posted October 10, 2006 06:26 PM            

Notice, they're leftists!

Leftists have been running away from the facts for more than 60 years. The socialists and communists were the fascists...that's Hitler and Mussolini...both socialists, both ultra leftists.

Defining Evil
By Jim Guirard
Family Security Matters | October 4, 2006

Several weeks after President George W. Bush uttered the "Islamofascist" and "Islamic Fascists" invectives for al Qaeda-style Terrorism, a heated controversy continues as to whether either of these highly condemnatory terms is appropriate to the situation.

Not surprisingly, left-wing and hate-Bush critics in the Congress, in academia, in Hollywood and in the media who have repeatedly vilified the President himself as a "fascist" and a "Nazi" and a "Hitlerite" are angrily resisting these same labels for the genocidal likes of Osama bin Laden and his suicide mass murderers.

posted October 11, 2006 02:52 PM            

It was necessary to correct the focus of the thread...which I did by showing the roots of fascism....which is and always was a characteristic of the far radical left. The far radical left which is found in the democrat party in our time.

There are many irrelevant themes I see no reason to address and this was one. However, when I see a concept being misapplied, as in this case, there is some responsibility for correcting the misconception.

Call it a public service.

posted October 11, 2006 02:57 PM              

*************

But several months later he unexpectedly changed his position on the war, leaving the Socialist party and his editorial chair.

In November 1914 he founded a new paper, Il Popolo d'Italia, and the prowar group Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria.

Fascism became an organized political movement in March 1919 when Mussolini founded the Fasci de Combattimento. After failing in the 1919 elections, Mussolini at last entered parliament in 1921 as a right-wing member. The Fascisti formed armed squads to terrorize Mussolini's former Socialist colleagues. The government seldom interfered. In return for the support of a group of industrialists and agrarians, Mussolini gave his approval to strikebreaking, and he abandoned revolutionary agitation.

Skillfully using his absolute control over the press, he gradually built up the legend of the "Duce, a man who was always right and could solve all the problems of politics and economics. Italy was soon a police state. With those who tried to resist him, for example the Socialist Giacomo Matteotti, he showed himself utterly ruthless. But Mussolini's skill in propaganda was such that he had surprisingly little opposition.

posted October 11, 2006 03:00 PM              

*************

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

(ONLY COMPLETE OFFICIAL TEXT ON THE INTERNET)

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle.

Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration-old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort.

After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations;

note: where have i heard that exact same argument before? hmmmm...

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere.

The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century.

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

posted October 11, 2006 04:22 PM            

In any leftist society there will be those attempting to elbow their way to the forefront. Those who will say anything and do anything to set themselves apart from their fellow leftists, socialists, Marxists and other collectivists.

Benito Mussolini was one such individual. Italians were tired of the inefficient socialist government. Mussolini promised a new deal and wrapped it up in a new name..fascism. Truth to tell, it was the same old collectivist concepts with a new name. Mussolini was said to have made the trains run on time which was an extension of making the state more efficient. But note the imagery in the word fascism...a bundle..ie, collectivism.

Think communists/progressives as different words without a difference and you'll get the picture.

This is the rest of Mussolini's tirade about fascism that you didn't see fit to include and it spells it out clearly that it's rooted in collectivism as are all the others..socialism/communism/Marxism/Leninism/Maoism etc. It is the government/economic model in which the state is supreme, the individual exists only to serve the state. Do you really think the distinction between any of the collectivist systems is anything more than a distinction in name only?

"...(g)iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."

In other words Petron, total control of the means of production, of capital, of information, of political power...all concentrated in hands of the state..ie., communism, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism...the collectivist state.

BTW, how do you think Mussolini's definition would have gone down if he had told Italians he was going to reduce them to a state of abject slavery? Instead, he told them..."The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom"

Only the useless and possibly harmful freedoms were to be sacrificed.

Nothing of right wing thinking there Petron, nothing at all.

posted October 11, 2006 05:27 PM            

All leftist models fall under the term "collectivism".

posted October 12, 2006 09:45 PM              

***********

Night of the Long Knives 1934
The Night of the Long Knives (German, Nacht der langen Messer), also known as Reichsmordwoche or "the Blood Purge", was a purge ordered by Adolf Hitler of potential political rivals (who have been said to want more socialism and less nationalism in the party)in the Sturmabteilung, or S.A. The Night of the Long Knives took place during the late night of Saturday 30. June and the early morning of Sunday 1. July 1934. Official records tally the dead at 77, though 400 are believed to have been killed.

