Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 192
Thanks Tree198Thanks

Thread: Hitler Was A Socialist Liberal

  1. #21
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    19,232
    Thanks
    16725

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    Fascism is has tenants of both the left and the right. It is both, thus neither.

    Neither are Fascist "centrist" they are extreme in their positions.
    The fact that fascism is violently hostile to socialism and liberal democracy makes it far right. Xenophobia, ethnocentrism, social conservatism, totalitarianism, sexism/chauvanism, extremely conservative sexual mores, are also tendencies shared mainly on the right.

    The word you were seeking is "tenets". Tenants rent a house.

  2. #22
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,702
    Thanks
    9703

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    So, my taxes are not used to pay welfare checks? Food Stamps...

    You lose.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.60cc20eccf85


    If you really believe taking from someone to give to another is "liberal", then why do you only talk about tax dollars that go to the needy, as a "donation" from the taxpayers of America, the same as individuals donate to the needy (and get to take a tax write-off for doing so)?

    Why not whine about the more expensive "welfare" you seem to think is "taking" something from you as a citizen of a nation that provides benefits to you as well as all the things you constantly whine/complain about that it gives to others.

    Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs ? Think by Numbers
    Thanks from labrea and Friday13

  3. #23
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,258
    Thanks
    1971

    From
    ohio
    #triggered


    From Ludwig Von Mises:

    "The Nazis have not only imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power. They have copied much more. They have imported from Russia the one-party system and the privileged role of this party and its members in public life; the paramount position of the secret police; the organization of affiliated parties abroad which are employed in fighting their domestic governments and in sabotage and espionage, assisted by public funds and the protection of the diplomatic and consular service; the administrative execution and imprisonment of political adversaries; concentration camps; the punishment inflicted on the families of exiles; the methods of propaganda. They have borrowed from the Marxians even such absurdities as the mode of address, party comrade (Parteigenosse), derived from the Marxian comrade (Genosse), and the use of a military terminology for all items of civil and economic life. The question is not in which respects both systems are alike but in which they differ..." The Nazis did not, as their foreign admirers contend, enforce price control within a market economy. With them price control was only one device within the frame of an all-around system of central planning. In the Nazi economy there was no question of private initiative and free enterprise. All production activities were directed by the Reichswirtschaftsministerium. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operations from the orders issued by the government. Price control was only a device in the complex of innumerable decrees and orders regulating the minutest details of every business activity and precisely fixing every individual's tasks on the one hand and his income and standard of living on the other.

    What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party.
    HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST

    But the resemblances are inescapable. Both tyrannies relied on a desperate ideology of do-or-die confrontation. Both were obsessed by battle imagery: 'The dictatorships were military metaphors, founded to fight political war.' And despite the rhetoric about a fate-struggle between socialism and capitalism, the two economic systems converged strongly. Stalin's Russia permitted a substantial private sector, while Nazi Germany became rapidly dominated by state direction and state-owned industries.

    Marxism, Communism, National Socialism, whatever you want to call it, it will turn into a military dictatorship of a small oligarchy of elites controlling the masses. It's inevitable. Happened with Stalin, happened with Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Jong-Il, the list goes on and on and on.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27,407
    Thanks
    21879

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    The lefties love to use Hitler as a an example when someone they don't like is going too far to the right for them. Hitler was a far-right tyrant in their mind. Au contraire, my friends. Hitler was actually a socialist liberal. Do you know the party he was the leader of before the Nazi party. The German Worker's Party. That sounds awfully socialist to me. In fact, the Nazi party stands for the Nationalist Socialist Party. Hmmm. It's time to own it, liberals. Hitler was one of yours. Quotes anyone?

    7 Quotes That Prove Adolf Hitler Was A Proud Socialist
    Maybe he was a socialist, however he certainly didn't share American Democratic values.

    It was American businessmen that supported Hitler believing he had the answer to the economic woes brought on by the Great Depression. So convinced were they, that they plotted a coup against FDR.

    When The Bankers Plotted To Overthrow FDR : NPR

    Hitler was admired more by capitalists, otherwise they wouldn't have plotted to overthrow the legally elected president of the US and bring Fascism to to America.
    Thanks from Babba

  5. #25
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,702
    Thanks
    9703

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    #triggered


    From Ludwig Von Mises:



    HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST




    Marxism, Communism, National Socialism, whatever you want to call it, it will turn into a military dictatorship of a small oligarchy of elites controlling the masses. It's inevitable. Happened with Stalin, happened with Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Jong-Il, the list goes on and on and on.
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    "....it will turn into a military dictatorship of a small oligarchy of elites controlling the masses."

    George W. Bush First confirmed cabinet.....................Male 83%.....White 74%.....Government experience 96%.....Former generals 4%.....Billionaires 0%

    Barack Obama First confirmed cabinet.......................Male 65%......White 52%....Government experience 87%.....Former generals 4%.....Billionaires 0%

    Donald Trump Nominees as of Dec. 19, 2016.....Male 79%......White 84%.....Government experience 47%.....Former generals 11%...Billionaires 11%
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-trump-cabinet/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elite

    http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/ Majority of Trump supporters buying this real estate?

