More evidence that nazism was left wing

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:25 am

First topic message reminder :

"...Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight..."

Joseph Goebbels

lol!

by Guest Mon May 01, 2017 11:34 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How is revisionist history that is false a valid contribution? When as seen its not based on any evidence but politically motivated?

Any claim to say its relevant would mean you agree Nazism was Far left wing?

So do you believe Nazism was Far Left?

Sorry but falsified claims are never relevant, especially when they are politically motivated and not based on facts.

Do you mean "never relevant" when motivated by political considerations with which you disagree and based on facts which you consider to be false?

You clearly considered the thread and Tommy's contributions to it both valid and relevant in the context of open debate, otherwise you would hardly have spent such an obvious amount of time on researching the material which you used to further your own argument opposing the premise.

That being so, your acceptance of its validity and relevance must obviously mean - by your own definition - that you yourself agree that Nazism was far Left wing.

Whether I believe it or not is immaterial; had the subject captured my interest I would have taken part in the debate. My interest is centred more on what I consider to be unfair and flawed accusations that Tommy is a Troll.

(For the record, and before you start squealing "cop out" - no, I don't believe it.)

Okay so do you believe David Irvines views on the holocaust are relevant and a contribution to its history?

I don't find any of his contribution in regards to Nazism as valid and have argued easily how wrong they are.

The same goes for Tommy.

So on that you are very much mistaken and there is no sense to your claimed methodology

All I did was ask if you agree or disagree and whether you think fake news is valid?

So again I ask the question, how can politically motivated false history ever be valid or considered a valid contribution?

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 01, 2017 11:37 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Angry Andy wrote:Says the sanctimonious snob who spins yarns with his bestest chums, Stormee, Allakaka and Blackie on the flopped site.
Tom is posting crap to provoke , not to promote debate.

Since the beginning of March I have posted single responses to posts by Major (I can only assume that he and Stormee are the same person) just seven times; twice in a discussion on bizarre insults including Shakespeare's favourite insults, once on fly-tipping where I stated what the current law is; twice in a thread on his wedding anniversary, once to congratulate him and once about game shooting; once on Australians in a discussion that only a two brain-celled moron like you might describe as having been racist, and once about Jeremy Corbyn,

I haven't "spun any yarns" with Allakaka; indeed I have not exchanged a single post with him during all that time.

Oh, and "I haven't spun any yarns" with Blackie either; again, not a single post so far as I can see.

I have, however, exchanged comments on a number of occasions with that well known swivel-eyed, knuckle-dragging racist Tory extremist, er, Fatbob.

Not one of my posts has been racist, homophobic, sexist, fattist or gingerist, you'll no doubt be terribly disappointed to learn; in fact I have never posted in overtly racist or homophobic threads in Flap...other than to oppose them.

Perhaps you would like to produce all the other conspiratorial posts and "yarns" spun with my "bestest chums" to prove your point, since it is known that you lurk in that forum hoping that you might be able to dig up some dirt on posters who are contributing members of both Flap and Newsfix...something which, frankly, makes you resemble some pondlife creature from the dirty mac brigade.

Or is cowardice as well and lying and smearmongering among your many less than pleasant characteristics?

surely Andwew cant produce anything because he has repeatedly told anyone who would listen that he never visits the site and wouldn't be seen dead there.
it is odd the people that talk the most about it claim to never want to set foot there. It's almost like they are lying

by The Devil, You Know Mon May 01, 2017 11:40 pm

Hitler certainly shared many traits with the communist world leaders. A repressive regime, locking up and killing opponents, government control of the media. The list does rather go on and on.

by Guest Mon May 01, 2017 11:44 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:Hitler certainly shared many traits with the communist world leaders. A repressive regime, locking up and killing opponents, government control of the media. The list does rather go on and on.

Hitler shared many traits with many genocidal killers

Which means there is mass murderers on both left and right and Totalitarian regimes.

The claim here is though as to whether Nazism is Far left.

by Fred Moletrousers Mon May 01, 2017 11:50 pm

Thorin wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Do you mean "never relevant" when motivated by political considerations with which you disagree and based on facts which you consider to be false?

You clearly considered the thread and Tommy's contributions to it both valid and relevant in the context of open debate, otherwise you would hardly have spent such an obvious amount of time on researching the material which you used to further your own argument opposing the premise.

That being so, your acceptance of its validity and relevance must obviously mean - by your own definition - that you yourself agree that Nazism was far Left wing.

Whether I believe it or not is immaterial; had the subject captured my interest I would have taken part in the debate. My interest is centred more on what I consider to be unfair and flawed accusations that Tommy is a Troll.

(For the record, and before you start squealing "cop out" - no, I don't believe it.)

Okay so do you believe David Irvines views on the holocaust are relevant and a contribution to its history?

I don't find any of his contribution in regards to Nazism as valid and have argued easily how wrong they are.

The same goes for Tommy.

So on that you are very much mistaken and there is no sense to your claimed methodology

All I did was ask if you agree or disagree and whether you think fake news is valid?

So again I ask the question, how can politically motivated false history ever be valid or considered a valid contribution?

So? Argue the point with him, if you feel so strongly about it.

