Random Political Thoughts

[West of the Rockies]

Does anyone here really and truly think any Republican/conservative/Libertarian/TPer (outside of a handful of nut jobs) would endorse anything such as the world saw with Hitler?  Does anyone hear truly think someone who voted for Obama (again, aside from some stray freaks) would throw in with the Nazis?  I mean, I know we are all circling the wagons and arguing for our parties, but the level of fear-mongering, hyperbole and vitriol is crazy here.  Might we agree that both sides have their dRk history, embarrassing alegiances, and mistakes to correct? 

[Yorkshire pud]

The ONLY reason the American Left dropped support for Hitler was because Hitler violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of1939 by invading the Soviet Union in 1941 (also known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact).

When Germany lost the war and the whole world learned of the Nazi atrocities, the American Left cut their losses and began to insist Hitler was somehow a 'Right-winger'.  They are still making these claims right up to today.  Which makes sense, he certainly has to be bad for recruiting.

Interesting take; How do you address that Germany (who let's face it were deeply involved in WW2) see Hitler as a right wing fascist too? Or the UK? Or in fact any country..Yet oddly on this forum, you and one or two others believe otherwise...Now, who do I believe? Decisions...

Speaking of bad for their image - thanks to the internet and the information age, perhaps it will be impossible for them to someday claim they never supported their fellow Leftists in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, or places like Castro's Cuba and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Oh that old chestnut!

The hard radical Left is pretty much the same everywhere.  They have the same goals and use the same tactics.  That's why they should be easy to spot - a couple of current examples being Occupy and the Obama Administration.

You're like a wind up toy PB; Honestly. You just spout the same uninformed bollox in almost every post. I've asked several times and to date you cannot give me an example: Which 'left wing' revolution has occurred where the people overthrew the monarch and installed a peoples parliament where each and every citizen was equal? Moreover can you give the details of a revolution where a peoples collective was overthrown by the people and a monarch or autocracy installed? When I say the people, I don't mean aided and abetted by the USA who just didn't happen to like the elected government..

But i digress...

Stalin wasn't a communist, he was a fascist dictator, so was Pol Pot and Mao. 'Hard left' to use your parlance is someone who doesn't want a government telling them what to do from a position of authority. They also believe in the redistribution of wealth and equal salary irrespective of profession. Stalin oversaw a great many very poor and a few elite. He was such a communist he had several hundred thousand murdered. As well as Jews, Muslims, Christians, and pretty much anyone he thought was a threat.

[NowhereInTime]

Does anyone here really and truly think any Republican/conservative/Libertarian/TPer (outside of a handful of nut jobs) would endorse anything such as the world saw with Hitler?  Does anyone hear truly think someone who voted for Obama (again, aside from some stray freaks) would throw in with the Nazis?  I mean, I know we are all circling the wagons and arguing for our parties, but the level of fear-mongering, hyperbole and vitriol is crazy here.  Might we agree that both sides have their dRk history, embarrassing alegiances, and mistakes to correct?

West, I love you but you miss the point.  The right is incapable of engaging in discussion or debate without creating precondition or prerequisite.

IE: I am a leftist so ergo I must somehow support the principles of Marx and because Marx is somehow invalidated then everything I say, a natural extension of Marx, is therefore invalid.  The Right wins before the first item is debated.  They need to create this false high ground so passive observers to the ongoing debate see leftist ideas as "foreign" or "strange", or "dangerous".

Except its hogwash.

So, yes, each team has some dark shadows lurking in the background but when you attempt to engage the right issue for issue, they fall back on flowery prose of yesteryear's thinkers or, more often, on demonization and demagougery.

[Yorkshire pud]

West, I love you but you miss the point.  The right is incapable of engaging in discussion or debate without creating precondition or prerequisite.

IE: I am a leftist so ergo I must somehow support the principles of Marx and because Marx is somehow invalidated then everything I say, a natural extension of Marx, is therefore invalid.  The Right wins before the first item is debated.  They need to create this false high ground so passive observers to the ongoing debate see leftist ideas as "foreign" or "strange", or "dangerous".

Except its hogwash.

So, yes, each team has some dark shadows lurking in the background but when you attempt to engage the right issue for issue, they fall back on flowery prose of yesteryear's thinkers or, more often, on demonization and demagougery.

You forgot to add an nsky...you need an nsky.

[West of the Rockies]

Yes, I do absolutely agree that the notion that those who vote left have no use for capitalism, don't believe hard work should be rewarded, etc., is ridiculous.  My knowledge of pre-WWII history is lacking as well.  I just think the constant occurrence of Godwin's law to be silly.

[wr250]

Stalin wasn't a communist, he was a fascist dictator, so was Pol Pot and Mao. 'Hard left' to use your parlance is someone who doesn't want a government telling them what to do from a position of authority. They also believe in the redistribution of wealth and equal salary irrespective of profession. Stalin oversaw a great many very poor and a few elite. He was such a communist he had several hundred thousand murdered. As well as Jews, Muslims, Christians, and pretty much anyone he thought was a threat.



your estimate is very low. by many estimates,20 million were  killed by stalin (either executed directly, or died in camps from other causes) . some run as high a 36 million. this doesnt include any casualties from WWII.

The figure comes from the book by Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties (Macmillan 1968). In his appendix on casualty figures, he reviews a number of estimates of those that were killed under Stalin, and calculates that the number of executions 1936 to 1938 was probably about 1,000,000; that from 1936 to 1950 about 12,000,000 died in the camps; and 3,500,000 died in the 1930-1936 collectivization. Overall, he concludes:


Thus we get a figure of 20 million dead, which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so, as the debit balance of the Stalin regime for twenty-three years.
In all the times I've seen Conquest’s 20,000,000 reported, not once do I recall seeing his qualification attached to it.

Considering that Stalin died in 1953, note what Conquest did not include -- camp deaths after 1950, and before 1936; executions 1939-53; the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into the camps, and their deaths 1939-1953; the massive deportation within the Soviet Union of minorities 1941-1944; and their deaths; and those the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern Europe after their conquest during 1944-1945 is omitted. Moreover, omitted is the deadly Ukrainian famine Stalin purposely imposed on the region and that killed 5 million in 1932-1934. So, Conquest’s estimates are spotty and incomplete.

http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

[Yorkshire pud]

your estimate is very low. by many estimates,20 million were  killed by stalin (either executed directly, or died in camps from other causes) . some run as high a 36 million. this doesnt include any casualties from WWII.

Very true. You see my point though.. Stalin killed everyone, not 'community' spirited by any means.

[SciFiAuthor]

I disagree with characterizing Hitler as either right or left. He fixed the German economy with deficit spending on public works projects--a policy more similar to FDR than Herbert Hoover. Hitler also made heavy use of leftwing slogans, such as a radio in every home (FDR promised a chicken in every pot), to both garner support and further his propaganda campaign. This too is not right wing social policy. Even the name, National Socialist German Worker's Party doesn't exactly smack of right wing politics.

Yet the nationalism, military strength, and so on are right wing policies.

I maintain that it's completely superficial, all of it. Hitler was neither right, nor left, but completely off the scale. He sat in an ideological netherworld that doesn't make sense in the context of a standard right-left spectrum. Like the Libertarians, modern Utopians, me, and others, the fascists jump all around the board contingent on the issue and are not beholden to the spectrum.

Genocide is, unfortunately, a policy that both the left and right seem to like if certain social conditions present themselves. It's the only sure way of silencing the opposition, after all. Or stealing land from Indians. Sometimes it's even done to get votes. And, often, when those social conditions are present, people accept it if the slogans are particularly good. That's how we can have a world where the right wants to kill prisoners and the left wants to kill babies. You're all perfectly at ease with your respective trail of corpses.

[onan]

I maintain that it's completely superficial, all of it. Hitler was neither right, nor left, but completely off the scale. He sat in an ideological netherworld that doesn't make sense in the context of a standard right-left spectrum. Like the Libertarians, modern Utopians, me, and others, the fascists jump all around the board contingent on the issue and are not beholden to the spectrum.

Probably the sanest comment on the politics of Hitler.

[albrecht]

Probably the sanest comment on the politics of Hitler.

Yep, great comment. Though nominally a socialist (the policies and even actual name of the party that, for some reason, people forget and just say NAZI) Hitler was just a crazy person who due to the zeitgeist of the time was able to ride the chaos of the economy, the ingrained (maybe) human desire to blame others, the actual threats to Germans from the treaty (and being surrounded by the strongest military powers in Europe), and modernity which allowed mass killing and warfare on a grand new scale.

