I'm sorry but I don't want to be an Emperor, that's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that. We all want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.
The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate;
has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.
We have developed speed but we have shut ourselves in:
machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say "Do not despair".
The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress: the hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people and so long as men die [now] liberty will never perish. . .
Soldiers: don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you as cattle, as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate, only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers: don't fight for slavery, fight for liberty.
In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written:
"The kingdom of God is within man"
Not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men; in you, the people.
You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let's use that power, let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfil their promise, they never will. Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfil that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness.
Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite!
. . .
Look up! Look up! The clouds are lifting, the sun is breaking through. We are coming out of the darkness into the light. We are coming into a new world. A kind new world where men will rise above their hate and brutality.
The soul of man has been given wings, and at last he is beginning to fly. He is flying into the rainbow, into the light of hope, into the future, that glorious future that belongs to you, to me and to all of us. Look up. Look up.
RENEGADE EYE
75 comments:
beautifully written words... but the problem is, it's just words... it (always) takes only 1 person to start something, then the (sheep like) masses will follow, for better or worst....
Ghandi vs Hitler .... :)
Nietzsche, "Zarathustra"
Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man- and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!
I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.
Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you the last man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"- so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
"We have discovered happiness"- say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.
Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.
"Formerly all the world was insane,"- say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled- otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
"We have discovered happiness,"- say the last men, and blink thereby.-
“Don't follow leaders but watch the parking meters."~Robert Allen Zimmerman.
Also I wanted to give a quote from Tony Benn (but I cant find it!)Something along the lines of "Policy NOT personality.........Today's politics (talking about Tony Blair's)Style over substance...."
Nevin: In the future I will post about Ghandi. He was overall reactionary, and played a bad role in India against the British.
Chaplin was politically active.
FJ: You are advocating self medicating?
Tony: Following leaders is human. It matters which one. Dylan likes Christ and Obama.
It's something how long Tony Benn survives in power.
An incredible moment in cinema...
"Gandhi versus Hitler"
I must have missed that one. From what I have been led to believe, Gandhi thought the Jews should have not resisted the Holocaust. At all. Hitler just wanted to kill them, Gandhi wanted them to commit mass suicide. Given their druthers, it seems they weren't so inclined to live or die as sheep-like masses. Too bad so many of them didn't have a viable option.
I've never seen the film, but would like to. I'm assuming the unattributed words are Chaplin's. A pretty little speech, but a little too fuzzy-bunny for my tastes.
Fine words form a fine film. If only such words were heeded.
Btw Tony Benn retired from parliament in 2001. THat does not mean he has retired completely from politics. I may not always have agreed with him but the politician formerly known as the
2nd Viscount Stansgate was always worth listening to! He was one of the best public speakers I have heard.
Pagan: Ghandi played a bad role, in the Indian independence movement. Overrated.
Jams: I stand corrected about Benn.
Poetryman: I agree.
Ren, I would be curious to find out more about the Indian revolution and the role of Ghandi from your perspective.
"FJ: You are advocating self medicating?"Only for Left-leaning Last Men seeking happiness, Ren.
Pagan:
"Gandhi thought the Jews should have not resisted the Holocaust."Gandhi is overrated but this quote has to be seen in a context. Undoubtedly the belief that if Jews were to "sacrifice themselves", more Germans would have seen what was going on and would have stopped/prevented the genocide. he believed (far too strongly) in the power of mass non-violent protest.
FJ:
Left-leaning Last Men seeking happinessAs opposed to Right-leaning Men seeking dominion and destruction? Don't be ridiculous.
You're quote-mining Nietzsche, careful: the Nazis did it too...
Farmer, you sure that isn't the script for a Lars von Trier film?
Those two belong together.
"You're quote-mining Nietzsche, careful: the Nazis did it too..."
Well Gert,
Nietzsche died in 1900, and the Nazi party was born in 1920...
Nevin: I left a comment at your blog, about why Ghandi was reactionary.
FJ: It has to be about left leaning men. Right leaning are extinct.
Ducky: Lars Von Trier's movies are depressing enough to write such a script.
