How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Pogo]

If that was the case, then why are leftists like Saigon so determined to label him a "right-winger?" It does matter because if people want to know what caused WW II and the holocaust, they have to look at the ideas of the people who instigated these events. Leftist don't want to admit that Hitler was one of theirs because that casts a damning shadow on everything they believe.

More denialist bullshit. The thrust of this thread is readily available for anyone to see in the OP, which is to counter the revisionist determination to morph Hitler from a figure of the right to one of the left.

Ah, so now we are "denialists." Whenever libturds can't defeat their opponents with logic (which the never can) they always resort to demonizing them and name calling.

Self-shooting-in-foot irony in bold. Can't be clearer.

All you're saying is that once the humbug historians have spoken, then their word is written in stone. Simply to state such a proposition is to reveal how idiotic it is. Furthermore, the only thing we have agreed is that a lot of humbug political hacks who call themselves "historians" have attempted to paint the Nazis as right wingers in an attempt to smear the political opposition.

No denialist, all I'm saying is your denialist bullshit of people "determined to label (Hitler) a right winger" is denialist bullshit, based on your own admissions that he's already labeled a right winger. That you would waltz back in and try to deny your own denialism reaffirms how set in ignorant stone it actually is.

So the suggestion that Saigon (or anyone) is "determined to label him a right winger" is a deliberate and naked lie about what's going on right in front of us, and speaks volumes about the character of those who would so misrepresent the dialogue sitting right in front of their eyes, as far as how far they're willing to go with misrepresentation to promote their own Big Lie.

No, it's not a lie. You and Siagon are attempting to support a smear that has been going on for 60 years.

-- and voilà, you just did it again.

In short --- Busted.

Yup. What that guy said, QED.
This is exactly why you're on my Ignore list, Finger-Boy. You're incapable of hearing any voice but your own and equally incapable of making a logical argument.
I do give you credit for your avatar though. It's a perfect illustration.

 

[beagle9]

After abandoning liberalism I reflected on having considered "conservatives" NAZI's back then.

Mostly I was parroting the stupid shit I heard my fellow moonbats regurgitate. Once I really looked into the tenets of the National Socialist Workers Party it became pretty clear to me that the democrook platform more closely resembles the NAZI party than anything I would promote as a "right winger". I've noticed that liberals are less likely to use the term NAZI in describing their opponents than they used to be, and I think it has something to do with people being better informed on what sort of policies the NAZI's enacted.

The NAZI's might have been mortal enemies of the Marxists, but I think it's because both ideologies appealed to people who wanted a strong dominant state to "equalize" things. Now a days liberals demonize "the rich" in ways the NAZI's used to.

I'm basically a libertarian now, because I think "conservatives" are to focused on what rump rangers do, and what sort of dope occutards are injesting.

Well you should think again about your position against conservatives, because they aren't concerning themselves with these rump rangers as you put it, nor are they concerning themselves with these occupiers, but rather they are being forced to be concerned with these issues by the left who is forcing it as an issue upon them. So now as a libertarian you have played well into the hands of the libs and their games played, where as you have done just what they intended for you to do, and that is to separate yourself from your party of choice, and you fell for it hood line and sinker.

 

[Pogo]

If that was the case, then why are leftists like Saigon so determined to label him a "right-winger?" It does matter because if people want to know what caused WW II and the holocaust, they have to look at the ideas of the people who instigated these events. Leftist don't want to admit that Hitler was one of theirs because that casts a damning shadow on everything they believe.

More denialist bullshit. The thrust of this thread is readily available for anyone to see in the OP, which is to counter the revisionist determination to morph Hitler from a figure of the right to one of the left.

Regardless where one places Hitler on a spectrum or how valid one's position is, it's undeniable that his traditional historical placement is on the right and that the idea to move him to the left is a contemporary one. That's on the freaking record and already agreed to by the same revisionists right in this thread ("the history books are wrong, the dictionaries are wrong, Wikipedia is wrong", ad nauseum).

So the suggestion that Saigon (or anyone) is "determined to label him a right winger" is a deliberate and naked lie about what's going on right in front of us, and speaks volumes about the character of those who would so misrepresent the dialogue sitting right in front of their eyes, as far as how far they're willing to go with misrepresentation to promote their own Big Lie.

In short --- Busted.

Why can't he be made up of both the right and the left, where as in policy he leans more to the left in his ideals about government and the redistribution/redirection of wealth via by the power of government enforced, but in his religious views he was a bit more righty. So isn't this possible to have more than a single definition to someone who became so confused also himself in life (driven mad by it all), so much so that he lost himself in it all ? What seems to be going on here is the attempt at some to tie Hitler's failures to the right here for political purposes, as if it will further destroy the right as a viable partner to the party they aspire to and want to be associated with during it's leadership role in this nation.

