Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)
THE OMINOUS PARALLELS ^ | Leonard Peikoff

Posted on 06/22/2002 10:38:56 AM PDT by freeforall

Socialism = NAZI or...

Hitler was a socialist.

The nasty little secret they don't want you to know!

THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff...

A Veritas News Service Book Review - "A magnificent work... it should be required reading for all Americans. This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

Excerpt from Chapter One.

The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."

But its education offered the country no protection against the Sergeant Molls in its ranks. The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime's most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Fuhrer's cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.

The Nazis did not gain power against the country's wishes. In this respect there was no gulf between the intellectuals and the people. The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37% of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country's legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44% of the total.

The voters were aware of the Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic. "Mein Kampf" alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The essence of the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany was clear.

In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain.

The system which Hitler established -- the social reality which so many Germans were so eager to embrace or so willing to endure -- the politics which began in a theory and ended in Auschwitz -- was: the "total state". The term, from which the adjective "totalitarian" derives, was coined by Hitler's mentor, Mussolini.

The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity, the Nazis declared. "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited," said Ernst Huber, an official party spokesman, in 1933.

"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich," said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. "There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual."

If the term "statism" designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.

In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today; e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial "freedom", not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.

Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men -- and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens -- these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi AND communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody who is asleep."

In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.

Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:

...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.

Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).

But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

Excerpted from Chapter 1 of THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff... most probably the most important book written in modern times. Buy it... read it... study it.


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: america; calgov2002; fascist; germany; goebbels; hitler; leftist; nazi; nazism; nsdap; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last
Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: freeforall
Not to mention he was also a pagan.
52 posted on 06/22/2002 2:41:58 PM PDT by BlessingInDisguise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; *calgov2002; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; Gophack; eureka!; ElkGroveDan; ...
i think Davis and his henchman are the closest to this in the current USA.

Let's put it on the Calgov2002 reading list!

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register



53 posted on 06/22/2002 2:46:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
The Nazis were far right.

The very distinction between "Right" and "Left" was a product of Enlightenment and hinges on the issue of equality. The Left believes in more; the Right believes in less.

A political system that would enslave entire races based upon genetics is hardly communist or left-wing. Socialist, yes. Left-wing? No.

The following was transcribed from "The Hour of the Time", hosted by William Cooper:

"Listen to this very carefully. Scoot up next to your radio. I don't want you to miss a word. I don't want you to miss anything. I have told you over and over and over again, for years. I wrote it in my book (click on book cover image below to access Amazon.com, the book's title is "Behold A Pale Horse"); my book's been in print for years, that this is a Nazi thing. The Nazis are coming. Socialism. Nazi means, "National Socialism". The Nazi Party was called the "National Socialist Workers Party."


"The Most Shop-Lifted Book in America!"

Do you understand what I'm telling you? There is no such thing as oppression on the right. There is no such thing as Nazis on the right. There are no Fascists on the right. A scale measures opposing states.

All the way on the left you have total control, all the way on the right you have the absence of any control. All the way on the left it's called "Communism," where the state owns and controls everything, even you, and even your underwear. It's where you pretend to work and they pretend to pay you. It's where if you say the wrong word you disappear forever. It's where they have millions and millions of people in labor camps doing slave labor. It's where pogroms are held and whole populations are murdered, slaughtered, one-by-one, any political opposition is murdered.

All the way on the right is total absence of control. it's called anarchy! Anarchy is terrible. it means if I see your shirt and I want it, I just shoot you in the head and take it, and nobody cares. Except you, and you're dead.

In between is the range between these two things. Just above Communism are Nazis. Somewhere in the middle is a Republic, which is the United States of America. This is not a democracy, never was, it was never intended to be. If you don't believe it, read the writings of our Forefathers, who warned us against democracy."

[Reading]: "During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans and other people on the right -- the militias, patriots, Christians -- as Nazis, due to their attempt to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic! I remember the Nazis, and let me share with you a little about them and recall some of their exploits."

[Cooper speaking for himself]: "This letter appeared in the Arlington Washington Times, on June 7, 1995. It's a letter to the editor, and I'll tell you who wrote it at the end. Listen to every word ladies and gentlemen, you're not going to believe what you hear, but it is absolutely true!"

[Words appearing in brackets below and bold-faced are those of William Cooper, adding comments as he reads the letter]:

"During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans and other people on the right -- the militias, patriots, Christians -- as Nazis, due to their attempt to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic! I remember the Nazis, and let me share with you a little about them and recall some of their exploits.

First of all, "Nazi" was gutter-slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Beider-Meinhoff gang gave themselves the moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "National Socialist Workers Party of Germany." Hitler and the Brown Shirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, natural resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement." [Hello? Anybody home? One ringy-dingy... Does that ring any bells for you folks? Let me continue...]

Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed and academic elite against the Conservative Republic. After Der Fuhrer's election, the Nazi Party ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon. Party membership was especially popular with educators, bereaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves, and this is an exact quote; "The Children of the New Age of World Order," and looked down their noses at everyone else.

As Hitler accrued more power, he began referring to his critics as; "...the dark forces of anarchy and hatred." Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness and the German press was branded a "conservative reactionary."

Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Communications, proclaimed, and I quote exactly; "A New World Order." The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the radio and in the newspapers. Paramilitary groups of Poles, Jews, Bohemians and Gypsies were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order," and Hitler demanded that "all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of terrorists and madmen," and that's a direct quote; "...fall into the hands of terrorists and madmen."

"Right-wing fanatics" of the old order who protested firearms registration were arrested by the SS and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the government of the German people."

Then the Reichstag [which was the "seat" of the German government, just like the our American equivalent, the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C.] was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an emergency anti-terrorist act through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extra-ordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be consfiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermacht [which was the federal law enforcement and the military.]

German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when "the jackboots" Gestapo came calling were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo was the Federal Marshall service of the Third Reich. The SWAT Team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the "enemies of the German people."

When the Polizei, Bewalken (or local police) refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the SA and the SS. Those were the Nazi versions of the BATF and the FBI. When several Lutheran ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again.

The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military.

Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout Central Europe were closed to prevent escape of fugitives into the wilderness and to prevent movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters.

Public schools re-wrote history and Hitler Youth Groups taught children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared.

Pagan animism became the State Religion of the Third Reich, and Christians were widely condemned as "right-wing fanatics". Millions of books were burned first, and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it.

Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers".

Yes. Indeed. I remember the Nazis, and they weren't republicans or right-wing or patriots or militias, they were Socialists and they were monsters!"

[Cooper]: And this letter was written by Thomas Colton Ruthford from Arlington, Washington. Did any of that sound familiar to you? It is word-for-word what is happening in the United States of America, as I have told you many, many times before.

What happened in Germany during Hitler's rise to power, is exactly what is happening in the United States of America today!

And if you don't want to believe it, and if you want to sit on your lazy sheep butts until they come and drag you out in the street and shoot you, then you go ahead and do it. There's a lot of us who ain't gonna be there with you. Got that? [End of transcript]



Milton William Cooper

Born: May 6, 1943

Died: November 6, 2001

Loving Father

Loving Husband

Loving Friend

True Patriot

God Bless You Bill.
You are Greatly Missed.


Bill & Crusher - Oct. 2001


54 posted on 06/22/2002 2:56:39 PM PDT by handk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Dog Gone
You know my feelings about Herr Davis as the supremo fascist in power in America.

His blatant attempts to put PG&E and Edison out of business, to corner control of the power transmission lines and the probable illegal use of the Dept. of Water Resources to buy and control electical power used in Kali was incredible to me. Yet our left wing media failed to see anything wrong with it.

55 posted on 06/22/2002 2:58:59 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
>> Conservatives have often been called Nazis by the left. Pretty hilarious considering they have far more parallels <<

Most liberals are ignorant of history and actually THINK the NAZI Party platform was "right wing" when they were actually advocating left-wing socialism. It's sort of like some of the freepers here who have been brainwashed into thinking the Democrats were the "true conservative party" prior to FDR (the liberal media claims this so they can insist all the bigots in the 'RAT party were "conservative") Of course, those of us who have actually studied various leaders from the 1920s and so forth know the GOP was far more conservative than the 'RAT party, which had been run by corrupt labor unions and socialist kooks since the late 1800s. Anyone who thinks Wilson, Bryan, Altgeld, etc. were "more conseravtive" than Coolidge, Taft, Hanna, Cannon, etc. needs their head examined.

