[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by zuendel

Get your facts straight, this is simply not true. I'm tempted to call this part of your post a lie, but perhaps you really don't know any better.

Perhaps you've been exposed to different facts.

I am relying on these:

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

In case you are not familiar with American law, here's the definition of PRIVATE PROPERTY.

“PRIVATE PROPERTY – As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.”
– - – Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

“OWNERSHIP – … Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it… The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. ”
– - -Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

In American law, individual absolute ownership is recognized as one of the inalienable rights protected by government ... until surrendered.

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Originally Posted by zuendel

You're denouncing deception and dishonesty of communists (and you're right to do so), while endorsing religious myths? Pot, meet kettle...

What religious myth requires opposition to theft by collectivist thieves?

Either you support absolute ownership by individuals or you support collective ownership (theft by socialist government).

I can understand why collectivists must attack religions. Religions espouse moral codes that denounce theft and murder.

Wouldn't you rather absolutely own yourself, your labor and the fruits of that labor?

Originally Posted by zuendel

wrong

Che Guevara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guevara was also responsible for the often summary execution of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies.

Is there a minimum number of murders that changes Che from "mass murderer" to merely a murderer?

Let's ask his victims or their survivors.

Originally Posted by zuendel

partially wrong

Isn't communism / socialism theft by government?
Can you partially steal other people's property, liberty, and freedom?

In contrast, pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, 1776, America's governments were instituted to :
1. SECURE rights, and
2. Govern those who CONSENT.

How nice.

I may be delusional, but I prefer a government that secures my right to life, liberty and property ownership over one that denies my right to life, liberty and property ownership - unless I submit to it as a slave.

Originally Posted by zuendel

partially correct, there were others (Leopold II. of Belgium, Turkey on Armenia, Japan in WWII), but the worst hid behind the ideology of communism.

Leopold II of Belgium (Wikipedia)
Estimates of the death toll range from a realistic two to an unlikely fifteen million.
Armenian Genocide (Wikipedia)
The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.

Stalin's tally estimated between 20 and 30 million. (Wikipedia)

Mao
Mao: The Unknown Story - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The book opens with the sentence "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader."

I think the Communists should be "proud" of their prowess at murder - as good predators.

Originally Posted by zuendel

No, sir, this is simply not true. Hitler was in no way a socialist or left wing. I suppose that you really didn't know and just repeated what others have said, and as such will not call you a liar. But you'd be best advised to read up on this topic yourself:

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or even better, the german version, as it is more thorough:

Nationalsozialismus

I disagree with the "experts" who are spin doctoring the truth.

Let's consider the wing with which people are associated with, when speaking of political partisanship.

LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holds the most left or radical views.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holding the views of the Right.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the left of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

Is that clear?
Left = opposition to traditional authority
Right = support of traditional authority

If I may presume - would you agree that "traditional authority and opinion" support:
"Thou shalt not steal" and
"Thou shalt not murder"?

Was HITLER and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or NSDAP in support of traditional authority (right wing) or OPPOSED to traditional authority (left wing)?

I would conclude that Hitler's Third Reich was OPPOSED to traditional authority, and was an advocate of the Collective State as the repository of all rights, powers, privileges and immunities. Ergo, Hitler and the NAZIs (national socialists) were SOCIALISTS of a different flavor than the other socialist thieves in Europe and Asia.

P.S. - his "Fascist" ally, Mussolini, was really a socialist, too.
Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
".... he (Mussolini) was considered to be one of Italy's most prominent Socialists."

He was ousted from the Italian Socialist Party, and concocted his own variation, called the Fascist Party, but he did not renounce his collectivist philosophy.


I think it would be helpful if the term "Fascist" was clarified, too.

FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right which relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes and the brutal use of force for getting and keeping power.
- - - Webster's Dictionary

The major characteristics of "Fascism" :

• EXTREME RIGHT
• PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS
• BRUTAL

True "Fascism" would have to be in support of "traditional" authority, using brutality and pseudo-religious behavior.

Did Hitler and Mussolini really support "traditional authority" or "traditional opinion"? Or did they OPPOSE it?

I think they OPPOSED it - hence they were LEFTISTS posing as "right wing" to disguise their true intent - predation upon the people.

As usual, the leftist thieves cannot honestly expose themselves, lest their victims awaken to their plight.