Absolutely he can. Hitlerian fascism is too complex to be pigeonholed being, as you note, the product of a madman and therefore rife with contradictions. There's no "attempt to tie Hitler to the right"; that's already the historical starting point. What this whole thread is about is refuting the equally mad revisionist idea that wherever Hitler went to, he got there from the left. Clearly he didn't. Everything points to the opposite.

In other words, none of this is in any way trying to tie Hitler to the contemporary right; rather, the attempt to tie him to the contemporary left has been floated out there (see OP) and what we're doing is calling out that fallacy for the lie it is. Let's not play Martyr-for-a-day here. That's transparent.

 

[bripat9643]

-- and then he confirms it. Thanks.

confirms what, dipstick?

I did not mean to leave out your employment of ad hominem and poisoning the well as noted directly above. Let's be clear, Finger-Boy is not a one-fallacy pony. Not to mention the first poster since Ebenezer Scrooge to employ the adjective "humbug".

I have no delusions about using some of the same methods the left is so fond of. I learned a long time ago that relying purely on logic when fighting leftism is a losing battle. The left is immune to logic. However, I fail to see how that disproves anything I have posted. Also, when did using words that ignorant rubes like you don't know prove you were wrong?

Speaking of, I believe the first post I came here with (264) cited five different sources about those "irrefutable facts of history", and brought more since. As has Saigon, and countless others. So much for "self-citation".

You either quote the opinion of a humbug historian or you quote a fact that doesn't support your claim, like the number of people the Gestapo arrested.

As for the flailing attempted redefinition-of-the-day, that political right-left is all about economics (guess that "how big the government is" canard got shot down), it still ignores the all-important social policy, and here you still have the problem of hyperpatriotism and Fatherland and the Secret State Police (GeStaPo) and Hitler-Jügend and Kinder, Kirche Kuche and denunciation of ethnic diversity, not one of which serve to nudge Hilter to the left at all. That's gotta be inconvenient.

There's nothing definitive about social policy. It can't be attributed exclusively to the right or the left. Is racism a right-wing social policy? Then you're forgetting that Wilson re-instituted segregation in the military, and that FDR put 100,000 Japanese in concentration camps. Hitler youth? Then what about the Young Communist League? Gestapo? What about the KGB? In fact, the social policy issue also seems to put the Nazis squarely in the left-wing camp rather than right-wing. Eugenics is an idea conceived of and supported by American progressives. Where do you think Hitler got the idea?

 

[beagle9]

More denialist bullshit. The thrust of this thread is readily available for anyone to see in the OP, which is to counter the revisionist determination to morph Hitler from a figure of the right to one of the left.

Regardless where one places Hitler on a spectrum or how valid one's position is, it's undeniable that his traditional historical placement is on the right and that the idea to move him to the left is a contemporary one. That's on the freaking record and already agreed to by the same revisionists right in this thread ("the history books are wrong, the dictionaries are wrong, Wikipedia is wrong", ad nauseum).

So the suggestion that Saigon (or anyone) is "determined to label him a right winger" is a deliberate and naked lie about what's going on right in front of us, and speaks volumes about the character of those who would so misrepresent the dialogue sitting right in front of their eyes, as far as how far they're willing to go with misrepresentation to promote their own Big Lie.

In short --- Busted.

Why can't he be made up of both the right and the left, where as in policy he leans more to the left in his ideals about government and the redistribution/redirection of wealth via by the power of government enforced, but in his religious views he was a bit more righty. So isn't this possible to have more than a single definition to someone who became so confused also himself in life (driven mad by it all), so much so that he lost himself in it all ? What seems to be going on here is the attempt at some to tie Hitler's failures to the right here for political purposes, as if it will further destroy the right as a viable partner to the party they aspire to and want to be associated with during it's leadership role in this nation.

Absolutely he can. Hitlerian fascism is too complex to be pigeonholed being, as you note, the product of a madman and therefore rife with contradictions. There's no "attempt to tie Hitler to the right"; that's already the historical starting point. What this whole thread is about is refuting the equally mad revisionist idea that wherever Hitler went to, he got there from the left. Clearly he didn't. Everything points to the opposite.

In other words, none of this is in any way trying to tie Hitler to the contemporary right; rather, the attempt to tie him to the contemporary left has been floated out there (see OP) and what we're doing is calling out that fallacy for the lie it is. Let's not play Martyr-for-a-day here. That's transparent.

