How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Saigon]

Why does it matter what hitler was?

To stop it happening again. Forewarned is forearmed....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why does it matter what hitler was?

To stop it happening again. Forewarned is forearmed....

Nonsense. Every walk of life is capable of insanity.

This thread is pointless.

 

[Pogo]

Why does it matter what hitler was?

To stop it happening again. Forewarned is forearmed....

Nonsense. Every walk of life is capable of insanity.

This thread is pointless.

Yeah, you're right. History teaches nothing. We should just throw up our hands and keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Hey, it's been working so well for you...

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Utter nonsense.

A free market is exactly what Pinochet spawned in Chile. It was the basis of the Chilean miracle, turning the banana republic into the most vibrant economy in South America. Driven by the "Chicago Boys," market reform and privatization formed the backbone of what Pinochet did.

{The results are the envy of Latin America. For over a decade now, Chile has had annual growth rates of over 6 per cent (with the exception of 1990 when it was 3 per cent). Its average GDP growth rate of 7 per cent between 1991 and 1995 was the highest in Latin America. As Table 1 shows, over a range of indicators of macroeconomic stability as measured by ECLAC for the years 1992-94, Chile occupies a consistendy high position. Furthermore, since 1977 Chile has had the highest level of net capital inflows of any of the major Latin American countries when measured as a percentage of GDP. Alongside this impressive macroeconomic record, since the return to democracy in 1990 Chilean governments have made a determined attempt to reduce poverty with the result that the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced from 39 per cent in 1987 to 24 per cent in 1994 while urban unemployment has fallen from 11.9 per cent to 6.3 per cent of the labour force over the same period.3 Chile therefore is being widely referred to as the Latin American "tiger", a clear comparison to the success of the East Asian "tigers" of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong (an exclusive league to which Ireland has also acceded over recent years as the so called "Celtic tiger"). For the World Bank, Chile had become an important role model for the entire region.4}

The Chilean Economic Miracle: A Model for Latin America? | Trócaire

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

To stop it happening again. Forewarned is forearmed....

Nonsense. Every walk of life is capable of insanity.

This thread is pointless.

Yeah, you're right. History teaches nothing. We should just throw up our hands and keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Hey, it's been working so well for you...

Nice hyperbole, got more?

The only purpose for this thread was to irritate the right. Lol @ anyone who believes it was to learn from history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No dictator would fit into any modern American political party, because no modern American political party is dictatorial.

Can you imaine Pol Pot joining the Democrats, and suggesting the entire urban population be herded out of the cities into rural work camps and worked to death?

Yes

That anyone with a college education should be shot as a suspect?

Anyone with a business or economics degree? Yes.

Today's Democrats would call that fascism and not be far wrong - except that Pol Pot's influence are primarily left wing, and extended right out of the Paris Sorbonne riots of 1968.

We can't choose any historical figure and define their politics by seeing if they are left or right of a Sarah Palin or a Bill Clinton, because we are just comparing almost random points on a very long continuum. We have to look at the policies and the historical context they operated in.

Facism is left wing, born of disillusioned Bolshevik Benito Mussolini. It is a way to concentrate control of the means of production in the hands of the state, while maintaining some actual production.

{The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
Benito Mussolini }

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

funny your puppet masters say they are for freedom, eh? so they want single payer, government insurance, no guns for law abiding citizens, pretty soon we'll all have tests to place us in certain vocations(and yes they do that in Europe, and people like you loooooooove Europe and their "education").....and they will tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to set the home thermostat to, basically you wont even need to think....which is why so many love liberalism.....just do the bare minimum and be peasants....so much easier than having to create a resumee, apply for a job and sell yourself in an interview.......so much easier..

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The left-wing horseshoe political schema is obvious bull crap. It's just another attempt to fool people into believing that fascists are not leftists when they actually are leftists.

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.

Like all such attempts, Pol Pot didn't succeed in building a society that wasn't hierarchical. The Nazis didn't give a crap one way or the other about any aristocracy. They despised the Junkers. They allowed industrialists to retain their wealth so long as hey were deemed to be useful.

The bottom line is that both Pol Pot and Hitler wanted the government to make all production decisions, and that puts them both firmly on the left end of the political spectrum.

 

[g5000]

I don't know how you could mistake Nazis for being right wing!

That's just crazy talk!

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know how you could mistake Nazis for being right wing!

That's just crazy talk!

How do your pictures prove that Nazis are right-wing?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

SAigon it's not quite like that, because again how are you basing your political viewpoint....You use class, like a classic marxist to explain things.....I ignore class, because it doesnt matter.....maybe in Europe, but even so, who cares....the point is the RESULTS so when looking at Pol Pot you can list how every many things, and the list will be similar to Stalin, hitler, Mussolini, Castro.

I mean people say Franco was a facist and ok, but he wasnt the same as Hitler...not even close, but guess what, they both were big gubbmint, and controlled their countries with an iron fist. I dont care if they grew up middle, lower, or upper class.....the result is the result....class is an excuse. Would you rather have a government like the US, circa 1800 or Hiter Germany or Stalin Russia or Revolutionary France or the French Monarchy....guess what only one of those is really different and I wonder which one it is...and it's my personal pick.

 

[Pogo]

Nonsense. Every walk of life is capable of insanity.

This thread is pointless.

Yeah, you're right. History teaches nothing. We should just throw up our hands and keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Hey, it's been working so well for you...

Nice hyperbole, got more?

The only purpose for this thread was to irritate the right. Lol @ anyone who believes it was to learn from history.

Actually the purpose was to counter the latter-day revisionism, the only purpose of which has been to irritate the left. Sorry if that's too complex.

