A Commissar named Jana Winter at Page Six has picked up a thoughtcrime and immediately filed it under "lack of uniformity and criminal inkorrektness," reporting about it in her column. No doubt, she did what she "thought was ‘good'."

Will Smith: 'Hitler Was a Good Person'

Posted Sat. Dec. 22, 2007 11:40am by Jana Winter

Will Smith has disappointed us in ways we could've never imagined.

In an interview, the 39-year-old family man and former-all around good guy says he sees the good in everyone, including Adolf Hitler.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, ‘Let me do the most evil thing I can do today'. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming,” Smith told the Daily Record.

Um, yeah, except for the whole killing six million Jews thing.

Will, you've broken our hearts.

It's you that needs reprogramming.

Was Hitler a criminal mass murderer? Yes. Was it his initial goal to murder Jews and start wars that would destroy Europe and kill hundreds of millions - or was his life a logical result of being faithful to a certain ideology? Without relieving the Nazis of personal responsibility for their actions, I must say that Will has a valid point.

...he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good'.

The same thing can be said about Stalin or any other leader of a murderous mass movement.

I don't know Jana Winter's political affiliations - she might have experienced a common knee-jerk reaction because she was programmed to think that way. The "gotcha" feeling that penetrates her post is telling - she obviously "set out to do what she thought was ‘good'" - and for the sake of what she thinks is good she believes that Will Smith must be reprogrammed, along with all the others who venture out of the safety of groupthink.

It is in the best interest of the Left to continue to describe the Nazis as psychotic sociopaths who murdered Jews and started wars for their personal pleasure. That takes away our attention from the fact that the Nazis were motivated by a collectivist Common Good principle, and that Nazi is short for The National Socialist German Workers Party (formerly German Workers Party started in 1919 to fight against the "unfair" capitalist system.

There's no doubt that the unlivable inhuman systems that the Nazis and the Communists had created in their respective countries eventually turned those who were in charge into psychotic sociopaths - but they didn't start like that. They mostly started as idealistic dreamers believing in the collectivist utopia of the Common Good.

Look at today's leftist radicals and their tactics. They all say it's for the Common Good - and they don't mention or don't realize that to achieve that impossible collectivist utopia, millions of individuals will have to be murdered.

Socialists continue to explain Stalin's murderous rule by his personal inclination towards evil and describe it as a deviation of the good principle. No, comrades - it's your principle that is evil, and no matter how inherently "good" a person you are, if you follow an evil principle you will thereby commit evil.

Until everybody understands that fact, there's always a danger of Hitler or Stalin reappearing under a different guise, leading the masses towards another incarnation of the Common Good. And the masses, just like their leaders, will "set out to do what they think is ‘good'."

He does have a point. What Hitler did was just a very extreme and sort of unnecessary step in his attempts to save Germany. he saw the things done by the Bolsheviks and his thinking (brain damaged by being a vegetarian and not getting the right chemicals for logical thought processes) was that since so many of the Jews in Germany were working for the Bolsheviks to cause revolutions in every country (especially Germany, having been so destroyed and economically messed up after WWI that the people were desperate for a solution). His way of thinking was that it would be easier to kill all the Jews rather than to try to weed out the communist ones from the rest.

I'm not saying that what he did was right, but just trying to explain his thought process and to try to get rid of that false claim we are taught in skool that he was looking for a group of people to blame Germany's problems on so he could gain power.

</karakter>

Thought criminal!!! Thought criminal!!!

First he's in a movie where through hard work and determination a poor man can become rich and powerful by assimilating to the kkkapitalist system and causing more people to feel bad because they can't do what he did, and now he's saying Hitler was trying to do good!!! Only The Party™ is capable of doing "good" things.

I denounce you Will Smith!!!

I could understand her being this upset if he'd been talking about Bush.

Betty - I never heard of that theory before, and it seems to be only a small part of what happened. By all accounts the Nazis also believed that they were a "higher" race at the top of the evolution, and the Jews were and "inferior" race polluting their "pure" blood which somehow translated into a "pure" culture.

Their fraudulent notion of blood composition or skin color determining a "good" or "bad" culture was a mirror reflection of today's multiculturalist fraudulent idea that people should be classified by their genetic composition and skin color, leading to the existence of self-hating White intellectuals, the notion of "Sun people," and the tendency to call Michelle Malkin a coconut (white on the inside, brown on the outside) or Condi Rice an Oreo cookie and a traitor.

This is a false dichotomy. It is of the same origin as another false dichotomy that suggests that the only choice humanity has is, between communism and fascism. Somehow individualism/capitalism is never included into that equation, even though it's the only way that has proven to work in the modern world and is superior to the other formations in every way both morally and economically.

The very talk of Hitler and Nazism makes me feel dirty - but somehow the ones who keep bringing up Hitler and Nazism are the leftists. Hitler is probably the most commonly used word in the "progressive" vocabulary. Today's average leftist rally features more images of the swastika than anyone had ever seen since the fall of the Third Reich. Do they like Hitler? No. So why do they always keep Hitler and Nazism on the front burner? Just so they could feel dirty because they like feeling dirty? That would be one good theory, but it doesn't explain the whole thing.

