Were The Nazis Left Wing?

Gary K

New member
Banned
It's telling that all the voices of protest for the Nazis being far right are from people who are on the...far right.

Not a word of refutation. Not a word refuting the facts. Just bald assertion, and we know what that is worth. Especially from a socialist and a socialist defender. It's telling that you simply cannot refute the facts, and that facts to you are meaningless.

All you have is your ideology. And it sucks. You lost the argument long ago AB as you cannot find any facts from history to support yourself. All you have is nothing. The facts are all on our side. All you have is fantasy, as usual.

Why should I not refute your lies about the Nazi's and socialism? I'm conservative and I despise socialism in all of it's forms, including nazism.

Even the dictionary refutes you:
WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) (wn)
Nazism
n 1: a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and
obedience to a strong leader [syn: Nazism, Naziism,
national socialism]


Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 (moby-thesaurus)
22 Moby Thesaurus words for "Nazism":
centralism, collectivism, communism, constitutionalism,
democratism, fascism, federalism, feudalism, feudality,
governmentalism, imperialism, monarchism, national socialism,
neofascism, parliamentarianism, parliamentarism, pluralism,
political principles, republicanism, royalism, socialism,
statism
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Common sense, rationale and logic make it so. Your opinion is just that, an opinion that has no bearing on actual reality.
Precisely! Your mind is broken. The definitions you hold of what is right vs. left are equal parts backward and completely off the topic. And its as if you haven't even read the definitions I've posted which are universally accepted as accurate. You certainly haven't responded to them, which, I suppose, is no surprise. What could there be to say?

You say that the left is about freedom but freedom in economic terms means capitalism which you despise. What you mean by freedom is the freedom to live your life in any way you desire without any thought to morality or the consequences of your actions. This is particularly true when it comes to sex. It seems that nearly every left wing policy is designed to remove the consequences of immoral sexual actively. You want free condoms, free abortions, easy divorce (if one ever gets married at all), etc.
What you mean by equality is taking a nations production away from those who produced it and giving it to those who have not earned it and could not produce it if they tried. An economy built on such systemic theft result in making everyone equally poor, destitute and miserable. The very dystopia that you claim a godly government would produce! What a fool you are!

No, I don't mean that at all and what on earth are you on about with this "anyone who disagrees with me should be silenced" garbage?
You know just exactly what I'm talking about.

I support freedom of speech and have no interest in curbing it so get that straight.
I do not believe you. You're either lying or you're just so stupid as to be delusional. Liberalism is, in fact, a mental disorder.

That you advocate homosexuality being a capital crime at all is what puts you on the far right Clete.
Stupidity!

It's certainly not left wing or liberal ideology or in fact conservative for that matter, it's simply far right.
Totally utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with being either left or right wing except that the left wants to effectively remove the notion of sexual immorality from public discourse, policy and law.

Some people's idea of "Godly" government is nothing short of religious extremism and if enforced would be a totalitarian, dystopian nightmare. Ironic.
Saying it doesn't make it so, moron. It isn't "extreme" to be godly. In any compromise with evil, it is only evil that benefits and there can be no such thing as a totalitarian government that is godly (never mind dystopian). It is a contradiction. In fact they are opposites! You haven't any idea what you're talking about. You literally do not even know right from wrong! It's simply incredible! Five year old children understand such things better than you do!

Of course you'll deny that but what you won't do is answer this question....

What is the difference between good and evil? What is good and what is evil and why? Do you even have any idea at all?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Here is more on Hitler and socialism.

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

That is a devastating remark and it is blunter than anything in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.; though even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative. Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him.

The rest of this article can be found here.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Some people's idea of "Godly" government is nothing short of religious extremism and if enforced would be a totalitarian, dystopian nightmare. Ironic.


If only there was a book describing how such Godly governments existed in the past and whether they resulted in totalitarian dystopian nightmares.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Here is more from Hitler on Marxism. It comes from his book, Mein Kampf on page 702.

If the folkish and National Socialist State sees its main
task in educating and preserving the bearer of the State,
IF it is not enough to promote the racial elements as such, to
educate them thereafter and finally to train them for practi-
cal life, but it is necessary that it bring its own organiza-
tion into harmony with this task.

It would be a folly to appraise man's value according to
his race, that means to declare war against the Marxist
viewpoint, Man is equal to man, if on the other hand, one is
nevertheless not determined to draw the ultimate conse-
quences from this.

Notice Hitler's defense of the marxist viewpoint. He thinks it would be folly to oppose a basic tenet of marxism. And you guys want to continue to say Hitler was not a socialist?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Here's a little more from the article from which I earlier posted an excerpt. All you have to do to refute this is show someone who was not a socialist who advocated genocide between the years 1849 and the year of Hitler's death. Ought to be really easy to disprove as it is a falsifiable statement. .

The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact. Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?" The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler's right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy. In an age when the socialist tradition of genocide was familiar, that would have sounded merely absurd. The tradition, what is more, was unique. In the European century that began in the 1840s from Engels's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found.

The rest of the article can be found here.

Remember the Fabians? They have been a huge factor in British thought and politics since their establishment. They were completely socialist in nature and they pushed eugenics to create "the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race", Yeah, the connections between socialism and racism are firmly established facts of history.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Here's a little more from the article from which I earlier posted an excerpt. All you have to do to refute this is show someone who was not a socialist who advocated genocide between the years 1849 and the year of Hitler's death. Ought to be really easy to disprove as it is a falsifiable statement. .



The rest of the article can be found here.

Remember the Fabians? They have been a huge factor in British thought and politics since their establishment. They were completely socialist in nature and they pushed eugenics to create "the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race", Yeah, the connections between socialism and racism are firmly established facts of history.

great stuff, but utterly useless - eider and artie don't need no facts, their minds are already made up.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
great stuff, but utterly useless - eider and artie don't need no facts, their minds are already made up.

Facts and reality are never useless. If that was so there would be no truth left in our world. Those who ignore facts and reality hurt themselves far more than they do anyone else. I give them the facts and reality so they can either improve themselves with it, or destroy themselves with it. The choice is theirs, not mine. God has always placed reality and facts before me and allowed me to make my choice. I can't do anything less for others.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Precisely! Your mind is broken. The definitions you hold of what is right vs. left are equal parts backward and completely off the topic. And its as if you haven't even read the definitions I've posted which are universally accepted as accurate. You certainly haven't responded to them, which, I suppose, is no surprise. What could there be to say?

You say that the left is about freedom but freedom in economic terms means capitalism which you despise. What you mean by freedom is the freedom to live your life in any way you desire without any thought to morality or the consequences of your actions. This is particularly true when it comes to sex. It seems that nearly every left wing policy is designed to remove the consequences of immoral sexual actively. You want free condoms, free abortions, easy divorce (if one ever gets married at all), etc.
What you mean by equality is taking a nations production away from those who produced it and giving it to those who have not earned it and could not produce it if they tried. An economy built on such systemic theft result in making everyone equally poor, destitute and miserable. The very dystopia that you claim a godly government would produce! What a fool you are!

No, it isn't and no, they weren't. That they didn't fit into your preferred definitions is entirely moot. Yours are not "universally accepted as accurate" by any means so that's a falsehood on your part. What's more, they were addressed and even then, from a rational perspective, there's overlap at least among the more moderate on either side as explained previous. Where it comes to sex, then yes, people should be free to pursue consenting adult relationships without interference from church or state. Your religious or moral sensibilities are irrelevant. If people want to cohabit without getting married then they should be free to do so and gay people should have the same rights without fear of persecution. Oh, and I don't want free condoms or abortions either but you'll probably bluster away on that no doubt. If a marriage is failing beyond repair then sure, they should be able to get divorced.

Your latter is just predictable hyperbole once again. I live in a country that has a national health service and a benefits system and to say that such a system makes everyone equally poor is just laughably ignorant beyond words.

You know just exactly what I'm talking about.

Nope.

I do not believe you. You're either lying or you're just so stupid as to be delusional. Liberalism is, in fact, a mental disorder.

Aw, does that not fit into your silly little box? It's the truth so whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. What is it with some of you on the far right who seem to have this paranoid delusion that those with opposing views want to silence you? Acw used to pull this same stunt on his now nine year blog and was chagrined when we'd tell him that none of us supported his being censored and that he should be free to continue with it. It was like he was trying to claim some sort of martyr status. The stupidity here is all yours Clete and your last is just a silly soundbite. People who are intellectually honest are above that.

Answer me this. Why would I want to silence you or anyone else who holds diametrically opposing views? For what?


Stupidity!


Totally utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with being either left or right wing except that the left wants to effectively remove the notion of sexual immorality from public discourse, policy and law.

Well, no, it's fact. The advocation of executing people for being practising homosexuals only emanates from the far right. It's not liberal, moderate or conservative ideology but simply far right.

Saying it doesn't make it so, moron. It isn't "extreme" to be godly. In any compromise with evil, it is only evil that benefits and there can be no such thing as a totalitarian government that is godly (never mind dystopian). It is a contradiction. In fact they are opposites! You haven't any idea what you're talking about. You literally do not even know right from wrong! It's simply incredible! Five year old children understand such things better than you do!

Of course you'll deny that but what you won't do is answer this question....

What is the difference between good and evil? What is good and what is evil and why? Do you even have any idea at all?

The obvious shouldn't even need to be stated Clete. You advocate a society that would execute people for being gay or at least acting on it. If you go along with JR then you'd force a couple having sex out of wedlock into marriage with no possibility of divorce and all manner of other measures for "immorality". One of the characteristics of living in the West is having personal and civil liberty that you would effectively eradicate with your notion of "Godly government". It isn't though, it's simply far right religious zealotry, big difference.

Five year old children behave more maturely than you do.

Good and evil? Here's an example of evil. Rounding people up and exterminating them for being gay in death camps. An example of good? Condemning any such practice or ideology that would do the same or similar.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
No, it isn't and no, they weren't. That they didn't fit into your preferred definitions is entirely moot. Yours are not "universally accepted as accurate" by any means so that's a falsehood on your part. What's more, they were addressed and even then, from a rational perspective, there's overlap at least among the more moderate on either side as explained previous. Where it comes to sex, then yes, people should be free to pursue consenting adult relationships without interference from church or state. Your religious or moral sensibilities are irrelevant. If people want to cohabit without getting married then they should be free to do so and gay people should have the same rights without fear of persecution. Oh, and I don't want free condoms or abortions either but you'll probably bluster away on that no doubt. If a marriage is failing beyond repair then sure, they should be able to get divorced.

Your latter is just predictable hyperbole once again. I live in a country that has a national health service and a benefits system and to say that such a system makes everyone equally poor is just laughably ignorant beyond words.



Nope.



Aw, does that not fit into your silly little box? It's the truth so whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. What is it with some of you on the far right who seem to have this paranoid delusion that those with opposing views want to silence you? Acw used to pull this same stunt on his now nine year blog and was chagrined when we'd tell him that none of us supported his being censored and that he should be free to continue with it. It was like he was trying to claim some sort of martyr status. The stupidity here is all yours Clete and your last is just a silly soundbite. People who are intellectually honest are above that.

Answer me this. Why would I want to silence you or anyone else who holds diametrically opposing views? For what?




Well, no, it's fact. The advocation of executing people for being practising homosexuals only emanates from the far right. It's not liberal, moderate or conservative ideology but simply far right.



The obvious shouldn't even need to be stated Clete. You advocate a society that would execute people for being gay or at least acting on it. If you go along with JR then you'd force a couple having sex out of wedlock into marriage with no possibility of divorce and all manner of other measures for "immorality". One of the characteristics of living in the West is having personal and civil liberty that you would effectively eradicate with your notion of "Godly government". It isn't though, it's simply far right religious zealotry, big difference.

