Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
"It is theorized" huh...
What I can't fathom, is how someone so blatantly ignorant of the facts can sit there and smuggly argue something he is apparently absolutely clueless about. Yes Pogo - YOU, ... you are one uninformed little festering puss sack on the anus of the internet .
Theorized by several but I'll use Hyam Maccoby as an example : he theorized that "On the Jewish Question" is an example of what he considers to be Marx's "early anti-Semitism." According to Maccoby, Marx argues in the essay that the modern commercialized world is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Maccoby has suggested that Marx was embarrassed by his Jewish background and used the Jews as a "yardstick of evil."
There are a few other respected Historians and sociologists who believe the same .
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
"It is theorized" huh...
What I can't fathom, is how someone so blatantly ignorant of the facts can sit there and smuggly argue something he is apparently absolutely clueless about. Yes Pogo - YOU, ... you are one uninformed little festering puss sack on the anus of the internet .
Theorized by several but I'll use Hyam Maccoby as an example : he theorized that "On the Jewish Question" is an example of what he considers to be Marx's "early anti-Semitism." According to Maccoby, Marx argues in the essay that the modern commercialized world is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Maccoby has suggested that Marx was embarrassed by his Jewish background and used the Jews as a "yardstick of evil."
There are a few other respected Historians and sociologists who believe the same .
I'm really not interested in your desperate sophomoric attempts to pretend personal traits and political philosophies are the same thing. Don't insult my intelligence.
Grow up already.
Don't insult my intelligence.
sophomoric attempts to pretend personal traits and political philosophies are the same thing
IIRC Wilson was against women's suffrage and was forced into it. Don't have background handy though...
Back to eugenics... much as Wilson deserves criticism on other fronts, it's always unfair to judge historical figures on the mores of our own time, rather than theirs. Eugenics was a social philosophy popular with many in the late 19th/early 20th centuries -- a time when racism, another not-well-thought-out social philosophy -- degraded to perhaps its lowest depths, at least in modern times. J.H. Kellogg (the cereal guy) had the "Race Betterment Foundation" in Battle Creek. Funding poured in from Rockefeller and Carnegie. And see if you recognize the guy on the first page of this item.
We in the world of decades later associate eugenics with Hitler and the "Aryan" thing, but it was already going on before he was even born. In fact thirty states passed compulsory sterilization laws as far back as 1907 -- which is well before Wilson. Whatever that New Jersey bill was might have been another stab at the same thing.
Eugenics supporters, Wall Street, 1915:
And it still goes on today:
>> Between 2006 and 2010 close to 150 women where sterilized in Californian prisons without state approval. Between 1997 and 2010, the state paid $147'460 to doctors for tubal ligations. << -- Eugenics in the United States
Point being that mores and moral standards are dynamic, not fixed in time. It's not accurate to assess a historical figure by the standards that in that figure's time, did not exist.
Can any Conservative explain how Fascism is progress? Hitler was not Progressive. Mussolini was not Progressive. They slaughtered millions of people. That is not Progressive in anyone's mind except the right-wing. Only the stupidest people on Earth could believe that Fascism is Progressive. People who believe that Fascists are Progressive don't know what Fascism or Progress actually mean. People who believe that Fascism is Progressive will believe just about anything that they are told. These are the people that Fascists love to use to further their Fascist agenda.
Why does the right-wing think that they can suddenly change all of history?
Because the right-wing is full of the stupidest people on Earth.
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
Karl Marx, the man worshipped by Socialist theologians as their Messianic Jesus as .. He was not only a Socialist, but a racist and anti-Semite. Marx argues that the modern capitalism is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Marx it is theorized, was embarrassed of his own Judaic roots and blamed the Jews for all the worlds evils.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
Can any Conservative explain how Fascism is progress? Hitler was not Progressive. Mussolini was not Progressive. They slaughtered millions of people. That is not Progressive in anyone's mind except the right-wing. Only the stupidest people on Earth could believe that Fascism is Progressive. People who believe that Fascists are Progressive don't know what Fascism or Progress actually mean. People who believe that Fascism is Progressive will believe just about anything that they are told. These are the people that Fascists love to use to further their Fascist agenda.
Why does the right-wing think that they can suddenly change all of history?
Because the right-wing is full of the stupidest people on Earth.
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
Karl Marx, the man worshipped by Socialist theologians as their Messianic Jesus as .. He was not only a Socialist, but a racist and anti-Semite. Marx argues that the modern capitalism is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Marx it is theorized, was embarrassed of his own Judaic roots and blamed the Jews for all the worlds evils.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
Karl Marx, the man worshipped by Socialist theologians as their Messianic Jesus as .. He was not only a Socialist, but a racist and anti-Semite. Marx argues that the modern capitalism is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Marx it is theorized, was embarrassed of his own Judaic roots and blamed the Jews for all the worlds evils.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
You keep saying Hitler wasn't a socialist and all the Nazi rhetoric was just a ruse, yet you continually fail to offer any evidence that he was a supporter of capitalism.
