Was Hitler right or left wing or neither?

[Votto]

It's a simple fact Hitler was right wing. Anyone who says different has been drinking piss and is completely ignorant of actual history.

Yes, the GOP is right wing because of piss drinkers.

Thanks for that.

 

[g5000]

It's a simple fact Hitler was right wing. Anyone who says different has been drinking piss and is completely ignorant of actual history.

Yes, the GOP is right wing because of piss drinkers.

Thanks for that.

That's not what I said, retard.

I remember you. You're the retard who posted a list of manufactured bullshit about what Nazis believe. Man, that was hilarious! Nazis love running up massive government debt. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

You are a case in point of what real piss drinkers look and sound like.

 

[Votto]

It's a simple fact Hitler was right wing. Anyone who says different has been drinking piss and is completely ignorant of actual history.

Yes, the GOP is right wing because of piss drinkers.

Thanks for that.

That's not what I said, retard.

I remember you. You're the retard who posted a list of manufactured bullshit about what Nazis believe. Man, that was hilarious! Nazis love running up massive government debt. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

You are a case in point of what real piss drinkers look and sound like.

Hitler did run up massive debt to fuel his war machine.

It is only dolts like you who demand otherwise.

Yea, Hitler built that army balancing the books.

LMAO!

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I suppose we might need to define what it means to be right or left wing? Would anyone like to take a crack at this?

The left wants to change society, the right wants to keep it the same as it was.

That's rather simplistic and wrong.

I don't know. Technically, it seems correct to me.

"seems", maybe if you actually think about it, you'll see why it's wrong.

Well, I don't need to think about it too deeply, genius, because it's civics 101. The very definition of conservatism is a resistance to change and innovation in relation to religion and politics, which = keeping things the same.

Whereas the definition of liberalism is embracing new ideas and understanding certain tradition is dispensable, which = changing society.

Again, what was said is technically correct. I don't know what more I can tell you.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

My conclusion from reading a bunch of posts here, is that Americans are very dumb, especially Republicans.

A.) Capitalism has nothing to do with the classical definition of Right - Left politics.

B.) If Capitalism was a Right wing characteristic, it's far from being the only characteristic, as many here ignore.

C.) There's still Authoritarian, Hierarchy, Traditional Values, Clerical Values, what Nazis did fits this bill, they were for Authoritarianism, they were for Hierarchy, Racial hierarchy, Social Darwinism, Eugenics, they were for Traditional Values, blood, and soil, anti-Abortion, anti-Gay, they did work with Clerical values, they were anti-Atheist, and did work with some of the Christian clerics.

D.) Capitalism is probably more of a Left wing characteristic, it's anti-Authoritarianism, and Authoritarianism is Right-Wing.

Especially considering the Capitalists push for Liberalism, to hire Illegal immigrants, to outsource jobs, to sell drugs, to sell porn to sell abortions, to sell gangster rap music, to sell Hollywood selling degenerate smut, and shoot em' up films with Liberal agendas, Media pushing for Liberalism, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube shutting down Conservatives.

That is Capitalism, and because Nazis regulated that, for more Nationalistic, and Socially Conservative values, that makes them Leftists?
Far form the truth.

My conclusion is that.

A.) Americans don't understand political spectrum I.E what a Right-Wing value even is.

B.) Americans don't understand political dynamics I.E how Capitalism causes Liberal values.

I could go on, and on, and on.

Republicans not understanding that social programs aren't necessarily Socialism.

Republicans not understanding that the Founding Father's weren't Capitalists.

Republicans not understanding they are by classical definitions Far-Left Liberals.

I'm not too thrilled with America's stupid masses.

This post perfectly illustrates how woefully under equipped a single axis political spectrum is. Anyone can take what they don't like and call it whatever wing they're not on.

So, you're admitting Republicans have falsely called themselves the Right-Wing?

You're not wholly wrong, but you're not wholly right either. The single axis "right vs. left" doesn't explain why republicans favor capitalism, which is based on individual rights, but are happy to deny individual rights when it comes to social stuff, and vice versa for the democrats.

The spectrum needs to include an axis for collectivist vs. individualist and/or authoritarian vs. libertarian. They're sorta the same. Then you could somewhat adequately peg where the current republican and democrat parties fall.

Because the U.S.A is divided into masculine British Individualists who care more about cutting taxes, having guns, and less about helping the poor, or Blacks, and feminine British Individualists who care more about helping the poor, or Blacks, and less about cutting taxes, and having guns.

To me there's hardly a difference, they are of the same stock.

If you look else where, Collectivists tend to be socially Right to that of America.

People complain about Venezuela here commonly, but they don't have Gay marriage, they don't have Abortion, they are in fact a Collectivist society, with Socially Conservative, and Authoritarian (Right-Wing Values)

That's just my point. You're using a different scale than other people. You're equating "right wing" with authoritarianism and "left wing" with libertarianism. I guess that's one way of looking at it, but it's still woefully inadequate for explaining where someone really lies politically.

Both the democrats and republicans are very authoritarian in that they both want to use the government to force their views and way of life onto others who don't agree with it. According to your definition, that's "right wing." In other ways, republicans and democrats want the government to stay out of people's lives, which is "left-wing." It only describes one aspect.

The problem is that Right-Wing by classical definitions does include Authoritarianism.

Right | ideology

Right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. The term derives from the seating arrangement of the French revolutionary parliament (c.1790s) in which the conservative representatives sat to the presiding officer’s right. In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property. In the 20th century a divergent, radical form developed that was associated with fascism. See also left.

Left–right political spectrum - Wikipedia

Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism", while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[14]

 

[frigidweirdo]

I suppose we might need to define what it means to be right or left wing? Would anyone like to take a crack at this?

The left wants to change society, the right wants to keep it the same as it was.

That's rather simplistic and wrong.

I don't know. Technically, it seems correct to me.

"seems", maybe if you actually think about it, you'll see why it's wrong.

Well, I don't need to think about it too deeply, genius, because it's civics 101. The very definition of conservatism is a resistance to change and innovation in relation to religion and politics, which = keeping things the same.

Whereas the definition of liberalism is embracing new ideas and understanding certain tradition is dispensable, which = changing society.

Again, what was said is technically correct. I don't know what more I can tell you.

Yes, yes.

Things are supposed to mean things, but in reality they don't.

The term racism no longer just means someone who thinks their race is superior, it can often mean someone who insults another person using racial words.

Football, as in the American version, hardly uses feet. Yet is still called football.

North Korea is called Democratic, China is called Communist, the US is called Democrats and really they're not.

So, yes, in reality I'm right, in some make believe world where all words are used correctly and people are labelled for what they are, rather than what they think they are, you might be right. But we don't live there.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The "right left" spectrum isn't a spectrum at all. Who would ever describe something one-dimensional as a "spectrum."

If you want to peg him into one of the parties we currently have, which of course the partisan retards always want to, you have some things to consider:

- He was a nationalist. Closer to today's right.
- He was an authoritarian. Both parties have this on lock.
- His government was fascist, in that government told private industry what to do. Much closer to today's left.
- He was imperialist. Closer to today's right.
- He was a racial purist. Closer to today's far right.
- He was a collectivist. Closer to today's left.

So all of you with your red and blue team jerseys on: you both have a pretty equal claim to Hitler. Congratulations.

I have issue with 2 items
authoritarian-I don't see people on the right wanting a dictator or even a powerful central government.
racial purist- Again I'm not sure about that. All the racial talk comes from the left.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I suppose we might need to define what it means to be right or left wing? Would anyone like to take a crack at this?

/——/ Well he was the leader of the National Socialist Party, used gun control to disarm his enemies, nationalized industry, banned religion and raised taxes so I see why libs think he was a right winger. Makes sense.

 

[Some Guy]

The "right left" spectrum isn't a spectrum at all. Who would ever describe something one-dimensional as a "spectrum."

If you want to peg him into one of the parties we currently have, which of course the partisan retards always want to, you have some things to consider:

- He was a nationalist. Closer to today's right.
- He was an authoritarian. Both parties have this on lock.
- His government was fascist, in that government told private industry what to do. Much closer to today's left.
- He was imperialist. Closer to today's right.
- He was a racial purist. Closer to today's far right.
- He was a collectivist. Closer to today's left.

So all of you with your red and blue team jerseys on: you both have a pretty equal claim to Hitler. Congratulations.

I have issue with 2 items
authoritarian-I don't see people on the right wanting a dictator or even a powerful central government.
racial purist- Again I'm not sure about that. All the racial talk comes from the left.

Is that a joke? A wildly powerful military that acts as the world's policeman and intervenes in matter across the world is inherently authoritarian. Advocating for certain people to not have marriage rights (gays) or demonizing people for changing genders is authoritarian. It's an easy concept. If you think that you should be able to force someone into doing something or not doing something to your liking, even a little bit, that's authoritarian. Religion is inherently authoritarian.

Racist purism definitely belongs on the hard-right. Richard Spencer, the KKK... they want a white ethno-state. The left has their racism too but it's not in favor of racial purity of one race.

Notice how i said "closer" not "exclusive to." Both sides have their faults and their varying degrees and bad stuff about them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth.

ALL of them

Candace Owens, along with Charlie Kirk, was shouted out of a restaurant in Philadelphia by a group of Antifa thugs. Apparently, it's now OK (again) for Democrats to harass black women in restaurants. What will be next, burning a cross on her lawn?

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

How do you know they weren’t just repeating what Trump says at his rallies?
You know knock the crap out of them and stuff like that?

Because Trump doesn't speak about ideologies, how about you watch a Trump rally and then discuss them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The "right left" spectrum isn't a spectrum at all. Who would ever describe something one-dimensional as a "spectrum."

If you want to peg him into one of the parties we currently have, which of course the partisan retards always want to, you have some things to consider:

- He was a nationalist. Closer to today's right.
- He was an authoritarian. Both parties have this on lock.
- His government was fascist, in that government told private industry what to do. Much closer to today's left.
- He was imperialist. Closer to today's right.
- He was a racial purist. Closer to today's far right.
- He was a collectivist. Closer to today's left.

So all of you with your red and blue team jerseys on: you both have a pretty equal claim to Hitler. Congratulations.

I have issue with 2 items
authoritarian-I don't see people on the right wanting a dictator or even a powerful central government.
racial purist- Again I'm not sure about that. All the racial talk comes from the left.

Is that a joke? A wildly powerful military that acts as the world's policeman and intervenes in matter across the world is inherently authoritarian. Advocating for certain people to not have marriage rights (gays) or demonizing people for changing genders is authoritarian. It's an easy concept. If you think that you should be able to force someone into doing something or not doing something to your liking, even a little bit, that's authoritarian. Religion is inherently authoritarian.

Racist purism definitely belongs on the hard-right. Richard Spencer, the KKK... they want a white ethno-state. The left has their racism too but it's not in favor of racial purity of one race.

Notice how i said "closer" not "exclusive to." Both sides have their faults and their varying degrees and bad stuff about them.

First of all Richard Spence is not right wing. you're conflating racism with right wing. It doesn't.
They guy is a socialist
he's an athiest
He's for huge government
free healthcare
free college
he thinks rights come from the govt and not God

how in the fuck is this guy right wing?


On the authoritarian part. No, having an issue with people cutting their dicks off is not authoritarian.
Sorry, at some point you have to be you. you guys used to say being gay was being born that way, now that you are, you can just change it at will? no logic there
Second acting as the world's policeman, is something a lot of righ wingers DO NOT want to do.
Whether its military intervention to NATO. We want other countries doing their part. We actually want to lower our burden on the world stage militarily.
We would like other countries to spend more on their own defense and rely LESS on us...

 

[Some Guy]

The "right left" spectrum isn't a spectrum at all. Who would ever describe something one-dimensional as a "spectrum."

If you want to peg him into one of the parties we currently have, which of course the partisan retards always want to, you have some things to consider:

- He was a nationalist. Closer to today's right.
- He was an authoritarian. Both parties have this on lock.
- His government was fascist, in that government told private industry what to do. Much closer to today's left.
- He was imperialist. Closer to today's right.
- He was a racial purist. Closer to today's far right.
- He was a collectivist. Closer to today's left.

So all of you with your red and blue team jerseys on: you both have a pretty equal claim to Hitler. Congratulations.

I have issue with 2 items
authoritarian-I don't see people on the right wanting a dictator or even a powerful central government.
racial purist- Again I'm not sure about that. All the racial talk comes from the left.

Is that a joke? A wildly powerful military that acts as the world's policeman and intervenes in matter across the world is inherently authoritarian. Advocating for certain people to not have marriage rights (gays) or demonizing people for changing genders is authoritarian. It's an easy concept. If you think that you should be able to force someone into doing something or not doing something to your liking, even a little bit, that's authoritarian. Religion is inherently authoritarian.

Racist purism definitely belongs on the hard-right. Richard Spencer, the KKK... they want a white ethno-state. The left has their racism too but it's not in favor of racial purity of one race.

Notice how i said "closer" not "exclusive to." Both sides have their faults and their varying degrees and bad stuff about them.

First of all Richard Spence is not right wing. you're conflating racism with right wing. It doesn't.
They guy is a socialist
he's an athiest
He's for huge government
free healthcare
free college
he thinks rights come from the govt and not God

how in the fuck is this guy right wing?


On the authoritarian part. No, having an issue with people cutting their dicks off is not authoritarian.
Sorry, at some point you have to be you. you guys used to say being gay was being born that way, now that you are, you can just change it at will? no logic there
Second acting as the world's policeman, is something a lot of righ wingers DO NOT want to do.
Whether its military intervention to NATO. We want other countries doing their part. We actually want to lower our burden on the world stage militarily.
We would like other countries to spend more on their own defense and rely LESS on us...

Yes, Richard Spencer is in favor of huge government, which is authoritarian, and he wants that government to favor white people only. Both the republicans and democrats are for their own brand of authoritarianism and Spencer is the extreme of that to the right. Just because he shares some big government views with the left doesn't mean he's not fringe-right right now. I don't like the whole "right-wing" vs. "left-wing" identifiers very much cause they're woefully inadequate, which is my point here.

Yea, having an issue with people cutting their dicks off is authoritarian. What someone does to their own body is none of your business unless they're demanding you pay for it. And the modern right definitely has no problem with military presence in other countries. The Iraq war, Syria, Libya, so on. It has nothing to do with paying for defense, it has everything to do with being willing to throw military resources at problems that we don't have any business being in. You can't make a coherent argument that the right isn't more pro-military than the modern left.

Republicans/Conservatives of today like to say they're all about liberty and rights and such but they're just as inconsistent as the Democrats/Progressives with that, just in different ways. Republicans are definitely more pro-police, who are those charged with enforcing laws, and laws are inherently anti-liberty.

 

[K9Buck]

Richard Spencer says he's a progressive. All of his views match those of the left, minus his white supremacist beliefs.

 

[blackhawk]

Hitler was a vile monster who is not even remotley similar the right or left of today.

 

[Picaro]

Hitler was a vile monster who is not even remotely similar the right or left of today.

Yes. There is no ideological method to his madness; he played everybody off against each other, and mostly successfully so, proles, nobility, and capitalists alike.

 

[Picaro]

I suppose we might need to define what it means to be right or left wing? Would anyone like to take a crack at this?

The left wants to change society, the right wants to keep it the same as it was.

That's rather simplistic and wrong.

I don't know. Technically, it seems correct to me.

"seems", maybe if you actually think about it, you'll see why it's wrong.

Well, I don't need to think about it too deeply, genius, because it's civics 101. The very definition of conservatism is a resistance to change and innovation in relation to religion and politics, which = keeping things the same.

Whereas the definition of liberalism is embracing new ideas and understanding certain tradition is dispensable, which = changing society.

Again, what was said is technically correct. I don't know what more I can tell you.

Conservatives are not right wingers, that's a media slant and incorrect. Most real liberals are incrementalist, and support 'sunset' laws on new legislation, not mindless support for something just because it's 'new n stuff'. They will dump a failed policy in a heartbeat, while radicals are mostly morons already convinced of their infallibility and all 'failures' are due to others, and they don't need to step back from anything; they're ideologues, and right wing radicals are just as conceited and simple-minded as left wing radicals. A 'Conservative' in Europe or China would be an entirely different animal than an American conservative, as would a Red Chinese conservative