The sperg writes:
They [Hitler and Mussolini] also opposed Bolshevism. Bolshevism was internationalist and anti-white, NS is nationalist and pro-white. They sought to create a meritocracy and restrict hereditary nobility, while Marxism is a catalyst for the fulfilment of the Torah’s self-fulfilling prophecies for complete jewish world domination.
They only opposed it as a rival, just as communists fought other communists as rivals (Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks, Stalin vs Trotsky, Sino-Soviet split, etc.), but they shared the same economic views of abolishing most private property and business. Fascists too engaged in violent feuds and rivalry with each other. Hitler purged other National Socialists in the Night of the Long Knives and he had another fascist leader, Engelbert Dollfuss of Austria, assassinated because Dollfuss wanted to sustain Austria’s independence. Mussolini almost went to war with Germany over that very issue.
This is what Mussolini said of his own politics when he was younger:
It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet.
And this is what Mussolini proposed in 1944:
On February 12, 1944, Mussolini’s cabinet approved a bill of “socialization” that spoke about the “Mussolinian conception on subjects such as; much higher social justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life.” Mussolini claimed that Italian capitalists had betrayed him after they had gained immensely from fascism, and that he now regretted his alliance with them and rediscovered his old socialist influences. He claimed that he had intended to carry out a large-scale nationalization of property in 1939–1940 but that the outbreak of war had forced him to postpone it, and promised that in the future, all industrial firms with over 100 employees would be nationalized. Mussolini even reached out to ex-communist Nicola Bombacci, a former student of Vladimir Lenin, to help him in spreading the image that Fascism was a progressive movement.
A leopard can’t change its spots.
Remember this was already after he had socialized 75% of the whole economy into state hands. He was aiming to finish the job, but as you see there, he didn’t have time to do it because of the war. I believe that’s also the case with Hitler.
If Mussolini truly hated Bolshevism, then why was he one of the first Western states to recognize the USSR and why did he collaborate closely with it via his Italo-Soviet pact? That’s not the behaviour of someone who despises Bolshevism, it’s the behaviour of someone who is a fellow traveler with it.
Goebbels made it pretty clear that when he attacked Marxism, he was not repudiating its socialism, but other vague philosophical concepts unrelated to its economic program of socializing and collectivizing. These are all statements from Goebbels:
“We want the Germany of labor. What does that mean? We want a Germany in which labor and accomplishment are the highest moral and political values. We are today a workers’ party in the best sense of the word. Once we have taken over the state, Germany will become a state of labor, a workers’ state.” – source
“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler…the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight…” – source
“It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.” – source
Goebbels did a lot of rhetorical trickery and purity spiraling against Marxist socialists, which amounted to nothing more than “we’re the REAL socialists and you’re not!”
The national vs. international distinction is vague because every communist state is “national” in the sense that it has defined borders. Mussolini and Hitler also intervened in foreign conflicts, funded foreign groups, invaded foreign countries, etc., all actions that are international in nature.
Mussolini’s Fascism = Civic Nationalist Communism
Hitler’s NS = Racial Germanic Communism
Lenin’s/Stalin’s USSR = Anti-Racist Communism
They’re all variants or breeds of Communism where the State collectivizes the economy.
The only difference is the views on race which is completely separate from economic questions, but even Mussolini said: “Race? It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today”. He later changed that position for tactical reasons to solidify an alliance with Hitler, but it was never an important part of fascist doctrine.
The sperg writes:
No evidence proves Hitler wanted to confiscate all private property. The economic model was mixed. His ideas of what could happen to the USSR AFTER jews and Stalin are removed does not suggest he wanted to copy the Soviet Union that he hated with a passion.
There is actually… a number of quotes in this article show him leaning strongly in that direction. Here’s a few:
The National Socialists of Germany were anti-capitalists par excellence. They actually spelled it out in the 13th plank of their 25-Point program of 1920, demanding “nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).”
Adolf Hitler was adamant about eventually expropriating all privately-owned companies in one fell swoop. During one of Hitler’s tirades against capitalists and their unearned income, he declared to Albert Speer, his WWII Minister of Armaments and War Production, “One of these days I’ll sweep away this outrage and nationalize all corporations.”
Near the end of World War II, even Albert Speer worried about a complete government takeover of the private sector in Germany, warning that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground, furthered by many of the [Nazi] party functionaries.” He was fearful that Germany’s industry and “war production could easily become the framework for a state-socialist economic order.” This was a legitimate concern that dogged German industrialists since many Nazi party radicals favored “nationalization of industry,” or what was also regarded as “state socialism.”
Early on, Hitler had declared war on capitalism, proclaiming during an April 12, 1922, speech, “Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed… We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free.” In the same year, Hitler berated Jews as “capitalistic people, which was brought into existence by the unscrupulous exploitation of men.”
Hitler repeatedly pledged loyalty to socialism as his guiding light, advocating a collectivistic foundation in his worship of “The common good before the individual good.” In fact, in one speech in 1941, he brazenly proclaimed, “I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.”
In a 1943 speech, Hitler declared that the intention of National Socialism all along was the elimination of economic classes, precisely the same objective of Marx:
“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – Adolf Hitler’s Speech for the Heroes’ Memorial Day (1943)
Eliminating economic classes requires the elimination of private property or at the very least the severe limitation of its private ownership and use, which amounts to the same thing.
The sperg writes:
does not suggest he wanted to copy the Soviet Union that he hated with a passion
These two articles refute that and prove Hitler admired Stalin and his planned economy.
“How Adolf Hitler Began to Admire Josef Stalin”
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-adolf-hitler-began-admire-josef-stalin-201010
“How Hitler Became a Believer in the State-Planned Economy”
https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/
Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was about his desire to obtain its natural resources (oil) and living space for German racial expansion. He concocted all kinds of disingenuous reasons for his hatred of the Soviet Union. Sometimes he leaned on ideological rhetoric like “they’re not racist enough” or “they’re not anti-Jewish” enough, reasons he used to justify bellicosity towards all of his other rivals too (France, UK, USA, etc.). But by that logic then the philosemtic, non-racial Mussolini should have been in his crosshairs also. Evidently he applied this reasoning selectively when it suited him. It had little to do with economic differences with Stalin. Remember he ceased all criticism of the Soviets during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Interesting tidbit here from an article titled “When Stalin was Hitler’s ally“:
Between 1939 and 1941, as the Soviet Union presented Nazi Germany in its own internal propaganda as a friendly state, Soviet society ceased to criticize German policies and began to publish Nazi speeches. People in public meetings occasionally misspoke, praising “Comrade Hitler” or calling for “the triumph of international fascism.” Swastikas began to appear on buildings or even on posters of Soviet leaders. A similar level of ideological confusion is evident in Russia today.
So you can see that a lot of what Hitler said publicly was tactical and he was willing to drastically change the discourse from hostile to friendly to fit his geopolitical wants and needs.
The sperg then quotes another lying sperg:
What makes this funnier is that both versions of [Martinez’s] book are going to be sold, as he sells two different stories to split audiences to rake in the profits.
The second edition of my book was the exact same as the first with two added chapters, one the Kalergi plan and another on an unrelated Middle East topic. The Hitler/Zionist connection chapter remained the exact same in the second edition, I didn’t change it one bit, anyone who has the book knows that. The second edition was published in 2016 long before I took up the overt Hitlerite stuff on Omegle (in late 2020). So if the allegation is that I changed the chapter to appeal to Hitlerities then it falls flat because I wasn’t even one at the time (2016) AND the chapter wasn’t even changed in that second print. As you can see here the page count jumped from 177 (first edition) to 246 (second edition) because of the added chapters:
The clown who wrote that is a lying nutjob making up bullshit. AND my book was banned from Amazon and all other sites over a year ago, so I’m making $0 from it currently. Any other versions on bootleg sites are not being sold by me.
“Azov Ukraine” (the freak you’re quoting) is a mentally ill schizo fedposter who was profusely singing my praises for the past year and a half until I started exploring Hitler’s Communism, then the clown flip flopped himself because he’s a stupid child. So it’s kind of ironic for an “ex-fan” like this to sperg about me flipping on Hitler when he did the most extreme flip imaginable on me because his gay child like feelings were hurt when I acknowledged that Hitler’s anti-Communism was fake. All the retard can do now is complain about flip flopping without addressing the actual points I make because he and others like him are 2-IQ terminally online children who live on 4chan.
The sperg quotes the other sperg:
Brandon wants you to sit back and relax as he buys up time to rewrite his books where he calls Hitler a zionist agent, claims the SS worked with jewish militias
The book was written in 2014 and all those facts about Hitler working with Zionists and Jewish militias in Palestine are irrefutable. In fact the source I used for most of those points was pro-Hitlerite Mark Weber from his article titled “Zionism and the Third Reich“. There’s a whole book exploring the topic called Transfer Agreement. 2-IQ morons like this guy will engage in extreme denialism to hide anything inconvenient about their God Hitler.
The sperg quotes the other sperg:
What makes this funnier is that both versions of this book are going to be sold, as he sells two different stories to split audiences to rake in the profits.