Gert: Ghandi played a bad role in India's independence.
Nietzsche is of the right. It's unfair to link him as a Nazi. His sister did damage to him.
Sentinel: Nazis liked Nietzsche, as did progressive people. Overall I would call him conservative.
Indeed, linking Nietzsche to a socialist dictator like Hitler is an insult.
Yeah, "socialist". Isn't THAt what you and Obama seek for this country?
Reich uber alles. ;-)
Oh dear, Farmer's been readin' Jonah Goldberg's 'Librul Facism' again. Him and Beakerkin together, tossing each other off at the thought of being the last non-Communists on Earth. Only in Amewikah!
Nazism as socialism? An odd socialism backed by the big corporations. An odd socialism that benefited those corporations. Go read some books on fascism, Farm Boy.
As for the Socialist element in National Socialist, wasn't the left ist faction in the Nazi party crushed with the departure of teh likes of Strasser?
On the issue of non violent protests, there is one successful one that I always found remarkable - the protest of the Rosenstrasse women in Berlin during WWII. These women faced down the Reich and saved their jewish husbands from the extermination camps.
Jams-
I never heard of that. That sounds like it would be a great story for a film, depending on the particulars.
Gert-
I knew what Gandhi was getting at, I just think it was incredibly naive to think something like that would work. It wasn't like there was a great massive armed resistance of Jews to the Nazis as it were, they just loaded them up and shipped them out like cattle to the slaughter more or less.
As for Farmer's point about fascism as a form of socialism, what you and Gambone are forgetting is many like FJ consider Europe as a type of socialist entity.
When you look at it from that perspective, Nazism has a lot in common with a great many policies promoted by the American Democratic Party and by many of the European parties with a similar bent.
No, it is not socialism as you define it, but as Farmer defines socialism, its not that far off the mark.
More gobbledygook from the resident Pagan.
So, if FJ defines it in a certain (very self-serving) way then it's OK? There really was nothing socialist about the Nazis. Their 'ideology' is hardly definable: badly digested bits of Nietzsche, self-serving interpretations of Genetics (Eugenics), a good dollop of atheism, a considerable smidgen of the Occult, some Eastern philosophy, (the Swastika symbol for instance), risible fantasies about an 'Aryan Master Race' (they went to Tibet to find it, go figure), anti-Semitism to provide a scapegoat etc. This is the fakest 'ideology' ever. Came with notoriously operatesque uniforms too. The stuff of comic books, not ideologies.
If you want to define Nazism, then in one word I'd say 'Gangsterism'...
Who said I agree with him, smart guy, I was just pointing out there's a difference in how the two of you view socialism. You're arguing apples, he's arguing oranges.
My point is, as far as the Democratic Party goes, they seem to be more fascist than anything, with what you might call healthy dollops of socialism thrown in for good measure. I don't know about European parties, except they seem to have more socialist elements, with all the fascist characteristics of the Democratic Party, in spades.
Unless of course you assert that fascism and socialism are mutually incompatible in any manifestation, at which point we are in definite disagreement. Okay, in their pure forms they might be mutually incompatible, but that's irrelevant. There have never been any pure form of socialism ever implemented that has ever had the shelf life of day old bread, so far as I know.
Nazism as socialism? An odd socialism backed by the big corporations. An odd socialism that benefited those corporations. Go read some books on fascism, Farm Boy.Yes, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the NAZI Party. Got it now, pin heads? Workers Party... socialists... absolute control of the "means of production...
You goose steppers kill me. Heil Barack!
If you want to define Nazism, then in one word I'd say 'Gangsterism'... That's what socialism is, all right. Especially the way you self-serving SOCIALIST Obama/ Chavez/ Castro apologists FAIL to define it.
Ren goes to my blog every day and apologizes for Hugo Chavez. Now THERE's an honest to G_d Hitler wannabe if EVER there was one. But no, dictators who represent themselves as 21st century socialism aren't "real" socialists... BWAH-HA-Ha-HA!
