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.
And you started the thread in an attempt to smear the right. Objective? NOPE.
You're essentially equating conservatism with fascism, and it's quite clear to all.
You are one dishonest asshole. Maybe you ARE a journalist after all! No one asked you to type out the books. You are making claims that you can't back up, don't blame me. I'm certainly not going to run out and buy books or go to the library to see if you are accurate about their opinion. Where do prove that Nazi's weren't socialist?Ice Weasel -
I have just listed six major, reknowned historians, and named some of their books on this topic. I am not going to type out the books for you.
How would that even be relevant to me, or anyone else today? What is the relevance of "right wing" Germany to anyone not writing a book about it? What has it got to do with the right wing in the United States in 2014? Is that too hard to answer? You keep ducking it and claiming I'm ducking you. WTF?My suggestion would be that you choose one or two of them that sound fair and objective to you, and spend a bit of time reading. I would particulaly recommend Hannah Arendt's ubiquitous 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' for it's extraordinary objectivity and insight. Arendt's partner of some years, the philosoper Heidegger, was himself a Nazi party supporter.
Why can't you prove it then? And if I started a thread on Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao as a comparison to the left wing here and now it would indeed be a smear.And you started the thread in an attempt to smear the right. Objective? NOPE.
Saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were left-wing does no 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyone can check and confirm.
Saying that Hitler, Franco and Stroessner were right wing does not 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyon can check and confirm.
Pointing out that Hitler was a socialist smears no one either. If you see it as an affront to your beliefs, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact that socialism and totalitarianism often go hand-in-hand.Saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were left-wing does no 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyone can check and confirm.
Saying that Hitler, Franco and Stroessner were right wing does not 'smear' anyone. It's a fact that anyon can check and confirm.
What is it then that makes national socialism unacceptable to you?Meathead -
Socialism and totalitarianism definitely go close in hand - as do totalitarianism and any extreme form of either left wing or right wing government.
btw - Still waiting for you to answer the two questions I posted earlier.
What is the relevance of "right wing" Germany to anyone not writing a book about it? What has it got to do with the right wing in the United States in 2014?
This entire exercise is supposed to prove that democrats are not and can never be like Nazi.
What is it then that makes national socialism unacceptable to you?
Read again and note I did not capitalize national socialism.What is it then that makes national socialism unacceptable to you?
Probably the same things that make it unacceptable to you - the perverse, genocidal racism; the arrogant nationalism; the militarism; the extent of the state control over media, elections and the legislature.
I can't think of a single Fascist policy or ideological point that I agree with.
That said, I can't think of any communist policy I agree with either.
I just don't believe in extremist ideologies of either wing.
The word is spelled 'relevant'. I think history is important. I also think that tying Hitler in with the right wing is dishonest and I believe that's your true goal. Who starts a purely historical thread on a politics forum?Weasel -
What is the relevance of "right wing" Germany to anyone not writing a book about it? What has it got to do with the right wing in the United States in 2014?
It's about learning. It's about history. I find that interesting myself, and definitely relevent to 21st century life in Europe, as we see many of the same trends and patterns repeat.
If you don't think that's relevent to you, then don't read them.
But then don't be surprised when you don't understand history of the terms involved, as it's clear you don't here. Reading books like the Arendt is how most of us learn history and politics, and the terms used in those fields.
Progressives have never been moderate nor have the democrat partyThis entire exercise is supposed to prove that democrats are not and can never be like Nazi.
No moderate movement is ever likely to become an extremist movement.
I've explained several times on this thread that we cannot compare Conservatism with Fascism, even though both are right wing, because the former is moderate and the latter extremist. It's the same with (moderate) liberalism and (extremist) communism.
