|
NorthernGent -> RE: American Aid Worker Enslaved, Tortured, Repeatedly Raped (8/26/2015 10:12:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Again, for the droolers too broke to pay attention (this has been presented before):
quote:
[img]http://blogs-images.forbes.com/billflax/files/2011/09/300px-Hitler_and_Mussolini_June_1940.jpg[/img]
“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn
Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall “from breadbasket to basket case.” The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and legions of lobbyists.
In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?
In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.
Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.
Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.
While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.
The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another “comrade” while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a “classless, casteless” Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.
Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/
Sanity, can you not think for yourself? Do you have to plagiarise someone's views and simply copy and paste?
The bloke who has written what you have copied is monumentally devoid of any claim to an understanding of European history.
I'm gobsmacked that he can believe it, particularly the part which says something like: "they were natural bedfellows but Germany betrayed Russia in WW1 which caused the divide".
A cursory glance at Russo-Germans relations would lead you to instantly conclude otherwise, well, not you, because you're waiting to copy someone else's views.
The Nazis believed Communism was a 'weak' ideology because it placed emphasis on solidarity among the working classes from all over the world. In complete contrast, the Nazis believed that genetics meant the German 'race', if there is a such a thing, I can't get too excited about what blood you have; was superior to everything else.
You must see the obvious contrast, even you barely reaching the intelligence of a burrow owl.
One emphasised the historical differences between races; the other emphasised the historical difference between classes.
You must see how these two views are diametrically opposed?
The bloke whom you've copied is not someone you should place too much trust in assuming he genuinely believes the Nazis and Communists were really in agreement, personally I think he's making game in the article and not being serious at all.
The reason people such as Hindenburg, Ludendorff and a few other high profile German conservatives were in agreement that the Nazis should take power, is that although they all saw him as a uncouth, jumped up idiot; they were prepared to suffer him providing he kept the communists away from power. Like them, the Nazis believed in a strong, powerful Germany; whereas the communists believed in solidarity among the working classes of all nations, which the Nazis and assorted German conservatives believed could only ever weaken Germany.
It's a bit like, you, Sanity, and your views on 'leftists'. That's what Hitler thought of communists. He saw them as a threat to Germany being a 'strong' nation.
|
|
|
|
