Leave it to an emotional liberal to change the subject to the "horrors" of right winger's stances on gay marriage and abortion. The idea that a women can't choose to end the life of her developing child is truly sickening. Funny how the overwhelming majority of the nation repudiates gay marriage; Wherever citizens are permitted to vote in favor or in opposition to gay marriage, traditional marriage has been upheld. However, that doesn't stop the courts from completely negating those votes...
pt9) Sorry but Goldberg isn't going to convince me anytime soon. I've already gone through The entire nazi segment of Beck's silly documentary, It's clear neither Goldberg or Beck know what their talking about, and their quote mines, distortions and strawman definitions of political concepts do not impress me, infact i've never seen a convincing argument from these fools!
@theyounghistorian77 Similarly,it goes without saying Hayek's thesis was extremely selectively applied.It is strange to see,for example,Conservative politicians clutching Hayek's Road to Serfdom with one hand and using it to defend cutting the welfare state while,with the other,implementing policies which give billions to the Military Industrial Complex. Apparently "planning" is only dangerous to liberty when it is in the interests of the many.Defence spending (for example) has no such problems
pt8) The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. We are against the economic State." - Mussolini, "Discorso all'Augusteo", 7 November 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204
pt7) In economic terms we are liberals [That's the real liberalism in fascism Goldberg!] because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy. I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts.
pt7) In economic terms we are liberals [That's the real liberalism in fascism Goldberg!] because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy. I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts.
pt6) "In terms of economics, we are explicitly anti-socialist. I do not regret having been a socialist. But I have cut my bridges with the past. I have no nostalgia. I don't think about entering socialism but rather about LEAVING IT [emphasis added].
pt5) "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "RIGHT [emphasis added]", a Fascist century" - Giovanni Gentile, a Fascist philosopher!
@theyounghistorian77 Surely we can agree that fascist philosophers were not of the brightest of minds. Had they looked deeper into the foundations of their ideology, they would see that their political actions or endorsements were not representative of conservative thought.
Their thoughts rested upon a much different ground of philosophy...
No actually they were much in accordance with conservative thought, which is why they were allied to, put in power by, and served with traditional conservatives.
@Rundstedt1 Nope. They were not in accordance w/ conservative thought. They advocated a militaristic government along w/ a government-controlled economy, none of which is endorsed by true conservatism.
@Rundstedt1 A number of American liberal progressives and academic elites (such as George Bernard Shaw, Will Rogers, Isaac Marcosson, Nicholas Butler of Columbia University, etc.)supported the rise of Hitler and Mussolini during the 1930's. Hitler himself claimed to have received inspiration for future exterminations by supporting the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century (although a skewed religious view of anti-semetism was factored as well).
Bullshit more typical anti-intellectualism from the Right. All you do is show the connection between conservative and the Nazis. Yea I guess you have to deny reality because reality has a well known liberal bias as Colbert would say doesn't it?
"Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun!") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture & the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values." ~ Umberto Eco
@Rundstedt1 Then there is the idea that anything else that "pure" capitalism would be worse. Given their ideological embrace of the free market, the Libetarians attack those economists (like Keynes) who tried to save capitalism from itself. For the Austrian school, there is only capitalism or "socialism" (i.e. state intervention) and they cannot be combined. Any attempt to do so would, as Hayek put it in his book The Road to Serfdom, inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
@Rundstedt1 Libertarians are at the forefront in attacking the welfare state as not only counterproductive but inherently leading to fascism or,even worse, some form of state socialism. Needless to say, the state's role in creating capitalism in the first place is skilfully ignored in favour of endless praise for the "natural" system of capitalism. Nor do they realise that the victory of state intervention they so bemoan is, in part, necessary to keep capitalism going
@Rundstedt1 Not that Hayek's thesis has any empirical grounding.No state has ever become fascist due to intervening in the economy,unless a right-wing coup happens,as in Chile,but that was not his argument.Rather, dictatorial states have implemented planning rather than democratic states becoming dictatorial after intervening in the economy.Looking at the Western welfare states,the key compliant by the capitalist class in the 1960s and 1970s was not a lack of general freedom but rather too much
@MrGreenPoop1000 Workers & other oppressed but obedient sections of society were standing up for themselves and fighting the traditional hierarchies within society.This hardly fits in with serfdom, although the industrial relations which emerged in Pinochet's Chile,Thatcher's Britain and Reagan's America does.The call was for the state to defend the capitalists right to manage against wage slaves by breaking their spirit and organisation while,intervening capitalist authority in workplace
@Rundstedt1 Italy and Germany sought the destruction of economic liberty, free enterprise, and individualism. The institutions needed to be ABOLISHED in order to achieve the kind of TOTALITARIAN state they envisioned. Any existing structures of the prior state that remained were further distorted by their policies.
Well you start out with an idiotic blanket statement not backed by anything but poor revisionist crap. Certainly the right-wing dictators looked to control the nations structures conservatives usually do. We see the conservatives of today do the same thing. They try to control the information with Faux News and the myriad of well funded 'think tanks' that spew propaganda.
We see their wish to destroy all that can oppose them, from the labor unions to the innocent community grout ACORN. And we see them destroying the economic liberty of most of American by cutting needed programs and support for services.
Yes and I also know what a moron is, I'm talking to one now. Yes Acorn was absolutly innocent. Brightbart cut the tape and he never mentioned that Acorn reported what happened to the police and they just tried to get as much information out of him for that purpose. A court of law determined that he missrepresented his findings and that Acorn was totally innocent.
And the very call for a 'free-market' is a cunning way to undercut the smaller producers for they are the ones that go under in laissez faire times. Meanwhile the existing state structures are strengthened, the army, the police, and if the conservatives can get away with it, the church. And like conservatives do the big business are favored and supported, just as they do now.
@Rundstedt1 Although nationalism was used as a platform and foundation for Fascist nations, the term, "nationalism" is NOT synonomous with conservative patriotism. The term back then was largely defined by Stalin, who claimed any nationalist movement that was not of Mother Russia was right wing (hardly a fair assertion).
Also: "The Nazis could more easily defeat opponents on the left because they appealed to the same social base, used the same language, and thought in the same categories."
Sorry the nationalism is almost identical. And the conservative extreme nationalism is on display at every tea-bagger rally and in the words of the conservative pundits who call all on the other side 'Nazis' 'Communists' and even worse.
And your Stalin junk is pure shit, pulled out of thin air. More made up Beck shit probably. And you are complexly wrong everywhere, the Nazis did not appeal to the same social base as the Socialists or even the left in general. The Nazis always had the LEAST support from the working class, they have rightfully been described by historians as a conservative middle-class or petty bourgeoisie party.
@Rundstedt1 What are you talking about? Hitler despised the bourgeois society and everything it stood for. He fought tirelessly to gain the approval of workers. He would constantly show up to factories during campaigns in order to have their support.
The Nazis and the Reds tended to vote together in the Reichstag. Though they hated eachother, their foundations were similar, whether they were to admit it or not.
Look no matter what Hitler tried he still had the weakest proportional support amongst the working class. So no matter what he tried his appeal was not with the working class. And the Nazis voted against the party in power, so did the Communists, so what? They were voting from different ends for different reasons, they did not vote 'together'
"What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists' anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization -- capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation.
When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history.
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/6) For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places.
At most, they replaced [some] market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that. If fascism was "revolutionary," it was so in a special sense, far removed from the word's meaning as usually understood from 1789 to 1917, as a profound overturning of the social order and the redistribution of social, political, and economic power." p10-11
"The Nazis continued to be a catch-all party of social protest, with particularly strong support from the middle classes, and the relatively weak support from in the traditional industrial working class" Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" p295
"So compared to the general population, workers were under represented by almost half, the middle class was over represented by one third, while there was a four-fold over-representation of the elite." Donny Gluckstein, "The Nazis, Capitalism and the working Class" p88
"A clear class pattern pervaded every aspect of Nazism. The greatest vulnerability to it was to be found amongst the middle and upper classes; the greatest degree of immunity was amongst the workers." Gluckstein, Ibid, P95
"The peasantry were generally assigned in German political discourse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to that peculiar and amorphous group known by the untranslatable German appellation of 'Mittlestand'.
This term expressed in the first place the aspirations of RIGHT-WING propagandists that the people who were neither bourgeois or proletarian should have a recognized place in society. Roughly equivalent to the French 'petite bourgeoisie'...The Nazi Party programme of 1920 was indeed among other things a typical product of the FAR-RIGHT politics of the German 'Mittelstrand';" Evans Ibid, p435
@Rundstedt1 Consider this: Herman Rauschning, an early Nazi who broke with Hitler, famously dubbed Hitler's movement "The Revolution of Nihilism."
Nihilism, as you probably know, is "a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Such a philosophy was birthed from the LEFT, not the right.
Well the problem you have here is that Rauschning did not actually have the discussions with Hitler that he documents in his book. Even when past historians used it, they looked at it warily for not much he tries to say matched what we otherwise know about Hitler. His writings were always suspect but now we know for certain that they are nothing more than a FRAUD! Rauschning NEVER had the meetings he says he did.
"Now, after more than forty years, a Swiss historian has thoroughly exposed this supposed document [Rauschning's book] of Hitler's madness as completely fraudulent. Wolfgang Haenel presented the results of his research to the annual conference in May 1983 of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center in West Germany." The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3), pages 378-380
And even if the statement wasn't meaningless to begin with it is false anyway; the Nazis never exhibited ant aspects of thinking that "existence is senseless and useless" but stated quite clearly that their existence did have a purpose, and they also protected traditional values. They tried to reinforce the traditional family with marriage loans and making abortions illegal for its citizens, they attacked birth control, they stepped down on prostitution and pornography.
You and the crap you try to pass off here, this cheap unsupportable revisionism is an insult to a professionally trained and educated historians and teachers as myself. I don't need to prove you wrong; you ARE wrong and you would be laughed at, like Beck is laughed at, in any higher level history class that you tried to present this crap in. I have decades of study of the era and academia behind me, you have a silly propagandist twisting history that is derided by the real historians.
Oh yes I am and I have the credentials to prove it. All you have been doing here is restating a bogus strawman of what you perceive to be conservative, whether you gleaned it from Beck or O'Reilly or Goldberg or even Paul is inconsequential, it is still false.
And this cheap anti-intellectual revisionism spouted by the likes of you, Beck and originating from Goldberg is dangerous. "Not only does Goldberg’s tract serve to rationalize the antidemocratic resentments and anxieties of the neo-Con and Bushite electoral constituency in the U.S., it also serves to bolster the anti-liberal passions of the genuine fascist right in the U.S." Roger Griffin, Oxford
It is no accident that we see the neo Nazi group Stromfront having thier picture taken wit hthe likes of Ron Paul, even after he well knew who they were, and their fund raising and promting him on their web site. Verily, go on to one of their blogs and you will see a load of Paul supporters touting him and his virtues for president.
This anti-historical revisionism makes the re-appearance of fascism more likely by making it seem that it did not arise from where it did. It essentially tries to transfer blame onto some of its very victims. It distracts people from the real danger of Right-wing extremism. It is unsupportable, ignorant, and insulting to all who really know the issues and era.
A number of American liberal progressives and academic elites (such as George Bernard Shaw, Will Rogers, Isaac Marcosson, Nicholas Butler of Columbia University, etc.)supported the rise of Hitler and Mussolini during the 1930's. Hitler himself claimed to have received inspiration for future exterminations by supporting the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century (although a skewed religious view of anti-semetism was factored as well).
Ok what and when? All you see are passing comments that were made, mainly about Mussolini, before any facts about him or the nature of fascism were known. Churchill said glowing things about Mussolini too.
And you are just spewing Beck crap which is lies and distortions. For instance, the quote you are trying to condemn Marcosson for is actually against Mussolini, Beck just edited it, (a quote mine) to make it appear the opposite. Beck has him saying this: " "Mussolini is a Latin Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home,..." however that is completely dishonest for he leaves of the rest of the statement which is:
"but as an international factor Mussolini is just as great a danger to the peace of Europe as the Kaiser's sword used to be at Berlin. In my opinion the Corfu incident was a death blow to the League of Nations. If the League had acted peremptorily and insisted on arbitration instead of permitting Mussolini to bring Europe to the brink of another war its prestige would have been assured."
So we see here that you have been using, either knowingly or unknowingly, pure garbage. Marcosson was trying to insult Roosevelt and was being sarcastic when talking about Mussolini helping Italy.
And sorry, the eugenics movement was to be found on both sides, Churchill and Bush's father were adherents to it. It was a unfortunately considered a legitimate scientific field and found proponents on both the Left and the Right. One of the major differences is though that those on the Left were of the 'positive' type that looked to breeding and excluded race, while the Right usually made it a 'negative' issue with more drastic measures and used it as a racial tool.
"Early eugenists tacitly accepted that identification of the 'fit' with the upper classes and the 'unfit' with the lower that had long been characteristic of the older social Darwinism. [Here we see the clear connection with conservative thought, the upper class are the fit and economic success as a qualifier of fitness.]
"Their warnings about the multiplication of morons at the lower end of the social scale, and their habit of speaking of the 'fit' as if they were all native, well-to-do, college-trained citizens, sustained the old [conservative] belief that the poor are held down by biological deficiency instead of environmental conditions.
Their almost exclusive focus upon the physical and medical aspects of human life hepped to distract the public attention from the broad problems of social welfare.", Richard Hofstadter, "Social Darwinism in American Thought" p163
One of the first benefactors of eugenics in the United States was the Carnegie Institute. [which can hardly be considered leftist] Following an infusion of bonds and other assets totaling $14 million from the founder in 1901, the Institute was re-chartered by a special act of congress in 1904. The institute soon added a new science to their principal areas of investigations, negative eugenics.
J.P Morgan and Henry Ford were also supporters of eugenics so it can hardly be considered a left-wing issue. Is was what it was, a wrong turn in science that was unfortunately picked up by many before it was found to be false and discarded. And let's not forget that Prescott Bush was a supporter of eugenics also
So again, there were many adherents to eugenics that were Right Wing and conservative, like as previously mentioned Prescott Bush, Ford, Churchill and the conservative republican congressman Albert Johnson who was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled.
"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World". Henry Kissinger, 1974 –And then as Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Kissinger targeted 13 countries for depopulation.
Abortion is not 'depopulation' it is the last resort of Birth control and a personal choice, just like birth control it self which is equally not 'depopulation'
@Rundstedt1 It infringes on the right of another, but that's another debate entirely. Abortion decreases the population. Doesn't matter what it's supposed to do; the result is depopulation.
Yes the stupid right to life laws certainly infringe upon the rights of others, and it does not result in 'depopulation' that takes concerted effort like when the Right wing and capitalists go in and murders entire groups of people like the Native Americans.
@Rundstedt1 Despite your numerous comments of regurgitated "evidence" based upon skewed perception (not to mention the continued ramblings of Hitler maintaining a parliamentary democracy), the fact remains that true American Conservative principles do not support Fascist principles.
True conservatives (ie. a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln) would NEVER agree or support Hitler's words and actions; he was the despotic tyrant they warned about and fought against.
Jeeze where to start on your poor revisionism. First of all we have here been relating to you the real world standard history and have used a plethora of sources to confirm that. Second I have nowhere said that Hitler maintained a parliamentary democracy, but that:
Conservatism believes in the equality of opportunity while liberalism believes in the equality of outcomes. Hitler believed more in the latter than the former, considering that he did not give certain people opportunities to thrive in Germany.
Really so you try to call the very best historians of the period illegitimate? what a joke, yea you probably think that all the scientists are illegitimate because they confrim evolution. And then a stupid strawman deffinition that bears no relation to reality, typical and typiclly sad anti-intellectualism
The status quo for Germany, that is; the conservative position, was NOT for parliamentary democracy! It had only been a democracy for a short time. The conservatives never accepted the Weimar gov't, and they looked back to the years of the Kaiser and authoritarian gov't for the maintenance of order like the conservatives they were. And the conservatives got just what they wanted.
Authortian like telling you who you can marry, how you can have sex, what morals are 'correct' just like you are tying to impose your authoritarisnism.
@Rundstedt1 You clearly do not know what real conservatism is. It is NOT the policies or ideas of W. Bush, Beck, Oreilly, Hannity, or even Reagan for that matter.
Modern Conservatism has its roots in classical liberalism, which dates back to the philosopher's of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. The intentions behind their ideas were to SEPERATE church and state, but to also incorporate the natural rights philosophy within government... (Continued.)
@MrGreenPoop1000 The high point of Platonic and Aristotilian philosophy came when the Declaration of Independence was born, and boldly stated that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue their own dreams, their own happiness. The founders of America also stated that despotism was a great evil that must be prevented with a partnership of human freedom and a republican/democratic government.
Hitler agreed with NONE of these assertions or beliefs.... (Continued)
Haha, no it is you that has tried to repeatedly strawman the concept of conservative into a narrow self-serving focus that bears no relation to reality or any existence. Your trying to disassociate it from its own very well known only shows your complete lack of integrity. And Liberalism has its roots in classical liberalism also. And of you want to bring in the Greek philosophers than almost EVERYTHING in western society could be relate back to them including Marx.
@MrGreenPoop1000 Dude seriously, this isn't the Rocky Series. You're not going to get up from this pounding. All accredited academia has recognized fascism as right wing. So just fucking deal with it! Just because you're right wing doesn't ostensibly make you a fascist. And you've been inconsistent this whole exchange. Give it a rest already......GAME OVER!!!!!!!!!
@Rundstedt1 The high point of Platonic and Aristotilian philosophy came when the Declaration of Independence was born, and boldly stated that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue their own dreams, their own happiness. The founders of America also stated that despotism was a great evil that must be prevented with a partnership of human freedom and a republican/democratic government.
Hitler agreed with NONE of these assertions or beliefs.... (Continued)
Oh Bullshit. Neither Plato nor Aristotle were very democratic, the American Revolution has more roots in the closer philosophies of Rousseau than Plato. And the again the founding fathers were the LIBERALS, not the conservatives of the time you state; the conservatives were the one supporting despotism. So as I said many times before conservatives supporting despotism is nothing unusual. All you do again is prove Russel correct in your amatuer philosophizing
@Rundstedt1 Hitler did NOT believe in the freedom of the press, the freedom of who one can marry, the freedom and rights of certain individuals. He did NOT declare everyone to be equal under a common humanity; he constructed his own heirarchy to determine who was better and most fit to move on.
The philosophical foundations of Hitler - and Mussolini for that matter - were mired in the liberal concepts of nihilism and historicism (endorsed by Macchiaveli, Calhoun, and Marx). (continued)
And for all those reasons is why he was on the conservative side; for the conservatives there did not support those things either, and neither did the conservatives in the US then, or even really now. Once again because you only continue to ignore facts and make up your own illegitimate parameters:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility. Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -
- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." - Sir Alan Bullock from "Adolf Hitler"
Or in other words: he was against everything that was 'Leftist'
@Rundstedt1 Nihilism and Historicism is also endorsed by a majority of today's political scientists and scholars. I do NOT despise elites; I simply stand in stark disagreement with the elites who endorse such concepts.
And if you desire to find those who suppressed the freedom of their citizens, look no further than Teddy Rosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. They were all progressive and believed in the very concepts of historicism and nihilism. I don't consider that to be coincidental.
@Rundstedt1 Today's conservatives are substantially different from their conservative brethren of old, who believed in freedom of choice to citizens, so long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others. And while they endorsed governments founded upon Christian principles and classical liberalism, they did NOT endorse the fusion of religion and the state; Hitler and Mussolini did this anyway, and incorporated nihilistic tyranny through their actions.
Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social or economic structure and the power of the existing elites. Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.
@Rundstedt1 First of all, these progressives were very racist. Eisenhower created the first Civil Rights bill which 80% of republicans supported, but was voted down by LBJ and the democrats (and it was Richard Nixon who separated the schools btw).
And "a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social or economic structure and the power of the existing elites." That's quite the broad generalization. Here's further reason why Hitler was leftist in both his philosophy and actions:
“Although the partisans who are fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors [communists and fascists], their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same themes, and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words. Their weapons are the coercive direction of the life and labor of mankind..Their promise is that through the power of the state men can be happy.”
@Rundstedt1 Though Hitler hated communism, there were still similarities: In Friedrich von Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek emphasized that “the Nazis extended quite easily to the Soviet Union... and even to the 'creeping socialism' of the United States.” In addition, he believed “well-intentioned socialists laid the foundations of Nazism, because centralized power, with leaders bent upon social planning, is incompatible with freedom, argued Hayek,” (McAllister 38-39).
@Rundstedt1 On of the main contrasts between Hitler and conservatism is that the latter does not believe a utopian society will ever be achieved (at least on this earth). But the Nazis and the Soviets shared the same goal of creating utopia for their respective nations.
Also, Consider the following definitions of fascism and communism, bearing in mind the similarities of governmental structure and leadership:
@Rundstedt1 Fascism: a system led by a dictator having COMPLETE power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting ALL industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Communism: a system of social organization in which ALL economic and social activity is controlled by a TOTALITARIAN state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
And both were nationalist in the sense that they both loved their country in a very extreme form.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Rundstedt1 In both Germany and the Soviet Union, the societies were controlled in virtually every aspect by a singular party that successfully aimed to quelch possible dissent (just as Stalin and Hitler did w/ their purges). Both desired, respectively, to have their regime as the supreme power of the modern world. And because of these aspirations, it was both natural and inevitable for these tyrants to wage war against one another, for supreme power is reserved for one leader, not two.
@Rundstedt1 Philosophically, Hitler embodied Nietzsche's "Ubermensch". And despite his vision, “there is always the danger, even from Nietzsche's view, that only the worst men.. will listen to his advice". Being revolutionary, he approved of extremism in order to abolish morality. “He sees a necessity for an apocalypse. He looks..to great wars as an important part of the great politics of the future. He speaks approvingly of eugenics.. and in favor of merciless extinctions of inferior races."
@Rundstedt1 As was the case with Rousseau, Nietzsche did not intend for a ruthless barbarian like Hitler to be the catalyst of his ideas, and the subsequent integration of those ideas into the political realm. But as is most always the case with modern idealists, the dream of a new humanity becomes quite difficult if human nature’s darkness is not taken into account. Nietzsche's other link to fascism is as follows:
@Rundstedt1 “If Marx is linked to communism, then Nietzsche is linked to fascism.. This connection is not resolved by claiming he was no fascist, that he was a critic of nationalism, and that he would've loathed Hitler..he abused Nietzsche' words, but his words are easy to abuse..A man who counsels men to be dangerously must expect dangerous men like [Hitler]... Nietzsche praises cruelty and condemns pity w/o reflecting sufficiently on.. what the effect of such a view will be on cruel men.”
@Rundstedt1 The myth of Hitler being Christian has been said by many. But his association was more for political expediency than his actual beliefs. Hitler was no atheist, but a religion was forced upon the rest of Germany: the worship and utter devotion of himself. In the public's eyes, he had a deep love of an “Aryan” Jesus who fought the Jewish “brood of vipers,” an biblical distortion. But In private, he considered himself greater than religion, and above the divinity of Christ.
@Rundstedt1 Thus, the enforcement of his egocentric views ironically became a contradiction of his public view of Christianity. These alleged “conservative” views of religion Hitler professed were hardly genuine and extremely foreign to its dogmas. In the words of the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels stated that “the insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption really doesn’t fit at all into our time.” (Eric Metaxas. Bonhoeffer, et all.. Page 166. Thomas Nelson, 2010)
@Rundstedt1 “Hitler’s ethical views do not comport well with traditional morality.He based morals that were different from conservatives. Hitler’s morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor Kant’s categorical imperative,but a repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the criteria for morality. The Darwinian struggle for existence, especially the struggle between races, became the sole arbiter.” (Weikart 210)
@Rundstedt1 Examples of this came when they replaced traditional churches w/ the Reich Church.The Reich began to show their feelings on religion through the devotion to Hitler. Stefanie Mackenson of the Pomeranian Confessing Church was confronted by the party on Christianity. In the proceedings, she was asked: 'in the case of conflict, whom would you obey: the Jew Christ or Adolf Hitler?”Her answer: “Christ alone." She was removed from the party, but later re-instated only as a passive member.
@Rundstedt1 It is therefore unfounded to conclude that since Hitler claimed to be Christian and constructed a Reich Church, he was far-right because the majority of modern conservatives attend Christian churches. In any event, it was quite the contrast: “Hitler felt that Christianity, with its teachings of universal love and turning the other cheek, was antagonistic of his goals of conquest and domination – but he sought to use the church to support those goals,” (Gonzalez Ch. 26, 308).
@Rundstedt1 As illustrated before, many of the utopian goals of modern liberalism have tended to be ill-founded by the premise of their “good” intentions and the rejection of any organiztion who apply that same intent in a manner they don't approve of. This premise is common among the utopian ranks, who become blinded with their own subjectivity in regards to action.
This happened w/ eugenics, where many prominent LIBERALS supported the program, namely Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger:
@Rundstedt1 In her writings, she clearly and consistently stated her discontent of pity for the feeble-minded and the “absurd” insistence of keeping them alive at the expense of other. In "the Pivot of Civilization", Sanger prefaced an epigraph:
“The fostering of the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is cruelty. It is a deliberate storing up of miseries for future generations. There is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.”
@Rundstedt1 Before WWII, Adolf Hitler told a New York Times correspondent that he had “sympathy for Mr. [Franklin] Roosevelt because he marches straight forward his objectives over Congress, lobbies, and beauracracy.” He later described himself as the only European leader who expressed “understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt,” (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Pg. 244, Question 31, point 6.)
And in regards to the whole "War-mongering" right wingers, consider this:
@Rundstedt1 “The Progressive movement, a child of [modern] liberalism, was overwhelmingly sympathetic rather than hostile to the tendency toward American territorial expansion and foreign policy assertiveness, and... just as an invigorated federal government would achieve order and 'social jusitce' at home, and interventionist foreign policy would spread the benefits of Progressivism around the world.” (Woods 53.) *Example used was the Spanish-American War and WWI.
@MrReco12 Hitler to Reagan? Whoever compares that is an idiot (including Mr. Degrell).
David Overy is a distinguished historian as well and he states that Hitler was anti-capitalist along w/ Stalin.
"experts" at trials are not the end all be all. Experts can end up being discredited when they don't have their facts right. The Nazis had a command economy that controlled every aspect. And they exploited slave labor, just as the Soviets did. Are communists "right-wing" as well?
@MrReco12 And I can "claim" to be a conservative, but if I am foreign to every part of its platform, then how can it be true? That's like saying, "I'm Christian, but I just hate others and want people I don't like exterminated and want to force everyone else into believing what I believe" (a complete biblical distortion).
Read my previous posts in their entirety. If still not satisfied, I can tell you about Hitler's view of "equality" and its contrast to modern conservatism...
No sorry, as demonstrated the verdict has long been in, and no matter your dishonest quote mines, twisting, and your piss-assed poor sources like the non-historian hack Hayek who has also been shown to be a fool on the subject or And Woods, who being another Austrian economist hack has no qualification to speak on the topic and is also a member of the "League of the South" as racist quasi fascist organization. What a joke.
And this cheap anti-intellectual revisionism spouted by the likes of you, Beck, and originating from Goldberg is dangerous.
And the real, and universally respected historians of the era agree.
"Not only does Goldberg’s tract serve to rationalize the antidemocratic resentments and anxieties of the neo-Con and Bushite electoral constituency in the U.S., it also serves to bolster the anti-liberal passions of the genuine fascist right in the U.S." Roger Griffin, Oxford
It is no accident that we see the neo Nazi group Stromfront having their picture taken with the likes of Ron Paul, even after he well knew who they were, and their fund raising and promoting him on their web site. Verily, go on to one of their blogs and you will see a load of Paul supporter touting him and his virtues for president.
This anti-historical revisionism makes the re-appearance of fascism more likely by making it seem that it did not arise from where it did. It essentially tries to transfer blame onto some of its very victims. It distracts people from the real danger of Right-wing extremism. It is unsupportable, ignorant, and insulting to all who really know the issues and era.
"Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron, of course...But the problems go much deeper... Pushing Liberalism and Fascism together requires distorting both terms...Goldberg hijacks scholarly work and applies it in misleading ways for his own purposes...If you are looking for some reasoned arguments about the politics of our time, you will find both liberalism and fascism grossly distorted in this tract."
"Goldberg’s book perverts historical and historiographical truth with the scarcely hidden agenda (perhaps the real ‘secret’ alluded to unwittingly in the subtitle) of tarring and feathering with negative, anti-democratic, and inhumane connotations a broad current of reformist policy and social justice campaigns which has for decades been a legitimate current of liberalism within U.S. democracy (and not exclusively the Democratic sector of it).
It does so with the blatant aim of making this current guilty (by association) of some of the most heinous crimes ever committed against humanity. It is a work of sustained pseudo-historical calumny and defamation disguised under the (constantly slipping) carnival mask of an ‘alternative history’." - Robert Paxton, Oxford
And the other major historians of the period agree.
"Liberal Fascism is to be seen as a mischievous exercise in party-political journalism writ large as a pseudo-academic monograph, its revisionism far removed from that of a legitimate academic exercise in rethinking a basic historical issue from a fresh angle."
"Not only does Goldberg’s tract serve to rationalize the antidemocratic resentments and anxieties of the neo-Con and Bushite electoral constituency in the U.S., it also serves to bolster the anti-liberal passions of the genuine fascist right in the U.S." "An Academic Book — Not!"
"This book is selective of facts and irresponsible of interpretation to the point historical obfuscation... In sum, Liberal Fascism is less a work of neutral scholarship or unbiased journalism than thinly veiled historical revisionism." Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions
By Matthew Feldman
Nazis Germany had a capitalist gov't and this is well recognized by historical circles.
"Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people's net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor.
Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had. In the end, the aristocracy's power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany's future political elite.
Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual CAPITALIST profit motive." - Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500
And the entire "small" gov't ideology is a sham. The size of gov't is dictated by the needs of society. All the 'small' gov't proponents do is to shift the functions onto the unaccountable and self serving private sector. It creates a Feudal structure where wealth and power is shifted even more to the top.
"Under feudalism, the elements of political authority are powers that are held personally by individuals, not by enduring political institutions. These powers are held as a matter of private contractual right. Individuals gradually acquire the power to make, apply, and enforce rules by forging a series of private contracts with particular individuals or families."
"Oaths of fealty or service are sworn in exchange for similar or compensating benefits. Those who exercise political power wield it on behalf of others pursuant to their private contractual relation and only so long as their contract is in force. Since different services are provided to people, there is no notion of a uniform public law that is to be impartially applied to all individuals."
Libertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity."
-
Samuel Freeman, “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151.
"Fascist regimes functioned like an epoxy: an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left, and a shared willingness to stop at nothing to destroy their common enemies." Robert O. Paxton. "The Anatomy of Fascism", p147
All fascism did was combine conservatism with a new populist energy, just like the Rightwing teabaggers
The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e. conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are just acting in a consistently conservative manner.
Your first supposition is made up and unsupportable, as is your second also. Washington also suppressed the freedom of his citizens, but you probably never heard of the Whiskey rebellion did you? Jackson suppressed and murdered his citizens in Georgia by forcibly removing them and stealing their land. And I'm talking here of the 'civilized tribes' of the Cherokee who had written language and more newspapers than the mainly illiterate whites who were trying to replace them.
And again you pull the stupid 'true conservative' BS, which is nothing more than a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Just like the Christian creationist calling a person from another sect "not a true Christian" it lacks in equal validity.
The Pope will tell you he a representative of 'true Christianity' and many others will try to make the equal claim. It is again just the denial of different sects of the same thing. And no matter how much you try to deny it, it has been shown here succinctly with irrefutable academic sources that Hitler was on the same side as the conservatives. He may have actually gone beyond that, but it doesn't change the fact that he aligned and shared most of their ideology.
@Rundstedt1 No Christian can claim to be a true representative b/c all are human, which automatically disqualifies them from heavenly perfection.
Just because a fish may claim to be a mammal does NOT make it one. In the same sense, it is not sufficient to say that b/c some Nazis considered themselves far right does not necesarily make it so.
Ahh the perfect example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. and once again the verdict is in and long has been, the Nazis were far right and they are properly described as much in history and academic writing, and it even is proved in the titles of some of the academic sources such as: "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right"
Second plenty of Americans conservatives directly supported fascist principles. And not in the vague diplomatic words out of international polity or ignorance of the reality, that you may try to use, but real actions and allegiance. The America First committee was a quasi-fascist conservative organization, Lindberg strongly supported the fascist cause and was refused an Army position because of that when war came.
Henry Ford was given a fascist medal which he refused to return even after the war started and published an anti-Semitic newspaper. The DuPont's were involved in the attempted fascist coup against FDR that was broken-up by Smedley Butler. And indeed many American conservatives like the Bush family even continued to try and support the fascist cause even after the war was brought to the US.
And it is also clear that contemporary American conservatives support a fascist like principles. We see it in the poorly veiled racism of the tea-baggers, and the anti-labor policies and nativism conservatives routinely express. We see it in the imperial actions taken on part of American hegemony by the last spate of conservative presidents.
Conservative principles look to support the very same moneyed interests that the fascists supported, the very same big business. We see it in their disregard for human rights, and support of torture. Their constant use of scapegoating. O'reilly and Limbaugh, and of course Beck, are always railing about the evil 'Muslims' and trying to convince their listeners that every Muslim is a terrorist and all leftists are evil.
Козёл и провокатор.
TheVarsenya 1 week ago
JONAH GOLDBERG DENIES THE HOLOCAUST!
In "Liberal Fascism" he says "while a few homosexuals were killed..."
He denies and "poo poos" the Nazi slaughter of LGBT people. Look it up!
ClevelandFIST 6 months ago
Leave it to an emotional liberal to change the subject to the "horrors" of right winger's stances on gay marriage and abortion. The idea that a women can't choose to end the life of her developing child is truly sickening. Funny how the overwhelming majority of the nation repudiates gay marriage; Wherever citizens are permitted to vote in favor or in opposition to gay marriage, traditional marriage has been upheld. However, that doesn't stop the courts from completely negating those votes...
Mackberserk 6 months ago
pt9) Sorry but Goldberg isn't going to convince me anytime soon. I've already gone through The entire nazi segment of Beck's silly documentary, It's clear neither Goldberg or Beck know what their talking about, and their quote mines, distortions and strawman definitions of political concepts do not impress me, infact i've never seen a convincing argument from these fools!
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago 8
@theyounghistorian77 I have.
Suarez23 11 months ago
@Suarez23
You have what?
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago
@theyounghistorian77 Similarly,it goes without saying Hayek's thesis was extremely selectively applied.It is strange to see,for example,Conservative politicians clutching Hayek's Road to Serfdom with one hand and using it to defend cutting the welfare state while,with the other,implementing policies which give billions to the Military Industrial Complex. Apparently "planning" is only dangerous to liberty when it is in the interests of the many.Defence spending (for example) has no such problems
zsylvana 11 months ago
pt8) The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. We are against the economic State." - Mussolini, "Discorso all'Augusteo", 7 November 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pt7) In economic terms we are liberals [That's the real liberalism in fascism Goldberg!] because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy. I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts.
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pt7) In economic terms we are liberals [That's the real liberalism in fascism Goldberg!] because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy. I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts.
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pt6) "In terms of economics, we are explicitly anti-socialist. I do not regret having been a socialist. But I have cut my bridges with the past. I have no nostalgia. I don't think about entering socialism but rather about LEAVING IT [emphasis added].
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago
pt5) "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "RIGHT [emphasis added]", a Fascist century" - Giovanni Gentile, a Fascist philosopher!
theyounghistorian77 11 months ago
@theyounghistorian77 Surely we can agree that fascist philosophers were not of the brightest of minds. Had they looked deeper into the foundations of their ideology, they would see that their political actions or endorsements were not representative of conservative thought.
Their thoughts rested upon a much different ground of philosophy...
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
No actually they were much in accordance with conservative thought, which is why they were allied to, put in power by, and served with traditional conservatives.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Nope. They were not in accordance w/ conservative thought. They advocated a militaristic government along w/ a government-controlled economy, none of which is endorsed by true conservatism.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
And as I clearly showed, so did and do many conservatives throughout the world. You just conveniently ignore that.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 A number of American liberal progressives and academic elites (such as George Bernard Shaw, Will Rogers, Isaac Marcosson, Nicholas Butler of Columbia University, etc.)supported the rise of Hitler and Mussolini during the 1930's. Hitler himself claimed to have received inspiration for future exterminations by supporting the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century (although a skewed religious view of anti-semetism was factored as well).
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Repeat Spam
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 All I've stated is true. Your spam is quite putrid even with the facade of "academic" elitism.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/2)
Bullshit more typical anti-intellectualism from the Right. All you do is show the connection between conservative and the Nazis. Yea I guess you have to deny reality because reality has a well known liberal bias as Colbert would say doesn't it?
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Mr (2/2)
"Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun!") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture & the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values." ~ Umberto Eco
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Then there is the idea that anything else that "pure" capitalism would be worse. Given their ideological embrace of the free market, the Libetarians attack those economists (like Keynes) who tried to save capitalism from itself. For the Austrian school, there is only capitalism or "socialism" (i.e. state intervention) and they cannot be combined. Any attempt to do so would, as Hayek put it in his book The Road to Serfdom, inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
zsylvana 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Libertarians are at the forefront in attacking the welfare state as not only counterproductive but inherently leading to fascism or,even worse, some form of state socialism. Needless to say, the state's role in creating capitalism in the first place is skilfully ignored in favour of endless praise for the "natural" system of capitalism. Nor do they realise that the victory of state intervention they so bemoan is, in part, necessary to keep capitalism going
zsylvana 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Not that Hayek's thesis has any empirical grounding.No state has ever become fascist due to intervening in the economy,unless a right-wing coup happens,as in Chile,but that was not his argument.Rather, dictatorial states have implemented planning rather than democratic states becoming dictatorial after intervening in the economy.Looking at the Western welfare states,the key compliant by the capitalist class in the 1960s and 1970s was not a lack of general freedom but rather too much
zsylvana 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Workers & other oppressed but obedient sections of society were standing up for themselves and fighting the traditional hierarchies within society.This hardly fits in with serfdom, although the industrial relations which emerged in Pinochet's Chile,Thatcher's Britain and Reagan's America does.The call was for the state to defend the capitalists right to manage against wage slaves by breaking their spirit and organisation while,intervening capitalist authority in workplace
zsylvana 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Italy and Germany sought the destruction of economic liberty, free enterprise, and individualism. The institutions needed to be ABOLISHED in order to achieve the kind of TOTALITARIAN state they envisioned. Any existing structures of the prior state that remained were further distorted by their policies.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/3)
Well you start out with an idiotic blanket statement not backed by anything but poor revisionist crap. Certainly the right-wing dictators looked to control the nations structures conservatives usually do. We see the conservatives of today do the same thing. They try to control the information with Faux News and the myriad of well funded 'think tanks' that spew propaganda.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/3)
We see their wish to destroy all that can oppose them, from the labor unions to the innocent community grout ACORN. And we see them destroying the economic liberty of most of American by cutting needed programs and support for services.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 ACORN? Innocent?..... Do you know what an oxymoron is?
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Yes and I also know what a moron is, I'm talking to one now. Yes Acorn was absolutly innocent. Brightbart cut the tape and he never mentioned that Acorn reported what happened to the police and they just tried to get as much information out of him for that purpose. A court of law determined that he missrepresented his findings and that Acorn was totally innocent.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/3)
And the very call for a 'free-market' is a cunning way to undercut the smaller producers for they are the ones that go under in laissez faire times. Meanwhile the existing state structures are strengthened, the army, the police, and if the conservatives can get away with it, the church. And like conservatives do the big business are favored and supported, just as they do now.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Although nationalism was used as a platform and foundation for Fascist nations, the term, "nationalism" is NOT synonomous with conservative patriotism. The term back then was largely defined by Stalin, who claimed any nationalist movement that was not of Mother Russia was right wing (hardly a fair assertion).
Also: "The Nazis could more easily defeat opponents on the left because they appealed to the same social base, used the same language, and thought in the same categories."
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/8)
Sorry the nationalism is almost identical. And the conservative extreme nationalism is on display at every tea-bagger rally and in the words of the conservative pundits who call all on the other side 'Nazis' 'Communists' and even worse.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/8)
And your Stalin junk is pure shit, pulled out of thin air. More made up Beck shit probably. And you are complexly wrong everywhere, the Nazis did not appeal to the same social base as the Socialists or even the left in general. The Nazis always had the LEAST support from the working class, they have rightfully been described by historians as a conservative middle-class or petty bourgeoisie party.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 What are you talking about? Hitler despised the bourgeois society and everything it stood for. He fought tirelessly to gain the approval of workers. He would constantly show up to factories during campaigns in order to have their support.
The Nazis and the Reds tended to vote together in the Reichstag. Though they hated eachother, their foundations were similar, whether they were to admit it or not.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/6)
Look no matter what Hitler tried he still had the weakest proportional support amongst the working class. So no matter what he tried his appeal was not with the working class. And the Nazis voted against the party in power, so did the Communists, so what? They were voting from different ends for different reasons, they did not vote 'together'
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/6)
"What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists' anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization -- capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/6)
When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/6) For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (5/6)
At most, they replaced [some] market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that. If fascism was "revolutionary," it was so in a special sense, far removed from the word's meaning as usually understood from 1789 to 1917, as a profound overturning of the social order and the redistribution of social, political, and economic power." p10-11
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1 (6/6)
Robert O. Paxton. "The Anatomy of Fascism"
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/8)
"The Nazis continued to be a catch-all party of social protest, with particularly strong support from the middle classes, and the relatively weak support from in the traditional industrial working class" Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" p295
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/8)
"So compared to the general population, workers were under represented by almost half, the middle class was over represented by one third, while there was a four-fold over-representation of the elite." Donny Gluckstein, "The Nazis, Capitalism and the working Class" p88
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (5/8)
"A clear class pattern pervaded every aspect of Nazism. The greatest vulnerability to it was to be found amongst the middle and upper classes; the greatest degree of immunity was amongst the workers." Gluckstein, Ibid, P95
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (6/8)
"The peasantry were generally assigned in German political discourse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to that peculiar and amorphous group known by the untranslatable German appellation of 'Mittlestand'.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (7/8)
This term expressed in the first place the aspirations of RIGHT-WING propagandists that the people who were neither bourgeois or proletarian should have a recognized place in society. Roughly equivalent to the French 'petite bourgeoisie'...The Nazi Party programme of 1920 was indeed among other things a typical product of the FAR-RIGHT politics of the German 'Mittelstrand';" Evans Ibid, p435
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (8/8)
So like the conservatives today, the fascists tried to appeal mainly to the conservative middle class to support a solidly pro-big business agenda.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Consider this: Herman Rauschning, an early Nazi who broke with Hitler, famously dubbed Hitler's movement "The Revolution of Nihilism."
Nihilism, as you probably know, is "a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Such a philosophy was birthed from the LEFT, not the right.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/3)
Well the problem you have here is that Rauschning did not actually have the discussions with Hitler that he documents in his book. Even when past historians used it, they looked at it warily for not much he tries to say matched what we otherwise know about Hitler. His writings were always suspect but now we know for certain that they are nothing more than a FRAUD! Rauschning NEVER had the meetings he says he did.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/3)
"Now, after more than forty years, a Swiss historian has thoroughly exposed this supposed document [Rauschning's book] of Hitler's madness as completely fraudulent. Wolfgang Haenel presented the results of his research to the annual conference in May 1983 of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center in West Germany." The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3), pages 378-380
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/3)
And even if the statement wasn't meaningless to begin with it is false anyway; the Nazis never exhibited ant aspects of thinking that "existence is senseless and useless" but stated quite clearly that their existence did have a purpose, and they also protected traditional values. They tried to reinforce the traditional family with marriage loans and making abortions illegal for its citizens, they attacked birth control, they stepped down on prostitution and pornography.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 So many comments. I'm curious as to why you are so determined to prove me wrong....
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@Gr (1/4)
You and the crap you try to pass off here, this cheap unsupportable revisionism is an insult to a professionally trained and educated historians and teachers as myself. I don't need to prove you wrong; you ARE wrong and you would be laughed at, like Beck is laughed at, in any higher level history class that you tried to present this crap in. I have decades of study of the era and academia behind me, you have a silly propagandist twisting history that is derided by the real historians.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 I have no association with Beck. And you are not the supposed "expert" you claim to be.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Oh yes I am and I have the credentials to prove it. All you have been doing here is restating a bogus strawman of what you perceive to be conservative, whether you gleaned it from Beck or O'Reilly or Goldberg or even Paul is inconsequential, it is still false.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/4)
And this cheap anti-intellectual revisionism spouted by the likes of you, Beck and originating from Goldberg is dangerous. "Not only does Goldberg’s tract serve to rationalize the antidemocratic resentments and anxieties of the neo-Con and Bushite electoral constituency in the U.S., it also serves to bolster the anti-liberal passions of the genuine fascist right in the U.S." Roger Griffin, Oxford
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/4)
It is no accident that we see the neo Nazi group Stromfront having thier picture taken wit hthe likes of Ron Paul, even after he well knew who they were, and their fund raising and promting him on their web site. Verily, go on to one of their blogs and you will see a load of Paul supporters touting him and his virtues for president.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Ron Paul isn't a fair representation of Republicans or conservatives. He's a member of a fringe group.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
So I guess nobody is a 'conservative' than. You see what a joke you make.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/4)
This anti-historical revisionism makes the re-appearance of fascism more likely by making it seem that it did not arise from where it did. It essentially tries to transfer blame onto some of its very victims. It distracts people from the real danger of Right-wing extremism. It is unsupportable, ignorant, and insulting to all who really know the issues and era.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
A number of American liberal progressives and academic elites (such as George Bernard Shaw, Will Rogers, Isaac Marcosson, Nicholas Butler of Columbia University, etc.)supported the rise of Hitler and Mussolini during the 1930's. Hitler himself claimed to have received inspiration for future exterminations by supporting the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century (although a skewed religious view of anti-semetism was factored as well).
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/12)
Ok what and when? All you see are passing comments that were made, mainly about Mussolini, before any facts about him or the nature of fascism were known. Churchill said glowing things about Mussolini too.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@GreenPoop (2/12)
And you are just spewing Beck crap which is lies and distortions. For instance, the quote you are trying to condemn Marcosson for is actually against Mussolini, Beck just edited it, (a quote mine) to make it appear the opposite. Beck has him saying this: " "Mussolini is a Latin Roosevelt who first acts and then inquires if it is legal. He has been of great service to Italy at home,..." however that is completely dishonest for he leaves of the rest of the statement which is:
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/12)
"but as an international factor Mussolini is just as great a danger to the peace of Europe as the Kaiser's sword used to be at Berlin. In my opinion the Corfu incident was a death blow to the League of Nations. If the League had acted peremptorily and insisted on arbitration instead of permitting Mussolini to bring Europe to the brink of another war its prestige would have been assured."
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/12)
So we see here that you have been using, either knowingly or unknowingly, pure garbage. Marcosson was trying to insult Roosevelt and was being sarcastic when talking about Mussolini helping Italy.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (5/12)
And sorry, the eugenics movement was to be found on both sides, Churchill and Bush's father were adherents to it. It was a unfortunately considered a legitimate scientific field and found proponents on both the Left and the Right. One of the major differences is though that those on the Left were of the 'positive' type that looked to breeding and excluded race, while the Right usually made it a 'negative' issue with more drastic measures and used it as a racial tool.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (6/12)
"Early eugenists tacitly accepted that identification of the 'fit' with the upper classes and the 'unfit' with the lower that had long been characteristic of the older social Darwinism. [Here we see the clear connection with conservative thought, the upper class are the fit and economic success as a qualifier of fitness.]
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (7/12)
"Their warnings about the multiplication of morons at the lower end of the social scale, and their habit of speaking of the 'fit' as if they were all native, well-to-do, college-trained citizens, sustained the old [conservative] belief that the poor are held down by biological deficiency instead of environmental conditions.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (8/12)
Their almost exclusive focus upon the physical and medical aspects of human life hepped to distract the public attention from the broad problems of social welfare.", Richard Hofstadter, "Social Darwinism in American Thought" p163
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (9/12)
One of the first benefactors of eugenics in the United States was the Carnegie Institute. [which can hardly be considered leftist] Following an infusion of bonds and other assets totaling $14 million from the founder in 1901, the Institute was re-chartered by a special act of congress in 1904. The institute soon added a new science to their principal areas of investigations, negative eugenics.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (10/12)
J.P Morgan and Henry Ford were also supporters of eugenics so it can hardly be considered a left-wing issue. Is was what it was, a wrong turn in science that was unfortunately picked up by many before it was found to be false and discarded. And let's not forget that Prescott Bush was a supporter of eugenics also
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (11/12)
So again, there were many adherents to eugenics that were Right Wing and conservative, like as previously mentioned Prescott Bush, Ford, Churchill and the conservative republican congressman Albert Johnson who was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the mentally disabled.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (12/12)
And more recently conservative Henry Kissinger:
"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World". Henry Kissinger, 1974 –And then as Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Kissinger targeted 13 countries for depopulation.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Depopulation? You mean like the depopulation proposed by those in favor of abortions?
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Abortion is not 'depopulation' it is the last resort of Birth control and a personal choice, just like birth control it self which is equally not 'depopulation'
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 It infringes on the right of another, but that's another debate entirely. Abortion decreases the population. Doesn't matter what it's supposed to do; the result is depopulation.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Yes the stupid right to life laws certainly infringe upon the rights of others, and it does not result in 'depopulation' that takes concerted effort like when the Right wing and capitalists go in and murders entire groups of people like the Native Americans.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Nixon was quite liberal on a number of policies.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Despite your numerous comments of regurgitated "evidence" based upon skewed perception (not to mention the continued ramblings of Hitler maintaining a parliamentary democracy), the fact remains that true American Conservative principles do not support Fascist principles.
True conservatives (ie. a George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln) would NEVER agree or support Hitler's words and actions; he was the despotic tyrant they warned about and fought against.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/10)
Jeeze where to start on your poor revisionism. First of all we have here been relating to you the real world standard history and have used a plethora of sources to confirm that. Second I have nowhere said that Hitler maintained a parliamentary democracy, but that:
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Your sources are hardly legitimate.
Conservatism believes in the equality of opportunity while liberalism believes in the equality of outcomes. Hitler believed more in the latter than the former, considering that he did not give certain people opportunities to thrive in Germany.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Really so you try to call the very best historians of the period illegitimate? what a joke, yea you probably think that all the scientists are illegitimate because they confrim evolution. And then a stupid strawman deffinition that bears no relation to reality, typical and typiclly sad anti-intellectualism
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Actually Overy refers to Hitler as a dirigiste capitalist in his book "War and Economy in the Third Reich"
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 I guess you think the Nazis weren't totalitarians if they didn't totally control all areas of society, am I right?
Iisdabest889 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/10)
The status quo for Germany, that is; the conservative position, was NOT for parliamentary democracy! It had only been a democracy for a short time. The conservatives never accepted the Weimar gov't, and they looked back to the years of the Kaiser and authoritarian gov't for the maintenance of order like the conservatives they were. And the conservatives got just what they wanted.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Authoritarian? You mean like that of Stalinist Russia?
American conservatism (i.e. classical liberalism) does not approve or support tyranny and despotism.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Authortian like telling you who you can marry, how you can have sex, what morals are 'correct' just like you are tying to impose your authoritarisnism.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 You clearly do not know what real conservatism is. It is NOT the policies or ideas of W. Bush, Beck, Oreilly, Hannity, or even Reagan for that matter.
Modern Conservatism has its roots in classical liberalism, which dates back to the philosopher's of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. The intentions behind their ideas were to SEPERATE church and state, but to also incorporate the natural rights philosophy within government... (Continued.)
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 The high point of Platonic and Aristotilian philosophy came when the Declaration of Independence was born, and boldly stated that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue their own dreams, their own happiness. The founders of America also stated that despotism was a great evil that must be prevented with a partnership of human freedom and a republican/democratic government.
Hitler agreed with NONE of these assertions or beliefs.... (Continued)
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Repeat Spam
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Haha, no it is you that has tried to repeatedly strawman the concept of conservative into a narrow self-serving focus that bears no relation to reality or any existence. Your trying to disassociate it from its own very well known only shows your complete lack of integrity. And Liberalism has its roots in classical liberalism also. And of you want to bring in the Greek philosophers than almost EVERYTHING in western society could be relate back to them including Marx.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Dude seriously, this isn't the Rocky Series. You're not going to get up from this pounding. All accredited academia has recognized fascism as right wing. So just fucking deal with it! Just because you're right wing doesn't ostensibly make you a fascist. And you've been inconsistent this whole exchange. Give it a rest already......GAME OVER!!!!!!!!!
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 The high point of Platonic and Aristotilian philosophy came when the Declaration of Independence was born, and boldly stated that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue their own dreams, their own happiness. The founders of America also stated that despotism was a great evil that must be prevented with a partnership of human freedom and a republican/democratic government.
Hitler agreed with NONE of these assertions or beliefs.... (Continued)
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Oh Bullshit. Neither Plato nor Aristotle were very democratic, the American Revolution has more roots in the closer philosophies of Rousseau than Plato. And the again the founding fathers were the LIBERALS, not the conservatives of the time you state; the conservatives were the one supporting despotism. So as I said many times before conservatives supporting despotism is nothing unusual. All you do again is prove Russel correct in your amatuer philosophizing
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Hitler did NOT believe in the freedom of the press, the freedom of who one can marry, the freedom and rights of certain individuals. He did NOT declare everyone to be equal under a common humanity; he constructed his own heirarchy to determine who was better and most fit to move on.
The philosophical foundations of Hitler - and Mussolini for that matter - were mired in the liberal concepts of nihilism and historicism (endorsed by Macchiaveli, Calhoun, and Marx). (continued)
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/3)
And for all those reasons is why he was on the conservative side; for the conservatives there did not support those things either, and neither did the conservatives in the US then, or even really now. Once again because you only continue to ignore facts and make up your own illegitimate parameters:
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/3)
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility. Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/3)
- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." - Sir Alan Bullock from "Adolf Hitler"
Or in other words: he was against everything that was 'Leftist'
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Nihilism and Historicism is also endorsed by a majority of today's political scientists and scholars. I do NOT despise elites; I simply stand in stark disagreement with the elites who endorse such concepts.
And if you desire to find those who suppressed the freedom of their citizens, look no further than Teddy Rosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. They were all progressive and believed in the very concepts of historicism and nihilism. I don't consider that to be coincidental.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
And you only provet he words os Russel:
"…when people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid."
-- Bertrand Russell, Theory of Knowledge
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Today's conservatives are substantially different from their conservative brethren of old, who believed in freedom of choice to citizens, so long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others. And while they endorsed governments founded upon Christian principles and classical liberalism, they did NOT endorse the fusion of religion and the state; Hitler and Mussolini did this anyway, and incorporated nihilistic tyranny through their actions.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/2)
Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social or economic structure and the power of the existing elites. Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 First of all, these progressives were very racist. Eisenhower created the first Civil Rights bill which 80% of republicans supported, but was voted down by LBJ and the democrats (and it was Richard Nixon who separated the schools btw).
And "a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social or economic structure and the power of the existing elites." That's quite the broad generalization. Here's further reason why Hitler was leftist in both his philosophy and actions:
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 On European collectivism:
“Although the partisans who are fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors [communists and fascists], their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same themes, and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words. Their weapons are the coercive direction of the life and labor of mankind..Their promise is that through the power of the state men can be happy.”
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Hitler was a Right wing Totalitarian fascist.
MrReco12 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Though Hitler hated communism, there were still similarities: In Friedrich von Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek emphasized that “the Nazis extended quite easily to the Soviet Union... and even to the 'creeping socialism' of the United States.” In addition, he believed “well-intentioned socialists laid the foundations of Nazism, because centralized power, with leaders bent upon social planning, is incompatible with freedom, argued Hayek,” (McAllister 38-39).
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 On of the main contrasts between Hitler and conservatism is that the latter does not believe a utopian society will ever be achieved (at least on this earth). But the Nazis and the Soviets shared the same goal of creating utopia for their respective nations.
Also, Consider the following definitions of fascism and communism, bearing in mind the similarities of governmental structure and leadership:
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Fascism: a system led by a dictator having COMPLETE power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting ALL industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Communism: a system of social organization in which ALL economic and social activity is controlled by a TOTALITARIAN state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
And both were nationalist in the sense that they both loved their country in a very extreme form.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rundstedt1 In both Germany and the Soviet Union, the societies were controlled in virtually every aspect by a singular party that successfully aimed to quelch possible dissent (just as Stalin and Hitler did w/ their purges). Both desired, respectively, to have their regime as the supreme power of the modern world. And because of these aspirations, it was both natural and inevitable for these tyrants to wage war against one another, for supreme power is reserved for one leader, not two.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 Philosophically, Hitler embodied Nietzsche's "Ubermensch". And despite his vision, “there is always the danger, even from Nietzsche's view, that only the worst men.. will listen to his advice". Being revolutionary, he approved of extremism in order to abolish morality. “He sees a necessity for an apocalypse. He looks..to great wars as an important part of the great politics of the future. He speaks approvingly of eugenics.. and in favor of merciless extinctions of inferior races."
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 As was the case with Rousseau, Nietzsche did not intend for a ruthless barbarian like Hitler to be the catalyst of his ideas, and the subsequent integration of those ideas into the political realm. But as is most always the case with modern idealists, the dream of a new humanity becomes quite difficult if human nature’s darkness is not taken into account. Nietzsche's other link to fascism is as follows:
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 “If Marx is linked to communism, then Nietzsche is linked to fascism.. This connection is not resolved by claiming he was no fascist, that he was a critic of nationalism, and that he would've loathed Hitler..he abused Nietzsche' words, but his words are easy to abuse..A man who counsels men to be dangerously must expect dangerous men like [Hitler]... Nietzsche praises cruelty and condemns pity w/o reflecting sufficiently on.. what the effect of such a view will be on cruel men.”
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 The myth of Hitler being Christian has been said by many. But his association was more for political expediency than his actual beliefs. Hitler was no atheist, but a religion was forced upon the rest of Germany: the worship and utter devotion of himself. In the public's eyes, he had a deep love of an “Aryan” Jesus who fought the Jewish “brood of vipers,” an biblical distortion. But In private, he considered himself greater than religion, and above the divinity of Christ.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 Thus, the enforcement of his egocentric views ironically became a contradiction of his public view of Christianity. These alleged “conservative” views of religion Hitler professed were hardly genuine and extremely foreign to its dogmas. In the words of the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels stated that “the insanity of the Christian doctrine of redemption really doesn’t fit at all into our time.” (Eric Metaxas. Bonhoeffer, et all.. Page 166. Thomas Nelson, 2010)
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 “Hitler’s ethical views do not comport well with traditional morality.He based morals that were different from conservatives. Hitler’s morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor Kant’s categorical imperative,but a repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the criteria for morality. The Darwinian struggle for existence, especially the struggle between races, became the sole arbiter.” (Weikart 210)
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 Examples of this came when they replaced traditional churches w/ the Reich Church.The Reich began to show their feelings on religion through the devotion to Hitler. Stefanie Mackenson of the Pomeranian Confessing Church was confronted by the party on Christianity. In the proceedings, she was asked: 'in the case of conflict, whom would you obey: the Jew Christ or Adolf Hitler?”Her answer: “Christ alone." She was removed from the party, but later re-instated only as a passive member.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 It is therefore unfounded to conclude that since Hitler claimed to be Christian and constructed a Reich Church, he was far-right because the majority of modern conservatives attend Christian churches. In any event, it was quite the contrast: “Hitler felt that Christianity, with its teachings of universal love and turning the other cheek, was antagonistic of his goals of conquest and domination – but he sought to use the church to support those goals,” (Gonzalez Ch. 26, 308).
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 As illustrated before, many of the utopian goals of modern liberalism have tended to be ill-founded by the premise of their “good” intentions and the rejection of any organiztion who apply that same intent in a manner they don't approve of. This premise is common among the utopian ranks, who become blinded with their own subjectivity in regards to action.
This happened w/ eugenics, where many prominent LIBERALS supported the program, namely Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger:
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 In her writings, she clearly and consistently stated her discontent of pity for the feeble-minded and the “absurd” insistence of keeping them alive at the expense of other. In "the Pivot of Civilization", Sanger prefaced an epigraph:
“The fostering of the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is cruelty. It is a deliberate storing up of miseries for future generations. There is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.”
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Before WWII, Adolf Hitler told a New York Times correspondent that he had “sympathy for Mr. [Franklin] Roosevelt because he marches straight forward his objectives over Congress, lobbies, and beauracracy.” He later described himself as the only European leader who expressed “understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt,” (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Pg. 244, Question 31, point 6.)
And in regards to the whole "War-mongering" right wingers, consider this:
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 “The Progressive movement, a child of [modern] liberalism, was overwhelmingly sympathetic rather than hostile to the tendency toward American territorial expansion and foreign policy assertiveness, and... just as an invigorated federal government would achieve order and 'social jusitce' at home, and interventionist foreign policy would spread the benefits of Progressivism around the world.” (Woods 53.) *Example used was the Spanish-American War and WWI.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 So, the main reasons why Hitler was left (to name a few):
*He was a "blood-lusted" revolutionary (key distinction there)
*He was a utopian idealist
*He favored collectivism over individualism. Those who dissented or did not fit his mold were eliminated, just as it was under Stalin.
*He created a command economy that was incompatible with free-market capitalism
*His philosophy is composed largely of LIBERAL modernists (Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Machiavelli).
And finally:
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 The claim that Hitler wasn't of the right is shared by many philosophers and intellectuals, such as:
Walter Lippmann, former journalist + founding editor of New Republic Pulitzer Prize.
Leo Strauss, former professor at the Univ. of Chicago.
Friedrich von Hayek, a former economist and winner of the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize.
Eric Voegelin, former political philosopher.
Harry Jaffa, professor of Claremont Mckenna College.
Werner J. Dannhauser, professor of Cornell University.
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Leon Degrell: Former Nazi collaborater who favorably compared Hitler to Reagan
Ian Kewshew: is a British historian, noted for his biographies of Adolf Hitler. Ian Kershaw studied at Liverpool (BA) and Oxford (D. Phil)
William Lawrence Shirer: Foreign correspondent who lived in Nazi Germany
Konrad Heiden: A journalist in Wiemar Germany
Franz Leopold Neumann(who attended the Nuremberg trials) as a expert: describes Nazi Germany as a "capitalist monopolist..
MrReco12 1 week ago
@MrReco12 Hitler to Reagan? Whoever compares that is an idiot (including Mr. Degrell).
David Overy is a distinguished historian as well and he states that Hitler was anti-capitalist along w/ Stalin.
"experts" at trials are not the end all be all. Experts can end up being discredited when they don't have their facts right. The Nazis had a command economy that controlled every aspect. And they exploited slave labor, just as the Soviets did. Are communists "right-wing" as well?
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
The means of production were privately owned in Nazi Germany, capitalists were also arrested for war crimes: Krupp, Flick etc,
MrReco12 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrGreenPoop1000
The means of production were privately owned in Nazi Germany, capitalists were also arrested for war crimes: Krupp, Flick etc,
MrReco12 1 week ago
@MrReco12 And I can "claim" to be a conservative, but if I am foreign to every part of its platform, then how can it be true? That's like saying, "I'm Christian, but I just hate others and want people I don't like exterminated and want to force everyone else into believing what I believe" (a complete biblical distortion).
Read my previous posts in their entirety. If still not satisfied, I can tell you about Hitler's view of "equality" and its contrast to modern conservatism...
MrGreenPoop1000 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
The Nazis were Right wing Totalitarian who had the support of capitalists and conservatives in Germany and indeed the world(especially in Europe).
MrReco12 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (1/18)
No sorry, as demonstrated the verdict has long been in, and no matter your dishonest quote mines, twisting, and your piss-assed poor sources like the non-historian hack Hayek who has also been shown to be a fool on the subject or And Woods, who being another Austrian economist hack has no qualification to speak on the topic and is also a member of the "League of the South" as racist quasi fascist organization. What a joke.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/18)
And this cheap anti-intellectual revisionism spouted by the likes of you, Beck, and originating from Goldberg is dangerous.
And the real, and universally respected historians of the era agree.
"Not only does Goldberg’s tract serve to rationalize the antidemocratic resentments and anxieties of the neo-Con and Bushite electoral constituency in the U.S., it also serves to bolster the anti-liberal passions of the genuine fascist right in the U.S." Roger Griffin, Oxford
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/18)
It is no accident that we see the neo Nazi group Stromfront having their picture taken with the likes of Ron Paul, even after he well knew who they were, and their fund raising and promoting him on their web site. Verily, go on to one of their blogs and you will see a load of Paul supporter touting him and his virtues for president.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/18)
This anti-historical revisionism makes the re-appearance of fascism more likely by making it seem that it did not arise from where it did. It essentially tries to transfer blame onto some of its very victims. It distracts people from the real danger of Right-wing extremism. It is unsupportable, ignorant, and insulting to all who really know the issues and era.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (5/18)
"Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron, of course...But the problems go much deeper... Pushing Liberalism and Fascism together requires distorting both terms...Goldberg hijacks scholarly work and applies it in misleading ways for his own purposes...If you are looking for some reasoned arguments about the politics of our time, you will find both liberalism and fascism grossly distorted in this tract."
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (6/18)
"Goldberg’s book perverts historical and historiographical truth with the scarcely hidden agenda (perhaps the real ‘secret’ alluded to unwittingly in the subtitle) of tarring and feathering with negative, anti-democratic, and inhumane connotations a broad current of reformist policy and social justice campaigns which has for decades been a legitimate current of liberalism within U.S. democracy (and not exclusively the Democratic sector of it).
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (7/18)
It does so with the blatant aim of making this current guilty (by association) of some of the most heinous crimes ever committed against humanity. It is a work of sustained pseudo-historical calumny and defamation disguised under the (constantly slipping) carnival mask of an ‘alternative history’." - Robert Paxton, Oxford
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (8/18)
And the other major historians of the period agree.
"Liberal Fascism is to be seen as a mischievous exercise in party-political journalism writ large as a pseudo-academic monograph, its revisionism far removed from that of a legitimate academic exercise in rethinking a basic historical issue from a fresh angle."
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (9/18)
"Not only does Goldberg’s tract serve to rationalize the antidemocratic resentments and anxieties of the neo-Con and Bushite electoral constituency in the U.S., it also serves to bolster the anti-liberal passions of the genuine fascist right in the U.S." "An Academic Book — Not!"
By Roger Griffin, Oxford
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (10/18)
"This book is selective of facts and irresponsible of interpretation to the point historical obfuscation... In sum, Liberal Fascism is less a work of neutral scholarship or unbiased journalism than thinly veiled historical revisionism." Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions
By Matthew Feldman
Nazis Germany had a capitalist gov't and this is well recognized by historical circles.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (11/18)
"Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people's net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (12/18)
Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had. In the end, the aristocracy's power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany's future political elite.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (13/18)
Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual CAPITALIST profit motive." - Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (14/18)
And the entire "small" gov't ideology is a sham. The size of gov't is dictated by the needs of society. All the 'small' gov't proponents do is to shift the functions onto the unaccountable and self serving private sector. It creates a Feudal structure where wealth and power is shifted even more to the top.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (15/18)
"Under feudalism, the elements of political authority are powers that are held personally by individuals, not by enduring political institutions. These powers are held as a matter of private contractual right. Individuals gradually acquire the power to make, apply, and enforce rules by forging a series of private contracts with particular individuals or families."
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (16/18)
"Oaths of fealty or service are sworn in exchange for similar or compensating benefits. Those who exercise political power wield it on behalf of others pursuant to their private contractual relation and only so long as their contract is in force. Since different services are provided to people, there is no notion of a uniform public law that is to be impartially applied to all individuals."
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (17/18)
"In other words:
Libertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity."
-
Samuel Freeman, “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (18/18)
"Fascist regimes functioned like an epoxy: an amalgam of two very different agents, fascist dynamism and conservative order, bonded by shared enmity toward liberalism and the Left, and a shared willingness to stop at nothing to destroy their common enemies." Robert O. Paxton. "The Anatomy of Fascism", p147
All fascism did was combine conservatism with a new populist energy, just like the Rightwing teabaggers
Rundstedt1 1 week ago 2
@MrGreenPoop1000
Virtually everything you've posted has already been debunked here by me and yet you come back months later and like a lunatic try to post it again.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (2/2)
The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e. conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are just acting in a consistently conservative manner.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Your first supposition is made up and unsupportable, as is your second also. Washington also suppressed the freedom of his citizens, but you probably never heard of the Whiskey rebellion did you? Jackson suppressed and murdered his citizens in Georgia by forcibly removing them and stealing their land. And I'm talking here of the 'civilized tribes' of the Cherokee who had written language and more newspapers than the mainly illiterate whites who were trying to replace them.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (3/10)
And again you pull the stupid 'true conservative' BS, which is nothing more than a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Just like the Christian creationist calling a person from another sect "not a true Christian" it lacks in equal validity.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 No one is a true representative of Christianity (that requires perfection).
It is possible, however, to represent conservatism sufficiently. Hitler falls well short of this.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
The Pope will tell you he a representative of 'true Christianity' and many others will try to make the equal claim. It is again just the denial of different sects of the same thing. And no matter how much you try to deny it, it has been shown here succinctly with irrefutable academic sources that Hitler was on the same side as the conservatives. He may have actually gone beyond that, but it doesn't change the fact that he aligned and shared most of their ideology.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@Rundstedt1 No Christian can claim to be a true representative b/c all are human, which automatically disqualifies them from heavenly perfection.
Just because a fish may claim to be a mammal does NOT make it one. In the same sense, it is not sufficient to say that b/c some Nazis considered themselves far right does not necesarily make it so.
MrGreenPoop1000 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000
Ahh the perfect example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. and once again the verdict is in and long has been, the Nazis were far right and they are properly described as much in history and academic writing, and it even is proved in the titles of some of the academic sources such as: "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right"
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (4/10)
Second plenty of Americans conservatives directly supported fascist principles. And not in the vague diplomatic words out of international polity or ignorance of the reality, that you may try to use, but real actions and allegiance. The America First committee was a quasi-fascist conservative organization, Lindberg strongly supported the fascist cause and was refused an Army position because of that when war came.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (5/10)
Henry Ford was given a fascist medal which he refused to return even after the war started and published an anti-Semitic newspaper. The DuPont's were involved in the attempted fascist coup against FDR that was broken-up by Smedley Butler. And indeed many American conservatives like the Bush family even continued to try and support the fascist cause even after the war was brought to the US.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (6/10)
And it is also clear that contemporary American conservatives support a fascist like principles. We see it in the poorly veiled racism of the tea-baggers, and the anti-labor policies and nativism conservatives routinely express. We see it in the imperial actions taken on part of American hegemony by the last spate of conservative presidents.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (7/10)
Conservative principles look to support the very same moneyed interests that the fascists supported, the very same big business. We see it in their disregard for human rights, and support of torture. Their constant use of scapegoating. O'reilly and Limbaugh, and of course Beck, are always railing about the evil 'Muslims' and trying to convince their listeners that every Muslim is a terrorist and all leftists are evil.
Rundstedt1 11 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 (8/10)
Conservative constantly push for military supremacy in the resolution of disputes and problems. John Bolton's solutions to the