What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

If only a government that doesn't use central planning, that refrains from controlling the economy, business or other facets of society by curtailing individual freedom and responsibility, in the interest of all of its citizens, is a right-wing government, then right-wing governments don't exist.

LINKS TO EXAMPLES OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING OUR ECONOMY

http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
GETTING TO $787 BILLION WITH BARACK STIMULUS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
BUDGET HISTORY

Compare the Nazi Party Platform with Socialist aims:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1708-PS

Edited by: Dr. Robert Ley
Published by: Central Publishing House of the N.S.D.A.P.
Franz Eher, successor Munich


The program of the NSDAP

The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and accordingly the primary political law of the State. It has been made brief and clear intentionally.

All legal precepts must be applied in the spirit of the party program.

Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in the realization of essential portions of the Party program from the fundamentals to the detail.

The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

12. 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.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. 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, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational 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 [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration

FOLKISH? FOLKISH?

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler



Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement
Chapter IV: Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State

www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch04.html -

yes-indeed-folkish!!!!

The Road to Serfdom , by Frederich Hayek, focuses on the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While socialist ideals seem noble to many, those who persist in realizing these ideals will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom. Thus socialists must choose between their egalitarian goals and the preservation of individual liberty.

One of the most beautiful Anthems ever written:

Deutschlandlied
German lyrics Approximate translation
First stanza
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt!
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all in the world,
When, for protection and defence, it always
takes a brotherly stand together.
From the Meuse to the Neman,
From the Adige to the Belt,
|: Germany, Germany above everything,
Above everything in the world.

Second stanza
Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang
Sollen in der Welt behalten
Ihren alten schönen Klang,
Uns zu edler Tat begeistern
Unser ganzes Leben lang.
|: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang!
German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song
Shall retain in the world
Their old beautiful Chime
And inspire us to noble deeds
During all of our life.
|: German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German song!

Third stanza
(Germany's National Anthem)
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach lasst uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
|: Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland.
Unity and justice and freedom
For the German fatherland!
For these let us all strive
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and justice and freedom
Are the pledge of fortune;
|: Flourish in this fortune's blessing,
Flourish, German fatherland.




[edit] Geography

Thats precisely what I have been trying to tell these leftists here on this forum. Central planning requires a strong state, providing the most fertile ground for dictators, some of which always turn out to be of the ruthless type.

I was talking about fascism, socialism, nazism, and statism. So far, the United States is not classified as any of these. You would know that if you had read the posts. Maybe, although I won't even bet on that, as you don't seem to comprehend what you read.

Actually, we do incorporate some facets of socialism already, much of it established by FDR, but Democrats have increased it and seek to increase it far more than it exists today. As we speak, Obama is inserting more government control into various industries, banks, etc., and he is pushing for alot more.

Oh, you just love to talk about socialism although it has nothing to do with our country. Now, I get it!~

Although you have said that Obama isn't Hitler, you said his policies were identical or similar.

You have now conflicted with your own statements, and it leaves us wondering what you really mean.

When I ask you to list what Obama has done is socialistic, no answer is forthcoming. You keep telling us his programs are socialistic. Which ones, and how are they socialistic? Which banks and commercial enterprise has Obama taken over? Please list the banks, and how he's managing those banks.

The reports I've been reading about have been telling us that many of the banks are returning the TARP money, and some have even shown profit.

Please list the companies that Obama has taken over and is managing the day to day operations. Which company has a government controlled manager?

You need to answer these questions, because you make claims about socialization of our banks and businesses, and I want to see proof for them.

Easy question for you, okie: would a conservative government completely refrain from using any kind of central planning?

Criminy, oe, do you have any sense at all? Sure, governments govern, but surely you must have some brains to see that there are vast differences in how governments govern? Government is mandated to do some things, which requires central planning, but in the United States, hopefully you would know that the functions should be very limited to only certain functions, perhaps the most important being the national defense, which requires central planning, yes. It is obvious that liberals want more central planning, to expand it into more and more things, now the debate is health care for all Americans, which traditionally has been primarily left as a freedom and responsibility of individuals.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but it requires a population that wants to be free, wants to be responsible, and wants to practice good citizenship by doing the things necessary to maintain it - instead of sitting on their behind and expecting the nanny state to take care of them, cradle to grave. Of course that is only if they survive birth under the nanny state. And good luck when they get old and are deemed worthless to society any longer.

The more power that government has over our lives, the more dangerous it is. So conservatives would use central planning, but would severely limit it as the constitution dictates that it should.

Oh, I certainly do. You are the one who's been telling us that there's no difference between governments - that more central planning always equals more Socialism.

Now you're telling us that it depends on the kind of central planning that is going on? That's funny. That's something other posters have been trying to tell you pretty much from the beginning of this thread.




Hey, as far as I'm aware the accusation against liberals is that they want to cut back on all things military. Wouldn't that mean that liberals want less central planning?




So it depends on the kind of central planning whether something is socialist or not? Central planning for military means: conservative. Central planning for health care for Americans: socialist.

Is that right?




Which would mean: as long as the central planning that's going on the United States is deemed Constitutional, it's conservative. Once it violates the Constitution (which could be easily tested by bringing it before the Supreme Court), it's socialist. Right?

oe, good grief, this is not rocket science. Are you that blind? More central planning does typically equal more socialism, especially in regard to the economy. Frankly I am growing weary of your dumb questions and pointless points. I could go down your list of statements and debunk them, but its getting tiresome. Such as you claiming I have said there is no difference between governments, where did you get that? I don't think I ever said that.