But Hitler was hardly conservative, in the real term of the word. He was a revolutionary. Ask a junker or the old aristocracy how they fared under and post-Hitler!! Prussia doesn't even exist anymore and now we can go to Kaliningrad to see Kant's home, not Konigsberg! He was leftist but not on par with the more radical elements of the movement, that also killed far more people though with less scientific perversity and horror. He more of a socialist bent to merged industry with country. The country didn't take over ownership (communism) but allowed private capital to benefit the owners if they did the nation's behest. Fascism is a leftist movement, at least in terms of how they named their organizations, in the speeches, in their policies.

[onan]

But Hitler was hardly conservative, in the real term of the word.

I don't think the terms of today have a great deal to do with what was happening in the 1930's and 40's. I know it is simplistic, but it was a different world. Calling Hitler a conservative or liberal doesn't really do anything.

He was a monster. It is hard for me to get my head around anyone subscribing to burning people in ovens, or gassing them in showers. It goes well beyond depravity.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't think the terms of today have a great deal to do with what was happening in the 1930's and 40's. I know it is simplistic, but it was a different world. Calling Hitler a conservative or liberal doesn't really do anything.

He was a monster. It is hard for me to get my head around anyone subscribing to burning people in ovens, or gassing them in showers. It goes well beyond depravity.

Political paradigms are definitely not the same. The world changed for the better when we quit thinking about conquest and fighting about radical political ideology. If you really think about it, the mainstream right and left today are actually about 90% identical and what we fight about these days are minutiae in comparison to what the Bolsheviks and White Russians were fighting about. That's a good thing. Put another way, the world became reasonable. I hope it continues that way, but sometimes I'm afraid it might not. Particularly lately, elements of extremism seem to be popping up left and right, literally.

The reason we can't fathom concentration camps is because our culture rejects them and doesn't teach that they are good things. It's amazing how culture works that way, you can convince people to kill other people with mere slogans. Sometimes it persists for a very long time; playing cowboys and Indians in the old days was just such a thing. It was a glorification of a genocide and remnant of the concept of manifest destiny, even though manifest destiny had left official policy nearly a century before. That still happens, as I said in the other thread eugenic ideas continue to filter around despite overt eugenic policy being a thing of the past. It's particularly bad within the environmentalist and green movements, those people scare the piss out of me.

[albrecht]

Political paradigms are definitely not the same. The world changed for the better when we quit thinking about conquest and fighting about radical political ideology. If you really think about it, the mainstream right and left today are actually about 90% identical and what we fight about these days are minutiae in comparison to what the Bolsheviks and White Russians were fighting about. That's a good thing. Put another way, the world became reasonable. I hope it continues that way, but sometimes I'm afraid it might not. Particularly lately, elements of extremism seem to be popping up left and right, literally.

The reason we can't fathom concentration camps is because our culture rejects them and doesn't teach that they are good things. It's amazing how culture works that way, you can convince people to kill other people with mere slogans. Sometimes it persists for a very long time; playing cowboys and Indians in the old days was just such a thing. It was a glorification of a genocide and remnant of the concept of manifest destiny, even though manifest destiny had left official policy nearly a century before. That still happens, as I said in the other thread eugenic ideas continue to filter around despite overt eugenic policy being a thing of the past. It's particularly bad within the environmentalist and green movements, those people scare the piss out of me.

Of course we forget that the vaunted "indians" committed genocide and had wars as bloody as us evil white folks before we exported our misery upon them. Look at the history of the wars and expansion of cultures in South America as a good example. Lacking the benefit of the wheel or gunfire (or even hardened steel) they did pretty well in quests for conquests and genocide. Look at Africa today and one will find great examples of indigenous peoples finding a way for mayhem- even if the blades they are using are mass-produced in China and Pakistan and exported to the masses or if the guns earlier given to them by us westerners are used as bludgeons because they have no ammo.

There was, I seem to recall, an effort (I think in one of the Carolinas) recently to set up, basically, a concentration camp to deal with homeless people. Of course the fact that we, in the civilized USA, have more people in prison than most any other country per-capita means nothing? Or that we did it to Japs and Eye-tyes and a few Krauts. Or on the rez for the Indians. I think Americans would fairly quickly go with supporting concentration camps as long as maybe they used another name or if it was "for the children". Arguably, it could be said, that a complete surveillance state in which everyone's  banking transaction, email, travel by plane or train and car (by the new "black box" mandated), or telephone conversation, are monitored and recorded is a virtual concentration camp? Not a death camp. Not a prison camp. Yet, at least. But a concentration camp in which one's actions are always monitored and forcing the person to second guess or consider every action lest they get into trouble, offend by some means (hate speech for example), or risk a criminal or civil liability.

[SciFiAuthor]

Of course we forget that the vaunted "indians" committed genocide and had wars as bloody as us evil white folks before we exported our misery upon them. Look at the history of the wars and expansion of cultures in South America as a good example. Lacking the benefit of the wheel or gunfire (or even hardened steel) they did pretty well in quests for conquests and genocide. Look at Africa today and one will find great examples of indigenous peoples finding a way for mayhem- even if the blades they are using are mass-produced in China and Pakistan and exported to the masses or if the guns earlier given to them by us westerners are used as bludgeons because they have no ammo.

Sure, primitives are primitives. I'm no multi-culturalist, cultures are groups of ideas, nothing more or less. Ideas can be good or bad. If a culture contains enough bad ideas, it remains primitive or fails entirely. That does not excuse the displacement and genocide of the Indians under manifest destiny.

There was, I seem to recall, an effort (I think in one of the Carolinas) recently to set up, basically, a concentration camp to deal with homeless people. Of course the fact that we, in the civilized USA, have more people in prison than most any other country per-capita means nothing? Or that we did it to Japs and Eye-tyes and a few Krauts. Or on the rez for the Indians. I think Americans would fairly quickly go with supporting concentration camps as long as maybe they used another name or if it was "for the children".

Sure, like I said, it's all in the slogans. I guarantee they'd go for it if it involved climate change. The reason we have so many people in prison is because we've written too many laws and come down too hard on the people that break them.

Arguably, it could be said, that a complete surveillance state in which everyone's  banking transaction, email, travel by plane or train and car (by the new "black box" mandated), or telephone conversation, are monitored and recorded is a virtual concentration camp? Not a death camp. Not a prison camp. Yet, at least. But a concentration camp in which one's actions are always monitored and forcing the person to second guess or consider every action lest they get into trouble, offend by some means (hate speech for example), or risk a criminal or civil liability.

I don't know that I'd go that far, I'd have a rough time equating the world as it is now with Auschwitz. Rather I would call it a dystopia. But, yes, I agree. The laws of the US should fill a book, not a library. And of those laws, about 90% of them need to be moved from criminal offenses to fines. There should not be people sitting in prison for running a still, or growing some restricted orchid, or violating an import restriction.

[albrecht]

Sure, like I said, it's all in the slogans. I guarantee they'd go for it if it involved climate change. The reason we have so many people in prison is because we've written too many laws and come down too hard on the people that break them.

I don't know that I'd go that far, I'd have a rough time equating the world as it is now with Auschwitz. Rather I would call it a dystopia. But, yes, I agree. The laws of the US should fill a book, not a library. And of those laws, about 90% of them need to be moved from criminal offenses to fines. There should not be people sitting in prison for running a still, or growing some restricted orchid, or violating an import restriction.

Good job! Aside from that. Regarding slogans, the targeting base of people. No matter how denied, at least to many, there are inherent beliefs (not beeyoond beliefffvs), that when under fire, or even in common circumstance benignl,y are manifest. Some are natural, some aren't but exploited cleverly to turn natural and healthy responses into unhealthy ones. And to also exploit more "baser" elements in human thinking and behavior. The Balkanization of American and the agendas against basic, historical systems and beliefs are a part of that.

As I mentioned the system currently is not Auschwitz but it is still a concentration camp, albeit a smart-grid one. Of sorts. In that, at least for now, it isn't, yet about outright killing (horirible death camp like Auschwitz) but more like the Boer camps or on Cuba back in the day. But by modern, scientific means. Unfortunately though, such a system in place can quickly, and surprisingly so, be converted to more overt means if so desired.

[SciFiAuthor]

Good job! Aside from that. Regarding slogans, the targeting base of people. No matter how denied, at least to many, there are inherent beliefs (not beeyoond beliefffvs), that when under fire, or even in common circumstance benignl,y are manifest. Some are natural, some aren't but exploited cleverly to turn natural and healthy responses into unhealthy ones. And to also exploit more "baser" elements in human thinking and behavior. The Balkanization of American and the agendas against basic, historical systems and beliefs are a part of that.

That's how it works. You can control people if you do three things. 1. Appeal to their emotions 2. Convince them you're the good guy and 3. Scare them. That allows you to appeal to the baser human elements you mention. Slogans, catch-phrases and canned talking points serve the function of propaganda and frame the issues at hand. All politicians use those tactics to some extent, it's how you get elected, "I like Ike" and "Hope and Change" and so on. But when you begin to see agendas that aren't in their overt announced platform making their way into policy, then you know something's going horribly wrong.

And I'm seeing that now with the Obama presidency. Through Holdren, I saw NASA gutted. Well, that shouldn't be surprising, he outright said that he wanted a human race that didn't go out into space because we'd just ruin it. I'm seeing organizations like Greenpeace openly oppose clean alternate energy avenues like fusion and ITER because not only would they solve the energy crisis entirely in just a decade or two, but would provide so much energy that the world would then be able to advance unfettered without the slightest concern for energy consumption. There's a sub-agenda in the Obama administration that they're not openly talking about. Well, all you need do to is read one Holdren's papers. He really does want a reigned in, held back and depopulating human race. And, well, he's the administration's science czar.

As I mentioned the system currently is not Auschwitz but it is still a concentration camp, albeit a smart-grid one. Of sorts. In that, at least for now, it isn't, yet about outright killing (horirible death camp like Auschwitz) but more like the Boer camps or on Cuba back in the day. But by modern, scientific means. Unfortunately though, such a system in place can quickly, and surprisingly so, be converted to more overt means if so desired.

And that's why I say I worry about the direction of the future. The next big activist topic from the left will be overpopulation. They'll probably reframe is population sustainability or some such, but it's really just Malthus' old ideas. All of their intelligentsia is already talking about it. In a few years, it will be in the talking points, slogans and catch-phrases.

Well, there's a very thin line between population reduction and atrocity.

[albrecht]

That's how it works. You can control people if you do three things. 1. Appeal to their emotions 2. Convince them you're the good guy and 3. Scare them. That allows you to appeal to the baser human elements you mention. Slogans, catch-phrases and canned talking points serve the function of propaganda and frame the issues at hand. All politicians use those tactics to some extent, it's how you get elected, "I like Ike" and "Hope and Change" and so on. But when you begin to see agendas that aren't in their overt announced platform making their way into policy, then you know something's going horribly wrong.

And I'm seeing that now with the Obama presidency. Through Holdren, I saw NASA gutted. Well, that shouldn't be surprising, he outright said that he wanted a human race that didn't go out into space because we'd just ruin it. I'm seeing organizations like Greenpeace openly oppose clean alternate energy avenues like fusion and ITER because not only would they solve the energy crisis entirely in just a decade or two, but would provide so much energy that the world would then be able to advance unfettered without the slightest concern for energy consumption. There's a sub-agenda in the Obama administration that they're not openly talking about. Well, all you need do to is read one Holdren's papers. He really does want a reigned in, held back and depopulating human race. And, well, he's the administration's science czar.

And that's why I say I worry about the direction of the future. The next big activist topic from the left will be overpopulation. They'll probably reframe is population sustainability or some such, but it's really just Malthus' old ideas. All of their intelligentsia is already talking about it. In a few years, it will be in the talking points, slogans and catch-phrases.

Well, there's a very thin line between population reduction and atrocity.

"Smart Growth", Agenda 21, "Green" economy, mass transportation funding, giving our countryside and national parks to the UN, Small Arms Treaty, government healthcare databases, etc.

[Lunger]

Hitler was a right wing fascist. It's why he was supported by the right wing Daily Mail (proprietor Lord Rothermere) in the 30's.. Unless it's believed he had a vision of everyone in Germany (and eventually the world) having self determination and in control of their own means of production; Hmmm, don't think so.

This is him having a tête-à-tête with the vicious bastard, and his comment in his paper at the time.

Hitler was as left wing as they get.  What part of National Socialist do you not understand.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hitler was as left wing as they get.  What part of National Socialist do you not understand.

I wondered when you'd bring that up.. Yet you and a few on here are pretty much the only ones on the planet who think he was a socialist. I wonder why that might be? National Socialist is the moniker he gave to sell to the people of Germany. How many Germans do you know who think he was a socialist? In round figures? And tell me, if he was such a socialist, how come these days the only supporters of his policies are in fact right wing bigoted neo nazis? Or are they socialists too?

[wr250]

I wondered when you'd bring that up.. Yet you and a few on here are pretty much the only ones on the planet who think he was a socialist. I wonder why that might be? National Socialist is the moniker he gave to sell to the people of Germany. How many Germans do you know who think he was a socialist? In round figures? And tell me, if he was such a socialist, how come these days the only supporters of his policies are in fact right wing bigoted neo nazis? Or are they socialists too?

those "people" were neither right nor left. they were simply psychotic  homicidal maniacs with delusions of grandeur. hitler killed then replaced those that didnt agree with him with more homicidal maniacs with delusions of grandeur.

[Lunger]

I wondered when you'd bring that up.. Yet you and a few on here are pretty much the only ones on the planet who think he was a socialist. I wonder why that might be? National Socialist is the moniker he gave to sell to the people of Germany. How many Germans do you know who think he was a socialist? In round figures? And tell me, if he was such a socialist, how come these days the only supporters of his policies are in fact right wing bigoted neo nazis? Or are they socialists too?

Point to the things he did that prove he was right-wing.

Was it nationalization education?
Was it nationalizing health care?
Was it nationalizing transportation?
Was it nationalizing major industries?

Hitler openly stated that the Nazi party was socialist and don't forget that Hitler hated the Communists not because of their ideology, but because they were rivals.

Please tell me the difference between Hitler and;
Stalin
Lenin
Mao
Pol Pot
Kim Jong Il

All of them were socialist/communists bastards who needed to kill in order to build the State.

Do you seriously think Neo-Nazis think on a statist level?  Nice try, but like the rest of the gang, Hitler was one of yours.

[Yorkshire pud]

Point to the things he did that prove he was right-wing.

Was it nationalization education?
Was it nationalizing health care?
Was it nationalizing transportation?
Was it nationalizing major industries?

Hitler openly stated that the Nazi party was socialist and don't forget that Hitler hated the Communists not because of their ideology, but because they were rivals.

Please tell me the difference between Hitler and;
Stalin
Lenin
Mao
Pol Pot
Kim Jong Il

All of them were socialist/communists bastards who needed to kill in order to build the State.

Do you seriously think Neo-Nazis think on a statist level?  Nice try, but like the rest of the gang, Hitler was one of yours.

Hitler was one of mine? Hmmmm. Is the suggestion I am a Nazi? Stalin wasn't a Communist, nor Pol Pot, nor Kim Jong Il Or Un, nor Mao. If they were, their countries populations and themselves would be equal, but they weren't.

The UK has a national education system, and health, as does France and Germany, as does Japan. Are you suggesting they're all Communist? Hitler said he was socialist; Oh that's that settled then! He told the Jews that they were going on their holidays too, he lied about that one.

It would be an easy thing to get offended Karl at it being implied I'm a Nazi, but only if a) you knew what you were talking about, and b) you knew what you were talking about. Technically that's one point, but it's so fundamental it's worth mentioning twice.

You still haven't explained how the rest of the world disagrees with you...Especially Germany. In your own time.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Aren't Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Canadia and Belgium fairly socialistic countries? No Nazis there. Finland also has the best educational system in the world with 100% literacy.

[Kate the Bionic Uterus]

Point to the things he did that prove he was right-wing.

Was it nationalization education?
Was it nationalizing health care?
Was it nationalizing transportation?
Was it nationalizing major industries?

Hitler openly stated that the Nazi party was socialist and don't forget that Hitler hated the Communists not because of their ideology, but because they were rivals.

Please tell me the difference between Hitler and;
Stalin
Lenin
Mao
Pol Pot
Kim Jong Il

All of them were socialist/communists bastards who needed to kill in order to build the State.

Do you seriously think Neo-Nazis think on a statist level?  Nice try, but like the rest of the gang, Hitler was one of yours.

... you know, when I come into forums and see posts like this one above, it no longer gets me upset. It makes me sad because I have come to the realization that some people are just not educated and have never had the chance for higher education where they would have developed critical thinking skills and then would have learned themselves how silly these type of comments are.

You see, there are no answers for you here because the question you are asking is so wide in scope that it is impossible to give you an answer that would satisfy you.

Why? Because the answers are found by reading books and then discussing and writing about said books in a learning environment. We call this "Higher Education" aka. College or University. It is only by going to University and discussing ideas with people outside of your culture and everyday life that you are then able to expand your perceptions and beliefs.

The internet does not provide that type of social and learning atmosphere. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... Why? Because the answers are found by reading books and then discussing and writing about said books in a learning environment. We call this "Higher Education" aka. College or University...

Sometimes it's called 're-writing history'.

Socialism is the government owning the means of production.  Fascism is the government allowing private ownership of the means of production - but regulating it heavily and dictating what they do.  Both require massive government to be implemented, and both require murderous Totalitarian regimes to enforce them.  At the core they are not very much different, and are rivals in attracting the Left.  Massive government is always the Left - it is the very definition. 


The Left leaning journalists, writers, academia, Hollywood and other opinion leaders of the day insisted the Nazi's were somehow 'right-wing' after Hitler broke with the their Soviet friends and as word of the horrors of the concentration camps came in.  It was a chance to distance themselves from it and smear their opponents here in the US at the same time.  The 'Progressive' Media is still perpetuating the lie.

These Leftists were the same people that supported at least the early days of the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot.  Many supported them right up until the end.  Some are still visiting and championing Castro to this day, and Hugo Chavez until his recent death.  It wasn't that long ago they were supporting the Sandinista's, The FMLN, the Shining Path, Tupac Amaru, and FARC, among other Marist and Maoist groups in our hemisphere.

And are now downplaying the threat of Islamic Jihad.

It's nice that the Left eventually abandons their murderous thug friends, usually when enough evidence of their atrocities come out and they can no longer be supported among polite socity, but it would be even better if they opposed them from the start.


The reason it matters about the Nazi's and others is so we can recognize it when we see it the next time it comes along.  For example there are still people that deny some of Obama's coded comments reveal his Marxism, such as 'We are the ones we've been waiting for'. 

Really?   To do what?  Who have we been waiting for, and who has been doing the waiting?   What is it that has been a complete failure whenever it's been tried, and has been - in some people's minds - just waiting for the right people to come along?


[attachimg=1]

[PB the Deplorable]

... Yet the nationalism, military strength, and so on are right wing policies...

Well, let's look at who else is and was a 'Nationalist'.

The Dalia Lama, Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, George Washington and the rest of the founders of this country, Lech Walesa, DeGaulle, Churchill, Nelson Mandela.  I could go on.

The point is Nationalism is neither Right nor Left.  There is nothing to link Hitler and the National Socialists to the 'Right', except lies and smears.

[onan]

Jesus was a liberal.

[NowhereInTime]

Sometimes it's called 're-writing history'.

Socialism is the government owning the means of production.  Fascism is the government allowing private ownership of the means of production - but regulating it heavily and dictating what they do.  Both require massive government to be implemented, and both require murderous Totalitarian regimes to enforce them.  At the core they are not very much different, and are rivals in attracting the Left.  Massive government is always the Left - it is the very definition. 


The Left leaning journalists, writers, academia, Hollywood and other opinion leaders of the day insisted the Nazi's were somehow 'right-wing' after Hitler broke with the their Soviet friends and as word of the horrors of the concentration camps came in.  It was a chance to distance themselves from it and smear their opponents here in the US at the same time.  The 'Progressive' Media is still perpetuating the lie.

These Leftists were the same people that supported at least the early days of the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot.  Many supported them right up until the end.  Some are still visiting and championing Castro to this day, and Hugo Chavez until his recent death.  It wasn't that long ago they were supporting the Sandinista's, The FMLN, the Shining Path, Tupac Amaru, and FARC, among other Marist and Maoist groups in our hemisphere.

And are now downplaying the threat of Islamic Jihad.

It's nice that the Left eventually abandons their murderous thug friends, usually when enough evidence of their atrocities come out and they can no longer be supported among polite socity, but it would be even better if they opposed them from the start.


The reason it matters about the Nazi's and others is so we can recognize it when we see it the next time it comes along.  For example there are still people that deny some of Obama's coded comments reveal his Marxism, such as 'We are the ones we've been waiting for'. 

Really?   To do what?  Who have we been waiting for, and who has been doing the waiting?   What is it that has been a complete failure whenever it's been tried, and has been - in some people's minds - just waiting for the right people to come along?


[attachimg=1]

You're the pro at rewriting history.  Sorry, make all the technical arguments you want,  but hating someone because they are different or somehow "lesser" is a conservative cornerstone value.  Hitler is yours: own him.

[NowhereInTime]

Jesus was a liberal.

Jesus is why I'm a liberal.  Gandhi helped.

[FightTheFuture]

Jesus is why I'm a liberal.  Gandhi helped.

Jesus is why I'm a conservative Libertarian.