portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

government | imperialism & war

Just like the Nazis

What did the Nazis do after Hitler was appointed chancellor? They shut down the government just like the Republicans
Glen Yeadon
From the Streets of Little Beruit
Oct 2, 2013

Just Like the Nazis.
What did the Nazis do after Hitler was appointed chancellor? They shut down the government just like the Republicans. What did the Nazis do after they failed to gain a majority in the 1933 election? They shut down the government just like the Republicans. The Nazis had no intention of compromising or respect for the democratic process and neither do the Republicans. The Nazis were hell bent to shove their radical fascist agenda down Germany's throat, and the Republicans intent to do the same here. The similarity in tactics don't end here, the Nazis suppressed the vote and so do the Republicans. The recent immigration bill should be called the Republican voter suppression bill of 2013 as the path to citizenship has been deliberately poisoned by the Republicans. They know that once the Hispanics can vote their reign of terror is over.
The similarity doesn't end with tactics but carries over to agenda as well. Hitler lowered the taxes on the rich and corporations and so did the Republicans. Hitler outlawed union and the Republicans attack unions at every turn. Hitler cut social spending and so did the Republicans. The Republicans serve only one god corporate Amerika, the same god the Nazis served in Germany.
Now before some damn fool claims the Nazis were socialist because the word Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist Party. Well you can call yourself anything but you will be judged by your actions. However, it was the Bush poppy's election campaign in 1988 that had to accept the resignation of 3 known Nazis. One of those known Nazis was a convicted war criminal from Hungary named Laszlo Pasztor. In the case of Pasztor the Bush poppy can't even feign ignorance. In the 1968 after Nixon won the presidential election and George Bush became the chairmen of the Republican part, Nixon tasked Bush with setting up the ethnic heritage groups with the Republican party. Bush appointed Paszlor to create the ethnic heritage groups which were nothing but dens of eastern Europe Nazi quislings. It was their reward for helping Nixon's election campaign. Nixon and Allen Dulles both believed the Nazi quislings were good for getting out the vote.
Paszlor presence on the Bush reelection team raises serious questions. By his own admission Paszlor says he arrived in America in the 1950s using his own name. How was it that a convicted Nazi war criminal was allowed in during this time when both the justice department And immigration were actively engaged in deporting war criminals and barring them from entry. Certainly a convicted war criminal went far beyond Truman's dictate of only nominal Nazis would be allowed to immigrate. SO who was it in the Republican Eisenhower administration that paved the way for Paszlor? Were they blackmailed or were they paid off? And why has every attorney general and immigration officials have left this war criminal untouched but found the time to pursue lesser criminals like an unknown concentration guard. Paszlor has held highly visible positions in Nixon's and Bush's campaigns as well as high positions inside the republican party and whose Coalitions of the Americas is housed as a subsidiary in the Free Congress Foundation, the political arm of Heritage Foundation.
Was Paszlor connected with Ferenc Nagy the former Hungarian president that was closely connected with the Kennedy assassination and was thought to be signaling the shooters with his umbrella?
Why is it that this convicted Nazi war criminal who has held highly visible positions and was exposed in the 1970s by Jack Anderson in his columns has never been deported? What hold does he have? Is he blackmailing the entire government?

just the republicans? 03.Oct.2013 17:05


I'm sorry but the democrats are really as culpable for most of these things as well. Both parties represent their constituency, which isn't us. The republicans are maybe a little more obvious.

I'm not disagreeing with you post, but there is more to it. The dems support the NSA wire tapping, and they are just as responsible the shit that has happened.

Chomsky said, we have one political party with two factions.

signaling the shooters with his umbrella? 03.Oct.2013 20:32


you and Rat need to get together and chat. I don't know what any of that has to do with the government shutdown.

When Nader, Pat Buchanan, Drudge, and Chomsky all agree, then there maybe something to it. Two Parties in Washington. Libertarian and Authoritarian and its not that hard to tell who is who.

Unclear that this is so (needs discussion) 04.Oct.2013 06:18

Mike Novack

"Chomsky said, we have one political party with two factions" --- and a lot of us feel the same way. But what that is REALLY saying is that the realm of political discourse is potentially much larger than the difference between our two big political parties. Chomsky (and many of us) would prefer the fighting to be taking place over a much wider difference of opinions.

BUT (a big but) would that be fruitful? Remember, in a democracy (if working properly) the political fighting takes place over the issues that the people do care about, not those issues which "the wise" among us think they SHOULD care about. So we have to ask, what is the CURRENT situation, what is the range of division on our country, and does the range of the two big political parties mirror that?

Sorry, but at the present moment it appears that we, the people of this country, are indeed deeply divided on approximately the lines of our two current big political parties. There is far less mixing across those party lines than at any time before within my lifetime.

How about discussing THIS? Aren't these precisely the conditions under which greater differences between the parties can emerge? (because no benefit to any politician for moving toward the center). Of course might not be the best outcome. Last time in our history when the divisions grew and grew and nobody able to accept a workable compromise we fought a civil war.

" Little Beruit[sic] " 04.Oct.2013 09:30


Not possible to take this author (given his illiterate tagline) even a bit seriously