Posted on 02/09/2016 2:07:44 PM PST by Torcert
A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as “right wing,†with Adolf Hitler, their leader, as the grand leader of this “right wing†movement. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, as their history is littered with injustice (the KKK was founded by Democrats, did you know?). Injustices they claim to fight against today. Awkward.
But thanks to this nifty thing called “history†in combination with “the internet,†we can bust this myth once and for all. Thoroughly. Or until a leftist insists on ignoring it. Then we’ll hold them down and tape their eyes open. Just kidding, that’s only what a leftist would do.
Adolf Hitler wasn’t “right wing.†If you take nothing else from this post, just remember Hitler was a socialist. With terrible facial hair. There’s an easy way to remember it, too. NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers‘ Party. Associate it with blunt mustaches.
What does National Socialist German Worker’s Party mean? Glad you asked. Is it different from “Democratic socialism� Only in semantics. A Democracy is mob rule, which is why America is actually a constitutional, representative republic, NOT a democracy. A representative republic protects the minority from the majority, whereas a democracy is the rule of the majority. Leftists get caught up in words, getting tripped up over “National Socialism†as opposed to “Democrat Socialism.†But it’s just that. Semantics. So when Hitler ginned up hatred for the Jews, he could get the mob to agree with him. He could get the mob to believe him. There were no representatives to stop Hitler. He was one man helming the desperation of a majority of people. Spot the difference?
When we examine Hitler’s Nazi Germany through the lens of history, most, if not all of us, think of the Holocaust. In fact the holocaust might be the only thing we associate with Hitler’s Nazis. We’ve all been told of the Jews being marched off to death camps where they were worked, tortured, then gassed. We’ve also heard of the experiments conducted by Hitler’s Dr. Mengele. All terrible practices which we rightly find horrifying. Unless you’re one of those people who think Planned Parenthood is great.
What we don’t often hear or learn about is how Hitler ruled the rest of Germany, what his domestic policies were for the German people he didn’t march off to death camps. Hitler’s domestic, socialist policies will be the focus of this post. Trigger warning: they’re eerily similar to what American Democrats tout today. Double trigger warning? He initially had the support of the mob of people. So replace many of Hitler’s policies with something you hear from Bernie Sanders…
Employment for All
After that depression, Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it? Roads and infrastructure
So Hitler created jobs…through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar? Big Education
If you haven’t seen it yet, go watch WW2 Surivor’s Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism.
Public education, where children are at school all day long, with state-funded and state-sponsored curriculum… convinced yet? Nationalized Healthcare
Also from the WW2 Surivor’s accounting of Nazism:
After Hitler’s health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
Gun Control
Yes, Germany had gun control. It started before Hitler with a national gun registry
Finally, Hitler just took the guns from Jews. An armed citizenry is a dangerous one, after all. Hitler even said this about guns in the hands of the people: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.â€
So excuse us Second Amendment supporters when we here Obama, Sanders and Clinton talking about regulating guns more than they’re regulated today. Call us paranoid. We’ll keep our guns.
The Police State
If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with your words, you better watch out. The Gestapo was on the hunt for political dissidents, many of whom would simply vanish.
In Conclusion
Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monsterous ways, his polcies were anything but “conservative.†He wanted big government, he wanted big eductation, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.
So stop saying “Hitler was right-wing.†No, he wasn’t. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
“Hitler hated ...Capitalism.â€
“Not correct. Hitler and the Nazi Party tolerated capitalism so long as it advanced the goals of the Nazi Party.”
If Hitler controlled the levers of industry and business, it was no longer capitalism in any sense.
Here is a study of the actual workings of business under national socialism
https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy
I am a pupil of the great Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, since the 1970s. I know extensively of the National Socialist German Workers Party as a Socialist movement. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was an Austrian Catholic nobleman who correctly saw raw democracy verse Republic as a threat to individual liberty, he also wrote extensively on the Leftism of the NSDAP, one of his great works was entitled Leftism, viz:
Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974.
I strongly recommend this book.
By the way, modern Islamic terrorism, with roots to the North West Frontier Province of India (now Pakistan) and the Khilfat movement, has strong roots in Leftism, viz Baathists and the revival movement of the Ottoman Empire among the brotherhoods such as Muslim Brotherhood and others, they are socialists as well and riff with “dirty Capitalist Jews” propaganda. Usama Bin (Osama bin Laden) had many Socialist books.
If you cannot figure it out yourself, I cannot help you.
You might like reading this essay as well.
Article 1 Hitler and Mussolini, History’s Dirty Little Secret
http://www.lksamuels.com/?p=156
There is a dirty little secret that has received little attention. It is the untold narrative about the historical and socioeconomic context behind Italian Fascism and the German National Socialism. It is not what most people have heard before. It is not what many want to hear. But it is not something that can be ignored.
As it turns out, the horrendous ideologies of fascism and national socialist are not merely pejorative terms to dish out in flippant responses. They have historical significance. They have consequences. And their ideological underpinnings are still widely accepted in today’s world. In fact, many government administrations and agencies take the attitude that “It’s not fascism when WE do it!â€
To understand those underpinnings, it is vital to comprehend what these collective ideologies represent from a historical perspective. History does repeat itself, and usually to the detriment of the ignorant.
Near the end of World War II, George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm, attempted to define fascism. He found it difficult. He wrote that the word “Fascism†is almost entirely meaningless, arguing that it is recklessly flung around in every direction.[1] Orwell had been disappointed that nobody seriously wanted to come up with a clear and generally accepted definition of fascism. He knew why most were reluctant. If they did examine the core of fascism, they would have to gaze into a mirror and see an unsavory reflection.
(excerpt)
The author explains Nazi, Fascism, and Socialism quite well.
Statists, the way you describe them almost mirrors Italian Fascism.
As for the political spectrum, Italian Fascists did not generally think of themselves as a movement of the right; that label was already reserved for the reactionary forces of the monarchy and the clergy. In his 1927 “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” Mussolini clearly states, “this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism,†which came from Jane Soames’ 1933 authorized English translation.[10] [11] In the next sentence, Mussolini continued and wrote: “For if the 19th century was the century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State” As most political scientists would acknowledge, “collectivism†is clearly an ideology pegged to the Left. President Herbert Hoover, in his 1934 book Challenge to Liberty, used the same phrase “century of the Left†when he quoted from Mussolini’s “Doctrine of Fascism>”
http://www.lksamuels.com/?p=156
On this topic, Hayek nailed it ~75 years ago. From my FR profile page:
Although our modern socialists’ promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under “communism” and “fascism.” As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, “the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.”
No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
— F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Of course, his use of “liberal” is old school, pre-dating the misuse of the term by socialists running from their history, and hiding behind an inappropriate term.
At the start of the Twentieth Century the term "liberal" meant the same in America as it still does in the rest of the world - essentially, what is called "conservatism" in American Newspeak. Of course we "American Conservatives" are not the ones who oppose development and liberty, so in that sense we are not conservative at all. We actually are liberals.
But in America, "liberalism" was given its American Newspeak - essentially inverted - meaning in the 1920s (source: Safire's New Political Dictionary). The fact that the American socialists have acquired a word to exploit is bad enough; the real disaster is that we do not now have a word which truly descriptive of our own political perspective. We only have the smear words which the socialists have assigned to us.
And make no mistake, in America "conservative" is inherently a negative connotation - we know that just as surely as we know that every American marketer loves to boldly proclaim that whatever product he is flogging is NEW!
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under 'communism' and 'fascism'. As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, 'the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of unfreedom and in- equality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.'No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no com- promise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as 'the general welfare'. There will be no real agree- ment as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all. - F A Hayek,
The Road to Serfdom (Reader''s Digest Condensed Version)
It was Stalin and Pravda who started calling Hitler a man of the Right. By their definition, Bernie Sanders is a right winger.
Orwell was a prophet.
But did you know he was a terrific painter? Two coats one day-Mel Brooks, The Producers.
My apologies for skipping over your post - I would have to agree with the author’s assertions, in fact I want post a dissertation on the subject laying out the same points grounded in the word definitions.
Patrick Moore
And we arrive at the root of our disagreement. I don't see socialism as a threat to freedom. At least not my freedom.
For people with limited opportunities under capitalism, socialism might actually offer more freedom rather than less. Certainly, however, for people who have profited greatly under capitalism, socialism does represent a loss of freedom.
Thing is, the former outnumber the latter, and the old utilitarian crook of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few comes into play.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/theatlantic/the_kids_are_for_bernie/#comment-2505267852
Thank you for that recommendation.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Bump
Thank you for posting that.
I would also point to the definition of the word ‘Progressive’ - it’s almost as meaningless as the definition of Fascism.
Business conducted at the service of the State and with their approval is not capitalism, it is National Socialism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.