How we know Hitler was right wing.

[francoHFW]

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.

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.

Your brain has been turned into porridge. Socialists are DEMOCRATIC, Communists NEVER, and don't allow aristocrats or corporations, that's why Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist/communist, dingbat.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”
-- Rick Santorum

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstA7j5fmio]Pat Buchanan Culture War Speech Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Editec has zero knowledge on the subject he pontificates about.

About a third of heavy industry was nationalized outright. The rest was subverted. BMW, for instance, was not nationalized. But the entire board was dismissed by Hitler's thugs (and 6 of them shot) who then assumed control of the company. Hitler's stooges assumed power in every major company that was not overtly nationalized.

Socialism is CONTROL of the means of production by the state - direct ownership is irrelevant and often not optimum. Notice that Obama placed his stooges in Kaiser and Blue Cross in charge of the health care industry. He and the party still call the shots, but management falls to well connected looters.

 

[Agit8r]

He did nationalize some of the industries, he just didn't go all the way.

um, actually: http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me something, does your statement that all authoritarians are conservative mean that you think Bloomberg is conservative, or does it mean that you do not consider him authoritarian? What about Castro, Chavez, and Stalin? Are they really conservatives in disguise, or are they not realy authoritarians?

Alternatively, you could just admit you were talking out of your ass.

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 doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’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.

Liberalism, by nature, is anti authoritarian. The only thing that is authoritarian by nature is people who think that the best way to accomplish their goals is by use of force.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He did nationalize some of the industries, he just didn't go all the way.

um, actually: http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Actually what? The fact that he privatized some things does not mean that he privatized everything, nor does it mean that he did not nationalize other things. The German economic output was regulated by the state, even if the companies were privately owned on paper. If you want an idea of how it worked you should watch "Schindler's List." Schindler managed to get rich off the company he built, but the only customer he had was the German government, so he had to produce what they wanted to buy.

 

[freedombecki]

To those who are saying 'What does it matter if a tyrant is left or right' - I agree, but it depends on who you are.

Left wing and right wing regimes have very different enemies. Stalin targeted the rich, the aristocrats, the land owners and investors. Those groups all benefitted under Hitler's rule.

Hitler targeted racial minorities and outsiders - groups who occasionally benefited under the rule of outsiders like Stalin, Caucescu or Milosevic.

"We The Living" Ayn Rand. Communism displaced the Rich and Powerful with Party Loyalists. They just moved right in.

That is 100% correct and why income redistribution never works. People have been fooled. All that does is make people satisfied with their share with no incentive to improve themselves in any way. That's why lines pile up at the grocery store and people can't get commodities and farm products the society produces--there's no incentives to milk the cow or climb the tree and pick the oranges. People can line up all day and never get their "fair share" after a few years.

And that's why taxing people who work to give it to those that do not work does not prosper the society. No one cares to work when they can get by with stipends, until the reality that SOMEONE has to do the tasks sets in so blatantly people are mad.

 

[francoHFW]

Communism never works. Redistribution does, as we've seen 1982- under Voodoo, with the support of Pub dupes who as we see here have NO CLUE. LOL

 

[Agit8r]

Schindler managed to get rich off the company he built, but the only customer he had was the German government, so he had to produce what they wanted to buy.

um, actually: Oskar Schindler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[freedombecki]

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.

Socialists like low taxes and a limited government Republicans stand for?

Saving back to take care of yourself after you retire so you will not be a burden to your children is greedy?

With all due respect, I think you are just a little confused, Mr. FrancoHFW.

 

[freedombecki]

Communism never works. Redistribution does, as we've seen 1982- under Voodoo, with the support of Pub dupes who as we see here have NO CLUE. LOL

Sorry, Russia was the biggest redistributive society in the world, and it foundered. Redistribution was the cause of the failure of the Soviet Socialist Republic.

 

[Pogo]

Hitler was no "socialist". The term was in the party's name before he came to power and he disapproved of it (the name as well as the ideology). He considered socialists to be enemies of the state and locked them up.

Saigon, I have seen several posters, here and elsewhere on the Net, try to float this revisionism. I'll repost some old stuff if I get the time. As I keep telling them, to conclude "Hitler's a leftist" based on the presence of the word "socialist" in the party's name is going to make it hard to explain the Democratic Republic of Congo, the DPRK, and of course the GDR. A name is a name, and a political name is propaganda. And propagana of course never lies

I am afraid that it is you who is trying to float revisionism. Hitler was socialist by his own words. Do you think he didn't know he was a socialist? He wrote:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

Historical revisionism is unfortunately a popular pastime of late. They seem to think if a lie is repeated often enough, some people will eventually believe it. Hard to see where they get that idea.

