|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by rexcurryDOTnet
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 9:22 AM
rexy@ij.net
The infamous straight-armed salute came from the military salute and the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the USA
nazisalute1b.jpg, image/jpeg, 394x93
A new discovery shows that the straight-armed salute of the Nazi Party originated in the USA from the common military salute. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html The military salute of the right hand to the forehead was used at the beginning of the original pledge of allegiance. The military salute was held for the phrase “I pledge allegiance” and then the right arm extended straight outward toward the flag for the rest of the chant. Historic photographs are linked at http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html and at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html The first description of the pledge by Francis Bellamy, author of the pledge, had the palm of the hand turned upward for the straight-armed gesture. The gesture changed in use, growing into the "Heil Hitler" appearance because of the military salute (palm down) extended casually straight toward the flag. James Bailey Upham suggested to Bellamy part of the gesture (the straight-arm with the palm upward). Upham’s suggested gesture (palm up) was like saying “Here is the flag.” It was because of Bellamy’s alteration (the addition of the military salute) that the pledge evolved into the Nazi-style. The Nazi-style salute was then repeated in early famous movies in fictionalized Roman scenes. The widespread use of the straight-arm salute in the USA and in movies and by German-American groups led to its adoption later by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party). http://rexcurry.net/pledgebund.html The straight-arm salute was not a Roman salute. That is a debunked myth. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html Bellamy wrote the pledge (1892) with the military salute because Bellamy was a self-proclaimed national socialist who promoted “military socialism” (a Bellamy term) and he wanted government to take over all schools, eliminate all of the better alternatives, and use government schools to create an “industrial army” (another Bellamy term) in order to nationalize the entire economy. That was the idea behind the pledge and a flag in every government school. It was the origin of the modern military-socialist complex. Government schools teach that the pledge was created to sell flags to schools and Francis Bellamy is described as an advertising pioneer. That is a whitewashed piece of the whole story. A better description is that Bellamy was a propaganda pioneer, comparable to Leni Riefenstahl. That is one of many reasons why Francis Bellamy and his also-famous cousin Edward Bellamy are known as the "American Hitlers" and as the first "American Nazis." http://rexcurry.net/pledge1.html The World is owed an apology by the USA and by anyone who thinks that the military-socialism and salute of the Nazis originated in Germany. An American organization is lobbying for an official apology and is gaining support to set the record straight. http://rexcurry.net/pledgeapology.html
rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html
Report this post as:
by rexcurryDOTnet
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 9:22 AM
rexy@ij.net
swastika3b.jpg, image/jpeg, 200x200
rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html
Report this post as:
by rexcurryDOTnet
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 9:22 AM
rexy@ij.net
socialists.jpg, image/jpeg, 940x619
rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 12:09 PM
1. The Nazi government was not socialist. The economy remained under private ownership, and its owners grew fabulously wealthier than they already were until the disasterous invasion of Russia. In fact, private employers in some ways had much more power over their workers under Hitler than they had under the Weimar Republic. 2. That the straight arm salute was used in the US has been long known. When I was and elementary school student in the late 1950's and early 1960's my school had plenty of old textbooks dating from the 1920's or 1930's that clearly showed students saluting the American flag with Hitler-style straight arm salutes.
Report this post as:
by nice disclaimer
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 1:14 PM
That's why they called themselves the "National Socialist German Worker's Party".
Notice Meyer London didn't try to defend the attrocities of Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung. Nice try nutsack.
Report this post as:
by KPC
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 1:22 PM
...oh, then by that fractured logic, I guess that makes China a peoples' republic....
...can you 'swipes learn a new dance...one that doesn't make you look like an idiot?
Report this post as:
by actually it does
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 2:30 PM
If you look up the definition of "Republic" you'll see that China is indeed one........
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 2:57 PM
Dear Clueless, why would I discuss Stalin or Mao when I was responding to the specific claim you made that Hitlerite Germany was socialist? How could a country in which private capitalists owned the means of production and distribution be socialist? And why would wealthy capitalists, landowners and aristocrats have helped to finance Hitler's campaigns or even joined his party if they thought he was a socialist? The word socialist was first applied to the Nazi Party in the 1920's and was part of a failed attempt to attract significant numbers of working class people to the party. By socialist Hitler meant national socialist - a vague concept in which all classes of Germans unite against Jews and foreign enemies. He never meant socialism in the Marxist or leftist sense of the term and never really claimed that he did. That is why the attempt to attract the working class went nowhere and the Nazis wound up being backed by the wealthy, militarists, fanatical anti-semites, middle class business owners, and people from socially backward agricultural parts of the country. Along with these groups went a significant number of professional criminals, street thugs, and other lumpen types. I hope this has educated you.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Wednesday, Dec. 29, 2004 at 4:47 PM
Marx wasn't a socialist. He was a full blown communist. His planks resonate more like totalitarianism that anything resembling democracy.
