Utopia Talk / Politics / Was Hitler a Liberal or A Conservative?

Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 10:14:37 The demands made by Adolph Hitler before the German Government, concerning his Nazi Party, a UNION / LABOR PARTY: ******************************** "Abolition of Un-earned incomes, and breaking of debt-slavery (i.e., interest) In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. We demand the nationalization of all previous associated industries, and their currently existing trusts. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old-age welfare. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, Province, County or municipality. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free exportation of land for the purpose of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death without consideration of confession or race. We demand substitution of a New "National Common Law" order in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic World Order. The State is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole National Education Program, to enable every capable and industrious citizen to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all education institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of The State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of The State of outstanding intellectually giveted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession. The State is to care for the National health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labour, by encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, byt he utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young. For the execution of all this, we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Government. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the governing of the whole Nation and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by The Government within various states of confederation. The leaders of The Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support the execution of the points set forth above without consideration."
The Zero Identity Member	Mon Sep 28 10:15:29 He was both, but he was a fascist.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 10:19:34 And according to some of the Liberal established media, so many of Hitler's demands were very reasonable: http://blo...and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html
roland Member	Mon Sep 28 10:30:08 According to some conservatives, Hitler's demands were very reasonable: http://www.truechristian.com/gaymarriage.html
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 10:32:34 Somebody is an angry little thread-derailing, bitter little queer.
roland Member	Mon Sep 28 10:37:11 Why all the sudden anecdotal evidence is invalid now?
Goreth Member	Mon Sep 28 10:38:38 A thread that invokes Godwin's Law in the OP, must not be taken seriously and deserves to be derailed from the start.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 10:38:56 I do like the website you linked to, though. It just has zero to do with my thread, and everything to do with the fact that you are an angry homo, who doesn't like some old religion slamming homosexuality.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 10:41:24 I am not INVOKING Godwin's Law. This is like saying a mechanic that opens the hood of the car should not "invoke the owners manual" when changing out fuses or electric circuits somewhere in the automobile. We are not attempting to link unassociated principles here. In this case, the owners manual is not only relevant, it is the actual SUBJECT matter.
roland Member	Mon Sep 28 10:50:16 "I do like the website you linked to, though. It just has zero to do with my thread" Of course it does, just because you have no brain to connect the dots. How would it make him a liberal if he was homophobic, just like the people linked on the website, the bible thumping conservatives. How would it make him a liberal when he had wiped out the labor unions under his order? How would it make him a liberal when he is anti-foreigner anti-semitic genocidal maniac? "everything to do with the fact that you are an angry homo, who doesn't like some old religion slamming homosexuality. " Well no, I have not expressed my opinion about that, so that statement cannot be true. I am just stating these bible thumping conservatives hates fags, and Hitler hated fags. Using your logic, Hitler is conservative.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 10:51:32 We report, YOU decide.
pillz Member	Mon Sep 28 10:58:29 Hitler was conservative. fascism = right fucking wing. Nazism = right fucking wing.
Aeros Member	Mon Sep 28 10:59:57 I liked the way the game Hearts of Iron explained things. If you Were Authoritarian in Government, Socialist in Economy, and Right Wing in Social Issues, you were a National Socialist Country. If you Were Authoritarian in Government, Socialist in Economy, and Left Wing in Social Issues, you were a Stalinist country. And so on through varying degrees of combination like Market Liberal, Social Conservative etc.
