PDA

View Full Version : A CALL TO ACTION!



LWW
08-24-2011, 04:36 AM
Open the camps comrades ... all assist in this democrooks quest to send the dissenters into the grave!

And the difference between Bavaria 1932 and this is? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWwQiYUodm4&feature=player_embedded)

Sev
08-24-2011, 07:47 AM
Ahhh. The civility of the left.

llotter
08-24-2011, 12:59 PM
Those left wing intellectuals know what good for us so just sit down and let them have their way.

Soflasnapper
08-24-2011, 04:20 PM
I'd say these are entirely different matters, bearing no comparison to one another.

How do you think they so similar, and in what regard?

LWW
08-25-2011, 02:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd say these are entirely different matters, bearing no comparison to one another.

How do you think they so similar, and in what regard? </div></div>

If I send you a history book, will you actually read it?

The similarities between America today and Germany 1926-1932 are striking.

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 10:40 AM
I doubt the German version of this parallelism you think you find featured a somewhat oppressed minority woman official with no power attacking a far right rump caucus of a major party.

Other than that, exactly the same, I'm sure! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
08-25-2011, 10:55 AM
That's funny. Who is oppressing Maxine, and how are they oppressing her?

Soflasnapper
08-25-2011, 07:58 PM
I intended to mention she was a member of a somewhat oppressed minority, not that she specifically was also oppressed. My phrasing lends itself to your jibe, I admit, so I plead guilty to a loose sentence structure.

Not that you were confused by it, of course.

For this parallel you claim to work, the equivalent in Germany would be a Jew or Gypsy or a Gay speaking out. Which among other reasons is why your claim is mistaken.

LWW
08-26-2011, 03:43 AM
Actually ... Hitler and his brown shirted friends didn't go genocidal on the Jews until after they had an iron grip on power. The fact is that several powerful Jews actually backed Hitler early on.

Now, back to reality, prior to gaining control of the Chancellor's office and Reichstag the Nazis concentrated their efforts on intimidating opposition voters, demonizing political enemies, using messages similar to "GET IN THEIR FACE .. IF THEY BRING A KNIFE WE BRING A GUN ... WE WILL PUNISH OUR ENEMIES" to motivate their followers to thuggish violence, had a cult of personality leader who was to be followed without question etcetera.

Other than the genocidal part ... Hitler's policy platform and Obama's are essentially identical.

Soflasnapper
08-26-2011, 05:18 PM
Other than the genocidal part ... Hitler's policy platform and Obama's are essentially identical.

Sure, how did I ever miss that, you crazed mofo you!

LWW
08-26-2011, 06:37 PM
Probably you missed it because your history was spoon fed to you by the likes of Howard Zinn?

Do you even know what Hitler was about?

You support most of his platform planks ... and the more rabid leftists call for the full blown use of camps for those who dissent.

I have always said that dear leader doesn't scare me as much as his followers. Zealots always find a leader that will fulfill their bloodlust.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 01:18 PM
You are more likely a blood-thirsty zealot than I am, and I don't think you are much of one yourself.

Yes, it has long been noted that the US has been following the trajectory of Nazi Germany, but many people track that path as starting with W's regime, to the loud denunciation of people like yourself and actually about the entire mainstream media.

What did Hitler do that Obama hasn't? He replaced the bank-debt-issued currency with national script issued with only the limitation of how much the national output was estimated to be. (In Churchill's expert opinion, as stated in his magisterial history of the war, this one very early move 'sealed his fate,' and made war against him inevitable, since he was thereby cutting out what Churchill called 'the international bankers' from 'their cut.')

He made Germany prosperous with national infrastructure projects and such when the rest of the world's economies were prostrate in Depression, which he paid for in fiat script, not borrowed, and not adding to the German national debt.

He used the false flag of the Reichstag Fire to take away the freedoms of the people for their alleged security needs, used a hated and supposedly very powerful and dangerous minority to whip up nationalistic fervor to support wars of 'prevention' (i.e., non-defensive wars of aggression), and rounded up and had killed his opponents and that minority. (Paralleling 9/11, the Patriot Act, Muslims, and the 'preventative' war (i.e., war of aggression) in Iraq, which is why so many people found the Hilter/Bush comparison compelling. I'm sure you find it far less compelling, and your own analysis quite sound, although that is the reverse of the truth.)

LWW
08-28-2011, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more likely a blood-thirsty zealot than I am, and I don't think you are much of one yourself.

Yes, it has long been noted that the US has been following the trajectory of Nazi Germany, but many people track that path as starting with W's regime, to the loud denunciation of people like yourself and actually about the entire mainstream media.</div></div>

I say that our road to fascism began with Lincoln, but took serious root with the FDR regime ... did you ever wonder why Mussolini was so proud of FDR and FDR was so enamored of Benito?

LWW
08-28-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more likely a blood-thirsty zealot than I am, and I don't think you are much of one yourself.</div></div>

Everybody didn't go into the streets and beat the opponents of der Fuehrer ... but most of those who didn't would cover their eyes and swear it wasn't happening at all.

Sound familiar?

LWW
08-28-2011, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did Hitler do that Obama hasn't? He replaced the bank-debt-issued currency with national script issued with only the limitation of how much the national output was estimated to be. (In Churchill's expert opinion, as stated in his magisterial history of the war, this one very early move 'sealed his fate,' and made war against him inevitable, since he was thereby cutting out what Churchill called 'the international bankers' from 'their cut.')</div></div>

Balderdash.

Hitler merged state and corporate power to the point profit was privatized and risk socialized. Corporate Germany loved him ... at first. The Swiss bankers loved him to the end.

Sound familiar?

LWW
08-28-2011, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He made Germany prosperous with national infrastructure projects and such when the rest of the world's economies were prostrate in Depression, which he paid for in fiat script, not borrowed, and not adding to the German national debt.</div></div>

Almost.

What he did was make every German dependent upon the state for their survival.

Once roads were built, he had to keep people employed ... so factories were built.

Once factories were built, he had to keep people employed ... so tanks and planes were built.

Once tanks and planes were built, armies needed to be raised. Once armies were raised, tanks and planes and factories and roads built, the only thing to keep the machine going was war ... which also settled the need for more resources, appeased those seeking revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, and sating the cultural bloodlust of German history.

LWW
08-28-2011, 05:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He used the false flag of the Reichstag Fire to take away the freedoms of the people for their alleged security needs, used a hated and supposedly very powerful and dangerous minority to whip up nationalistic fervor to support wars of 'prevention' (i.e., non-defensive wars of aggression), and rounded up and had killed his opponents and that minority. (Paralleling 9/11, the Patriot Act, Muslims, and the 'preventative' war (i.e., war of aggression) in Iraq, which is why so many people found the Hilter/Bush comparison compelling. I'm sure you find it far less compelling, and your own analysis quite sound, although that is the reverse of the truth.)</div></div>

No parallel to 9/11 at all ... got any links to this rounding up and killing of muslims?

It does sound eerily similar to calls against the enemies of Obama however. Ever talk to Nine Ball Paul? He posts here now and then .... and has openly called for death camps for those who don't follow Obama. Many others, including gubmint and party officials, have called for Obama to rule by fiat.

There was a guy from Austria with a funny mustache who ruled that way.

As a bonus point ... there was a lot of specu;ation as to whether Hitler could legally be chancellor based on his questionable German citizenship status.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:31 PM
A ton of them (Muslims) were rounded up and held in custody domestically. A million were killed in Iraq, and many were tortured in Gitmo, abused in Abu Ghraib, and killed at Baghran. Over a hundred homicides of Muslims in custody were admitted by the military. The alleged eventual FEMA concentration camps were provided $400 million dollars in (non-alleged, but provable) funding.

You were saying?

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did Hitler do that Obama hasn't? He replaced the bank-debt-issued currency with national script issued with only the limitation of how much the national output was estimated to be. (In Churchill's expert opinion, as stated in his magisterial history of the war, this one very early move 'sealed his fate,' and made war against him inevitable, since he was thereby cutting out what Churchill called 'the international bankers' from 'their cut.')</div></div>

Balderdash.

Hitler merged state and corporate power to the point profit was privatized and risk socialized. Corporate Germany loved him ... at first. The Swiss bankers loved him to the end.

Sound familiar? </div></div>

I think Churchill was a little more familiar with the events at the time than you are at such a remote removed time in history.

Of course, Hitler profited the industrial corporations, in a state-corporate arrangement. That's the essence of fascism. But he did not profit the international bankers, nor borrow the (script) monies he used to achieve that purpose.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He made Germany prosperous with national infrastructure projects and such when the rest of the world's economies were prostrate in Depression, which he paid for in fiat script, not borrowed, and not adding to the German national debt.</div></div>

Almost.

What he did was make every German dependent upon the state for their survival.

Once roads were built, he had to keep people employed ... so factories were built.

Once factories were built, he had to keep people employed ... so tanks and planes were built.

Once tanks and planes were built, armies needed to be raised. Once armies were raised, tanks and planes and factories and roads built, the only thing to keep the machine going was war ... which also settled the need for more resources, appeased those seeking revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, and sating the cultural bloodlust of German history. </div></div>

There was little buildup of the German war machine, even into the start of the aggression. That occurred later, so your timeline of how it went is incorrect.

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 12:55 AM
Hitler woz of course the best economist of all time. Germans quite rightly adored him for the things he did in the early years. Later of course he did evil things.

But praps the world would now be a better place had Hitler won -- especially on the russian front. Look at Africa today, and Islam.
No, praps not, koz then the Japs would rule allso -- what a shitty thort.
mac.

LWW
08-29-2011, 02:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Churchill was a little more familiar with the events at the time than you are at such a remote removed time in history. </div></div>

Probably so ... but that doesn't change the fact that I can't find a single instance where he said any of this?

LWW
08-29-2011, 03:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was little buildup of the German war machine, even into the start of the aggression. That occurred later, so your timeline of how it went is incorrect. </div></div>

Why do you insist on making up the most ridiculous statements to prop up your prior ridiculous statements?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nazis came to power in the midst of the Great Depression. When the Nazis came to power the most pressing issue was an unemployment rate of close to 30%.[18] Before World War II, Hitler appointed Hjalmar Schacht, a former member of the German Democratic Party, as President of the Reichsbank in 1933 and Minister of Economics in 1934. [18]

At first, Schacht continued the economic policies introduced by the government of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to combat the effects of the Great Depression. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>These policies were mostly Keynesian, relying on large public works programs supported by deficit spending — such as the construction of the Autobahn network — to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">NOTE THAT THE ROADS CAME FIRST AS I CLAIMED ... AND THE CLAIM THAT YOU MADE OF IT NOT BEING DONE WITH DEFICIT SPENDING WAS FALSE.</span> There was major reduction in unemployment over the following years, while price controls prevented the recurrence of inflation. The economic policies of the Third Reich were in the beginning the brainchildren of Schacht, who assumed office as president of the central bank under Hitler in 1933, and became finance minister in the following year. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Schacht was one of the few finance ministers to take advantage of the freedom provided by the end of the gold standard to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits.[18]</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">SOUND FAMILIAR?</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Eventually this Keynesian economic policy was supplemented by the boost to demand provided by rearmament and swelling military spending.</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">OH DEAR ... I WAS RIGHT AGAIN!</span> ...