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State 7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in government schools.
Fuck the commies and the socialist too. Not in my country.
Report this post as:
by Alois Brunner
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 9:02 AM
Darlings of the Left
hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/12/20/hezbollah_...
Report this post as:
by Meyer London
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 10:29 AM
Whether you like socialism or not is beside the point. The argument was over whether Hitler was a socialist, in the widely accepted sense of the term. Since his government did not abolish the right of inheritance or carry out the other measures you list, his government was not socialist. In fact, it was a government explictly devoted to preserving private property, capitalism, old-fashioned "family valutes" complete with authoritarian fathers, submissive workers not protected be either the state or by labor unions from gross exploitation by private employers, militarism, and friendship with other right-wing governments like those of Francisco Franco in Spain (warnly supported also by the Catholic Church) and Mussolini's in Italy. Hitler was a man of the right, as was recognized by every sane person at the time when he was alive.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 3:09 PM
They aren't the same thing, and anyone who says they are is confused. Just look at reality: communists and fascists have always fought each other.
One is a leftist authority, and the other a rightist authority.
Communism is for the people, and fascism is for the corporations.
The flag salute was invented by a Nationalist who was also a Christian Socialist. Also, when I looked it up, I found out that Francis Bellamy opposed Marxism. So this brand of socialism was anti-Marxist.
In other words, there is a legitimate case for saying the flag salute is fascist in origin.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 3:12 PM
Fascism is basically socialist capitalism. It's corporations allied with the state.
Capitalism isn't what makes people free. Freedom is what makes people free.
Capitalism can, and does, cooperate with the State. It did under Fascism. To an extent, the USSR was a state capitalist monopoly system.
So, a champion of capitalism may think he is for freedom, but can become a dupe for fascism.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 3:28 PM
Mostly, the right's abuse of the term 'socialism' to refer to Nazism just ignores the fact that, today, socialism means only Marxist socialism.
In the past, national socialism was bascially a "right" ideology, and opposed communist socialism, which was and is a "left" ideology.
Before all this, there were the utopian socialists. I think that they exist today, in spirit, in the contemporary anarchist movement. Utopian socialists are mostly "left", inasmuch as they are opposed to capitalism, but also opposed to the state. Some are opposed to modernity.
So, once upon a time, there were multiple socialisms, but today, there's only one left.
The real threat is the rise of nationalism and capitalism, and their combination into fascism.
Any lover of freedom must be suspicious of both flags and logos.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 3:42 PM
niekflag.jpg, image/jpeg, 600x350
LOL
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 7:57 PM
Okay, I'll give you that Hitler wasn't a socialist in the Marxist sense, if that makes you feel better, Meyer.
Now, feel free to list ONE socialist or communist country that is (or ever was) a success, where "success" is defined as "not guilty of mass attrocities on their own people, and where their citizens are not living mostly in abject poverty.
Socialism and communism are always characterized by the overwhelming majority of their citizens impoverished, and typically ends up in genocide.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 9:07 PM
I'm not a socialist, and don't know the standard socialist answer, but different forms of socialism have existed in Finland, Sweden, Japan, Great Britain, Mexico, and Cuba. Some were just extended welfare states. Nationalistic socialism has existed in Turkey, Lybia, the old Eastern Bloc, and others. Communism is different from socialism, in that it's not just about providing social services and a nationalized industry, but about revolutionary support. The big communist countries generally were brutal, because their perspective was of an ongoing war against capitalism. Once you think you're fighting a war, it lets you kill easily. Check out this page on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Report this post as:
by more rational
Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 at 11:17 PM
I didn't notice it til I saw it again, but saying that Communism ends in genocide is completely misunderstanding genocide. Also, they don't END in genocide.
Genocide marks the START of a NATION. (Or, maybe I should say, "Birth of a Nation".) The people have accepted that to begin the project of nationalism, of a common national identity, and the "others" must be eliminated.
Genocide of Jews, Gypsies, and Communists coincided with the beginning of the Nazi takeover of Germany. Genocide of the American Indian was the precursor to the big land giveaway to the American working class. Genocide of the Armenians ushered in the modernization of Turkye. Genocide of Chinese was the start of Japan's empire in China. Genocide of the bourgeois sellouts was part of the process of the formation of China. The ethnic cleansing in 1990s in the former Baltic states accompanied the formation of these nations.
Nationalism is dangerous, because it can foster the myth of a "clean start" if "we" can get rid of "those parasites."
Report this post as:
by more rational
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 1:11 AM
I forgot to add something here, but I came across a reference to Ernst Roehm, and remembered that there was a real left-socialist element in the Nazi Party. Ultimately, they were killed by the leaders of the Party. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERroehm.htm I guess the lesson here, for leftists, is that nationalism can do you in, in the end. Don't cut deals with right wing fascists like Pat Buchanan. Stick to your guns.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 1:26 PM
That's not an answer to my question. We have certain forms of socialism here in the United States. Our public schools, our wealfare system and social security, hell even our military is a social system. None of those things make us a socialist country.