I think that by keeping Hitler's memory alive they also keep the very false dichotomy alive. Whether they do it consciously or not, the best way to impose their collectivist ideas on the society is by imposing the same false dichotomy: socialism or fascism. In a way they are succeeding, as the knee-jerk reaction of most people is to equate right-wingers with fascists. Well, I'm a proud right-winger and I'm disgusted with fascism just as much as I'm disgusted with communism.

If the Left stands for collectivism and the Right stands for individualism, then both fascism and communism stand on the left as distinctly collectivist ideologies. Their fight is more of a sibling rivalry than the world conflict, although they have managed to drag most of the world into it.

In the erroneous ideological grid that the Left is presenting to the world, there is no place for people like me. We either don't exist, or we are falsely grouped with fascists - which I find both insulting and absurdly comical - as comical as the Far Side cartoons describing the dog-cat dichotomy. It's as if the world is made of cats and dogs only, and any other creature whom dogs don't like, is equated to a cat.

That's why I find their hatred of Bush extremely comical. They insist on calling Bush a Hitler, but their pictures of Bush with Hitler's mustache are as absurd as if they were Far Side dogs drawing cat whiskers on a hated mailman. So much for their alleged intellectual elitism.

So if I find both fascism and communism equally dangerous and dirty, how come I'm always dwelling on the issues of "strong communism?" Doesn't it make me feel dirty? Sometimes. But I've been pretty much desensitized to its smell by my communist upbringing, as well as by my reading of the New York Times and listening to the NPR and it's affiliate in New York, WNYC.

Red Square wrote: Betty - I never heard of that theory before, and it seems to be only a small part of what happened.

It's mostly downplayed today, and is pretty unheard of, but it was a large driving force behind his beliefs. The whole Arian race being the superior race was also big, and proclaimed more to the public than the true reasoning behind his Anti-Semitism.

Out of Character and Mind...
In case any one wonders, I deleted my previous post as not appropriate. I decided to do that not long after I posted it, but then we had a huge storm and my power was knocked out till 3 am, at which time I was getting ready to go out of town for a family reunion.

In the end, there is truth in all that has been posted here, perhaps even what I chose to delete, What the Premier said about the problems that can arise from a strict veggie diet is true, and don't forget the questionable treatments he was receiving from a doctor considered a quack. Hitlers hatred of the communists was well known, and he clearly also bought into the Aryan superiority. Nor should we forget how the German culture also was prime breeding ground for a strong, military figure to be widely accepted, though of course, he really wasn't that widely accepted at first. He was very clever in playing politics....sort of like another H person..... What he did do is beyond question, he took a broken country and turned it into a world power in but a few years.

Regarding the hatred of the communists - it's another thing that lumps the right-wingers with Hitler - very conveniently for the communists. But there's a difference.

What I don't like about the communists is their dangerous, delusional, and utterly immoral belief in the need to sacrifice the individual to the collective, which is the foundation for their ideal - a Utopian society based on mutual sharing (aka redistribution of wealth). Since the this ideal contradicts the very nature of a human being, human nature itself becomes the enemy of the ideal. In real life this results in a culture consisting of self-hating neurotics, hateful witch-hunters, and cynical demagogues.

This wasn't why Hitler hated the communists. He shared their collectivist premise, their disregard for property rights and individual liberties (and their subsequent hatred of capitalism), only instead of an international people's paradise on earth he envisioned an Aryan people's paradise on earth. He rejected class struggle, believing that socialism can be built from above, by means of a strong government and a unifying national idea.

Hitler's Utopian ideal also implied redistribution of wealth and the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Thus it also contradicted the human nature and resulted in a culture consisting of self-hating neurotics, hateful witch-hunters, and cynical demagogues.

The Nazis came to power in Germany with the help of a strong Communist vote, on orders from Moscow - perhaps because Stalin feared the competition from the social-democrats more than he feared the fascists. Once again, it's a story of the leftists fighting, intriguing and backstabbing one another, revising history, and dragging the rest of the world into their sibling rivalry.

In short, their fight was over how better to redistribute the wealth stolen from the hated and despised capitalists. They were much like thugs fighting over the ill-gotten loot.

Hitler doesn't even come second in the body count of murdered communists. Lenin and Stalin take the lead. The 1917 Revolution in Russia was soon followed by massive arrests and executions of various non-Bolshevik leftists and fellow radicals, the most hated of whom were the Mensheviks - another faction of the same Communist Party. In 1922 Lenin was shot and wounded, not by an agent of the bourgeoisie, but by a member of the Social-Revolutionary Party, Fanny Kaplan, who had a differing view on how to care about the People(tm) and the Children(TM). Later on the Bolsheviks themselves split into two fighting factions, which led to massive arrests and executions of the so-called Trotskyites, culminating in the famous show trials purges that mostly targeted communists, inflicting indiscriminate collateral damage on all the others.

So if murders are to be taken as the measure of hatred, the biggest enemy of the communists are other communists who believe they love the People(tm) and the Children(TM) more than their rivals.

And, as we know, Hitler "LOVED the Children(TM)" - just like Lenin "did", except that neither of them bothered to get his own - which is about the only thing in which I would have to agree with the both of them.



And here's a Christmas picture too - the communists supplanted the whole tradition including the tree with the New Year celebration.

Red wrote:This is a false dichotomy. It is of the same origin as another false dichotomy that suggests that the only choice humanity has is, between communism and fascism.