Chaplin did great satire. How can you tell? The targets of his wit are oblivious to the fact he's making fun of them. Hitler, Chavez, Castro... Gert, Gambone... ;-)
Trotsky's essay on what is fascism is a must read. Trotsky was denounced as a warmonger for calling on democracies to arm themselves as against Hitler. Churchill took up the nessage, and plagiarized Trotsky's speeches eleven years later.
Fascism is messy, and not particularly a preferred method. It only occurs under specific conditions.
FJ's blog has up to date news about what the opposition is up to. It's amazing how much information, or anything that doesn't fit into the Chavez is bad line, is omitted period. No TV station can advocate hanging the president, in any country of the world, without the government doing something. Chavez is no socialist. He may think he is one. He is influenced by too many contradictory sources.
When Obama the face of imperialism is called socialist, it's laughable. He is a University of Chicago Law School school socialist.
I met Tony Benn a couple of years ago (little Old Namedropper me!)He's still doing the Rounds.Telling it like it is.Fit Healthy & as Honest as ever.
Pagan it was made into a film in Germany simply called Rosennstrasse. The film was not bad but a few items of cinematic license spoilt it slightly. It's still worth a watch though.
Farmer John. Hitler was on the whole as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic.
"Nazism as socialism? An odd socialism backed by the big corporations. An odd socialism that benefited those corporations"
Actually the financing of of both your so-called 'socialist' Russian revolution and the Nazi party were from remarkably similar, and equally capitalistic.
(Not really surprising because behind all the rhetoric, they were remarkably similar regimes, except that the Soviets managed to murder more people.)
Try reading some books on it:
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution:
http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-rev.html
Wall Street and the rise of Hitler:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
No TV station can advocate hanging the president, in any country of the world, without the government doing something.LOL! Except if that president is George W. Bush, right?
North Korea is VERY demokkkratic, it has a system both Ren and Hugo Chavez could be proud of!For the "workers" Worker of the world, unite! LOL!
There's no one on the planet more gullible and easily manipulable than a "worker."
Farmer and Beakerkin are a Party of two. All they need is a name now.
Perhaps Ren could organise a caption competition?
"What? You seek followers? You
would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred, by a thousand?
Seek zeroes!"-- Nietzsche
Yep, and then the Socialists organize all their zeroes into a "union"....
Gert's definitely a "union" man...
Not really, Farmer.
Loosely affiliated with the anti-Zionist movement perhaps but that's as far as it goes for me.
Anyway, talking about fascism, here's a controversial article that links pre-war US capitalism with the rise of Hitler and Nazism. Not sure what to think of it yet...
Oh, you blame the Jews for the rise of Hitler. That is indeed a very controversial and a likely very WRONG opinion.
It's much MORE likely that the Germans put their faith into a man who promised to use the government to solve their problems for them and give them all a "fair" shake. Otherwise, so many wouldn't have voted for and later supported him.
Hitler lied. Just like EVERY communist/ socialist utopia promised today is a LIE used to entice the zeroes into supporting a dictator and consolidating national power under a Castro, Chavez, Kim, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Like I've said before. There's no one on earth more gullible than a "worker" being promised the same or more pay for "less work."
Like today's communists/ socialists, Hitler was a GREAT friend and protector of the saintly "workers."
Getting men to believe that other "good men" will solve the world's problems and not simply enrich themselves in the process (ala Al Gore, Mr. Global Warming) is what the Socialist International is all about. That became far too apparent during the Oil for Food scandal... when so many liberal hero/ politicians receiving UN/Iraqi kickbacks were exposed for the frauds they were.
All it takes is the chutzpah to proclaim the existence of unicorns and worker's paradises.
Wow, FJ! Where am I, or rather the piece I'm linking to, blaming the Jews??? That's libelous matey...
It lays some blame with some US pre-war capitalists, one a very well known anti-Semite (Henry Ford).
It appeared by the way in the JTA, which is where Tony Greenstein got it from...
Just about everybody agrees Hitler was a piece of shit. But he's always everybody else's piece of shit. Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat, and the Germans bought it, or a great many of them did. Common people and workers bought into his crap, but so did the big major industrialists and bankers.
Where people describe Hitler as a socialist, is more complicated than the word socialist appearing in the name of his party.
He and his party shared a lot of the same social agenda as for one example the American Democratic Party. They believed in and practiced abortion, though it was not encouraged among "good Germans" but among minority groups, in addition they practiced euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill.
There were some examples of "welfare" in the form of cash disbursements to the family of soldiers, intended to keep the economy humming along.
They also had gun control, but of course anymore who the hell doesn't, including America? I guess they had some kind of socialized health care and government control of education, etc.
Most importantly for the purposes of this issue, Hitler funded make-work programs, such as the Autobahn, and other such government investments in the economy. That's why some judge him as socialist.
These are the same reasons the Democratic Party in America and other similar modern-day European parties are judged by many people as socialist, and that's how they view Hitler, as socialist.
That is because to the Right, the most important thing to remember about socialism is not "the workers control the means of production" or communities practice democracy through "workers councils", etc.
To them the most important aspect of socialism is top down management by the national or federal government over most or even all aspects of the economy.
Again, apples and oranges. That's why these debates never go anywhere. It's like dancing a tango at a square dance, but at least under that scenario somebody is going to go up to the people and tell them they're dancing the wrong dance. Here the people that should know better keep on arguing the point. Why?
I'll reply later today.
Libellous indeed. They ought to flog Tony Greenstein from one end of Grub Street to the other.
FJ:
"They ought to flog Tony Greenstein from one end of Grub Street to the other."For what malfeasance, specifically?
For forgetting the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that demanded billions in reparations to France that Germany didn't have and that they were forced to borrow from America and the UK.
Capitalists backed post WWI Germany... DUH! Who were the Germans SUPPOSED to get the money from?
FJ:
The French were not the only beneficiaries of the Reparations plan, the UK and US were too. Other rightful beneficiaries like Belgium received nothing.
Much less was actually paid back than originally demanded.
The JTA article discusses the role Ford, the Carnegie Institute's devotion to the faux-science of 'Eugenics' and IBM may have played in the Holocaust.
FJ: It takes more than saying Greenstein is wrong. It takes proving Prescott Bush, IBM, etc. had no role in the Third Reich.
As for me, politically I would attack the US's role from a different angle. The reason FDR joined the fight in Europe, was Stalin said if he didn't, he would not help against the Japanese.
Your link is anti-Zionist.
I was taught in Hebrew school, Henry Ford was antisemitic.
Gert: I approach WWII more politically.
Heck Trotsky opposed Hitler, eleven years before Churchill. When Churchill finally came out against him, he copied Trotsky's speeches. This is a good start. I think Tony may be objectively correct, I'm not sure where it leads. The Marxist analysis is broader, looking at class forces.
Pagan: He and his party shared a lot of the same social agenda as for one example the American Democratic Party. They believed in and practiced abortion, though it was not encouraged among "good Germans" but among minority groups, in addition they practiced euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill.
This is repugnant.
Sentinel: Trotsky getting Wall Street $$. Ridiculous. I think antisemitic as well. More subtle antisemitism.
To start Trotsky was born in Russia. My family descends from his.
Some quotes from Hitler from Mehmet Çagatay's blog.
“Russia planned a world revolution and German workmen would be used but as cannon-fodder for bolshevist imperialism”
“Bolshevism has attacked the foundations of our whole human order, alike in State and society, the foundations of our conception of civilization, of our faith and of our morals: all alike are at stake.”
“If Europe does not awaken to the danger of bolshevist infection, commerce will decrease in spite of all the good will of individual statesmen.”
“Jewry, with its bolshevist onslaught, might smash the Aryan States and destroy those native strata of the people whose blood destined them for leadership, and in that case the culture which had hitherto sprung from these roots would be brought to the same destruction....”
“We know further that now, as before, there is lurking threateningly that Jewish-international world enemy who has found a living expression in bolshevism.”
"I do not know whether the world will become fascist! But I am deeply convinced that this world in the end will defend itself against the most severe bolshevistic threat that exists."
"Germany has no colonial claims on countries which have taken no colonies away from her."
“The German people once built up a Colonial Empire, without robbing anyone and without any war. This was taken away from us. It was said that the natives did not want to belong to Germany, that the colonies were not adminis-tered properly by the Germans, and that these colonies had no true value. If this is true, this valuelessness would also apply to the other nations, and there is no reason why they should wish to keep them from us. Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic ones”.
The French were not the only beneficiaries of the Reparations plan, the UK and US were too.LOL! Right.... and that's why America adopted the Marshall Plan at the conclusion of WWII.... cuz it worked out so well for us the first time.
...and why America ended up loaning all the reparations money after 1925 to Germany under the Dawes Plan.
It takes more than saying Greenstein is wrong. It takes proving Prescott Bush, IBM, etc. had no role in the Third Reich.No, it takes GERT proving that they DID have a role in the 3rd Reich. You can't prove a negative. And throwing out an accusation is not the same thing as proving a point. Especially since I've proven above that American capitalism's role in funding the 3rd Reich had nothing to do with Hitler and everything to do with trying to help the German economy recover from the punitive French treaty demands at Versailles.
The "evil" American capitalists named were helping to stave off German hyperinflation and European depression/ starvation.
Ren:
"Gert: I approach WWII more politically."
I agree.
FJ:
"No, it takes GERT proving that they DID have a role in the 3rd Reich."
I didn't write the article or the book, so I'm under no obligation whatsoever. I can just read it and just link to it.
To make a fair assessment one would have to read the book ("Nazi Nexus" and its prequel "IBM and the Holocaust").
Pagan:
Your 'analysis' is akin to likening a vegetarian to Hitler because Hitler was vegetarian too. You remain one of the dumbest creatures on this blog. Go play with Mad Zionist and his transferist wet dreams. Madze 'solution' for Greater Israel really is rather Hitlerian, actually...
I didn't write the article or the book, so I'm under no obligation whatsoever. I can just read it and just link to it.
And I can read and link to the Encyclopedia Britannica for all that matters. Thanks for all your non-contributions to this discussion.
To make a fair assessment one would have to read the book ("Nazi Nexus" and its prequel "IBM and the Holocaust").... or simply accept the fact that Leftist idiots love conspiracy theories and ignore BOTH books on the perfectly logical basis that historical researchers completely ignored the subject for nearly sixty years because there's no "there" there.... only a couple of commie/ socialist wannabe's trying to trash the capitalist system for contemporary political advantage...
The reason FDR joined the fight in Europe, was Stalin said if he didn't, he would not help against the Japanese.I guess Germany and the Axis declaring war on the USA immediately after the Dec. 7, 1941 Japanese attack had NOTHING to do with FDR's decision to reciprocate w/a war declaration. He needed Stalin's blessing... LOL!
No wonder no one takes the Left seriously on any historical subject.
"Trotsky getting Wall Street $$. Ridiculous. I think antisemitic as well. More subtle antisemitism."
Renegade Eye,
I'm not sure if you are accusing me of anti-Semitism here or the author of the book, Antony C. Sutton (or both)?
You came up with a similar statement when I mentioned that Trotsky's real name was Bronstein (and it was) - many of the Soviet leaders used other names / pseudonyms.
Certainly I did not write the book, but it is thoroughly researched and sourced, and given that Sutton tackled both sides of the spectrum with the same thoroughness I find it hard to see bias on his part. He has by no means been cited as an anti-semite or 'revisionist' at all, let alone in the way that people such as Irving and Kemp have been.
But why should it constitute anti-Semitism in any case? Lets just say for arguments sake the book and its research was faulty - why would that make it a work of anti-Semitism?
Have you actually read the book? - (the link is to a complete free copy.) Because a lot more players then just Trotsky are detailed in it - many players who were not Jewish.
(And Trotsky may have been born in Russia but he left for the 'revolution' from New York with $10,000 cash and was stopped in held in Canada, only being released onto Russia after dubious negotiations had taken place, and we all know how Lenin got back into Russia - as with all history, nothing is as clear cut as it may seem)
But I think if you use the accusation of anti-Semitism (against whoever) then you should be prepared to use evidence to demonstrate how and why (in this case the content of the book and the motivations of the author) rather then just issue the accusation without qualification.
Gert:
"Your 'analysis' is akin to likening a vegetarian to Hitler because Hitler was vegetarian too. You remain one of the dumbest creatures on this blog. Go play with Mad Zionist and his transferist wet dreams."
Now look you stupid son-of-a-bith, I've just about had it with your fucking simpleton ass. I never said Hitler was a socialist because of those things, I said that's why some people judge him as socialist.
I never thought Hitler was a socialist, just that he said he had some policies that were socialist.
Learn to read, you ignorant piece of shit.
Gert, aren't you supposedly a Jew? Excuse me, of Jewish descent? I used to be one of those people who say if they could go back in time it would be acceptable to murder Hitler to prevent the Holocaust. When I think of scum like you I think I might be inclined to go back and tell him, "hey, bud, you missed a spot." Asshole.
The USSR's contribution to the war against the Japanese...
8/6/1945: the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima kills more than 100,000 civilians.
8/8/1945: the Soviet Union attacks Japan killing 500,000 Japanese in two weeks.
8/9/1945: the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki kills more than 100,000 civilians.
8/14/1945 Japan surrenders to the USA.
The USSR manages in two weeks to kill more Japanese than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined... I wonder why there was no outcry? I guess genocide's just SOP for commie a-holes.
Si, Ren, if we entered the war in Europe soley on the basis of the USSR reciprocating against Japan, you'd have to admit that Stalin played FDR for the ULTIMATE chump.
Of course, just like Stalin sold out the West to Hitler with the Non-Aggression pact, Stalin sold out FDR in April of 1941 with the Sino-Japanese Neutrality Pact...
The 'Hitler was a lefty' theme is a relatively recent bit of revisionism. There's no serious scholarship on this matter that would claim Hitler as a socialist, and the German left at the time of Hitler bitterly opposed him - check the writings of the Frankfurt school for some examples.
I don't agree that Nietzsche can be easily classified as a conservative. He wasn't a socialist either (because he thought socialism too Christian!), but he was frequently attacking the right - nationalism, bourgeois values, the church, the state, the market, etc. Freddy would no doubt be cringing at the likes of the Farm Boy above using his philosophy to spruik GOP talking points.
Finally, whilst there were certainly right-wing and fascist interpreters of Nietzsche (Heidegger being the most infamous), there is a long tradition of Nietzsche scholarship from broadly leftist points of view. Adorno, for instance, was a renegade Marxist German Jew who was certainly influenced by Nietzsche. Foucault and Derrida both cite Nietzsche as a major influence, and Deleuze's book on Nietzsche was an explicit attempt to rescue Freddy from fascism and other forms of right-wing imbecility.
Pagan: It was wrong of Gert to call you names. Your response is way over the top. You are over defensive. I don't want to host this fight.
Why stay around a blog, if you hate so many of the people who comment? That defensive mode you get into is causing me problems.
Gert: Don't say anymore about Pagan.
FJ: Stalin making non aggression agreements with Germany and Japan would have been smart moves, if the time was used to prepare for war. Instead Stalin purged his best general, and ended up caught by surprise by the Germans.
I would like to comment about the Japanese and WWII. I want to do a major post WWII, to really discuss the subject well. In short the dropping of the bomb was against Russia. Stalin could have marched into Tokyo.
THR: Hitler needed leftist rhetoric. You can't take the discusssion seriously, when people think the face of US imperialism Obama is called socialist.
Some on the left like Nietzsche.
Sentinel: I think much of what you say is in code. The BNP changed its image a few years ago.
If your link isn't against "Jewish bankers," I don't get the point. Wall Street financed the Bolshevism? I don't think so.
Renegade Eye
"I think much of what you say is in code"
How bizarre.
Besides the fact that I pretty much come and out say exactly what I mean without regard to the current fashion of PC (hence some hysterical labels from some quarters) it means that you read a straightforward statement and somehow garner another, completely different meaning from it, one that doesn't actually exist.