This is retarded and makes no sense, and is based on the lie that the second edition has a different chapter on Hitler when it doesn’t, as anyone who has the book knows, you moron. Not only that but as I just mentioned the book is banned from Amazon so none of it would matter anyway in terms of profits that aren’t even being made.
The sperg quotes the other sperg:
He is a salesman, who’s views change depending on what he sees as currently popular
That also makes absolutely no sense because my stance on Hitler, like my stance on Putin, is clearly NOT popular among this crowd of Hitlerites, so if I were truly motivated by profit wouldn’t I just spout the usual Hitlerisms that these people want to hear and get their money for doing so? That’s the opposite of what I’m doing, so obviously I am motivated by genuine belief and not “profit” on a book written in 2014 that isn’t even being sold anymore. On top of that, if I just wanted to jump on popular positions for clout reasons, wouldn’t I also take up the pro-Putin position since that is so popular among this retarded “Dissident Right” crowd at the moment? Wouldn’t I embrace economic socialism and anti-capitalism since that’s also popular among this crowd? But I haven’t done that, quite the opposite. Evidently I’m willing to take up unpopular positions even if that costs me illusory internet clout. These bad faith attacks from butthurt spergs don’t hold up to even slight scrutiny. Easily refuted lies.
The sperg says:
By the way, your position on Hitler is close to that of Bjerknes the jew
Bjerknes is a 1/4 jew at best and he’s literally one the most hardcore critics of Judaism in the world. And so what… he’s right about Hitler’s Bolshevism. I don’t agree with his entire thesis that Hitler was some kind of planned puppet of Jews though. That’s too conspiratorial in my view and isn’t backed by enough evidence. But the Communism info checks out. I bet I can find a ton of full blown Zionist Jews who agree with your thesis that Hitler wasn’t a Bolshevik and hated Communism, which is basically the mainstream position among all Marxists. So if Marxists and jews agree with you, it’s good, but if some 1/4 jew 3/4 non-jew who hates Judaism agrees with me then that makes me bad by association? This is getting dumber by the minute.
The sperg says:
This isn’t the first time you flip-flopped on the subject of Hitler
Yeah and the reason for that is very simple: Hitler was a typical crafty politician saying different things to different crowds, so you can find something on both sides and make a case for it. On economics he faked a middle ground “third position,” but upon closer inspection, he is far closer to Communism than its opposite. It’s the same with him on religion: you can find evidence of Hitler praising Christianity and criticizing it. You can find him praising Paganism and criticizing it too:
On Communism he did the same: he attacked it rhetorically but privately he was enamored with it and most of his actual economic policies were in line with it. (See this video below)
The fact is Hitler’s ideology truly was this schizoid horseshoe theory fusion of far left and far right ideas, so you will find contradictory things in it. What happens here is that when you dig beneath the superficial stuff on the surface, you will find the real truth of what he believed as opposed to the often tactical rhetorical fluff he put out in public.
And so with Hitler, I admittedly was fooled by his anti-communist rhetoric, but over the past few months I began reading the sources people have sent me on his communist economic policies and ideas, which I ignored before. I had a second look at it and put aside the biases I had before to evaluate again what this thing is. I could have just been a stubborn ideologue and kept repeating the mantra that Hitler hated Communism in the face of all evidence to the contrary. But I’m more intellectually honest than that. So yes, when you encounter new information you come to new conclusions, and that’s what happened here.
I also explain here in this article below that the Ukraine war and the overwhelming e-Hitlerite support of it provoked a change in my thinking on this topic:
My differences with Hitlerism are twofold:
1) He was a Germanic Nordicist imperialist who had disdain for other Europeans (Slavs and Meds) and sought to colonize Slavic lands for Lebensraum and thus provoked enormous bloodshed among Europeans. I’m pro-White so I don’t want Whites to murder and colonize each other because I believe in White well-being. Hitler even had disdain for his own people, saying that they deserved to perish because they lost the war:
On occasion the mask of self-belief would slip, and he would confess that all was lost; at the end, he announced to his intimates, he would put a bullet through his brain. ‘We’ll not capitulate. Never. We can go down. But we’ll take a world with us.’ THE GERMAN PEOPLE, HITLER CONCLUDED, DID NOT DESERVE TO SURVIVE. THEY HAD FAILED THE TEST OF HISTORY. On 19 March 1945 he issued the infamous ‘Nero order’, telling his commanders to destroy everything that might fall into the hands of the advancing enemy But Hitler’s self-destructiveness and contempt for the German people in some ways only deepen the mystery of why they fought on. Part of the answer clearly lies in the psychological power he still wielded.