Opposite as being what ? Where did he get there from as you put it ? I agree with the first words or statements in your reply.. Hard to figure where he went wrong and why he went wrong, as in the beginning he must have been more sincere and stable to have so many follow him like they did, but soon he went mad in the huge task of straightening that nation out or he went mad in his methods to straighten that nation out. No matter what it was now, because simply stated mad is mad, and bad things happen as a result of such madness. What is sad, is that his assassination attempt failed, and that was sad, at least Rommel and others new this man was mad, and that he had to go somehow, as he was no longer sane and represented that nation in the form that he was supposed to be representing that nation in, so he had to go desperately they felt when attempted his removal in that way.

 

[bripat9643]

More denialist bullshit. The thrust of this thread is readily available for anyone to see in the OP, which is to counter the revisionist determination to morph Hitler from a figure of the right to one of the left.

Ah, so now we are "denialists." Whenever libturds can't defeat their opponents with logic (which the never can) they always resort to demonizing them and name calling.

Self-shooting-in-foot irony in bold. Can't be clearer.

You established the precedent, dipstick. If you don't like name calling, then don't do it.

No denialist, all I'm saying is your denialist bullshit of people "determined to label (Hitler) a right winger" is denialist bullshit, based on your own admissions that he's already labeled a right winger. That you would waltz back in and try to deny your own denialism reaffirms how set in ignorant stone it actually is.

You argument here is truly bizarre and idiotic. You seem to be saying that because I say humbug left-wing intellectuals have been trying to smear the right for 60 years by associating them with the Nazis, that when I point it out now that makes me some kind of hypocrite. I don't follow the "logic." a corollary of your belief is that once the humbug left-wing historians take a position on something, then it can't ever be refuted. Your attitude is closer to being a member of a cult rather than one of having an intellectual interest in the subject.

No, it's not a lie. You and Siagon are attempting to support a smear that has been going on for 60 years.

-- and voilà, you just did it again.

Did what again, dispute your idiocies?

In short --- Busted.

Yup. What that guy said, QED.
This is exactly why you're on my Ignore list, Finger-Boy. You're incapable of hearing any voice but your own and equally incapable of making a logical argument.
I do give you credit for your avatar though. It's a perfect illustration.

You said it, moron. You're quoting yourself. You also wouldn't know logic if someone beat you to death with it.

 

[Pogo]

Why can't he be made up of both the right and the left, where as in policy he leans more to the left in his ideals about government and the redistribution/redirection of wealth via by the power of government enforced, but in his religious views he was a bit more righty. So isn't this possible to have more than a single definition to someone who became so confused also himself in life (driven mad by it all), so much so that he lost himself in it all ? What seems to be going on here is the attempt at some to tie Hitler's failures to the right here for political purposes, as if it will further destroy the right as a viable partner to the party they aspire to and want to be associated with during it's leadership role in this nation.

Absolutely he can. Hitlerian fascism is too complex to be pigeonholed being, as you note, the product of a madman and therefore rife with contradictions. There's no "attempt to tie Hitler to the right"; that's already the historical starting point. What this whole thread is about is refuting the equally mad revisionist idea that wherever Hitler went to, he got there from the left. Clearly he didn't. Everything points to the opposite.

In other words, none of this is in any way trying to tie Hitler to the contemporary right; rather, the attempt to tie him to the contemporary left has been floated out there (see OP) and what we're doing is calling out that fallacy for the lie it is. Let's not play Martyr-for-a-day here. That's transparent.

Opposite as being what ? Where did he get there from as you put it ? I agree with the first words or statements in your reply.. Hard to figure where he went wrong and why he went wrong, as in the beginning he must have been more sincere and stable to have so many follow him like they did, but soon he went mad in the huge task of straightening that nation out or he went mad in his methods to straighten that nation out. No matter what it was now, because simply stated mad is mad, and bad things happen as a result of such madness. What is sad, is that his assassination attempt failed, and that was sad, at least Rommel and others new this man was mad, and that he had to go somehow, as he was no longer sane and represented that nation in the form that he was supposed to be representing that nation in, so he had to go desperately they felt when attempted his removal in that way.

By the time the assassination bombing attempt was made the damage had been done. Frankly that would have been too little too late.

What Hitler went mad with, and what he's most historically noted for, was authoritarianism. That's a dimension beyond the scope of, and independent of, a simple two-dimensional right-left spectrum, but it is what makes him a monster. In the big picture of all that, the question of whether he was right or left has always been secondary, and in either case does not describe a causal relationship. In other words nobody claimed "Hitler was a monster because he came from the right', but some have recently started to sell the snake oil, "Hitler was a monster 'because' he came from the left", and that's what this thread has from the beginning been here to refute.

As far as opposites... here we're talking about two separate facets: where Hitler came from and where he went. Again the former does not "prove" the latter, but clearly where he came from, the philosophies of hyperpatirotism, hyperreligiousism, the Fatherland and Lebensraum, the whole Kinder, Kirche, Kuche thing, the appeal to "our glorious past", the emphasis on military, these are all out of the right's playbook, not the left's. The question of racism we may consider separately; Hitler persecuted Jews (and Gypsies, and homosexuals, and socialists, and intellectuals) but clearly these cannot all be described as racism. Rather, they were an enemies list, opponents of the State. Scapegoating of the Jews served as a psychological political tool, but all of this was, again, the manifestation of authoritarianism, not a right or left issue.

In short, in the multidimensional sphere of political analysis, the question of whether Hitler comes from the right or left is simply not that important, but to suggest from either side that that question explains Hitler's monstrosity as an inevitable inherent result of that side's philosophy is as disingenuous a scapegoating tactic as was Hitler's cultural pogrom against the Jews. And that's why nipping this historical revisionism in the bud IS important; it leads to the slippery slope we're already seeing articulated in this thread. And elsewhere.

That's the whole raison d'être of revisionist history; to spin the past so that you can spin the present.

 

[Political Junky]

As I asked you before - if you CAN discuss topics like a grown up, I suggest you do so.

For all his myriad faults, Hitler had a very clear view of his own ideology and politiics. He knew that he was extreme, knew that he was right wing, and was proud of the fact. His own speeches demonstrate this, as does Mein Kampf and books like Ian Kershaw's 'Hubris' and 'Nemesis'.

"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939

So that's where Michael Savage got his quote ..."Liberalism is a disease".

Why do you listen to Savage? Why do you even know who he is when I had to look him up?

Unfortunately I can't listen to Savage/Weiner anymore, as he's no longer carried locally. I used to enjoy laughing at his absurd remarks.
You must be the only right winger that didn't know who he is.

 

[westwall]

Westwall, BriPat -

If you'd like to learn something about Antonescu, Hannah Arendt's 'Eichmann' has a chapter on him, but you can get an overview here:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a fascinating character, and in some ways a clearer picture of 'pure' fascism in action than Hitler. One interesting fact about him is that at the time of the Jewish deportations, he acted with such speed and ferocity that German officials had to tell him to slow down, or they would start sending the trains back to Romania.

People sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that Hitler is our only example of real fascism, but in both Romania and Hungary we have amazing examples of how fascism could operate in different societies and cultures.

I have no idea at all why anyone who had ever heard of the man would consider him "a liberal", but then I doubt you guys do either.

Wiki is NOT a reputable source idiot.

 

[westwall]

I just noticed something, regent, saigon and pogo all joined wihtin a couple of months of each other and post like madmen. saigon alone is posting at the rate of 22 per day (I post at the rate of 11 and am retired). I wonder who they all work for?

 

[Pogo]

I just noticed something, regent, saigon and pogo all joined wihtin a couple of months of each other and post like madmen. saigon alone is posting at the rate of 22 per day. I wonder who they all work for?

Uhhh..... OK.
I work for myself; Saigon, IDK but he's in Finland; "Regent". I've never heard of. Actually I never heard of any of y'all before I joined.

This is about the looniest post I've seen all day, and that's even after reading Finger-Boy's drivel.

It does tell me something about your powers of association-fallacy though. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Pogo]

Westwall, BriPat -

If you'd like to learn something about Antonescu, Hannah Arendt's 'Eichmann' has a chapter on him, but you can get an overview here:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a fascinating character, and in some ways a clearer picture of 'pure' fascism in action than Hitler. One interesting fact about him is that at the time of the Jewish deportations, he acted with such speed and ferocity that German officials had to tell him to slow down, or they would start sending the trains back to Romania.

People sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that Hitler is our only example of real fascism, but in both Romania and Hungary we have amazing examples of how fascism could operate in different societies and cultures.

I have no idea at all why anyone who had ever heard of the man would consider him "a liberal", but then I doubt you guys do either.

Wiki is NOT a reputable source idiot.

Wiki, idiot, like any book, requires source citations. This particular article has five hundred and fifty (550) of them, along with 42 footnotes, including links and/or ISBN numbers.

 

[westwall]

I just noticed something, regent, saigon and pogo all joined wihtin a couple of months of each other and post like madmen. saigon alone is posting at the rate of 22 per day. I wonder who they all work for?

Uhhh..... OK.
I work for myself; Saigon, IDK but he's in Finland; "Regent". I've never heard of. Actually I never heard of any of y'all before I joined.

This is about the looniest post I've seen all day, and that's even after reading Finger-Boy's drivel.

It does tell me something about your powers of association-fallacy though. I'll keep that in mind.

All of you have posted in this very thread, and all are feeble minded lefties. You all sound a whole lot alike as well. Uncanny.

 

[westwall]

Westwall, BriPat -

If you'd like to learn something about Antonescu, Hannah Arendt's 'Eichmann' has a chapter on him, but you can get an overview here:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a fascinating character, and in some ways a clearer picture of 'pure' fascism in action than Hitler. One interesting fact about him is that at the time of the Jewish deportations, he acted with such speed and ferocity that German officials had to tell him to slow down, or they would start sending the trains back to Romania.

People sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that Hitler is our only example of real fascism, but in both Romania and Hungary we have amazing examples of how fascism could operate in different societies and cultures.

I have no idea at all why anyone who had ever heard of the man would consider him "a liberal", but then I doubt you guys do either.

Wiki is NOT a reputable source idiot.

Wiki, idiot, like any book, requires source citations. This particular article has five hundred and fifty (550) of them, along with 42 footnotes, including links and/or ISBN numbers.

And anything that can be altered by ANYONE is not a reliable resource dipshit. I can go in and change anything that has been posted in wiki...at will. So can anybody else. Are so feeble minded that you don't see that as a problem?

I mean really. At least try and have a tiny little bit of common sense.

 

[Oddball]

Westwall, BriPat -

If you'd like to learn something about Antonescu, Hannah Arendt's 'Eichmann' has a chapter on him, but you can get an overview here:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a fascinating character, and in some ways a clearer picture of 'pure' fascism in action than Hitler. One interesting fact about him is that at the time of the Jewish deportations, he acted with such speed and ferocity that German officials had to tell him to slow down, or they would start sending the trains back to Romania.

People sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that Hitler is our only example of real fascism, but in both Romania and Hungary we have amazing examples of how fascism could operate in different societies and cultures.

I have no idea at all why anyone who had ever heard of the man would consider him "a liberal", but then I doubt you guys do either.

 

[Pete7469]

After abandoning liberalism I reflected on having considered "conservatives" NAZI's back then.

Mostly I was parroting the stupid shit I heard my fellow moonbats regurgitate. Once I really looked into the tenets of the National Socialist Workers Party it became pretty clear to me that the democrook platform more closely resembles the NAZI party than anything I would promote as a "right winger". I've noticed that liberals are less likely to use the term NAZI in describing their opponents than they used to be, and I think it has something to do with people being better informed on what sort of policies the NAZI's enacted.

The NAZI's might have been mortal enemies of the Marxists, but I think it's because both ideologies appealed to people who wanted a strong dominant state to "equalize" things. Now a days liberals demonize "the rich" in ways the NAZI's used to.

I'm basically a libertarian now, because I think "conservatives" are to focused on what rump rangers do, and what sort of dope occutards are injesting.

Well you should think again about your position against conservatives, because they aren't concerning themselves with these rump rangers as you put it, nor are they concerning themselves with these occupiers, but rather they are being forced to be concerned with these issues by the left who is forcing it as an issue upon them. So now as a libertarian you have played well into the hands of the libs and their games played, where as you have done just what they intended for you to do, and that is to separate yourself from your party of choice, and you fell for it hood line and sinker.

I'm not saying I would vote in favor of gay marriage or blanket drug legalization, I just find that people who wish to use the power of the state to legally enforce a religious morality should concern themselves with defeating the left on the very clear danger the economic policies of the left represents.

After crushing the moonbats in 2002, the republican party was poised to effect real reversal of what the left has done to the country. Instead they wasted billions on "No Child Gets Ahead" and prescrption drug subsidies. I still tend to vote republican, but the party isn't doing itself any favors right now. They're too consumed with pandering to illegal aliens, and pretending to care about black people who would fight to stay on the democrook plantation.

The leftist "news"/entertainment media has pushed a narative, conservatives shouldn't be following it. They should be tearing the doors off PMSNBS and demanding equal time. They need to get their own very simple message out there about the state of the economy and budget, and put everything else on the side.

That's just my oppinion though.

 

[Oddball]

because it most certainly bears repeating...

From hitler's 25 points of the nasdp:


7. We demand that the state shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. ~socialist This could be reasonably stated if the government only acts as a mediator in the negotiations between worker and corporation, and this in order to assure as our government does currently, that no abusing of the American worker will go unpunished or remain in silence. Now what is it called in which is done by our own government again within this nation ?.


10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community (unless it - otherwise does this mean can't do it unless it is) to the benefit of all? ~socialist Yes this is big time socialism at it's worst.

therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.~socialist No entitlement programs what so ever ?

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.~socialist Hmmm I can understand the stance taken, and the reasoning behind this one, as such profits made could very easily work to cause severe corruption to form, and this by making war profits that to inspire longer wars or to set up corporations who profit from war, in which then uses part of those profits to corrupt governments into continuing wars for those profits.


13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.~socialist Trust as in banks or what maybe ? What reason was this being done for, and isn't this what our government wanted?

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.~socialist Profit sharing unto whom as the beneficiaries of such profit sharing ? Here we have had profit sharing by major corporations and businesses found in programs for their employee's, so is this the same in notion there of as is spoken about here ?

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.~socialist Not a bad thing, if these pensions had been underfunded for far to long.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the state, the provinces and municipalities.~socialist This is not a bad idea or response to a problem that may have been encountered upon review by any nation when spoken of, where as the middle class and small businesses were being wiped out by corporate stores in which consolidated wealth into a few sectors, thus making the whole nation to suffer, and to become weakened in the other sectors as a result of.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.~socialist Hmmm, what is this the doing away with land ownership or the acquisition of lands by the government when ever needed by way of eminent domain, is this what this is saying actually ?

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.~socialist To the injury of the common welfare eh ? What did Hitler find in this nation, that made him so popular when spoke in these ways to the people against those who have done these things ? Was their grave damage to the middle class and small businesses by way of such people working against the common welfare and strength of that nation to be what he found there, and they were found doing this for their own greed and profiteering and racketeering in which weakened the nation sector by sector in a treasonous way ?


19. We demand that roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by german common law.~socialist Not sure what this means exactly, so not sure how to comment exactly on it. Help me out on this one if you will, thanks. It sounds as if they have something against materialism or the worshipping of materialism as it were or that he found in the nation at the time, in which was abhorred by others in the world or by Germany's enemies at the time.


20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious german to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the state must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the state idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the state.~socialist Not to bad if the curriculum is a good one, and the teaching there after was a good one that lifted Germany out of it's rut that it may have been found in (don't like the wording of only recognizing specially talented children of poor parents, where as it should have said that all German children of poor parents, can if choose to or their parents choose to, be educated at the expense of the state), Funny that we now see how our school system has been working to bring down the minds of the talented, in order to lift up the minds of the less fortunate in a more equal socialist manor here, and the school system is also being used for political agenda's in order to make change from a young age to affect generations to come to be found during their older ages. This (science of citizenship) is a loaded phrase indeed, in which can mean so many bad things, yet it is all depending on who is behind this science of it all, and as proven Hitler was not the one to be promoting such science of citizenship to be found out to late by the Germans sadly enough. Hitler had become somehow the ultimate betrayal of all that was Germany in his dealing with the Jews as he had done, so it negated any good that he may have had in this thinking, in which the German people had elected him for.

21. The state has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.~socialist If this was for all poor children in Germany, then it was an Ok idea.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.~socialist Hmm they got it wrong here, as they should always have had a need to keep the regular army, while creating a nation guard as we have. It would have been sufficient.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a german press, we demand:

(a) all editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the german language shall be german citizens.

(b) non-german newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the state. They must not be published in the german language? They should have been published in the German language more so than in a non-German language, and this for security purposes.
(c) all financial interests in or in any way affecting german newspapers shall be forbidden to non-germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-germans from the reich. Understood if a threat was found prevalent in these areas, as it had been found, was found without a doubt or had been proven time and again in such areas.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.~socialist This is understood also, as we have seen the destructive influence of not editing or to allowing of almost anything to infiltrate our culture here, and by what it is doing or has been doing to our culture here. It doesn't say prohibit the papers from operating, only that if found undermining the state or the nation in any way, it would be punished for these acts by dissolving them or shutting then down.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the germanic race.~socialist This is understood as it does not say does not allow, but does not wish that a religion, for example as with Islam to enter in or be practiced freely, where as it's practice would then undermine the German peoples religious ideals and their belief system all to the detriment of the state and it's people.

the party as such represents the point of view of a positive christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. OK

It fights against the jewish materialist spirit ? within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on this pinciple: So they hate wealth as it was generated or being generated by the Jews in state as individuals, placing them squarely in contradiction with the principles that Hitler had in idea of to always support and lift up Germans as a people and their nation, but this wealth being in the hands of these Jewish people he did not like, stood directly in the way of his being the author of all change that was to be German and the promotion of Germany under his command. So he figured undoubtedly that all Jews had this potential to work there way into power and wealth in which would challenge him as the leader of the pure German people and nation as he saw it, so he opted to begin the process of riding Germany of them ? WOW he had gone completely mad at this point with power.

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: The creation of a strong central authority in the state, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole state and all its organizations. ~socialist

Sounds more like the ideals of this government we have currently in this nation now, especially as echoed by the occupy movement, and supported by this government we have now. There is a balance to be kept in it all, and the problem is that this nation has lost it's scales anymore, and it better get to finding them quickly or we may end up down any number of roads if not careful.


the history place - rise of hitler: The 25 points of hitler's nazi party

"right wing" never looked so socialistic.

Most of this to me is big time left wing stuff, with some right wing stuff mixed in as well.

Or it could just be that Nazism is another brand of socialism, like Ford is "different" from Volvo.

 

[Pogo]

Wiki is NOT a reputable source idiot.

Wiki, idiot, like any book, requires source citations. This particular article has five hundred and fifty (550) of them, along with 42 footnotes, including links and/or ISBN numbers.

And anything that can be altered by ANYONE is not a reliable resource dipshit. I can go in and change anything that has been posted in wiki...at will. So can anybody else. Are so feeble minded that you don't see that as a problem?

I mean really. At least try and have a tiny little bit of common sense.

And anyone can go right back in and change it back, dipshit, plus they fudger would have no reference source, dipshit, so it wou.ldn't hold anyway, dipshit. Plus you can see every revision, dipshit, so it's all clearly in the page and can be seen as verified by an outside source, or not. Dipshit.

You don't stop at the Wiki content, dipshit; you follow the sources. Unless you're not interested in the facts. Since as you noted you too can go in and edit, dipshit, it's your job to keep it honest, dipshit. And while you're in there, dipshit, you can edit the content but you cannot edit the source citations. They're fixed. Dipshit.

All you've done there is poison the well with a broad brush, dipshit. If you have a specific quarrel with a point, dipshit, cite the point and its source or lack thereof. Otherwise you have nothing but poisoning the well.

Dipshit.

 

[westwall]

Wiki, idiot, like any book, requires source citations. This particular article has five hundred and fifty (550) of them, along with 42 footnotes, including links and/or ISBN numbers.

And anything that can be altered by ANYONE is not a reliable resource dipshit. I can go in and change anything that has been posted in wiki...at will. So can anybody else. Are so feeble minded that you don't see that as a problem?

I mean really. At least try and have a tiny little bit of common sense.

And anyone can go right back in and change it back, dipshit, plus they fudger would have no reference source, dipshit, so it wou.ldn't hold anyway, dipshit. Plus you can see every revision, dipshit, so it's all clearly in the page and can be seen as verified by an outside source, or not. Dipshit.

You don't stop at the Wiki content, dipshit; you follow the sources. Unless you're not interested in the facts. Since as you noted you too can go in and edit, dipshit, it's your job to keep it honest, dipshit.

All you've done there is poison the well with a broad brush, dipshit. If you have a specific quarrel with a point, dipshit, cite the point and its source or lack thereof. Otherwise you have nothing but poisoning the well.

Dipshit.

Yes. But who's to say who is correct? See the problem dipshit?

Nope, I didn't think you would.

 

[Pogo]

because it most certainly bears repeating...

From hitler's 25 points of the nasdp:


7. We demand that the state shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. ~socialist This could be reasonably stated if the government only acts as a mediator in the negotiations between worker and corporation, and this in order to assure as our government does currently, that no abusing of the American worker will go unpunished or remain in silence. Now what is it called in which is done by our own government again within this nation ?.


10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community (unless it - otherwise does this mean can't do it unless it is) to the benefit of all? ~socialist Yes this is big time socialism at it's worst.

therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.~socialist No entitlement programs what so ever ?

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.~socialist Hmmm I can understand the stance taken, and the reasoning behind this one, as such profits made could very easily work to cause severe corruption to form, and this by making war profits that to inspire longer wars or to set up corporations who profit from war, in which then uses part of those profits to corrupt governments into continuing wars for those profits.


13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.~socialist Trust as in banks or what maybe ? What reason was this being done for, and isn't this what our government wanted?

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.~socialist Profit sharing unto whom as the beneficiaries of such profit sharing ? Here we have had profit sharing by major corporations and businesses found in programs for their employee's, so is this the same in notion there of as is spoken about here ?

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.~socialist Not a bad thing, if these pensions had been underfunded for far to long.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the state, the provinces and municipalities.~socialist This is not a bad idea or response to a problem that may have been encountered upon review by any nation when spoken of, where as the middle class and small businesses were being wiped out by corporate stores in which consolidated wealth into a few sectors, thus making the whole nation to suffer, and to become weakened in the other sectors as a result of.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.~socialist Hmmm, what is this the doing away with land ownership or the acquisition of lands by the government when ever needed by way of eminent domain, is this what this is saying actually ?

