www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.>Fascism is based on the ideal of National SOCIALISM. The only real>difference between a Nazi and a Communist is that a Nazi believes that
>socialism can be achieved in a single nation while a communist believes
>that a global socialist state is need to fully implement socialist
>tyranny.
One of the first things the Nazis did was to murder every socialist they could find. When leftists talk about socialism today they mean DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM,
[Internet Wizards] This is simply not true. The Nazis were proud to claim their socialist agenda and were considered as part and parcel of the left by every major trade union, socialist party and the CPSU until 1941.
with workers (including managers) having democratic control (one-person-one-vote, not one-dollar-one-vote as in the U.S. today) over the businesses they work in and over the economy and government as a whole.
[Internet Wizards] Equal shares regardless of merit, appropriation of other's property, government control of the economy for the public good. Rooting out the greedy <fill in the blank, Jews, Capitalists, Kulaks> to make the world a better place... we've heard it before from Lenin, Engels, Marx, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Pol Pot... and MILLIONS have been murdered for it. That's what socialism is. That's what you are advocating for.Regardless of their party's name or the original beliefs of some of their members, the actual facts of Nazism and Italian and Japanese Fascism is that they were financed by (some) wealthy businessmen and they served the interests of wealthy businessmen.
[Internet Wizards] More nonsense. The Japanese militarists grew out of the Samurai culture of Japan (I thought you leftists LIKED diversity) and wasn't national socialist. The Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes all have a common ancestry and while they all enjoyed support from some wealthy members of society, they existed to promote and advance the power of the party through which the worker's dreams would be realized. You need to read more history and less propaganda. You haven't offered proof one for your mistaken opinion.All these forms of Fascism specifically murdered everyone who advocated democratic control of businesses and the economy by the people. They even murdered union leaders who simply wanted to organize workers so they could gain some leverage toward better wages and conditions.
[Internet Wizards] What are you talking about!???? The nazis came in on the idea of Volks control of the economy and they siezed control of both labor and capital in the name of the Volk. There was nothing capitalist about the Nazis but there was a lot of socialist ideology in their actions and rhetoric. The Nazis and the USSR where both excellent examples of the fully developed socialist state.The German Fascists (Nazis) got most of their financing from (some) wealthy American businessmen. After WWII, (some) wealthy American businessmen, acting through conservative politicians, carried out assassinations and covert and overt military attacks on dozens of different nations, to murder exactly the same sorts of pro-human political leaders that the Nazis murdered. See the references below.
[Internet Wizards] More nonsense. Hitlers biggest western supporters were the great liberal leaders of the day. Hitler did enjoy the backing of some powerful businessmen early in his career. However, once he took power, the Nazi state usurped control of those concerns (Krupp, Farben, et al) throught the Reichsminstry of Economics telling them what to produce, how to produce it, how much to pay their workers, what they could sell, how much they could charge for it, to whom they could sell it, on what terms and how much money they'd be able to retain. That is a command economy, which is the basis of socialism. It is entirely non-capitalist.>This person is of the mistaken assumption that profits are evil.
No, it is _excessive_ profits -- those that rob from workers most of the value of the goods and services they produce -- that are evil.
[Internet Wizards] What are you talking about? No one "robs the workers", without the capital outlay there is no production. The worker is paid, the owner makes a profit, all benefit. There is no robbery here. And who determines what is excessive? You? the Party? In a capitalist economy the MARKET decides when enough is enough..> what he ignores is that the much maligned American capitalist economy has created more wealth
A great deal of the wealth created by the American capitalist economy has been accomplished by taking control of third world nations (see the references below), robbing their natural resources, installing murderous dictatorial (death-squad) governments, and then using their populations as slave labor at wages of pennies per hour to grow and manufacture products for American corporations. This practice is still going on.
