Leftism: A Perfect Track Record Of Failure...

[Dschrute3]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?


Great article

Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (EvKL)

This book, published in 1974 by Arlington House Publishers, examines all facets of leftist political ideology, as you can tell from the title. Hitler a leftist? Yup.

EvKL examines leftism throughout Europe and North America; having travelled and taught extensively – and with an understanding of over a dozen languages – he seems eminently qualified to opine on the matter.

Given his background, he can make – with some authority – statements such as:

I think that the nascent United States of the late eighteenth century was already in the throes of warring political philosophies showing positive and negative aspects…. The American War of Independence had an undeniable influence on the French Revolution and the latter, in the course of the years, had a deplorable impact on America.

The French Revolution; Kerensky’s government in Russia; the Weimar Republic. The list is endless, and continued long past the time of the publishing of this book. All initially hailed as victories to the Progressivist cause; all resulting in “grievous disappointments”:

…dictatorships, civil wars, crowded jails, confiscated newspapers, gallows and firing squads, one-party tyrannies, sequestrations, nationalizations, “social engineering.”...

Read More:
Leftism - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

 

[Pogo]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

Actually --- nothing. But that does demonstrate how important "research" is to you.

As if trying to put Hitler on the "left" didn't already do that.



/thread

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

Actually --- nothing. But that does demonstrate how important "research" is to you.

As if trying to put Hitler on the "left" didn't already do that.



/thread

He is a lfty. He's a socialist, fascism was started by Mussolini and
its authoritarian-- another aspect of the left (we call it big brother)
it's government control -see above
it's for social welfare-free college and healthcare
it's against religion--they were atheists that hated Christians (they didn't have time to get rid of them)


The right in this country has wanted a smaller less powerful government for as long as I've been alive. Fascism would require a bigger, more powerful government...which is what the left wants.

fascism and communism are both socialist ideologies, they only differ in that fascism allows private property, but only if controlled by the state....effective meaning private property in fascism is in name only.....it doesn't really exist.

Fascist Revolutionary Party - Wikipedia

In the election of 1919, Mussolini and his party put forth a “decidedly leftist” and anti-clerical program which called for higher inheritance and capital-gains taxes and the ousting of the monarchy.[3] He also proposed an electoral alliance with the socialists and other parties on the left, but was ignored over concerns that he would be a liability with the voters. During the election, Mussolini campaigned as the “Lenin of Italy” in an effort to “out-socialist the socialists.”[

During this turbulent times of infighting and division, Mussolini would have been happy as late as “1920-21 to take under his wing the Italian Communists,” for whom he had great affinity

It's left and anti religion......like I stated earlier.

 

[toobfreak]

Leftism: A Perfect Track Record Of Failure...
Yet so many Americans continue supporting it.

Without even reading the article, I can tell you exactly why it is so supported by so many hopeless Derps as evidenced on this group alone . . . .

. . . . they see the failings of Leftism as elements of SUCCESS.

Even when you list all of the major elections lost since ten years ago when the world went balls-on nuts and elected a president purely on the basis of his skin color and the world got its first colonoscopy, THEY STILL THINK THEY ARE WINNING!

The GOOD NEWS is that sooner or later, they have to run out of idiots.

 

[there4eyeM]

When anything that doesn't work is defined as 'left', the conclusion is that things 'left' never work.

 

[Some Guy]

Trying to play hot potato with Hitler's legacy is pointless. Consider the following.

The one dimensional "left vs. right" spectrum isn't a spectrum. It's wholly inadequate for explaining where someone's politics really lie. It's lacking the authoritarian vs. libertarian y axis. It's lacking a "individualist vs. collectivist" axis as well, which sorta overlaps with the authoritarian vs. libertarian, but nonetheless.

So, you've got your wholly inadequate "right vs. left." Now what defines right vs. left? Basically, the republican and democratic parties. Democrats left, republicans right. Considering that, look at where both were 50 years ago. Quite a bit different than they are now, and that'll always continue.

So trying to peg Hitler into modern democrat vs. republican just doesn't work. He and his legacy match both sides in some respects. And beyond that, the idea of continually trying to pass Hitler off onto each other is just more hyperbole and sensationalism that takes people's attention off what's really going on and toxifies the conversation to where no one can have an honest discussion.

 

[Siete]

Lew Rockwell - Libertarian

Libertarian, speaking of failure

 

[Pogo]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

Actually --- nothing. But that does demonstrate how important "research" is to you.

As if trying to put Hitler on the "left" didn't already do that.