A number of economists, starting with Michal Kalecki, have seen this as an example of military Keynesianism.
In June 1933, the "Reinhardt Program" for infrastructure development was introduced. It combined indirect incentives, such as tax reductions, with direct public investment in waterways, railroads and highways.[19] <span style='font-size: 11pt'>It was followed by similar initiatives resulting in great expansion of the German construction industry. Between 1933 and 1936, employment in construction rose from only 666,000 to over 2,000,000.[20]</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">OH MY ... FACTORIES FOLLOWED THE TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION!</span>

This was part of Hitler's war preparations: Germany needed a state-of-the-art highway system for the mobility of its motorized land forces. Also on the civilian side, cars and other forms of motorized transport became increasingly attractive to the population, and the German motor industry boomed.[21]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In 1936, military spending in Germany exceeded 10% of GNP, higher than any other European country at the time, after years of limitations imposed by the Versailles Treaty.</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">SO MUCH FOR THE NOTION THAT THE MILITARY BUILDUP WASN'T PREWAR.</span> Military investment also exceeded civilian investment from 1936 onwards.[22]

The German balance of payments went strongly negative. In 1933-36 exports declined by 9% in value while imports rose by 9%.[23] <span style='font-size: 11pt'>In the spring and summer of 1936, the reduced availability of foreign currency constrained imports of raw materials,</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">AND THEN THE NEED FOR RAW MATERIALS AROSE ... AMAZING!</span> with some key stockpiles falling to only two months' production.[24] Dr. Schacht informed the War Minister, Field Marshal Werner von Blomberg that lack of lead and copper prevented fulfilling his requests for increased military production.[25] ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>after the 1936 economic crisis, German industrialists were increasingly excluded from the decision-making process[38]
that after 1936, the German state came to play an increasing dominant role in the German economy both through state-owned companies and by placing increasing larger orders[38]</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">SOUND FAMILIAR?</span>
that the expansion of armament-related production supported by a highly economically interventionist state led to those capitalist enterprises not related to armaments to go into decline[38] ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Throughout the 1930s, German businesses were encouraged to form cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, whose interests were then protected by the state.</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">ANYTHING RINGING A BELL YET?</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, led to full employment during the 1930s</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Government financing eventually came to dominate the investment process, with the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933 and 1934 to approximately 10 percent in 1935–1938. Gargantuan tax rates - at times reaching levels such as 98 % - on profits limited self-financing of firms.[47] The largest corporations were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, but government control of these were extensive enough to leave "only the shell of private ownership."</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE AND NOW.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Mason argued that “Nazi Germany was always bent at some time upon a major war of expansion” ”[52] However, Mason argued that the timing of a such a war was determined by domestic political pressures, especially as relating to a failing economy, and had nothing to do with what Hitler wanted[52] In Mason's view in the period between 1936-41, it was the state of the German economy, and not Hitler's "will" or "intentions" that was the most important determinate on German decision-making on foreign policy.[53] Mason argued that the Nazi leaders were deeply haunted by the November Revolution of 1918, and was most unwilling to see any fall in working class living standards out of the fear that it might provoke another November Revolution.[53] According to Mason, by 1939, the “overheating” of the German economy caused by rearmament, the failure of various rearmament plans produced by the shortages of skilled workers, industrial unrest caused by the breakdown of German social policies, and the sharp drop in living standards for the German working class forced Hitler into going to war</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">AS I STATED ... AFTER BUILDING ROADWAYS, FACTORIES, TANKS, PLANES, AND RAISING AN ARMY ... THE ONLY THING THAT COULD KEEP THE FASCIST ECONOMY ROLLING WAS WAR.</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Another part of the new German economy was massive rearmament, with the goal being to expand the 100,000-strong German Army into a force of millions. The Four-Year Plan was discussed in the controversial Hossbach Memorandum, which provides the "minutes" from one of Hitler's briefings.</span> <span style="color: #3333FF">PRETTY AMAZINF FOR SOMETHING YOU CLAIM NEVER HAPPENED.</span>

Nevertheless, the war came and although the Four-Year Plan technically expired in 1940, Hermann Göring had built up a power base in the "Office of the Four-Year Plan" that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters by this point in time. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Todt saw the economy move to a full war economy under the efficient leadership of Albert Speer. </div></div>

LEARN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939)