eyesinthedark, when you say a need for "a right and a left wing", you should pay attention to the name National Socialism. (See also: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
As a general commentary on NS, we should be wary of what was specifically Hitler's vision and other groups in the party. For instance, there is a big difference between people like Darré, Himmler, Rosenberg, and Hitler. Hitler's statements show that he was definitely opposed to their pagan-style mysticism, blood and soil, etc. For Hitler, NS was a rational, scientifically-based worldview.
Socio-economically, Hitler hated the "bourgeois" (for weakness) and was generally pro-worker. In social policy, Hitler was basically a leftist (geniune socialist). (See Volksgemeinschaft and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). But he was also an elitist - leftist policies of equal opportunity, social mobility, etc, were supported by him as a precondition for developing a new elite based on merit rather than social class.
Last edited by Advocatus Diaboli on Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Yes he did talk about that. Did he have a master plan to take germany out of the economic recession? No Did he have a plan to create Lebensraum ? No He did talk about them but he lacked a strategy.
You really have the whole thing upside down!
It wasn't merely that "he talked about thems". They were him, so to say. The Weltanschauung was the masterplan
Your other statements blend together here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
At least it seems that Hitler/Schacht was/were not simple opportunists.
Then, in 1937, Hitler replaced Schacht for Goering, because Goering was to begin the rearmament.
Start to connect the dots here: armaments, volksgemeinschaft, lebensraum, autarky....
Oh, a masterplan? DId he also have a fuckin masterplan when his putsch FAILED? Was it part of his "Weltanschauung" because long german words who can easily be translated in english sound so much cooler. Or when he was so naive as to think England would join him into an alliance?
Did Hitler have masterplan to get power? Or was he just put as Chancellor by Papen, who thought he could of been used? There is a such a big myth about the 'great man' in history.
Or could it be a sign of social indoctrination where the mere mention of a name raises certain emotional factors accompanied by the usual educated argumentation?
I would say that most of these "free-thinkers" are suffering from Pavlovian training. They don't know how or why but the mere mention of certain words, particular names, makes them feel a certain ways, thinking certain words.
The phenomenon is fascinating...indoctrination on display.
Or could it be a sign of social indoctrination where the mere mention of a name raises certain emotional factors accompanied by the usual educated argumentation?
I would say that most of these "free-thinkers" are suffering from Pavlovian training. They don't know how or why but the mere mention of certain words, particular names, makes them feel a certain ways, thinking certain words.
The phenomenon is fascinating...indoctrination on display.
Truism, my dear Satyr. Is there someone who lacks emotional response to some names? The 'educated argumentation' that's part of some cliches we all have and use.
But it's not just Pavlovian training it's also operant conditioning.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 36824 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Truism, my dear Satyr. Is there someone who lacks emotional response to some names?
Truism, dearest Jester, emotion is an automatic response which reason must overcome or deal with so as to reach a more lucid understanding. You appear to be stuck on the emotional part...as is the case for all effete minds. if you do not learn to control, to dominate, these feminine aspects in yourself you shall remain, I fear, a girl.
Jester wrote:
The 'educated argumentation' that's part of some cliches we all have and use.
I'm sure your uneducated emotive non-cliches can teach us what wew need to know about remaining beastly and never becoming human. But you should not be upset, dear girl, for you are not only part of a growing majority but you are certain to enjoy the superficial pleasures all animals do.
Jester wrote:
But it's not just Pavlovian training it's also operant conditioning.
Hmmmmmmm....
You should remain proud of your conditioning, girl; the meek shall inherit the earth, or so the dogma tells us.
And have an emotional response makes on unable to analyze things clearly? You make a false dichotomy.
When you think of your kid, you get an emotional response, but that doesn't mean you can't also analyze him as something other than your son and your conditioning from your interactions with him. Like, for example, analyzing him as a human, an organism, etc.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 36824 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
And have an emotional response makes on unable to analyze things clearly? You make a false dichotomy.
When you think of your kid, you get an emotional response, but that doesn't mean you can't also analyze him as something other than your son and your conditioning from your interactions with him. Like, for example, analyzing him as a human, an organism, etc.
"In Red Symphony, "Rakovsky", interrogated by Stalin's agents in 1938, states that the reason for this was that these Jewish bankers, having established Bolshevism, had found it stolen from them by Stalin, a "Bonapartist" akin to Napoleon (p. 36).
The bankers were trying to promote International Communism, Trotsky being their man; Rakovsky himself was in their camp.
But Stalin was promoting National Communism. That system had to be brought down, so that International Communism could be restored. The means of bringing it down, was by assisting the rise of Hitler.
Hitler's Secret Backers says (in the commentary part at the end) that the bankers did not think that Hitler would implement his rhetoric about excluding Jews. They disagreed with the anti-German boycott inaugurated by the New York Zionists, and felt that this induced Hitler to institute harsh measures against Jews.
In Hitler's Secret Backers, the bankers' motives are stated as being, not connected with Trotsky, but anger at France for its insistence on continued German repayments to it in Gold, as per the Treaty of Versailles. These payments were keeping Germany paralysed, and with it the European economy.
But it could be argued - if the booklet be genuine in some way - that this is merely the excuse the bankers told to their courier, "Sidney Warburg".
Hitler's Secret Backers is available at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
In Red Symphony, Rakovsky states that Jewish Bankers gave money to Hitler to help him get into power (p. 36), knowing that he would attack the Soviet Union (as laid out in Mein Kampf). These donations were anonymous; Hitler had no idea that the source was Jewish Finance.
In keeping with the strategy of Revolutionary Defeatism, Stalin would fall, upon losing the war, as the Tsar had fallen after losing World War I, and Trotsky would be restored to power (p. 36).
They changed their minds because Hitler's destruction of the Soviet Union would mean (they decided, after seeing him in power) not the restoration of Trotsky, but the abolition of Communism altogether; whereas their aim was to keep Communism going. Despite this switch, they still hoped to erase the Stalinist "National" variety: "we shall succeed in taking it over and then converting it into real Communism" (p. 37)."
To hate your enemy, whether it be the Jews or the Slavs or the Chinese, is to hate those that identify you. You are, forever, other than.
Satyr wrote:
Also, the code of nobility states that we honor our enemies, even while we oppose them. They make us who we are.... When a native American killed a buffalo he thanked it, he honored it and its sacrifice...he did not do so because he considered himself like it or as it.
''A person benefits from the tongue of his enemies in knowing his weaknesses. This is because an eye which is displeased will only see the bad characteristics [of the person it looks at]. A person taking advantage of a quarrelsome opponent who mentions his weaknesses; [he] is more beneficial than a friend who flatters and hides his weaknesses from him.''
''He may discover his own shortcomings through what his enemies and opponents say about him, because vices and failings emerge with enmity and wrath.''