/thread

He is a lfty. He's a socialist, fascism was started by Mussolini and
its authoritarian-- another aspect of the left (we call it big brother)
it's government control -see above
it's for social welfare-free college and healthcare
it's against religion--they were atheists that hated Christians (they didn't have time to get rid of them).

History revisionistas just never quit, do y'all.

Whelp --- it's interesting how you want to take Hitler at his word because he'd never lie about "socialism" but that must mean you think the DPRK is a "democratic people's republic". You also must think the Pennsylvania Dutch came from Holland and that Grape Nuts has either.

Not to mention, of course, both Hitler's and Mussolini's obsession with nationalism, strong militaries, racism, hypertradition and resurrected "glory", all of which live on the Right.

As for religion yeah that must be why Catholic Hitler described his persecution of Jews as "finishing the work of the Lord" and why both he and Mussolini sought out the cooperation of the Catholic Church. Because they were "trying to get rid of it".

Doublethink abounds.

 

[jc456]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

Actually --- nothing. But that does demonstrate how important "research" is to you.

As if trying to put Hitler on the "left" didn't already do that.



/thread

hitler was. again, you still have no fking clue about him.

 

[there4eyeM]

IN THE BEGINNING, the King was at the center. Those who supported him and his absolutist government stood to his right. Those who wished to have the central power loosened and more liberty be available were to the left. Thus, the U.S. war for independence and its resulting democratic republic were to the far left.
What leads to strong centralization of power and glory to the state is rightist. When people who consider themselves 'left' wish for stronger central power, they are contradicting themselves. When those who consider themselves 'right' defend individualism and personal liberty, they contradict themselves.
Or, we could just continue to function as things have currently devolved and have these terms be meaningless.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

Actually --- nothing. But that does demonstrate how important "research" is to you.

As if trying to put Hitler on the "left" didn't already do that.



/thread

He is a lfty. He's a socialist, fascism was started by Mussolini and
its authoritarian-- another aspect of the left (we call it big brother)
it's government control -see above
it's for social welfare-free college and healthcare
it's against religion--they were atheists that hated Christians (they didn't have time to get rid of them).

History revisionistas just never quit, do y'all.

Whelp --- it's interesting how you want to take Hitler at his word because he'd never lie about "socialism" but that must mean you think the DPRK is a "democratic people's republic". You also must think the Pennsylvania Dutch came from Holland and that Grape Nuts has either.

Not to mention, of course, both Hitler's and Mussolini's obsession with nationalism, strong militaries, racism, hypertradition and resurrected "glory", all of which live on the Right.

As for religion yeah that must be why Catholic Hitler described his persecution of Jews as "finishing the work of the Lord" and why both he and Mussolini sought out the cooperation of the Catholic Church. Because they were "trying to get rid of it".

Doublethink abounds.

no they already did the revisionism
hitler admired FDR. FDR was a fascist, but not right wing.
Progressivism loved fascism and all kinds of bad shit like eugenics.
So what is the main difference between hitler and stalin?


Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
Smaller religious minorities such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Bahá'í Faith were banned in Germany, while the eradication of Judaism by the genocide of its adherents was attempted. The Salvation Army, the Christian Saints and the Seventh-day Adventist Church all disappeared from Germany, while astrologers, healers and fortune tellers were banned. The small pagan "German Faith Movement", which worshipped the sun and seasons, supported the Nazis.[11] Many historians believed that Hitler and the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after winning victory in the war.[12][13]

Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[9] Under the Gleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate Political Catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, the Reich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years. The Church accused the regime of "fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church". Historians resist however a simple equation of Nazi opposition to both Judaism and Christianity. Nazism was clearly willing to use the support of Christians who accepted its ideology and Nazi opposition to both Judaism and Christianity was not fully analogous in the minds of the Nazis. [10]


The fact is you cant have a dictatorship run state without killing religion. Because religious people look to God, not the state.....it's one reason why the left HATE religion. And they do it one at a time, not all at once (hence the left hates Christians but loves them some muslims...for now)

it happens over and over.....


give me your left right spectrum

Mine is government control
Far Left communism/fascism
Far Right- anarchy

 

[dudmuck]

Trying to play hot potato with Hitler's legacy is pointless. Consider the following.

The one dimensional "left vs. right" spectrum isn't a spectrum. It's wholly inadequate for explaining where someone's politics really lie. It's lacking the authoritarian vs. libertarian y axis. It's lacking a "individualist vs. collectivist" axis as well, which sorta overlaps with the authoritarian vs. libertarian, but nonetheless.

So, you've got your wholly inadequate "right vs. left." Now what defines right vs. left? Basically, the republican and democratic parties. Democrats left, republicans right. Considering that, look at where both were 50 years ago. Quite a bit different than they are now, and that'll always continue.