What fascinates me is the endless human insistence on a dichotomy--between fascism or communism or any other dichotomies. I've had people who, on my stating that I think it provable that there is a God, instantly assume I must therefore agree with them on their god nearly up to the color of the kneelers. Again, the human dichotomy.

Matthew Parris, an intelligent man who writes in <i>The Spectator</i>, a Torie English publication, sees things from a slightly different perspective. He reviewed a book by a leftist who had recanted and then had gone on to use the polemic tricks he'd learned as a leftie to rubbish the left. Which is good fun, I admit. But Parris said that it would have been more convincing if he hadn't just switched sides.

It would have been more convincing if he'd analyzed everything for what it was, and that this man had abandoned one framework for another, and one framework is much like another. And, in another lapidary phrase, a throwaway, which was really worth the price of a year's subscription, "It's a matter of taking sides and these people take sides."

Perhaps there is something unique in me, perforce, which makes me not really have that much of a side--Parris shares that with me. But I've found this a useful prism to look at people with. What side have they allied themselves with? What one or two things about a side will they find fetching and then exert themselves to the uttermost to for? That they'll remake themselves for?

Notice that all of this is a willing sacrifice of individuality.

Note that to gauge everything on its merits is hard work. You have to considering <i>everything</i> all the time, to order your own mind, and to consciously decide that you are a side of one. In this I think that I may be more willing than some in these pages to forgive Orwell. Being literary, he made the "mistake," if it is that, of writing about his enthusiasms. And then he was honest enough to recant, instead of digging himself in deeper, like people we have all seen, who get louder and shriller, trying, I believe, to drown out their own doubts.

I'm rambling a bit, but there is a thread here. Hitchens in his atheist book was talking about the totalitarian instincts of intellectuals. The book really is about a great deal more than religion--he views religion as another attempt to control. (Although I take a more benign view than he does of Christianity today--Christians make good neighbors.)

Hitchens posited that a lot of intellectuals grow tired with age and give into totalitarian ideology--and I'm still thinking about that.

(Evelyn Waugh, in his old age, became the most Catholic of Catholics. Another strict structure.)

And speaking of taking sides, perhaps, it just occurs to me, that is the reason that I don't give a shit about sports. What the hell does it matter if some men carry an inflated pigskin 300'? The goddamned ball goes out the same door it came in; people get excited and for what? NOTHING! It's the biggest waste of time and energy in the whole world. Even chat shows, godawful that they are, are better. But I know that sports are useful and can bind people together, including nations. For no reason that is rational, but they do. An atavistic tribal thing? Who knows? And really, who cares? Just because I find it incomprehensible that doesn't mean it's bad or that I'd lift a finger to stop it. Now my indifference to something that someone else wants is really out of character in these pages. After all, if I don't want it, you can't either.

But isn't sports a (benign) way of choosing sides? Rush said that sports are valuable because you can put all your energy into them and it doesn't mean anything, and I'm beginning to understand that if you believe, as I'm beginning to, that we are constructed, probably atavistically, to take sides.

The Most Astute Red Square wrote:...What I don't like about the communists is their dangerous, delusional, and utterly immoral belief in the need to sacrifice the individual to the collective, which is the foundation for their ideal - a Utopian society based on mutual sharing...

...Hitler's Utopian ideal also implied redistribution of wealth and the sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Thus it also contradicted the human nature and resulted in a culture consisting of self-hating neurotics, hateful witch-hunters, and cynical demagogues...

The essential difference between left and right lies in their attitude toward human equality as a social ideal. The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further to the left he or she will be situated on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.

There are moderates and extremists on both sides. Extremists are always authoritarian, intolerant, and collectivist, and usually inclined to deception and violence. Extremists cannot permit the deviation from or opposition to their desired ideal that individual freedom would entail. And they wish to impose their ideal on all others.

Communism on the left and fascism on the right share many characteristics. The ideals they similarly pursued, however, were fundamentally opposed to each other. Communism disproportionately victimized the rich, the successful, and the higher classes; fascism disproportionately victimized the poor, the "unfit," and what they defined as the "lower" races. Nazis - the most radical variant of Fascism - borrowed techniques from the left (violence, propaganda, terror, techniques of mass mobilization, etc.) in order to better fight socialism (despite the deliberately misleading use of "socialist" in the name of the party).

So you are right, Red, in believing that we as individuals either don't exist, or we are falsely grouped with fascists, because we are not collectivists, and stand on our own.

Red Square wrote: And, as we know, Hitler "LOVED the Children(TM)" - just like Lenin "did", except that neither of them bothered to get his own - which is about the only thing in which I would have to agree with the both of them.



And here's a Christmas picture too - the communists supplanted the whole tradition including the tree with the New Year celebration.

Two things (and I'm off character being serious now):

1. These pictures remind me of pictures one sees of Jesus surrounded by children ("Suffer the little children come to me.") Makes one wonder if Hitler and Lenin were trying to use similar poses to lend themselves a godlike image, to replace the God they themselves--and their ideology--had no use for.

2. They're powerful images with great appeal not only to children, but to women. To the female sex, few things in this world are more seductive than a man holding a baby or small animal (case in point the kitten in Lenin's arms). This makes him look caring, nurturing, loving--a man who would make a good father, and therefore a good provider. And that means security, which is highly prized by women. Feminist blather aside, that's what we women look for in a mate.

