A Little Secret About the Nazis (They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today)

They were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist ``exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.

Richard Poe, editor of Frontpage Magazine, sets the record straight:
Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.
The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets ``internationalists'' and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard ``national'' socialism as the scourge of humanity consider ``international'' socialism a benign or even superior form of government.

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese citizens. The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course. Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills wholesale. And so did ``national socialism'' during the Nazi reign of terror.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches. At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race. Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course. Modern ``liberals,'' who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial quotas, seem to agree. They apparently believe that non-white minorities (excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the free market without favoritism mandated by the government. Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white ``liberals'' condescend benevolently. Hitler's blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.

The media often focuses its microscope on modern neo-nazi lunatics, but the actual scope of the menace is relatively miniscule, with perhaps a few thousand neo-nazis at most in the United States (mostly ``twenty-something'' know-nothings). The number of communists and communist sympathizers in the United States dwarfs that figure, of course -- even among tenured professors! And while the threat of neo-nazi terrorism is indeed serious, the chance of neo-nazis gaining any kind of legitimate political power anywhere is virtually zero. That is why the ACLU can safely use them to advertise its supposed commitment to free speech. Neo-nazi rallies incite violence, but they do not persuade bystanders to join their cause! If they did, the ACLU would have nothing to do with them.

Report from Petraeus: The “Talking Points” from Susan Rice were not from the CIA… Meanwhile The WH is Freaking Out…

The consistent lies and outright scheming from the Obama White House are about to reach sunlight.  Various intelligence reporters are now pointing out that Petraeus is stating the Susan Rice “talking points” about Benghazi DID NOT come from his intelligence office gathering, they came from the White House.  (Obama screwed up yesterday when he openly took ownership of them – his handlers are freaking) 

EYES WIDE OPEN - Now reports are leaking that Petraeus is “under investigation” for security leaks.  THIS IS NOT ACCIDENTAL OR UNCONNECTED.  Remember the goal: The White House GOAL:   1.) Move current opinion of Gen Petraeus 2.) Use CIA Angle as cover for misleading information. 3.) Take no responsibility for the lies and falsehoods. They must find a way to stop Petreaus from collapsing their narrative.

Think of advancing their objectives like advancing a football in the game toward the Goal line:

√20 yard line – Petraeus is a solid patriot ===> √ …. Fri
√30 yard line – Petraeus is fallible/human ====> √ …. Sat/Sun
√40 yard line – Petraeus lost his capacity for judgement ====> √…. Mon
√50 yard line – Petraeus is/was distracted ===> √ …. Tue
√40 yard line – Petraeus is compromised ===> √ …. Wed (presser avoidance)
√30 yard line – Petraeus is unstable ===> √… Thr (under investig)
√20 yard line – Petraeus is not-credible ===> Friday 11/16 (he talks to congress)
10 yard line – Petraeus is out for revenge. ====> Weekend….
Touchdown – Petraeus is a liar.

Each Administration player, including Media “special teams” will have a specific goal in advancing the narrative of protection for the Administration.
Remember: “How to win the optic game”? Isolate => Ridicule => Marginalize.
It is how they roll. Always.

Petraeus to Testify He Knew Benghazi Was Terror Attack “Almost Immediately”

So did every reasonable thinking American.
According to CNN, former CIA Director David Petraeus will testify that he knew Benghazi was a terror attack “almost immediately.”
This helped…
The third email sent to the White House the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack blamed an Al-Qaeda-linked group for the attack on the consulate.
This email was sent before the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged from the consulate ruins.

Breitbart reported:

Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:

Frances Townsend @FranTownsend

CNN:Petraeus wants 2 testify 2 Congrss tht he knew 9/11 #Benghazi attacks were terrorism, perpetratd by Ansar Al Sharia 'almost immediately'

15 Nov 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

Other than Petraeus's upcoming testimony being "different than what he initially said," Starr's source also reported that Petraeus will tell Congress that at first there were at least 20 different intelligence reports floating around that said the video was responsible for the attack, and that over time, those reports were "slowly disproved."

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to  Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.

This is all a little muddled, but it's important to keep one vital point in mind...

On September 12, the day after the attack (though it wasn't broadcast by CBS), President Obama told "60 Minutes"...

You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

...which means that at that time, the president was pretty sure this was a premeditated attack.

There's no question that at first a "fog of war" excuse made perfect sense. But what's also not in question is that as the days and weeks passed, the White House moved further and further away from what the President said on "60 Minutes" -- which means that as those 20 or so reports were being "disproved," the Administration was moving further and further away from the truth.

How did that happen?

The other issue, and this is something I've been pushing for weeks now, is that both White House spokesman Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the media repeatedly that there was absolutely no evidence that Libya was premeditated.

Now we know there was.

It's one thing to say you believe the attack was over a video, it's an entirely different tightrope to walk when you're saying in no uncertain terms that there's "no evidence" of a terror attack.

Other than the tragic loss of life and intelligence, nothing is more troubling about Libya than the fact that the White House narrative blaming the attack on the video actually strengthened and sharpened over time -- over almost two weeks.

Nothing can can make sense of that; at least, nothing acceptable.