Hitler or Stalin? Same o’ same o’

The enclosed essay examines these oft-repeated comparisons:

Is Barack Obama like the Nazis or Adolf Hitler? Does even asking the question make you a right-wing nut or a partisan hack? Is it distasteful to mention Hitler or the Nazis to make a point? Let's take a sober look at the answers to these questions below:

I invoked Hitler in previous threads for the sole purpose of demonstrating Hussein’s Hitlerian love of totalitarian government. I could easily have compared him to Stalin and totalitarian communism since they were surely as evil as Hitler and fascism.

Incidentally, Mussolini —— not Hitler —— is the Father of Fascism.

Aside from trying to show how Hussein is copying much of Hitler’s totalitarian-government blueprint in order to exercise absolute political power, I chose Hitler and Nazi Germany for my comparison because liberals would have pooh-poohed the comparison to Stalin —— and with good reason from their perspective.

In the 1930s American Communists began convincing the world the world that Hitler was the most evil man who ever lived. In truth, he was no worse than Stalin, Mao, and all of the other totalitarian butchers today’s Communists glorify. Example: In 2009, Hussein czarina, Anita Dunn, praised Mao Zedong; a man who was responsible for the murders of an estimated 70 million Chinese. Listen closely to Dunn and you’ll see she has no objections to Mao or Communist China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Fi1zg2NOCn8

Nothing liberals do or say is more ludicrous than praising Communists while demonizing Hitler. And wouldn’t you like to see the fallout if a conservative in government praised Hitler?

The essay closes with this:

“. . . here is a recap of the questions at the beginning of this essay with their respective answers in light of the information above: Is Barack Obama like the Nazis or Adolf Hitler? Strikingly so. Does even asking the question make you a right-wing nut or a partisan hack? Absolutely not. The evidence is incontrovertible. Is it distasteful to mention Hitler or the Nazis to make a point? Sometimes, but certainly not in this case.”

I could not agree more. Hussein is not Hitler, but there is more evidence that he is closer to Hitler than there is evidence that he is FDR, Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, or any of the famous dead presidents he has been compared to. Don’t misread me on this. I am not suggesting that liberals stop making those comparisons. I do suggest that liberals should stop playing the PC card when Hussein’s critics point out his resemblance to Der Fuhrer in all things except physical appearance.

This great essay is in two parts:

Thursday, August 27, 2009
Hitler / Obama Comparisons: Is Barack Obama Like Adolf Hitler or The Nazis?

Thursday, August 27, 2009
Hitler / Obama Comparisons: Is Barack Obama Like Adolf Hitler or The Nazis?

Is Barack Obama like the Nazis or Adolf Hitler? Does even asking the question make you a right-wing nut or a partisan hack? Is it distasteful to mention Hitler or the Nazis to make a point? Let's take a sober look at the answers to these questions below:

Godwin's Law

Adolf Hitler seems to appear frequently in political debates. Reference to Hitler or Nazism is so commonplace that in 1990, U.S. attorney and author Mike Godwin coined an adage that has become well known on Internet discussion forums as Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Why does that seem to be the case? Because in a fierce political disagreement, there is at least one area of common ground that almost everyone will share: that Adolf Hitler was evil, unequivocally and without argument. Even self-professing moral relativists are hard pressed to maintain otherwise. Adolf Hitler was evil.

When two sides seem to disagree about everything else, that area of common ground can (if emotions don't flare as they often do) actually form a bridge of understanding and communication. People grasp for "the Hitler card" because they know their opponent will agree with the major premise that Hitler was evil. Then it's on to the minor premise, which takes the form of "...and x is just like what we agree made Hitler evil."

"Therefore x is also evil," the debater concludes.

Argumentum ad Hitlerum

The first thing to remember as we approach this issue is that it is a logical fallacy to assert that if Adolf Hitler did or believed x, then x must automatically be bad. It is an association fallacy referred to as "argumentum ad Hitlerum" in parody of the formal titles of other logical fallacies such as "argumentum ad hominem."

Just because Hitler was opposed to smoking tobacco, it does not follow that someone is evil or morally equivalent to Hitler if they abstain from tobacco use. Adolf Hitler did all kinds of things that other people do who are not morally equivalent to him. Hitler painted flowers. So did Georgia O'Keeffe. That does not make Georgia O'Keeffe a genocidal maniac by association.

But it is possible, logically sound, and perfectly fair in some cases to draw a deeper kind of comparison to Hitler. We can assert of someone (if we have the facts to substantiate our claim, of course) that they are morally or politically equivalent- or at least similar- to Hitler because their actions spring from the same ideology and/or tend to produce the same results.

In the case of U.S. President Barack Obama, we must determine whether comparisons of his policies to those of Adolf Hitler are the first kind of accusation (and therefore a fallacy) or the second kind of accusation; and if they are the second kind, then we must determine whether the the comparison is supported by the facts, or if it is a false comparison.

Obama/Hitler Comparisons

Conservatives can intuit (and some can explicitly understand and articulate) that Barack Obama's political program is similar in remarkable and chilling ways to that of Adolf Hitler's. Their argument does not commit the "argumentum ad Hitlerum" fallacy because their assertion is that President Obama's policies and worldview share the very characteristics by which we reckon Hitler as evil, not other irrelevant characteristics.

The actions of the Nazi regime, which are almost universally regarded as vile, were rooted in the ideologies and political programs of socialism, eugenics, and imperialism. Obama's ideology, associations, and governance of the United States thus far betray a fervent and unambiguous commitment to socialist nationalization and government direction of America's major industries, a eugenicist program of strict population control, and a continued policy of aggressive American imperialism and global dominance through force.

One Miami columnist disagreed with this assessment, and criticized what he considers a flippant attitude, which makes light of the Holocaust. He writes:

"I thought it would be good to make you sick, i.e., to spend a few minutes reminding some and teaching others what you invoke when you invoke the Nazi regime.

For the record, then: It was Nazis who shoved sand down a boy's throat until he died, who tossed candies to Jewish children as they sank to their deaths in a sand pit, who threw babies from a hospital window and competed to see how many of those 'little Jews' could be caught on a bayonet, who injected a cement-like fluid into women's uteruses to see what would happen, who stomped a pregnant woman to death, who once snatched a woman's baby from her arms and, in the words of a witness, 'tore him as one would tear a rag.'"
America's Holocaust

So President Obama does not deserve a comparison to the Nazis because the Nazis perpetrated a genocide? Pardon me, sir- isn't Mr. Obama perpetuating a genocide!? He has been accurately described as "the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress."

While there is not enough space in this essay to treat of abortion, let me explain briefly that I believe unequivocally, on the basis of uncontroversial scientific facts and a sound anthropological ontology, that a unique, whole, and individual human being is created at conception. For an exhaustive explanation and defense of this belief, let me refer you to my essay entitled: "The Abortion Debate: A Reasoned, Scientific, Pro-Life Argument."

The relentless propaganda to the contrary, dehumanizing and miscategorizing human fetuses, is reminiscent of and similar to the Nazi campaign of dehumanization to justify their brutal treatment of helpless minorities like the Jews. The experimentation carried out on stem cells extracted by destroying human embryos, is chillingly like the medical experimentation carried out by Nazi scientists on their victims.

 

PART TWO:

Eugenics and the Obama Administration

Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Regime were also obsessed with eugenics. They actively worked towards assuming power over Germany's and eventually, the entire world's reproductive rights, with the goal of allowing only the most desirable human beings to reproduce. Obama's appointment of John Holdren as his Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (or more informally, "Science Czar") betrays his administration's eugenicist agenda.

As an anonymous Internet sleuth uncovered after John Holdren's appointment (HT: to Michelle Malkin):
"In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; People who 'contribute to social deterioration' (i.e. undesirables) 'can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility' -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational 'Planetary Regime' should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force."

You read all of that correctly. If you don't believe me, do the research for yourself. Go out there and find it, but do not write this off and ignore it. I know that what you just read seems too horrible to be true, but it is the truth. John Holdren is our nation's "Science Czar" and he did write these terrible things in his 1977 book, Ecoscience. How can a U.S. President possibly appoint such a person to an office in the White House if he feels about that person's views what any normal and not morally-deranged person would feel?