And anyone who thinks the NAZI party platform was "right-wing" (except perhaps on immigration) needs a dose of reality. Here's some of the things the NAZIs stood for, in their own words:

We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood...

All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. [the first sign of liberalism is demanding "equality" but then discriminating and opressing the "rich" and "priviliged]

All personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished...

We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

56 posted on 06/22/2002 2:59:56 PM PDT by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Yes Hitler was the peculiar kind of solicialist who hated Commies. It takes all kinds I guess.
57 posted on 06/22/2002 3:02:54 PM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
The Crips don't like the Bloods either. Exact same thing.
58 posted on 06/22/2002 3:24:57 PM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rudeboy666
Kinda like the Hells angels vs the Outlaws.Just competing thugs.

The Euros never really had a libertarian conservative streak this is almost exclusive to the anglo world.That is the influence of John Locke and Adam Smith.The right on the continent is a hold over of the reactionary aristocracy.

59 posted on 06/22/2002 3:35:46 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Socialists love dictators. Over at the Dutch International Socialists (Inter-national Socialists) site, you can buy pro-Hussein en pro-intifada bumperstickers. They also hate Jews. They like to oppress people (East Germany, Cuba and so on). Therefor they want to help Saddam. And like the nazis they want to kill democracy to replace it with a one-party state.
60 posted on 06/22/2002 3:37:51 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
I should have given credit to Jello Biafra from the Dead Kennedys.I remmeber it from high school about the time I was turning to the Dark side.Most everyone was a squishy liberal and it seemed very apropos to play it for them.When you mentioned Pol Pot it reminded me of that song.Every time we counter demonstrate the leftist we should play that song.A couple of Rush tunes also come to mind.
61 posted on 06/22/2002 3:48:16 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
Socialists love dictators. Over at the Dutch International Socialists (Inter-national Socialists) site, you can buy pro-Hussein en pro-intifada bumperstickers. They also hate Jews. They like to oppress people (East Germany, Cuba and so on). Therefor they want to help Saddam. And like the nazis they want to kill democracy to replace it with a one-party state

What about European Socialists?

62 posted on 06/22/2002 3:48:46 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
We are talking about the politics of nazism. and how they resemble the politics of the far right more than the politics of the left.

Yes, we are. And what I'm saying is that they don't resemble the politics of the far right more than the politics of the left. What I'm saying is that they more resemble the politics of the left (as exemplified in well-known cases such as USSR, Cuba, etc) than the politics of the right. Was this not clear?

there is a bulleted list of beliefs that quite simply illustrate that point.

And I shot down this bulleted list one after the other. Should I do it again?

now look at that list and compare it to the beliefs of the far right in OUR country.

Sigh. Ok let's do it one more time. Your list of Right vs. Left ideas:

* Individualism over collectivism.

Probably correct. However, Hitler was no "individualist". He saw and treated people collectively, in terms of their race. Thus, Hitler was on the LEFT on this issue.

* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

Incorrect. While it's true that some segregationists might feel comfortable on the Right, it's also true that the Left is not "racially tolerant" at all. What gave you the idea that it is?

* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.

Incorrect. The Left was (and arguably is) quite taken with eugenics. I gave you an example (Sweden till 70s). Another example could be the Left's obsession with population control in Third World countries full of brown people.

* Merit over equality.

This one isn't even logical. "Merit" and "equality" are not mutually exclusive terms. The Right wants both "merit" and "equality" (of opportunity) to apply. The Left is only interested in equality of outcome.

That being understood, Hitler was certainly on the LEFT on this issue. He was not interested in "merit" at all, you see. Just equality of outcome for German (or "Aryan") folk.

* Competition over cooperation.

I would say this is an inaccurate characterization. It's true the Right favors (wants to harness) competition. It's not accurate to say the Left wants "cooperation". Cooperation with their dictates, perhaps. Not the same thing.

That being understood, Hitler was definitely on the LEFT on this issue. It's very hard to argue that Hitler was laissez-faire economically or that he supported a thriving "competitive" democratic debate, isn't it?

* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Probably true. But based on this criterion, Hitler, Stalin, Castro have to all be placed together on the Right.

