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.
#1 by backbaygrouch on 08/31/2010 - 6:23 am
Practical statesmen are not always what they are labeled One of the most successful of the past century was the fascist Francisco Franco of Spain who rescued a nation torn asunder, held it together, brought decades of steady progress and left it a sustainable political settlement. Because he was a fascist he is never given any credit for a remarkably accomplished career.
But he was not a fascist. He needed a political apparatus and chose the Falange founded by the martyred Jose Antonio, the son of the 1920s strong man Primo De Rivera. Prominent in that organization was Serrano Suner who married a sister of Franco’s wife. He was dismissed from the Foreign ministry in 1942 and no fascist ever held high office thereafter. Occasionally the Falange got the Ministry of Sport but that is not where power lies.
For over three decades Franco had no Fascists in positions of power, yet Mommy P will tell you he was a fascist, an evil man. No respectable conservative will ever object to that falsehood. It just is not done. Bad form, you know.
In truth Franco was a pragmatic traditionalist, a monarchist. If you want to divine a string through his life it would be best to take note of the oath he took when he left his father’s house and entered the military academy in Toledo. He was loyal to that oath until the moment he rendered his immortal soul unto Almighty God for Judgement. He ruled, in the words he put in his title, “Por la gracia de Dios,” by the grace of God.
At one point it was bruited about that his only child, a daughter named Maria, should be married to the heir to the throne. This was a plan for continuity that had much to offer. Franco, who was ambitious, was not adverse to the idea. But Maria was. As a good papa he was loyal to his child and refused to press the issue. There would be no loveless marriage forced upon her.
Franco was loyal to Spain, its peoples, its King [who he would not let near the throne] and to its Catholic God. But he did not have a immutable program, an ideology, which is why he was a success.
America needs a leader who will be loyal to its people and its God. America needs a leader who will be loyal to White Christians. With that as a beacon to illuminate the path, the other problems will be on their way to a solution. More important than any plan, is loyalty.
BUGS is about loyalty to our kith and kin. our race, The Mantra is a pure expression of that loyalty.
#2 by OldBlighty on 08/31/2010 - 7:16 am
Once your mind is captured by a particular kind of wordism, you have moved into an artificial reality and can no longer see, or respond to the world as it really is.
#3 by backbaygrouch on 08/31/2010 - 7:56 am
To OldBlighty:
Well said.
Succinct.
Thanks.
Wish I had said it.
Btw, I will.
Without attribution.
#4 by Simmons on 08/31/2010 - 9:45 am
Ironically even Pat Buchanan noticed nearly the same thing today, as has James Edwards.
The Tea Party and its corporate conservatism is dead already its program a joke.
But that is okay, the USA now being an empire of captive peoples ruled this day by the Leftist stunts and intimidation junta, might just crumble completely under the cut taxes, open border, invade Islam for Israel program which presuposes that the USA is one people united by the above ideology. Morons stuck in 1980.
#5 by Dave on 08/31/2010 - 10:53 am
John Kennedy Jr. killed himself, his wife, and his sister and law because he was a Politically Correct pilot.
When you are flying blind and you are in a grave yard spiral you have to do the opposite of what your vertigo tells you to do. This is very hard to do for anybody.
The economy is the same way. When an economy is in real crises such as it was in the 30s and is today, the tendency is for the government policy to do exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, the wrong things.
Just like in the 30s this is what is happening today. Every move the government makes our problems worse. Sometimes it is hard for me to believe that it isn’t deliberate, it is all so perfectly calibrated to be ruinous, just like in the 30s.
#6 by Dick_Whitman on 08/31/2010 - 11:04 am
Great article. I know that Bob has made a career of inventing talking points that slice through the opposition. I assume he did this for non-English speakers as well? The one thing I wonder is about the language barrier? How did Bob create talking points for people which he didn’t speak the language?
While serving in Iraq during the invasion I remember Iraqis making signs that said stuff like “Bush good, Saddam spit.” Obviously these signs weren’t sophisticated, but they did make their point.
As most of you know, something that makes sense in English, doesn’t necessarily make sense in another language.
Are there certain “universalities” in the creation of talking points that cut across most or all groups of people?
#7 by BGLass on 08/31/2010 - 1:23 pm
‘They are, after all, coming here to escape the results of their own politics.’
Even t.v. shrinks talk about “Geographical Cures,” meaning if you go elsewhere you take yourself with you.
But somehow, they expect the public to apply this on an individual level, but NEVER a national or political one.
That’s insanity. The individual mirrors the national. People who leave a place, set up camp in the exact same way. Obviously. And yet, you would be in trouble if you said so!
#8 by Simmons on 08/31/2010 - 2:44 pm
Speaking of spokesman how about Beck? For a couple of days I played smart, but I’m over that today and I asked “why is this info produced?”
Anyway to make this short I believe Beck produced his circus first for his benefit and secondly to appeal to America’s swing voters, white women so they vote GOP.
So Bob if you have any insights to political swing voters I would relish reading them if you feel like sharing them.
#9 by Alan B on 08/31/2010 - 4:03 pm
Hitler energised and united the German people hammering on one point, the superiority of the White Germanic Race, Hitler restored the pride and confidense of the people and the nation moved forward. The Leftist political and cultural freedom or filth that had infected the German nation( you know these people) under the Weimar Republic would make what we have today look like childplay. Today, all White nations are all living in one Weimar Republic.