So trying to peg Hitler into modern democrat vs. republican just doesn't work. He and his legacy match both sides in some respects. And beyond that, the idea of continually trying to pass Hitler off onto each other is just more hyperbole and sensationalism that takes people's attention off what's really going on and toxifies the conversation to where no one can have an honest discussion.

But looking at today's nazis, they're running as republican, and winning. Why arent they running as democrats?
Nazi's in the 1930's imprisoned socialists and communists before they put jews into those same concentration camps. Also during the 1930's, capitalism did well in germany.
As far as religion goes, they pushed their own version of christianity. an anti-jew new-testament christianity; twisted.

 

[Pogo]

Trying to play hot potato with Hitler's legacy is pointless. Consider the following.

The one dimensional "left vs. right" spectrum isn't a spectrum. It's wholly inadequate for explaining where someone's politics really lie. It's lacking the authoritarian vs. libertarian y axis. It's lacking a "individualist vs. collectivist" axis as well, which sorta overlaps with the authoritarian vs. libertarian, but nonetheless.

So, you've got your wholly inadequate "right vs. left." Now what defines right vs. left? Basically, the republican and democratic parties. Democrats left, republicans right. Considering that, look at where both were 50 years ago. Quite a bit different than they are now, and that'll always continue.

So trying to peg Hitler into modern democrat vs. republican just doesn't work. He and his legacy match both sides in some respects. And beyond that, the idea of continually trying to pass Hitler off onto each other is just more hyperbole and sensationalism that takes people's attention off what's really going on and toxifies the conversation to where no one can have an honest discussion.

But looking at today's nazis, they're running as republican, and winning. Why arent they running as democrats?
Nazi's in the 1930's imprisoned socialists and communists before they put nazis into those same concentration camps. Also during the 1930's, capitalism did well in germany.
As far as religion goes, they pushed their own version of christianity. an anti-jew new-testament christianity; twisted.

Zackly. Socialists were the Nazis' competition, the political party they had to overcome, the one they developed the Brownshirt thugs (SA) to intimidate, and once they seized power they declared the Socialist party illegal and made them the first "guests" at the first concentration camp, Dachau.

But screw all that recorded history, let's pretend Hitler was 'one of them'. "Alternate facts".

 

[Some Guy]

Trying to play hot potato with Hitler's legacy is pointless. Consider the following.

The one dimensional "left vs. right" spectrum isn't a spectrum. It's wholly inadequate for explaining where someone's politics really lie. It's lacking the authoritarian vs. libertarian y axis. It's lacking a "individualist vs. collectivist" axis as well, which sorta overlaps with the authoritarian vs. libertarian, but nonetheless.

So, you've got your wholly inadequate "right vs. left." Now what defines right vs. left? Basically, the republican and democratic parties. Democrats left, republicans right. Considering that, look at where both were 50 years ago. Quite a bit different than they are now, and that'll always continue.

So trying to peg Hitler into modern democrat vs. republican just doesn't work. He and his legacy match both sides in some respects. And beyond that, the idea of continually trying to pass Hitler off onto each other is just more hyperbole and sensationalism that takes people's attention off what's really going on and toxifies the conversation to where no one can have an honest discussion.

But looking at today's nazis, they're running as republican, and winning. Why arent they running as democrats?
Nazi's in the 1930's imprisoned socialists and communists before they put jews into those same concentration camps. Also during the 1930's, capitalism did well in germany.
As far as religion goes, they pushed their own version of christianity. an anti-jew new-testament christianity; twisted.

Because they're pretty one-track minded on race. Were this 60 years ago, the neo-nazis would be democrats, like the KKK was, which is my point. Economically, Hitler's Germany is much closer to the vision that Democrats want for America compared to the Republicans.

But nice to see you buying in lock stock and barrel to the flawed "left vs. right" paradigm. Anyone who tries to assign Hitler to the other side is already a loser. In the article you posted, is says the republican party is running away from the nazis, so it's hard to claim that they are nazis.

 

[dudmuck]

Trying to play hot potato with Hitler's legacy is pointless. Consider the following.

The one dimensional "left vs. right" spectrum isn't a spectrum. It's wholly inadequate for explaining where someone's politics really lie. It's lacking the authoritarian vs. libertarian y axis. It's lacking a "individualist vs. collectivist" axis as well, which sorta overlaps with the authoritarian vs. libertarian, but nonetheless.