So Hitler is on the Right on the same issue as other well-known socialists. This doesn't exactly help disprove the claim that Hitler was a socialist.

* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

If "democracy" is used in the generic sense (everyone votes on everything) then this is probably accurate. Of course, once again I'd have to place Hitler, Stalin and Castro together on the Right on this issue, since none of them were actually "democratic".

Yet again Hitler is on the Right when his other fellow socialists are too.

* Capitalism over Marxism.

Of course this is a true left-vs-right issue. Hitler was far from a "capitalist" (meaning laissez-faire) however, and he was also quite influenced by Marxist ideas (aside from just the anti-Semitism). On this issue Hitler obviously wasn't as far left as Lenin, but still leaned Left.

* Realism over idealism.

Perhaps a fair dichotomy. But Hitler was very idealistic and very unrealistic (he had strange grand ideas and bizarre ascientific racial theories which he tried to put into reality by, for example, slaughtering millions of people). Yet again he belongs on the LEFT here.

* Nationalism over internationalism.

A true left-vs-right issue, this one. Ok, we can agree Hitler was nationalistic thus belonging on the Right. So are his fellow socialists Castro and Stalin (despite whatever rhetoric they spouted..).

* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

These are almost meaningless feelgood terms. I'm not sure what this dichotomy is supposed to mean, in practice. Hitler was exclusive, excluding Jews. Stalin was exclusive, excluding kulaks, Ukrainians, heck anyone he felt like. I'd say once again the two socialists were alike on this issue, whether it means they were both Left or Right.

* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

Dumb. This has nothing intrinsic to do with Left vs. Right. And for the record, I think others have pointed out Hitler was a vegetarian anyway, so are you trying to help prove Hitler was a Leftist or what?

* Gun ownership over gun control

Fine. Hitler, like other socialists, favored gun control. Next?

* Common sense over theory or science.

I'd say just "Common sense over theory", because there's nothing "scientific" whatsoever about Leftist ideas. Anyway, Hitler like his fellow socialist Stalin sure lacked common sense but he sure had his "theories". Yet AGAIN two birds of a feather - two socialists. Next?

* Pragmatism over principle.

I guess I'll accept this one, based on the idea that Right = conservative = pragmatic, while the Left has their "principles" which they stick to no matter how unrealistic. I'll even grant that Hitler was more "pragmatic", thus more to the Right, than Stalin on this issue. The reason for this is that he tempered or watered down his socialism so that business would feel less nervous supporting him and he could gain power. So he was a socialist, but a sell-out of sorts.

I guess that's why other socialists hated him so much and insist that his sell-out means that he moved all the way to the other side of the spectrum (which he didn't) and thus that he's on the Right (which he's not) - he looks like a Rightist if you're a disappointed true-blue-believer Socialist, I can imagine.... but to the rest of us? He looks like the socialist that he was.

* Religion over secularism.

Again, fine. Hitler was no believer. Stalin was presumably an atheist but at least went to seminary, and after all had the idea of creating that whole cult of Lenin.

I guess on this issue we find that Hitler was even further Left than his fellow socialist Stalin. Interesting.

So heck, on every single issue you list here (except possibly the ones which are inaccurate) we find that Hitler is on the same side as other socialists.

How exactly is Hitler different from socialists then?

What exactly were you trying to prove here?

63 posted on 06/22/2002 3:50:26 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Yes Hitler was the peculiar kind of solicialist who hated Commies.

Just like the socialist Mensheviks and socialist Bolsheviks were rivals. Or does that confuse you too?

64 posted on 06/22/2002 3:53:16 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
But of course they worship force and they think the ends justify the means.After all you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
65 posted on 06/22/2002 3:53:37 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
This is total BS. I can't believe it. Remember one of the first things Hitler did was ban firearms, and he killed the local police who refused to surrender their weapons. Besides, you're a member since Feb 15 2002, why is it taking JR so long to toss you overboard?
66 posted on 06/22/2002 3:54:02 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
Many things to argue, but eugenics was strongly advocated by the likes of Margaret Sanger who is the patron saint of birth control in this country. I do believe that birth control is one of the cornerstones of leftist thinking. Plus the Nazis had no problem with abortion of "non-Aryan" children.

Actually Nazism or more correctly Hitlerism (as he set the rules) was a mix of socialism, racism, and nationalism.