My question was to provide an example of a successful socialist country. I didn't ask for a random shotgun blast of the history of socialism. Socialism has been around in one form or other for thousands of years. In any event, it's been around for FAR longer than industrialized capitalism. Socialism has been tried, tested, and found wanting. It is an abject failure on all counts. Where socialism is found, so is rampant poverty and oppression. I can cite FAR more failures of socialism than you can cite successes. Under socialism and communism there is no motivation for ANYONE to work. No matter how hard you work, you get the same things, all provided by the state. And that's if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, you might find away to get a few extra things, only to watch them be taken from you by the state and doled out to someone else. The shining beacons of socialism and communism in the world today are North Korea, Cuba, and China. You socialists need to pack all your shit up and move to one of those god-forsaken pits, then come back and extoll to me the virtues of socialism and the evils of capitalism. It's easy to sit there on your fat asses in suburbia behind your pentium 3 keyboards and badmouth capitalism and preach how great socialism is, but no one's buying what your selling.
Notice how quiet Meyer London's fat mouth got when asked that simple question. That's exactly what I thought, Meyer. Shut yer pie hole, biatch.......
Report this post as:
by please
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 1:42 PM
Maybe socialist policies would have a better chance if there wasn't such deadly hostility directed at it unless it is for special interests that siphon off all the benefits for themselves. How many governments has the US considered socialist, has it attacked and overthrown? Just in the last 50 years? Come on, Gen. Jack Mehoffer.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 1:51 PM
Well golly gee whiz beave, why do you suppose socialism is met with such deadly hostilities by people around the world?? Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that every time it rears its' ugly head, people end up starving and dying, now would it?? NOOoooooooooooooooooo, couldn't be that.
Socialism had a thousand years to take root before capitalism came along. And yet in only a few hundred years, capitalism proved the socialists are nothing but the sucking chest wound of humanity. Contrast capitalism and socialism any day of the week and the ineptitude of socialism becomes nothing more than an acedemic exercise.........
Report this post as:
by please
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 1:59 PM
As usual. As the fear of actually distributing resources away from the centers of wealth grows, the result is death squads,CIA over throws and crippling boycotts that provide your hefty body count.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:04 PM
That's right. And you goddam leftist better not forget it, else, we'll fix you again.....
Report this post as:
by please
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:14 PM
the malignant spirit of fascism raises its murderous head, behind the fragile and tattered logic of greed.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:18 PM
If memory serves, wasn't it the capitalists that kicked the so-called fascist's asses in the last World War?
Report this post as:
by please
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:20 PM
didn't the Bush, Rockefeller and DuPonts FINANCE the nazi movement?
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:24 PM
Get asked a question you can't answer ... talk about Bush. Bush financed the Nazis. Bush caused 9-11. Bush cranked up his earthquake machine and started that tsunami ...
What a mickey mouse world view you have mr. leftist.......
Report this post as:
by please
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:32 PM
It's been great seeing what a greedy self serving double speaking tard you have demonstrated yourself to be. Your defense of last resort type of polemic that you have invoked after telling me that I changed the subject... You're kind of a silly fool, espousing such great insight.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:33 PM
.................
Report this post as:
by please
Friday, Dec. 31, 2004 at 2:37 PM
I am a conservative. I own guns, served in the Infantry and love my country. Just not the parasites like you that feed off of it.
Report this post as:
by more rational
Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005 at 3:34 AM
It's so late, probably no point in posting this except to rant to myself... but here goes.
Socialism's existed in most of Western Europe, and they're doing okay.
It's communism that's having a hard time. However, if you really look at what countries went communist -- they were generally the poor countries that were suffering under a monarch, or were colonies of the West.
Communism was a success, inasmuch as it managed to eject the colonists or remove a monarch. What happened afterward sucked, but, they at least had independence, and could try to modernize. It beats the virtual slavery many experienced before.
Report this post as:
by Jack Mehoffer
Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005 at 12:57 PM
It's the underground revolution, working overtime.
Report this post as:
by MadMaxim
Monday, Sep. 18, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Report this post as:
by nn
Monday, Sep. 18, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Wow I never knew Any Rockefekker wanted wealth redistribution back to the lower class in the form of public service.
Anymore of your wisdom?
Report this post as:
by MadMaxim
Monday, Sep. 18, 2006 at 1:58 PM
Of course, this world socialist government will be
very profitable for the Rockefellers.
Somebody has to keep the lights on, after
all.
Somebody has to build weapons and employ
mercenaries to keep the party safe from the revolutionaries.
Isn't military industrialism fun?
Report this post as:
|