It is and I wonder why you guys work so hard at altering history to exclude hitler from the socialist ranks. In terms of killing, he was a light weight compared to stalin, lenin, mao, and pol pot who remain members in good standing among the socialist clique.

Hitler excluded himself. I expounded on all this in post 264.

Your quote ("Our socialism") gives no link or context but looks very much like Hitler distinguishing what he was about from the term "socialism" ("our" socialism distinguished from "standard" socialism) -- which would have been a necessary clarification, given that he inherited a term he deemed inaccurate. In short, when Hitler worked under the term "national socialism", the operative word was "national". As in national identity, national pride, national Lebensraum, national racism. That was always the emphasis.

See post 264. And take note in there of who he figured his enemies were.

[Edit - I see you've gone to that post, and had no response except a simple gainsaying. I'll take that as a concession.]​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Schindler managed to get rich off the company he built, but the only customer he had was the German government, so he had to produce what they wanted to buy.

um, actually: Oskar Schindler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there a point there somewhere?

 

[Pogo]

Not getting it Amy, those on the right are for smaller and less intrusive govt with less regulation, while those on the left are for the opposite. So how does a person on the right get to a totalitarian state if he/she wants less and less gov't intervention and regulation?

Because your premises in the first sentence are inoperative.

Really? I think my premises are spot on, and have been for the past 100 years or more. Can't believe anyone would dispute that the right is for less gov't intervention than the left is.

Believe it. The idea that "right = less govt and left = more govt" is a hopelessly simplistic contemporary dumbdown. Reagan loved to sell that line. It's still hard to believe anybody bought it.
(That is, he sold it, then proceeded to grow the government. Go figure.)

 

[Pogo]

Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing.

National SOCIALIST Party​

Game. Set. Match.​

(What's next stupid, try to claim that Socialism is a right-wing concept? )

Uh. Mah. God. It was right in front of us all the time. This is deep. So deep. (dons hip boots)

By this logic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (what we call North Korea) must be just a swell place, being as how it's run by the people in a democracy and all.
And I'm sure the citizens of Leipzig miss the old days of the German Democratic Republic when They the People were in charge. Hey, it's in the name, and names don't lie.

Next time your mom takes you to the grocery store, pull a box of Grape Nuts off the shelf and show me where there's even a single ingredient derived from either grapes or nuts.

Wow, revelation time. We should let that sink in. For about a year.

 

[bripat9643]

Because your premises in the first sentence are inoperative.

Really? I think my premises are spot on, and have been for the past 100 years or more. Can't believe anyone would dispute that the right is for less gov't intervention than the left is.

Believe it. The idea that "right = less govt and left = more govt" is a hopelessly simplistic contemporary dumbdown. Reagan loved to sell that line. It's still hard to believe anybody bought it.
(That is, he sold it, then proceeded to grow the government. Go figure.)

"Simplistic" is a word liberals use to dismiss facts without an argument. Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government. Every time republicans propose spending cuts, turds like you scream bloody murder. The recent debate over the sequester is a classic example.

Congress grew the government, not Reagan.

 

[bripat9643]

Hitler was no "socialist". The term was in the party's name before he came to power and he disapproved of it (the name as well as the ideology). He considered socialists to be enemies of the state and locked them up.

Saigon, I have seen several posters, here and elsewhere on the Net, try to float this revisionism. I'll repost some old stuff if I get the time. As I keep telling them, to conclude "Hitler's a leftist" based on the presence of the word "socialist" in the party's name is going to make it hard to explain the Democratic Republic of Congo, the DPRK, and of course the GDR. A name is a name, and a political name is propaganda. And propagana of course never lies

I am afraid that it is you who is trying to float revisionism. Hitler was socialist by his own words. Do you think he didn't know he was a socialist? He wrote:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

Historical revisionism is unfortunately a popular pastime of late. They seem to think if a lie is repeated often enough, some people will eventually believe it. Hard to see where they get that idea.

It is and I wonder why you guys work so hard at altering history to exclude hitler from the socialist ranks. In terms of killing, he was a light weight compared to stalin, lenin, mao, and pol pot who remain members in good standing among the socialist clique.

Hitler excluded himself. I expounded on all this in post 264.

Your quote ("Our socialism") gives no link or context but looks very much like Hitler distinguishing what he was about from the term "socialism" ("our" socialism distinguished from "standard" socialism) -- which would have been a necessary clarification, given that he inherited a term he deemed inaccurate. In short, when Hitler worked under the term "national socialism", the operative word was "national". As in national identity, national pride, national Lebensraum, national racism. That was always the emphasis.

See post 264. And take note in there of who he figured his enemies were.

[Edit - I see you've gone to that post, and had no response except a simple gainsaying. I'll take that as a concession.]​

Oh puhleeze. The claim that National Socialism isn't real socialism is a Marxist fetish. Socialism is government control over the means of production, and Nazism qualified any way you looked at it.

To quote Ayn Rand:

"The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal . . . .

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens . . . .

Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake."​

 

[jon_berzerk]

I am afraid that it is you who is trying to float revisionism. Hitler was socialist by his own words. Do you think he didn't know he was a socialist? He wrote:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."



It is and I wonder why you guys work so hard at altering history to exclude hitler from the socialist ranks. In terms of killing, he was a light weight compared to stalin, lenin, mao, and pol pot who remain members in good standing among the socialist clique.

Hitler excluded himself. I expounded on all this in post 264.

Your quote ("Our socialism") gives no link or context but looks very much like Hitler distinguishing what he was about from the term "socialism" ("our" socialism distinguished from "standard" socialism) -- which would have been a necessary clarification, given that he inherited a term he deemed inaccurate. In short, when Hitler worked under the term "national socialism", the operative word was "national". As in national identity, national pride, national Lebensraum, national racism. That was always the emphasis.

See post 264. And take note in there of who he figured his enemies were.

[Edit - I see you've gone to that post, and had no response except a simple gainsaying. I'll take that as a concession.]​

Oh puhleeze. The claim that National Socialism isn't real socialism is a Marxist fetish. Socialism is government control over the means of production, and Nazism qualified any way you looked at it.

To quote Ayn Rand:

"The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal . . . .

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens . . . .

Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake."​

hitler certainly was a big government guy

 

[Pogo]

Really? I think my premises are spot on, and have been for the past 100 years or more. Can't believe anyone would dispute that the right is for less gov't intervention than the left is.

Believe it. The idea that "right = less govt and left = more govt" is a hopelessly simplistic contemporary dumbdown. Reagan loved to sell that line. It's still hard to believe anybody bought it.
(That is, he sold it, then proceeded to grow the government. Go figure.)

"Simplistic" is a word liberals use to dismiss facts without an argument. Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government. Every time republicans propose spending cuts, turds like you scream bloody murder. The recent debate over the sequester is a classic example.

Congress grew the government, not Reagan.

The idea that the two sides of this imaginary political spectrum are merely at odds over what size government we should try on, is absurd. Ideologues and politically interested parties interest themselves in what government does, not how big it is. Do you buy a car on the basis of what color it is?

But as I said, hopelessly simplistic. And look who shows up to hope for simplicity: Finger-boy. 'Nuff said.

 

[Locke11_21]

Absolutely, absolutely - and well said.

Informative history tells us that hitler said:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

Revisionist history tells us that hitler didn't really mean that he was a socialist or had socialist goals or instituted socialist programs. Revisionist history rejects what hitler said and what hitler did and instead tries to make him something other than what he acknowledged that he was.

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.

Most interesting about property and production rights under Hitler. Let's go more in to depth. The Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

The leftists in this forum can deny Hitler was a leftist all they want, but with the above mentioned and what I am going to mention below proves, Hitler was indeed a leftist.

Read this:

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

That can be found in Chapter 12 of Adolf Hitler's: Mein Kempf. So, like the left, Hitler was pro-union and uhhh...big labour.


How about we go to abortion. Oh yes, Hitler like the left was very pro-abortion. In 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. A Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East. Very left-wing!!!

Then of course, everyone knows about Hitler and gun control/bans. And furthermore, it was Hitler and the Nazis who very much became infatuated with the American leftists/progressive "eugenics".


The left for a very long period of time has been trying to cleanse their beliefs of Hitler with denial, revisionism and falsely labeling their opposition. Really, look at the left even of today. If a person is Black, Latino, Jewish, female or Asian, and they happen to be Republican and/or conservative, they get called certain names by the left, the left revises their race or gender by saying they are not really Black, Latino, Jewish, female or Asian. So, if people of these races get racial revisionism by the leftists simply due to differing political ideology, then it is very easy to see how leftists would try to revise Hitler into something he was not in order to demonize their opposition.

In conclusion, with the truth about just property/production rights, abortion, guns and eugenics - these here prove that Hitler was not a right-winger, he was a left-winger. I want to close this by saying that I am NOT labeling Hitler as a "liberal", because that he was NOT. However, Hitler was a leftist.