67 posted on 06/22/2002 3:54:02 PM PDT by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
The Dutch IS is linked to the IndyMedia site in the Netherlands. The stuff they post there is much worse that that of the DU. There it was even claimed that killing political opponents (people in their eyes a danger for society) could be assassinated legaly by the Dutch security agency!
68 posted on 06/22/2002 3:56:12 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
See reply #68 too.
69 posted on 06/22/2002 3:56:56 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
Hey come on ,I am having to much fun for that.bttt
70 posted on 06/22/2002 4:01:51 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
Ha!the tolerant left reveals it self!The left bleats about freedom of speech but what is their alternative to a competative marketplace of ideas?A government monopoly!Now their we would see some kinda diversity!
71 posted on 06/22/2002 4:07:40 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: freeforall; All
SOCIALISM: THE ULTIMATE EVIL

By Balint Vazsonyi

[First published July 15, 1997 in The Washington Times, under the title: "Behind the benign masks of socialism"]

PBS has begun to air a documentary series under the title "Russia's War: Blood Upon the Snow." Surprisingly, judging by an early segment, a belated exposure of Soviet bestiality under Stalin is on the minds of the makers. Belated, because the facts have been available since 1956 at the latest. Surprising, because American television generally conveys the sense - more and more each year - that Communists were martyrs, that the Soviet Union really meant well, and that anyone disagreeing with that view was either senile (President Reagan) or a pathological bigot (Senator Joseph McCarthy).

I must be forgiven for a measure of suspicion. It is not easy to believe that, of all networks, PBS would suddenly have a complete change of heart about Communism. I will therefore speculate about the real purpose of the series, with every intention of happily eating my words in the event of being wrong.

Not one, but two warning signals go off. The first is about World War II which, it appears, is a major focus of the series. There has been an unmistakable tendency in our media (culminating around the 50th anniversary of VE-Day) to chronicle the victory as largely the accomplishment of the Red Army, underplaying - if not ignoring altogether - the role of Britain and the United States. One wonders if our journalists ever visited the American graves, stretching as far as the eye can see, on the Western shores of Europe. One wonders if our journalists have heard of the Battle of Britain that broke the back of Luftwaffe, the German air force. That made all the difference for the Red Army, since the Soviets had no air force of their own.

The second alarm bell has been ringing since about 1994, when the Russians first put out word that they, too, were "victims of Communism." Could the PBS series, made with the wholesale participation and cooperation of the Russian Government, aim to hammer home just such a notion? Incessant references by the narrator to Stalin as "the Georgian" would point in that direction. Hitler, we are reminded, was Austrian. Yet, in 1945 and since, no one has sought to absolve Germany and Germans of their culpability. Not even the Germans themselves.

What harm, I hear you ask, can possibly come from the exposure of horrendous crimes, properly documented at last? The first concern has to do with the confusion already surrounding the word "communism." Technically speaking, Communism is simply the final phase, the ultimate goal of Socialism. In other words, it is a variant of Socialism. So is what we call Nazism. "Nazi" is short for National Socialist, merely another variant of Socialism. Stalin ordered Nazis to be referred to as "Fascists" only to avoid the obvious analogy with Soviet Socialism. Germans never were "fascists" - the Third Reich was ruled by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Socialism, by whatever name and in all its forms, is the ultimate evil. Sooner or later, it destroys everything in its path: law, morality, family, prosperity, productivity, education, incentive - finally life itself. Portraying Stalin as the cause of evil puts the cart before the horse. Socialism creates the conditions for a Stalin; socialism creates the conditions for a Hitler.

Socialism was much the same before and after Stalin, before and after Hitler. In my native Hungary, a mere six months of Leninist rule during 1919 (years before Stalin) destroyed the national fabric to the point where its legacy tears apart the country even today. Socialism remained the same under Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev, or Brezhnev. As for the murder of tens of millions, the torture and the gratuitous cruelty, they may have been ordered or sanctioned by leaders, but they were committed by people against other people. Russians committed them, just like Germans or Japanese. And Russia went on to enslave civilized nations with consequences we cannot as yet assess.

Yes, Stalin and Hitler, the prize disciples of Lenin, were twins. So were Communism and Nazism. In Budapest, when the Gestapo left, the NKVD (then GPU) did not even bother to change the building in which the tortures and murders took place. They kept the building, and the personnel.