[Internet Wizards] Purchasing oil from the Far and Mid East, Rubber from Malaysia (a product introduced to Malaysia from Brazil by the British Empire), clothing from China, and so on isn't "stealing" anything. The very assumption is flawed from it's outset. The success of the American economy is based on the fact that the American worker is the most productive in the world, the American farmer is the most efficient in the world, the American legal system equally defends property rights of Americans and foreigners equally, the American military is powerful enough to defend American rights in any theatre, the American merchant fleet is the largest in the world and the American culture is literally built on the idea of peaceful commerce and individual free enterprise.
Over 90% of the GDP in the US is generated by Americans buying from other Americans. The notion that the US "imposes" dictators on foriegn nations is ludicrous. Have we occassionally intervened abroad? Yes. Have we always been on the side of the angels? No. But toppling a socialist and islamist Mossadeq in favor of the hardly more democratic Shah didn't "impose" a regime on Iran, it was a choice of dictators and we chose the friendly one. (to provide an example). However, the US didn't create the African dictators that dominate the continent (though we did help install the Communist ANC in South Africa... talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire!). In the Americas, American foriegn policy from 1980-2000 TOPPLED most of the dictatorial governments in the Western hemisphere and replaced them with elected governments. In 1980, the USA, Canada, Mexico and Brazil were the only elected governments in the Americas. Today, only Cuba has a non-elected government. That change is almost entirely due to AMERICAN influence and intervention. To accuse American foriegn policy of being directed towards creating dictators to provide cheap labor for corporate concerns is ridiculous on it's face.
When American business goes into a low wage market, it generally IMPROVES the local standard of living. The principal is called the law of one price. If a worker makes $10.00/hr in the US and an Indian worker makes $1.00, US companies opening a plant in India places upward pressure on Indian wages and downward pressure on US wages. However, the lower price for the finished product places a downward pressure on prices and a corresponding upward pressure on demand, creating more jobs which places an upward pressure on wages. Given time, wages will tend to even out globally relative to production.
We are already seeing this in Mexico. A Mexican worker is, on average 60% as efficient as an American of equal skill (there are many cultural and local reasons for this). Before NAFTA, that Mexican worker made 10% of what his American counterpart did. Since NAFTA (and it's only been a few years) where the artificial barriers to free trade between the USA and Mexico came down, those wages have risen to 25% of what an American makes. Given a few more years, we would expect Mexican wages to rise to 60% of US wages with further increases as Mexican economic efficiency improves, assuming it does.
>and distributed it more evenly than any other economic system in the history of mankind. No socialist economy
anywhere, ever has created the broad distribution of wealth the US economy has... period.
Wrong. Scandinavian and other countries that practice Social Democracy -- democratic control over a capitalist economy, with limitations on profits and a large public sector to provide housing, medical care, etc., that capitalism doesn't -- have much better distribution of wealth than the U.S. economy.
[Internet Wizards] Not true. According to a UN (hardly a capitalist friendly organization) the Scandinavian countries, which are being slowly bankrupted by their ridiculously overbloated "social bureacracy" have a very poor distribution of wealth. Almost all wealth is in the hands of a very few political elites while the general populace does with subsistence wages after taxes, what keeps these societies from imploding is the standard of living enjoyed in Scandinavia is relatively good thanks to the state social programs. However, there is little room of individual achievement or for an individual to determine and seek their own best interests. You get what the bureacrat says you get, no more and no less.
For a few years, Scandinavia enjoyed a higher standard of living than the US and the highest in Europe. With the general decline in the Euro-Economy and the relative global strength of the US economy, Americans are wealthier than Swedes or Finns or Norwegians and the highest standard of living in Europe can now be found in Luxembourg (of all places!).
And people in Cuba, and under the former socialist government of Nicaragua, have done much better than under U.S.-imposed capitalism, even with U.S.-enforced trade embargos and military attacks that did tremendous damage to their economies.
