Thread: Hitler's ideology

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1 Hitler's ideology 
    Bleda
    Guest
    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. 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Bleda
    Guest
    It must suck for the Left that the three worst murderers of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin and Hitler) were leftist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    718
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 02-22-2010 at 07:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CaughtintheMiddle1990; 02-22-2010 at 07:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    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
    Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 02-22-2010 at 08:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    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.
    Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 02-22-2010 at 09:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,073
    Excellent posts CS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •