Great job on the pic, it does seem to fall right into place.

"Indoctrination"

Bingo! You're a very smart man! A+! Go straight to the head of the class!

Yes - the old Goebbels thing - "indoctrination"!


Edit: okay, I'm trying to learn about these "reputation ponts" here, so I can give you the prize behind Door Number One, but um.. it looks like I'm gonna have to go to another machine here, I seem to be having some kinda Java problem on this oen, so if you give me a few minutes, I'll get to it. I haven't forgotten though. Well done!

I repeat, I think any comparison between Hillary and Hitler are wrong and unwarranted. Hillary in no way warrants a comparison with Adolph.


Hillary ran a Christmas ad in which she handed out gifts. This whole concept embodied the socialist thought that the government was in control and gave you what it chose. The ad included such things as socialized medicine. One of the gifts was child care. She actually suggested by this the government would take over child care. That is socialism.

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." - Hillary

---

Yes Adolph's party was the National Socialist Party. They did not believe in limited government, but believed in an all encompassing government. The purpose of the red in the NAZI flag was to identify with Marxism:

"As National socialists we see our programme in our flag. In red we see the social thoughts of the movement." - Hitler

"it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people ... but the capitalists of all countries." - Hitler


With Adolph's view of socialism he didn't believe in government ownership of business, but in government having total control over businesses.

"Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." - Hitler

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will." - Hitler

Hmm... Glitch, that's an interesting analysis.

I still fail to see how they differ though.

In both cases, you end up with a "nanny state", don't you?

And I mean, think about the "mechanism", that Hitler used, to bring about what you're talking about there, the "control of businesses by the State".

That's kinda the point I've tried to raise in several other threads, in relation to my view of "statism" - and the example, I think, was the IG Farben company (remember them? Zyklon B? Well, before all that, they were just a big chemical company, like maybe today's DuPont or Monsanto or something - but what happened was, they got into bed with the government, business-wise, and then it beacme so much of their business, that htey couldn't get out - and that's how Hitler gained control over the various businesses).

And I mean, look around..... what do you see Hillary doing? Hm? What do you think, for instance, this "universal healthcare" thing is going to do? Well, what'll happen, is probably, even more of what you're seeing in Medicare Part D, right? 'Cause now, if you look at the bottom lines of the pharmas and the health insurance companies, there's a line item in there, that says, "revenue from Medicare Part D", right? And, as with all entitlements, the number attached to that line item, will continue to grow, year after year after year, right? So, what you'll see, is that the gov will become a "bigger and bigger fraction" of the cpmanies' business, until eventually, it becomes so much of their business, that if the government suddenly went away, the company would collapse, and all the stockholdersa nd jobs and economy and investors with it. Right? "Inertia", that way? Hmm....

And I mean, Bushie is really no different, is he, in terms of his economic policies? This is kinda one of the "side effects" of the globalism bit, ain't it? Hmmm.....

So, I kinda hear what you're saying, in terms of the "differences", but do you also hear me, in terms of the "similarities"?

I agree with you that there are definite similarities in that they are both statists.

The reason I put the disclaimer is that just because two people have similarities doesn't mean they are comparable. For example both evangelicals and Hitler disagreed with the practice of homosexuality. I don't believe this justifies our saying that Nazism and Evangelicalism are comparable. You can generally find points of intersection in any two trains of thought.