[Internet Wizards] You have GOT to be kidding, you can't possibly be this ignorant! Nicaragua's GDP fell 50% under the Sandinistas and the genocide of the Misquitzo Indians was well documented. Cuba has a median wage roughly 5% of the US and a standard of living comparable to Haiti even though Cuba is a much richer country.>He also assumes that the elimination of all social barriers is a good thing. History shows us this isn't so. The social anarchy that followed the French and Russian revolutions were not the beginnings of a socialist utopia, they were rightly called Reigns of Terror.
Sooner or later tyrants and their advocates will divulge their true motives! Here "Zuukie" and (as I'm told) her friends are advocating the maintenance of economic-class, racial, and gender social barriers, which can mean nothing less than control of the government, society, and economy by wealthy white businessmen. This is exactly the agenda of the Fascists and the businessmen who supported them, for the simple purpose of maximizing their profits.
>The "gay rights" movement isn't about civil rights for homosexuals. Homosexuals enjoy all the same civil rights as other Americans.
Absolutely false. Homosexual people are generally not allowed to have official marriages, and so are denied the various economic and social rights that such marriages confer, and they are also discriminated against in employment, housing, etc.
[Internet Wizards] There is no "right" to marry. If there was, a single person could sue for not being provided with a spouse. The Supreme Court held in 1967 that marriage is NOT a creature of the state, therefore the miscegnation laws were unconstitutional. The court went on to affirm marriage is an ancient institution that the state may accomodate and recognize but may not redefine. This is good news for inter-racial couples, bad news for "gay" couples. There is no violation of civil rights in affirming marriage. Furthermore, there is no evidence that "gays" are denied economic opportunity, being on average wealthier than the average American. Sorry, but the facts don't back you up.
>Its about government mandated endorsement of sodomy and nothing else.
That is an absurd lie. Sodomy -- oral and anal sex -- is widely practiced by heterosexual, as well as homosexual, people. The laws that homosexual people want, permitting marriage and forbidding discrimination, do not "endorse" sodomy any more than current laws endorse penile-vaginal intercourse.
[Internet Wizards] More nonsense. There is no compelling or even rational reason to dismantle marriage to satisfy 3% of the population who wants to engage in abberant sex. Should we also prevent discrimination against child molesters and those into bestiality?Here is the ideal general principle of morality: Don't harm other people; do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
In fact, that is the fundamental principle of Wicca!
"If ye harm none, do what thou wilt!"
[Internet Wizards] Actually, it's do as you will is the whole of law.>The 'gay rights' movement wants to create a 'right of access' for homosexuals to other people's children.
This vague and unsupported accusation is a repetition of the favorite lying smear against homosexual people by Christian and Jewish Fundamentalists -- that they are child molesters. Not only are most child molesters heterosexual, the percentage of child molesters among homosexuals is no greater than that among heterosexuals. Child molestation has no connection whatsoever with the gender of people to whom one is attracted.
[Internet Wizards] It's really irrelevant of whether or not "gays" are child molesters. Its that you have no right to push your morality (or lack thereof) on my children through the offices of the state.
>The have demanded that the Congress reverse Loving v. Virginia, where the court ruled that marriage was a common law institution that was not subject to redefinition by the state and in the process they did away with miscegenation laws. Now they want to say marriage is whatever the state says it is.
Marriage confers upon the couple certain recognition and rights that help them to care for each other and their children. Homosexual couples should have these benefits in return for their commitment to each other in marriage just as heterosexual couples do, including those of mixed "races", who were formerly forbidden to marry by "miscegenation" laws.
[Internet Wizards] Read Loving v. Virginia and find out WHY the miscegnation laws were struck down. "Gays" would be better off if the ruling went Virginia's way. Moreover, "gays" can't have children with one another. A child with 2 mommies is being denied a father while one with 2 daddies is being denied a mother. You want the state to interfere in the natural parent child relationship in order to advance the demands of a shrill and abberant minority.
Contrast this with interracial couples who are quite capable of having children, thank you very much.
>It's not as if these demands have improved the lot of homosexuals. In the Netherlands, where they've gotten everything they've wanted, their median age of death is still roughly 40 years younger than similarly situated >heterosexuals and they suffer MORE greatly from depression and other >mental illness than in the states.
There are many ways in which the Netherlands and the U.S. differ. To claim that homosexual people in Holland are more depressed than those in the U.S. (if this is even true), and that this is due to their having full civil rights, is absurd. No cause-and-effect connection is given. "Zuukie" is using the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, claiming that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.
[Internet Wizards] No, what I said was that gaining full legal mandate hasn't made them any happier, not that it caused them to be more depressed. The problem isn't denial of civil rights, since they already enjoy the same civil rights as everyone else, its that gaining the special priviledges they sek isn't going to help them, the problem is that they suffer from a pathology whether the medical community admits it or not and THAT'S what needs to be addressed.>Feminism isn't about civil rights for women. Women have had all the civil rights of men since the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920.
Again "Zuukie" flatly makes an assertion that is utterly false. Women have been discriminated against in employment and wages, and in protection by the law (when attacks by men are dismissed as mere "domestic disputes", and not prosecuted).
[Internet Wizards] Not so. Women enjoy equal protection of the laws. No law forbids a woman access to the courts, she can own property and enforce contracts and a crime is not lessened in severity when committed against a women (in many cases it increases in severity in the eyes of the law).
Once you account for length of time in position and for the fact that women often CHOOSE to leave the career field for personal reasons (e.g. to rear children) there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that women lack economic opportunity.
>It's about redefining society to say men and women are identical (as opposed to equal),
In fact, the capability of women to perform productive work and to head a family IS identical to that of men.
[Internet Wizards] Is this why juvenille deliquency is 500% more likely in households headed by single women than in those headed by a married couple... facts are such troublesome things... to the Left.
>that men and male perogatives like fatherhood and the traditional family are 'outmoded'.
More vague and meaningless crap. Unless "traditional family" means the man in the family dominating the woman, according to the dictates of the Old Testament. That certainly _should_ be eliminated.
[Internet Wizards] Another example of liberal tolerance I see. Your understanding of human social dymanics is awe inspiring... for it's ineptitude. The structure you want to eliminate has been shown by every measurable indicator to be the highest and best environment both for children and the adult couple involved.
>Of course, with the adoption of government preferrence of single mothers, abortion on demand and so on, we've seen our juvenile deliquency rates sky-rocket, we've seen the absolute destruction of the family unit in the black and latino communities (and it's not in such great shape among whites either, but Asians and Jews seem to be fairly a little better).
There is no cause-and-effect relationship shown here. By far the most important cause of family difficulties is limited income, which results from the robbery, by wealthy people as profit, of most of the value of the goods and services produced by working parents.
[Internet Wizards] Actually there is a cause and effect. Even when blacks could legimitately claim an economic disadvantage, the black family was strong, crime and deliquency rates were low. Enter feminism, and despite better economic opportunity the black community is in the midst of a social meltdown.
>Wicca, and these other New Age religions, seek to reduce man to the level of the animals instead of recognizing that each of us is a unique creation.
The reader can dispel this absurd lie by reading any book by recognized Wiccans, such as those by Starhawk:
Wiccan religions leave their members free to be themselves and believe what they wish. It's the Jewish/Christian/Islamic religions that order people to submit to domination by the jealous god in the sky, and (actually) to the dictates of his priests and their writings.
>Likewise, these religions are socialist, emphasizing the group over the individual. Man exists to serve the state (or the coven, or whatever group you like).
Wicca doesn't make people serve anyone or any thing. "Zuukie" and her bigoted right-wing friends are just making this shit up.
[Internet Wizards] Wicca and other occult religions place the group, the state, the collective over the individual. No one is "making this up" and to deal in truth is hardly bigotry but your high handed assumptions might be (such blatant hatred of anyone who stands up to them is so typical of the left) We've already seen how tolerant you are towards those with whom you disagree.
