Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[CrusaderFrank]

Right wingers: Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Coolidge, Reagan

Left Wingers: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, FDR, LBJ, Starkey

 

[Saigon]

Ice Weasel -

I have just listed six major, reknowned historians, and named some of their books on this topic. I am not going to type out the books for you.

My suggestion would be that you choose one or two of them that sound fair and objective to you, and spend a bit of time reading. I would particulaly recommend Hannah Arendt's ubiquitous 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' for it's extraordinary objectivity and insight. Arendt's partner of some years, the philosoper Heidegger, was himself a Nazi party supporter.

 

[Saigon]

And you started the thread in an attempt to smear the right. Objective? NOPE.

Saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were left-wing does no 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyone can check and confirm.

Saying that Hitler, Franco and Stroessner were right wing does not 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyon can check and confirm.

 

[Saigon]

You're essentially equating conservatism with fascism, and it's quite clear to all.

I have actually specifically explained at least three times in this thread that that is NOT the case.

I have no idea why anyone would think that, and if you had read the thread you would have found otherwise.

Conservatism is a moderate philosophy, close to the centre of the political spectrum. Fascism is an extreme philosophy, close to the farthest reaches of the political spectrum. Yes, they are both on the left side of the spectrum, but still a huge distance apart from each other.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives need a boogeyman to taint "right wingers" so they lie (big surprise) and say Hitler is a "right winger"

The truth is that Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Progressivism are all Left Wing, State Run State Controlled ideologies.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ice Weasel -

I have just listed six major, reknowned historians, and named some of their books on this topic. I am not going to type out the books for you.

You are one dishonest asshole. Maybe you ARE a journalist after all! No one asked you to type out the books. You are making claims that you can't back up, don't blame me. I'm certainly not going to run out and buy books or go to the library to see if you are accurate about their opinion. Where do prove that Nazi's weren't socialist?

My suggestion would be that you choose one or two of them that sound fair and objective to you, and spend a bit of time reading. I would particulaly recommend Hannah Arendt's ubiquitous 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' for it's extraordinary objectivity and insight. Arendt's partner of some years, the philosoper Heidegger, was himself a Nazi party supporter.

How would that even be relevant to me, or anyone else today? What is the relevance of "right wing" Germany to anyone not writing a book about it? What has it got to do with the right wing in the United States in 2014? Is that too hard to answer? You keep ducking it and claiming I'm ducking you. WTF?

 

[Iceweasel]

And you started the thread in an attempt to smear the right. Objective? NOPE.

Saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were left-wing does no 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyone can check and confirm.

Saying that Hitler, Franco and Stroessner were right wing does not 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyon can check and confirm.

Why can't you prove it then? And if I started a thread on Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao as a comparison to the left wing here and now it would indeed be a smear.

 

[Meathead]

Saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were left-wing does no 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyone can check and confirm.

Saying that Hitler, Franco and Stroessner were right wing does not 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyon can check and confirm.

Pointing out that Hitler was a socialist smears no one either. If you see it as an affront to your beliefs, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact that socialism and totalitarianism often go hand-in-hand.

 

[Saigon]

Meathead -

Socialism and totalitarianism definitely go close in hand - as do totalitarianism and any extreme form of either left wing or right wing government.

btw - Still waiting for you to answer the two questions I posted earlier.

 

[Meathead]

Meathead -

Socialism and totalitarianism definitely go close in hand - as do totalitarianism and any extreme form of either left wing or right wing government.

btw - Still waiting for you to answer the two questions I posted earlier.

What is it then that makes national socialism unacceptable to you?

 

[thanatos144]

This entire exercise is supposed to prove that democrats are not and can never be like Nazi. And yet Democrats were pro slavery gave us the KKK , jim crow laws, segregation, abortion, internment camps for others not the correct race, welfare slavery , declining education. Ect ect ect. Seems to me Hitler would be jealous at how destructive the democrats were compared to him. I mean his leftwing actions barley lasted over decades progressives have lasted a century and have killed far more blacks and jews then he ever could

Tapatalk

 

[Saigon]

Weasel -

What is the relevance of "right wing" Germany to anyone not writing a book about it? What has it got to do with the right wing in the United States in 2014?

It's about learning. It's about history. I find that interesting myself, and definitely relevent to 21st century life in Europe, as we see many of the same trends and patterns repeat.

If you don't think that's relevent to you, then don't read them.

But then don't be surprised when you don't understand history of the terms involved, as it's clear you don't here. Reading books like the Arendt is how most of us learn history and politics, and the terms used in those fields.

 

[Saigon]

This entire exercise is supposed to prove that democrats are not and can never be like Nazi.

No moderate movement is ever likely to become an extremist movement.

I've explained several times on this thread that we cannot compare Conservatism with Fascism, even though both are right wing, because the former is moderate and the latter extremist. It's the same with (moderate) liberalism and (extremist) communism.

 

[Saigon]

What is it then that makes national socialism unacceptable to you?

Probably the same things that make it unacceptable to you - the perverse, genocidal racism; the arrogant nationalism; the militarism; the extent of the state control over media, elections and the legislature.

I can't think of a single Fascist policy or ideological point that I agree with.

That said, I can't think of any communist policy I agree with either.

I just don't believe in extremist ideologies of either wing.

 

[Meathead]

What is it then that makes national socialism unacceptable to you?

Probably the same things that make it unacceptable to you - the perverse, genocidal racism; the arrogant nationalism; the militarism; the extent of the state control over media, elections and the legislature.

I can't think of a single Fascist policy or ideological point that I agree with.

That said, I can't think of any communist policy I agree with either.

I just don't believe in extremist ideologies of either wing.

Read again and note I did not capitalize national socialism.

 

[Iceweasel]

Weasel -

What is the relevance of "right wing" Germany to anyone not writing a book about it? What has it got to do with the right wing in the United States in 2014?

It's about learning. It's about history. I find that interesting myself, and definitely relevent to 21st century life in Europe, as we see many of the same trends and patterns repeat.

If you don't think that's relevent to you, then don't read them.

But then don't be surprised when you don't understand history of the terms involved, as it's clear you don't here. Reading books like the Arendt is how most of us learn history and politics, and the terms used in those fields.

The word is spelled 'relevant'. I think history is important. I also think that tying Hitler in with the right wing is dishonest and I believe that's your true goal. Who starts a purely historical thread on a politics forum?

 

[Saigon]

Iceweasel -

If you thought history were important you would probably be interested in the books mentioned earlier. You'd probably also be interested in getting the facts straight, but you aren't in the slightest.

I suggest we leave it at that.

 

[thanatos144]

This entire exercise is supposed to prove that democrats are not and can never be like Nazi.

No moderate movement is ever likely to become an extremist movement.

I've explained several times on this thread that we cannot compare Conservatism with Fascism, even though both are right wing, because the former is moderate and the latter extremist. It's the same with (moderate) liberalism and (extremist) communism.

Progressives have never been moderate nor have the democrat party

Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

I love that they snip out the part in my posts where i show what a evil party democrats are when they quote me

Tapatalk

 

[Saigon]

Progressives have never been moderate nor have the democrat party

Both progressives, liberals and the US Democratic Party are moderate.