Socialism and The Obama Administration

In popular conception, "left-wing" politics taken to the extreme produces Stalin, while "right-wing" politics taken to the extreme produces Hitler. What a stupid contrivance! Why should two mass-murdering autocrats end up on opposite ends of a political spectrum? The general American public seems oblivious to the fact that the word "Nazi" is an abbreviation for the "National Socialist German Workers Party." (In German, the word "national" is pronounced nawt-zi-uh-nal.)

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were socialist. The horrors inherent in socialism have made themselves all too apparent at this point on the timeline, after a century of warfare and bloodshed unrivaled in human history- the handiwork of socialist ideology and its adherents. His socialism is part of what made Adolf Hitler so evil. There can be no argument that President Obama is likewise, a socialist.

President Obama's unprecedented assumption of powers to himself and his office is remarkably and frighteningly similar to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Obama has already suspended habeas corpus by claiming the right of indefinite detainment of potential terrorists without charges. This occurred very shortly after his Department of Homeland Security issued two reports labeling supporters of Ron Paul, certain amendments of the Constitution, devolution of Federal power to the states, or Pro-Life beliefs as potential terrorists.

Conclusion

This is just one of a lengthy list of examples of such abuses- all straight out of the pages of history and Adolf Hitler's playbook. In just a few months as President, Obama has been prolific in his assault on liberty and assumption of boundless executive power. You might even call it a "blitzkrieg." There is simply not enough room to catalog these abuses and yet bring this essay to a timely close (it may be too late for that already!). If you have been paying attention, you know exactly the kind of things to which I refer.

In closing, here is a recap of the questions at the beginning of this essay with their respective answers in light of the information above: Is Barack Obama like the Nazis or Adolf Hitler? Strikingly so. Does even asking the question make you a right-wing nut or a partisan hack? Absolutely not. The evidence is incontrovertible. Is it distasteful to mention Hitler or the Nazis to make a point? Sometimes, but certainly not in this case.

Posted by: W. E. Messamore

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/08/hitler-obama-comparisons-is-barack.html

 

Hussein’s policies and programs have always been linked to socialism/communism. The last paragraph in the brief article indicates the comparison is shifting to Hussein himself:

And is you don’t think we’re on the cusp of a totalitarian form of government, just listen to Obama’s press conference yesterday. You’d swear you were listening to Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Lenin.

Like my title says: Hitler or Stalin? Same o’ same o’

The question is: Which long-dead commie can Harry Reid be compared to?

Bolshevik Obama Is At It Again
Vanity | September 7, 2011 | Veritas2002
Posted on Friday, October 07, 2011 5:38:33 AM by veritas2002

Bolshevik Obama is at it again with his “jobs” bill and his threatening the Congress in his dictatorial style to pass his legislation. Well, my friends, be very careful when evaluating the language this Bolshevik uses.

Remember “Hope and Change?” We got change alright but instead of hope we are now in the depths of despair. Just because someone calls something a “jobs” bill does not mean that it will create one lousy job.

No, Bolshevik Obama should instead call this the “Redistribution of Wealth” bill. It is another attempt from Bolshevik Obama and his people to remove liberty and freedom from the people so that more power can be placed in the hands of the government. It is another of his attempts to destroy the free-market, capitalist system under which Americans have prospered.

By using the same Alinsky-style tactics of “class warfare,” Bolshevik Obama is demonizing those who profit from risking their money, investing in our capitalist system, and thereby employing people and creating more wealth.

He will try to convince us that no one should be able to make “that much profit” (of course he will determine how much money is too much for you to make and keep). Rather, he should be able to confiscate your money and "invest" it in Solyndra-type companies which will help support keeping the Bolsheviks in power. They will also confiscate your money to give it to General Motors so that the Bolshevik union thugs can also support them with votes and kickbacks.

And if you think that Bolshevik Obama will stop at “the millionaires,” think again. When they thoroughly soak the millionaires, they will be coming for your money. Don’t think so?

