AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

Are you arguing that Hitler was not a Nazi? Do you understand how silly your position on this really is? Nazis were Leftists but Hitler was really a right wing extremist, is that your position on this, as others here seem to hold forth?

2 Replies

@okie,

You made the claim, now prove it?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Nazis were Leftists but Hitler was really a right wing extremist, is that your position on this, as others here seem to hold forth?

Who is saying here, okie, that "Hitler was a right wing extremist, Nazis were Leftists"?

Again I kindly ask you to get educated about the DAP and the NSDAP - like in Dietrich Orlow: History of the Nazi Party. 1919 to 1933, Pittsburgh, 1969 (here, on page 137, you can read about the the DAP > NSDAP > 25 points .... )

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

To clarify, do you think the 25 points do not relate at all to what Hitler believed? Do you think Hitler did not endorse or believe in the 25 points?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

To clarify, do you think the 25 points do not relate at all to what Hitler believed? Do you think Hitler did not endorse or believe in the 25 points?

Since they were so vaguely expressed - I do think that he easily have believed in many ... but e.g. not in colonialism, which was a main topic at that assembly according to the newspaper reports. (That started only in 1935 and didn't last very long.)

Actually, no-one really can say what Hitler 'believed' since he contradicted his own topics fast and often, especially in the early days (that is in the 1920's) and during the last years of WWII.

But you're free to teach me again, okie, since you are such a koryphaios in German history of the first decades of 20th century.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I am just trying to establish what you actually believe. My position has been that one can evaluate the beliefs and actions of a guy like Hitler, and determine whether he was more of a leftist or instead more conservative as on the right. I start out with something pretty basic, that Hitler was a Nazi, which had the 25 points, which are leftist. Correct me if I am wrong, but some of you on the left have responded to that by saying those 25 points don't matter, that what really matters is what Hitler did. I have countered with the challenge for you to list what Hitler did that was conservative or rightward, to which I have gotten little or no response. I have in fact listed several things that Hitler did, that seem pretty much leftist without much doubt at all.

So here we are, I have presented evidence for my position on this, but so far no real debate of specifics it seems to me. I would like you to really identify exactly what you think Hitler believed and did that makes him a rightee. Did he believe in the Nazi 25 points or not? First of all, I do not think they are that vague, they are certainly well enough defined to judge them as left or right. You seem to think that he believed in most of them except for the colonialism. Is that right?

Most of the time, it seems to me that primary argument from those that believe Hitler was a rightee was his nationalism and his opposition to total communism. Neither of those arguments seem compelling to me, because both of those things can occur with both left and right, plus we have many other policy positions of the Nazis that are clearly leftward in nature.

One of the toughest things to accomplish here it seems is to actually pin down what you folks on the left actually think. You are apparently a historian, Walter, so you offer my best hope of actually understanding what the current historian's take on this is. I get the impression that the subject has been obfuscated to the point that many historians cannot see the forest for the trees. After all, there are some pretty basic things that define what left vs right actually is, it doesn't seem like it should be rocket science, and so it doesn't need to be a real complicated issue to solve.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but some of you on the left have responded to that by saying those 25 points don't matter, that what really matters is what Hitler did.

That's generally (taking out the approach of some right-wingers in the USA and your doctor in Australia) the general scientific opinion of historians who researched this subject. (I didn't. I only read some -oribibnal- sources from that time period during my researches.)

... leaving out comments on other of your points ...

okie wrote:

I get the impression that the subject has been obfuscated to the point that many historians cannot see the forest for the trees. After all, there are some pretty basic things that define what left vs right actually is, it doesn't seem like it should be rocket science, and so it doesn't need to be a real complicated issue to solve.

Fine. I suppose, reading some views, reports and comments seems to make you a specialist on this subject.

I'm not.
I just wrote proof-read and did some research for an encyclopaedia of SS and police generals in the Nazi period.

Of course, you might have "basic things that define left vs right". Unfortunately, these don't fit for any European country, especially not in the time period discussed here.

okie wrote:

One of the toughest things to accomplish here it seems is to actually pin down what you folks on the left actually think.

I don't think that this a thing about left vs right but more about the opinion of some the USA and the different opinion elsewhere by others.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, you are contradicting the religion of the Leftist Liberals. They believe what they believe BECAUSE they believe it. Any strong argument you make is believed by them to be blasphemy.

Notice, you give reasons for why you believe what you believe. They do not give reasons for why they believe what they believe. Instead they repeatedly claim either you are contradicting yourself, or you must prove what you believe is true.

I believe they do not know why they believe what they believe other than it is true because they say so.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

You guys believe in FOX News; the station with the most biased and erroneous reporting in the US.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You guys believe in FOX News; the station with the most biased and erroneous reporting in the US.

What is your evidence that Fox News is the most biased and erroneous reporting in the US?

What is your evidence that "we guys" believe in and get most of our news from Fox News?

1 Reply

From Wiki:

Quote:

* On January 9, 2010, the son-in-law of News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch and the husband of Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, Matthew Freud, stated he and other members of the media mogul's family are "ashamed and sickened" by the right leaning tendencies of Fox News in the opening salvo in a bid to displace Roger Ailes, the founder and CEO of Fox News.[29] In the previous Sunday New York Times news story featuring a profile on Roger Ailes, Freud was quoted saying "I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes' horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalist standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to, what you heard was a declaration of war, There are, practically speaking, now two factions inside of News Corp.: Ailes and Fox News, and the Murdoch children – with Rupert caught between them." Although Rupert Murdoch did not respond to the remark directly, a spokesperson for News Corporation put a statement after a Financial Times inquiry claiming “Matthew Freud’s opinions are his own and in no way reflect the views of Rupert Murdoch, who is proud of Roger Ailes and Fox News.”[30] Tim Arango also claims in Murdoch's 2008 biography that he voiced concerns privately to Ailes about his conduct claiming he was purportedly "embarrassed" by Fox News. Murdoch denied that claim.[31]

* In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.[32][33][34] News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively.[35]

0 Replies

Here's a whole list of FOX news erroneous reporting:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=erroneous+reporting+by+FOX+news&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS310US311&ie=UTF-8

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I studied journalism as an undergraduate and worked as a journalist. I was taught how to decipher lies in my ENG 101 class. Media education is no longer taught, so, in the near future, there will be a great many people like you who are easily duped. Fox News is so biased that it only shows on the right side of the screen in most homes.

It is time for you to reread Nineteen Eighty-Four and compare the situation described there to your own thought processes, those of okie and the Tea Totalitarians.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I am just trying to establish what you actually believe

No, you are not. Walter told you and told you and told you until he is blue in the face. Can't you interpret the tone of his replies?

Quote:

My position has been that one can evaluate the beliefs and actions of a guy like Hitler, and determine whether he was more of a leftist or instead more conservative as on the right.

This statement, like the first one of yours that I quoted totally lacks veracity. You can not tell anything because you approach everything with your mind already made up. Like all prejudiced people, you are ignorant and beyond rescue.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Rescue is completely out of the question; it's more like humour him.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Okie, you are contradicting the religion of the Leftist Liberals. They believe what they believe BECAUSE they believe it. Any strong argument you make is believed by them to be blasphemy.

Notice, you give reasons for why you believe what you believe. They do not give reasons for why they believe what they believe. Instead they repeatedly claim either you are contradicting yourself, or you must prove what you believe is true.

I believe they do not know why they believe what they believe other than it is true because they say so.

Good point. If you believe what you believe based upon emotion, then you cannot explain your beliefs, and that is the situation that liberals and leftists find themselves in, good point, ican. There are politics of emotion which are based upon the irrational, and there are politics of reason and of being rational. Conservatism is firmly rooted in reality, reason, and rational thinking, whereas liberalism springs from emotion. A good example of this was Obama's change change change mantra, which none of his supporters actually understood to any extent. It worked his supporters up into a frenzy to believe all of their ills could be solved, but what was and is sorely lacking are rational solutions to real problems. Example of this irrationality, to solve huge spending problems, the solution is to spend even more at a faster pace. This line of thought elicits all kinds of clarity as to why liberals behave in the manner they do, and why they cannot carry on a reasoned discussion here, but I think this is enough for now.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's a whole list of FOX news erroneous reporting:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=erroneous+reporting+by+FOX+news&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS310US311&ie=UTF-8

All that comes up on my computer when I click on your list of erroneous reporting is a blank Google search page, ci. If that is the only evidence you can give, I would have to say you are running on empty, pal.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Okie, you are contradicting the religion of the Leftist Liberals. They believe what they believe BECAUSE they believe it. Any strong argument you make is believed by them to be blasphemy.

Notice, you give reasons for why you believe what you believe. They do not give reasons for why they believe what they believe. Instead they repeatedly claim either you are contradicting yourself, or you must prove what you believe is true.

I believe they do not know why they believe what they believe other than it is true because they say so.

My religion is Roman Catholic.

And related to historic facts: I'm not believing there a lot, I want to have and see sources and facts.
Which actually is quite easy re last century since there archives to have a look in and at ...
(Contrary to most here: I have done that.)

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Good point. If you believe what you believe based upon emotion, then you cannot explain your beliefs,

That is the situation you are in okie.
You can't provide us with the strong emotion you claim Obama feels toward the US.
You claimed there would be positive aspects if the US is controlled by a dictator but haven't told us what those would be.

In reality, it's you that can't carry on a reasoned discussion okie because you can't provide anything to support your claims and then pretend you don't mean what you are clearly implying.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Conservatism is firmly rooted in reality, reason, and rational thinking,

RIGHT>>>>>

Like when you called for the impeachment of Obama. which you then denied doing even though you did it on at least a dozen occasions.

Like when you said you would defend this President after you have called him radical, incompetent, Marxist, a dictator wannabe, Narcissistic, insane, a disaster, unpatriotic, a traitor, crazy, a liar and implied he is a terrorist.

Your reality is subjective okie. It certainly isn't based on observable facts.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know