Thanks for the explanation. Would you be willing to expand on what your concept of "racial nationalism" means? I'm a capitalist by the way. I think globalism is a democratic and nationalist bogey man. (I think the smaller the govt the better.) I agree it is also a anti-capitalist bogeyman but for me that's the minor issue. Authoritarianism is my greater concern.
Rubbish. Germans were starving. Enter Hilter, the only man courageous enough to bring the country back to life.
And that political enemy can be anyone. In most countries it's the Americans but I've seen blamed on neighbors and, in Nicaragua, even the EU. You've nailed the methodology and the motives behind it. It's used everywhere to a greater or lesser extent.
And the French people were just fine were they? You know the ones who's country Germany had destroyed but wasn't willing to rebuild? Hitler maybe a hero to you mate, but not to us. Poor little Germany. Aww. How badly the world treated them. Why didn't the world just give them all their money after the Germans had arse raped their countries and killed them by the multiple million? I ****ing wonder. Boo hoo Germany. Next time you get nuked. So don't waste your time feeling all hard done by. Count yourself lucky we didn't do unto you as you did unto others.
He brought Germany back to life? Seems you're not familiar with what happened in East Germany or the millions of dead Germans who dies during the war, including the Fuhrer himself. And Germans turning on their Jewish neighbors will never be forgotten.
They consider themselves to be democratic and use democratic principles to govern their countries They are not however Liberal Democracies, a term which in the West is commonly abbreviated to "democracy". In short, they operate one party systems. They still hold elections but the candidates are all chosen from the same political party predominantly.
Rubbish right back at ya. Germany was pretty bad off in the late teens and early 20's, yes, but Weimar had done a fairly good job of recovery by 1929. The Great Depression hit Germany too; not nearly as bad as everywhere else but still frightening Germans enough that Hitler seemed a viable choice. Even so, he didn't actually win the election but upon losing the businessmen made him Chancellor because "...we can handle this Hitler fellow", (gee, this seems familiar somehow). After that he went back to the violent tactics that had failed him in 1924, using the Reichstag Fire to procure the Enabling Act . And that, children, is how you pervert the most advanced nation in the world into becoming the most barbarous political cancer that has yet existed and is still about to kill us all, unless we begin to cut it out in November Oh, and Hitler's great courageous act that made Germany so prosperous in the middle and late 30's consisted mainly in looting the Jews. He started WWII mainly because Germany was bankrupt and needed to steal more money.
It wasn't the businessmen who made Hitler Chancellor. It was the president. The elected leader of Germany, whose conservative party didn't have a big majority, gave the leader of the primary opposition the second job in government. The Chancellory. It was a democratic concession made to create political unity in a divided parliament. Businessmen did not like Hitler. He was a staunch anti-capitalist.
No they are correct the Nazis were a socialist ideology. They just added a whole bunch of nationalistic and racial superiority stuff to their ideology. The state partially or wholey controlled key industrious for the "good" of the people. They distributed money and resources based on the needs of the people as they saw fit.
Do you people belong to a cult that awards medals or cash prizes to members who can spew the most absurd statements within a certain time limit?
The Big Businessmen said exactly what I quoted, they thought to make Hitler their puppet. Hitler was a staunch opportunist, he had no real ideology, principles or loyalty to anything but making himself more powerful. He actually wrote that into Naziism's guidiing "philosophy" calling it "Fueherprinzip" You guys saying Naziism was socialist need to study up on the difference between Naziism and Italian Fascism and fascism as it's called today and socialism, they all have points of similarity but they're not really the same things, particularly Naziism which is really sui generis in world history.
What they said is one thing. What happened another. The president gave him the job. Plain and simple. He was politically appointed to the position through normal democratic processes. There are as many different forms of fascism as there are fascist parties. As many different forms of socialism as there are socialist parties. As many different forms of democracy as there are democracies. What fascism was, what socialism was is in part defined by what the Nazi's were. They are the single most famous party of both ideologies. Lol and among the most successful!!! ROFL. Fascism is a subset of socialism. Nazi ism is a subset of both fascism and socialism. "Todays socialism"? Show me two socialists who can agree what that is.