If he has no children of his own (whether by fate or his own design)--if he's "available"--then a woman might like to think she could be "The One" for him, and will do anything to win his approval and ultimately his heart--and if that means throwing herself body and soul into his ideology, however misguided it is, then she will. I know that sounds foolish, but that's how women operate--and these guys (or their propaganda departments) knew it.

That's just what I see here. Call it the feminine perspective, FWIW.

P.S. I'm glad neither of them had children of their own.

Sorry for another long post - I just need to get it out of my system.

Mikhail T. Kalashnikov wrote:... in order to better fight socialism (despite the deliberately misleading use of "socialist" in the name of the party).

Let me respectfully disagree that "socialist" in the name of the party was misleading. Consider this quote:

Hitler said rather than wrote:- We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
- The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
- The breaking of the slavery of interest
- Personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
- We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
- We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
- We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
- We demand the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation
- The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs).
- The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor.
- We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.
- The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden.
- Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
- To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power

So there you have it: "The common interest before self-interest." That is the spirit of Hitler's program.

More on this here: https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1010

The fact that the Nazis were business-friendly is a myth. Yes, they opposed the class war and created favorable conditions for a few oligarchs - at the expense of all the others. They nationalized the infrastructure and were running a centralized planned economy. This is the merger of the government and big business that the true right-wingers oppose. It's a recipe for corruption and loss of freedom.

Mikhail T. Kalashnikov wrote:fascism disproportionately victimized the poor, the "unfit"

Not if the poor were of the "Aryan" stock. That was a cause for a righteous indignation. By virtue of belonging to a certain ethnic group a person suddenly acquired a lot of unearned rights and entitlements. Does that sound familiar? That gave the Nazis a lot of support from the lower classes. Plus they guaranteed full employment, as well as government programs for the children, the elderly, and the veterans. That doesn't sound like "victimizing the poor," it sounds more like socialism.

"Victimizing the poor" would have never resulted in the massive movement that united all classes. The half-assed social-democratic Weimar Republic had left most Germans penniless, and they voted for Hitler who promised to help the poor.

Mikhail T. Kalashnikov wrote: Nazis - the most radical variant of Fascism - borrowed techniques from the left (violence, propaganda, terror, techniques of mass mobilization, etc.).

And much more. The concept and the very name of concentration camps was devised by Lenin. The Bolsheviks started building concentration camps for the enemies of the people shortly after the revolution. In the 1920s "corrective hard labor" camps were also in full swing, operating under the same principle as "Arbeit Macht Frei."

The similarities between Hitler's and Stalin's government-run cultures were striking. The architectural pomposity, the false classicism, the glorification of a faceless standardized "People's Heroes" in sculpture, literature, paintings, music... They were stealing artistic ideas from one another big time.

And they both equally isolated themselves from the "ideologically impure decadent bourgeois culture" of the rest of the contemporary Western world. For example, compare these two statements:

- jazz music was rejected by the Nazi Germans because it represented the "degeneracy" of the Blacks and the Jews
- jazz music was rejected by the Soviet Communists because it represented the "degeneracy" of the rotten capitalist culture.

Maxim Gorky, the "father of social realism," called jazz "the music of the fat."

And finally, the fact that they ended up fighting a war with each other doesn't make them the opposites. Consider that the Soviet Union and China were on the brink of war in the 1970s, with a few armed skirmishes on the border. I remember the fear people had of a massive Chinese invasion. Luckily it never escalated into a full-fledged war. These were two communist countries, former allies, fighting over whose Utopian idea was better.

But there was a real war between the communist China and the communist Vietnam in 1979 - in which the Chinese implemented an effective "scorched-earth policy." Thousands of foot soldiers died on both sides over their governments' vision of communism to be imposed on Cambodia. So much for the Marxist thesis that wars are the result of capitalist expansion. Somehow that is never mentioned by the Left when they recount "US imperialist war crimes in Vietnam."

Ironically, Coppola made his Apocalypse Now movie in 1979, when Chinese communists were burning Vietnamese villages and destroying the infrastructure. And in 2001 Coppola successfully re-released it (Apocalypse Now Redux) - just before America was attacked by the terrorists. Bin Laden later cited "US imperialist war crimes in Vietnam" as one of the reasons America was hated around the world. I'm not saying Coppola had caused it - he's just a speck in the massive propaganda smokescreen created by the Left to obscure the reality. But he is a pretty big speck.

Forgive me Coppola's fans, but Apocalypse Now never made sense to me with that Marlon Brando's nonsensical cult. Why did he attract followers? What kind of society was that? How was it psychologically or economically possible? It was all as far-fetched as the attraction of partners in a porno movie plot, which is only a frame to show the steamy scenes. The plot of Apocalypse Now is a frame to show some leftist idea of "fantasy fascism" at the heart of the American military when all social restrictions become unnecessary. (It's similar to Pinkie's idea of HBO - the pre-Bush version of it).

And here we return to the topic of this discussion - the leftist idea of "fantasy fascism."

I always thought that the original Joseph Conrad's story The Heart of Darkness was more true and powerful than its remake by Coppola. Somehow the progressives always try to collect all the darkest and the most evil things around the world and try to stick it to the American reality. And then they show the smeared spots to the world and they say, "Look, this is the American reality. Trust us, it's ugly!"