Now let’s just remember what happened to the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union. Let me remind you: it collapsed and no longer exists. The same holds true for their lesser cousins in Europe – all those socialist countries that are now falling apart (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy) that have had forms of redistribution of wealth for many many years. They too are now falling apart. And Bolshevik Obama tells us that to avert what has happened to Europe from occurring here we should have more of what they have been doing – adopting a socialist economic system. Are we fools?

No, my friends, Bolshevism is alive and well with Obama and his demonizing capitalism and free enterprise. Bolshevism is alive and well with Obama’s class warfare. Bolshevism is alive and well in his attempt to demonize wealth and redistribute it according to how the government thinks YOUR money should be spent.

And is you don’t think we’re on the cusp of a totalitarian form of government, just listen to Obama’s press conference yesterday. You’d swear you were listening to Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Lenin.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2789214/posts

 

Flanders.. the the 1930s the USA was obsessed with eugenics..

 

Bolsheviks, such as Trotsky and Stalin, were leaders in the first country that implemented the idea of "proletarian dictatorship." I know about Bolsheviks and I do not think that Obama is promoting that idea.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

To Margot: First let me point out that eugenics, genocide, and population control are synonyms.

The modern theory of eugenics goes all the way back to the early twentieth century. This excerpt from an essay by Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008 ) covers eugenics pretty well:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

I am not at all surprised that “. . . so few people objected.” All such murderous ideologies count on one eternal flaw in human nature. Every individual believes he or she will never be in a group targeted for extermination.

History shows that the ruling class exempts no one but themselves.

And its horrors will be repeated if population control advocates like John Kerry have their way.

Let me add that John D. Rockefeller, Sr. is considered by many to be the founder of the modern eugenics movement; the Rockefeller family upholds the family tradition.

Also, it was Muslim Turks in the early twentieth century who put genocide in practice when they slaughtered millions of Armenian Christians. In the 1920s Lenin’s form of genocide systematically starved millions of Russians in the Ukraine.

Re: Eugenics and totalitarian government:

Whenever the ruling class exercising absolute political power is allowed to dictate every aspect of daily life it is inevitable that they claim the right to decide who lives and who dies. That is the hidden evil in all totalitarian governments.

To kowalskil: There is no perfect fit when making comparisons. Do politicians seek absolute control is the one sure rule of thumb in judging them and their ideologies? Hussein advocates totalitarian government. He and his kind will make the rest fit.

 

Again these stupid attempts to put communism on the level with fascism.Fascism is one of the forms of bourgeois rule.Figuratively speaking,a satiated bourgeois is a liberal,a hungry bourgeois is a fascist.You can compare liberalism and fascism,but the comparison of communism and fascism is absolutely senselessly,they are a diametrically opposed worldviews.

 

To General Winter: I suspect that you are one of those naive fools who believes a benign totalitarian government is possible. If not, why do you distinguish between fascism and communism? I suspect that once the difference has been accepted you can then comfortably champion a form of totalitarian government whose murderous intention is yet to be put into practice; i.e., the kind of government Hussein & Company are working so hard to finalize.

NOTE: Lenin’s calculated starvation of millions of Russian peasants was ignored, and even whitewashed by the likes of Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty and his employer the New York Times. Prior to the end of WWII if any person said that governments were prone to slaughtering civilians in the millions that person would have been locked away in a rubber room. The government-ordered killings that took place in Communist China, estimated somewhere between 30 million and 100 million, the Soviet Union, 20 million by conservative estimates, Fascist Germany, 6½ million, and Japan’s brutal murders of an untold number of Chinese civilians in the 1930s, were incomprehensible to decent people before the murders happened. America’s would-be saviors whose souls and minds are diseased with totalitarianism will kill in the hundreds of millions once they have all of their global ducks lined up.

Now that the ugly history of twentieth century totalitarian government is well-known the trick for the new breed of totalitarians is to bury past horrors with promises of a new and better utopian society. Sadly, the same personalty type is making the same old promises. Hussein is one of them.

Finally, you’d have a better chance of proving your case if you showed one difference between the end games of those past totalitarian governments that promised utopia; then delivered brutality and mass murder.

p.s. Name changes and sophistry will not prove your case.