Therefore, let us be clear about Stalin's role. He may have been top of the heap, but no "lone ranger." And let us, also, assess accurately the role of Russia's Red Army in the defeat of the Third Reich. Why did they fight? What were they after?

When Hitler came to power, Russia remained firmly at Germany's side. Such a tradition goes back many centuries, especially with reference to Poland - a favorite plaything of Prussian kings and Russian Tsars. Only after Germany's vicious attack on Russian civilians, as well as on the military, did Russian blood boil to the point of an all-out campaign. Subsequently, pursuing the enemy beyond their border provided feed for Russia's centuries-old appetite for expansion.

Thus, the Red Army was motivated by the triple passions of defending the beloved homeland, revenging unspeakable atrocities on its soil, and conquering fresh rich territories for Mother Russia.

By contrast, America's armed forces in Europe defended the cause of liberty for all. They responded to the suffering of others with righteous indignation.

Above all, they gave their lives without any expectation of gain.

73 posted on 06/22/2002 4:12:00 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rudeboy666
The political embodiment of the vision of John Locke was expressed in the creation of the United States.This is the Classical Liberalism of the enlightenment.This historical trend really started with the magna carta and culminated in the US constitution and the Bill of rights.The European right is more influenced by the French revolution which was more collectivist in nature and lead to the dictatorship of Napolean and caused untold misery for the rest of Europe.Where on political map would we put Napolean?
74 posted on 06/22/2002 4:20:09 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: rudeboy666
The 'European right' is what you in the US would call 'a little more to the right than socialism'.

On a Dutch forum a guy told me this:

He saw himself as a right/conservative. At a party he was refered to as 'ultra' right by some PvdA voters (PvdA is the socialist party in the Netherlands). But when he saw my posts, he felt himself a liberal/socialist.

75 posted on 06/22/2002 4:25:23 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: rudeboy666
Yes they would be called Scots.The English of course did not monopolize the concept of freedom.Yes, it is the fault of the French their ideas spread on the continent bypassing the Lockean influence.Eventually it was the Germans that turned the enlightenment on it's head.First came Kant (he had some good things to say about freedom)but his b*stard philosophical son was Hegel who beget Marx who (eventually)beget Rawls.
77 posted on 06/22/2002 4:46:03 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
The Dutch IS is linked to the IndyMedia site in the Netherlands. The stuff they post there is much worse that that of the DU. There it was even claimed that killing political opponents (people in their eyes a danger for society) could be assassinated legaly by the Dutch security agency!

You would be wrong to generalize about European Socialists based on one party that has never governed a country. Every mainstream European Socialist party has respected the democratic process.

78 posted on 06/22/2002 6:37:55 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight; lmandrake
Besides, you're a member since Feb 15 2002, why is it taking JR so long to toss you overboard?

On what grounds?

79 posted on 06/22/2002 6:40:57 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Every mainstream European Socialist party has respected the democratic process

The evening before the election in the Netherlands, Wim Kok, prime-minister and PvdA (soclialists) leader, used the national tv to warn people of voting for Pim Fortuyn (LPF), Foruyn was a dangerous man. No evidence needed, he was dangerous. This was the second time he misused his position, earlier he used a cabinet meeting to send the same message. This was clearly a display of total disrespect for democracy.

Thom de Graaf (leader of the D'66, left-liberals) said that if Fortuyn would be in power, the Jews would have to hide again, like in WWII. This is a total lie, for Fortuyn is one of the biggest supporters of Israel and the Jews! Again, no evidence needed. Is demonizing and accusing people falsely to stop people from voting like 'respecting the democratic process'?

Paul Rosenmoller (leader of the Greenleft) wanted to stage an 'anti-racism' rally, using multiple organizations to stop people from voting Fortuyn.

Ad Melkert (the new and already stepped down PvdA leader, Wim Koks follow up) said Fortuyn was the strong man', comparing Fortuyn to Hitler! Is that how the socialists respect the democratic proces?

By demonizing people with false accusations, using the media in an all out effort to stop people from voting a man with an opposing view?