~ The Third Reich in History and Memory, Richard J Evans
That was his intense social Darwinian thinking coming into play.
2) He was a committed economic socialist who wanted to eliminate economic classes and thus private property.
These are pro-White or right-wing critiques which in no way resemble a typical left-wing critique of Hitlerism. If you can’t understand that then you’re not intelligent enough to even engage in these conversations.
But anyway who gives a fuck this is such a stupid niche issue that has no effect on any of my other main positions (pro-White, socially conservative, skeptical of j power, etc.) so only the one-issue, terminally online, esoteric Hitlerist cranks who have made a wacky religion out of this thing make such a big deal about my revised stance on this topic.
Normal people who actually read my words and not some out-of-context, clipped, fabricated bullshit from some demented internet troll understand where I’m coming from here.
Not sure what point is being contested here; BUT, my studies boil down to Mussolini’s form of authoritarian or branch of socialism, or just government reforms as successful working reforms proven over 20 years ( and decades after in Spain) prior to the unfortunate war catalyst spurned by a mental patient north of the alps. Mussolini’s reforms (much like Napoleon’s code civile) were quite spectacular and copied and applauded globally from FDR to Soviet Socialists, and even Gandhi himself among other statesmen. I know the attributes of capitalism but I am also now aware of the danger in uncontrolled or alternately capitalist controlled government. Fire is a great discovery but it needs to be controlled. Opinions are like rectums, I prefer conjecture based on scientific and historical facts. The 2022 book “Reflection” by Guzziferno leans more towards that way.
Regarding the book “The 3 New Deals” by Schivelbusch;
“You might ask, where is Stalin in this analysis? Why isn’t this book called Four New Deals?” Schivelbusch does mention Moscow repeatedly, as did McCormick in her New York Times piece. But Stalin seized power within an already totalitarian system; he was the victor in a coup. Mussolini, and Roosevelt, each in a different way, came to power as strong leaders in a political process. They thus share the “charismatic leadership” that Schivelbusch finds so important” (And possibly a level of required civil intelligence for statesmanship and government organization?) — (Reflection)
So you think capitalism must be controlled to curtail excesses, but do you also think the State must be reined in to curtail the State’s excesses or should it have absolute unlimited power to do whatever it wants?
It wasn’t private businesses who murdered 200 million people in the last 100 years, it was States.
Indeed. Collectiviation created famines. Capitalism created all kinds of other ongoing problems. That these problems existed is evident in the fact that socialism became necessary in the wake of industrialisation where people could no longer simply grow their own in the event some capital project didn’t work out. Indeed yes the state must be reigned in. This was the essential difference between NS and communism. The truth of NS was subsequently born in later years in China and Russia. Your quotes about Hitler wanting to take over all industry and eliminate classes are indeed fascinating but Hitler changed his mind all the time. He was a pragmatist first and foremost. Today’s real nazis easily acknowledge that Hitler admitted that he would have called his party the liberal party at one point. Fundamentally he was nationalist, which is a third position, not a schizo position. The third way is the only proven way for nations to rise from poverty. All the best.
The state was not reigned in under NS, it was a pure Totalitarian State where one man, the Fuhrer, made all executive decisions.
There’s no reason to believe he changed his mind on this since it was stated in 1943, two years before he shot himself.
He was an imperialist/expansionist (Lebensraum), which is the antithesis of nationalism because it requires negating/subjugating other nations.
Thank you, for your response, I do appreciate discussion and believe it necessary. First I believe in Patriarchy. Our fathers provided us much in their Authoritarian position. That said,
Yes, I do believe the state must be reined in, and to an extent be controlled,,, But only by an intelligent people (as Franklin hinted at the steps of the capital?), unfortunately we now suffer from intellectual depravity and our numbers have swelled, as our polarized temperament.