Five year old children behave more maturely than you do.

Good and evil? Here's an example of evil. Rounding people up and exterminating them for being gay in death camps. An example of good? Condemning any such practice or ideology that would do the same or similar.

So Great Britain before 1967 was an evil country, an evil society?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Not a word of refutation. Not a word refuting the facts. Just bald assertion, and we know what that is worth. Especially from a socialist and a socialist defender. It's telling that you simply cannot refute the facts, and that facts to you are meaningless.

All you have is your ideology. And it sucks. You lost the argument long ago AB as you cannot find any facts from history to support yourself. All you have is nothing. The facts are all on our side. All you have is fantasy, as usual.

Why should I not refute your lies about the Nazi's and socialism? I'm conservative and I despise socialism in all of it's forms, including nazism.

Even the dictionary refutes you:

If the facts were actually on 'your side' then you need to tell that to all of the historians and scholars who put Nazism on the far right. Oh, and I'm not a "socialist" either but do carry on...
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Facts and reality are never useless. If that was so there would be no truth left in our world. Those who ignore facts and reality hurt themselves far more than they do anyone else. I give them the facts and reality so they can either improve themselves with it, or destroy themselves with it. The choice is theirs, not mine. God has always placed reality and facts before me and allowed me to make my choice. I can't do anything less for others.

I take it you've quit listening to infowars then?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The Nazis Were Leftists, Deal With It



The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex. Everyone knows the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Hitler’s gang were men of the left while debatable is compelling. The dispute on Nazi origins has surfaced through the confluence of brawling alt-right and antifa fringe movements and recent alternative histories by Dinesh D’Souza and others. The vitriol and lack of candor this debate produces by supposedly fact-driven academics and media is disturbing if unsurprising. They stifle dissent on touchy subjects to maintain narrative and enforce cultural hegemony.

However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest minds of their time. Opinions of the period perhaps carry more weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the uniquely heinous Nazi crimes. ‘The Road to Serfdom’ by FA Hayek is one such tract. Published in 1944 it remains a classic for young people on the political right discovering their intellectual roots. A sort of academic ‘1984,’ it warns of socialism’s tendency toward planned states and totalitarianism.

But one aspect of the book can shock the conscience. Hayek describes Nazism as a “genuine socialist movement” and thus left wing by modern American standards. Indeed, the Austrian-born Hayek wrote the book from his essay ‘Nazi-Socialism’ that countered prevailing opinion at the London School of Economics where he taught. British elites regarded Nazism as a virulent capitalist reaction against enlightened socialism — a view that persists today.

The shock comes from academic and cultural orthodoxy on National Socialism. From the moment they enter the political fray, young right-wingers are told ‘you own the Nazis.’ At best, the left concedes it owns communism. This comforts little because even if far higher in body count, communism supposedly rebukes the scourge of racism. But it’s all a lie.

The instant problem this debate incurs is from ideological labels themselves. They are malleable and messy and partisans constantly distort them. They change over time. Trump’s particular political brand muddies the scene further, in rhetoric if less in policy. “Conservative” and especially “liberal” have changed over time and have different meanings in the US and Europe. Hayek himself, who had a more European view of conservatism, was wary of labels. He spurned both “conservative” and “libertarian” and dedicated his most famous book to “the socialists of all parties.”
Currently Accepted Political Definitions Place the Nazis firmly on the Left​

For precision, I refrain from using “conservative” or “liberal” unless through quotation and use ‘left’ and ‘right’ as generally accepted in modern America.

The right consists of free-market capitalists, who think the individual is the primary political unit, believes in property rights, and is generally distrustful of the administrative state and government solutions to social problems. They view family and civil institutions such as church as needed checks on state power. These people don’t think government should force a business to provide employee birth control or think law should coerce bakers to make cakes against their conscience. They think the solution to bad speech is more speech; the solution to gun violence is more guns. These people talk about “freedom” — the method individual decisions. (The counterexample might be gay marriage but that is a positive right (give me something) instead of a negative right (leave me alone)).

The left believes the opposite. These people are distrustful of the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. They give primacy to group rights and identity. They believe factors like race, ethnicity, and gender compose the primary political units. They don’t believe in strong property rights. They believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social problems. They call for public intervention to “equalize” disparities and render our social fabric more inclusive (as they define it). They believe the free market has failed to solve issues like campaign finance, income inequality, minimum wage, access to healthcare, and righting past injustices. These people talk about “democracy” — the method of collective decisions.


By these definitions the Nazis were firmly on the left. National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” That this brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics perfectly aligns with the modern brand.
The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people or “volk” and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism — the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War.


more: https://medium.com/@PaulHJossey/the-...t-b7f12cc53b6f
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No, it isn't and no, they weren't. That they didn't fit into your preferred definitions is entirely moot. Yours are not "universally accepted as accurate" by any means so that's a falsehood on your part. What's more, they were addressed and even then, from a rational perspective, there's overlap at least among the more moderate on either side as explained previous. Where it comes to sex, then yes, people should be free to pursue consenting adult relationships without interference from church or state. Your religious or moral sensibilities are irrelevant. If people want to cohabit without getting married then they should be free to do so and gay people should have the same rights without fear of persecution. Oh, and I don't want free condoms or abortions either but you'll probably bluster away on that no doubt. If a marriage is failing beyond repair then sure, they should be able to get divorced.

Your latter is just predictable hyperbole once again. I live in a country that has a national health service and a benefits system and to say that such a system makes everyone equally poor is just laughably ignorant beyond words.



Nope.



Aw, does that not fit into your silly little box? It's the truth so whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. What is it with some of you on the far right who seem to have this paranoid delusion that those with opposing views want to silence you? Acw used to pull this same stunt on his now nine year blog and was chagrined when we'd tell him that none of us supported his being censored and that he should be free to continue with it. It was like he was trying to claim some sort of martyr status. The stupidity here is all yours Clete and your last is just a silly soundbite. People who are intellectually honest are above that.

Answer me this. Why would I want to silence you or anyone else who holds diametrically opposing views? For what?




Well, no, it's fact. The advocation of executing people for being practising homosexuals only emanates from the far right. It's not liberal, moderate or conservative ideology but simply far right.



The obvious shouldn't even need to be stated Clete. You advocate a society that would execute people for being gay or at least acting on it. If you go along with JR then you'd force a couple having sex out of wedlock into marriage with no possibility of divorce and all manner of other measures for "immorality". One of the characteristics of living in the West is having personal and civil liberty that you would effectively eradicate with your notion of "Godly government". It isn't though, it's simply far right religious zealotry, big difference.

Five year old children behave more maturely than you do.

Good and evil? Here's an example of evil. Rounding people up and exterminating them for being gay in death camps. An example of good? Condemning any such practice or ideology that would do the same or similar.
So your standard of right and wrong is how sexual perverts are treated. Acceptance of perversion is the good, punishment of it is the evil.

I'll take that to mean that I was right! You really do not have any idea the difference between right and wrong.

Ansolutely incredible!
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So your standard of right and wrong is how sexual perverts are treated. Acceptance of perversion is the good, punishment of it is the evil.

I'll take that to mean that I was right! You really do not have any idea the difference between right and wrong.

Ansolutely incredible!

No, I care about how people are treat. What consenting adults do in their private lives should be their business alone, away from religious zealots and puffed up busybodies. If people want to get married or not then fine either way. If people are gay then they should be free to have homosexual relationships. You're as "right" about anything as you are with your dingbat nonsense about people like me wanting to silence people like you and your opinions about "right and wrong" can be given all the credence they deserve. I'm sure you can do the math on that one.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So your standard of right and wrong is how sexual perverts are treated. Acceptance of perversion is the good, punishment of it is the evil.

I'll take that to mean that I was right! You really do not have any idea the difference between right and wrong.

Ansolutely incredible!

Surely you're not surprised
 
Top