Pim Fortuyn was shot dead by an enviromentalist wacko, known in Greenleft circles. And even after Fortuyns murder the left continued the smear campaign, Paul Rosenmuller kept on refering to Fortuyn as 'extreme right'.

The socialists do not respect opposing views, those who speak out will be dealt with. Lies and false accuastions are amongst the arsenal of the socialists to destroy opposition.

80 posted on 06/22/2002 7:10:07 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Stupidy!
81 posted on 06/22/2002 7:19:25 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: lmandrake
I saw this same list posted at Democratic Underground. You're a disrupter. The Nazis were lefties and by association you're one of 'em. Their (Nazi) legacy is what your politics will ultimately leave us with. Deal with it- you are evil.
82 posted on 06/22/2002 7:31:42 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Punks were pretty conservative. You could put the Dead Milkmen's "The Thing That Only Ate Hippies" on the playlist.
83 posted on 06/22/2002 7:33:56 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
I never posted to you. If you have more than one logon name, both should be deleted. I don't advocate censorship, but I don't like stupid people. You have been DEFINED!
84 posted on 06/22/2002 7:51:16 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
Conservatives have often been called Nazis by the left.

Personally I love it when they do that, talk about shooting fish in a barrel. Hitler and Stalin had a real mutual admiration society going right up to the day Hitler invaded the USSR. Nazisism and communism are but two sides of the same coin.

85 posted on 06/22/2002 7:54:53 PM PDT by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
I never posted to you. If you have more than one logon name, both should be deleted. I don't advocate censorship, but I don't like stupid people. You have been DEFINED!
86 posted on 06/22/2002 7:59:18 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
I know people who think Nixon was a socialist. Guess it all comes down on how one wants to confuse things.
87 posted on 06/22/2002 8:04:36 PM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
I never posted to you. If you have more than one logon name, both should be deleted. I don't advocate censorship, but I don't like stupid people. You have been DEFINED! Screwed up and posted this to myself twice! Sorry all!
88 posted on 06/22/2002 8:26:56 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Someone should post this to DU and see what kinda reaction you get.

I just went DUmpster diving, and one of them has posted it. In fact, they've got a whole thread devoted to this thread. (I've noticed they like to start threads about us...what would they do if we weren't here to start their conversations for them?).

They are, of course, shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone could possibly group that mean-old war-mongering socialist with the funny mustache along with such socialist philanthropists as Stalin, Mao, and Castro. They've taken a break from heaping praise on Cuba's socialist dictator in their numerous "stop the embargo" threads, to heap indignant scorn upon the article that is the subject of this thread. They have declared it to be the work of far-right extremists -- apparantly having overlooked the fact that it was written by an objectivist libertarian type.

89 posted on 06/22/2002 8:32:21 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rudeboy666
The reason that I say this is that I recently read a biographical essay on Martin Heidegger[who supported the Nazis] And the social and political enviroment that he grew up with was traditionalist, anti-semitic, and reactionary.

Martin Heidegger, one of the founders of Existentialism and mentor to Jean-Paul Satre, was enormously influential in developing the intellectual underpinnings of the Left's assault on reason and Western values, so your example supports the underlying unity of Nazism and Marxism. (Some weasel words attempting to explain away Heidegger's passionate support for National Socialism.)

Before Heidegger became the Nazi rector of the University of Freidburg in 1933, he served as teacher and sage to four gifted students of assimilated German Jewish backgrounds. Hannah Arendt, who at 18 began a three-year love affair with Heidegger, achieved fame as a political thinker. Herbeert Marcuse, denounced by the Pope in the late 1960s, became a philosophical guru for the New Left. Hans Jonas matured into a pioneering theorist of environmentalism, serving as a touchstone for the German Green Party. And Karl Lowith became a distinguished scholar of modern historical consciousness.

- "Heidegger's Children": Sins of the Father; reviewed by James Ryerson, New York Times on the Web Book Review; December 21, 2001


90 posted on 06/22/2002 8:47:01 PM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
I never posted to you. If you have more than one logon name, both should be deleted. I don't advocate censorship, but I don't like stupid people. You have been DEFINED!

You sent me the same post message as a private message. Strange though...your public post does not include the profanity found in the private message.

Now, why would that be the case?

91 posted on 06/22/2002 8:54:01 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ReaganIsRight
Stupidy!

Perhaps you should learn to spell...