Also, IT WAS private business which incited the murder of WELL over 200 million in the last 300 years and throughout history. In England for example, it was guided by the financial hand of the East India Company, which incited war globally for economic control and in return it offered much less than Bonaparte to European society. Wars are brutally inhumane but it takes 2 to tango and the causes are always obscure by those who approve history books to those who sign treaties like that of Versailles or the Ohio Valley regarding Indian territory. (Part of our Statecraft polity)
If I may quote from my last read; (Reflection by J. Guzziferno)
“Incredibly during the Roman Republic, the senate gave appointed generals dictatorial powers to deal with emergencies realizing the need to overcome disunity, debate, and worse – procrastination. This appointment was only for the duration of the problem or threat. (Unlike today, the men selected were not idiots (primarily) driven by the self-profit by all involved, and when unsustainable senatorial greed finally prevailed after 200 years, Imperialism stepped in permanently)
“Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace”. -Mussolini —- (that is controlled capitalism)
“I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended.”-Mussolini
“Democracy is a regime nominally without a King, but it is ruled by many kings — more absolute, tyrannical and ruinous than one sole king, even though a tyrant”- Mussolini
(oligarchs without a face unlike wall postered authoritarians)
“China’s rapid success can be attributed to the fact that it dropped the old communist philosophy of “all ownership” which hamstrung all Eurasia in the last century. China now practices a system which follows “corporatism” in the way of certain authoritarian governments of the past. They have not only nationalized industries affecting national security, but now allowed increased privatization which allows private ownership and independent professional management to operate progressively while maintaining overall state control and oversight in their direction and balance. Their rapid success is also a product of baiting (low [overhead labor & controlled material] cost / greater profit) and allowing completely developed foreign industries and their technology to simply enter their fold, which they now control (possession being nine tenths of the law). Something our free enterprise principle allowed and something they would never allow.
FDR’s New Deal and especially its NRA are fascism re-labeled, as is every program within it which we (99% of us) still benefit from today, before it is slowly eliminated, which forces of finance have been slowly eroding under our noses in the last 6 decades using legislature they now own.
A lot to think about, Thank you
Even in this case, it was the State that made the war happen. Private companies can’t make war happen on their own, unless they somehow raise a private army to make the war which have hardly seen anywhere. Even when all the companies are nationalized, States then become the economic actors who desire resources, living space, etc. If eliminating capitalism made war go away, then explain why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union were some of the most aggressive States in the world, initiating war and conquest at every turn.
Said the guy who invaded 10 countries. Mussolini was extremely pro-war. He supported World War I and gleefully entered World War II. War is a key part of fascist doctrine.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/10-countries-invaded-fascist-italy-invaded-one.html?chrome=1
The difference of modern capitalism in America and that in fascist Italy was “that the fascist government controlled capitalism” and not the other way around. The fact that so much confusion continues to exist in understanding political ideologies is remarkable. All the western anti-fascist, and all the great anti-fascist Marxist (as opposed to the pro-fascist Marxist) would redefine fascisms characterization continuously during its years as a government and after. I know you don’t like hearing that our nation adopted fascism in the 1930’s, But all I can do is keep reminding you.
You say — Even in this case, it was the State that made the war happen. Private companies can’t make war happen on their own, unless they somehow raise etc. etc……. Really??? Today’s wars are not between eastern communist versus western democracies,,,, you see neither exist. Today’s wars are between wealthy, greedy oligarchs (Capitalists) who control congress. They don’t have to raise private armies, they already dictate orders to your existing national ones.
As for war and barbarism, a term coined in ancient Italy, allow me to provide you with the following; (This is only a micro sample to wet your memory)
Theodore Roosevelt was a great man who at times realized injustice and fought against it as he did with JP Morgan and other conglomerates of finance when he battled their monopolization of business, finance and power. Unfortunately like Mussolini and many of the men of his time, he believed in war as a symbol and expression of true manhood. His lust for war was considered by some of his political contemporaries verging on the border of insanity. He is also to blame for advocating an unjust war against Spain, or the “Spanish American War”. Immigration also spurned his beliefs in Eugenics.
On Woodrow Wilson;
It is difficult to weigh all the individual nation’s reasons for participating in the First World War, but ours was perhaps the most despicable. After promising the people that America would remain neutral if elected, Wilson would declare war to assure allied victory for his BANKERS INDUSTRIES who invested or lent the English and French over 2 billion dollars, which would be lost if Germany won the war especially after the collapse of Russia and the eastern front. He appointed George Creel to head an agency which created the first propaganda machine in America to sell the war to the American people (taking a lesson on the growing power of “manipulation through press” from William Randolph Hearst). When potential volunteers were not sold on the reason for his change of mind, he drafted them and imposed his new Espionage Act of 1917 on any protesters with a 20 year imprisonment which commenced conveniently with labor movement leaders who were already under his violent attacks, these attacks or actions violating the “Posse Comitatus Act” in using troops against striking workers or citizens also during his time in office.
It is now a known fact that munitions were secretly loaded on a civilian transport cruise liner which was then directed into a war zone despite being warned by the German government to avoid those waters on the grounds that they would be entering a war zone at great risk. One of these ships being the Lusitania whose sinking cost many civilian lives and whose lives were used unknown to them and their families, not only for ferrying munitions, but as the sacrifice and excuse for entering the war.
“It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope of embroiling the United States with Germany,” –Winston Churchill.