Jeddedieh Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 11:00:20 Mussolini: At various times after 1922, Mussolini personally took over the ministries of the interior, foreign affairs, colonies, corporations, defense, and public works. Sometimes he held as many as seven departments simultaneously, as well as the premiership. He was also head of the all-powerful Fascist Party and the armed local fascist militia, the MVSN or "Blackshirts," who terrorised incipient resistances in the cities and provinces. He would later form the OVRA, an institutionalised secret police that carried official state support. In this way he succeeded in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any rival. Obama: The Rise of the Obama Police State â??An Early Demonstration? â??We donâ??t want interacting,â?? said the police officer, to the shock of the conservative activist holding the camera. She was in Baton Rouge, LA, filming a demonstration by ACORN in favor of Barack Obamaâ??s proposed government-run health care. And what she had just witnessed, as the officer led the offending man away who had dared speak to the activist, was nothing short of the disruption of free speech, of the press, and of the right to assembleâ??by the police. As reported by the Examiner, â??Things took a surprising and dangerous turn when a police officer, clearly sympathetic to the ACORN rally, attempts to shut down the opposition. At one point, during a very civil discussion between an opponent and a supporter of the presidentâ??s plan, the police officer returned and actually told the individuals opposing the presidentâ??s plan they were not allowed to speak. The man in blue shirt, a supporter of the presidentâ??s plan, later returns and attempts to defend the free speech rights of the counter protesters.â?? For all intents and purposes, she was reporting on the demonstration. And yet, every time she attempted to converse with opponents of ObamaCare, the police intervened. Not exactly what one would call the protection of unalienable rights. It looks more like a police stateâ??in its infancy. On Wikipedia, a police state is described, â??The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement.â?? Exactly what was seen in Baton Rouge. In this case, nobody was arrested. But it is troubling, to say the least, that the police were apparently ordered to disrupt any interaction between supporters and opponents of ObamaCare, even ones that were perfectly willing to debate. â??We disagree. We can have a civil conversation and talk while we walk. We disagree. Itâ??s fine,â?? said one ObamaCare supporter, who too was disgusted by the police action. Really, the ones who had obviously expressed a desire to avoid even civil discourse of their views were the ACORN demonstrators. Of course, there is no such thing as freedom from speech, or debate. But if one does not like what is being said, they can simply move to the other side of the street. But since they were protesting, wasnâ??t the point to defend their views? When they put themselves out there, as members of a self-described public interest organization, they actually are public figuresâ??a part of the national political debate. That makes the views expressed by the organization subject to public scrutiny by press or citizen journalists alike. Instead, in Omerica, apparently there is the stunning emergence of a political elite. They are beyond reproach and criticism. And the police will see to that, as can be seen in this appalling display.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 11:03:40 Dude. Don't spam my thread. Even though you are a multi, I don't spam your threads.
Aeros Member	Mon Sep 28 11:04:24 JW, you have to realize the terms "Liberals and Conservatives" are condescending words done by people who are educated to explain complex political activity to the uneducated masses. The reality is far more complex then the Pundits and News media would have you believe, and cannot be packaged into two neat little boxes.
Aeros Member	Mon Sep 28 11:06:31 For example, I have had idiots on this thread call me Fascist, Neo-con, and Liberal on different occasions. This is because my particular brand of policial ideology I call "Aerosism" cannot be labeled as either Liberal or Conservative based on the set definitions of the words. In fact, no one ideology is a perfect example of one or the other.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 11:09:54 I would have summed you up as a "tard". What source do you use to educate yourself on political matters, since you express disdain for "pundits and news media"?
Aeros Member	Mon Sep 28 11:11:51 I like the Economist as my best source of information for educated commentary.
Aeros Member	Mon Sep 28 11:15:50 In fact, I would suggest you try reading the Economist. Be warned though, some of their reports can be very lengthy and have very few pictures. The trade off though is you get really good news and analysis by people with Doctorates in the field they are talking about (be it economics, politics, etc) They also publish editorials by heads of state. Hell, third world countries run ads in the back of the Economist to attract high powered individuals to help them with major projects and diplomacy.
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 28 13:03:55 Hitler was a conservative fascist and he was a friend of Prescot Bush.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 13:07:33 The fact that you read The Economist explains alot. Who owns the Economist? 50% Pearson PLC owner of the Financial Times. The other 50% is owned by The Rothchild Banking Family of England, Cadburys, Schroder and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.
Clitoral Hood The Bloody Scourge	Mon Sep 28 13:08:30 I think the correct name for the party hitler belonged to is "nazi".
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 13:10:55 Pearson (50% owner of The Economist) The Company was founded by Samuel Pearson in 1844 as a building and engineering concern operating under the name of S. Pearson & Son.[3] In 1880, control passed to his grandson Weetman, an engineer, who in 1890 moved the business to London and turned it into one of the world's largest construction companies.[3] In 1919 the firm acquired a 45% stake in the London branch of merchant bankers Lazard Brothers, an interest which would be increased to 80% in 1932 during the depression years. Pearson continued to hold a 50% stake until 1999.[4] And of course, you can just look up Lazard Bros.
Aeros Member	Mon Sep 28 14:35:01 And what exactly is the point you are trying to make JW?
Sesshomaru Member	Mon Sep 28 14:36:13 A psuedo-intellectual that likes to hear himself speak.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 14:41:37 My point is you are reading material that is just as biased as any other periodical. Of necessity it is therefore necessarily subject to influence and distortion as the media I might watch on television. You implied that because you read the Economist, you are somehow better informed than someone who watches their news on the television or -in my case- from browsing thousands of articles a week on the internet. In fact, the Economist is a publication owned by some of the same people that own the largest news organizations in the United States.
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Mon Sep 28 14:42:40 *GAH* I hate not being able to edit my double posts. *Of necessity it is therefore necessarily* should just say "It is therefore necessarily".
MurdeR Member	Mon Sep 28 16:46:11 "Was Hitler a Liberal or A Conservative?" Neither
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: