How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Papageorgio]

All afternoon and that's all you can come up with?

Not your fault really -- there isn't anything else to come up with. That's the point I made in the first place. Should have just cut your losses and stayed off it.
And yes, I "expected an answer" as distinguished from a rhetorical question that doesn't. I challenged you to back up your wanker statement, and you came up empty.

You wanker crybabies just can't bring yourselves to admit when you've been owned.

What a dumb fuck you are. Do you not have the mental capacity to know that you can have varying degrees of anything.

You have no way to back up your bullshit and every person on this board with a brain knows you can't back it up.

And you're another one. I made no claim to "back up"-- you did. You said here:

You got that out of his comments? Wow! I thought you were smarter than that.

-- I then challenged you to explain what else such a comparison could mean, and you ran away. Then you came back with nothing. And you still have nothing.
Back that up.

You made a claim that another poster equaled Obama to Hitler. So are you now saying you didn't? Interesting...

Second back up your claim I ran away. As I explained before, I unlike you, have a life and don't need this board every minute of every day to feel good about myself. I am here once a day on average. So prove your bullshit.

And if you are a fucking retard and can't comprehend basic English, take responsibility and learn, instead of being a fucking dumb ass.

 

[Papageorgio]

Too Alive -

Do keep in mind quite how long this thread is - a lot of points have been covered multiple times.

Hitler defnitely declared that he was a socialist, however, what he meant by that is not what you think he meant. Likewise his quote on desroying capitalism - if you look at where and when he said it, the reason he said it becomes clearer.

Within this thread there must be 30 quotes from Hitler attacking (Marxian) socialism and backing capitalism.

And a lot of points ignored, Esmeralda, Pogo and yourself included in that.

You have one theme and you don't want discussion or debate, you just want everyone to roll over and agree with you.

 

[Saigon]

Papa -

I don't pretend to have read every comment on this thread, but I can say the only comments I ignored were those so lacking in merit that I assume the poster didn't require a response.

By all means give me a post # here and you have my word I'll respond to it.

If I didn't want debate I doubt I'd have got over 1,000 replies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Papa -

I don't pretend to have read every comment on this thread, but I can say the only comments I ignored were those so lacking in merit that I assume the poster didn't require a response.

By all means give me a post # here and you have my word I'll respond to it.

If I didn't want debate I doubt I'd have got over 1,000 replies.

You will only ignore those that put holes in your argument.

 

[Saigon]

Big Reb -

It is not "my" argument - it's recorded history, as confirmed my any dictionary you happen to have on hand.

Again - present a thread # and I'll respond to it now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Big Reb -

It is not "my" argument - it's recorded history, as confirmed my any dictionary you happen to have on hand.

Again - present a thread # and I'll respond to it now.

No it's your version of history. You don't base your record on facts.

 

[Saigon]

I just mentioned this to SSDD elsewhere, but it is worth repeating here -

This thread is not about the division between left and right, it does not separate out conservative posters from liberal ones, or divide socialists from righties or anything like that.

The divide can not be political, because essentially all historians and conservative posters and sources are in general agreement.

The divide that this thread highlighted is between literate and illiterate, between those interested in objective history and those terrified of it, an most importantly between those who read and those who refuse to read.

It's the same half dozen posters here flailing against History as a subject, who flail against Science as a subject on the climate change threads.

You think that is a coincidence?

I think not

 

[editec]

What DEFINES LEFT or RIGHT on a political scale?

Clearly we are NOT on the same page when we use these words.

I believe that the L v R pardigm describes the ECONOMIC system in place.

Some of you apparently think it has to do with authoritarianism, or perhaps with what kind of (and degree of) social services the government provides.

That fact that we don't all agree on what makes something LEFT or RIGHT explains why we cannot come to some agreement on this issue.

 

[Saigon]

What DEFINES LEFT or RIGHT on a political scale?

Clearly we are NOT on the same page when we use these words.

I believe that the L v R pardigm describes the ECONOMIC system in place.

Some of you apparently think it has to do with authoritarianism, or perhaps with what kind of (and degree of) social services the government provides.

That fact that we don't all agree on what makes something LEFT or RIGHT explains why we cannot come to some agreement on this issue.

I do agree with you here.

The two characteristics which most determine the nature of any regime are the role of Capital, and the role of Class. To my mind it begins with these two features.

Certainly I agree that Economic Policy is one of the essential pillars, but I'd also add Social Policy to that - by which I mean attitudes towards (ethnic) minorities, religious & press freedoms and so forth.

I have noticed a surprising number of posters mention small government vs authoritarianism, which if we are talking about the US in 2013 makes sense as a dividing point, but Hitler did not live in the US in 2013 - he lived in a time when Small Government was but a glimmer in the eye of Ayn Rand's grandpappy.

One can not say that Hitler rejected Small Government therefore was not a Conservative, when no Conservatives in Europe in 1939 DID talk about Small Government. It's like criticising Queen Victoria for not having a policy on internet piracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I just mentioned this to SSDD elsewhere, but it is worth repeating here -

This thread is not about the division between left and right, it does not separate out conservative posters from liberal ones, or divide socialists from righties or anything like that.

The divide can not be political, because essentially all historians and conservative posters and sources are in general agreement.

The divide that this thread highlighted is between literate and illiterate, between those interested in objective history and those terrified of it, an most importantly between those who read and those who refuse to read.

It's the same half dozen posters here flailing against History as a subject, who flail against Science as a subject on the climate change threads.

You think that is a coincidence?

I think not

Your version of history does not agree with historical facts.

 

[editec]

What DEFINES LEFT or RIGHT on a political scale?

Clearly we are NOT on the same page when we use these words.

I believe that the L v R pardigm describes the ECONOMIC system in place.

Some of you apparently think it has to do with authoritarianism, or perhaps with what kind of (and degree of) social services the government provides.

That fact that we don't all agree on what makes something LEFT or RIGHT explains why we cannot come to some agreement on this issue.

I do agree with you here.

The two characteristics which most determine the nature of any regime are the role of Capital, and the role of Class. To my mind it begins with these two features.

Certainly I agree that Economic Policy is one of the essential pillars, but I'd also add Social Policy to that - by which I mean attitudes towards (ethnic) minorities, religious & press freedoms and so forth.

You I do NOT think attitude toward minorities, religion or press freedom has anything to do with L v R.

Plenty of LEFTISTS and RIGHTEST governments have problems with minorities, religion and press freedom. And if both socialist and capitalist societies have the same kind of problems, then the source of those problems CAN NOT be part of that scale.

I have noticed a surprising number of posters mention small government vs authoritarianism, which if we are talking about the US in 2013 makes sense as a dividing point, but Hitler did not live in the US in 2013 - he lived in a time when Small Government was but a glimmer in the eye of Ayn Rand's grandpappy.

It is entirely possible for small governments to be authoritarian, too. POLICE STATES do not need to be large, they merely need to be repressive.

One can not say that Hitler rejected Small Government therefore was not a Conservative, when no Conservatives in Europe in 1939 DID talk about Small Government. It's like criticising Queen Victoria for not having a policy on internet piracy.

EXACTLY right.

This whole issue about small versus large government is relatively new to our political climate.

Of course for some posters here?

History started about 1980.

 

[Pogo]

What a dumb fuck you are. Do you not have the mental capacity to know that you can have varying degrees of anything.

You have no way to back up your bullshit and every person on this board with a brain knows you can't back it up.

And you're another one. I made no claim to "back up"-- you did. You said here:

You got that out of his comments? Wow! I thought you were smarter than that.

-- I then challenged you to explain what else such a comparison could mean, and you ran away. Then you came back with nothing. And you still have nothing.
Back that up.

You made a claim that another poster equaled Obama to Hitler. So are you now saying you didn't? Interesting...

Second back up your claim I ran away. As I explained before, I unlike you, have a life and don't need this board every minute of every day to feel good about myself. I am here once a day on average. So prove your bullshit.

And if you are a fucking retard and can't comprehend basic English, take responsibility and learn, instead of being a fucking dumb ass.

Exactly what colour powder are you snorting out there then? I made the observation that the poster compares Hitler to Obama to another poster (Esmerelda), and ergo he's saying "Hitler = Esmerelda". You then plopped in with gainsaying ("You got that out of his comments?") without offering any idea what other conclusion could possibly be inferred. So I asked for one; you ran away. And it's not becausee you weren't here; you went to the trouble to post several times without coming up with any answer at all. Neither did the original poster of the comparison.

And this was three days ago. So in three days you've told me nothing except that your head is up your ass and you had no point to begin with. Had you stayed away completely you could have plead absence.

Pissant.

 

[Pogo]

Also, I see you're from Finland, so we may have different meanings for some political ideologies. So let me clear things up a bit in regards to right-wing conservatism in the US.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In the US, that's what right-wing conservatism stands for. Pretty far from Hitler's Nazi Germany if you asked me.

Oh come on 2Al, your position is regressing.

First of all on what basis do you propose to compare 1930s Germany with contemporary US conservatism? Wrong time, wrong place, wrong continent, wrong context -- and no one ever suggested that "Hitler = 2013 US conservatives". You're way off here; the question was putting Hitler on the left or right of the scale, or more correctly, off the scale. It's not a comparison with anyone living today. In fact the instigating factor was the presence of latter-day revisionism trying to put Hitler on the opposite side of the spectrum from where he's always lived. Trust me, if Hitler's contemporaries who saw and had to deal with his actions had the slightest inking that he was a leftist, we would have heard this theory looooong before enough time had passed that some wag thought he could get away with manipulating a fading memory.

Second -- "support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments", except for the last two words, very much applied to the NSDAP; that's part of the whole "social conservative" value system the Nazis hammered constantly that I mentioned before. It goes right in with hypernationalism/hyperpatriotism, the Fatherland, Kinder/Kirche/Kuche, a longing for past glory, and the strong military-- all right-wing and conservative ideals. You can't keep ignoring that; it's what defined the NSDAP. It's what they lived and breathed.

And third, this idea that there's some kind of cosmic scale on which we can place a given government to see how "big" it is, and if it's over a certain median it's left, and under, it's right -- is absurd. "Size of government" is a concept Ronald Reagan started selling in 1980. It has no meaning. And in the 1930s it had even less. Size, in this case, doesn't matter. I don't care what illusions are sold on the media in 2013, it's got nothing to do with a place on the left or right.

The political spectrum doesn't live in two dimensions; any government may be more or less authoritarian and simultaneously more or less left or right. They're in no way linked.

As Saigon noted, we've done these same points over, and over, and over, and over. It's like talking to a wall.

Well, that's exactly why we haven't been able to agree on anything so far.

All I've been arguing is that Hitler's Nazi Germany is not synonymous or the extreme of modern American right-wing political ideology. Which many liberals here (and elsewhere) commonly imply.

I didn't specify it as I just assumed everyone was talking about the same thing.

Here's the problem: you're making an assumption (in bold) that puts the chicken before the egg. Nobody's implied that; it's actually more the reverse. And to suggest some historical figure is "extreme right wing" does not equate him with everyone and everything that is associated with that entire side of the spectrum. And this is important to understand the question the OP asks in the first place, i.e. "why the revision of history"?

Taking it chronologically: for the vast majority of history (since WWII), Adolf Hitler has been described by consensus as from the extreme right. Now, only very recently, and only seven decades later, and only here, a continent away from the action, has the opposite theory been floated. The OP asks whence comes this new historical revision. This is a reactive position, reactive to the revision; not an initiative attempt to paint Hitler Brown on anybody.

I'm more interested in the 'why' than the 'how' this revision has been drawn up; after all it's a pretty extreme revision to make. And I believe it has everything to do with the concept of Eliminationism, which also explains why it's born and bred here in the US. Eliminationism is a recent tactic of the punditry of the extreme right here in which the adversary ("them liberals") must be not debated or understood or negotiated with, but eliminated. Demonized and painted as a scourge on society. We see it in any number of signatures and commentary from posters in this forum and others; we hear it in the daily rhetoric of media gadflies like Rush Limbaugh; we read it in any number of partisan blogs from Breitbart, Brent Bozell, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, etc -- liberals/leftists aren't just "wrong', they're parasites; diseases; 'libtards'; mortal enemies; usurpers; communists; fascists (the latter two at the same time, as expressed in Doublethink), and ultimately traitors bent on destroying all that is America and God and Mom and apple pie.

This I believe is the basis behind the move to exhume Adolf Hitler and move him to the opposite side of the political spectrum; since we can still all concur that "Hitler = evil", he becomes less a historical figure and more a convenient costume to put on the adversary one would eliminate, which is the ultimate goal. After all, nobody wants a Hitler around, right? So if you can dress up your adversary in a Hitler costume, you're that much closer to eliminating them. You just eliminate a Hitler-by-proxy.

So let's be honest; that is why this revisionism comes up in the first place; that's why a hack like Jonah Goldberg writes his doublethink drivel; and that's why this revisionist history that "Hitler was a leftist" originates here in the US and nowhere else. Because here is where that myth serves an ulterior motive. It doesn't serve anyone in Europe --where Hitler actually happened-- ergo it's unknown there. It's a rhetorical tactic of Eliminationism, which is a specific propaganda tactic of the extreme right here.

And as with any kind of Doublethink, it will be resisted by logic.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; and most usefully, Ignorance is Strength. And thus, Hitler "is' a leftist.

 

[Papageorgio]

And you're another one. I made no claim to "back up"-- you did. You said here:


-- I then challenged you to explain what else such a comparison could mean, and you ran away. Then you came back with nothing. And you still have nothing.
Back that up.

You made a claim that another poster equaled Obama to Hitler. So are you now saying you didn't? Interesting...

Second back up your claim I ran away. As I explained before, I unlike you, have a life and don't need this board every minute of every day to feel good about myself. I am here once a day on average. So prove your bullshit.

And if you are a fucking retard and can't comprehend basic English, take responsibility and learn, instead of being a fucking dumb ass.

Exactly what colour powder are you snorting out there then? I made the observation that the poster compares Hitler to Obama to another poster (Esmerelda), and ergo he's saying "Hitler = Esmerelda". You then plopped in with gainsaying ("You got that out of his comments?") without offering any idea what other conclusion could possibly be inferred. So I asked for one; you ran away. And it's not becausee you weren't here; you went to the trouble to post several times without coming up with any answer at all. Neither did the original poster of the comparison.

And this was three days ago. So in three days you've told me nothing except that your head is up your ass and you had no point to begin with. Had you stayed away completely you could have plead absence.

Pissant.

You are an idiot, I didn't runaway, I don't post that often, I travel a lot I didn't post in other places after your reply, and if I did, I was answering other posters as I scroll through. When I read your post I responded within minutes, sorry you have to live on this board, you and this board are pure entertainment.

The other poster said Hitler was an authoritarian
Obama was an authoritarian
Esmeralda was an authoritarian

Then you some how think that Hitler equals Esmeralda.

Then by your logic, you say Hitler was right wing.
Bush was right wing.
So all right wingers equal Hitler

Stalin was left wing
So all left wingers equal Stalin.

Is this your logic, it reminds me of the six degrees to Kevin Bacon.

 

[Pogo]

You made a claim that another poster equaled Obama to Hitler. So are you now saying you didn't? Interesting...

Second back up your claim I ran away. As I explained before, I unlike you, have a life and don't need this board every minute of every day to feel good about myself. I am here once a day on average. So prove your bullshit.

And if you are a fucking retard and can't comprehend basic English, take responsibility and learn, instead of being a fucking dumb ass.

Exactly what colour powder are you snorting out there then? I made the observation that the poster compares Hitler to Obama to another poster (Esmerelda), and ergo he's saying "Hitler = Esmerelda". You then plopped in with gainsaying ("You got that out of his comments?") without offering any idea what other conclusion could possibly be inferred. So I asked for one; you ran away. And it's not becausee you weren't here; you went to the trouble to post several times without coming up with any answer at all. Neither did the original poster of the comparison.

And this was three days ago. So in three days you've told me nothing except that your head is up your ass and you had no point to begin with. Had you stayed away completely you could have plead absence.

Pissant.

You are an idiot, I didn't runaway, I don't post that often, I travel a lot I didn't post in other places after your reply, and if I did, I was answering other posters as I scroll through. When I read your post I responded within minutes, sorry you have to live on this board, you and this board are pure entertainment.

The other poster said Hitler was an authoritarian
Obama was an authoritarian
Esmeralda was an authoritarian

Then you some how think that Hitler equals Esmeralda.

Then by your logic, you say Hitler was right wing.
Bush was right wing.
So all right wingers equal Hitler

Stalin was left wing
So all left wingers equal Stalin.

Is this your logic, it reminds me of the six degrees to Kevin Bacon.

Oh give it up already. I challenged you to back up what you were saying, you made several posts over four days and not one of them addressed the challenge. You got caught with your pants down and that's it. Next time have something in your pocket before you go with a desperation swipe when you clearly have no idea where you're going.

"You got that out of his post"
"Yeah, what else is there?"
day 1: "ummm"
day 2: "uhhhh"
day 3: "zzzzzzzzzzz"
day 4: "uh, I don't live on the board..."

pffft.

And learn to read-- there's nothing in that passage that says anything about "right wing". Or Stalin. Or Bush. Holy shit, Get. A. Clue.

 

[Papageorgio]

Exactly what colour powder are you snorting out there then? I made the observation that the poster compares Hitler to Obama to another poster (Esmerelda), and ergo he's saying "Hitler = Esmerelda". You then plopped in with gainsaying ("You got that out of his comments?") without offering any idea what other conclusion could possibly be inferred. So I asked for one; you ran away. And it's not becausee you weren't here; you went to the trouble to post several times without coming up with any answer at all. Neither did the original poster of the comparison.

And this was three days ago. So in three days you've told me nothing except that your head is up your ass and you had no point to begin with. Had you stayed away completely you could have plead absence.

Pissant.

You are an idiot, I didn't runaway, I don't post that often, I travel a lot I didn't post in other places after your reply, and if I did, I was answering other posters as I scroll through. When I read your post I responded within minutes, sorry you have to live on this board, you and this board are pure entertainment.

The other poster said Hitler was an authoritarian
Obama was an authoritarian
Esmeralda was an authoritarian

Then you some how think that Hitler equals Esmeralda.

Then by your logic, you say Hitler was right wing.
Bush was right wing.
So all right wingers equal Hitler

Stalin was left wing
So all left wingers equal Stalin.

Is this your logic, it reminds me of the six degrees to Kevin Bacon.

Oh give it up already. I challenged you to back up what you were saying, you made several posts over four days and not one of them addressed the challenge. You got caught with your pants down and that's it. Next time have something in your pocket before you go with a desperation swipe when you clearly have no idea where you're going.

"You got that out of his post"
"Yeah, what else is there?"
day 1: "ummm"
day 2: "uhhhh"
day 3: "zzzzzzzzzzz"
day 4: "uh, I don't live on the board..."

pffft.

And learn to read-- there's nothing in that passage that says anything about "right wing". Or Stalin. Or Bush. Holy shit, Get. A. Clue.

You don't get it, do you. You need to get a fucking clue.

I'm using your fucked up logic and you can't back it up, just like a ton of threads you post on here.

If you can't understand what is said, don't blame me! Idiot.

You post some dumb shit logic, then you can't back up your dumb shit logic, so you twist it and try to justify your stupidity and ill fated logic.

This is why I usually stay away from idiots like you.

 

[Pogo]

You are an idiot, I didn't runaway, I don't post that often, I travel a lot I didn't post in other places after your reply, and if I did, I was answering other posters as I scroll through. When I read your post I responded within minutes, sorry you have to live on this board, you and this board are pure entertainment.

The other poster said Hitler was an authoritarian
Obama was an authoritarian
Esmeralda was an authoritarian

Then you some how think that Hitler equals Esmeralda.

Then by your logic, you say Hitler was right wing.
Bush was right wing.
So all right wingers equal Hitler

Stalin was left wing
So all left wingers equal Stalin.

Is this your logic, it reminds me of the six degrees to Kevin Bacon.