You mentioned this process before in the SA thread when you said that: "When Daniel or I, talk about crime in South Africa, it's different than the BNP that uses it as code. It means a racialist definition and codewords." - setting yourself and that twisted oddball as a group apart; some sort of initiated esoteric and moral guardians. (And DHG is anything but moral, his online conduct in other places is in the sewer.)
It is a very interesting device, one that basically means that whatever is said, it can be made to mean anything else, using a cipher of your own choosing.
That is what seems to be going on with your references to the BNP too, because you are the only one to mention them. I never have, here or on my blog. Ever.
But back to the main point, you say: "If your link isn't against "Jewish bankers," I don't get the point. Wall Street financed the Bolshevism? I don't think so."
The point is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that is exactly what happened, and even though I have linked to some of it, you dismiss it out of hand without so much as a cursory perusal. Surely you must see that that is not an informed opinion but a position of pure prejudice.
The world is a very complex place and so, it must follow, is history - which is largely written by the victors.
For example, it is widely accepted through emergent evidence now, that the King of England financed both sides of the American revolution - why? - and have a detailed look into Franklin and you find all sorts of anonomies.
Another more famous example is that the third most powerful man in the Third Reich, Reinhard Heydrich - commonly assumed to be the heir apparent- was also believed to have been part Jewish. Certainly the most senior Nazis believed so, up to Hitler, and so did Heydrich himself, as revealed by one drunken incident where he caught sight of himself in the mirror, shouted an anti-Semitic comment and fired his pistol at his own reflection.
There was a meeting between Heydrich, Himmler and Hitler to resolve the matter and it was decided that he could continue in his career unabated. Why? Hitler and Himmler privately claimed it was because he was a man of enormous and unique talents that they now had complete control over, but Heydrich's intimates (and increasingly historians too) believe that the real reason was that Heydrich kept files on everyone, including Himmler and Hitler, and he had enough in the files to destroy them.
Whatever the details, the fact remains that a man who was believed by the Nazis to be part Jewish was not only allowed to continue as the third most powerful man in the regime - national security at that - but was widely considered Hitler's natural successor.
History is full of such enigmas.
Why should the bolsheviks be any different?
Farmer:
At worst the two books are smear books like Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism', at best they may contain information that many won't like to hear. The IBM book gets positive reviews on Amazon e.g.
Your arguments are largely straw man: Black doesn't attack US capitalists supporting Germany in the Interbellum, he claims to unearth some direct links between specific American industrialists, Hitler and the Holocaust. Far-fetched as this may sound to ears like yours (that contain inherent filters like Capitalism = Always Good, US = Greatest Nation on Earth), these times were times of strange alliances and unlikely bedfellows. There were after all Nazi supporters in just about every country, including most European ones, the UK, the US and some Arab countries too.
And for the record, I'm neither Jewish nor of Jewish descent.
Far-fetched as this may sound to ears like yours (that contain inherent filters like Capitalism = Always Good, US = Greatest Nation on Earth)It must be nice to read other peoples minds. Do you use a fucking crystal ball?
Your arguments are largely straw man:LOL! And what are yours, mind-reader?
FJ:
"Your arguments are largely straw man:"
You wrote "Capitalists backed post WWI Germany... DUH!" then attack that. But Black's article and books aren't about that. That's using a straw man argument: attacking the someone on something he never said. What he is claiming is that there some evidence some American industrialists helped Hitler along and assisted the Holocaust. Well, stranger things have happened.
And what happened to Triumph des Willens (sor-ry!! Will to Power)? Capitalists are so squeaky clean when it comes to making a profit?
THIS BLOG IS SECULAR, INTERNATIONALIST, AND SOCIALIST and quite acrimonious. Doesn't it get old talking endlessly about failed dead Nazis and Communists. Who is an anti-Semite? Who's not? What a waste of time.
Sentinel: I understand contradiction.
Didn't this recession show you anything about the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the government? The government invaded Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, along with many others. Wall Street subsidizing the Bolsheviks? C'mon.
The Trotsky Archieve at Yale, has his every scrap of paper. I read several of his bios. I never heard of him getting Wall St money.
LWB: That's the way it's.
