How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Saigon]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

That's true, I guess, but if I had started a thread called 'How we know Pol Pot was left wing' I doubt we'd see Rottweiler and BriPat claiming it was propaganda.

Because he was a big and powerful gubbmint commie...so yes, who debates that????

btw tell me how he was different that hitler in practicle terms? Again Pol Pot was much much closer to Hitler than Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama....much closer.......

I agree - because the two extremes are closer to each other than they are to the centre - which is one of the main reasons that we see posters here thinking the two extremes must actually be the same thing.

In both theory and practice Pol and Pot were massively, totally different leaders with entirely opposing ideologies - one seeking to build a strong heirachical society with a very wealthy aristocracy; the other seeking to build class-free society with no rich and no poor.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

No it's not true. The OP presented a historical revision (with sample quotes) that had already been presented, and asked where this revision came from. And I've heard it too. The thread is in no way a new idea; it's a reaction to a new idea. So let's be clear whence comes the origin of the "squabble". If that's what it is.

Who cares??? The question was asked.....and answered. I love pseudo intellectual thought....using big words to intimidate and have the snooty aura around them. PEople can say he was right wing.....well people could say Stalin was based on some metric......state what you are measuring and we'll see....Mine is government power...the right in this country wants it smaller, the left bigger......

 

[Saigon]

You really just summed up the entire problem with libtards. Words mean nothing to them. That's why the pervert the Constitution. That's why everything is "semantics". And that's why this conversation is more important than ever.

Are you really this stupid? Whether Hitler was right or left wing has little to do with America's present day right or left wing. However if one were to generalize conservatives based upon your posts in this thread, one could say conservatives do not read, have little historical knowlege, are little sheep who believe whatever wingnut radio tells them, and are incapable of rationale arguement.

Stop posting, read a book on Nazi Germany. For starters, perhaps Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. There are more detailed books on this subject, but the writing in this one keep you engaged and it is a classic.

BTW, "words mean nothing to them" and "that's why everything is semantics" are contradictory statements.

Hate to say it but yeah, he really is. I also noticed the impressions he's leaving. If I were an interested conservative I'd be messaging him behind the scenes to stop making us look ridiculous. Rottenwhiner is one of those "might makes right" creatures. He believes he can win an argument by shouting you down with boldface and big fonts.

I see a couple of posters have suggested that Rottie is a left-wing troll, and certainly at times his stupidity seems simply too perfect to be accidental. I can't decide.

The problem with Rottie is not so much that he has the wrong answers as that he does not understand what the question is!

Whether that is accidental or deliberate I'm not sure.

 

[Saigon]

....state what you are measuring and we'll see....Mine is government power...the right in this country wants it smaller, the left bigger......

If Hitler lived in 2013 in th US, then your metric would make sense.

Have you ever looked up a word in a dictionary and found that it didn't mean quite what you thought it meant?

When that happens to me I change my usage of the word - I don't keep using it wrongly.

Of course we all have our own opinion as to what left and right mean to us, but from my point of view, if I found out that most dictionaries said something completely different to what I thought, I'd want to ask myself some questions.

BriPat and SSDD can keep insisting that dictionaries are wrong - but that's a fairly wild stand, IMO.

 

[buckeye45_73]

....state what you are measuring and we'll see....Mine is government power...the right in this country wants it smaller, the left bigger......

If Hitler lived in 2013 in th US, then your metric would make sense.

Have you ever looked up a word in a dictionary and found that it didn't mean quite what you thought it meant?

When that happens to me I change my usage of the word - I don't keep using it wrongly.

Of course we all have our own opinion as to what left and right mean to us, but from my point of view, if I found out that most dictionaries said something completely different to what I thought, I'd want to ask myself some questions.

BriPat and SSDD can keep insisting that dictionaries are wrong - but that's a fairly wild stand, IMO.

Well one reason is the left keeps changing the defitnition through euphamisms and other crap.

But the point Im saying is yeah it was a different era and context, but the definitions we use today, should be applied over time....

the term despot.....is a fairly strict and easy term, and it's applied to leaders throught history to the origin of the term, which I believe is Greek. Pretty much any autocrat is a despot, and the only reason kings werent labeled as such is.....wait for it....christianity....and the fact that they were not quite as bad as a full despot, but again Henry VIII may not have been Hitler, but they were both pretty similar in most aspects.

 

[Pogo]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

No it's not true. The OP presented a historical revision (with sample quotes) that had already been presented, and asked where this revision came from. And I've heard it too. The thread is in no way a new idea; it's a reaction to a new idea. So let's be clear whence comes the origin of the "squabble". If that's what it is.

Who cares??? The question was asked.....and answered. I love pseudo intellectual thought....using big words to intimidate and have the snooty aura around them. PEople can say he was right wing.....well people could say Stalin was based on some metric......state what you are measuring and we'll see....Mine is government power...the right in this country wants it smaller, the left bigger......

That's just a crock of shit invented by demgogues and TV talking heads. I go to all the left wing commie pinko meetings and trust me, no one ever brings up "how can we make government bigger?" Nobody anywhere does that. The idea is ridiculous. It serves no purpose.

Seriously, what are you smoking? That was a cheap simplistic slogan made up to sell Reagan. It's never been a standard by which political left and right would be measured. And the idea didn't even exist in Hitler's time anyway. And no, you can't measure him by today's definitions; he doesn't live today, so he couldn't possibly have used the facile pseudodefinitions of the future for what he did. He had enough trouble with the word "socialism".

 

[buckeye45_73]

No it's not true. The OP presented a historical revision (with sample quotes) that had already been presented, and asked where this revision came from. And I've heard it too. The thread is in no way a new idea; it's a reaction to a new idea. So let's be clear whence comes the origin of the "squabble". If that's what it is.

Who cares??? The question was asked.....and answered. I love pseudo intellectual thought....using big words to intimidate and have the snooty aura around them. PEople can say he was right wing.....well people could say Stalin was based on some metric......state what you are measuring and we'll see....Mine is government power...the right in this country wants it smaller, the left bigger......

That's just a crock of shit invented by demgogues and TV talking heads. I go to all the left wing commie pinko meetings and trust me, no one ever brings up "how can we make government bigger?" Nobody anywhere does that. The idea is ridiculous.

Seriously, what are you smoking? That was a cheap simplistic slogan made up to sell Reagan. It's never been a standard by which political left and right would be measured. And the idea didn't even exist in Hitler's time anyway.

Really, so Obamacare, business takeovers, regulation, none of that is supposed to grow government of increase it's power? Are you serious?

Do you realize how big the government is?

And if you want to make it smaller, other than defense, what would you cut?

Oh well, here is the liberal WAPO

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/obama-bets-big-on-big-governme.html

Obama Bets Big on Big Government


Interesting title....hmmmmmm......man liberals do shit and then deny....Jesus they're annoying...but I have the patience and love rubbing this in their face...IN THE FACE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Who cares??? The question was asked.....and answered. I love pseudo intellectual thought....using big words to intimidate and have the snooty aura around them. PEople can say he was right wing.....well people could say Stalin was based on some metric......state what you are measuring and we'll see....Mine is government power...the right in this country wants it smaller, the left bigger......

That's just a crock of shit invented by demgogues and TV talking heads. I go to all the left wing commie pinko meetings and trust me, no one ever brings up "how can we make government bigger?" Nobody anywhere does that. The idea is ridiculous.

Seriously, what are you smoking? That was a cheap simplistic slogan made up to sell Reagan. It's never been a standard by which political left and right would be measured. And the idea didn't even exist in Hitler's time anyway.

Really, so Obamacare, business takeovers, regulation, none of that is supposed to grow government of increase it's power? Are you serious?

Do you realize how big the government is?

And if you want to make it smaller, other than defense, what would you cut?

Oh well, here is the liberal WAPO

The Fix - Obama Bets Big on Big Government

Of course I am. Nobody's goal is growing government. Just because one political party's opponents (opponents) say that about them doesn't make it their raison d'être. You can't let one party define both parties (duh). The fact is thta government grows with both parties, certainly including Reagan. Try to recognise advertising copy when you see it, willya?

 

[buckeye45_73]

That's just a crock of shit invented by demgogues and TV talking heads. I go to all the left wing commie pinko meetings and trust me, no one ever brings up "how can we make government bigger?" Nobody anywhere does that. The idea is ridiculous.

Seriously, what are you smoking? That was a cheap simplistic slogan made up to sell Reagan. It's never been a standard by which political left and right would be measured. And the idea didn't even exist in Hitler's time anyway.

Really, so Obamacare, business takeovers, regulation, none of that is supposed to grow government of increase it's power? Are you serious?

Do you realize how big the government is?

And if you want to make it smaller, other than defense, what would you cut?

Oh well, here is the liberal WAPO

The Fix - Obama Bets Big on Big Government

Of course I am. Nobody's goal is growing government. Just because one political party's opponents (opponents) say that about them doesn't make it their raison d'être. You can't let one party define both parties (duh). The fact is thta government grows with both parties, certainly including Reagan. Try to recognise advertising copy when you see it, willya?

What??? Trying to change history and philosphy on the fly.....what a joke.....they're goal is to make everyone subservient to govenrment...which is why all the looney toon left on here wants single payer.....again more govt control....less freedom...lsame with gun bans, soda bans, lead bans, any nanystate crap......it's from the left not the right....

 

[freedombecki]

Who gives a crap, both leftist/Marxist governments and the Nazis are murdering bastards, the only difference being the Nazis where amatuers when it came to murdering their own citizens when compared to their Marxist brethren. I mean what Hitler did seems like an Ice Cream Social when compared to what Stalin and Mao did.

thats always cracked me up ... idiots like this one call us leftist/marxist commie pink-o's when its been clear,anyone with a brain, its has been known that republicans force their ideals on us all ... where they will try to kill you if you don't follow their view and this loser want to call us liberals leftist/marxist thats funny...

Like Saigon, you're an asshole libtard who knowingly lies. Notice you couldn't give ONE freaking example of how "Republican's force their ideals on all of us"? That's because they don't. Never have. They believe in freedom and the INDIVIDUAL - including individual choice.

It's the asshole wing-nuts like you who believe that we all need to "row in the same direction" and insist that we all follow your twisted ideology. How about some real world examples (you know - that thing you couldn't give):

Guns
Liberals want to ban guns because they don't like them. They think EVERYONE should NOT own a gun. As with everything else, they knowingly attempt to pervert the Constitution claiming either "its no longer relevant" or "it applies only to militia"

Republicans recognize it is a Constitutional right. Yet, they don't demand that everyone carry a gun. They leave the CHOICE up to the INDIVIDUAL.

Religion
Libtards want to ban God from America. They think EVERYONE should be prevented from religion.

Republicans recognize it is a Constitutional right and want it left government (including school) for the INDIVIDUAL to DECIDE for themselves whether they want to pray, place a religious item, etc.

Social issues
Libtards believe that everyone should be forced to share their wealth.

Republicans recognize that the INDIVIDUAL should DECIDE for themselves how much money they want to give to charity, when, where, and why.

Yep. You can give nothing or give till it hurts. Lots of our Republican leaders got that way for doing the latter.

God will continue to bless America when people decide that maybe the 10 commandments mean something, after all. Liberals who are narcissistic just don't get it. They're into taking what other people have rather than fight out the American dream on their own, and right now their representatives are absolutely insuring no one will have the American dream except themselves, no sharing.

Ensuring they will win by voting 5-30 or more times apiece is beyond the pale. They think they're being plucky. I think they are criminalizing the Constitution by not letting the people share on the even playing field that one-person, one-vote is.

/daily rant

 

[Jroc]

thats always cracked me up ... idiots like this one call us leftist/marxist commie pink-o's when its been clear,anyone with a brain, its has been known that republicans force their ideals on us all ... where they will try to kill you if you don't follow their view and this loser want to call us liberals leftist/marxist thats funny...

Like Saigon, you're an asshole libtard who knowingly lies. Notice you couldn't give ONE freaking example of how "Republican's force their ideals on all of us"? That's because they don't. Never have. They believe in freedom and the INDIVIDUAL - including individual choice.

It's the asshole wing-nuts like you who believe that we all need to "row in the same direction" and insist that we all follow your twisted ideology. How about some real world examples (you know - that thing you couldn't give):

Guns
Liberals want to ban guns because they don't like them. They think EVERYONE should NOT own a gun. As with everything else, they knowingly attempt to pervert the Constitution claiming either "its no longer relevant" or "it applies only to militia"

Republicans recognize it is a Constitutional right. Yet, they don't demand that everyone carry a gun. They leave the CHOICE up to the INDIVIDUAL.

Religion
Libtards want to ban God from America. They think EVERYONE should be prevented from religion.

Republicans recognize it is a Constitutional right and want it left government (including school) for the INDIVIDUAL to DECIDE for themselves whether they want to pray, place a religious item, etc.

Social issues
Libtards believe that everyone should be forced to share their wealth.

Republicans recognize that the INDIVIDUAL should DECIDE for themselves how much money they want to give to charity, when, where, and why.

Yep. You can give nothing or give till it hurts. Lots of our Republican leaders got that way for doing the latter.

God will continue to bless America when people decide that maybe the 10 commandments mean something, after all. Liberals who are narcissistic just don't get it. They're into taking what other people have rather than fight out the American dream on their own, and right now their representatives are absolutely insuring no one will have the American dream except themselves, no sharing.

Ensuring they will win by voting 5-30 or more times apiece is beyond the pale. They think they're being plucky. I think they are criminalizing the Constitution by not letting the people share on the even playing field that one-person, one-vote is.

/daily rant

Dictators gain power by demonizing others.. Sound familiar?

 

[freedombecki]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

That's true, I guess, but if I had started a thread called 'How we know Pol Pot was left wing' I doubt we'd see Rottweiler and BriPat claiming it was propaganda.

Link or it didn't happen.

 

[Intense]

Personally I view Hitler as a Prejudiced National Socialist, opposed to competing brands of his vision, be they Socialist or Free Market. He was a control Freak. Most Despots were, both Right and Left. Fortunately, for us, he was his own worst enemy, aiding us in his destruction.

Indeed he was, but the 'free market' has not been the goal of any right wing dictator.

Take Pinochet, Antonescu, Cristiani or Sese - none of them believed in either small government nor a free market, and yet all four were very obviously right wing.

Rottie -

Ay any point you are interested in getting up to speed on this issue, I'm happy to explain a few key points for you. Your illiterate spamming I'm less interested in.

Totalitarian is beyond right or left, which is nothing more than the means to get there. Some Despots were too lazy to interfere with the means of production, too much work. Why bother, when in the end you have possession of the fruits of the labor, anyway? Why fuck with the Golden Goose, when in the end a Title is just a piece of paper, and you are in control? Totalitarianism is what it is. You deal the hand, check out your cards, set the rules for that hand, and put a bullet in the head of anyone stupid enough to complain.

Totalitarian Litmus Test: 2+2=5 for as long as we say it does.

What does right or left matter here?

 

[Saigon]

Totalitarianism can most definitely be left or right wing in nature, but the way that society looks at ground level can be radically different.

Some of these we've discussed at length already, for instance that in a right wing society the aristocracy and upper classes generally benefit from strong dividend earnings, a market economy and low taxes; whereas in a left wing society the aristocracy are likely to be rounded up and sent to Siberia.

The means of production is an interesting area, because the Soviet Union had very little industrial production prior to Stalin. He basically built the industrial based from scratch, whereas Hitler inherited a massive industrial base with strong industries - thus, as you say, he had no need to fuck with the golden goose, all he had to do was ensure I.G. Farben Ltd produced what he needed for the war.

Freedombecki -

Note that the grammer form "IF I HAD STARTED" is a conditional. It indicates that I DID not start a thread on Pol Pot.

 

[LittleNipper]

The simple fact is that ALL government has the capacity to do either good or evil. The truth is that GODLY leaders and citizens are what move a nation towards doing what is right. Without thought of God people and leaders become self-centered seeking power for themselves to do what they wish and not what is right and good. Now I know that people are going to point at the Roman Catholic church. But the fact is that that organization was seeking to control and maintain power. It attempted to use religion instead of seeking God's guidance. The Pope wanted to establish, control and hold power that was not his. It came to a point where even the translation of the Bible and the private reading of the Bible were banned by a church. It wanted to dictate what verses meant and what verses were read and when and how and by whom... Belief became a TRADITIONAL faith in a church and not a personal faith in God. Much of this has been rethought, but that is because Protestanism let the cat out of the bag (sort to speak), and returned the CHURCH (body of ALL saved believers) in general back towards its biblical roots/foundation/thinking.

 

[Saigon]

Nipper -

Thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking comments!

I have to point out, though, that several dictators have been very religious people - Pinochet in Chile being one obvious example. Also Franco was very religious, as was Cristiani.

As Orwell says, sometimes power corrupts, and even a devout Christian can be corrupted to an extent they forget 'Thou shalt not kill'.

 

[LittleNipper]

Nipper -

Thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking comments!

I have to point out, though, that several dictators have been very religious people - Pinochet in Chile being one obvious example. Also Franco was very religious, as was Cristiani.

As Orwell says, sometimes power corrupts, and even a devout Christian can be corrupted to an extent they forget 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Were they religious or were they saved individuals. Again, it isn't about faith in man's opinions, but a faith in God's will. I believe Margaret Thatcher had a very strong personal faith in the Lord. And I feel she was an influence for the good of England. One must also lead by the virture of how God expects the individual to act. Godly, men do godly things and behave godly. They seek to lessen themselves so that God receives the glory. I mean look at Hitler. He wanted to be called THE FATHER. It was all about him and his choice of values. He closed Christian schools. He hated groups of people because of what they were and not just the things that they did. He was obsessed with manipulating and scheeming and telling lies/half truths to prop up his power.

 

[Pogo]

Really, so Obamacare, business takeovers, regulation, none of that is supposed to grow government of increase it's power? Are you serious?

Do you realize how big the government is?

And if you want to make it smaller, other than defense, what would you cut?

Oh well, here is the liberal WAPO

The Fix - Obama Bets Big on Big Government

Of course I am. Nobody's goal is growing government. Just because one political party's opponents (opponents) say that about them doesn't make it their raison d'être. You can't let one party define both parties (duh). The fact is thta government grows with both parties, certainly including Reagan. Try to recognise advertising copy when you see it, willya?

What??? Trying to change history and philosphy on the fly.....what a joke.....they're goal is to make everyone subservient to govenrment...which is why all the looney toon left on here wants single payer.....again more govt control....less freedom...lsame with gun bans, soda bans, lead bans, any nanystate crap......it's from the left not the right....

No, they're not. I know that's what your puppet-string pullers are telling you but no, they're not.

Don't believe everything you read. Especially when it's agenda-driven.

 

[Pogo]

Nipper -

Thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking comments!

I have to point out, though, that several dictators have been very religious people - Pinochet in Chile being one obvious example. Also Franco was very religious, as was Cristiani.

As Orwell says, sometimes power corrupts, and even a devout Christian can be corrupted to an extent they forget 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Were they religious or were they saved individuals. Again, it isn't about faith in man's opinions, but a faith in God's will. I believe Margaret Thatcher had a very strong personal faith in the Lord. And I feel she was an influence for the good of England. One must also lead by the virture of how God expects the individual to act. Godly, men do godly things and behave godly. They seek to lessen themselves so that God receives the glory. I mean look at Hitler. He wanted to be called THE FATHER. It was all about him and his choice of values. He closed Christian schools. He hated groups of people because of what they were and not just the things that they did. He was obsessed with manipulating and scheeming and telling lies/half truths to prop up his power.

Organized religions are used as a tool to justify all sorts of demonic organized national acts. That's one of the principal pitfalls of it; the same quest for power as infects a Hitler. That's why we established this country as an exception to organized religion as political force -- to ward off that kind of corruption that had infected Europe in the then-recent past. Every nation that has ever gone to war with "God on its side" has faced an enemy in exactly the same position. A psychological tool.

Hypernationalism as Hitler preached is the same thing, just using a more tangible deity (the Fatherland more than the God the Father-- you can see and touch the Fatherland). But it's the same dynamic at work regardless what the deity is called.

As you noted earlier, one's religious practice should properly be personal, and not that of a drone-cog in a massive political machine.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why does it matter what hitler was?