More evidence that nazism was left wing

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

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..

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).

nicko wrote:Well said Fred,  he only offers insults.   There is a massive "chip" on his shoulder for some reason.   Full of hate.

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

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.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

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).

Lez, I am so excruciatingly bored by Didge's "articles", which are simply the expression of third party thoughts and opinions chosen for no other reason than that flawed or not, they conform to his own, and his repeated deliberate misrepresentation of my own posts, and no doubt those of others, to conform to his own agenda that I have done something that I have never done since the days of the ancient Sky forum: I have placed him on "ignore."

Tommy quite clearly has his own agenda as well as his own no doubt genuine beliefs and opinions: Who among us has not?

On the basis of the interest that this thread - in which he has undoubtedly played a full part -  has so evidently created, one could hardly describe him as a troll, an offence which I for one detest.

For pure, unadulterated trolling I simply refer you to WhoseYourWolfie's recent post...and rest my case.

Eilzel wrote:And no. No falling out. No reason to as I can see

Tommy Monk wrote: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!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again, that measly-mouthed old turd Ferd Notrousers simply proves how ignorant he is to what an internet "troll" actually is...

Not only do we see Fred, Tommy, Ragg's, Horatio and their company of floptards constantly trolling this forum..

But those scum also regularly deflect by falsely labelling their various critics on here as "trolls" and "liars", without ever supplying any real world proof to back their demented claims.

Eilzel wrote:Wow tommy can copy and paste more without responding to anything. How impressive....

Eilzel wrote:You've no interesting in discussing it though so what's the point?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

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).

Lez, I am so excruciatingly bored by Didge's "articles", which are simply the expression of third party thoughts and opinions chosen for no other reason than that flawed or not, they conform to his own, and his repeated deliberate misrepresentation of my own posts, and no doubt those of others, to conform to his own agenda that I have done something that I have never done since the days of the ancient Sky forum: I have placed him on "ignore."

Tommy quite clearly has his own agenda as well as his own no doubt genuine beliefs and opinions: Who among us has not?

On the basis of the interest that this thread - in which he has undoubtedly played a full part -  has so evidently created, one could hardly describe him as a troll, an offence which I for one detest.

For pure, unadulterated trolling I simply refer you to WhoseYourWolfie's recent post...and rest my case.

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Lez, I am so excruciatingly bored by Didge's "articles", which are simply the expression of third party thoughts and opinions chosen for no other reason than that flawed or not, they conform to his own, and his repeated deliberate misrepresentation of my own posts, and no doubt those of others, to conform to his own agenda that I have done something that I have never done since the days of the ancient Sky forum: I have placed him on "ignore."

Tommy quite clearly has his own agenda as well as his own no doubt genuine beliefs and opinions: Who among us has not?

On the basis of the interest that this thread - in which he has undoubtedly played a full part -  has so evidently created, one could hardly describe him as a troll, an offence which I for one detest.

For pure, unadulterated trolling I simply refer you to WhoseYourWolfie's recent post...and rest my case.

In this thread I agree. But as I answered you earlier, I actually want to debate this issue, and not be distracted by other factors.

I have repeatedly tried to engage in actual debate with tommy here to no avail. At least didge is responding in this instance with his own points. Tommy is choosing not to.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again, that measly-mouthed old turd Ferd Notrousers simply proves how ignorant he is to what an internet "troll" actually is...

Not only do we see Fred, Tommy, Ragg's, Horatio and their company of floptards constantly trolling this forum..

But those scum also regularly deflect by falsely labelling their various critics on here as "trolls" and "liars", without ever supplying any real world proof to back their demented claims.

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.

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


Maybe someone would like to point out how Fred thinks I am misrepresenting him?

Also how he thinks I am trying to deny people saying what they like?

I mean it seems Tommy can say what he likes, by any rightful ridicule from me is wrong

To easily reason that Fred is clearly wrong to claim someone's lies are valid


Then he acts immature and is going place me on ignore

Seriously how old is he now?

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Once again, that measly-mouthed old turd Ferd Notrousers simply proves how ignorant he is to what an internet "troll" actually is...

Not only do we see Fred, Tommy, Ragg's, Horatio and their company of floptards constantly trolling this forum..

But those scum also regularly deflect by falsely labelling their various critics on here as "trolls" and "liars", without ever supplying any real world proof to back their demented claims.

Well you are a troll - you're trolling this thread big time, and have said virtually nothing about the actual subject. I've made many posts about the subject, so I'm not trolling at all.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you are a troll - you're trolling this thread big time, and have said virtually nothing about the actual subject. I've made many posts about the subject, so I'm not trolling at all.

I think that you will find the irony entirely wasted on him, Raggs.

Angry Andy wrote:Evidence of Flop ganging?  All we need is head.

Angry Andy wrote:Evidence of Flop ganging?  All we need is head.