Again you seem to be equating the entire Russian 'revolution' with just Trotsky; and again you are not commenting from an informed postion having reviewed the evidence, but from a position of pure prejudice not wanting to belive it. (Although you seem to have no problem with the notion that the Nazis were also funded from Wall Street.)
If you actually read the book and check the sources for yourself you will see that it is in fact all true.
http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-rev.html
Incidentally, did the Trotsky Archive at Yale inform you that US president Woodrow Wilson personally intervened to give Trotsky a US passport in which to travel back to Russia? He travelled back to the 'revolution' with a U.S. passport, a British transit visa and a Russian entry permit. And did the Archive shed any light who secured his release from Canada?
But Black's article and books aren't about that. Interesting. Then Henry Ford wasn't a capitalist.... he was an "industrialist"...
CONGRATULATIONS, Gert! You have just won the distinction w/o a difference award. You are now a certifiable sophist of the second order (those w/o any socially redeeming values). Wear the label proudly!
Sentinel: I reread Trotsky's autobiography. He returned to Russia from NY, because Kerensky was gone. On his return trip he was ininternment in Canada.
FJ: capitalist works for me.
"I reread Trotsky's autobiography"
His autobiography? You do know that means his own account?
"On his return trip he was ininternment in Canada"
Yes, clearly. I have already mentioned it; He was travelling back to the Russian 'revolution' with a U.S. passport - facilitated by the US president- along with a British transit visa and a Russian entry permit and $10,000 cash in hand. Explain that?
But does his own account explain who released him from the Canadian internment?
FJ:
Okay, you win: capitalism it is then.
How US Capitalism Supported Hitler & the Final Solution
How's that lawsuit coming along?
Teehee...
What lawsuit would that be, mind-reader Gert?
Sentinel: This is from the link I gave you: In the end, the Soviet stepped in and Miliukoff had to bow. On the twenty-ninth of April came the hour for our release from the concentration camp. But even in release we were subjected to violence. We were ordered to pack our things and proceed under convoy. When we demanded the why and wherefore, they refused to say anything. The prisoners became excited because they thought we were being taken to a fortress. We asked for the nearest Russian consul; they refused us again. We had reason enough for not trusting these highwaymen of the sea, and so we insisted that we would not go voluntarily until they told us where we were going. The commander ordered forcible measures. Soldiers of the convoy carried out our luggage, but we stayed stubbornly in our bunks. It was only when the convoy was faced with the task of carrying us out bodily, just as we had been taken off the steamer a month earlier, and of doing it in the midst of a crowd of excited sailors, that the commander relented and told us, in his characteristic Anglo-Colonial way, that we were to sail on a Danish boat for Russia. The colonel’s purple face twitched convulsively. He could not bear the thought that we were escaping him. If only it had been on the African coast! As we were being taken away from the camp, our fellow prisoners gave us a most impressive send-off. Although the officers shut themselves up in their compartment, and only a few poked their noses through the chinks, the sailors and workers lined the passage on both sides, an improvised band played the revolutionary march, and friendly hands were extended to us from every quarter. One of the prisoners delivered a short speech acclaiming the Russian revolution and cursing the German monarchy. Even now it makes me happy to remember that in the very midst of the war, we were fraternizing with German sailors in Amherst. In later years I received friendly letters from many of them, sent from Germany.
Machen, the British police officer who had brought about our arrest, was present at our departure. As a parting shot I warned him that my first business in the Constituent Assembly would be to question foreign minister Milyukoff about the outrageous treatment of Russian citizens by the Anglo-Canadian police. “I hope,” said Machen in quick retort, “that you will never get into the Constituent Assembly.”
Yes, and as I already pointed out that is from his autobiography - you are aware that means his OWN account, aren't you? That it is as far removed from independent evidence as it can get?
And funnily enough it entirely fails to mention his US passport, British transit visa, $10,000 cash and who authorised his release from Canada , etc.
Obviously Trotsky appears to play a large role in your ideology, but what use is that if your perceptions of him are not complete? Are not based upon independent scrutiny?
Do you know of any politicians autobiography that hasn't been self-serving?
As always in history, there is much more to that man then meets the eye.
Post a Comment