IIRC Wilson was against women's suffrage and was forced into it. Don't have background handy though...
Back to eugenics... much as Wilson deserves criticism on other fronts, it's always unfair to judge historical figures on the mores of our own time, rather than theirs. Eugenics was a social philosophy popular with many in the late 19th/early 20th centuries -- a time when racism, another not-well-thought-out social philosophy -- degraded to perhaps its lowest depths, at least in modern times. J.H. Kellogg (the cereal guy) had the "Race Betterment Foundation" in Battle Creek. Funding poured in from Rockefeller and Carnegie. And see if you recognize the guy on the first page of this item.
We in the world of decades later associate eugenics with Hitler and the "Aryan" thing, but it was already going on before he was even born. In fact thirty states passed compulsory sterilization laws as far back as 1907 -- which is well before Wilson. Whatever that New Jersey bill was might have been another stab at the same thing.
Eugenics supporters, Wall Street, 1915:
And it still goes on today:
>> Between 2006 and 2010 close to 150 women where sterilized in Californian prisons without state approval. Between 1997 and 2010, the state paid $147'460 to doctors for tubal ligations. << -- Eugenics in the United States
Point being that mores and moral standards are dynamic, not fixed in time. It's not accurate to assess a historical figure by the standards that in that figure's time, did not exist.
That is unless we're talking about Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis or any other citizen of the confederacy, eh Pogo?
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
Karl Marx, the man worshipped by Socialist theologians as their Messianic Jesus as .. He was not only a Socialist, but a racist and anti-Semite. Marx argues that the modern capitalism is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Marx it is theorized, was embarrassed of his own Judaic roots and blamed the Jews for all the worlds evils.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
ROFL! So they called themselves socialists, they said they were socialists, they adopted all the same agenda planks as other socialist parties, but you just know they weren't socialist?
Do you ever wonder why you hear people smirking when you post this crap?
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
Karl Marx, the man worshipped by Socialist theologians as their Messianic Jesus as .. He was not only a Socialist, but a racist and anti-Semite. Marx argues that the modern capitalism is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Marx it is theorized, was embarrassed of his own Judaic roots and blamed the Jews for all the worlds evils.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
You keep saying Hitler wasn't a socialist and all the Nazi rhetoric was just a ruse, yet you continually fail to offer any evidence that he was a supporter of capitalism.
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
You keep saying Hitler wasn't a socialist and all the Nazi rhetoric was just a ruse, yet you continually fail to offer any evidence that he was a supporter of capitalism.
I didn't even bring up capitalism, dumbass.
What the fuck kind of island do you live on, where everything is black and white?
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
ROFL! So they called themselves socialists, they said they were socialists, they adopted all the same agenda planks as other socialist parties, but you just know they weren't socialist?
Do you ever wonder why you hear people smirking when you post this crap?
So -- no argument. Point forfeited.
Once again for the slow readers, the term was already in place, and popular in the world at the time. They used "socialist" in the same way North Korea uses "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". So by your (apparent but dare not speak its name) logic, you believe North Korea is a democratic people's republic then?
IIRC Wilson was against women's suffrage and was forced into it. Don't have background handy though...
Back to eugenics... much as Wilson deserves criticism on other fronts, it's always unfair to judge historical figures on the mores of our own time, rather than theirs. Eugenics was a social philosophy popular with many in the late 19th/early 20th centuries -- a time when racism, another not-well-thought-out social philosophy -- degraded to perhaps its lowest depths, at least in modern times. J.H. Kellogg (the cereal guy) had the "Race Betterment Foundation" in Battle Creek. Funding poured in from Rockefeller and Carnegie. And see if you recognize the guy on the first page of this item.
We in the world of decades later associate eugenics with Hitler and the "Aryan" thing, but it was already going on before he was even born. In fact thirty states passed compulsory sterilization laws as far back as 1907 -- which is well before Wilson. Whatever that New Jersey bill was might have been another stab at the same thing.
Eugenics supporters, Wall Street, 1915:
And it still goes on today:
>> Between 2006 and 2010 close to 150 women where sterilized in Californian prisons without state approval. Between 1997 and 2010, the state paid $147'460 to doctors for tubal ligations. << -- Eugenics in the United States
Point being that mores and moral standards are dynamic, not fixed in time. It's not accurate to assess a historical figure by the standards that in that figure's time, did not exist.
That is unless we're talking about Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis or any other citizen of the confederacy, eh Pogo?
Uh.... what?
Why would they be different? I don't get it.
Are you under the impression I'm from the South or something?
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
You keep saying Hitler wasn't a socialist and all the Nazi rhetoric was just a ruse, yet you continually fail to offer any evidence that he was a supporter of capitalism.
I didn't even bring up capitalism, dumbass.
What the fuck kind of island do you live on, where everything is black and white?
Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive President. Woodrow Wilson was a statist, a war mongering racist.
The President can't direct the IRS. The NSA survailence apparatus has had bipartisan support from both houses of congress. The murderous Nazi regime of Hitler was textbook fascism. Neither party resembles them.
WND? Really?
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
You keep saying Hitler wasn't a socialist and all the Nazi rhetoric was just a ruse, yet you continually fail to offer any evidence that he was a supporter of capitalism.
I didn't even bring up capitalism, dumbass.
What the fuck kind of island do you live on, where everything is black and white?
Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive President. Woodrow Wilson was a statist, a war mongering racist.
The President can't direct the IRS. The NSA survailence apparatus has had bipartisan support from both houses of congress. The murderous Nazi regime of Hitler was textbook fascism. Neither party resembles them.
WND? Really?
Neither party resembles them?
The Nazi Party were socialists and demanded mandated health care for all. The Nazi's were environmentalists, creating the first national park in Europe and restricting hunting on certain endangered species and halted the construction of a damn on the Rhine and had their soldiers plant trees. The Nazis also gave PETA a run for their money, creating the harshest laws against mistreatment of animals and sending violators to the Russian front. Spending was also out of control. It was so bad that Hitler forbad the government from passing budgets in 1938. Economist Keynes, the progressive economic guru, once said that Hitler proved his economic theories to be correct, even before he had a chance to finish writing them. He added that his theories were best implemented by a dictatorship than an economy based in free trade.
Hitler railed against capitalism citing it was a Jewish economic scheme and also championed gun control.
As for genocide, the Nazi war machine targeted Jews because they were an easy target. Jews often were better off financially and had a long history of Europe of persecution. They then rounded them up, took their wealth, and sent them away to die. Then the Nazi's would plunder the nations they invaded as they created banks and currency to loot stores and the entire economy of the nations they conquered. The Nazi's then told these captive governments to round up the Jews, take their wealth, and save their respective economies. The Jewish genocide was nothing short of a money making scheme.
Today, some 50 million plus aborted babies, women around the US still have abortions because they want to avoid economic hardship. Funny how some things never change. It's still all about money.
As for military conquest, the US has troops in over 70 countries around the world. Hitler never came close to that type of world control.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive President. Woodrow Wilson was a statist, a war mongering racist.
The President can't direct the IRS. The NSA survailence apparatus has had bipartisan support from both houses of congress. The murderous Nazi regime of Hitler was textbook fascism. Neither party resembles them.
WND? Really?
Neither party resembles them?
The Nazi Party were socialists and demanded mandated health care for all. The Nazi's were environmentalists, creating the first national park in Europe and restricting hunting on certain endangered species and halted the construction of a damn on the Rhine and had their soldiers plant trees. The Nazis also gave PETA a run for their money, creating the harshest laws against mistreatment of animals and sending violators to the Russian front. Spending was also out of control. It was so bad that Hitler forbad the government from passing budgets in 1938. Economist Keynes, the progressive economic guru, once said that Hitler proved his economic theories to be correct, even before he had a chance to finish writing them. He added that his theories were best implemented by a dictatorship than an economy based in free trade.
Hitler railed against capitalism citing it was a Jewish economic scheme and also championed gun control.
As for genocide, the Nazi war machine targeted Jews because they were an easy target. Jews often were better off financially and had a long history of Europe of persecution. They then rounded them up, took their wealth, and sent them away to die. Then the Nazi's would plunder the nations they invaded as they created banks and currency to loot stores and the entire economy of the nations they conquered. The Nazi's then told these captive governments to round up the Jews, take their wealth, and save their respective economies. The Jewish genocide was nothing short of a money making scheme.
Today, some 50 million plus aborted babies, women around the US still have abortions because they want to avoid economic hardship. Funny how some things never change. It's still all about money.
As for military conquest, the US has troops in over 70 countries around the world. Hitler never came close to that type of world control.
Hitler was a Socialist . Progressives are Socialists. Liberals are Socialist. Communists are Socialists. You're just a "useful idiot"
Let's see... wrong... wrong.... wrong... conditionally right.... unknown. Not too good.
Hitler ascended to power of a party that already called itself "socialist" in its name -- a term he (Hitler) accepted with objection. He was no socialist. But the term itself was a relatively new and trendy term at the time with marketing power. You know, like "libertarian" has become today. These things go in swings. But while his party may have had governmentally socialist tenets in principle, he was socially firmly on the right, if not off-the-scale right.
Karl Marx, the man worshipped by Socialist theologians as their Messianic Jesus as .. He was not only a Socialist, but a racist and anti-Semite. Marx argues that the modern capitalism is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Marx it is theorized, was embarrassed of his own Judaic roots and blamed the Jews for all the worlds evils.
"It is theorized" huh...
(remainder of link from Loonybird.com dismissed)
ROFL! So they called themselves socialists, they said they were socialists, they adopted all the same agenda planks as other socialist parties, but you just know they weren't socialist?
Do you ever wonder why you hear people smirking when you post this crap?
