Dateline: norway, Norway and islam

[Sukerkin]

Perhaps we should think about forwarding all such threads to the Anti-Defamation League? I'm sure that their opinion would carry some practical weight as to what the political leanings of the Nazi Party were?

Maybe not. But it is very tempting, just to see if we actually got a reply :lol:.

 

[CanuckMA]

thats just silly

It is as silly as saying the Nazis were socialists because they said so in their name.

 

[Twin Fist]

i didnt say that

 

[Big Don]

From the NY Times following the Fort Hood shooting:
November 6, 2009
Army Doctor Held in Ft. Hood Rampage
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN

An Army psychiatrist facing deployment to one of America’s war zones killed 13 people and wounded 30 others on Thursday in a shooting rampage with two handguns at the sprawling Fort Hood Army post in central Texas, military officials said.

It was one of the worst mass shootings ever at a military base in the United States.
The gunman, who was still alive after being shot four times, was identified by law enforcement authorities as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, who had been in the service since 1995. Major Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas.

Clad in a military uniform and firing an automatic pistol and another weapon, Major Hasan, a balding, chubby-faced man with heavy eyebrows, sprayed bullets inside a crowded medical processing center for soldiers returning from or about to be sent overseas, military officials said.
The victims, nearly all military personnel but including two civilians, were cut down in clusters, the officials said. Witnesses told military investigators that medics working at the center tore open the clothing of the dead and wounded to get at the wounds and administer first aid.
As the shooting unfolded, military police and civilian officers of the Department of the Army responded and returned the gunman’s fire, officials said, adding that Major Hasan was shot by a first-responder, who was herself wounded in the exchange.

From the NY Times July 23d:
Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War
By STEVEN ERLANGER and SCOTT SHANE OSLO — The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation.
As stunned Norwegians grappled with the deadliest attack in the country since World War II, a portrait began to emerge of the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, 32. The police identified him as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian, while acquaintances described him as a gun-loving Norwegian obsessed with what he saw as the threats of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration.

“We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised news conference. “What we know is that he is right wing and a Christian fundamentalist.”
END EXCERPTS
Compare and contrast the two stories. Major Hasan screamed "Allahu Ackbar" as he killed, and yet, is not identified as a Muslim extremist. Breivik did not scream any slogan, and yet is called a Christian Extremist in what has long been called "The Paper of Record". But, there is no bias... none.

 

[billc]

It has more to do with the actual economic practices of the Nazis and not just the fact that they properly identify themselves as socialists. You should try to read some of the articles I have found on the topic. The video, "The Soviet Story," posted above has some interesting points as well.

Here is one of many:

http://knol.google.com/k/hitler-was-a-socialist#

From the article:

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry
("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the
title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not
necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression
("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der
Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks
of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve"
itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of
Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned
features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the
language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in
emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals
of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also
to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the
quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.

also:

This finds its counterpart in the academic literature too. Scholarly works on
Hitler's deeds continue to emerge (e.g. Feuchtwanger, 1995) and in a survey of
the history of Western civilization, Lipson (1993) named Hitlerism and the
nuclear bomb as the two great evils of the 20th century. Stalin's tyranny lasted
longer, Pol Pot killed a higher proportion of his country's population and
Hitler was not the first Fascist but the name of Hitler nonetheless hangs over
the entire 20th century as something inescapably and inexplicably malign. It
seems doubtful that even the whole of the 21st century will erase from the minds
of thinking people the still largely unfulfilled need to understand how and why
Hitler became so influential and wrought so much evil.

 

[billc]

From Ph.D. Rudy Rummel: (professor emeritus in Political Science)

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

From the article:

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).



And from Friedrich Hayek, Nobel prize winning economist:

http://www.brookesnews.com/091910hayeknazis.html

From the article:


The persecution of the Marxists, and
of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
"Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority
of the German intelligentsia first to "socialism of the chair" and later to
Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
One of the main reasons why the
socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized,
is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great
industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups
too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least
partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly
because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many
capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have
not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.
-----------------------------------

SO, A PH.d. IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND A NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST BOTH BELIEVE HITLER WAS A LEFTY AND A SOCIALIST...HMMMM...I GUESS THEY WERE JUST FOOLED BY THE WORD "SOCIALIST" TOO.

 

[Blade96]

So you admit that nazism and Marx are not the same. But yes as for hitler and lenin/stalin I would agree with you that those ones had stuff in common. But lenin/stalin had distorted Marx.

Btw billi, little socialist, you can come out the closet now, we know your secret

 

[billc]

Did you watch the video on this thread, "The Soviet Story," and the time marked points at 4, 6:18, 9 and 12 minutes. Marx's idea for the groups that had not achieved a capitalist state is quite chilling. I have always said that communism and nazism are different types of socialism, but that they are both socialism. They have some superficial differnces which is what confuses so many people. They share a dislike of people of the jewish faith, they both hate capitalists, they both believe the individual should be controlled by the state. They both believed that the state should control the economy. The video also talks about how similar marxism and nazism are. As I have said before, chocalte, vanilla and strawberry are different flavors but they are all types of ice cream.


what always confused me is when people use the left-right scale for the different groups. If the left, represented by the socialists, is marked by a large government, then the opposite, being a left-right scale, would be a belief in a smaller government. So, socialists, of the communist model, believe in large government (yes, I know that communism is the final stage once you pass through the socialist stage, but the guys who called themselves communists had an all controlling government) so the opposite would have to be a group that believed in a small government, which would be for example, American conservatives. The nazis believed in a large controlling government, not a small one. so the left-right system breaks down right there. The scale below from an American thinker article, and I believe also from a youtube video seem a little more accurate.