In regard to national defense, I don't know of many countries that don't provide some central planning for their country's survival, unless they rely upon somebody else to protect them, and that does happen, the good old US of A will be there to bail them out. It seems to me that some of the countries should consider their defense a little more seriously, I mean after all, Hitler conquered Denmark in only a few hours I think. Thanks to Great Britain and the USA, some countries actually still exist, oe.

Your claim about central planning for military is conservative and socialists want less military, no, that isn't accurate as a blanket statement at all. It depends upon the situation of each country, its allies, geographic location, its vulnerability, treaty obligations, existing threats, and many other factors. Just take one example, North Korea is very militaristic compared to South Korea.

Conservative philosophy leaves to people what people can more efficiently do for themselves, while the government does what people cannot do practically alone, and that is predominantly national defense and a few other things, such as commerce and trade policies with other countries and between states, etc.

I think socialism more applies to the domestic living needs of a population, such as the economy, clothing food and shelter, medical care, education, and so forth. As I said, national defense is common to all countries, if they care to survive, and most do. Given the human nature of mankind, it is sort of a necessary evil in order for societies to survive, so yes, even conservative governments provide for their country's survival, and I am glad we do. Interestingly, since liberals don't particularly like their own country, they don't care if we survive or not, at least not in our current form, so that explains why in this particular case they favor less military expenditures.

okie, good grief, this is not rocket science. Are you that blind? More central planning does typically equal more fascism, especially in regard to the military.



I think the thrust of your argument so far was that National Socialism and Marxism are largely identical. You've ignored any kind of evidence that contemporary observers, including Hitler himself, placed them on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Your argument essentially amounts to: more authoritarianism equals more socialism. In making that argument, you've largely ignored the purpose and goals of the ideology in question.

To me, that pretty much amounts to ignoring the ideological differences between governments (or political ideologies).




I take it that spending inordinate amounts of money and effort on building an extraordinarily powerful military is something that you consider entirely appropriate - in spite of the fact that the Third Reich, under Hitler, did exactly the same thing.




So, theoretically speaking, the mere fact that a government is in favour or against maintaining a strong military doesn't tell us at all where that country is standing politically - whether it's a conservative government in place or a liberal one. Right?




It seems that the people in the United States, in their entirety, are not able to come up with a system that provides health care for every citizen, and yet you deem government involvement in that sector socialist.

It seems that commerce and defence could just as easily be left to the private sector as health care.




Just a bit earlier you mentioned that a socialist country like North Korea invests more in a strong military than a democratic countries like South Korea. Apparently favouring military spending is a completely unreliable yardstick when it comes to classifying someone on a political spectrum.

Or maybe it really depends on the country. What might be true for socialists in North Korea is not necessarily true for liberals in the United States.

And, on a related note: what might be true for the political spectrum in Austria or Germany in 1920 might not be true in the United States in 2009.

oe, the above illustrates the fallacy of your argument here. We built a very powerful military in World War II, the most powerful in the history of mankind to that point, in order to defeat Hitler and fascism. Under your dumb reasoning, that would make us more fascist than Hitler, which of course is nonsensical. What I am trying to tell you is that the military, or national defense, is common to virtually all countries and requires central planning by definition, and cannot be defined as fascist without also defining the overall policies of a government. I think Socialism or fascism is largely defined by other policies governing the economy and related issues, as I have already explained. Also, the size of the military is not the primary issue, it is how the military is used, and how a country treats its neighbors, and what principles it fights for and defends.

You seem to equate the military, or nationalism, to whether a country is left or right, and I don't think it is a valid measure. Leftist countries can be very belligerent and nationalistic, or they may not be. Conservative countries I think can believe in a strong national defense, but this does not automatically rate them as belligerent or overly nationalistic. I see nothing wrong with being proud of ones country, if it is a balanced and realistic view of reality. I think the United States is not perfect, but can justifiably be proud of defending freedom and countries, such as in World War II. Equating it to the street, there are bullies, but there are also very strong guys that are prepared to defend the innocent and to defend themselves, and they are not bullies. Being strong does not make you a bully, and conversely a strong national defense does not make you fascist, that is nonsensical.

Self defense is a legitimate government function, just as it is for an individual. Now, if somebody is going around telling others how to run their lives, or telling them they cannot do for themselves what they should be able to do, then that is not a healthy endeavor, and if government does that, it indicates too much central planning, and may be fascist in nature.

You easily could post some other old anthem lyrics here as well.

re your above post: The German national anthem

How much the DPRK (that's North Korea, for the less well-informed) spends on its military can hardly be validly compared to what the ROK (South Korea, goys and birls) spends on the military. Since 1945, the amount of the gross domestic product spent by German, Japan and Korea on their military has been grossly distorted by that portion of the enormous defense expenditures which the United States has made which relates to those countries. If you want to compare the DPRK to the ROK for military outlay, you'd have to include that portion of American defense spending which goes to maintain our forces in the ROK, and that amount which is spent on military assistance to the ROK.

Since the end of the Second World War, and including the eras of the Korean and Vietnamese wars, no greater amount of the governments revenuse was spent on "defense" than during the Reagan and Baby Bush presidencies. Apparently, by Okie's criterion, that makes them raging leftists.

okie sees most things through his filtered lens that distorts not only history, but his view of the world at large. His bias is so extreme, nobody else seems to support his rhetoric on any subject - except Foxie.

well, there's Possum R FartBubble.

You attribute your own attributes to others.
~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.
Cice, your indirect confession is duly noted!