Angry Andy wrote:Evidence of Flop ganging?  All we need is head.

eddie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Evidence of Flop ganging?  All we need is head.

You need a different forum if you want head.

Eilzel wrote:You've no interesting in discussing it though so what's the point?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You've no interesting in discussing it though so what's the point?

I posted up some pretty conclusive stuff about Musolini being a well known hard lefty...

What bit of that do you want to discuss?

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler didn't like the Communists for two main reasons. They were too international for him, and they had nothing much against Jews. He didn't dislike them for their "leftie" ideas. He saw them as an extension of the Russian revolution, and he had no time for that kind of thing - he wanted his own revolution.

Above all else, Hitler was a nationalist, and most events stemmed from that. Whether that makes him right wing is up for debate.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I posted up some pretty conclusive stuff about Musolini being a well known hard lefty...

What bit of that do you want to discuss?

You still haven't responded to my earlier questions so again, what is the point. You do not want a discussion, you wamt to post articles that impressed you and repeat what they say.

I WANT to discuss points, it's a shame you do not.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You still haven't responded to my earlier questions so again, what is the point. You do not want a discussion, you wamt to post articles that impressed you and repeat what they say.

I WANT to discuss points, it's a shame you do not.

The extent of Tommy's ingrained stupidity and ignorance is clearly shown here, where he believes that outright lies and misdirections by his fellow far right/alt.right bloggers somehow constitutes "pretty conclusive stuff", when his nonsensical supposed 'evidence' is obviously nothing of the sort...

I put up evidence of Tommy's wrong-headedness months ago, when he first posted his lies on this topic --  when he plainly ignored evidence that Thorin/Didge, veya, Eilzel and others, posted against his garbage back then, now I will just keep on disabusing Tommy over his outright propaganda efforts. I don't see any need to rehash what's already been posted before..

"Fascism" is a far-right political system, with fascism being at the core of Germany/Austria, Italy and Japan during the 1930s and 40s  --  Tommy and Ragg's alt.right/neo-nazi revisionism notwithstanding...

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler didn't like the Communists for two main reasons. They were too international for him, and they had nothing much against Jews. He didn't dislike them for their "leftie" ideas. He saw them as an extension of the Russian revolution, and he had no time for that kind of thing - he wanted his own revolution.

Above all else, Hitler was a nationalist, and most events stemmed from that. Whether that makes him right wing is up for debate.

Nationalism is a RW political ideology. And as you say, the defining feature of Hitler's Nazism.

That's not to say no communist regime was ever nationalist. Many were. Leaders and regimes tend not be 100% RW or LW. Like Hitler used what can be called 'RW socialism' (which as discussed above is not the same as the socialism of either the communists or ths modern Left). Mao's China was certainly communist in the extreme, but it was as nationalistic. Overall though communism defined Mao's China, and it is decidely a tragedy of LW extremism. While Hitler's Germany had aspects of (RW) socialism, the ideology of the Nazis was defined by Nationalism and is a tragedy of RW extremism.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler didn't like the Communists for two main reasons. They were too international for him, and they had nothing much against Jews. He didn't dislike them for their "leftie" ideas. He saw them as an extension of the Russian revolution, and he had no time for that kind of thing - he wanted his own revolution.

Above all else, Hitler was a nationalist, and most events stemmed from that. Whether that makes him right wing is up for debate.

Nationalism is a RW political ideology. And as you say, the defining feature of Hitler's Nazism.

That's not to say no communist regime was ever nationalist. Many were. Leaders and regimes tend not be 100% RW or LW. Like Hitler used what can be called 'RW socialism' (which as discussed above is not the same as the socialism of either the communists or ths modern Left). Mao's China was certainly communist in the extreme, but it was as nationalistic. Overall though communism defined Mao's China, and it is decidely a tragedy of LW extremism. While Hitler's Germany had aspects of (RW) socialism, the ideology of the Nazis was defined by Nationalism and is a tragedy of RW extremism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Nationalism is a RW political ideology. And as you say, the defining feature of Hitler's Nazism.

That's not to say no communist regime was ever nationalist. Many were. Leaders and regimes tend not be 100% RW or LW. Like Hitler used what can be called 'RW socialism' (which as discussed above is not the same as the socialism of either the communists or ths modern Left). Mao's China was certainly communist in the extreme, but it was as nationalistic. Overall though communism defined Mao's China, and it is decidely a tragedy of LW extremism. While Hitler's Germany had aspects of (RW) socialism, the ideology of the Nazis was defined by Nationalism and is a tragedy of RW extremism.

So are the Scottish Nationalist Party right wing? Nationalism can mean different things. If Hitler's nationalism had included Jews and other ethnic groups as German citizens, would you say it was right wing?

