PDA

View Full Version : Hitler's ideology



Bleda
02-21-2010, 07:57 PM
A friend of mine gave me a link to this leftist forum a while ago. I posted a thread about the forum on Conservative Cave, copy-pasting some of their worst posts. Anyway, I visited the forum today, and I came across a discussion about Hitler's ideology. (http://z4.invisionfree.com/HistoryMaking/index.php?showtopic=1024&st=0) It was originally a thread about Ron Paul, but it got derailed and became about Hitler. Go figure.


DragonLegend Posted: Feb 21 2010, 01:13 PM

Ron Paul is so far to the right you could easily confuse him for a lefty.


Neitzluber Posted: Feb 21 2010, 10:19 PM

Ron Paul is not far-right.

Adolf Hitler was far-right.


Иван_ Posted: Feb 22 2010, 12:03 AM

Look Legend, fascism itself was born as an answer to communism, many fascists consider themselves the opposite to commies (although, this is not totally right, as, both ideologies got a point in which they can get related. i.e. Stalinism).
Hitler criticized communism and lefties in many speeches in the 30s, and noted several times that at beggining (around the 20s, I believe) he didn't even want to name he's party "national socialist" because of the relation to the marxist socialism/communism.
Economically, the extreme right is neo-liberalism; socially, the extreme right is a mix of Fascism and Fundamentalism. Economically, the extreme left is communism; socially, the extreme left is anarchism.
Thus, I believe you are right at one point, as, Hitler, economically, was a moderate leftist (as he was against the capitalist economic system (according to a speech of his in 1927)), but, socially, he was a full extreme rightist. As he was more inclined towards the social spectrum, than the economical one, he is considered a rightist. But, once again, you are still right at some twisted point.


DragonLegend Posted: Feb 22 2010, 12:41 AM

I see you edited your post. How was Hitler "a full extreme rightist" when it comes to social issues? Vegetarianism, gun control, eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, animal rights, neo-paganism, to name a few. Doesn't sound like a full extreme social rightist to me.

So, if he was center-left economically, and socially leftist... how exactly was he a far rightist? No, he most certainly was not on the right. Leftists (or, if you'd prefer, collectivists/statists) love to push the meme that fascism is a right-wing ideology, when in fact it is simply a different flavor of totalitarian statism. The struggle of right vs left is the struggle of individual freedom versus collectivism/statism, a category that socialism and fascism both fall in to.

Oh dear God. I don't even know what to say. :confused:

Constitutionally Speaking
02-21-2010, 08:44 PM
Hitler was a full out leftist. PERIOD.

Agrarian reform, total state control, Government control of prices, production and wages, there is simply NOTHING right wing about him.

Bleda
02-21-2010, 08:58 PM
It must suck for the Left that the three worst murderers of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin and Hitler) were leftist.

Nubs
02-21-2010, 11:15 PM
Hitler and Stalin were both Socialists. The difference was that Hitler's strain was nationalist with a sprinkling of a racial component while Stalin was an international socialist. Germany and Russia were very cooperative and supportive of Hitler until Russia was invaded.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-22-2010, 12:37 AM
Hitler was a full out leftist. PERIOD.

Agrarian reform, total state control, Government control of prices, production and wages, there is simply NOTHING right wing about him.

Except that it wasn't Hitler's economic policies or beliefs that made him a monster, but his beliefs and actions with regard to race and eugenics. The two are separate.
One can support government regulation off prices and wages, but be against putting people in death camps or slave camps.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-22-2010, 07:15 AM
Except that it wasn't Hitler's economic policies or beliefs that made him a monster, but his beliefs and actions with regard to race and eugenics. The two are separate.
One can support government regulation off prices and wages, but be against putting people in death camps or slave camps.



Ah, but that is where you are wrong. They are NOT separate. It is the very idea that the individual is to surrender his own sovereignty to the state that is the nexus of the problem. That is why INDIVIDUAL liberty is so incredibly important to real freedom.

Any time you surrender that liberty to group rights, the group then becomes more important and the person ---- eh not so much.

You start justifying all sorts of things that normally would not seem right. For example stealing - if the group is deemed more important than the individual, the group can use government FORCE to steal the fruits of another mans labor - i.e. income based taxation. If the individual rights are subjugated to group, you can justify interfering with mutually agreed upon contract terms -i.e. the minimum wage. (or worse - you can tell bond holders who agreed on a lower rate of return for higher safety, that you now must sacrifice your investment (safety) for the good of my political supporters who now get the bonus of having the higher rate of return throughout all of these years AND they get all of their investment while you get a fraction of yours -( see Obama and GM bondholders vs the unions)) If the group is more important than the individual, you can steal his property for the "good of the community". - I.E. the Kilo decision. If that person is a drain on society, we can withhold medical care, after all OTHER people need it also and THEY can benefit society more. This is EXACTLY the path that Hitler went down in his justifications in Mein Kampf.

It is the inevitable result when individual rights are surrendered and scarcity forces a choice.

Even so let's examine your point as if I had not just shown the error of your thought process on this:

You speak as if putting people in death camps is a right wing tenet.


Tell you what, I'll list the left wingers who did so, you list the right wingers who created death camps. Then we'll total up the death tolls.

I'll even spot you the six million you wish to falsely attribute to right wing ideology.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-22-2010, 07:33 AM
Ah, but that is where you are wrong. They are NOT separate. It is the very idea that the individual is to surrender his own sovereignty to the state that is the nexus of the problem. That is why INDIVIDUAL liberty is so incredibly important to real freedom. Any time you surrender that liberty to group rights, the group then becomes more important and the person ---- eh not so much. You start justifying all sorts of things that normally would not seem right. For example stealing - if the group is deemed more important than the individual, the group can use government FORCE to steal the fruits of another mans labor. If the group is more important than the individual, you can steal his property for the "good of the community". - I.E. the Kilo decision. If that person is a drain on society, we can withhold medical care, after all OTHER people need it also and THEY can benefit society more. This is EXACTLY the path that Hitler went down in his justifications in Mein Kampf.

It is the inevitable result when individual rights are surrendered and scarcity forces a choice.

Even so let's examine your point as if I had not just shown the error of your thought process on this:

You speak as if putting people in death camps is a right wing tenet.


Tell you what, I'll list the left wingers who did so, you list the right wingers who created death camps. Then we'll total up the death tolls.

I'll even spot you the six million you wish to falsely attribute to right wing ideology.


I don't think putting someonme in a death camp is either a right wing or left wing ideology, and I wouldn't stoop so low as to say anyone who is on the left or right supports it simply because they are leftist or rightist. Liberals like to claim racism is a key point in conservative ideology, I disagree and feel that is a low blow. I feel you need liberalism and conservatism and a nice moderate center, but that's besides the point.

Putting people, whether it be one person or six million in death camps to starve and be poisoned or used as slave labor, is the ideology or act of a sociopathic monster who has no empathy or feelings or love for humanity.I'm generally a center-leftist, depending on the subject and have some right wing views, such as on gays in the military and whatnot, but many leftist economic leanings and I still think putting people in death camps is inhumane and evil. That sort of behavior transcends politics and just goes into barbarism. Did Ted Bundy's political ideology make him do the things he did or was it simply because he was a psycho? Same with Hitler. Hitler isn't known in history as a monsterous evil figure because of his economics policies, in fact I don't many except the historically interested are aware of his policies--He is infamous because he was a psycho who tried to wipe out an entire group of people out of sheer racism and hatred. Had he not done that, I think he'd just have the reputation of an insecure little man who had to compensate for that insecurity by trying to take over the world whose ass we kicked in a war.
I think both liberals and conservatives, generally, in the American political system anyway, love humanity, but have different methods though which they express that love. Liberals often could be thought of as a coddling or, idk, sympathethic type of parent, (for example Welfare) whereas conservatives would be more of a tough love, get on your feet and do it yourself kind of parent.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-22-2010, 08:09 AM
I don't think putting someonme in a death camp is either a right wing or left wing ideology, and I wouldn't stoop so low as to say anyone who is on the left or right supports it simply because they are leftist or rightist. Liberals like to claim racism is a key point in conservative ideology, I disagree and feel that is a low blow. I feel you need liberalism and conservatism and a nice moderate center, but that's besides the point.

Putting people, whether it be one person or six million in death camps to starve and be poisoned or used as slave labor, is the ideology or act of a sociopathic monster who has no empathy or feelings or love for humanity.I'm generally a center-leftist, depending on the subject and have some right wing views, such as on gays in the military and whatnot, but many leftist economic leanings and I still think putting people in death camps is inhumane and evil. That sort of behavior transcends politics and just goes into barbarism. Did Ted Bundy's political ideology make him do the things he did or was it simply because he was a psycho? Same with Hitler. Hitler isn't known in history as a monsterous evil figure because of his economics policies, in fact I don't many except the historically interested are aware of his policies--He is infamous because he was a psycho who tried to wipe out an entire group of people out of sheer racism and hatred. Had he not done that, I think he'd just have the reputation of an insecure little man who had to compensate for that insecurity by trying to take over the world whose ass we kicked in a war.
I think both liberals and conservatives, generally, in the American political system anyway, love humanity, but have different methods though which they express that love. Liberals often could be thought of as a coddling or, idk, sympathethic type of parent, (for example Welfare) whereas conservatives would be more of a tough love, get on your feet and do it yourself kind of parent.

I can't say that I disagree with you - but you are missing the point.

A right wing based philosophy that is genuinely held cannot lead to this result. Left wing ideology INVITES this type of system, gives it the power to carry it out, and needs simply to wait for the monster to appear - and when one does it has already set up numerous moral compromises, like those I outlined above, that make it easier justify. First it is just maybe taxing them more. Then it is perhaps loudly denouncing them in the media and then in our schools, then it is burning their books or insisting they cannot read those books in public, then it condones internet exposure of their places of business and residence and encourages "direct action" against those who support an unpopular law. (prop 8 anyone). Then - because they are so evil - we can justify vandalizing their property and harassing their children (big banks)..

Soon it does not become such a big step to justify jailing them - and gosh there are just SOOOO MANY of these moral cretins that we NEED bigger facilities to keep them secure. etc etc

Constitutionally Speaking
02-22-2010, 08:36 AM
Why can't a right wing philosophy if genuinely held lead to such things???


In America, it is because our rights are deemed individual rights, and they are granted BY GOD HIMSELF - not only that, they are UNALIENABLE.

Our conservative (and Christian) founders knew that if the power of granting and taking rights away was vested in man or any of his institutions, it meant that MAN or any of his institutions could also take them away.

That is why the recognized OFFICIALLY that our rights are NOT in the jurisdiction of man but are granted by God.

Or, as they put it: "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ----"


Thomas Jefferson pretty much exactly said this in Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781


And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?


This is why John Adams said,


"Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

Source: Oct. 11, 1798; Address to the military


A citizenry that fears God, would not DARE take away what God has granted and ONLY God has the right to take away. That is why our Constitution restricts the Federal government as much as possible - to take away the ability of government to encroach on individual rightsm and to move those powers closer to the people.



This is why the Marxists and assorted leftists MUST undermine God in our country. It is the reason they infiltrated our schools, our media and our cultural institutions. It is why our schools, media and Hollywood are constantly ridiculing religion, and attacking it.

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:24 AM
Excellent posts CS!

Constitutionally Speaking
02-22-2010, 09:31 AM
Excellent posts CS!


Thank you . Vote for ME!!!!

Rockntractor
02-22-2010, 09:35 AM
Thank you . Vote for ME!!!!