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.~socialist To the injury of the common welfare eh ? What did Hitler find in this nation, that made him so popular when spoke in these ways to the people against those who have done these things ? Was their grave damage to the middle class and small businesses by way of such people working against the common welfare and strength of that nation to be what he found there, and they were found doing this for their own greed and profiteering and racketeering in which weakened the nation sector by sector in a treasonous way ?


19. We demand that roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by german common law.~socialist Not sure what this means exactly, so not sure how to comment exactly on it. Help me out on this one if you will, thanks. It sounds as if they have something against materialism or the worshipping of materialism as it were or that he found in the nation at the time, in which was abhorred by others in the world or by Germany's enemies at the time.


20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious german to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the state must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the state idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the state.~socialist Not to bad if the curriculum is a good one, and the teaching there after was a good one that lifted Germany out of it's rut that it may have been found in (don't like the wording of only recognizing specially talented children of poor parents, where as it should have said that all German children of poor parents, can if choose to or their parents choose to, be educated at the expense of the state), Funny that we now see how our school system has been working to bring down the minds of the talented, in order to lift up the minds of the less fortunate in a more equal socialist manor here, and the school system is also being used for political agenda's in order to make change from a young age to affect generations to come to be found during their older ages. This (science of citizenship) is a loaded phrase indeed, in which can mean so many bad things, yet it is all depending on who is behind this science of it all, and as proven Hitler was not the one to be promoting such science of citizenship to be found out to late by the Germans sadly enough. Hitler had become somehow the ultimate betrayal of all that was Germany in his dealing with the Jews as he had done, so it negated any good that he may have had in this thinking, in which the German people had elected him for.

21. The state has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.~socialist If this was for all poor children in Germany, then it was an Ok idea.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.~socialist Hmm they got it wrong here, as they should always have had a need to keep the regular army, while creating a nation guard as we have. It would have been sufficient.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a german press, we demand:

(a) all editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the german language shall be german citizens.

(b) non-german newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the state. They must not be published in the german language? They should have been published in the German language more so than in a non-German language, and this for security purposes.
(c) all financial interests in or in any way affecting german newspapers shall be forbidden to non-germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-germans from the reich. Understood if a threat was found prevalent in these areas, as it had been found, was found without a doubt or had been proven time and again in such areas.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.~socialist This is understood also, as we have seen the destructive influence of not editing or to allowing of almost anything to infiltrate our culture here, and by what it is doing or has been doing to our culture here. It doesn't say prohibit the papers from operating, only that if found undermining the state or the nation in any way, it would be punished for these acts by dissolving them or shutting then down.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the germanic race.~socialist This is understood as it does not say does not allow, but does not wish that a religion, for example as with Islam to enter in or be practiced freely, where as it's practice would then undermine the German peoples religious ideals and their belief system all to the detriment of the state and it's people.

the party as such represents the point of view of a positive christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. OK

It fights against the jewish materialist spirit ? within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on this pinciple: So they hate wealth as it was generated or being generated by the Jews in state as individuals, placing them squarely in contradiction with the principles that Hitler had in idea of to always support and lift up Germans as a people and their nation, but this wealth being in the hands of these Jewish people he did not like, stood directly in the way of his being the author of all change that was to be German and the promotion of Germany under his command. So he figured undoubtedly that all Jews had this potential to work there way into power and wealth in which would challenge him as the leader of the pure German people and nation as he saw it, so he opted to begin the process of riding Germany of them ? WOW he had gone completely mad at this point with power.

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: The creation of a strong central authority in the state, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole state and all its organizations. ~socialist

Sounds more like the ideals of this government we have currently in this nation now, especially as echoed by the occupy movement, and supported by this government we have now. There is a balance to be kept in it all, and the problem is that this nation has lost it's scales anymore, and it better get to finding them quickly or we may end up down any number of roads if not careful.


the history place - rise of hitler: The 25 points of hitler's nazi party

"right wing" never looked so socialistic.

Most of this to me is big time left wing stuff, with some right wing stuff mixed in as well.

Or it could just be that Nazism is another brand of socialism, like Ford is "different" from Volvo.

I hadn't read these 25 points or whatever's left of them before, but apparently whoever originally brought them in did so on the basis that "Hitler said it so it must be true".

Because as we all know, Hitler was the most honest guy in history and would never ever resort to, you know, propaganda or lying or anything like that.



Sheeeeesh.