Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
How we know Hitler was right wing.
Because he was for low taxes and limited government.
How we know Hitler was right wing.
- Thread starter Saigon
- Start date
How we know Hitler was right wing.
Because he was for low taxes and limited government.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
HE was a Democrat before he became a Republican, and now he is calling himself an Independent. What was your point here?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Hitler4ian Germany had EVERY ASPECT OF A SOCIALIST DICTAORSHIP except for the MOST CRITICAL part of what it takes to TRULY be socialism.
Do you know what that one lack was, Lad?
Ownership of the means of production.
Hitler's Germany did not take possession (nationalize is the PoliSci word) of the nations productive industries.
So yes, it was a kind of socialism, EXCEPT for the ONE thing that makes any government socialist...PROPERTY RIGHTS.
There, kiddo, your political science lesson of the day.
No need to thank me, it was my pleasure to help you learn something important.
He did nationalize some of the industries, he just didn't go all the way.
By the way, property rights is the real reason socialism will never work on a large scale. The idea that anyone can walk up, use a car, and not be responsible for it, doesn't work in the real world.
It might also explain why Hitler never went all the way into socialism, he wasn't dumb enough to think it would work.
Last edited:
P@triot
Diamond Member
National SOCIALIST Party
Game. Set. Match.
(What's next stupid, try to claim that Socialism is a right-wing concept?
)
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Your problem is your parochial indoctrination. It sets your frame of reference as YOU, your country, culture, traditions, tenets and orthodoxy as to what is conservative. But it is only conservative for YOUR country, culture, traditions, tenets and orthodoxy. Not a totally different country, culture, traditions, tenets and orthodoxy. Would a conservative in Russia want to conserve capitalism? The US Constitution?? NO. A conservative in Russia would want to conserve communism and the parochial indoctrination he or she was taught from a child. Let's take Stalin because there is no doubt he was an authoritarian. Now, you just lectured someone that left/right is too simplistic. At 16, Stalin attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Seminary. Certainly a conservative institution. There is nothing in Stalin's upbringing or profile that ever hinted of liberalism.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
That's my problem? Are you sure? By the way, is Chavez a conservative or not?
P@triot
Diamond Member
Your problem is your a ******* idiot who prefers ideology over reality.
Hitler was left-wing (big government, control over the people, all for the "good"). It could not be more black & white or simple....
Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,210
- 245
National SOCIALIST Party
Game. Set. Match.
(What's next stupid, try to claim that Socialism is a right-wing concept?
Parties claim to be for things that they are against even today; Examples: "Republican Party" and "Constitution Party"
There are always going to be uneducated dupes that fall for false advertising.
"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."
-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)
"Is there not, my friend, reason to believe, that the principles of Democratic Republicanism are already better understood than they were before; and that by the continued efforts of Men of Science and Virtue, they will extend more and more till the turbulent and destructive Spirit of War shall cease?—The proud oppressors over the Earth shall be totally broken down and those classes of Men who have hitherto been the victims of their rage and cruelty shall perpetually enjoy perfect Peace and Safety till time shall be no more."
-- Samuel Adams; letter to Thomas Jefferson (Nov, 18th 1801)
"The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with the Republican patriots... In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, & shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree... My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to William Short (January 3, 1793)
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Hitler4ian Germany had EVERY ASPECT OF A SOCIALIST DICTAORSHIP except for the MOST CRITICAL part of what it takes to TRULY be socialism.
Do you know what that one lack was, Lad?
Ownership of the means of production.
Hitler's Germany did not take possession (nationalize is the PoliSci word) of the nations productive industries.
So yes, it was a kind of socialism, EXCEPT for the ONE thing that makes any government socialist...PROPERTY RIGHTS.
There, kiddo, your political science lesson of the day.
No need to thank me, it was my pleasure to help you learn something important.
Ownership of the means of production is not necessary if you effectively socialize the people who produce. In nazi germany, you could own a business if you were a good party member. If you weren't you would be moved out and a good party member would replace you.
Look at china today...they have taken hitler's cue with regard to ownership of the means of production....they are still socialist without a doubt, but have finally caught on to what hitler saw more than half a century ago....it is fruitless to put bureaucrats in charge of production...you put bureaucrats in charge of producers who work for the state or not at all.
P@triot
Diamond Member
National SOCIALIST Party
Game. Set. Match.
(What's next stupid, try to claim that Socialism is a right-wing concept?
Parties claim to be for things that they are against even today; Examples: "Republican Party" and "Constitution Party"
There are always going to be uneducated dupes that fall for false advertising.
"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."
-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)
"Is there not, my friend, reason to believe, that the principles of Democratic Republicanism are already better understood than they were before; and that by the continued efforts of Men of Science and Virtue, they will extend more and more till the turbulent and destructive Spirit of War shall cease?—The proud oppressors over the Earth shall be totally broken down and those classes of Men who have hitherto been the victims of their rage and cruelty shall perpetually enjoy perfect Peace and Safety till time shall be no more."
-- Samuel Adams; letter to Thomas Jefferson (Nov, 18th 1801)
"The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with the Republican patriots... In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, & shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree... My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to William Short (January 3, 1793)
Hitler believed in controlling the minds and actions of the people for the "good" of the nation. That is left-wing. The right believes in the individual - not the collective. And there is not one idiot liberal here (including Saigon) who doesn't know that Hitler is left-wing. It's just the party narrative to attempt to rewrite history in typical left-wing propaganda in order to convince future generations that conservatives are "evil" - in hopes of gaining future voters.
It's sad and pathetic
Mac1958
Diamond Member
.
Hey, how many people think that desperately trying to tie Adolph Hitler to a contemporary American political ideology -- while shamelessly trivializing the slaughter of millions of inoocent people -- just for a temporary sliver of perceived political advantage on an internet message board is absurd, insulting, tedious, embarrassing, ridiculous and transparent?
Hey, how many people think that desperately trying to tie Adolph Hitler to a contemporary American political ideology -- while shamelessly trivializing the slaughter of millions of inoocent people -- just for a temporary sliver of perceived political advantage on an internet message board is absurd, insulting, tedious, embarrassing, ridiculous and transparent?
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Liberalism is authoritarian by nature. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.
Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.
Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesnÂ’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you donÂ’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.
In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.
The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.
Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. (hate crime law) In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.
The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
It would be wiser to consult this:
Rothbard was right-wing? I'm sure he would be pissed off to see that.
Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
The problem here is that the author of that graph defines Left and Right differently from conventional and accepted definitions. You'll need to check out his website.
For instance, as much as I love Rand Paul and Ron Paul, I fall on the opposite side of Classical Liberalism, because I believe in a LIMITED concept of Positive Rights.
For instance, I believe that government has an OBLIGATION to provide the monetary resources for education to its citizens, because uneducated citizens who are ignorant of their rights, are abused by their government; thus as a barrier against tyranny, I consider education to be right behind the Right to Bear Arms (negative liberty) in opposing tyranny.
However, I also believe that the government shall have no authority to prescribe, suggest or influence the curriculum. The curriculum would be decided upon by the teachers (respective to their subject), such that all teachers in a school district are teaching a uniform curriculum.
Certain subjects on the curriculum, that are vulnerable to religious/belief controversy, can be individually nullified with the Consent of both the parents and the child; such that, the child would be exempt from going to class that day, would be absolved from homework responsibilities concerning the subject, and would be exempt from testing on the subject afterwards. However, this would have to be supplemented by learning an alternate topic of their choosing (within the subject area and appropriate grade/age level). This testing examination would also apply to any State or National testing requirement (enter some sort of code on the scantron/booklet).
Although the system that I described is neither polished nor perfect, it certainly a much more agreeable alternative to what we have today. I have been noticing a trend towards "silent censorship" by omission in American schools, for instance, how is it that I took AP US government (and honors history classes before that), taken two introductory courses in United States history and government at Stony Brook University, and I NEVER HEARD ABOUT THE ANDREW JACKSON BANK WAR? SERIOUSLY WTF! Or pretty much ALL history that relates to the struggles between private (debt) vs government (no debt) centralized banking? It makes people practically impossible to to converse with on these subjects, since they have zero knowledge of them, sometimes making them think that you're making shit up, since they also had the same formal education that you did.
This censorship is also not limited to Centralized Banking, for instance, my highschool AP US history textbook, We the People, The Citizens and the Constitution, talks about Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in GREAT DETAIL. Whereas the 2nd Amendment is simply cited as "the right to bear arms." The only other time they mention firearms was about some Supreme Court Case ruling the "interstate commerce clause," and they don't even mentioned the Second Amendment.
Granted that perhaps most people think its best not to talk about firearms in High School (I personally think ever able bodied young boy at age 13 should receive public gun usage and education, AND any females that voluntarily apply), so perhaps that's why its not mentioned there.
So what about my college text book, American Government, The Essentials, 11th Edition? You'd think that a textbook that is used in 100 and 200 level classes would at least have one paragraph in at least one chapter on the Second Amendment, would you not? Nope.
Then the topic of the 10th Amendment, the textbooks seem to celebrate its death, and they speak incredible praise of the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators) as if it benefited the nation and produced unheard of results.
Now what about that Ninth Amendment, that wonderful thing that our Founders put their to educate citizens that their Rights are Endowed upon them at Birth by their Creator, that the government can not manufacture rights, but that the government (which at its very best is but a necessary evil) can only deny and disparage your Natural Rights.The Ninth Amendment is only referenced in both books briefly, the "right to marry" is discussed to facilitate discussion concerning the the second implication of the Amendment (we have many many many rights not enumerated), but that's it.
Finally, the Third Amendment. Perhaps it is not mentioned because there are only very few instances of Case Law involving the Third Amendment. Perhaps if we studied the reasons that the Amendment was written, the committees and journal entries concerning it, we would learn more.
For instance, on one ruling of the Third Amendment, the Supreme Court replaces the world "Soldier" with "Agent of the Government." The word agent was CAREFULLY chosen, as it can imply either a Person or Thing: Agent is defined as (from the dictionary):
Then they interpreted "quartered" and extend it to "unreasonably extended/unlimited stay."
So this is interesting, because if a piece of computer software is installed on your computer (the software is an agent of the government), and remains their to spy on you for an unreasonably extended/unlimited amount of time, would it be covered by the Third Amendment? I cannot honestly answer that question at the moment, for instance, suppose it was a violation of the Third Amendment, would an external (outside the home) form of long-term information gathering, like a wiretap, also be subject to this Amendment?
Perhaps one could further the understanding by declaring that the Software case is a violation of your rights, because it also violates the 4th Amendment, as it acts as a General Search Warrant; whereas the wiretap is specific, it describes the thing (phone) and the objective (to determine who you are talking to and why
However, that would imply that the 4th Amendment was somehow superior to the 3rd Amendment, since the 4th Amendment determines the validity of 3rd Amendment Cases under that precedent, thus relegating the 3rd Amendment as a subset of 4th Amendment Law.
At the same time, one could argue that the case could not originate based on the 4th Amendment alone, thus the 3rd Amendment is at least equal to the 4th Amendment in that particular type of case, and could be seen as an intersection of 3rd and 4th Amendment Law.
Perhaps it looks like I'm an activist judge with these opinions, and guess what, I am. However, judicial activism should only be done to EXTEND the rights of citizens, extend the rights of States against the Federal Government, or to LIMIT the power of federal/state government over citizens, limit the power of State government vs citizens; as instructed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Any for of judicial activism that does the following, is Judicial Tyranny, as they violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Limits the rights of citizens, limit the rights of States vs the Federal Government, expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens or expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.
----------------------
So anyway, why all this bullshit talk about the 3rd Amendment? Because its appears to be the most censored of all subjects, and the discussions raised above are certainly worth consideration, and in this modern age of rapidly developing and evolving technology, should be a conversation that we're having.
Long story short, I believe that the government should not prescribe, suggest nor influence curriculum, but should supply the general resources, this does not include the textbooks or any educational material. The local taxes would pay for that (and the teachers decide which textbooks).
This is why I differ from Ron Paul and that graph (and several other deep issues).
Last edited:
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Hitler was socialist by his own words and deeds. He was far to the right of most socialists, but he was a socialist none the less. Trying to rewrite history in an effort to distance a political philosophy from someone who was extreme in his methods is worse by far than simply fessing up to the fact that he was socialist...a particularly bad socialist. Of course in so far as killing goes, his pile of corpses was quite small in comparison to those of stalin, lenin, mao and pol pot.....all socialists.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Jeebus the dupes are brainwashed ignorami.
Size of government has nothing to do with anything, it's the Savage capitalism (RW extremes) and Nationalization of business extremes (LW) that matter, and of course the amount of totalitarianism that constitute the extremes, and thus in THAT respect (authoritarianism) that they begin to resemble each other,(NOT how the economy runs).
Left to right spectrum (END OF DISCUSSION, brainwashed Beckbots):
Communism-Socialism-Democrats-Center- Republicans- Fascists (Nazis)
in the shape of a horseshoe where Commies and Nazis begin to resemble each other- BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF THEIR ECONOMIES Ay caramba.
Size of government has nothing to do with anything, it's the Savage capitalism (RW extremes) and Nationalization of business extremes (LW) that matter, and of course the amount of totalitarianism that constitute the extremes, and thus in THAT respect (authoritarianism) that they begin to resemble each other,(NOT how the economy runs).
Left to right spectrum (END OF DISCUSSION, brainwashed Beckbots):
Communism-Socialism-Democrats-Center- Republicans- Fascists (Nazis)
in the shape of a horseshoe where Commies and Nazis begin to resemble each other- BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF THEIR ECONOMIES Ay caramba.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
You're an ignorant moron, like anyone who believes what communists and fascists SAY, and the RW fringe of the GOP these days it seems. All total liars and disasters...
Hitler's pile was SMALL? Stfu, idiot. BTW, did corporations and aristocrats exist and be in power under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot? Dumbazz!
Last edited:
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
All communists are socialists...not all socialists are communists. All nazis were socialists...not all socialists were nazis. All fascists were socialists...not all socialists were fascists.
The cornerstone of conservativism..true conservativism is small government whose primary purpose for existing is to protect the natural rights of the individual....
The cornerstone of socialism is to bend the individual to the will of the state. The method taken to achieve that goal denotes whether the government is in the right wing or left wing of the socialist house.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Who is talking about republicans and democrats? We are talking about socialism vs conservativism. Republicans are not conservative...they have become socialist lite. And when you are talking about fringe movements you aren't really talking about any organized political philosophy at all. You seem to be very confused here trying to compare apples to organges and grapes.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
You're a MORON. Read something, Prof. Rushbeckbot...
Yes, Republicans are almost socialists, with regulation and a welfare system- but NO NATIONALIZATION of industry/business, just STUPID, cruel and run by and for greedy megarich chickenhawk a-holes, supported by brainwashed functional idiots like you. Politically- I'm sure you're a lovely fellow otherwise.
Yes, Republicans are almost socialists, with regulation and a welfare system- but NO NATIONALIZATION of industry/business, just STUPID, cruel and run by and for greedy megarich chickenhawk a-holes, supported by brainwashed functional idiots like you. Politically- I'm sure you're a lovely fellow otherwise.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Powerful Iranian missile sink USS Abraham Lincoln and also the island of Cyprus all in the same day!- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss- Latest: P F Tinmore