92 posted on 06/22/2002 8:55:29 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
The evening before the election in the Netherlands, Wim Kok, prime-minister and PvdA (soclialists) leader, used the national tv to warn people of voting for Pim Fortuyn (LPF), Foruyn was a dangerous man. No evidence needed, he was dangerous. This was the second time he misused his position, earlier he used a cabinet meeting to send the same message. This was clearly a display of total disrespect for democracy.

Free speech

Thom de Graaf (leader of the D'66, left-liberals) said that if Fortuyn would be in power, the Jews would have to hide again, like in WWII. This is a total lie, for Fortuyn is one of the biggest supporters of Israel and the Jews! Again, no evidence needed. Is demonizing and accusing people falsely to stop people from voting like 'respecting the democratic process'?

Free speech

Paul Rosenmoller (leader of the Greenleft) wanted to stage an 'anti-racism' rally, using multiple organizations to stop people from voting Fortuyn.

Free speech

Ad Melkert (the new and already stepped down PvdA leader, Wim Koks follow up) said Fortuyn was the strong man', comparing Fortuyn to Hitler! Is that how the socialists respect the democratic proces?

Free speech

By demonizing people with false accusations, using the media in an all out effort to stop people from voting a man with an opposing view?

Free speech

Pim Fortuyn was shot dead by an enviromentalist wacko, known in Greenleft circles. And even after Fortuyns murder the left continued the smear campaign, Paul Rosenmuller kept on refering to Fortuyn as 'extreme right'.

Right to assemble

The socialists do not respect opposing views, those who speak out will be dealt with. Lies and false accuastions are amongst the arsenal of the socialists to destroy opposition.

Free speech

93 posted on 06/22/2002 8:59:38 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
Perhaps you can enlighten us with an example of a European Socialist party that seized power illegally or refused to surrender power after losing an election. That is the true test of whether or not a party is acting within the political process. Most parties use inflammatory language and demonize their opponents. That is politics.
94 posted on 06/22/2002 9:02:56 PM PDT by ProudAmerican2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
I don't recall ever using profanity. I've also had problems with posts that were supposed to be to you actually being from me to me. Something's not adding up here. I have Zone Alarm on the Zip Drive and it looks like I'm late getting it installed. I don't use profanity on line, I have a Secret clearance to protect.
95 posted on 06/22/2002 9:10:10 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
The Nazis were not socialists despite their name. I have rebutted this nonsense so many times on FR I am sick of it. Only someone without any knowledge of political philosophy could make such a claim. The Nazis lay on the far right of the traditional political spectrum, not merely trusting in the traditional institutions of the dominant culture but raising them to the level of worship, a la Edmund Burke. Despite their National Socialist rubric, they failed to nationalize a single major industry, but rather nationalized the labor force itself, which socialists would hardly do. On the contrary, socialism lay at the far left of the traditional spectrum, where the traditional institutions of the dominant culture are intentionally weakened in an effort to strike against institutionalized racism and sexism and the major industries are nationalized while the workers are free to unionize and direct the operation of the nationalized industries. This is what we find happening in the United States slowly, but with a powerful counter movement toward fascism. Both directions mean the loss of freedom. That is why I am a libertarian.
96 posted on 06/22/2002 9:11:18 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
A lefties shooting a man with opposing views, after all the politicians brainwashed people Fortuyn was evil, is that free speech too?

Also very interesting is that the PvdA refuses to leave the offices they are required to leave. The LPF is entitled to that office space. But those democratic socialists won't leave, trying to fence off the LPF from being an effective party. Did I mention they still are using the national tv to cause as much damage to the LPF as they possibly can?

PS Knowingly spreading lies is slander, not free speech.

97 posted on 06/22/2002 9:15:56 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Sorry, I missed a couple of letters. We type too fast online to be perfect. The message is still the same.
98 posted on 06/22/2002 9:25:03 PM PDT by ReaganIsRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Coca Cola appeals to the desire to transform society into a timeless stasis where there is "Always Coca-Cola", while Pepsi is the choice of the new generation who align themselves with the joy of cola in and of itself.
99 posted on 06/22/2002 10:39:59 PM PDT by jodorowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: jodorowsky
And?
100 posted on 06/22/2002 10:43:53 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-244 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson