Hitler actually says in Mein Kampf that, as his Party grew, he needed an economic stand, too. Almost all the other parties were, as they are today, about the government’s role in the economy, from socialists and communists to a few libertarians.

Hitler explained how he found a philosopher to put one in his platform, though I forget for now who it was, and Hitler said he didn’t care either.

The Depression lasted a decade in America, and wasn’t half over when WWII broke out. Hitler ended the German Depression in a couple of years. This was because the New Deal was mostly an economic program, while Hitler just ended the problem and went on to other things.

The more your philosophy deals with economics, the worse your economy is going to be. Marxism says economics is everything, and the Soviet Union was still going down that road when it finally collapsed.

Hitler did what it took the United States thirty years to copy from him. He built a superhighway system and invented the VW that filled our first superhighways in the 1960s.

Hitler WAS fascinated by Lebensraum. He had a program for it. That, the thing he had a program for, destroyed him.

But Hitler adopted his economic program because he had to have one. So when he actually took over, and push came to shove, he just ignored that nonsense and went ahead and got the German people back to work.

Meanwhile, Roosevelt had two things going, his debt spending to end the Depression, and his Draconian taxes and regulations. Pretty well everybody now knows that high taxes and a lot of regulation make the economy go down. Every actual economist in the 1930s, contrary to what Keynes and historians have since said, actually advocated deficit spending to end the Depression.

When you put in a maximum income tax rate at 91%, the economy is going to suffer.

The British Labor Party had a program. One part of it was nationalizing industry. So when Labor won an election, it would begin to buy up the big industries and put the bureaucracy in control of them, and when the Conservatives won, the same nonsense would be repeated.

Libertarians want open borders. How long would an elected Libertarian Party last if the third world poured in? They are, after all, coming here to escape the results of their own politics.

No one today looks at the economic history of Britain in the generation after WWII because, while the Conservative Party won the elections, its program was much the same as that of the old Labor Party.

No one looks at Marxism or Democratic Socialism in Britain because just to recite it is hideously embarrassing to the left, and no one who did could get a job as a respectable conservative.

Just as you couldn’t get a job as a respectable conservative if you kept reminding people that every Communist country, and ONLY Communist countries, caged their people in with barbed wire, machine guns and land mines.

People were told to believe that the Berlin Wall was something special.

Every Communist country, and ONLY Communist countries, caged their entire population in.

No one asked why.

White leaders are not the first to reject an observation everybody knows about but no one says. They watched me pound many a Commie into the ground with it but it never occurred to them to use it.

What sells and makes the media choose one as a Spokesman for a protest is not the same thing that works.

In my years as an activist I was from time to time in contact with Carleton Putnam, author of Race and Reason. He was also the founder of Delta Airlines.

When I got into aircraft negotiations, I wrote to tell him about it. He could have helped me infinitely, since airlines in that time of regulation were almost entirely a matter of who you know.

But I knew he wouldn’t.

Stalin used to rob banks to finance the Communist Party. Party members would regularly marry rich women to make their assets available to the Party. Lenin never did a day’s actual work in his life.

To the leftist Revolutionaries as to the ancient Greeks, politics was life. To rightists, politics is a game you play after you have proved you are a Practical Man and made money.

You know how a respectable conservative gets all giddy when he gets to denounce white people? They think they are being really, truly, honestly Sophisticated when they do that. For all whites hatred of their race is a form of Selflessness, but nobody gets the glorious feeling out of it that respectables do.

White anti-whites see themselves as the ideal of self-denial. Black anti-blacks are evil.

Carleton Putnam saw this and hated it. But he did exactly the same thing. He surely prided himself on cases where he actually favored anti-whites over whites when it came to employment networking.

There was a similar outlook among respectables on Capitol Hill. Instead of hiring young conservative activists, they would cut their budgets and “give the money back to the taxpayers.”

In real industry anywhere on earth, an executive who is promoted gets a larger staff budget.

This is NOT charity.

Conservatives in congress get about a dollar in their budget to each thousand dollars of the Federal deficit that year. They then announce to their constituents that while “fraud and waste” is wasting hundreds of billions each year, they “gave back” half a million bucks from their budget.

What was the budget FOR?

It was to hire staff so they could track down some fraud and waste.

Let’s take one of those promoted executives. He limps in to the boss and says, “Well, my section lost five million dollars last year, but the good news is that I “gave back” fifty thousand dollars of my budget to the company.”

Would he walk out the door with a job?

Nobody denies more vigorously than respectable conservatives that those Hollywood operatives McCarthy and Reagan attacked in the fifties and who are now on the KGB lists actually hired leftist actors.

But anyone familiar with the history of the Communist Party would be astounded if they didn’t. In order to keep in with all the Personalities, media respectables say all us celebrities were chosen strictly for talent.

As long as our cause remains a hobby, a sport, we cannot build anything like what the other side has. While the Fords congratulated themselves on giving money, the left settled for nothing less than getting ALL of the Ford Foundation for themselves.

This is not a game. This is life itself.

Some of my own answers:
————–
Anti-white: Wouldn’t a melting pot under your logic be the genocide of every race? Soooo…..
Pro-white: The melting pot is only forced on white countries. All white countries and only white countries.
Are you one of those who support diversity? But do not support global diversity if diversity includes white people?
—————————
Anti-white: Can you present an example of an anti-racist and show where they made that argument? (where anti-racists were anti-white)
Pro-white: You want me to show you examples of anti-racists who argue for immigration, integration and intermarriage?
————————
Anti-white: Are whites being forced to intermarry? No.
Pro-white: You will be condemned for racism if you oppose intermarriage. In my country you can go to jail for racism.
The government protects the right to be anti-white but tries to do away with the right to be pro-white.
————————
Anti-white: How about, if certain people do not like the idea of racial mixing, they f**k off and die? Why do not you not mention any other racial “genocide”? Why only white?
Pro-white: I think that all races have a right to exist. Diversity; do you remember???
Why are all of you so hostile to white survival?
———————–
Anti-white: I will issue you the challenge I issue every time I see this crop up here.
Please provide a scientifically valid definition of race.
Or in other words, prove to me it is a concept that actual maps onto something real and significant in an empirical objective reality.
Pro-white: If somebody wanted a world with just white people; would you say that it would be okay because you could not find “a scientifically valid definition of race”??
I would oppose that. I think that all races have right to survive, including my race.
Aren’t you people supposed to be in favor of diversity??? Isn’t that a strength?? I guess you do not think so when diversity includes white people…
See why I think you are anti-white?
—————–
Anti-white: I would think a large gene pool would be ideal for the genetic traits of future generations, not purposefully maintaining a tiny one, essentially racial inbreeding.
Pro-white: You always come up with “new ideas” and those “new ideas” never includes white people.
See why I think anti-racists are just anti-white??
——————-
Anti-white: Stop obsessing over your skin color.
Pro-white: Would you be in favor of an all white world because skin color does not matter??
Diversity??
I think that all races have a right to exist, including my race. Why do you keep justifying genocide by saying it is just skin color??

In the 2008 election, a leftist strategy was leaked which said “Find an opponent and call him a racist.”

Conservatives quoted this but it still worked beautifully. It worked because it is correct.
Conservatives base their American history upon the views of a man who knew his STATED historical view was absurd, Abraham Lincoln.

Everyone else knows it, too. You have to choose between the RACIAL views of our Founding Fathers or anything any of the Rousseau-Marxist Mommy Professors come up with.

Leftism is still based on the early twentieth century view that animals have no class system, no wars — “Only Man Has Wars” was a leftist hippie slogan, and no territory.

That nonsense is SHOT. But conservatives are even sillier. They posit a theory that everything liberals did until on or about January 1, 1970 was dead right, but at that moment it all went unaccountably wrong.

That’s insane.

National Review is full of praise for every liberal before 1970. It praises Lyndon Johnson’s policies rather than him personally because the people they follow, the liberals, can’t bring themselves to praise Lyndon.

This, by the way, is the true definition of neo-conservatism. The term has gotten a meaning of being Jewish or all for war, but the actual definition is neo, which means that it condemns the old conservatism National Review was founded on, and its conservatism, that is, its opposition to liberal proposals, is new, or neo-.

A writer in National Review was complaining that all the alternative histories end up showing how awful history would be if it were different. But that is the theme of National Review today. If Lincoln and Roosevelt and Johnson had not succeeded, the world would have been lost.

Only National Review would have a cover picture of Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill, saying They Saved the World. They did the same thing with Lincoln.

Would the world have ended if Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939?

To question that is “racist,” according to National Review.

REAL neo-conservatism begins by conceding history to the Left. Its main voices are Jewish, but EVERYBODY’S main voices are Jewish. Everybody’s main voices used to be in New England.

So we can either feed our obsession or deal in reality. The reality is that neo-conservatism concedes history to the political left. That is the DEFINITION of NEO-conservatism.

Both of today’s official sides declare that all history was good until on or about January 1, 1970. So naturally all alternative histories that are PUBLISHED declare that any deviation from real history before January 1, 1970 would have been a disaster.

But can a person who concedes history to the left be a conservative?