Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)

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 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-244 next last
To: ProudAmerican2
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

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
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 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-244 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
Topics · Post Article

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