From the article the visual of the political spectrum is in the article)

There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite? The new spectrum is a rough measurement of liberty: very little liberty on the left end, quite a bit on the right end. At the left extreme reside the hard tyrannies of communism and fascism, as seen historically in such places as the Soviet Union, China, Germany, or North Korea. A bit to the right are the softer tyrannies of socialism, as commonly practiced in Western Europe. Liberalism comes next, then "moderation." Moving further along the spectrum toward greater liberty, one finds conservatism, and finally libertarianism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html

 

[Cirdan]

Thanks billi, it is good to know I only live in a "softer" tyranny :lol2:

 

[Blade96]

I watched it, one thing i noticed is that one of the dudes speculates, he said I can't find anything about holocaust before marx so...it must have started with him right? He speculated on the basis of no evidence. And poland - its leaving out history. Stalin did not sign that ten year non agression pact with hitler right away because theyagreed with each other and were natural allies. He first sought a alliance with the west. and they rejected him (munich agreement) Churchill later said they paid dearly for ignoring the russians. Stalin signed that alliance cause he needed time to build up his army.

 

[Tez3]

Americans have different definitions of what constitutes left and right from Europeans, being a 'liberal' in America is totally different from being a liberal in Europe so putting American definitions on European politics leads to this argument. To Americans socialism is communism not socialism as we know it here. FEw Americans I think can understand European politics escpically things like the Chritian Socialist parties, the Green Patries and the Christians Communists parties we have.

My country recognises the Nazis as being right wing fascists and the neo Nazi groups as being right wing, as you can read from the reports from Norway the killer there is a self confessed right wing conservative who belongs to neo Nazi group/s. What he believes is understand in Europe to be right wing, it may not fit what American believe is right wing but it's how everyone else believes.Whats more the neo nazi groups themselves recognise and call themselves right wing. Constantly putting American definitions and values on something non American is going to cause arguments as you see, twisting European history to make it suit those American definitions is wrong. The assumption that socialism and communism are the same and one leads to the other is nonsense, there is no country that has gone from being socialist to communist in Europe, the countries who were 'communist' such as Yugoslavia were actually nothing more than dictatorships disguised as communist states. Considering what happened to Yugoslavia after the fall of Tito one wondrs if actually that was such a bad thing!

This 'big' government thing is a smokescreen, the USA has from what we can see a far 'bigger' government than many European socialist countries, you have far less freedoms in many aspects than our countries. That may be how you like it but until you understand European history, politics and definitions as we do you will never get anywhere arguing with us. Until you understand socialism as it pertains to Europeans you are merely ranting, if your 'proof' thinks Norway is a 'soft' tyranny then it just proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[billc]

Perhaps you could explain what the "right" means in Europe and what the left means as well?

 

[Sukerkin]

I am pretty sure I already did ... or I intended to and maybe decided it would be wasted effort as those here supporting the American equivalent of the BNP {or Republican Party as some deluded people call it} wouldn't really read it.

Or maybe they would but then just pick a bit of phrasing they could twist to mean something vile, or the reverse of what was intended and rant on about that.

I've seen it happen too many times over six years here and every now and again I exceed my 'Fill Level'. It is certain that there are far worse examples of devoted political allegiance, with less wit and common sense, out in Net-land but what I've seen here is quite bad enough.

After this last gasp of awesome political acuity over the massacre in Norway, I'm not interested in playing the game any more. If someone asks for my opinion then I'll give it but that's it, other than 'Official' involvement of course.

 

[billc]

THe "he was christian," aspect of the atrocity is addressed by Bill O'reilly in this video clip...

http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/07...ard-regarding-norwegian-mass-murderer-brevik/

 

[elder999]

THe "he was christian," aspect of the atrocity is addressed by Bill O'reilly in this video clip...

http://bigpeace.com/abostom/2011/07...ard-regarding-norwegian-mass-murderer-brevik/

.....and over on the Stormfront forum, the neo-Nazis are saying this guy wasn't a Nazi; he was a Zionist! :lol:

Both you Bills-O'reilly and cihak-sound just like 'em, Sounds like.... :lfao:

 

[billc]

As an opponent of all the forms of socialism, nazism, facism and communism, I always find it funny when the other side of an argurment starts insinutating the "that guy sounds like a nazi," a really interesting tactic, typical. Next should be the mental illness insinuation, the racist insinuation, it is a typical tactic that is used to not debate but to quietly attack and intimidate in order to silence. Nice Elder, subtley done.

 

[billc]

Notice, I didn't say he wasn't a nazi, I said he was a nazi and that made him a socialist. It is others who say he wasn't a lefty and he wasn't a socialist. I believe that he is. Totalitarian perspectives live on the left. To use the government to discriminate against a group of people is a lefty habit.

 

[elder999]

As an opponent of all the forms of socialism, nazism, facism and communism, I always find it funny when the other side of an argurment starts insinutating the "that guy sounds like a nazi," a really interesting tactic, typical. Next should be the mental illness insinuation, the racist insinuation, it is a typical tactic that is used to not debate but to quietly attack and intimidate in order to silence. Nice Elder, subtley done.

PANCAKE BUNNY??????!!!!!!!!

:lfao:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Perhaps you could explain what the "right" means in Europe and what the left means as well?

Left and Right it all depends on which side of the room you sit

 

[billc]

Well, since I sit on the American "Right" the nazis are obviously, as socialists, on the left.