So, you've got your wholly inadequate "right vs. left." Now what defines right vs. left? Basically, the republican and democratic parties. Democrats left, republicans right. Considering that, look at where both were 50 years ago. Quite a bit different than they are now, and that'll always continue.

So trying to peg Hitler into modern democrat vs. republican just doesn't work. He and his legacy match both sides in some respects. And beyond that, the idea of continually trying to pass Hitler off onto each other is just more hyperbole and sensationalism that takes people's attention off what's really going on and toxifies the conversation to where no one can have an honest discussion.

But looking at today's nazis, they're running as republican, and winning. Why arent they running as democrats?
Nazi's in the 1930's imprisoned socialists and communists before they put jews into those same concentration camps. Also during the 1930's, capitalism did well in germany.
As far as religion goes, they pushed their own version of christianity. an anti-jew new-testament christianity; twisted.

Because they're pretty one-track minded on race. Were this 60 years ago, the neo-nazis would be democrats, like the KKK was, which is my point. Economically, Hitler's Germany is much closer to the vision that Democrats want for America compared to the Republicans.

But nice to see you buying in lock stock and barrel to the flawed "left vs. right" paradigm. Anyone who tries to assign Hitler to the other side is already a loser. In the article you posted, is says the republican party is running away from the nazis, so it's hard to claim that they are nazis.

As far as nazi economy, capitalism did great, putting them on the republican side for their support of capital under nazis. Nazis get the award for worst socialists ever.

Nazis wouldnt have run 60 years ago, but if they did it would be hard to say because the dixiecrat movement started just after ww2. But the CIA had brought in thousands of nazis just after the war because of their anti-communist expertise; last thing they'd want to do is blow their cover. Also, NASA was started by nazi scientists; something to be kept hush-hush.

 

[Faun]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?


Great article

Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (EvKL)

This book, published in 1974 by Arlington House Publishers, examines all facets of leftist political ideology, as you can tell from the title. Hitler a leftist? Yup.

EvKL examines leftism throughout Europe and North America; having travelled and taught extensively – and with an understanding of over a dozen languages – he seems eminently qualified to opine on the matter.

Given his background, he can make – with some authority – statements such as:

I think that the nascent United States of the late eighteenth century was already in the throes of warring political philosophies showing positive and negative aspects…. The American War of Independence had an undeniable influence on the French Revolution and the latter, in the course of the years, had a deplorable impact on America.

The French Revolution; Kerensky’s government in Russia; the Weimar Republic. The list is endless, and continued long past the time of the publishing of this book. All initially hailed as victories to the Progressivist cause; all resulting in “grievous disappointments”:

…dictatorships, civil wars, crowded jails, confiscated newspapers, gallows and firing squads, one-party tyrannies, sequestrations, nationalizations, “social engineering.”...

Read More:
Leftism - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Oh? Name a Democrat president who left office with the unemployment rate higher than when he entered office..... name a Republican President other than Reagan who left office with the unemployment rate lower than when they entered office.......

 

[rightwinger]

What has the left given us?
Our country
Abolition of slavery, civil rights
Women’s rights
Worker protection
Environmental protection
Gay rights

 

[RDD_1210]

Only on USSRMessageboard will you get people arguing that Hitler and liberals are the same while also arguing that liberals are for open borders.

 

[Dschrute3]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

Actually --- nothing. But that does demonstrate how important "research" is to you.

As if trying to put Hitler on the "left" didn't already do that.



/thread

'National Socialist German Workers' Party.' The Nazis were proud National Socialists. They only referred to themselves as Socialists.

 

[Tax Man]

Yet so many Americans continue supporting it. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?


Great article

Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (EvKL)

This book, published in 1974 by Arlington House Publishers, examines all facets of leftist political ideology, as you can tell from the title. Hitler a leftist? Yup.

EvKL examines leftism throughout Europe and North America; having travelled and taught extensively – and with an understanding of over a dozen languages – he seems eminently qualified to opine on the matter.

Given his background, he can make – with some authority – statements such as:

I think that the nascent United States of the late eighteenth century was already in the throes of warring political philosophies showing positive and negative aspects…. The American War of Independence had an undeniable influence on the French Revolution and the latter, in the course of the years, had a deplorable impact on America.

The French Revolution; Kerensky’s government in Russia; the Weimar Republic. The list is endless, and continued long past the time of the publishing of this book. All initially hailed as victories to the Progressivist cause; all resulting in “grievous disappointments”:

…dictatorships, civil wars, crowded jails, confiscated newspapers, gallows and firing squads, one-party tyrannies, sequestrations, nationalizations, “social engineering.”...

Read More:
Leftism - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Adolf was Reich not left.So the rest of the hypothesis is wrong.