How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Pogo]

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

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

 

[Esmeralda]

:

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!

 

[Pogo]

As far as I know, this was the last non-trolling post actually on the topic that has garnered no response, so I'll bring it forward just to... what is the word... resurrect the topic.

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.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

You mean 'super stud Genghis'?

 

[Esmeralda]

As far as I know, this was the last non-trolling post actually on the topic that has garnered no response, so I'll bring it forward just to... what is the word... resurrect the topic.

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.

And Esme is Hitler. For Esmé?with Love and Squalor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the rest of your post, Pogo, I agree. It makes a lot of sense.

(Don't ya just love these literary allusions? http://www.usmessageboard.com/7022883-post12.html)

 

[Unkotare]

I haven't understand [sic] a word of what these guys have been arguing about for 2 or 3 pages, !

You haven't understand? Maybe someday you will understood.

 

[beagle9]

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

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

Your post here just empowered that which you were trying to defeat, because as you stated, "But in a world where we search for our identities", it explains to me exactly the various comparisons to be made and/or thoughts of in comparisons to then be found here by way of the OP's set up. This is what the OP tried to suggest for us to do I'm guessing, in which is to get people to ponder who may possess such qualities of character traits, political ideologies and such, in which could give rise to something or someone out of the past if we are not careful. If even in a small way or big way they may give rise to it, we must recognize the signs of it or sit around with our heads in the sand in which is not and should never be an option once we have known the past and it's players. Your last statement made was trying to be funny " I want to be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I", but it was the very essence of this OP, because it seeks to compare characteristics in attributes between people, their political reasoning, and then the comparisons to be made afterwards.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

Your post here just empowered that which you were trying to defeat, because as you stated, "But in a world where we search for our identities", it explains to me exactly the various comparisons to be made and/or thoughts of in comparisons to then be found here by way of the OP's set up. This is what the OP tried to suggest for us to do I'm guessing, in which is to get people to ponder who may possess such qualities of character traits, political ideologies and such, in which could give rise to something or someone out of the past if we are not careful. If even in a small way or big way they may give rise to it, we must recognize the signs of it or sit around with our heads in the sand in which is not and should never be an option once we have known the past and it's players. Your last statement made was trying to be funny " I want to be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I", but it was the very essence of this OP, because it seeks to compare characteristics in attributes between people, their political reasoning, and then the comparisons to be made afterwards.

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

 

[beagle9]

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

Your post here just empowered that which you were trying to defeat, because as you stated, "But in a world where we search for our identities", it explains to me exactly the various comparisons to be made and/or thoughts of in comparisons to then be found here by way of the OP's set up. This is what the OP tried to suggest for us to do I'm guessing, in which is to get people to ponder who may possess such qualities of character traits, political ideologies and such, in which could give rise to something or someone out of the past if we are not careful. If even in a small way or big way they may give rise to it, we must recognize the signs of it or sit around with our heads in the sand in which is not and should never be an option once we have known the past and it's players. Your last statement made was trying to be funny " I want to be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I", but it was the very essence of this OP, because it seeks to compare characteristics in attributes between people, their political reasoning, and then the comparisons to be made afterwards.

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

You focus on something I wrote that is trivial to the gest of my post (of course I understand satire), but the mere fact that you focused on that part of it first, tells me that you used that part as a distraction in which you hoped to belittle with or dis-credit with in your attempt, but people know this game all to well on these boards, so maybe you want to try dealing with what I wrote in earnest, and then reply in earnest, instead of using tactics as you have used here eh.. A persons thoughts and speak is evidence upon who they are in character, and who they might become if that character is allowed to flourish from within while having a powerful position in life.

 

[Pogo]

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

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

Your post here just empowered that which you were trying to defeat, because as you stated, "But in a world where we search for our identities", it explains to me exactly the various comparisons to be made and/or thoughts of in comparisons to then be found here by way of the OP's set up. This is what the OP tried to suggest for us to do I'm guessing, in which is to get people to ponder who may possess such qualities of character traits, political ideologies and such, in which could give rise to something or someone out of the past if we are not careful. If even in a small way or big way they may give rise to it, we must recognize the signs of it or sit around with our heads in the sand in which is not and should never be an option once we have known the past and it's players. Your last statement made was trying to be funny " I want to be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I", but it was the very essence of this OP, because it seeks to compare characteristics in attributes between people, their political reasoning, and then the comparisons to be made afterwards.

Wow, dood.

It's one thing to watch jokes sail over your head like contrails; it's a little deeper to go ahead and post that it flew over your head because you're drowning in your own ideological swill that you can't turn off. That's gotta hurt.

Obviously you don't get satire at all. Erleichda already.

 

[beagle9]

Oh yeah, you're immortal, E. You're Hitler. That was established back here. Bush and Stalin were brought in by a cretin who can't understand his own posts so pay no attention to that man behind the straightjacket.

Apparently the tactic is to bury an inconvenient topic in a morass of whiny illogic.

But in a world where we search for our identities, ain't it grand that someone provides that kind of certitude about who you are? I wanna be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I...

Your post here just empowered that which you were trying to defeat, because as you stated, "But in a world where we search for our identities", it explains to me exactly the various comparisons to be made and/or thoughts of in comparisons to then be found here by way of the OP's set up. This is what the OP tried to suggest for us to do I'm guessing, in which is to get people to ponder who may possess such qualities of character traits, political ideologies and such, in which could give rise to something or someone out of the past if we are not careful. If even in a small way or big way they may give rise to it, we must recognize the signs of it or sit around with our heads in the sand in which is not and should never be an option once we have known the past and it's players. Your last statement made was trying to be funny " I want to be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I", but it was the very essence of this OP, because it seeks to compare characteristics in attributes between people, their political reasoning, and then the comparisons to be made afterwards.

Wow, dood.

It's one thing to watch jokes sail over your head like contrails; it's a little deeper to go ahead and post that it flew over your head because you're drowning in your own ideological swill that you can't turn off. That's gotta hurt.

Obviously you don't get satire at all. Erleichda already.

Oh so all of the post that you wrote was just a joke then ? I will remember this the next time I read anything you write.

 

[Pogo]

Your post here just empowered that which you were trying to defeat, because as you stated, "But in a world where we search for our identities", it explains to me exactly the various comparisons to be made and/or thoughts of in comparisons to then be found here by way of the OP's set up. This is what the OP tried to suggest for us to do I'm guessing, in which is to get people to ponder who may possess such qualities of character traits, political ideologies and such, in which could give rise to something or someone out of the past if we are not careful. If even in a small way or big way they may give rise to it, we must recognize the signs of it or sit around with our heads in the sand in which is not and should never be an option once we have known the past and it's players. Your last statement made was trying to be funny " I want to be Genghis Khan myself. I can dream can't I", but it was the very essence of this OP, because it seeks to compare characteristics in attributes between people, their political reasoning, and then the comparisons to be made afterwards.

Wow, dood.

It's one thing to watch jokes sail over your head like contrails; it's a little deeper to go ahead and post that it flew over your head because you're drowning in your own ideological swill that you can't turn off. That's gotta hurt.

Obviously you don't get satire at all. Erleichda already.

Oh so all of the post that you wrote was just a joke then ? I will remember this the next time I read anything you write.

Always a good plan. And see if you're getting enough B vitamins; deficiency therein can suppress your sense of humour. Seeya.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

 

[Esmeralda]

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

You prove that about yourself every time you post, including this post.

I have already stated my opnion about the topic. I have repeatedly agreed with numerous posters who have put that position in very detailed, concise language. I do not need to restate, in detail, my position over and over again in every post I make. If you had half a brain cell, you'd get that.

 

[Pogo]

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

Reading comprehension strikes again... Second time today, innit?


"I read your post more closely and revised my response, not that I give a flying fuck." -- Finger-Boy

 

[Esmeralda]

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

Reading comprehension strikes again... Second time today, innit?


"I read your post more closely and revised my response, not that I give a flying fuck." -- Finger-Boy

LOL I think he made a Freudian Slip (which I didn't catch). And we all know what a Freudian Slip means, or do we have to lay that out in nursery school blocks for him too?

 

[Political Junky]

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

Yes, Hitler was European.
Your opinion is not worth much.

 

[Pogo]

You don't get satire, do you?

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Satire

"I want to be Genghis Khan myself." Satire

Actually, I think it's been proven by numerous studies that dictators don't get satire either. Hmmmmm......

What the OP was trying to do in starting this thread, and coming from a European perspective, was to ascertain why American conservatives were trying to label Hitler as left wing. Europeans are the ones who dealt with Hitler first hand, and they know he was not left wing. It's a slam dunk over there: Hitler was a right wing fascist.

I think Pogo answered the OP's question as to why the right wing wants to label Hitler as left wing: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7023524-post1003.html

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

Yes, Hitler was European.
Your opinion is not worth much.

Sorry, Hitler was no European. That's the propaganda the European-haters would have you believe. Clearly Hitler was Antarctican. Just look at the coldness of his philosophy. Absolutely penguinic. We heard how he persecuted and outlawed socialists, communists, trade unionists, but did we ever hear of persecution of Anarcticists?

What was the first country he invaded? Poland. Where is the south pole?

Where was he from? Austria.
What does "Austria" look like? Australia.
What is Australia? A continent.
And what is Antarctica? A continent!

And what's in the middle of the word Reich? ..... "ice".


Hey, it makes as much sense as the rest of the revisionist doggerel.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Just when I think someone has already posted the ultimate in pomposity and arrogance, you come up with something that beats it by a light year. All you've said is that anyone who disagrees with your humbug pinko authorities is stupid. That’s the kind of penetrating logic you can find on display in any grade-school playground.

Your belief that your pinko intellectuals dispense “objective history” is utterly hysterical. Just as in the AGW debate, you employ your favorite logical fallacy: the appeal to authority, And your authorities are equally dubious. You have yet to post a single actual fact that supports your case. All that comes out of you is an endless stream of logical fallacies and non sequiturs. I suppose that’s what passes for “objective history” among the left-wing ignoranti.

 

[Esmeralda]

So Hitler is a leftist because Europeans said so? You just proved your brain is incapable of rational thought.

Yes, Hitler was European.
Your opinion is not worth much.

Sorry, Hitler was no European. That's the propaganda the European-haters would have you believe. Clearly Hitler was Antarctican. Just look at the coldness of his philosophy. Absolutely penguinic. We heard how he persecuted and outlawed socialists, communists, trade unionists, but did we ever hear of persecution of Anarcticists?

What was the first country he invaded? Poland. Where is the south pole?

Where was he from? Austria.
What does "Austria" look like? Australia.
What is Australia? A continent.
And what is Antarctica? A continent!

And what's in the middle of the word Reich? ..... "ice".


Hey, it makes as much sense as the rest of the revisionist doggerel.

LOL Penguinic?