Today they are trying to apply the dark Nazi past with its police state and totalitarian regime to America when it's being attacked - just like Coppola had applied The Heart of Darkness plot in 1979. For the least discerning audiences it works - "Bush is Hitler."

Commissar Theocritus wrote:I don't give a shit about sports. What the hell does it matter if some men carry an inflated pigskin 300'? The goddamned ball goes out the same door it came in; people get excited and for what? NOTHING! It's the biggest waste of time and energy in the whole world.

I denounce your anti-football insanity! Geaux Tigers! Besides, think of the money the state receives from these games!

There was precious little difference between what Hitler wanted as Red posted, and the still revered former Governor of Louisiana, US Senator, and FDR rival, Huey "The Kingfish" Long. "A chicken in every pot." "Every man a king."

I noticed several mentions of the people voting Hitler into power, yet he never won a majority of the vote. I despise our 2 party system, but in many ways I see the "democratic" forms of government most countries have as equally dangerous. Many small coalitions that back a more poplar coalition on the basis of back door deals or a shared cause.

In reference to the children, I think theres all kinds of messages it sends.
The biggest one of which meaning that 'I am Big Brother'. Saying that the individual cares about the children and sensitive and all that other malarky. Because only insensitive troglodytes don't love kids. So Hitler, Lenin, Pelosi all these people who surround themselves with children are trying to convince the masses that what they are doing are for the beneifit of the children and therefore they must care.
And yes I agree that the starting ideals of these individuals were not 'I'm going to kill 5 million people' no they had a maniacal devotion to an ideal. Whether that ideal is equality for all or saving a people from a crippling depression. They became evil twisted murders when their ideals started to crumble and the only way to keep it going was to eliminate opposition to their goal. Trotskyites, Social Democrats, or Republicans...doesn't matter. The names change but the actions are all the same. and that is what scares me the most about the communists (democrats) here in America, they will eventually go down that road as well with the blessing of the sheeple who mindlessly bleat the party doctrine.."Everyone is the same. No one is different. Do not celebrate excellence".
The quote from that reporter is proof positive that their thinking is that of Lenin. 'Will Smith needs to be reprogrammed.' WTF is that? Who in their right mind says something like that and then pretends to champion freedom of speech and celebrate diversity?
Diversity and freedom of speech stops at the end of 'Das Kapital' apparently.
But if you wrap slaughtering millions of 'dissidents' in protecting the children, well then it's perfectly acceptable, because if you're not for protecting the children you're a selfish bottom feeder that deserves to be boiled in pig fat.

So to sum up the reason for the surrounding of the children is to show that they are caring individuals no matter what atrocities they commit, they are doing it for the betterment of society for the children. And my German is really rusty, but I think the Hitler poster says, "Children, do you know your leader?" Which is the secondary reason for surrounding of children is because if you indoctrinate the kids really early you will have a loyal soldier to the day he or she dies. Loook at the Islam whakos who have kids shows about killing Jews. Why do you think they are willing to blow themselves and innocents up when they have been taught from birth to kill not only jews but people not like them.

I believe that children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way, show...wait wait thats not right. Urm....

Any politicos future is dependant on the children, whether exploiting them to show they they care, or indoctrinating thme so they will tow the line when the time comes.

O'Brien

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Hitler used Darwinism and de-clutched God......reducing his ideas to the mere evil, visceral, murderous man....which is where we all are without Him.
After all...Hitler wanted among other things, a visually pleasing race of buxom blond women equally fit for the field, the kitchen or the bedroom. I admit, its not a bad vision....I'd love a blond to plow my field for me.
Hitler was little more than an wacko dog breeder/puppy mill on a human level. If you don't believe in God, its hard to find fault with Will Smith, Hitler or any of the countless individuals seeking the ultimate control?

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster


Inspired by godless Darwinism....what could be possibly wrong with speeding up the evolution process just as dog breeders have done?

Is not liberalism practiced by the Left at least as sinister as the genocide planned by Hitler?
/mask off

Now where did I put that chamber pot that needed dumping???

What I find amusing is Hitler is denounced for his Aryan ideal, yet today buxom blue eyed woman are the ideal promoted by society and Hollwierd through plastic surgery and in utero gene manipulation.

I don't get it....

Plastic surgery & gene manipulation to look 'perfect' = good, not just good, great and actively promoted
breeding to look 'perfect' = bad, evil, twisted, sick, must be bombed out of existence.

O'Brien

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I once saw a program on the History Channel that went into Hitler's past. It was interesting, it seems that most of the different groups that he lashed out at were types of people that were in his past that had in some form or another, a negative impact. For example, it was a Jewish doctor that delivered the news to him that his mother was dead (mind you, he slept in the same bed with her until his late teens, no comment on that). Do get me wrong, I am not saying that "society" "failed" him and that was why he turned into a mass murderer. He made his choices. Many people have had very had things happen to them and not become murderers/dictators, but I find it interesting that the types of people in his past are also the type of people that he strikes out at. I could also certainly see him feeling like "the system" (always love it when they use that term) always worked against him. He found his nitch in socialist politics and grabbed a hold to what made him powerful. Besides, socialism/communism is a wonderful tool when you wish to paint out a country like America as being evil. Look! You feel the system is working against YOU! See all those kapitalist phat kats in the States? See how they hog the world's wealth? It is just the same tactics that they use today. I'm also sure that if Bush were alive back then, it would have been his fault then too.

The communist versus communist, I never really understood. As far as Hitler and Russia, I just figured that Russia was on their side as long as it was convenient for them and then came to our side when things did not go like they wanted. As far as China and Russia never getting along, that one I never really got, but am thankful as I view their opposition as the world's salvation.

Speaking of Will Smith and Hitler, I found an article on MSN Israel about it as well. Guess the Jews have something to say about it.

Linky

I know if I were in their position, it would not be anything nice.

Ah, but in Hitler's case, he also had a mixed bag when it comes to the Jews. The doctor you mentioned did indeed kill his mother in the sense he continued to use a treatment that was no longer the treatment of choice, yet Hitler left him alone. There was also a Jewish landlady that rented to Hitler, who was untouchable as well.

In the end, I think all of the mass murderers really did do what they thought were for the good of the children. Who does not care for the fate of children? Oh, I can answer this.... A large portion of the democratic party, and the environmental whackos. This last group is the one that most sticks out to me, for they perhaps among all, actually see the fewer children in this world as a good thing,

To be fair, there was one Islamofascist that was quoted in the New York Post in a fantastic article on Bin Laden, who actually said "the implementation of Sharia is the most important, even if it means the death of all civilization." He may be the kingpin of not caring.

Commissar Blogunov,
Thank you for the kind words.
I absolutely think you made an exact logical link between Hitler, Darwinism, evolution, ~and~ global warming.

Work with me here......
When mankind uses 'thought' without temperance from the divine, all forms of evil are possible. In the absence of the influence of the divine, human life is little more than scrap value.
What ever the dogma of the day happens to be...those in power can simply kill to dictate the dogma. Likewise...the people can kill the rulers.

Right now, the Global Warming religion is engaged in Thought Control. Liberalism. Its pervasive even now. Its dogma is 'man made global warming' (MMGW) is real. Liberal beliefs are based in Darwinism and evolution. Their denial of God and attempts to remove Him from society are legend. (As Seinfeld says..."Not that there is anything wrong with that!")
How much difference is there between Hitler and Gore ...or the MMGW movement?
What keeps gore from becoming the next genocidal mass murderer?

Can anybody see the day when a smoker, drinker, or somebody that burns leaves in the backyard....or owns and uses something determined by the "religion" as unneeded might ultimately end up in "Hitler's Oven"? Business at the pleasure of the global warming religion?

Nazism = MMGW?
Would these people kill for a false God?

/mask on

Nav now seek punishment for removal of said mask and gladly gives up this weeks ration of beets.

Komissar Blogunov wrote: Hitler's application of evolution was perfectly logical. Evolution is all about weeding out the unfit and producing a stronger species, so why not expedite the process with current scientific know-how? All that's necessary is to invent a criteria of most/least evolved.

Then there is that other problem you rarely hear anyone say since it goes against the state religion... Evolutionists have never been able to find even one case of the major tenet of evolution. Yes, species change within themselves...good diet will eventually produce stronger or taller men for instance, but we have yet to see a new species come about through evolution. They even tried to make a new species in a laboratory environment with thousands of generations of fruit flies, and failed. Most of the evolutionist's big claims of proof have been also shown to be fraudulent such as the moth that because of pollution evolved into a darker species. Survival of the fittest... well, that is a redundant statement of course. But the notion that a new species evolved from these random mutations? Where is the proof?

Speaking of Israel.... have you seen the latest?

Let's put on our masks before I start expounding, con brio, on Occam's razor and falsifiability.

Theocritus out of this thread.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Let's put on our masks before I start expounding, con brio, on Occam's razor and falsifiability.

Theocritus out of this thread.

Masks? You are going to start singing if we go on Commissar? LOL At least every definition I see refers to music, Perhaps you are going to do an opera comrade? Hope you have a great Winter Solstice!

Con Brio is an Italian musical term meaning With Brilliance or With Spirit. Can also mean with fire and energy. It is used most often with the tempo Allegro. A famous example is Beethoven's Waldstein Sonata marked Allegro Con Brio; better known still is the opening allegro con brio movement of Beethoven's Fifth Sympho

Sorry to go round and round on this, but I just want to clarify. It will be short, and I don't want to spark a long and furious debate concerning the exact nature of fascism - that has been done ad nausium elsewhere.

Red Square wrote:Let me respectfully disagree that "socialist" in the name of the party was misleading..."The common interest before self-interest." That is the spirit of Hitler's program.

Quite true on all points given - I stated that due to my belief that Nazi Party views morphed after Hitler took power - from a mostly socialist viewpoint to a more totalitarian fascist thrust. But who knows, like I said: a lot of people have debated the true nature of fascism - if it has a true nature - and it confuses me terribly.

Red Square wrote:

Mikhail T. Kalashnikov wrote:fascism disproportionately victimized the poor, the "unfit"

Not if the poor were of the "Aryan" stock. That was a cause for a righteous indignation. By virtue of belonging to a certain ethnic group a person suddenly acquired a lot of unearned rights and entitlements. Does that sound familiar? That gave the Nazis a lot of support from the lower classes. Plus they guaranteed full employment, as well as government programs for the children, the elderly, and the veterans. That doesn't sound like "victimizing the poor," it sounds more like socialism...

You are absolutely correct in your statements above, however you are speaking to the views as they relate to the Nazi Party, whereas I was speaking to the historical views held by self proclaimed fascists in general.

Take this quote from Umberto Eco (author of, among other things, the novel The Name of the Rose) in his essay about fascism Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt:

Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

Hence my clarification; I agree totally with what you point out about the Nazis, but the definition of "what defines a fascist" is where the grey starts.

I apologize if I am speaking out of school, but that's the way I had learned to define fascism. Thanks for the great thread, by the way. It's just too bad it has to be so close to such a happy holiday - I feel all icky now...

-Mikhail

AK wrote
[quote]
Communism on the left and fascism on the right share many characteristics.
[/quote]
This is the biggest lie the elitest intellectual academic left has succeeded in planting in the "collective" mind of the world.
Hitler and Stalin were jockeying over the same political turf by using almost the same identical means.
Fascism and Communism are BOTH left wing ideologies.
What's the big difference? Why does the left demonize conservatives as "fascists"?
One reason, and one reason only. Love of country.
Communism is an international movement. National Socialism wasn't. The German race was to be at the top of the world food chain if they had won. Gore, the Clintons, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol, et al....and all the other "true believers" wants The Party™ at the top of the food chain, without borders, without love of one's country, without patriotism, and most importantly without "God". That explains why Lenin, Hitler, Hillary and Gore were and are For The Children™. It's supplimentation.
When I speak of "God", I'm not talking in the existential sense. I mean legal in every sense of the Founding Father's notion...that man is created with certain inalienable rights bestowed by the "Creator". Without that legal concept, your individual rights are gone, the state (or in times long past, the Crown, ordained by "God") owns you.
To the "true believers", Nationalism is the real bogeyman. Throw in "National Socialism" and you have an abhorrent deviation that sullies the true ideal that only a "conservative" could twist into a bastard political movement. There is their flawed, idiotic logic. That's why they love the UN unconditionally and rationalize forgiveness for the Soviets. They falsely dream it will get rid of the Nation/State which will magically end all wars.
This is why the left hates America soooooo much. America is a Nation/State that recognizes "God given" individual rights and as long as that idea exists, it's a threat to their ÜberProgressive Utopia.
Burn the flag...Multiculturalism.....diversity......environmental hysteria to gain economic control...."love the troops" just like The Mime, but hate everything they stand for and what they're trained to do. Hate America and the Americans who love it, but let's call this hate "love" because it's for The Common Good™Without Borders™.
Communism and Fascism are two different sides to the same political leftist coin. Heads...slavery. Tails....slavery.

---

Who's Will Smith?

Laika The Space Dog,
I give you my two virgin daughters in exchange for permission to reprint your text elsewhere and incorporate your words and phrases into my own lexicon.
Lay waste to my town, I promise I won't look back.
Nav7

Margaret,
Will Smith is a former Hollywood Star to be killed within 7 days by Israel's secret police for suggesting Hitler was a fun loving good guy who didn't wake up and decide to kill 6 million Jews.

There ought to be a class in acting school where actors are taught to keep their wealth by keeping their mouths shut when it comes to politics and religion.

Laika the Space Dog wrote:

AK wrote: Communism on the left and fascism on the right share many characteristics.

This is the biggest lie the elitist intellectual academic left has succeeded in planting in the "collective" mind of the world.

And that is why many "conservatives" continue to distance themselves from the "Right" (as Bill O'Reilly unfortunately tends to do) and place themselves in the "Center" without stopping to think for a moment that what they are really saying is, "we're only half-way fascists."

How more morally bankrupt can one sound? Any moral human being who is led to believe that "fascism is a right-wing ideology" will want to be aligned with the Left. And many do - we call them "useful idiots." Their idiocy lies in not bothering to discern the false dichotomy and relying on groupthink instead of thinking for themselves. They may not be Marxists or communists - they simply believe that "fascism is a right-wing ideology" - a lie to which there is no opposition in the mainstream culture.

This is closely connected to another logical folly, "The truth is in the middle." If conservatives keep distancing themselves from the individualist right (which is not fascist at all) and keep positioning themselves in the middle, a day will come when today's middle will be perceived as the "Right," and they will have to shift again, dragging all their battered principles to another "middle" which will now be closer to the collectivist Left, and so on. That "middle" is defined, not by any objective criteria but some mathematical average of subjective perceptions, which is easily manipulated by far-fetched charges and never-ending assault from the collectivist Left, without anything remotely similar coming from the Right.

That's why the Leftists like the word "proactive" - as opposed to the "reactive" attitude of the conservatives, who are too preoccupied with deflecting the leftists' unfair charges to realize that they are being suckered into playing a leftist game of "Government Monopoly" in which they can't win. If they're lucky they'll get "Get out of gulag free" card.

The Left knows this and maintains a constant pressure, perpetuating its lies that appeal to people's morals. This is how many genuinely moral Americans were fooled into looking favorably at socialism and have come to a brink of accepting Hillary as their savior, putting the country at risk of slipping into a collectivist dictatorship, which is what fascism is. Thus, thinking that it's moving away from fascism, the country is falling right into its putrid hole - all in result of a successful little lie that "fascism is a right-wing ideology."