Wilson’s General (Pershing) was also one of the dozen generals also present in the Philippines during the previous Spanish American War where an estimated 1.4 million people were killed in an American driven genocide after taking over the colony from Spain. Under orders of one “General Jacob Smith” after the Philippine rebellion, all men as young as 10 years of age were ordered to be killed.
Unlike in Italy during the fascist era and uncharacteristic of what we were taught, the practiced incarceration of a targeted race, in this case “Japanese Americans” in several quickly constructed prison camps for simply being of Japanese descent within the United States was nothing less than “ethnic concentration camps on U.S. soil”, (at least ten camps spanning several states). Despite being without question the greatest president of the 20th century, FDR was also able to make the most basic of human mistakes, “allowing the inhuman act of persecuting innocent people out of fear”, “We have nothing to fear… but fear itself”. Apart from the incarceration of over a hundred thousand people, there is the [then estimated] value of hundreds of millions of dollars in confiscated and unreturned property and assets which they lost, some estimates close to a billion $. Stores, businesses, farms were singled out and shut down, merchandise, real estate, private homes, personal household goods were confiscated, stolen and sold while the fever pitch of hate escalated with the help of Randolph Hearst’s Press which continued to run high during and after the war. These folks returned to their homes to find nothing but contempt. And it seems that in their cultural Asian tradition or heritage of pride, humbleness, honor and shame, they had never petitioned or protested publicly in humiliation the demand to rectify the injustices committed on them as so many other ethnic, or other groups have done. This seemingly went uncontested by any officials of either party.
Then there is the question of our alliance with Stalin, who collaborated the simultaneous invasion of Poland with Hitler [Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]. The straw which broke the camel’s back was the invasion of Poland which prompt-ed the Allies declaration of the Second World War, but the allies only declared war on one invader. No one seems to really discuss or even think about the fact that when the German Wehrmacht crossed the Polish western border, Russia in collaboration did the same, (seventeen days earlier) crossing the eastern border of Poland. Despite Russia’s identical violation of this sovereign republic, nothing was said by the allies and no war was declared on Russia. In essence, the invasion of western Poland was used to declare war on its German invader, but its eastern half was quietly sacrificed to Stalin, our new ally. Eastern and Western Europe would continue to remain under occupation for decades to follow, under these respective emerging super victors.
Not to ignore the many other atrocities committed on human beings to include British Gulags in Kenya, 700,000 dead Iraqis for weapons of mass hallucination, (Oil companies had no influence whatsoever, just the evil State),,, Men in white hoods, american indian genocide and land take over, I can go on but I won’t)
Let me just say that some eastern societies are driven by socialist ideals, some middle eastern by religious ideologies,, and then there is US — profit ideologists who would sell their grandmothers for a dollar. Which is the superior society? Mussolini was a saint compared to the murderer’s spawned on our blessed soil, The only thing that has saved us despite our actions has been unlimited finance through unlimited resources, (that’s it) but that is now also changing.
That’s a mighty assumption buddy. Which companies control congress? Major companies are not a united front, they’re competitors with each other, so that’s a blanket statement. And if that were true, then why is Congress hauling people like Zuckerberg, Bezos and the oil executives in front on congress to threaten them with regulations and higher taxes? The FBI went to Zuck to demand he censor certain posts. That’s the State controlling business not the reverse.
“Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook restricting a story about Joe Biden’s son during the 2020 election was based on FBI misinformation warnings.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532
Here’s a story of how France embedded regulators at Facebook to force them to censor stuff:
“Facebook will allow French regulators to “embed” inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-facebook-macron/france-to-embed-regulators-at-facebook-to-combat-hate-speech-idUSKCN1NH1UK
Here’s another example that disproves you:
“In 2020, the Justice Department filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing search and search advertising, which are different markets from the digital advertising technology markets at issue in the lawsuit filed today. The Google search litigation is scheduled for trial in September 2023.”
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20Justice%20Department,for%20trial%20in%20September%202023.
The EU also fined google for breach of anti-trust:
“The European Commission has fined Google €2.42 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service.”
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/es/MEMO_17_1785
Here’s another:
“The US Department of Justice filed a civil suit against Activision Blizzard today, accusing the publisher of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act with Overwatch League and Call of Duty League rules that kept player salaries down.” https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activision-blizzard-sued-by-us-government-over-esports-salaries
Biden is proposing tax bumps on the rich:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/09/president-bidens-proposed-2024-budget-calls-for-top-39point6percent-tax-rate.html
So if the US government (& EU) is regulating and suing big companies, then the big companies obviously don’t control them. If they did, then they’d just squash all taxes tomorrow and pay nothing. If the US gov was controlled by one big company, then they’d use the gov to squash their competitors, but we haven’t quite seen that yet.
If the big companies already controlled congress, they wouldn’t need to spend millions on lobbying would they? Why would they lobby something they already control?
Your smarter than that, but for the sake of your readers I will do the basic math for you;
I debunked my own thesis? The greatest wars in history are within nations and within people themselves. not outside, its not all good or simply evil,, its not all Republican or Democrat, them versus US that are the nasty cause of all our problems, they both (sides) exist and continue the conflict. Greed which now reins at its highest in its historical sums, by the power of money influence and manipulation, is something mankind may not survive (if not through war, wealth divides, then with the direction of our ecology). Iraq had everything to do with money, States were influenced by big oil (our state primarily), and their combined incomes of industrial profit and state taxes made off them, in a land where States don’t control business, business controls State. You say if big business controlled congress then they would not have to lobby them,, hey, your destroying your own thesis! Why then would they lobby them with hundreds of millions (sum totals) to date if that is such a fruitless effort? Italian capitalist presidents were smarter in 1920, they had seats directly in Gialitti’ Parliament and voted laws in place directly without the shameful public lobbies which go on daily within the halls of Congress here (another measure of public ignorance and passivity). Mussolini threw them out after he took power and sent them back to manage Industry where they belonged. When I was a representative in my Federal Agency I witnessed 1st hand corporate influence in our regulatory system which further endangered our citizens. Unlike the daily lobby pool in congress, I was constantly monitored in several ways for any violation of “conflict of interest” with a penalty of position loss and or fine and incarceration.
You say — ”I don’t disagree that we should prevent businesses from influencing the State (they must compete fairly in the market), but I totally disagree that States are benevolent actors who wouldn’t do anything wrong if not for businesses making them do it.” —They are not benevolent actors! Especially in our present system of government where not just business but money makes them do so. Our 2 party system (which is only one party more than nasty dictatorship) competes to be the oligarchies better tool of choice to keep their office and income,, both working for the same masters.
I’m glad you agree that big corporates should not monopolize markets, but they do and more and more classes of people like ourselves are prevented from being a part of this market as time passes. As for the other market (the stock market) it has been slowly undermined to the point of the peoples investment (25%?) becoming a house of cards.
Yes, Dictators of the past had a lust for glory and immortality,, some simply self enrichment,, But I believe that Mussolini, Bonaparte, and many emporers of the earlier period along with many famous American presidents which deplored financial power in few hands did prove their efforts for justice and balance for the benefit of all to a greater degree than todays present recipe of uncontrolled forces. The books I read, many old publications are not waved around in your daily internet garbage (which is what a lot of it is), and people today do not go beyond it for further research.
As for Facebook, They’re small potatoes, the power to manipulate internet dangerously and sloppy on an ignorant society is why it was attacked as should most US media conglomerates (I believe fox is suffering the same fly’s bite on an elephants ass right now) and yes it is also law suits than rain in MORE money for THIS state, not us. Socialist style people activism is growing which is why the companies you identified are being targeted and as you stated AND more in the EU. French media displays false internet stories gone viral on a daily basis claiming the internet is now a poison well, or as I would say a growing cesspool.
Forgive me for piece-mealing responses but I want to cover all your information;
Before we got to Ukraine we broke NATO accords and filled in all those post Warsaw Pact nations with tons of American rearmament contracts (another industry?) which most of you have no conception of along with our own bases.
Geopolitical response in order to protect Israel? who protected the Palestinians in the last 70 years? The takeover of that territory was no Louisiana Purchase which started that Hatfield – McCoy feud, What, no money in seeing justice there?? or in Rwanda during that genocide, like 50 other places for or against our involvement? We walk on a dangerously thin line. Authoritarianism can be very dangerous I agree, but we need a benevolent traditional patriarch right now more than ever and only because whats in control now under the false name of self government and democracy just doesn’t work, because it just doesn’t exist.
There is a short time factor before we hit the wall as passengers of a deliberate drunken system of politics on both sides especially since 1980.
That’s a lie. Big oil had precious little to do with the Iraq war. That thesis is thoroughly debunked by James Petras in this book.
“Contending that Zionist power in America ensured unconditional US backing for Israeli colonization of Palestine and its massive uprooting of Palestinians, it views the interests of Israel rather than those of Big Oil as the primary cause of the disastrous US wars against Iraq and threats of war against Iran and Syria.” https://www.amazon.com/POWER-ISRAEL-UNITED-STATES-Petras/dp/0932863515
It was a combination of the Israel lobby, Israel itself and Zionist neoconservatives in the Bush admin who engineered the war for geopolitical reasons, not business interests. You are coping to blame all wars on business when I have already given many examples of States engaging in wars for their own State interests.
That proves my thesis that they don’t directly “control the state” because if they did, there would be no need to lobby. Lobbyists don’t always get what they want. There are lobbies for everything from feminists, LGBT, foreign countries, farmers, NGOs, religions, charities, labour unions and business. They all throw money around in the hopes politicians will listen, but they don’t always get what they hope for hence the need to keep lobbying until they do. I also gave you other examples of States suing private companies, which refutes the thesis that “big business” in general controls the State. What are they suing themselves?
So you’ve admitted again that your thesis is wrong. You claimed all wars are started for business interests then you admit these politicians like Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt were opposed to business interests and still went to war aggressively. There are examples of States being influenced to make war or do coups for business interests, but there are just as many examples of States doing that for State interests. Should we abolish the state then since they are aggressive and make war? Truth is that even when you nationalize all companies, States then become the monopoly economic power who act as one giant corporation and will act according to its own desire for more land, resources and power. Eliminating markets will not end war, that’s a fact.
Dave Petras, thats funny, I’m sure other mentors like Oliver North would also agree. Your mind only works in black or white, which is evidenced literally in other comment topics here. My thesis, My thesis,,,, nothing is absolute and yes dictators have proven selfish problems,,, but most of OUR involvements would never have happened if there was no profit in it from somewhere. Business profit is our ideological drive, our religion and it is ultimately more dangerous. Money interest and lobbies do control the state and that is why they have and have not been involved in invading or policing or humane atrocities EVERYWHERE even as we speak. THE STATE in today’s America is a gluttonous pawn. The reason we have at this time capitalist totalitarianism or any other that may spring from tomorrows revolution is because you can’t tell the difference from one or the other. Listen Kid, someday you will get over motherhood and apple pie, until then I can tell you one thing about yourself and that is you are not one of those who is profiting from this machine (in any way),, and perspective blogs and podiums are not earned through intelligent credentials. Remember this isn’t just the land of opportunity, it’s also the land of privileged idiots.
Read everything that I have given you so far,, over again, you will see that a lot of it is really not disputable, since it is, and comes from factual history, not my personal science fiction… thesis?
So this disproves your own thesis. First you said all wars are caused by private companies forcing States to engage in war, but here you say Roosevelt fought against big business and STILL went to war and had a lust for war. So it wasn’t companies making him go to war, it was his own ambition.
Same with Mussolini. You say Mussolini reigned in all the businesses and wasn’t controlled by them, yet he still initiated various wars and had a lust for it. So you’ve debunked your own thesis that capitalism and greed causes all wars.
The Soviet Union eliminated private enterprise entirely, yet the USSR initiated multiple wars (against Poland, Finland, Afghanistan, etc.).
Hitler too had a lust for war for geopolitical reasons. When the State takes over most private enterprise, it becomes the sole economic actor and must pursue “profit” in a similar way that a private company would, in order to increase its own market share in the world as a State. That’s why Hitler invaded Russia, to gain control of its oil reserves and land (for Lebensraum). He invaded Poland to increase his land-mass.
Many wars today, like the Iraq war and the Ukraine war, had little to do with business and much more to do with geopolitics (protecting Israel in the case of Iraq, & overthrowing a Russia-skeptical gov in Ukraine in Putin’s case). That’s not the fault of business, that’s the fault of States and their ambitions. Certain businesses profit from wars, but that doesn’t mean they caused the wars, they’re just taking advantage of the niche markets created by the States who initiate war. States profit handsomely from wars too (they win more land-mass & can suck up the resources in the newly acquired territory). Even if they later privatize the new conquered resources, the State still benefits from collecting taxes on it.
I don’t disagree that we should prevent businesses from influencing the State (they must compete fairly in the market), but I totally disagree that States are benevolent actors who wouldn’t do anything wrong if not for businesses making them do it. That’s totally disproven by the examples of USSR, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and even Roosevelt’s USA, who you admit were not beholden to any business interests yet were some of the most aggressive war-making States in modern times.
Nice one. Good explanation.
It seems to me that 99% of our problems come these crypto-commies and Hitler worshipers who have totally given up on the white race. They now sperg on-line and wish for some nihilistic future where Putins nukes will punish everyone.
Everyone I talk to is pro-white, anti-immigration ect. It is the nut jobs and Kremlin ball lickers that stop most normal people from moving to the right, along with the lack of a far-right alternative to the main stream parties.