AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The following statements were taken from a couple of sources. I will provide the links, but I want okie to refute these statements with reliable sources of his own.

Quote:
In early 1920, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) which quickly got corrupted to 'Nazi' by both enemies and supporters alike. Hitler wrote out the party's beliefs in the so-called 25 Point Party Programme. This party programme was a curious mixture - right wing nationalism; anti-capitalism; anti-socialism; anti-wealth etc. .......

Stop right there. What is the source for that to start with? Next, the assertion that the 25 point program is not predominantly left wing and socialist, on what is that based? Can you list the points and identify which ones are not left or socialist in nature?

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Rush Limbaugh went on at some length today about that, Okie. It was evidently important.

I did not hear that, as I haven't caught much of Limbaugh lately. I got it in an email, and thought it was rather fitting.

0 Replies

@okie,

Here's the link. If you disagree, please provide your credible evidence that refutes what they said.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/adolf_hitler.htm

Walter is a historian on Germany. He refutes your claims that Hitler was left wing.

All you provide is your personal opinion, and based on ignorance. You have never provided credible evidence to the contrary.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's the link. If you disagree, please provide your credible evidence that refutes what they said.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/adolf_hitler.htm

Okay, first of all, the author of the article may not be unbiased, we don't know that, and his background is not particularly impressive. He has a BA in history and a Masters in management, not even related to history.:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/about-the-author.htm
"Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA set up www.historylearningsite.co.uk in 2000 as he felt there was no easily accessible and comprehensive website on World History on the web. The site has grown in popularity and is now viewed by hundreds of thousands of people each month from around the world.
Chris has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000.
As well as History, Chris teaches British and American Politics at advanced level and both subjects are covered in depth on his site. Current plans for the site include a major section on British History in the Twentieth Century, an in-depth study on Stuart England targeted at those studying at Advanced level and work on the Falklands War to commemorate the 25th anniversary of this conflict."

I would like to focus on one statement by the author, saying that Hitler wrote the 25 points, but then said they were both right and left wing. I would like anyone including you to point out which ones were right wing. For example, I do not buy the idea that nationalism is necessarily right wing by definition, for example we have many leftists that are also nationalists. And certainly anti-capitalism and anti-wealth is not right wing. And I would like to see which points are anti-socialism, because I don't see them:
"In early 1920, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) which quickly got corrupted to 'Nazi' by both enemies and supporters alike. Hitler wrote out the party's beliefs in the so-called 25 Point Party Programme. This party programme was a curious mixture - right wing nationalism; anti-capitalism; anti-socialism; anti-wealth etc. "

Quote:

Walter is a historian on Germany. He refutes your claims that Hitler was left wing.
All you provide is your personal opinion, and based on ignorance. You have never provided credible evidence to the contrary.

Fine, but he is not unbiased in my opinion, and so far he has offered no compelling evidence for his claims. In contrast, I have in fact provided much evidence to the contrary, by discussing and quoting Hitler, the Nazi 25 points, and Mein Kampf, not only on this thread but on the Ruthless Dictator thread. We can go back through the Nazi 25 points again one by one if you wish, as I am confident my argument will be proven beyond any doubt if you would honestly look at it objectively.

Last point, I think a huge part of the problem here is that in the 20's to 30's Germany, anything to the right of complete communism was considered right wing, but we know that is not at all accurate today. Hitler was a national socialist, but that does not make him a conservative right winger by virtue of not being a complete communist. I think that is the major sticking point and mistake made by you, by Walter, and by all historians that hang onto the myth that Hitler was a right winger. The facts are clear that Hitler opposed free market capitalism as epitomized in his mind by greedy Jews, and he favored confiscation of property, elimination of trusts, profit sharing, elimination of profiteers, and anything else that would further the "common good" of the "folks" of Germany as a socialist nation. Clearly, individual rights and responsibilities would be sacrificed at the foot of the common good, and this is so clearly leftist dogma as to leave me disgusted that so-called intelligent people here cannot see it plain as day.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay, first of all, the author of the article may not be unbiased, we don't know that, and his background is not particularly impressive. He has a BA in history and a Masters in management, not even related to history.

The author you rely upon has no degree in history whatsoever, but has an impressive track record of railing against "liberalism", yet you don't seem to think that's a problem at all.

Double standards?

3 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

The author you rely upon has no degree in history whatsoever, but has an impressive track record of railing against "liberalism", yet you don't seem to think that's a problem at all.

Double standards?

He has degrees, teaching experience, and has authored many publications in psychology, sociology, social psychology, psychological authoritarianism, conservatism, racism and achievement motivation. Since Hitler was one of the most deranged people in history, plus the fact that conservatism and liberalism really relates to psychology and social psychology, I think his expertise is just as well qualified or perhaps moreso than that of a plain historian. Besides, his writings make sense. Also, nothing in ci's link actually disputes my conclusions. Although ci's historian claims Hitler was a right winger, he offers no compelling evidence, and he in fact claims the Nazi 25 points are a mixture of both left and right, but again offers no evidence.

2 Replies

@old europe,

That's what conservatives do; they try to find fault with everything that refutes his personal belief system by attacking, but uses and different standard for themselves.

In addition to it being a "double standard," he's ignorant of the real past and current history. Why he thinks his personal opinion carries any weight must be inborn in conservatives like him. He follows the same SOP as those FOX News personalities. Charge ahead without checking the veracity of their opinion.

1 Reply

@okie,

Sigh.

Quote:

The facts are clear that Hitler opposed free market capitalism as epitomized in his mind by greedy Jews, and he favored confiscation of
property

In order to increase his personal wealth and the Nazi party's power.

Quote:

elimination of trusts,

In order to increase his personal wealth and the Nazi party's power.

Quote:

profit sharing

In order to increase his personal wealth and the Nazi party's power.

Quote:

elimination of profiteers

In order to increase his personal wealth and the Nazi party's power. I also wonder what you think of the politicians of the US during that time period? You may recall - probably not, but maybe - that they ALSO eliminated profiteering at the time. Damn socialists!

Quote:

and anything else that would further the "common good" of the "folks" of Germany as a socialist nation.

Yeah, that's the funny thing, innit? Because while he may have SAID that, and some Germans certainly BELIEVED that, there's no evidence that he DID that. At all. Which is to say, he did nothing at all to further the 'common good.' His actions cannot be viewed through the lens of someone who was truly interested in any sort of public policy.

That's why when you say 'Hitler was a Leftist Socialist!,' it's not accurate.
It's like looking at a barn and screaming, 'There's a Red thing! It's red! I mean, can't you idiots see that it's red?1!?!'

Well, yeah, but does that tell me anything about it or it's purpose or when it was built or who owns it or anything at all - other than the most superficial facts about it?

The really funny thing is, just in the same way that many Germans of the time bought into his propaganda - you have too! Even though you know for a fact that the guy was a power-mad dictator, a liar, and by almost any measure insane; you still choose to believe that the things he stated out loud represented his true beliefs or intentions.

Why do you do this? Because you want to use this 'fact' to attack modern Democratic politicians in the US. Right? I mean, that's the entire reason that you started on this whole thing, probably the way you got interested in it in the first place.

You don't see the problems with this? I might suggest then, that you go and enroll in some history courses at your local community college. The other day you made a really foolish comment, that history and politics are not as complex as engineering and science. Totally wrong. They are disciplines of a similar complexity and nature: things that are easy to be bad at and hard to be good at. Do you believe that you are a good historian?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Besides, his writings make sense.

To you. Which is why you rely on his "online publications", in spite of his complete lack of any historical expertise. You like what he says, so you take it as gospel.

The converse is true for Chris Trueman: he actually has a degree in the field, but you disagree with what he says, so you simply dismiss it.

This is the familiar pattern: you accept anything that confirms what you believe in, no matter how specious the source, and you reject anything you disagree with.

2 Replies

@old europe,

Spot on! You've described okie to a "t." Tirelessly ignorant.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Hey oe, I read information and I form opinions about what makes sense and is logical, I guess that is a huge surprise to you? I am not aware that there is anyone here that doesn't do the same thing, you and Walter and all the rest of you? And if somebody disagrees with you, you dismiss them, including my sources. Apparently it is such a surprise to you that not everyone else is liberal and not everyone else agrees with you. Get used to it, as there are lots of us, and we are going to vote the Dems out in November, and the Prez out two years from now. We believe in logical and reasoned thinking, and individual freedom and responsibility, and its called conservatism. It works every time its tried.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, What I would like to see is the stuff you read to form your opinions. Can you provide some of them for us? I really want to see how they match up.

Please provide the source for your opinion that Obama hates America.

Also, that Hitler was a liberal leftist. Many historians have written about Hitler's political leanings, so that shouldn't be too difficult to find on Google.

You do know what a source document is, don't you? It explains how Hitler ran his country.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, What I would like to see is the stuff you read to form your opinions. Can you provide some of them for us? I really want to see how they match up.

Please provide the source for your opinion that Obama hates America.

I have explained to all that I do not believe Obama hates America, I instead believe he does not love it as much as I think he should, that I think he has some hangups and resentments about the country. I have stated all the reasons repeatedly as to why I think that. There should be no need to repeat it all again.

Quote:

Also, that Hitler was a liberal leftist. Many historians have written about Hitler's political leanings, so that shouldn't be too difficult to find on Google.

You do know what a source document is, don't you? It explains how Hitler ran his country.

I have also posted this stuff repeatedly. It includes Mein Kampf, the Nazi 25 points, the Time Life World War II series of books including the prelude to war, and numerous on-line references, all of which I have posted along with the opinions that I have posted. Long time ago, I think I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

By the way, I just posted a ways back a list of stuff that Hitler "did" that was leftist in nature. You have been asking for those things, which I had already posted some, but this is a better starting list. If you have a list of things he did that are conservative or right, please provide them, as so far I've seen nothing from anyone. Walter tried to claim eliminating unions was, but I don't buy that one.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sigh.
In order to increase his personal wealth and the Nazi party's power.

Cycloptichorn

Uhh cyclops, that argument doesn't fly. The argument by the liberal lobby here has been that even if the Nazi 25 points were leftist or socialist, Hitler did not govern that way, that he governed as a right winger or conservative. I just pointed out the leftist or socialist things that he "did" when in power. Now you claim he did leftist stuff to increase personal wealth and his party's power. Of course he did those things for his power and his party's power, just like almost all leftists do, such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, all of them. How naive can you be? Pardon me for sarcasm, but seriously, if the facts stare you squarely in the face, cyclops, do you have the character to actually admit you are wrong? I think I do, but I don't think you libs do. For example, if I saw actual evidence that Hitler thought and acted conservatively or a right winger as we currently understand it to be, I would hope to have the honesty to admit it. So far, nothing even remotely in that way has been presented at all.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, You have the habit of identifying only things that you see and leftist, but ignore all the rightist actions Hitler took. You are always blind to what conservatives do, but rattle off specific incidences as leftist sins.

Your myopia provides you with a one way lens that only you can see through, and it makes you look foolish and stupid.

Many people have tried to show you by providing evidence from reliable sources, and all you do is attack the author rather than the content of what is written. That's because you are unable to challenge what is written.

You are a child who doesn't know how to learn and respect other people's POV, because you believe you have all the answers. You are wrong on all accounts.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

So you don't want to prove your beliefs that Hitler was a right wing conservative with any evidence or quotes from so-called experts? Is that right?

I assume that Walter and I are close in age and I have read historians charge that Hitler was a right-wing extremist for 50 years. It is unlikely that every historian I read was from the left.

Furthermore, your use of the words, "so-called experts," tells Walter, and everyone else, not to bother with citations because you would reject them. You prefer the rantings of people who do not speak German and who do not know the difference between a raven and writing desk.

Finally, there are 6 million proofs that Hitler was on the right.

1 Reply

@okie,

Why are you ranting about some unknown person in Britain and about Walter being biased? Since when are you without biases?

If there were a reality show called "America Has Wingnuts," you could be the winner.

Finally, do you realize that those 25 points you keep jumping up and down about like Rumplestilskin were the product of a committee? I've told you that what is right today was not right a generation ago and what is left in America is not left in Germany.

1 Reply

@old europe,

okie has no degree in history although he thinks he might have taken Western Civ.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Besides, his writings make sense

His writings make sense to you but you are very right of center. Furthermore, you have exhibited a lack of comprehension many times here and no one has ever found your humor funny.

Quote:

Also, nothing in ci's link actually disputes my conclusions.

You refuse to admit you are wrong. Once a thought enters your mind, the thought hardens like cement and neither leaves your mind nor changes.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I have always felt conservatism is a birth defect.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know