Oh give it up already. I challenged you to back up what you were saying, you made several posts over four days and not one of them addressed the challenge. You got caught with your pants down and that's it. Next time have something in your pocket before you go with a desperation swipe when you clearly have no idea where you're going.

"You got that out of his post"
"Yeah, what else is there?"
day 1: "ummm"
day 2: "uhhhh"
day 3: "zzzzzzzzzzz"
day 4: "uh, I don't live on the board..."

pffft.

And learn to read-- there's nothing in that passage that says anything about "right wing". Or Stalin. Or Bush. Holy shit, Get. A. Clue.

You don't get it, do you. You need to get a fucking clue.

I'm using your fucked up logic and you can't back it up, just like a ton of threads you post on here.

If you can't understand what is said, don't blame me! Idiot.

You post some dumb shit logic, then you can't back up your dumb shit logic, so you twist it and try to justify your stupidity and ill fated logic.

This is why I usually stay away from idiots like you.

--- and yet again you come back emptyhanded. Amazing you're willing to look this bad.
Quit trolling. You're bankrupt. Learn a lesson and move on.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh give it up already. I challenged you to back up what you were saying, you made several posts over four days and not one of them addressed the challenge. You got caught with your pants down and that's it. Next time have something in your pocket before you go with a desperation swipe when you clearly have no idea where you're going.

"You got that out of his post"
"Yeah, what else is there?"
day 1: "ummm"
day 2: "uhhhh"
day 3: "zzzzzzzzzzz"
day 4: "uh, I don't live on the board..."

pffft.

And learn to read-- there's nothing in that passage that says anything about "right wing". Or Stalin. Or Bush. Holy shit, Get. A. Clue.

You don't get it, do you. You need to get a fucking clue.

I'm using your fucked up logic and you can't back it up, just like a ton of threads you post on here.

If you can't understand what is said, don't blame me! Idiot.

You post some dumb shit logic, then you can't back up your dumb shit logic, so you twist it and try to justify your stupidity and ill fated logic.

This is why I usually stay away from idiots like you.

--- and yet again you come back emptyhanded. Amazing you're willing to look this bad.
Quit trolling. You're bankrupt. Learn a lesson and move on.

Dumb ass, it isn't my fault you lack reading comprehension and logic.

You are looking dumber each post.

 

[Esmeralda]

You made a claim that another poster equaled Obama to Hitler. So are you now saying you didn't? Interesting...

Second back up your claim I ran away. As I explained before, I unlike you, have a life and don't need this board every minute of every day to feel good about myself. I am here once a day on average. So prove your bullshit.

And if you are a fucking retard and can't comprehend basic English, take responsibility and learn, instead of being a fucking dumb ass.

Exactly what colour powder are you snorting out there then? I made the observation that the poster compares Hitler to Obama to another poster (Esmerelda), and ergo he's saying "Hitler = Esmerelda". You then plopped in with gainsaying ("You got that out of his comments?") without offering any idea what other conclusion could possibly be inferred. So I asked for one; you ran away. And it's not becausee you weren't here; you went to the trouble to post several times without coming up with any answer at all. Neither did the original poster of the comparison.

And this was three days ago. So in three days you've told me nothing except that your head is up your ass and you had no point to begin with. Had you stayed away completely you could have plead absence.

Pissant.

You are an idiot, I didn't runaway, I don't post that often, I travel a lot I didn't post in other places after your reply, and if I did, I was answering other posters as I scroll through. When I read your post I responded within minutes, sorry you have to live on this board, you and this board are pure entertainment.

The other poster said Hitler was an authoritarian
Obama was an authoritarian
Esmeralda was an authoritarian

Then you some how think that Hitler equals Esmeralda.

Then by your logic, you say Hitler was right wing.
Bush was right wing.
So all right wingers equal Hitler

Stalin was left wing
So all left wingers equal Stalin.

Is this your logic, it reminds me of the six degrees to Kevin Bacon.

How did I get in there with Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Obama? I can't tell if my 'name' is being bandied about carelessly or if I have been elevated to the status of the immortals.

 

[Saigon]

Esmerelda -

I haven't understand a word of what these guys have been arguing about for 2 or 3 pages, but either way, congratulations on having apparently become a tyrant!