In a heartbeat!:D

CaughtintheMiddle1990
02-22-2010, 05:49 PM
Why can't a right wing philosophy if genuinely held lead to such things???


In America, it is because our rights are deemed individual rights, and they are granted BY GOD HIMSELF - not only that, they are UNALIENABLE.

Our conservative (and Christian) founders knew that if the power of granting and taking rights away was vested in man or any of his institutions, it meant that MAN or any of his institutions could also take them away.

That is why the recognized OFFICIALLY that our rights are NOT in the jurisdiction of man but are granted by God.

Or, as they put it: "We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ----"


Thomas Jefferson pretty much exactly said this in Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781




This is why John Adams said,



Source: Oct. 11, 1798; Address to the military


A citizenry that fears God, would not DARE take away what God has granted and ONLY God has the right to take away. That is why our Constitution restricts the Federal government as much as possible - to take away the ability of government to encroach on individual rightsm and to move those powers closer to the people.



This is why the Marxists and assorted leftists MUST undermine God in our country. It is the reason they infiltrated our schools, our media and our cultural institutions. It is why our schools, media and Hollywood are constantly ridiculing religion, and attacking it.


Personally, I don't feel we've lost any rights--in fact, in the last 40 years, many have gained rights. As far as removing God from schools--I agree. I do think theology should be a class taught in public schools, but not simply Christian theology--ALL theologies, give the students a basic knowledge of the major religions' tenets/beliefs, their different histories perhaps and their impact on history and then let the students make up their own minds. Theology of all kinds plays and has played one of the most significant roles throughout human history and has had a big impact on our own history...That alone merits it being taught.

If we're going to introduce "God" into schools, let's introduce all of His different faces, not simply the one you or I find the most appealing. Teach evolution and teach science, and teach theology, teach the different Creation stories, not simply the Christian one, and let the kids make up their own minds as to what they want to believe.

I also think theological classes should included only in higher level education--maybe High School, when kids are older and less impressionable, and maybe it should be optional, like an elective course. Or it could be taught as part of history, or be a separate mandatory course. But it should, imo, in any case be for older kids only. I don't think too many Christian parents would like their five year old babbling on about the teachings of Muhammad, nor would many Jewish parents appreciate hearing how great Jesus is, nor any Islamic parent hearing their child talk about the greatness of Judaism.I can well remember being five and they're far too impressionable at that age--particularly in those matters.And kids at that age do contemplate those things. From the age of 4 through age 8 I attended public school and I don't remember anything anti-religion or anti-Christian specifically being spoken of---In fact I don't recall religion being mentioned at all in the various public schools I attended, neither positively nor negatively.

To introduce an interesting point though--Conservatives always speak against the ''rejection'' of God in schools but I would think not having religion in a public school would be a conservative sentiment (disregarding for a moment the conservative disagreement with the idea of public education to begin with) in that teaching religion or endorsing any religion should be the sole responsibility of the child's parents--That would be encouraging the personal responsibility of the parents to teach their children about a vital part of life--and not the business of school teachers. It begs the question of whether religion should be a family matter, and thus personal and private, or a government matter (since we're dealing with public school.) Do you really want your government allowing religion to be endorsed? What if the government via public schools decides to endorse the morals of a religion that directly contradict yours?

Also as a leftist, I do believe certain public institutions (federal government buildings to be specific) shouldn't include specific religious statements proclaiming only one religion--For example having the Ten Commandments on public buildings. I'm sure there would be Christians up in arms if the teachings of the Buddha or Islamic phrases were on public, government buildings. If a state government wants to put up the Ten Commandments on their building, fine, but I don't think the federal government should be in the practice of promoting one religion over another by having only the tenets of one religion on their buildings.
It's not that I have anything wrong per se with the Ten Commandments, many of them are perfect foundations for a civil society (with the exceptions of the specifically religious themed commandments) it just seems like the government promoting only Christian ideology seems a bit dangerous.