And yes, just ask and you shall receive

 

[Pogo]

No dictator would fit into any modern American political party, because no modern American political party is dictatorial.

Can you imaine Pol Pot joining the Democrats, and suggesting the entire urban population be herded out of the cities into rural work camps and worked to death?

Yes

That anyone with a college education should be shot as a suspect?

Anyone with a business or economics degree? Yes.

Today's Democrats would call that fascism and not be far wrong - except that Pol Pot's influence are primarily left wing, and extended right out of the Paris Sorbonne riots of 1968.

We can't choose any historical figure and define their politics by seeing if they are left or right of a Sarah Palin or a Bill Clinton, because we are just comparing almost random points on a very long continuum. We have to look at the policies and the historical context they operated in.

Facism is left wing, born of disillusioned Bolshevik Benito Mussolini. It is a way to concentrate control of the means of production in the hands of the state, while maintaining some actual production.

{The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
Benito Mussolini }

Hitler had nothing to do with economics. Wasn't even interested, said so himself, and we covered that already. What he was interested in was nationalism, imperialism and revenge for Versailles (we covered that too). To that end he was extreme Authoritarian. That, together with the hypernationalism, the strong military, the appeals to past glory, the "Kinder, Kirche, Kuche" and Fatherland mentality, lives on the Right. Always did. And we covered this too.

He took his inspiration from the Right; he just took it to ridiculous extremes. Kind of like you're doing with this desperate argument. But we'd expect no less from a poser that calls everyone he disagrees with "Pol Pot".

 

[Pogo]

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.

funny your puppet masters say they are for freedom, eh? so they want single payer, government insurance, no guns for law abiding citizens, pretty soon we'll all have tests to place us in certain vocations(and yes they do that in Europe, and people like you loooooooove Europe and their "education").....and they will tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to set the home thermostat to, basically you wont even need to think....which is why so many love liberalism.....just do the bare minimum and be peasants....so much easier than having to create a resumee, apply for a job and sell yourself in an interview.......so much easier..

Interesting. Did you build your entire house out of ASSumptions too?

 

[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.

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.

People who know God are harder to manipulate than average sometime church attenders. This means people who read and study the Word and apply the Word are more apt to recognize a counterfeit... There were not just a few "born-again Christians thrown into concentration camps besides Jews.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't know how you could mistake Nazis for being right wing!

That's just crazy talk!

How do your pictures prove that Nazis are right-wing?

Let me guess, I bet he's saying because they have uniforms and a rea militaristic......which is ANOTHER way of looking at the spectrum...but it's weak and doesnt make sense. Not many cultures arent militaristic.......

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

funny your puppet masters say they are for freedom, eh? so they want single payer, government insurance, no guns for law abiding citizens, pretty soon we'll all have tests to place us in certain vocations(and yes they do that in Europe, and people like you loooooooove Europe and their "education").....and they will tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to set the home thermostat to, basically you wont even need to think....which is why so many love liberalism.....just do the bare minimum and be peasants....so much easier than having to create a resumee, apply for a job and sell yourself in an interview.......so much easier..

Interesting. Did you build your entire house out of ASSumptions too?

Not assumptions, facts, newspapers, news stories, so dismiss all you want, prove mine wrong.

Oh wait liberals dont like welfare?
liberals dont want gun control?
liberals dont want us to use standardized tests to put us in the right vocations like they do in Europe?
Liberals dont want a soda ban?
Liberals dont want to tax "bad" foods?
Liberals dont want to control out thermostats, light bulbs, ect?
Liberals like it when we drive cars and ride planes?

Which of those is true?

 

[Pogo]

funny your puppet masters say they are for freedom, eh? so they want single payer, government insurance, no guns for law abiding citizens, pretty soon we'll all have tests to place us in certain vocations(and yes they do that in Europe, and people like you loooooooove Europe and their "education").....and they will tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to set the home thermostat to, basically you wont even need to think....which is why so many love liberalism.....just do the bare minimum and be peasants....so much easier than having to create a resumee, apply for a job and sell yourself in an interview.......so much easier..

Interesting. Did you build your entire house out of ASSumptions too?

Not assumptions, facts, newspapers, news stories, so dismiss all you want, prove mine wrong.

Oh wait liberals dont like welfare?
liberals dont want gun control?
liberals dont want us to use standardized tests to put us in the right vocations like they do in Europe?
Liberals dont want a soda ban?
Liberals dont want to control out thermostats, light bulbs, ect?
Liberals like it when we drive cars and ride planes?

Which of those is true?

It must be hell to live in a world where one enslaves oneself to labels, but I can tell you I'm not on welfare, I don't want or need gun control or vocational tests, or soda bans, or thermostat controls. And I love to drive.

Must suck royally to be forced to put everyone in little boxes, all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same. BOR-ing.

(/Utterly offtopic)

 

[mamooth]

1. Dictators are bad
2. Leftists are bad
3. Therefore, dictators are leftists.

The "Nazis are leftists!" crowd can go home now. I've got their arguments covered.

 

[buckeye45_73]

1. Dictators are bad
2. Leftists are bad
3. Therefore, dictators are leftists.

The "Nazis are leftists!" crowd can go home now. I've got their arguments covered.

Wow another stupid post from a stupid man.....but you were close, you just left out a few dots.

Left wants government control larger and bigger.....and for you marxists, that includes production....ok..so political and economic control......and who has all that stuff........well......
The reason us on the right laugh at that is, how many dictators are there in anarchy? ZERO......we want smaller less powerful governments....and people to solve their own problems....it's really not that difficult. YOUR business is YOUR business.