By the summer of 1933, the S.A. had grown discontented with the progress of the Nazi regime. Many had taken seriously the "socialism" of "National Socialism", and were angry that Hitler and the other party leaders had not. As a result, they grew increasingly distant from the Nazi leadership and believed further steps needed to be taken to achieve substantive social and economic change. They also wanted to become the core of a new German army.
Background
By 1934, Hitler dominated Germany's government, but still feared losing power in a coup d'état. To maintain complete control, he allowed political infighting to continue among his subordinates. As a result, a political struggle grew, with Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich on one side and Ernst Röhm, the leader of the S.A., on the other. The S.A. was the only remaining viable threat to Hitler's power.

The power of Röhm and his violent organization frightened his rivals. Goering and Himmler asked Heydrich to assemble a dossier of manufactured evidence to suggest that Röhm had been paid 12 million marks by France to overthrow Hitler. Himmler presented the "evidence" to Hitler, fuelling his suspicion that Röhm intended to use the S.A. to launch a plot against him ("Röhm-Putsch"). At the time, Himmler had nearly completed the restructuring of another Nazi organization, the SS (Schutzstaffel), from one tasked with protecting Nazi leaders into a secret police formation. The eventual marginalization of the SA removed an obstacle to Himmler's accumulation of power over the coming years.

Hitler had always liked Röhm. He was one of the first members of the Nazi Party, participating in the Beer Hall Putsch. But Hitler was under increasing pressure to reduce the S.A. influence. German military leaders were unhappy with Röhm's proposal that the German army be absorbed into the larger S.A., and the industrialists that supported Hitler were concerned over the S.A.'s socialist leanings. The regular army was also alarmed by the size of the S.A. — in early 1934 it numbered 2.5 million, while the army was limited by the Treaty of Versailles to 100,000. Some leaders of the Nazi party also joined the dislike many conservative officers expressed over the overt homosexuality of Röhm and some other S.A. leaders. The Night of the Long Knives was a significant prelude to the dark history of Homosexuals during the Holocaust.
Proceedings
With all these groups aligned against Röhm, Hitler decided to act. He ordered all S.A. leaders to attend a meeting at the Hanselbauer Hotel in Bad Wiessee near Munich. On June 30 Hitler took personal command of Röhm's arrest.

posted October 13, 2006 12:11 AM            

In any event Thyssen's business was nationalized/seized as were many others critical to the Nazi war effort.

Let's not lose sight of the fact Hitler was a National socialist dictator. He was not a right wing dictator...or as leftists love to say, a right wing fascist dictator.

posted October 13, 2006 12:50 AM              

the nazi party came to power by forming a coalition with the other extreme right wing party, the DNVP.....and gained the majority in the Reichstag.....this was the beginning of the end for germany....

*************

German Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP) right-wing political party active in the Reichstag (assembly) of the Weimar Republic of Germany from 1919 to 1933. Representing chauvinistic opinion hostile to the republic and to the Allies' reparation demands following World War I, it supported the restoration of monarchy, a united Germany, and private enterprise. It gathered strength in the elections of 1920 (66 Reichstag seats) …
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036571/German-National-Peoples-Party

The Nazi takeover in 1933

On 30 January 1933 Adolf Hitler, leader of NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party), was appointed Reich Chancellor by the Reich President, Paul von Hindenburg. At the subsequent elections to the Reichstag, NSDAP, together with its coalition partner DNVP, gained an absolute majority. This was mainly due to the fact that political opponents had been terrorised during the election campaign.
http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/nazisternesmagtovertagelse.asp

posted October 13, 2006 01:01 AM            

The only problem Hitler had with the communists were that they weren't HIS Communists. They were Stalin's communists and were plotting his overthrow by internal subversion.

Hitler and Stalin's only beef between them was who was going to rule Europe.

I've been over this ground before.

Hitler decided to attack Russia for the simple reason that Stalin was not fighting, not expending his resources and troops.

Hitler had no intention of weakening his own forces and losing equipment fighting against the Allies leaving Stalin at his rear and at full strength to attack Germany when it would be at it's weakest...even if Germany actually won.