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.
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.
Jesus Christ, BriPat I am NOT a "leftist". If you want to know my politics - ask.
Can you really not understand that Hitler is labeled a right wing, not out of any conspiracy or bias , but because he so obviously was right wing?
Every poster on this thread, left or right, admits that Stalin and Mao were left wing. So were Castro, Tito, Xoxha and Ceaucescu.
It should be obvious to anyone that the re-writing of history is not being done by anyone on the left.
Although that is true, I think we also have to be clear that Antonescu was every bit as extreme as Hitler - so Fascism's excesses can not be blamed upon one man or one regime only.
Even though Franco's and Mussolini's right wing extremism lacked the hatred, the intensity and racism of Hitler's, both were undeniably fascists as well.
They are all leftwingers - big government liberals.
End of story.
Ummmm...how much do you know about Antonescu, BriPat? Honestly?
Would I be right in suggesting you had never heard his name prior to this?
Really - what a child you are.
Was Hitler left wing? Lets look at his party National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. What part of socialist isn't left? It has been suggested that both WINGS are part of the same house. That may be. The true political spectrum from the American perspective is right is anarchy the left socialism thru to totalitarianism. The only real middle of the road is limited government. The government given the United States by it's founders.
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.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
In other words, they can be wrong. They can also be wrong for other reasons. For instance, the definitions of highly charged terms are often be tailored to suit the author's political agenda."Dictionaries are often wrong,..."
Wrong? A meaning of a word might evolve, but the dictionary only indicates what the word meant and how it was used up to the time of publication.
If you seriously believe that dictionaries can't be wrong, then you're too stupid to bother arguing with.
This is not only obviously insane - it is a very clear attempt to rewrite both history and language.
Wrong, it's simply a fact.
I notice much of BriPat's posting is based on rejecting sources - he rejects science and scientific research, he rejects history and historians, and now rejects dictionaries.
I reject the appeal to authority. Historians are mostly propagandists on the government payroll. Almost none of them know a damn thing about economics. The appeal to authority is your favorite schtick. All you can do is quote one leftist humbug after another who says Hitler was a leftist. However, when you look at what Hitler actually said and did, these claims don't hold up. There's no shortage of leftists populating Western universities. The fact that they all disown Hitler couldn't be more predictable.
I think one has to be just a tad braindead to still be falling for the LEFT V RIGHT narrative.
Hitler WAS what Hitler was.
It takes the mind of a child to think that calling him a leftist or a rightest makes any difference to today's leftists or rightests.
They are what THEY ARE, not what HITLER WAS.
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.
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.
Finger-Boy's on my Ignore list for obvious reasons, but some of these are just too hilarious to pass up:
This is not only obviously insane - it is a very clear attempt to rewrite both history and language.
Wrong, it's simply a fact.
"Here's this reference book we all agree defines the words we use. Oops, here's one I don't like. Well then fuck this book; it's obviously wrong, 'cause it couldn't possibly be me!!"
.
.
I notice much of BriPat's posting is based on rejecting sources - he rejects science and scientific research, he rejects history and historians, and now rejects dictionaries.
I reject the appeal to authority. Historians are mostly propagandists on the government payroll. Almost none of them know a damn thing about economics. The appeal to authority is your favorite schtick. All you can do is quote one leftist humbug after another who says Hitler was a leftist. However, when you look at what Hitler actually said and did, these claims don't hold up. There's no shortage of leftists populating Western universities. The fact that they all disown Hitler couldn't be more predictable.
"Everything I say is right. How do we know? Because all the known evidence, reference books and history disagrees with me. That proves I'm right!"
Oddly enough, in his addled foaming at the mouth he accidentally gets it right: "one leftist humbug after another who says Hitler was a leftist. However, when you look at what Hitler actually said and did, these claims don't hold up".
No, they sure don't. That's the whole point of this thread.
Wait, wait.... and then he wants to invoke "appeal to authority", which is exactly what he himself is doing as an ipse dixitism
Ironically, Ipse Dixit (Appeal to the Authority of Myself) is a basic element of brainwashing. Rub a dub dub.
I think one has to be just a tad braindead to still be falling for the LEFT V RIGHT narrative.
Hitler WAS what Hitler was.
It takes the mind of a child to think that calling him a leftist or a rightest makes any difference to today's leftists or rightests.
They are what THEY ARE, not what HITLER WAS.
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.
They are all leftwingers - big government liberals.
End of story.
Ummmm...how much do you know about Antonescu, BriPat? Honestly?
Would I be right in suggesting you had never heard his name prior to this?
Really - what a child you are.
Pot meet kettle. You are one of the most arrogant, ignorant individuals ever to have posted on this forum. Did I mention that you are also a prevaricator of the first order? Pathologically so.
As I asked you before - if you CAN discuss topics like a grown up, I suggest you do so.Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
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
How man times do you have to be told that in Europe a liberal is someone who believes in laizzes faire capitalism?
You are a collectivist, so whichever side that makes you, there you go.
Finger-Boy's on my Ignore list for obvious reasons, but some of these are just too hilarious to pass up:
This is not only obviously insane - it is a very clear attempt to rewrite both history and language.
I'll put you down as one who believes that Dictionaries and History books are infallible. That's another way of saying you think human beings can be infallible. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe any human or group of humans are infallible.
"Here's this reference book we all agree defines the words we use. Oops, here's one I don't like. Well then fuck this book; it's obviously wrong, 'cause it couldn't possibly be me!!"
Sorry, turd, but only morons agree that dictionaries are infallible.
"Everything I say is right. How do we know? Because all the known evidence, reference books and history disagrees with me. That proves I'm right!"
Wrong again. It has already been demonstrated that not all Dictionaries agree that fascism is right-wing. There are certainly plenty of economists and historians who reject the claim.
Oddly enough, in his addled foaming at the mouth he accidentally gets it right: "one leftist humbug after another who says Hitler was a leftist. However, when you look at what Hitler actually said and did, these claims don't hold up".
No, they sure don't. That's the whole point of this thread.
Wait, wait.... and then he wants to invoke "appeal to authority", which is exactly what he himself is doing as an ipse dixitism
Ironically, Ipse Dixit (Appeal to the Authority of Myself) is a basic element of brainwashing. Rub a dub dub.
You and Saigon are the only ones guilty of the crime of citing yourselves as authorities. All those who reject the claim that Hitler was a leftist have done so by quoting original sources - that is, by quoting Hitler and the Nazis themselves. We have also pointed out certain irrefutable facts of history, such as the actual economic legislation implemented by the Nazis.
All the evidence the hacks on your side of the issue have presented are quotes from humbug pinko intellectuals.
As for foaming at the mouth, your post is overflowing with it.
You put me on ignore because I've proven numerous times that you're an idiot. You can ad this instance to the growing heap of evidence.
Really?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.
Jesus Christ, BriPat I am NOT a "leftist". If you want to know my politics - ask.
Can you really not understand that Hitler is labeled a right wing, not out of any conspiracy or bias , but because he so obviously was right wing?
Every poster on this thread, left or right, admits that Stalin and Mao were left wing. So were Castro, Tito, Xoxha and Ceaucescu.
It should be obvious to anyone that the re-writing of history is not being done by anyone on the left.
No, you reject authority. You reject books, history, dictionaries and science. You reject information, you reject intelligence. The funny thing is - Hitler shared your anti-intellectualism.I reject the appeal to authority. Historians are mostly propagandists on the government payroll. Almost none of them know a damn thing about economics. The appeal to authority is your favorite schtick. All you can do is quote one leftist humbug after another who says Hitler was a leftist. However, when you look at what Hitler actually said and did, these claims don't hold up. There's no shortage of leftists populating Western universities. The fact that they all disown Hitler couldn't be more predictable.
btw. You asked for a book of fascist economics, and I posted one from Richard Overy, an excellent and unbiased source. I've read it - so should you.
btw, If you check my sources, you won't find one that is left wing. Not one. At least one was a member of a fascist organisation, though!
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.I think one has to be just a tad braindead to still be falling for the LEFT V RIGHT narrative.
Hitler WAS what Hitler was.
It takes the mind of a child to think that calling him a leftist or a rightest makes any difference to today's leftists or rightests.
They are what THEY ARE, not what HITLER WAS.
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.
So that's where Michael Savage got his quote ..."Liberalism is a disease".As I asked you before - if you CAN discuss topics like a grown up, I suggest you do so.Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
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