As far as ridiculing religion in Hollywood, I don't see where that happens...Perhaps you could point out some examples? The only place I've seen religion attacked is by comedians on comedy specials and a few select specifically anti-Catholic documentaries which were TV productions. I don't recall seeing or hearing of any real anti-religious movies. I mean, 'Hollywood' put out or allowed to have put out the Passion of the Christ and it became a huge success. We have movies like the Santa Claus and whatnot come out of Hollywood, or Jingle All the Way, or Christmas themed movies in general. I mean just last year a movie called Four Christmases came out which while a comedy stressed the importance of family bonds and commitment--even if those family bonds are painful or difficult and even if one finds it hard to commit.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-22-2010, 07:35 PM
Other than as a historical lesson on where our rights emanate from, I don't want religion taught in schools.

Not at a k-12 level anyway. Children need to be rigorously taught about our Constitution, the REAL story of our founding and why we are the greatest country on earth, science, math, Language, and history.

There is not enough time in the school day to teach any particular religion - let alone all of them.


You haven't noticed your rights being taken away because they are being taken away slowly.

You used to be able to smoke in your own business establishment, now in some areas, you cannot. It used to be that you could build your home on your own property without the government prohibiting it because it deems a fly more important than you - even if that fly does not exist on your property, you now MUST spend thousands of dollars (given of course to your friendly government officials) for them to check to make sure there are no flies of that species on your property - and that there never was any, before they issue a permit.

It used to be you could as a student, speak your mind on religion during school hours. Heaven help you now if you "offend" someone by talking about your faith.

You may say those are minor things - I would disagree but how about the contract rights that the current administration voided with GM Bondholders???

In the investment world, bonds are amongst the safest investments in a private corporation. The reason for that is that if the company goes bankrupt, the bondholders are the very first investors to be paid. The company liquidates assets, and pays the bondholders - what is left is then split amongst the other investors in a company. Bond holders buy bonds specifically for their safety and they sacrifice the higher returns that stocks typically offer in return for that safety.

With the recent government takeover of GM, however, those bondholders - who have sacrificed those higher returns for years and decades, were moved to the back of the line instead of being the first to get paid off. The ONLY reason this was done was because the UAW is a major contributor to the Democrat party.

What the President did with that "agreement" (the bondholders had no choice) was literally steal the retirement funds for thousands of Americans.

I'd say that is a pretty big right that has been lost - and that IGNORES the horrible precedent set that government can simply step in at it's whim, and change the legally and willfully agreed to terms of private contracts.

That undermines the very foundation of a free economy.

The losses are too numerous to count - some more onerous than others, but lost just the same.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-22-2010, 08:14 PM
On Hollywood - oh my.

The horror classic Carrie - who's mother (portrayed as a devout Christian), locks her in a closet and tells her to pray, explaining that only sinners menstruate.

Or that '80s Kevin Bacon movie Footloose where the antagonist is the town preacher.

Dogma, Jesus Camp, Seven, The Shawshank Redemption, The great White Hype, Just Cause ----- They ALL hold religion or religous people up to derision and scorn.



Stigmata, The Golden Compass, Religiousity, - the list goes on and on.


I challenge you to observe the antagonist in the movies you watch - about 80% of the time the antagonist is either a businessman, a religious figure (or is prone to quoting scripture), a Republican or a Conservative.

Most of the rest of the time the antagonist is some other type of character usually identified with conservatives (hunters, military etc)

Sometimes it is in a picture on the mantle of the antagonist that shows the evil antagonist with a conservative icon.

Or perhaps it is something like the scene in dirty dancing where the protagonist confronts the Cad who got one of the dancers pregnant and then skipped out. She confronts the rich cad and he tells her (while handing her a copy of an Ayn Rand book) that some people just don't matter. (never mind the fact that the message is very pro-abortion)

You have to be blind not to see the left using Hollywood to undermine our religious and free enterprise traditions.