Even without that, there's a danger in a misdirected application of words like "Hitler, Nazis, Fascists" - they trivialize the evil and desensitize the people to it. A loosely translated Russian proverb says, "If you keep calling someone a pig, one day you will hear him snort."

Will Smith is a former Hollywood Star to be killed within 7 days by Israel's secret police for suggesting Hitler was a fun loving good guy who didn't wake up and decide to kill 6 million Jews.

Poor Will. So young. So rich. So black. And now, so politically incorrect. How dare he have a thought outside of the "acceptable" thoughts of his peers, the Hollyweird elitists bleating thier sacred mantra: "Bush bad! Any dimicrat good!" If the Mossad doesn't get him, I'm sure Martin Sheeny or Babs Streisand will.

Red Square wrote:

Laika the Space Dog wrote:

AK wrote: Communism on the left and fascism on the right share many characteristics.

This is the biggest lie the elitist intellectual academic left has succeeded in planting in the "collective" mind of the world.

And that is why many "conservatives" continue to distance themselves from the "Right" (as Bill O'Reilly unfortunately tends to do) and place themselves in the "Center" without stopping to think for a moment that what they are really saying is, "we're only half-way fascists."

O.K. I admit it, I've been deceived. Mia Culpa. Where were you folks when I was in skool, anyway?

-Mikhail

Mikhail,
I think at least one of the learned teachers was edukated in the klassic sense. The Mask on is a satirical attempt to prevent a recurrence or reemergence of the skool.

Or mebbie I'm just full of people™?

AK...and everybody else.

Everybody went to the same "Skool". 99% of the general population will give the exact same response because that's what they've been told to believe and it's been accepted without critical thought.
It's a sad state of affairs and it will take generations before the real truth becomes reality.
Every text book, every documentary, and almost every college prof will say AK was right in his assessment.
The next time you hear somebody make that false dichotomy, challenge their beliefs. Let the process begin with you.
As for "the Center", we all know what's in the center of the road. Roadkill.

Oh...and it's "Mea Culpa". Don't let Theocritus and the Latstapo (Latin State Police) catch you.

Laika the Space Dog wrote:Oh...and it's "Mea Culpa". Don't let Theocritus and the Latstapo (Latin State Police) catch you.

Oops...I knew that. My spellchecker doesn't speak Latin. Lapsus linguae in lingua mortua. (slip of the tongue in a dead language.) And thanks for alleviating my guilt, I thought I was about to be purged as an example.

Principal W. Seymour Skinner, principal of Springfield Elementary School (from the Simpsons) said rather than wrote:That's why I love elementary school, Edna. The children believe anything you tell them.

-Mikhail

/Char off/

Ok, Where were all of you many years ago when I was arguing against leftists in college?

The discussions and high order thought in this topic are wonderful!

/Char on/



Bushhilter got to Will!!!! Oh.. the humanity!!!!!

Someone call the Gulag, we will have more comming in for "re-education".

See, this is what happens when I go away, Hollywierd stars even begin to run amok. Next it will be Brittany Spears is pregnant again or something worse like the Writer's Guild going on strike and the masses having to actually DO something besides watching Party Approved mind-numbing TV programs.

I went to the People's Glossary and the link for Hitler has vanished within his definition.

I enjoyed reading it and wonder where it has gone.

Link restored. Thanks for pointing it out. I must have messed it up when I edited it last. The guilty are already being identified and severely punished.

My pleasure. The storehouse of Party Approved Knowledge is a treasure trove (until the Party decides the knowledge needs re-writing for the Common Good).

But you did not mess it up, as the Party is infallible. It *must* have been and evil member of the VRWC who hacked the site! Or maybe an irate Iranian Propaganda Officer....

Just as we were discussing this, a new book came out by Jonah Goldberg, called

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning


Book Description:
[BLOCKQUOTE]Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on thetheories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacingconveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlighteningresearch, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists werereally on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR toHillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkablysimilar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contraryto what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence theterm “National socialism”). They believed in free health care andguaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sumson public education. They purged the church from public policy,promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authorityof the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazisdeclared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and guncontrol. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions forthe elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in theiruniversities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis ledthe world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was astrict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Dothese striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidalmaniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racialorder? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism andclassical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget,for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the UnitedStates. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and IrvingBerlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused byAmerican progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDRincorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was aninternational movement that appeared in different forms in differentcountries, depending on the vagaries of national culture andtemperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racistnationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. Themodern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times,the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals ofHollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS stormtrooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degreefrom Brown or Swarthmore.[/BLOCKQUOTE]

From Radosh's glowing NY Sun review of Goldberg's Liberal Fascism:
[BLOCKQUOTE]<br>Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells,the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford Universityin 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler'sGermany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a LiberalFascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to bereplaced with new forms of government that would save mankind,producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called"Liberal Fascism." Like the activism, experimentation, and disciplinethat made the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany new dynamic societies, the West too could reach such a plateau by adopting the new soft fascism that suited it best.
[/BLOCKQUOTE]

The modern Liberal Progressive is NOT like the Nazis.

...Nazis were snappier dressers.

With cooler uniforms.