Hitler was a socialist. That's why they called it the National SOCIALIST Party.
Stalin was not a fan of capitalism either.
Neither Mao Tse Tung.
Nor Kim Schlong Ill.
Hugo, favorite of Cindy Sheehan, Belafonte and a bevy of other freedom haters and parasites, is no exception.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4376202.html
Venezuelans will rue the day they didn't study up on their economics and elected this putz in.
So um, when's el-Lordo Hugo signing on to Kyoto?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering how his fiefdom will do when the Dutch disease kicks in...
Anytime a president says its a good idea to "extend his electoral mandate" is the time to have a real revolution.
Not to be untoward, but does that make the People's Republic of China a Republic? How about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, would you say its either democratic or republican, at any level?
ReplyDeleteEven your example of Chavez's dictatorship refers to itself, officially, as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (thanks, CIA World Factbook). I think deciding Hitler was a Socialist based on what the political body chose to call itself is dubious, at best.
People often don't refer to themselves by accurately descriptive names; for instance, based on your name, one might conclude that you are a battalion level commander in the capitalist army instead of a radio host. Odd that.
Yes good point, I have a hard time trying to convince people that "Red" China isn't really "communist" any more.
ReplyDeleteBut the nationalization of industry by the Nazi's would kind of make them live up to their political name's namesake.
What China is, however, is an authoritarian regime where everyone's elected from the...which party? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
ReplyDeleteThey may not be de facto, but they are de jure, and nations operate both ways.
Incidentally, Captain, just what DO you command? "Respect" is not an option here; I mean are you a naval captain, or a ground-pounder, in charge of a company? I'm curious indeed...
Many people do not know that the term 'Nazi' means 'National Socialist German Workers' Party' and that members of the horrid group did not call themselves Nazis, but called themselves socialists.
ReplyDeleteA lot of their history began in the USA.
The 'Nazi salute' is more accurately called the 'American salute' as it was created and popularized by national socialists in the USA where its use was mandated by law in government schools for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was the early gesture of the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
The original pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the
Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the USA's pledge. The new discoveries have caused quite a Fuhrer/furor.
The USA originated Nazism, Nazi salutes, flag fetishism, robotic group-chanting to flags, and the modern swastika symbol, as shown in the research of the noted historian Dr. Rex Curry. The bizarre acts in the USA began as early as 1875 and continued through the creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German Nazis or NSGWP). The NSGWP had clear roots in National Socialism promoted by socialists in the USA. Amazing graphic images that prove the point are at
http://rexcurry.net/theosophy-madame-blavatsky-theosophical-society.html
The USA is still the worst example in the world of bizarre laws that require robotic chanting to a national flag in government schools (socialist schools) every day for 12 years.
It has changed generations of Americans from libertarians to authoritarians. The government bamboozled individuals into believing that robotic group-chanting in government schools is a beautiful expression of freedom. Frightening photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
Captain, you rogue, masquerading as someone else to post stuff just to try to amuse me and get me all riled. I mean, really, who takes Theosophy seriously anymore?
ReplyDeleteFrankly, Captain, I'm disappointed in this effort. You know the Pledge can't be coerced out of the little twerps; so far, no such Congressional mandate has come down, merely custom, leading to all those lawsuits a while back. There's nothing "forced" about the Pledge; anyone can sit out of it at the moment.
Now, to address the most humorous part of your post, and I have to say, you have a second career waiting as either a stand-up comic or a writer of textbooks, there is a minor problem (which, with my Batman-like historian abilities, I detected immediately) with the notion that the Illuminati-like author(s) of the notoriously wicked nationally socialistic Pledge of Allegiance, that most subversive of all documents, fundamental underminer of all that is pure in the Republic, was/were, in fact, involved with a proto-National Socialism.
The author of the Pledge, while an admitted Christian Socialist *dramatic sting and gasps from the audience*, initially considered adding words about equality and fraternity, but reconsidered, because his target audience had misgivings about equal rights for women and blacks.
Sounds like a poster boy for the local skinheads to me. Oh, and his target audience? It was an ad campaign to sell flags for a kid's magazine. So, really, it was making a buck. Yes, those wacky Naz...excuse me, having actually GONE to the website, I will say Members In Good Standing Of The National Socialist German Workers Party (English Translation); they were all about capitalism and rights for minorities in America in the 1890's! Even when their last name is Bellamy! Must be one of those "Brian Loves Bertha" type of things...
Please, Captain, no more of these kind of posts; you'll do me an injury!
Dear Mahan,
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you it wasn't me who wrote it. Though I did approve the post as I thought you being the historian and all, would get a good guffaw from it.
Them sure is some fancy drugs you takin there Cappy.
ReplyDelete"Socialist" does not mean left.
ReplyDelete"Socialist" means government intervention.
"Left" supports the poor. "Right" supports the elite. When the government intervenes in the economy in order to help the elite that's right-wing socialism. In fact even though the terms weren't used you could regard medieval Europe as full of right-wing socialist regimes, since the law only allowed nobility to own land and make money while commoners could not and were usually tied to the land as serfs. In fact at the beginning of the United States the Federalist Party while calling for more government involvement was considered to the right of the Democratic-Republican Party since all Federalist government expansion proposals were for aiding the business and the rich while the D-R Party was oriented more towards the poor and the common man, particularly in its case farmers.