    Non-elite kinda stuff - http://www.trump.com/




    Yes, that it why Hilter/NAZIs were great pals during WWII, right? How do you define "elites"? What would you call a billionaire President with a cabinet full of billionaires?


    "According to Nazism, it is an obvious mistake to permit or encourage multilingualism and multiculturalism within a nation. Fundamental to the Nazi goal was the unification of all German-speaking peoples, "unjustly" divided into different Nation States. Hitler claimed that nations that could not defend their territory did not deserve it. Slave races, he thought of as less-worthy to exist than "master races." In particular, if a master race should require room to live (Lebensraum), he thought such a race should have the right to displace the inferior indigenous races. Hitler draws parallels between Lebensraum and the American ethnic cleansing and relocation policies towards the Native Americans, which he saw as key to the success of the US."

    "Hitler extended his rationalizations into religious doctrine, claiming that those who agreed with and taught his "truths," were "true" or "master" religions, because they would "create mastery" by avoiding comforting lies. Those that preach love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts," were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognizes these "truths," Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader," and those who deny it were said to be "natural slaves." "Slaves," especially intelligent ones, he claimed were always attempting to hinder masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines."
    http://www.nazism.net/about/ideological_theory/


    The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of a new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good" and to accept the priority of political interests in economic organisation.[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 29th December 2016 at 07:46 PM.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  6. #26
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,702
    Thanks
    9703

    From
    Here
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 29th December 2016 at 07:52 PM.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member HenryPorter's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    18,456
    Thanks
    9340

    From
    N48 51.489 E2 17.67119
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    .
    Hitler and the Nazis practiced socialism to be sure, but it was only for Aryans, and they would take property from non-Aryans to give to Aryans.

    That's hardly liberal, and it's only socialism for a selected group.
    It's what Republicans do for corporations and the rich.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #28
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    11,702
    Thanks
    9703

    From
    Here
    What Hitler used to finally bring himself to power. Do not try to appeal to intelligent people, appeal to the less-intelligent masses.



    "This was the only possible attitude toward war propaganda in a life-and-death struggle like ours."

    "If the so-called responsible authorities had been clear on this point, they would never have fallen into such uncertainty over the form and application of this weapon: for even propaganda is no more than a weapon, though a frightful one in the hand of an expert."

    "The second really decisive question was this: To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses?
    It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses."

    "What the intelligentsia-or those who today unfortunately often go by that name-what they need is not propaganda but scientific instruction. The content of propaganda is not science any more than the object represented in a poster is art. The art of the poster lies in the designer's ability to attract the attention of the crowd by form and color. A poster advertising an art exhibit must direct the attention of the public to tThe whole arthe art being exhibited; the better it succeeds in this, the greater is the art of the poster itself. The poster should give the masses an idea of the significance of the exhibition, it should not be a substitute for the art on display. Anyone who wants to concern himself with the art itself must do more than study the poster; and it will not be enough for him just to saunter through the exhibition. We may expect him to examine and immerse himself in the individual works, and thus little by little form a fair opinion."

    "A similar situation prevails with what we today call propaganda."

    "The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision."

    "The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real,
    the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect."

    "All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction."

    "The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes."

    "The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are."

    "Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:"

    "It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance."

    "The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
    Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound."

    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html


    Any of this sound familiar to observant, astute, educated people?

    Where are the educated people in America? Based on Hitler's formula for where to aim propaganda, where would someone wanting to do the same in America, aim their propaganda? How would one go about getting such people (the less intelligent masses) to dismiss intelligent people trying to warn them about propaganda and purveyors of it? Who is a New York City shyster more likely to fool? People that know shysters and that the propagandists are shysters or people that don't know about or who shysters are?



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nal_attainment


    What about Trump is NOT elite/elitist?
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 29th December 2016 at 08:40 PM.
    Thanks from Babba

  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    27,407
    Thanks
    21879

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    #triggered


    From Ludwig Von Mises:



    HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST




    Marxism, Communism, National Socialism, whatever you want to call it, it will turn into a military dictatorship of a small oligarchy of elites controlling the masses. It's inevitable. Happened with Stalin, happened with Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Jong-Il, the list goes on and on and on.
    And yet socialist Sweden hasn't gone to war in 200 years. How do you account for that?

  10. #30
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,005
    Thanks
    3380

    From
    Vancouver
    "Why can't you be more lenient and open minded? More liberal towards different peoples and different ideas? More inclusive and multicultural? I guess what I'm asking is why don't you be more like Adolf Hitler and the Nazis?"

    Hmmm... Doesn't seem right to me.
    Thanks from Dangermouse, StanStill and Babba

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 22nd September 2016, 05:45 AM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 1st July 2015, 05:38 PM
  3. Replies: 83
    Last Post: 10th February 2015, 08:19 AM
  4. Adolf Hitler - extreme left winged socialist
    By Rob Larrikin in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 281
    Last Post: 5th June 2014, 05:09 PM
  5. Anyone who calls Obama a socialist, doesn't know what a socialist is
    By Formative Years in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 5th November 2008, 02:02 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed