Re: Re: Nazi-sm is LEFTIST, not RIGHTIST

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT), lorad <lorad474@xxxxxx>
wrote:



Your brain is upside down.. you are wrong.
Nationalism has nothing to do with 'rightness' or 'leftism'.

Couldn't ask for more nationalistic countries than the soviet union,
north korea, 'chauchesque' romania, etc etc... all were uber
nationalist.. and all were uber commie.

What happened to their song, the International?


Nationalism can also be good for countries; as democratic nationalism
in the (former) United States showed.


Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.

"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in 1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little more of the gist of his message. I quote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .

"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns
of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the
world. . .

"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The
voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is
made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those
persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .

"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of
the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life." -
end of quote -

I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of
others always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It
is not for nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as
they were in the time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose
Bernays' book to quote is that it provides a more concise and clear
summary, in a few quotable paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in
modern life than most other
books on the subject.

If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. All it does is state the obvious: namely, that the
whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few people
have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes and
opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes the
disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of life,
but it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment the
thinking of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only lead
us to greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the
question of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.

If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater
honesty than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most
obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:

"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --

To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that
the policies guiding our nation should be decided by counting the
votes of every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's
like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.

This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.

And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that
we have a greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up
our own minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we
still have some degree of individual freedom in the United States
today because more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far
more aristocratic than democratic in the modern sense of the word were
willing to go to war against their legitimate government in order to
secure that freedom for us, and people with a truly democratic
temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.

Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing in the myth of democracy is an important element in
maintaining control over the thinking and behavior of the public. It
is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read
in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious
and self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're
still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."


As for the nazis.. yes the nazis were SOCIALISTS - not rightwingers.


This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.

Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.

The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.

Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.

The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.


The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.


(See 'The Soviet Story' 2008, to see how nazism and stalinism were
ideological twins)

The National Socialists fought the Communists in their streets while
the Conservatives hid under their beds. Here are some quotes from Mein
Kampf:


"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."

"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."

"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."

"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."

When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.



The political spectrum is not a horizontal bar running from right to
left.
Rather, it is a circle.
Go to the left too far.. and you end up looking like a totalitarian
rightist regime.
It's the same result if you go too far to the right.

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:



"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the
multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and
personal efficiency."

"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in
the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the
individual personality?"

"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might
not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless
the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the
facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the
crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.
Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in
political life; because under these circumstances the situation does
not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of
the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will
attract them accordingly."

"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority
can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance
but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one
man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political
line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude."

"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system
to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed
deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of
nonentities who are dependant on others for their views and who can
be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each
individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according
the the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And by
this method alone is it possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the
real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never
be brought to account for his actions."

"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone
should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man
responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the
politicians for the time being, who constituted the parlimentary
majority, were small and incompetent men or maybe even on a lower
grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for abstract
principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the
nation."

"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."

http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/

http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • One wonders how these generals go to bed each night with such dreadful concience.
    ... The generals talk of democracy with out understanding the true ... Do not make the goal of democracy far away from the people - Lu Thit ... the draft of the constitution has been ... to the drive for transforming the nation from the present administrative ...
    (soc.culture.burma)
  • Re: A BIT OF ADVICE FOR NLD..
    ... in the Suu Kyi Mania. ... They (democracy groups) want Western ... Myanmar society". ... may not be your nation. ...
    (soc.culture.burma)
  • Confidential Letter For a National League of VN
    ... by Nguyen Huu Chanh ... To the Vietnamese of all religious denominations, political parties, ... In an appeal for democracy in VN, His Eminence Thich Quang Do, Rector ... Let the whole nation be fired ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)
  • Fw: Why are we always lacking in national unity? - Wash Sycip
    ... MANILA, Philippines--JUST OVER 57 years ago, the great civic and business leader of the Philippines, Monching del Rosario, asked me to join him in organizing the Management Association of the Philippines. ... The success stories of China's fight against poverty, without lectures from Westerners on democracy, may usher in new ideas for our politicians and our NGOs. ... We were the most promising nation in East Asia. ... If the success of a poor nation is judged by its being able to reduce poverty, improve education, provide decent health care and housing for most of our people, then we have miserably failed as compared to our neighbors. ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • Re: Stallworth runs over pedestrian
    ... Even in a nation that proclaims itself to be the ... leader in freedom and democracy, it still has people so full of ... of the leaders in freedom and democracry, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots)
Loading