• 5.1Risorgimento and Integral nationalism
  
  
• 5.2Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism
  
  
• 5.3Ethnic nationalism
  
  
• 5.4Religious nationalism
  
  
• 5.5National purity
  
  
• 5.6Left-wing nationalism
  
  
• 5.7Territorial nationalism
  
  
• 5.8Pan-nationalism
  
  
• 5.9Anti-colonial nationalism
  
  
• 5.10Racial nationalism
  
  
• 5.11Sports nationalism
  
  
• 5.12Gendered nationalism
  
  
• 5.13Criticisms
  
  

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are the Scottish Nationalist Party right wing? Nationalism can mean different things. If Hitler's nationalism had included Jews and other ethnic groups as German citizens, would you say it was right wing?

I have to laugh at the things you come out with.


Learn about the differences


Varieties

• 5.1Risorgimento and Integral nationalism
  
  
• 5.2Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism
  
  
• 5.3Ethnic nationalism
  
  
• 5.4Religious nationalism
  
  
• 5.5National purity
  
  
• 5.6Left-wing nationalism
  
  
• 5.7Territorial nationalism
  
  
• 5.8Pan-nationalism
  
  
• 5.9Anti-colonial nationalism
  
  
• 5.10Racial nationalism
  
  
• 5.11Sports nationalism
  
  
• 5.12Gendered nationalism
  
  
• 5.13Criticisms
  
  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I have to laugh at the things you come out with.


Learn about the differences


Varieties

• 5.1Risorgimento and Integral nationalism
  
  
• 5.2Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism
  
  
• 5.3Ethnic nationalism
  
  
• 5.4Religious nationalism
  
  
• 5.5National purity
  
  
• 5.6Left-wing nationalism
  
  
• 5.7Territorial nationalism
  
  
• 5.8Pan-nationalism
  
  
• 5.9Anti-colonial nationalism
  
  
• 5.10Racial nationalism
  
  
• 5.11Sports nationalism
  
  
• 5.12Gendered nationalism
  
  
• 5.13Criticisms
  
  

You can't teach anyone anything. I already said nationalism can mean different things, so it's you who should go to Specsavers. Now you have nothing more you can say to me, so don't bother to troll me any more.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't teach anyone anything. I already said nationalism can mean different things, so it's you who should go to Specsavers. Now you have nothing more you can say to me, so don't bother to troll me any more.

Really, then why is it clear you dont understand the difference or read Eilzels post properly?

And what did you say about calling people trolls on this very thread?

Hilarious double standards

Now grow up you pathetic spoilt brat

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really, then why is it clear you dont understand the difference or read Eilzels post properly?

And what did you say about calling people trolls on this very thread?

Hilarious double standards

Now grow up you pathetic spoilt brat

You are trolling. You've been trolling me all the way through this thread. Now away with you with your copy and paste jobs and your abuse. You and wolfman are simply no good at debating.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You still haven't responded to my earlier questions so again, what is the point. You do not want a discussion, you wamt to post articles that impressed you and repeat what they say.

I WANT to discuss points, it's a shame you do not.

The extent of Tommy's ingrained stupidity and ignorance is clearly shown here, where he believes that outright lies and misdirections by his fellow far right/alt.right bloggers somehow constitutes "pretty conclusive stuff", when his nonsensical supposed 'evidence' is obviously nothing of the sort...

I put up evidence of Tommy's wrong-headedness months ago, when he first posted his lies on this topic --  when he plainly ignored evidence that Thorin/Didge, veya, Eilzel and others, posted against his garbage back then, now I will just keep on disabusing Tommy over his outright propaganda efforts. I don't see any need to rehash what's already been posted before..

"Fascism" is a far-right political system, with fascism being at the core of Germany/Austria, Italy and Japan during the 1930s and 40s  --  Tommy and Ragg's alt.right/neo-nazi revisionism notwithstanding...

Raggamuffin wrote:Hitler was very much into self-determination for the German people. He considered that the Treaty of Versailles took away that self-determination, and that the Weimar Government was not valid because it accepted the Treaty. He thought that anyone who accepted it were traitors. One could say that he took the concept of self-determination too far of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's easy to see who is really interested in the subject, and who is only interested in abusing other posters. Tommy, Les, and myself have been debating the subject, and Didge and wolfboy are only here to abuse other posters. That's because they know nothing about the subject, other than what they can google, and they have no ability to think for themselves.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's easy to see who is really interested in the subject, and who is only interested in abusing other posters. Tommy, Les, and myself have been debating the subject, and Didge and wolfboy are only here to abuse other posters. That's because they know nothing about the subject, other than what they can google, and they have no ability to think for themselves.

Well because it gets boring trying to reason with an imbecile such as yourself who clearly has not got a clue what they are talking about on history

I suggest you actually read up on this before debating because its so boring having you keep coming out with rubbish

I mean you did not even know what the Pan Germanic League was.
A forerunner to the nazi's on Racial nationalism and liebestraum