make sense.

“You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner...” (Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

“As people get their opinions so largely from the newspapers they read… But the Press is not free, the newspapers are owned by rich men.” (Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

“Britain is not a country that is easily rocked by revolution... In Britain our institutions evolve. We are a Fabian Society writ large.”

Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist

Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist forIngersoll Rand (nyse: IR - news -people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites.

This is our society. This is the society that emerged from WWII. This is the brand of socialism that won the war. Will we see another holocaust or will they gradually implement their policies so that the average folk miss it?

For those paying attention, the Fabians tell us what ideas vaccinate people against their philosophy. They know that people who value individual freedom will never go along with their plans.[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] Or, as the old adage goes, "Freedom is the answer, what is the question?"
[/FONT]