You asked me whether I think that Nazism is far Left wing; what part of "no" do you not understand?

Further than that, read my post again and at least make an attempt to understand it, because I have nothing further to say on the subject.

by Guest Mon May 01, 2017 11:52 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Okay so do you believe David Irvines views on the holocaust are relevant and a contribution to its history?

I don't find any of his contribution in regards to Nazism as valid and have argued easily how wrong they are.

The same goes for Tommy.

So on that you are very much mistaken and there is no sense to your claimed methodology

All I did was ask if you agree or disagree and whether you think fake news is valid?

So again I ask the question, how can politically motivated false history ever be valid or considered a valid contribution?

So? Argue the point with him, if you feel so strongly about it.

You asked me whether I think that Nazism is far Left wing; what part of "no" do you not understand?

Further than that, read my post again and at least make an attempt to understand it, because I have nothing further to say on the subject.

1) I have and that is not the point being made here. Its about your claim as to it being valid and a contribution

2) So I am simple ascertaining how and even after you admitting you do not agree with him, how then his contribution can then be valid?

3) Now if you said he has freedom of expression to argue his views, I would certainly agree, but in no way are they at all valid.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 02, 2017 12:00 am

Plenty of comparisons with far left... where are all the examples of far right comparisons...?

Musolini was a well known leftie socialist... and Hitler and nazis were well known as being self proclaimed leftie socialists...

All the evidence points to fascism being of The left... and only comparable to far left... as there are no examples of anything else available to compare them to...!

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:02 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Plenty of comparisons with far left... where are all the examples of far right comparisons...?

Musolini was a well known leftie socialist... and Hitler and nazis were well known as being self proclaimed leftie socialists...

All the evidence points to fascism being of The left... and only comparable to far left... as there are no examples of anything else available to compare them to...!

Does it?

Is that why you ignore countless arguments that clearly show otherwise?

Anyway, I am more interested in Freds Views.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 12:04 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Since the beginning of March I have posted single responses to posts by Major (I can only assume that he and Stormee are the same person) just seven times; twice in a discussion on bizarre insults including Shakespeare's favourite insults, once on fly-tipping where I stated what the current law is; twice in a thread on his wedding anniversary, once to congratulate him and once about game shooting; once on Australians in a discussion that only a two brain-celled moron like you might describe as having been racist, and once about Jeremy Corbyn,

I haven't "spun any yarns" with Allakaka; indeed I have not exchanged a single post with him during all that time.

Oh, and "I haven't spun any yarns" with Blackie either; again, not a single post so far as I can see.

I have, however, exchanged comments on a number of occasions with that well known swivel-eyed, knuckle-dragging racist Tory extremist, er, Fatbob.

Not one of my posts has been racist, homophobic, sexist, fattist or gingerist, you'll no doubt be terribly disappointed to learn; in fact I have never posted in overtly racist or homophobic threads in Flap...other than to oppose them.

Perhaps you would like to produce all the other conspiratorial posts and "yarns" spun with my "bestest chums" to prove your point, since it is known that you lurk in that forum hoping that you might be able to dig up some dirt on posters who are contributing members of both Flap and Newsfix...something which, frankly, makes you resemble some pondlife creature from the dirty mac brigade.

Or is cowardice as well and lying and smearmongering among your many less than pleasant characteristics?
surely Andwew cant produce anything because he has repeatedly told anyone who would listen that he never visits the site and wouldn't be seen dead there.
it is odd the people that talk the most about it claim to never want to set foot there. It's almost like they are lying

Clearly you have a mole burrowing away in IAF...maybe I should consider changing my name to Foxtrousers or Meerkatpants or summat like that before you set all those nasty ultra RW Nazi Fascist homophobic racist thugs like, er ,Fatbob loose on me.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 12:07 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Plenty of comparisons with far left... where are all the examples of far right comparisons...?

Musolini was a well known leftie socialist... and Hitler and nazis were well known as being self proclaimed leftie socialists...

All the evidence points to fascism being of The left... and only comparable to far left... as there are no examples of anything else available to compare them to...!

Go away...you've been invalidated. Twisted Evil

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:08 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Plenty of comparisons with far left... where are all the examples of far right comparisons...?

Musolini was a well known leftie socialist... and Hitler and nazis were well known as being self proclaimed leftie socialists...

All the evidence points to fascism being of The left... and only comparable to far left... as there are no examples of anything else available to compare them to...!

Go away...you've been invalidated.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 02, 2017 12:09 am

Where are the comparable far right examples...?

Musolini was a well known leftie socialist...

And all the nazis were well known leftie socialists...

Where are all the far right regimes that you are trying to compare the fascists to being the same as...!?

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:10 am

Thorin wrote:
Specific Reasons Why Hitler Was not Left-wing, Socialist, or Liberal

With all those general truths in mind, the main problems with using the terms left-wing and socialist to describe Hitler’s fascism are:

[list="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family:"]
[*]Hitler was opposed to all the other socialist and left parties of the Weimar Republic including the Capitalist Democratic Socialists and the Communist Socialists. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is all about how he hates socialists, liberals, democrats, Communists, the upper-class, the establishment, and both capitalist and Marxist Jews (so he wasn’t those types of left-wing or socialist by his own admission; even in the 1920’s, nearly twenty years before his in-action government during WWII).

[*]Hitler and his NAZIs ended up murdering and jailing the Socialist Wing of their party (the Strasserists) on the Night of Long Knives (Hitler led the further-right Nationalist Wing of the NAZI party and “purged” the “left-wing” of their party).

[*]Hitler and his NAZIs didn’t implement many “socialist” planks in-practice, more-so they implemented fascism (which again, especially for the National Socialists, has socialist roots). In other words, they implemented authoritarian statist collectivist policy and xenophobic, totalitarian, and militant policy (both of which are collectivist; but certainly not “left-wing socialist” like a social democrat or even Marxist Communist). Although the NAZI’s early 1920’s “Strasserist Socialist” platform (which Hitler mentions in his Mein Kampf without ever really touting the socialist planks) embraced a good deal of socialism for the German worker (including purely left-wing socialist policy), the 1930’s and 1940’s NAZI government in-practice was essentially just fascist with a few right-wing “militant” socialist planks. After Hitler’s Nationalist wing took over the party, they implemented very little socialist policy and simply embraced a few socialist planks to create an authoritarian, militaristic, despotic, and tyrannical state.

[*]With fascism, the state and nation is everything and their is social hierarchy, with Communism and socialism international equality and classlessness is everything. Both are an “evolution of socialism” as Mussolini (who inspired Hitler) says regarding fascism (and as Marx himself denoted in his work regarding Communism). So it is true that National Socialism is not unrelated to socialism, it is just a very different type of socialism, it is a right-wing evolution of socialism, a response to Communism that is focused on Nationalism, called National Socialism, which is a type of fascism (especially after Strasser in the 1930’s). See the differences between Communism and Fascism.

[*]Hitler had an exclusive and xenophobic ideology that is far-right in terms of its prejudice. Militant socialism for an in-group in support of the state is fascism. The word fascist itself describes the evolution of socialism that Hitler embraced.

[*]Hitler rejected Marx’s ideas of economy, class, globalism, and equality, so even to what degree a National Socialist is socialist, it is truly about social hierarchy in service to the “folk state” more than anything a left-wing socialist (either a liberal one or a Marxist one) would ever want or do on-paper (despotic in-action Communist movements aside, of which history has shown us many).

[/list]
Given the above points and the rest made below, Hitler is well described by terms like fascist, despot, totalitarian, and tyrant first and foremost, and by other qualifiers like right-wing and socialist second.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:10 am

Thorin wrote:
Proof Hitler was a Right-Wing Fascist Includes… his Own Work

The simplest proof of the above is Hitler’s own Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism, as Mussolini inspired Hitler’s fascism, and both texts specifically explain how their ideologies are Nationalist, Imperialist, Militaristic, “Right,” Authoritarian, anti-Liberal, anti-Elite, anti-intellectual, anti-Communist, anti-Capitalist, and anti-Socialist (anti-Marxist, anti-Democratic Socialist, and anti-Christian-Socialist). See Political views of Adolf Hitler (Hitler was obsessively anti-Semitic, Mussolini was more purely Nationalist and less xenophobic than Hitler, both were fascists; see more on the differences and similarities of Mussolini and Hitler here).

In other words, not only does history show these fascist movements were generally right-wing, anti-liberal, and anti-socialist in practice, Hitler and Mussolini’s own works confirm it enthusiastically and in great detail on paper.

Furthermore, Hitler and his NAZIs, and Mussolini and his National Fascist Party and later Republican Fascist Party, became less-and-less socialist over time as their parties moved “to the right” and purged their respective nations of their left-wing allies and opposition.
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. – Excerpt Hitler’s Mein Kampf
Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism… We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ” right “, a Fascist century…. If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government… Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular [populist] support… Activism: that is to say nationalism, futurism, fascism… Never before have the peoples thirsted for authority, direction, order, as they do now. – Excerpts from Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:11 am

Thorin wrote:
Authoritarian like Mussolini and the Other WWII Fascists

Most of what people cite to attempt to show Hitler was “left-wing” or “a socialist” comes from the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform, which was written before Hitler rose to power in the party’s Nationalist wing! Simply, the nationalists were in a party with some socialists (Strasserists) at one point, but that doesn’t make the nationalist fascism left, liberal, or socialist. Fascism is right-wing (authoritative and small group focused) ideology.
Consider some main aspects of fascism are:

Anti-specific religions (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Pro-racial separation (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-civil rights for minorities (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-establishment (left-wing, against the elite; but right-wing, against the protections of the state; and right-wing, in practice the NAZIs became despotic tyrants who used the full power of the state)

Anti-homosexual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-abortion (right-wing, authoritative)

Anti-intellectual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-immigration (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Pro-social programs for their “nationals” AKA their in-group (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).

Pro-nativist worker (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).

Anti-Capitalism on paper (left-wing, against capitalism and toward socialism for the in-group on paper; right-wing, were capitalists with a strict hierarchy in practice.)

In short, just based on general reason, not much about the NAZI’s fascism is left-wing (not much liberty and/or equality going on here). Sure, on paper in the 1920’s they were to the left of a Monarchy with the help of the Strasserists). But the militant WWII era (Sep 1, 1939 – Sep 2, 1945) NAZI fascism is mostly right-wing, despite its quasi-socialist roots.

This exclusive in-group nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and at times militant ideology is what we call in modern language “right-wing,” and it is not an ideology of liberty and equality, it is an ideology of authority and inequality, it is not liberalism.

by Tommy Monk Tue May 02, 2017 12:13 am

Nobody said Hitler was a liberal...

Just that nazism/fascism was far left socialist...

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:14 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody said Hitler was a liberal...

Just that nazism/fascism was far left socialist...

Showing you are ignoring the evidence again

As Nazism is Far Right

by Tommy Monk Tue May 02, 2017 12:17 am

But all evidence points to being far left...

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:19 am

Thorin wrote:
Authoritarian like Mussolini and the Other WWII Fascists

Most of what people cite to attempt to show Hitler was “left-wing” or “a socialist” comes from the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform, which was written before Hitler rose to power in the party’s Nationalist wing! Simply, the nationalists were in a party with some socialists (Strasserists) at one point, but that doesn’t make the nationalist fascism left, liberal, or socialist. Fascism is right-wing (authoritative and small group focused) ideology.
Consider some main aspects of fascism are:

Anti-specific religions (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Pro-racial separation (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-civil rights for minorities (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-establishment (left-wing, against the elite; but right-wing, against the protections of the state; and right-wing, in practice the NAZIs became despotic tyrants who used the full power of the state)

Anti-homosexual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-abortion (right-wing, authoritative)

Anti-intellectual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Anti-immigration (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)

Pro-social programs for their “nationals” AKA their in-group (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).

Pro-nativist worker (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).

Anti-Capitalism on paper (left-wing, against capitalism and toward socialism for the in-group on paper; right-wing, were capitalists with a strict hierarchy in practice.)

In short, just based on general reason, not much about the NAZI’s fascism is left-wing (not much liberty and/or equality going on here). Sure, on paper in the 1920’s they were to the left of a Monarchy with the help of the Strasserists). But the militant WWII era (Sep 1, 1939 – Sep 2, 1945) NAZI fascism is mostly right-wing, despite its quasi-socialist roots.

This exclusive in-group nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and at times militant ideology is what we call in modern language “right-wing,” and it is not an ideology of liberty and equality, it is an ideology of authority and inequality, it is not liberalism.

Tommy clearly needs to go to specsavers

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:26 am

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:27 am

Understanding Fascism and Why Hitler Was Right-Wing

Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right (as we note below), and this makes sense as Hitler, like Mussolini, was a fascist (where fascism is an “evolution of socialism”, a type of collectivist right-wing populism focused on social hierarchy and militaristic and totalitarian nationalism, that arose after WWI to push back against globalism, liberalism, elitism, democracy, and Marxism).[10]
This isn’t a judgement call, this is literally the doctrine of the ideology that Mussolini coined, Hitler was inspired by, and both popularized.

The above is generally true for both Hitler and Mussolini’s parties (and very generally for all other fascist parties) even though Hitler’s National Socialist Party had a few more socialist planks than Mussolini’s more liberal, cronyist, and way less xenophobic in-practice National Fascist and Republican Fascist Parties.
Fascism in any form is generally a right-wing collectivist ideology that sometimes shares a few odd planks with socialism (like free healthcare for nationals), but otherwise fully rejects liberalism, socialism, democracy, economic liberalism, and communism to create a totalitarian, nationalist, militaristic collective (a “folk state”; see “Völkisch” and “Volksgemeinschaft“) with a social hierarchy focused on the state as a civil religion (where the Highest Good is the state; unlike Communism on-paper where the Highest Good is global social equality and where there is no class or nation, and unlike liberalism where the highest good is liberty).
Given this, it is hard to see fascism as “exactly the same” as “liberal left-wing socialism” in absolute terms, and it is even hard to see it as anything like that in comparative terms going issue by issue through fascist party platforms.

FACT: In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the People’s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Clearly, as it almost always is in any era as a constant, and as it was then: the socialists are left, the liberals center left and right, and the militaristic nationalists are right-wingers.[11]

http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:30 am

Night everyone

by Eilzel Tue May 02, 2017 1:15 am

nicko wrote:Eilzel, to settle an argument, is it compulsory where you are to wear a Crash Helmet?

Haha. Legally yes. In practice not every does and mostly get away with it.

by Eilzel Tue May 02, 2017 1:24 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Eilzel wrote:No. I didn't. Troll. Point out exactly how I defined it as such, without twisting, or stop lying.

And if you can answer my questions then do it.

Cause right now your failure to do so speaks volumes.

Lez, I always had you down as one of the fairest and most even-handed of posters in this and other forums, but I really do take issue with you and people such as Andy over your contention that Tommy Monk is a forum Troll.

Out of his last 10 posts, nine could be considered legitimate contributions to the prevailing debate while one was abusive, albeit mild by comparison with the abuse posted by others.

The fact that you may disagree with him does not mean that what he posts is not relevant.

WhoseYourWolfie, on the other hand has, out of his last 10 posts, made one apparently legitimate contribution to a debate and nine abusive and offensive posts against other members - all of whom, significantly, might be considered as being on the Right of politics.

I am certainly not claiming any sort of angelic innocence or purity on my part - I may be Christian but I take a very unChristian attitude towards the principle of turning the other cheek - but trolling involves stalking individual members, frequently without provocation or for any real reason, and deliberately attempting to disrupt discussion.

And on that basis it is pretty clear in my mind at least just who is the real Troll here.

With respect Ed, I have repearedly asked Tommy to answer some very simple questions. I let his failure to answer my much earlier points slide as he simply repeated his same points.

Now he takes a single comment on big states being common among LW govts to be my 'definition' of what LW is. You and I both know that is not what I said and since I actually credit tommy with some intelligence I imagine he does to, so to deliberately construe it that way to avoid answering the point, repeatedly even after further clarification, is trolling.

I have ignored some other 'contributions' by others here as I am actually interested in the topic. It is just a shame even the topic creatpr, tommy, seems more intent on giggling like a school girl while repeatedly distorting what is said than actually engaging into further discussion.

by Eilzel Tue May 02, 2017 1:28 am

And zero response to didge's articles from tommy.

You see LE. Tommy has no intention of debating anything. He reads one thing, posts it here to stir things up. Does not debate points against his view- either because he can't, or because he won't (in which case he is trolling).

by 'Wolfie Tue May 02, 2017 1:37 am

And, I notice that some of Tommy's fellow trolls are lining up to offer their moral support to his cause...

Those trolls active on here at this time, do have a few things in common :
* They're English
* They all seem conservative
* They all have links to DYKnose and his cesspit..

by Eilzel Tue May 02, 2017 1:49 am

Wolf in fairness I would prefer it if responses here were kept on topic from now on. Same for everyone else who has taken this topic off point.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 6:33 am

It seems to me that a moderator took this off topic by claiming that a participant was a troll.

Can anyone define "right wing" and say how it applied to the Nazis? There's the racism issue of course, which is usually associated with the "far right", but what about economically and politically?

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that a moderator took this off topic by claiming that a participant was a troll.

Can anyone define "right wing" and say how it applied to the Nazis? There's the racism issue of course, which is usually associated with the "far right", but what about economically and politically?

So that would mean you have taken countless off topic by calling me a troll

Second Eilzel is not acting as a Moderator here but as a poster in this debate

I explained what Nazism is and as has Quill and Eilzel

I have got so fed up with both yours and Tommys denial, I have posted articles for your education

Try reading them to understand what Right wing is and more importantly Nazism

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 7:07 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that a moderator took this off topic by claiming that a participant was a troll.

Can anyone define "right wing" and say how it applied to the Nazis? There's the racism issue of course, which is usually associated with the "far right", but what about economically and politically?

So that would mean you have taken countless off topic by calling me a troll

I explained what Nazism is and as has Quill and Eilzel

I have got so fed up with both yours and Tommys denial, I have posted articles for your education

Try reading them to understand what Right wing is and more importantly Nazism

I didn't tell people to stay on topic though. Les certainly did post as a moderator in his last post.

I'm not interested in your huge copy and paste jobs. If you can't answer the question, maybe someone else can.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:11 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So that would mean you have taken countless off topic by calling me a troll

I explained what Nazism is and as has Quill and Eilzel

I have got so fed up with both yours and Tommys denial, I have posted articles for your education

Try reading them to understand what Right wing is and more importantly Nazism

I didn't tell people to stay on topic though.

I'm not interested in your huge copy and paste jobs. If you can't answer the question, maybe someone else can.

Well there you have it

I did explain, as did others and you have ignored our evidence

I got bored with you failing to understand, that I posted up an idiots guide on Nazis for you and your excuse?

You don't want to educate yourself to the facts of history

That is your failing

The answers are there for you

The fact you cannot counter them proves your ignorance on history of which I have stated throughout

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 7:15 am

I'm sure that someone said that the "right wing" are concerned with individualism - I think it was Quill in another thread. Hitler wasn't concerned with that was he? He wanted all the citizens to be the same - a "good" German, which was defined by him.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:16 am

Thorin wrote:
Understanding Fascism and Why Hitler Was Right-Wing

Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right (as we note below), and this makes sense as Hitler, like Mussolini, was a fascist (where fascism is an “evolution of socialism”, a type of collectivist right-wing populism focused on social hierarchy and militaristic and totalitarian nationalism, that arose after WWI to push back against globalism, liberalism, elitism, democracy, and Marxism).[10]
This isn’t a judgement call, this is literally the doctrine of the ideology that Mussolini coined, Hitler was inspired by, and both popularized.

The above is generally true for both Hitler and Mussolini’s parties (and very generally for all other fascist parties) even though Hitler’s National Socialist Party had a few more socialist planks than Mussolini’s more liberal, cronyist, and way less xenophobic in-practice National Fascist and Republican Fascist Parties.
Fascism in any form is generally a right-wing collectivist ideology that sometimes shares a few odd planks with socialism (like free healthcare for nationals), but otherwise fully rejects liberalism, socialism, democracy, economic liberalism, and communism to create a totalitarian, nationalist, militaristic collective (a “folk state”; see “Völkisch” and “Volksgemeinschaft“) with a social hierarchy focused on the state as a civil religion (where the Highest Good is the state; unlike Communism on-paper where the Highest Good is global social equality and where there is no class or nation, and unlike liberalism where the highest good is liberty).
Given this, it is hard to see fascism as “exactly the same” as “liberal left-wing socialism” in absolute terms, and it is even hard to see it as anything like that in comparative terms going issue by issue through fascist party platforms.

FACT: In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the People’s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Clearly, as it almost always is in any era as a constant, and as it was then: the socialists are left, the liberals center left and right, and the militaristic nationalists are right-wingers.[11]

http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:19 am

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 7:20 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How is revisionist history that is false a valid contribution? When as seen its not based on any evidence but politically motivated?

Any claim to say its relevant would mean you agree Nazism was Far left wing?

So do you believe Nazism was Far Left?

Sorry but falsified claims are never relevant, especially when they are politically motivated and not based on facts.

Do you mean "never relevant" when motivated by political considerations with which you disagree and based on facts which you consider to be false?

You clearly considered the thread and Tommy's contributions to it both valid and relevant in the context of open debate, otherwise you would hardly have spent such an obvious amount of time on researching the material which you used to further your own argument opposing the premise.

That being so, your acceptance of its validity and relevance must obviously mean - by your own definition - that you yourself agree that Nazism was far Left wing.

Whether I believe it or not is immaterial; had the subject captured my interest I would have taken part in the debate. My interest is centred more on what I consider to be unfair and flawed accusations that Tommy is a Troll.

(For the record, and before you start squealing "cop out" - no, I don't believe it.)

A good post Fred. There wouldn't be much debate on here if only one viewpoint was considered to be "valid". I think the issue is certainly up for debate, and it's interesting to see how people define "right" and "left" wing, or it would be if they didn't just repeat what someone else on the internet had said.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:22 am

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:23 am

Thorin wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

So? Argue the point with him, if you feel so strongly about it.

You asked me whether I think that Nazism is far Left wing; what part of "no" do you not understand?

Further than that, read my post again and at least make an attempt to understand it, because I have nothing further to say on the subject.

1) I have and that is not the point being made here. Its about your claim as to it being valid and a contribution

2) So I am simple ascertaining how and even after you admitting you do not agree with him, how then his contribution can then be valid?

3) Now if you said he has freedom of expression to argue his views, I would certainly agree, but in no way are they at all valid.

The post Fred could not answer

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:25 am

[*]Far-right politics

[*]Fascism and the Liberal Imagination Watch ThinkProgress try to link socialism to fascism, using casual dot-connecting and glib historical analysis. by Carl Beijer

[*]German Fascism

[*]Myth: Hitler was a leftist. Fact: Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right

[*]Weimar Political Parties

[*]National Socialist Program

[*]How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a Social Revolution Leon Degrelle

[*]Fascism

[*]What is Socialism?

[*]Socialism

[*]HITLER AND MUSSOLINI

[*]Economics of fascism

[*]Economy of Nazi Germany

[*]Manifesto of the Communist Party

[*]NAZI PARTY

[*]Nazi Party

[*]Nazi Hitler Economic Social and Political Policies

[*]Reichsbank

[*]Neo-fascism

[*]The Rise of Right-wing Populism in Europe and the United States A Comparative Perspective

[*]Globalization, the welfare state and right-wing populism in Western Europe

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 7:36 am

Eilzel wrote:And zero response to didge's articles from tommy.

You see LE. Tommy has no intention of debating anything. He reads one thing, posts it here to stir things up. Does not debate points against his view- either because he can't, or because he won't (in which case he is trolling).

Indeed he and both Rags have avoided the facts

They do so because they are both Nazi apologists and have political agendas based on their own political beliefs.

They want to whitewash history to make a false charge claiming Nazism is left wing

Its not only rubbish, but insulting to the millions of victims of Nazism, many of whom were left wing.

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 8:00 am

I haven't claimed that Nazism was left wing, and even if I had, that wouldn't make me a Nazi apologist. A certain person is just trying to shut down the debate by claiming that. If spamming the forum doesn't work, accuse someone of being a Nazi apologist eh?

Hitler wanted to get rid of all the competition. He didn't care where it came from.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 8:03 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I haven't claimed that Nazism was left wing, and even if I had, that wouldn't make me a Nazi apologist. A certain person is just trying to shut down the debate by claiming that. If spamming the forum doesn't work, accuse someone of being a Nazi apologist eh?

Hitler wanted to get rid of all the competition. He didn't care where it came from.

So if you claim it is not left wing, you clearly refute Tommy's claims

You need to make your mind up

So you are telling me that if someone claimed the Nazi';s were a Jewish ideology and were Jews, that it would not be the worst Nazi apologist rubbish and insulting to the 6 million Jews of the Holocaust?

Tommy is claiming Nazism is Far Left, which is insulting to the many left wing victims of Nazism and makes him a Nazi apologist

So I am pointing out facts

That is not shutting down anything but exposing

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 8:04 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy, Raggamuffin...
And their collective backers/cheer squad..

Collectively, we should be referring to that gang as 'The Troll Squad'.

Who are "we"? Is it the same "we" that Andy referred to? I hope you're not in cahoots with him, plotting against other members.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 8:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy, Raggamuffin...
And their collective backers/cheer squad..

Collectively, we should be referring to that gang as 'The Troll Squad'.

Who are "we"? Is it the same "we" that Andy referred to? I hope you're not in cahoots with him, plotting against other members.

This has been addressed by Eilzel

So why are you continually looking to stir and fight here?

by Raggamuffin Tue May 02, 2017 8:09 am

The other question is - were those who supported Hitler by voting for him right wing? They perhaps didn't want to vote for the communists, but that doesn't make them right wing. They were concerned with the economy re jobs and the standard of living, as well as the humiliation they felt after Germany was so heavily punished after WW1.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 8:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:The other question is - were those who supported Hitler by voting for him right wing? They perhaps didn't want to vote for the communists, but that doesn't make them right wing. They were concerned with the economy re jobs and the standard of living, as well as the humiliation they felt after Germany was so heavily punished after WW1.

So your views is on voters and not Nazism itself.

What has that got to do with the price of bread?

by Fred Moletrousers Tue May 02, 2017 10:07 am

Thorin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) I have and that is not the point being made here. Its about your claim as to it being valid and a contribution

No it is not the point; your direct question - twice -was whether I believed that Nazism was far Left. My answer was an unequivocal "no."

Are both the topic under discussion - a post by Tommy containing a quotation by Josef Goebbels and his subsequent personal opinions on the matter - both valid and relevant? My answer to that is an equally unequivocal "yes." Tommy can express his opinion and belief that the Tooth Fairy is is a murderous ultra Right wing despot if he so wishes and it would still be both valid and relevant to the debate, no matter how bizarre and outlandish, BECAUSE THIS IS A BLOODY DISCUSSION GROUP AND MEMBERS HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY WISH WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE GROUP RULES AND THE PREVAILING LAW.

2) So I am simple ascertaining how and even after you admitting you do not agree with him, how then his contribution can then be valid?
Answered.

3) Now if you said he has freedom of expression to argue his views, I would certainly agree, but in no way are they at all valid.

By whose judgement? Yours? As I have told you before, you posses neither Papal infallibility nor a monopoly on knowledge, though your constant treatment of the views of others with ridicule and contempt is an indication that you are plainly deluded in that respect.

Frankly, anyone who loftily declares the opinions and beliefs of others as irrelevant and invalid, and then spends an inordinate amount of his time pontificating about them and inflicting thousands of words of cut-and-paste material to support his own views upon the rest of the forum really does need to consider his own judgemental capabilities.

The post Fred could not answer

I cannot make up my mind whether you are being deliberately obtuse or simply stupid.
End of conversation...I have more important matters to address.

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 10:23 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Are both the topic under discussion - a post by Tommy containing a quotation by Josef Goebbels and his subsequent personal opinions on the matter - both valid and relevant? My answer to that is an equally unequivocal "yes." Tommy can express his opinion and belief that the Tooth Fairy is is a murderous ultra Right wing despot if he so wishes and it would still be both valid and relevant to the debate, no matter how bizarre and outlandish, BECAUSE THIS IS A BLOODY DISCUSSION GROUP AND MEMBERS HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY WISH WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE GROUP RULES AND THE PREVAILING LAW.

Thorin wrote: So based on your views as stated you believe the views of David Irvine are valid on the Holocaust, based on your belief not reason.

So lets look at the meaning of the words?

Relevant:

closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered.

Now considering you have stated that there is no connection to the Far Left and Nazism, its clear its no even relevant.

Valid:

(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

On this bases there is no validity, as again there is no facts or logic behind Tommy;s claims.

Hence his claims are neither valid or relevant

By whose judgement? Yours? As I have told you before, you posses neither Papal infallibility nor a monopoly on knowledge, though your constant treatment of the views of others with ridicule and contempt is an indication that you are plainly deluded in that respect.

Thorin wrote: The above is misdirection, when the bases of our discussions is on your claim to Tommys views being relevant or valid. In both cases they are not as I have easily pointed out. The only way they would be valid or relevant, as if they had any bases in fact or logic, of which as seen they do not.

Frankly, anyone who loftily declares the opinions and beliefs of others as irrelevant and invalid, and then spends an inordinate amount of his time pontificating about them and inflicting thousands of words of cut-and-paste material to support his own views upon the rest of the forum really does need to consider his own judgemental capabilities.

Thorin wrote: So we are back to the point on David Irvine and Tommy here who neither have argued opinions, but as if they are fact. The point that seems to delude you. This is why such claims are rebuked in the academic world as that of politically motivated charlatans. This has never been about opinions, but a person arguing that Nazism is Far Left and as if this is a fact. Now if you want to defend stupidity, and poor ignorance of history, then that is your failing here.

I cannot make up my mind whether you are being deliberately obtuse or simply stupid.
End of conversation...I have more important matters to address.

No I simply am easily reasoning that this is not a claim based on opinions, but as if they are fact, rendering your claim to Validity and relevance as nothing more than simply in error.
Your problem is you cannot take criticism for when you make poor views.
I suggest you learn to grow up and respect others can and will do ridicule poor claims making out they are facts, when as seen they are in fact lies. Now if you want to back lies as valid, then we are getting very relevant to how the Nazi's used lies to gain power

by Tommy Monk Tue May 02, 2017 12:15 pm

Soon after he arrived in
Switzerland in 1902, 18
years old and looking for
work, Benito Mussolini
was starving and penniless. All he had in his pockets was a
cheap nickel medallion of Karl Marx.
Following a spell of vagrancy, Mussolini found a job as a
bricklayer and union organizer in the city of Lausanne.
Quickly achieving fame as an agitator among the Italian
migratory laborers, he was referred to by a local
Italian-language newspaper as "the great duce [leader] of the
Italian socialists." He read voraciously, learned several foreign
languages, (2) and sat in on Pareto's lectures at the university.
The great duce's fame was so far purely parochial. Upon his
return to Italy, young Benito was an undistinguished member
of the Socialist Party. He began to edit his own little paper,
La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), ferociously
anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, and anti-Catholic. He took
seriously Marx's dictum that the working class has no country,
and vigorously opposed the Italian military intervention in
Libya. Jailed several times for involvement in strikes and
anti-war protests, he became something of a leftist hero.
Before turning 30, Mussolini was elected to the National
Executive Committee of the Socialist Party, and made editor
of its daily paper, Avanti! The paper's circulation and
Mussolini's personal popularity grew by leaps and bounds.
Mussolini's election to the Executive was part of the capture
of control of the Socialist Party by the hard-line Marxist left,
with the expulsion from the Party of those deputies (members
of parliament) considered too conciliatory to the bourgeoisie.
The shift in Socialist Party control was greeted with delight by
Lenin and other revolutionaries throughout the world.
From 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was the Che Guevara of his
day, a living saint of leftism. Handsome, courageous,
charismatic, an erudite Marxist, a riveting speaker and writer,
a dedicated class warrior to the core, he was the peerless
duce of the Italian Left. He looked like the head of any future
Italian socialist government, elected or revolutionary.
In 1913, while still editor of Avanti!, he began to publish and
edit his own journal, Utopia, a forum for controversial
discussion among leftwing socialists. Like many such socialist
journals founded in hope, it aimed to create a highly-educated
cadre of revolutionaries, purged of dogmatic illusions, ready
to seize the moment. Two of those who collaborated with
Mussolini on Utopia would go on to help found the Italian
Communist Party and one to help found the German
Communist Party.(3) Others, with Mussolini, would found
the Fascist movement.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

You don't get much more left wing than this...!!!

Everywhere you look... you find that all the Nazis/fascists were deep rooted left wingers!!!

by Guest Tue May 02, 2017 12:20 pm

Again selective

How about you carry on reading what else he said Tommy?

Apart from its ardent nationalism and pro-war foreign policy, the Fascist program was a mixture of radical left, moderate left, democratic, and liberal measures, and for more than a year the new movement was not notably more violent than other socialist groupings. (9) However, Fascists came into conflict with Socialist Party members and in 1920 formed a militia, the squadre (squads). Including many patriotic veterans, the squads were more efficient at arson and terror tactics than the violently disposed but bumbling Marxists, and often had the tacit support of the police and army. By 1921 Fascists had the upper hand in physical combat with their rivals of the left.

The democratic and liberal elements in Fascist preaching rapidly diminished and in 1922 Mussolini declared that "The world is turning to the right." The Socialists, who controlled the unions, called a general strike. Marching into some of the major cities, blackshirt squads quickly and forcibly suppressed the strike, and most Italians heaved a sigh of relief. This gave the blackshirts the idea of marching on Rome to seize power. As they publicly gathered for the great march, the government decided to avert possible civil war by bringing Mussolini into office; the King "begged" Mussolini to become Prime Minister, with emergency powers. Instead of a desperate uprising, the March on Rome was the triumphant celebration of a legal transfer of authority.

Fascism is capitalism with the mask off. It's a tool of Big Business, which rules through democracy until it feels mortally threatened, then unleashes fascism. Mussolini and Hitler were put into power by Big Business, because Big Business was challenged by the revolutionary working class. (15) We naturally have to explain, then, how fascism can be a mass movement, and one that is neither led nor organized by Big Business. The explanation is that Fascism does it by fiendishly clever use of ritual and symbol. Fascism as an intellectual doctrine is empty of serious content, or alternatively, its content is an incoherent hodge-podge. Fascism's appeal is a matter of emotions rather than ideas. It relies on hymn-singing, flag-waving, and other mummery, which are nothing more than irrational devices employed by the Fascist leaders who have been paid by Big Business to manipulate the masses.

by eddie Tue May 02, 2017 12:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Thanks Eddie!

No problem. I can see why and how you irritate people but I think you're a pretty good poster and rarely stoop to calling people names nor do you ever really get involved in arguments. You certainly don't make long-winded posts about other people and their faults....

I know that riles people.
But that says more about them than it does you.

I speak the truth...

You speak your truth. Let's be clear about that.

by Sponsored content