Turn a few of your neighbors into piles of ash and taunt you about it afterwards. What are you gonna do about it? The western half of that continent couldn’t get any more cucked down.
Nazism is an extreme form of socialism by the platforms that were run on. If it is not why not? Or I suppose how close to pure socialism does an ideology have to be in order to be called a socialist ideology?
Hillary a puppet of Big Businessmen? Check. Hillary an opportunist? Check. Hillary has no ideology, principles or loyalty to anything but gaining power? Check. Turns out that Hillary was the one who was "just like Hitler!"
And so did the Italian Fascists, are we going to try and say they were socialists now? In socialism the means of production are owned by the people, without that, at least in theory or as an end goal, you don't have socialism. Period. In socialism you don't, in theory, (not in fact ever yet, but in theory) need a state at all. In Fascism the State is Supreme. The Nazi's basic politics were Fascist like the Italian Fascists. Individuals still owned most businesses but the State owned the individuals, as it were. In Fascism the State is Supreme over all. The Nazis were a racist ideology. They didn't just "add on" all that nationalism and racism, racism is what they were ABOUT. They saw humanity as made up of RACES, not individuals. The Nazis's hated individualism, as people were seen as just members of the Race. People, businesses and finally even the state itself, existed to serve the Race and had no other functions. If capitalism made the Aryan race strong it was good, if socialism served the needs of the Master Race they were all for it. And Adolf Hitler somehow embodied that Master Race, whatever Hitler said was good and for the German people "Only he could save them" If you recognize those words, and find them as frightening as do I, then you have to join me in seeing that another similar madman is quarantined from power in November.
Hitler was no puppet as the businessmen soon found out. As you will soon find out with Trump if you let him stay in power. The rest of what you say is simply the same scurrilous slander and baseless lies that you have calumnized this blameless lady with for the last decade and longer. You are making no one but yourself look bad at this point.
What businessman did Clinton ever discomfit? Frank Guistra? "For the United States, these were precisely the sorts of discomfiting accounts that were supposed to be prevented in Colombia under a labor agreement that accompanied a recently signed free trade pact liberalizing the exchange of goods between the countries. From Washington to Bogota, leaders had promoted the pact as a win for all -- a deal that would at once boost trade while strengthening the rights of embattled Colombian labor organizers. That formulation had previously drawn skepticism from many prominent Democrats, among them Hillary Clinton. Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers. At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire. The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra." (emphasis mine)
Does Naziism advocate that the means of production should be owned by the people? If it doesn't it is fascism. The people owning the means of production is the sine qua non. the defining principle, without it you don't have socialism. You people are conflating socialism with authoritarianism/totalitarianism, and that is understandable as socialism lends itself to authoritarianism very readily, much more so than capitalism, but they are not the same thing.
Fascism advocates that the means of production is controlled by the people. This is Socialism, but not Communism. And just like in Communism, "the people" actually means "the party". You technically own your farm, but you must employ who you are told to employ at the price you are told to. Produce what you are told to at the quota you are told to. Sell it to who you are told to for the price you are told to. And take amount in pay you are told to. Work the amount of hours you are told to. And if you fail to do so they beat the **** out of you and take it away from you, You get to keep your farm, in name only. Unless of course you are deemed a socially undesirable person in which case, they beat the **** out of you and reassign you to work in slavery. This is better than Communism only in the sense that in Communism your job on that farm will go to someone else and you likely be reassigned to another job from the outset. Further to this in Nazi ism you must also give up you labour to go and work for the state for free for a certain amount of months per year. You must build an autobahn as a slave. Or the Siegfried line. And if doing so means your farm misses it's quota, they beat the **** out you and take it away from you. If you hate your boss, slack off. They will take him away and beat the **** out of him! Communism was also a racist ideology. Consider the Tartars in the Soviet Union. As was Liberal Democracy, consider the black slaves in the USA. So in the past pretty much every ideology was a racist ideology. Racism was the global social norm in those days.