>Whereas under Jewish morality, government exists to serve the people. Instead of the worker being a cog in the >state managed "greater good" (as under socialism and New Age religion), Judaism holds that each man, even the lowliest laborer, is entitled to seek his own betterment, the economy serves the person NOT the otherway around. Insofar as it is human nature to seek one's own interests, and insofar as Judaism teaches one how to do so in a way that builds a better world for everyone it is FAR more human than any religion that man conceived.
Tell that to the Palestinians, who have been robbed, pushed off their land, and tens of thousands tortured and murdered by the fundamentalist Jewish state of Israel. Tell it to male babies screaming out their agony while being genitally mutilated (circumcised), as allowed or asked for by brainwashed parents who believe and follow the most anti-human doctrines merely because they are written in the Bible/Torah.
[Internet Wizards] Anti-Semitism AND historical revisionism! My aren't we righteous?!
The claim that individuals can "better themselves" within an unregulated capitalist economy is a myth for most people. Poor people have difficulty affording the education adequate for competing in business, and businesses they start themselves are at a great disadvantage compared to established ones that already enjoy name recognition, distribution channels, and economies of scale. The "Horatio Alger" myth is promulgated by the wealthy capitalist elite to get the sheep to serve them -- "Serve me long enough and someday you too will join the elite and be able to rob the value of what workers produce." For almost everyone, with very few exceptions, that day never comes.
[Internet Wizards] Yes, that's right. My grandfather made up his life story... the millions of Americans who did what you say didn't happen are ALL lying... or maybe, just maybe... you are.
>This is the most inane, assinine load of leftist garbage I have read in a while. The author is utterly clueless about how societies and economies actually work. What he and his confederates seek is not liberty but license, not freedom but the ability to tyranize those who don't agree with him. It is socialism as we have seen it in a thousand gulags and concentration camps around the world. We will see it again, sadly, and millions will pay with their lives for his greed and the greed of his confederates. But let's call this by it's right name. It's not "progressive"... it's evil!
Vague rhetorical bullshit! What I seek is democracy -- control of government and economy by all people equally, without unfair advantages gained by the wealthy through campaign financing and winner-take-all voting. And furthermore, people must have a variety of uncensored news media that tell the whole truth, not media owned and controlled by wealthy businessmen telling lies that serve only themselves. Such as the current Big Lie that the U.S. was attacked by "terrorists" on 9-11, and we must give up our Constitutional rights and freedoms, and make war on various other (coincidentally oil-rich) countries, in order to be safe.
[Internet Wizards] You seek a socialist dictatorship. I have looked at your site and it's a fine collection of anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Human links. The principles followed by the Russian and Chinese Communists contained the flawed idea of an elite or "vanguard" of Communist Party members who would lead, and thus control, everyone else. This is what resulted in gulags.
Well-informed people in democratic control of their government -- which is what socialists and social-democrats want -- don't put themselves in gulags.
[Internet Wizards] No, they put the people they steal from in gulags.
The US Is And Has Been The Center Of World Fascism -- Destroying Democracy Around the World To Increase The Profits Of Wealthy Businessmen
[Internet Wizards] LOL!!! You are really out of your mind! America is free, capitalist, strong, and worst of all, she believes in G-d... it's enough to make a leftist cry!
o Most of the funding for Hitler's military buildup came from some very wealthy conservative Americans and their businesses. Many of the racial-superiority ideas came from American organizations also.
[Internet Wizards] The influence runs the other way, American nativists were influenced by Socialists like yourself.
o Since WWII, the U.S., on behalf of some very wealthy Americans,has attacked over 50 nations by military action subversion, in order to prevent the citizens of those nations from having democratic control of their government and economy, leaving them helpless against tyranny and exploitation by American corporations and U.S.-backed fascist governments and militia/ death-squads.
[Internet Wizards] Ah yes, we opposed those paragons of justice and freedom the USSR, the Arab League, Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Libya... ah if only they had beaten us.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
