I thought I'd share with you a very interesting clip I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3uFUxMwA1w I have been met with opponents in this forum before when comparing National socialism with that of communism and socialism. Some even claimed the use of the word 'socialism' within the title of the German Worker's Party is insignificant and merely to attract the left. I think this is a naive view. It appears, however, that some historians claim a very strong link with Marxism and Nazi Fascism. I hold the belief that Mussolini's Fascism was much purer in terms of Fascism and see the Hitlerian ideology as more closely resembling the socialistic roots of Marxist-Leninism. The clip above supports this too. All extremist -isms are just a different head on the same hydra, many of which funded by the West. All share the same totalitarianism, absolute-statism and non-recognition of individuality and the civil liberties it entails. Here's an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia's take on Nazi economics: In a rather double-think-like vein, Hitler proclaims Socialism, his own socialism, which protects private property, yet at the same time can still be controlled by the state. To me this seems as though he was fighting a losing battle within himself to try and justify socialism while keeping up the appearance of opposing Marxism/Communism and the Soviets. Socialism within Fascism, perhaps. An excellent article highlighting the name-only approach to private property and such non-socialist elements: http://mises.org/daily/1937 Furthermore, it may be of interest to scan the '25-point programme' of National Socialism. There are some planks which clearly show a root of socialism. Such as the nationalisation of all industry, socialised education and healthcare, expanded welfare, abolition of unearned income and state acquisition land reform.
What is Socialism? Spencer is an Athiest....and has no reason to learn anything, just going to his grave.
Au contraire, I am an Atheist because I have learned. Wikipedia: Socialism was too heavy for you? In brief, socialism is the idiotic notion that a nation can make it's people rich by punishing effort and rewarding sloth. Or, as Winston Churchill explained, "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." Thomas Jefferson explained this in a bit more depth, writing "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’" P.J. O'Rourke added to this in order to respond to a popular fallacy among those who fail to understand simple economics, "Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person’s ‘fair share’ of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless." Ayn Rand explained the issue on a more moral level, "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." Go it?
At least somthing from the above made a little sense. Ayn had half the truth, the above - and am guessing an Atheist for the other half, "that the only justification of his existence is his service to society".
"That the only justification of his existence is his service to society" - is this how you see things BreezeWood? I think it's a terrible outlook and a dangerous one at that.
The opposite BRUm, it is what I was saying Ayn the Atheist would believe. Was just guessing she was an Atheist - the other quote makes great reading.
Then we are in agreement - there is a greater justification but whatever for an athiest.....a shinny new car?
No, that's a very simplistic and jovial way of describing an atheist's life. Every single person I have met has the same wants and needs, regardless of religious affiliation. Are you telling me there are no materialistic pious people? I have my own dreams. They involve earning enough money to buy independence and start a family with my girlfriend.
No, reaching the Outerworld is a lifetime pursuit and is not the same as you and Spencer filling a grave. Good luck with your partner.
It's becoming very difficult to tell the truth about National Socialism and Occultism from Cryptohistory. There appears to be a very very very tiny grain of truth, surrounded by a snowballing mass of fiction, fantasy, and purposeful lying.
This isn't much of a "secret." In the propaganda film "Der Erwige Jude," the main way that the film attacks Jews is to say how they don't work for the common good, blah blah blah. They show a clip from an American film about a Jewish family avoiding paying taxes to bureaucrats coming to take their money; they criticize market trading as being inferior to being a laborer; they criticize the desire to make money, in general. Basically, there are a bunch of parts where you could just replace the word "Jew" with "Bourgeois" or "capitalist" and get a Russian narrator and you'd think you were watching a Soviet propaganda film. Really, there are only two ideologies: The ideology that you work for others, and the ideology that you work for yourself. Every attempt to differentiate the altruist ideologies into "isms" is really just a product of different mobs trying to determine who's going to be in power as the recipient of all of the nation's altruist productivity, and who's going to be a slave. Stalinism, Leninism, Nazism, etc.--all of them are about being a slave to others, and it's just different groups (political parties) who benefit from the many slaves.
To bring the matter much closer to home, when John Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country", what he was really saying is "You as an individual are not important - only the state is important." The only thing he was missing was the little mustache and the funny outfit. Nietzsche realized all of this a half century before. He, as Zarathustra, wrote: A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples. State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
thats taking it to far, thats is not what he meant. its about working together for the common good. individuals are important. they can help.
People work neither for others nor themselves but in most cases for monetary compensation which the prevalent ideologies see fit for anything but coming from a generic source the State....when properly governed.