 

I understand your arguments:

1.All victims of the capitalism - communism conflict are attributing to the conscience of communism;

2.All general unpleasantness,like starvation, that occured under Communist regimes are a result of a misstake of the ideology and the system. The same unpleasantments that occured in the same countries at the pre-communist times were the result of a natural disaster.Ignoring the fact that it was just communists who have done away with hunger as a constant phenomenon in their countries;

3.Refering to a long lists of dead, not worrying about demographics and consistency. Three million deaths from starvation? Seven million? Ten million? One hundred million deaths of all?Why not!

4.Using the magic word "totalitarian",trying to link two ideological enemies - communism and fascism.

That sort of arguments is good for fools,but do not think that all your opponents are stupid.

It's just fascism and liberalism are the twins brothers ideologically - both proclaim competition between people and suppression of the weaker.Liberalism proclaims competition between personnes,fascism - between nations.that is the only differense.In fact,fascism is ultraliberalism.

I don't see the great differense between Nazi Germany and Western "demacracies" - colonial empires GB and France.Was the regime in colonies much better than the regime in the occupied countries?We can remember the famine in India,organized by Churchill in 1943,for example.

I don't see the great difference between the Nazi holocaust and the "democratic" genocide of Indians in the USA.American "democracy" destroyed indigenous peoples and imported slaves from Africa,used weapons of mass destruction against civilians and every 3-4 years starts a new war all over the world.A great differense with fascism?

Oh yes,they say the USSR was "totalitarian" like Nazi Germany.But totalitarism is only a technology of social mobilization for some goals,and that goals can be diametrically opposed.Hitler mobilized his people for capturing and robbery of other peoples,Stalin did the same to defence his people.Feel the differense.You do not become a bandit if you defence yourself by the same weapon that the bandit uses.

You want with a help of your demagogy to hide the consanguinity of fascism and liberal "democracy".As a matter of fact it is communism, that proclaims not competition, but cooperation and solidarity between people,is ideologocally and in practice absolutely hostile to fascism ( and liberalism,too ).

 

To General Winter: If you are correct, communist counties would have a higher standard of living simply by taking care of each other. I’ve heard every argument in defense of communism, but I’ve never heard that one.

Reality check: Communism is hostile to individual liberty not to mention hostile to the best expressions of human nature.

As to your overall position: Basically, you are saying “True communism has never been tried before.” I’ve come across that one more times than I can count. It’s the standard excuse for the failed Soviet Union. The flaw in that argument is obvious. Every ideology, every religion, every crackpot, claims the same thing when their system of government fails.

 

I can only repeat what I read in my previous post:"All general unpleasantness,like starvation, that occured under Communist regimes are a result of a misstake of the ideology and the system. The same unpleasantments that occured in the same countries at the pre-communist times were the result of a natural disaster."

Don't use stupid arguments,they do not work.

That is not the question starved Americans or not.As if America is the only capitalist country!Even in our days the UN estimates that 9 million children under the age of five die every year worldwide due to starvation and preventable diseases, virtually all in Third World capitalist countries(last year the top three locations of death were Nigeria, India and the Democratic Republic of the Congo).The matter is that hunger,poverty,inequality,wars have always existed under capitalism,capitalism could not overcome them and will never be able to overcome.

North Korea lives in blocade and under the threat of war for decades and you know it perfectly well.You put Koreans in a situation of a struggle for survival and then accuse them of low life - do not you think it's a hypocrisy?Imagine South Korea in the situation of North Korea - the only capitalist country surrounded by the entire communist world.Well,have you imagine it's life?And what?

Now you'll hear itThe living standard in the USSR was higher than in Russian empire and in post-Soviet Russia.And we can say the same about all communist countries.Only this comparison makes sense.


I'm always amazed how advocates of capitalism like to talk about human rights, democratic values ​​and generally represent the Western society as a sort of standard of morality. But if you think, what kind of morality can have a society which bases at profit and exploitation of man by man? Such a society can not have anything to do with morality - it is immoral in its essence.

We need even a cursory glance at the history of capitalist society, entirely composed of colonial and imperialist wars, accompanied by the looting of the colonies, the slave trade and the genocide of entire peoples.All of these ugly events in the history of mankind are not a side effects - they are an integral part of capitalist society where the basis is the desire for personal gain and profit. And where the self-interest begins, there the morality ends.

The advocates of capitalism try to convince the world that selfishness, greed and personal gain allegedly are in human nature. History clearly refutes this claim.The necessity to survive or common threat require people to unite on the base of equality and social justice.In the most dramatic moments of the existence in the face of nature or hunger only a collective effort and a mutual aid, when each member of the community donated his interests for the common cause,have saved people.A commitment to social justice and equality is just a natural attribute of a human nature, because these principles are a guarantee the survival of humanity. Selfishness and sacrifice the common good in the name of self-interest are contrary to the human nature,because they endanger the existence of humans as a form of of living beings.

 

Thread's Author is illiterate. He was forgiven for his analytical review of nonsense. Actually funny when someone tries to compare Obama to Hitler or Stalin. Who is this Mr. Obama on a scale of world history? He is nobody and nothing. Comparison with the Bolsheviks is incorrect. Because Mr. Obama is a nobody and nothing.
In the U.S. people were dying of hunger

http://www.nonaiswa.org/?p=1190

 

To EvilAztec: Hussein is hardly a nobody in one respect. He is the guy who is doing what the Soviet Union could not do; bring the American people to totalitarian communism. Parasites will remember him in story and song for all time as a greater hero than all of the twentieth dictators combined should he complete the task.

Your guy Boris Borisov is a Russian historian. Hardly a reliable source. His motives behind such a ridiculous claim are suspect to say the least.

Borisov ignores one important detail: Nobody was fleeing to the Soviet Union looking for a meal, but people from all over the world were trying to come here. In addition, the overwhelming majority of Americans rejected collectivism during the Great Depression as they do today.

The clincher is that Borisov cites only one horror story:

“We changed our usual food for something for available. We used to eat bush leaves instead of cabbage. We ate frogs too. My mother and my older sister died during a year.” (Jack Griffin).”

Discounting propaganda novels, there should be a mountain of material from surviving family members supporting Borisov’s claim of 7 million dead based on nothing more than statistics chosen to support his goal.

Borisov goes off the deep end when he compares the WPA to the Soviet system of forced labor camps collectively known as gulag. Nobody was forced to work for the WPA. If you did take a job you could always quit. Not so under communism.

Finally, this old depression era joke highlights the important difference between forced labor and freedom of choice.

Jobs were hard to find during the Great Depression so Mary decided to pass herself as a man in order to try for jobs that were generally given to men. After cutting her hair, etc., she lucked out and landed a sandhog's job working in the Lincoln Tunnel then under construction.

One day John was working on the level beneath Mary when he happened to look up. Unbeknownst to Mary, the crutch of her dungarees had split open. When John saw that he went to the foreman, threw down his shovel, and announced that he quit. The foreman was surprised to say the least; so he asked "Are you sure you want to give up a good job during a depression?"

John replied "Depression or no depression, you ain't working the balls off of me."

 

Of course,all this is an illiterate writings.I do not know why he is so attached to Hussein,he could remember,for example,Pinochet,Somoza,Suharto or South African aparthed - ordinary bourgeoise dictators,the best friends of the West.

Accusations of totalitarianism are simply laughable.I've already read that totalitarism is only a technology of social mobilization for some goals,and this mobilization is not in the nature of communism,but in the nature of countries, fighting for their survival.Remember the history:the more the USSR became stronger, the more liberal became it's political regime.Remember,in 1960s-1980s West was far more repressive.

Street repressions in the USA:

August,1965,Watts Riot in Los Angeles - 31 killed and about a yhousand of wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Riot);

Julay,1967,, Newark Riot - 25 killed[ (including 2 babies), 725 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Newark_riots);

July 1967, 12th Street Detroit riot - 43 killed, 467 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Street_riot);

February 6, 1968 Orangeburg massacre - 2 killed, 28 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre);

December 4, 1969 Chicago police raid (a raid on the Black Panther office in Chicago ) - 2 killed, several wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton#Death_following_Chicago_police_raid);

May 4, 1970 Kent State Shooting - 4 killed, 9 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings);it became well known because in this case the victims were not poor black teenagers from the ghetto, but the offsprings of the establishment;

May 9, 1970 Augusta Riot - 6 dead, 80 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Augusta,_Georgia#Difficult_times);

14-15 May 1970, Jackson State killings - 2 killed, 12 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings);

August 1970 Chicano Moratorium, 4 killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicano_Moratorium);

May 13, 1985 1985 MOVE bombing - 11 killed, including 5 children.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing);

February 28, 1993 Waco siege - 80 killed, 3 wounded (though most of them died not from bullets, but were burned up in the besieged and set on fire by the National Guard house). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege);

September 3, 2001 Rainbow Farm - 2 killed, 1 wounded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Farm).

It is, pay attention, according to the mainstream American press.According to Soviet historian N. Yakovlev in the 1960s the Army National Guardwas used by U.S. authorities against the demonstrators 257 times, 220 demonstrators were killed and several thousand were injured.

Well,where is the great difference between the bourgeoise democracy and the dictatorship?

 

You do not like that the author is Russian? Not surprisingly, because you live in a fascist country.

 

To General Winter: Read and learn. Here’s a message I posted in May of 2002:

For a number of years Socialists have lumped dictators into one species. In truth they come in three basic types: military dictators, religious dictators, and political dictators. Each of the three types embrace elements of the other two. My personal guide to understanding dictators is to determine if they are hellbent on expanding their dictatorship beyond their own national borders, as opposed to the stay-at-home variety.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Napoleon Bonaparte were expansionists. Oddly enough, Castro living on his tiny island is an expansionist with delusions of grandeur that Stalin would have envied. Pinochet and Franco were of the stay-at-home variety.

Colonial empires in recent centuries were extensive without actually requiring a traditional dictator at the helm. A government of any kind benefitting from its colonies acts as a dictator.
Dictators very often start a nation on the road to empire. Empires, like the Roman Empire, were usually enlarged and maintained by a line of dictators —— some benevolent.

America opposes the expansionist type dictator because they are, or very soon will be, a serious threat to the American people. America usually ignores the stay-at-homes unless international Socialists single them out as easy pickings for a communist takeover; then it is to this country’s advantage to support the local dictator. This is as it should be. Sometimes this policy backfires. Saddam Hussein received American help in his war against Iran because he was a stay-at-home dictator at the time. Either he became an expansionist, or was one all of the time and Washington just didn’t know it. In any event, he is now a very dangerous expansionist. Arafat is a Hussein without a country at this time.

Established communist governments don’t like expansionists like Hitler. Communists have always believed that they, and they alone, have the Right to expand. Pol Pot was a communist and a renegade expansionist. Pol Pot was viewed as a danger to his fellow Communists. That is why Vietnamese Communists deposed him without making any serious effort to capture and execute him for his crimes. No matter what he had done to the Cambodian people he was still a communist. To Socialists/Communists that means he wasn’t all bad.

Socialists have been engaged in an on-going propaganda war for decades. If they can convince the American people that all dictators are the same, they can then use the American military to advance the socialist dream of world communist domination. The U.S. military knocks over a stay-at-home dictator and then Communists ease on in and set up their own brand of dictatorship without risking a thing. That is what I fear when I refer to touchy-feely wars.

The U.S. has not been an expansionist nation in a hundred years. That fact was the foundation for the trust that the American people used to get from most foreign governments and peoples throughout the first half of the 20th century. Everyone knew that Americans had no desire to invade and occupy any foreign country. American Socialists are the only expansionists left in the US. As Socialists increase their political power here at home through lies and propaganda, trust in America diminishes everywhere.

Throughout the Cold War Soviet Communists trusted American Socialists/Communists to do the right thing by communism if they could —— and they often could as in anti-Vietnam War protests. That trust has not been misplaced to this day even though the Soviet Union went kaput twelve years ago.

Democrats in Congress always voice their heartfelt concerns for the people living under stay-at-home dictators. Internal revolutions fought against a stay-at-home dictator offering no threat to the United States is like mother’s milk to American Socialists/Communists. Elected Democrats always support touchy-feely revolutions while opposing wars fought against communist expansion that are clearly being fought to protect the United States as in Korea and Vietnam.

Beginning with the Spanish Civil War in 1936 the intelligentsia (those are authors and public trough intellectuals who think political thoughts for a living) have always portrayed the people fighting for socialism/communism as freedom fighters. I’m not joking.

To EvilAztec: Did not like that author because he is wrong.

 

Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades

MARTINSVILLE, Ohio — With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.
It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.

Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare.

While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away.

From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.

There are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps, according to an analysis of local data collected by The New York Times.

The counties are as big as the Bronx and Philadelphia and as small as Owsley County in Kentucky, a patch of Appalachian distress where half of the 4,600 residents receive food stamps.

In more than 750 counties, the program helps feed one in three blacks. In more than 800 counties, it helps feed one in three children. In the Mississippi River cities of St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, half of the children or more receive food stamps. Even in Peoria, Ill. — Everytown, U.S.A. — nearly 40 percent of children receive aid.

While use is greatest where poverty runs deep, the growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust. There are about 50 small counties and a dozen sizable ones where the rolls have doubled in the last two years. In another 205 counties, they have risen by at least two-thirds. These places with soaring rolls include populous Riverside County, Calif., most of greater Phoenix and Las Vegas, a ring of affluent Atlanta suburbs, and a 150-mile stretch of southwest Florida from Bradenton to the Everglades.

Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.

“I think the response of the program has been tremendous,” said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, “but we’re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.”

Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible, with rates ranging from an estimated 50 percent in California to 98 percent in Missouri. Mr. Concannon urged lagging states to do more to enroll the needy, citing a recent government report that found a sharp rise in Americans with inconsistent access to adequate food.

“This is the most urgent time for our feeding programs in our lifetime, with the exception of the Depression,” he said. “It’s time for us to face up to the fact that in this country of plenty, there are hungry people.”

The program’s growing reach can be seen in a corner of southwestern Ohio where red state politics reign and blue-collar workers have often called food stamps a sign of laziness. But unemployment has soared, and food stamp use in a six-county area outside Cincinnati has risen more than 50 percent.

With most of his co-workers laid off, Greg Dawson, a third-generation electrician in rural Martinsville, considers himself lucky to still have a job. He works the night shift for a contracting firm, installing freezer lights in a chain of grocery stores. But when his overtime income vanished and his expenses went up, Mr. Dawson started skimping on meals to feed his wife and five children.
Matthew Ericson and Janet Roberts contributed reporting.
full article here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVXajhlbS8U"]American Show (English) - YouTube[/ame]

 

This made me lough most of all:

I even do not ask why originally there were 12 states and now there are 50.

I simply suggest you to play a game "Name the US Military Interventions since WWII?" :

http://www.sporcle.com/games/faraznaeem/militaryinterventions

 

To General Winter: America’s Military interventions do not conquer and enslave people in foreign lands. Not so with communist expansion by violent revolution or military force.

 

Yeah, these invasions only killed millions for the sake of so-called "democracy", which is nothing more than Oligarchy. What a great country this USA is!

 

They didn't kill them,they saved them from communism as it was in Hiroshima or in Drezden.They simply erased hundreds od thousands of civilians and saved them from communism."Better dead than red",you know.This is a very humane.

 

To KGB & General Winter: Had Japan not declared war on the US there would have been no Hiroshima and no Nagasaki; Hitler would not have declared on the US. Then-Senator Harry Truman’s advice would have dominated America’s war policy stated in June of 1941:

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

Just to refresh your memory. It was American Communists who began agitating for America’s entry into the war in Europe —— on the Soviet Union’s side —— the very day after Hitler double-crossed Stalin before Stalin could do it to him. Before that day came, Soviet Communists and Nazis were joined at the hip. For Soviet Union apologists to now criticize America for the destruction in Europe is hypocritical since they got exactly what they wanted.

 

And then, when you do not support your ally as long as Japan, a small country is not bent you face in the dirt. And only then you are doing atomic bombing as coward