I'm gonna go through them tomorrow, but quick from the hip, I hate them and I hate you.

Sounds like the way the right wing would write down what the left wing wants.

Rubbish.

Point 2 conflicts with America's refusal to sign to the international court.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

Pretty much all of these items are too vague to even guess at what they actually think should be done, apart, apparently, from increasing the power of the US federal government to dictate how individual citizens should behave. I'm not sure why you posted this, it seems too incoherent and poorly thought out to be taken seriously anywhere. My crackpot-detectors are going haywire.

Is everyone ready for me to unveil who wrote this? It was a hardcore leftist! You can read the original document here.

So, in other words, it was Hitler and you?

You should sift that video, btw.

This is something interesting, and I wanted to gauge your response of the following 17 principle guidelines that are being bandied about right now. This is copied directly without being altered

Liar.

it's not a right winger writing down what he/she thinks a left winger wants. This was written by someone on the left, and it's not a joke I'm playing. I seriously want to know what people think of this document, and whether or not they agree it would be an improvement. NR, you've had a lot of great insight in PMs, and maybe you'd like to share those?

Liar, on both counts of "written by someone on the left" and "not a joke".

Incidentally, the word fraud means: an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

You are one, apparently.

I figured you were pulling a stunt originally, but after talking with you in PM's, I figured I'd trust that you were being straight up like you claimed, and then spent an hour giving this some real consideration, and posted my opinion.

Fuck you, jackass.

>> ^gwiz665:

Already Sifted. Good old fashioned socialism. Good stuff.

[edit] Haha. NetRunner agrees with Hitler on a visceral level! LOL!

[second edit] I liked the "pigfucker" comment better, NR. You seem to take this personally. Oh man, this is fucking hilarious. I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. You just put yourself out there all pink and naked.

^ You're a Nazi because you believe in equal rights.

Haha. Oooooh! Look, he just grasped at that straw! Priceless!

Oh no, no, no! You cannot delete your comment, NR! I have saved it for posterity!

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, here's my reaction to each:
1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean the US is going to take a role of non-interference in the operation of state governments? Foreign governments? It'll let people rope off an acre of land and self-determine it into an independent country?
2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone can speak on the behalf of the US government if they want to? Individuals can invade countries, whilst flying the American flag? The US will protect a US citizen's rights as we define them, even if they move overseas?
3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Same thought as gwiz. Either this is silly and obvious, or a declaration to the world that we will take over as much land as we feel we need to feed and house our people.
4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
This one just sounds a little too hard edged. Something more like "The United States government will attempt to foster an environment of high employment and economic growth, and provide for the livelihood of those who are unable to provide for themselves" sounds a lot better to me, since it leaves open the right questions for debate (things like what constitutes a growth environment, and what does "unable" or livelihood mean), while foreclosing questions I think shouldn't be up for debate (i.e. is it the responsibility of the government of the United States to care about economic issues and hardships at all?).
5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
I like equal rights. What's equal duty mean? We all work the same hours a day? All pay the same amount in taxes? We all need to take our turn in the barrel? Everyone needs to do 2 years public service?
6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
No, I don't like this one at all. I think everyone has a god-given right to be lazy. I don't like the idea of making it a core principle that one must not "clash with the general interest", either. I think the "general good" should be protected (e.g. environmental protection law, FDA regulations on food and drugs, general police protection, regulating the financial sector, etc.), but I don't think the way to do that is to say people can't act against the general interest at all.
7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.
I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).
8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22).
The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.
However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.
9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
No need to nationalize them, just bust 'em up.
10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about profit-sharing with all employees, no matter how lowly. I agree, and why focus only on the "large industrial enterprises"? The mechanics would need to be worked out, and for some people I think they'd rather have stability in their income than having it tied to profit, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to opt into a profit-driven payscale if they want it, even if they just sweep the floors.
11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We've already done it -- Social Security and Medicare. I want Medicare for All now.
12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I like supporting the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, though I don't see why this would require nationalizing malls as dedicated workers for the state...
Seems to me that there are more effective, and less heavy-handed ways to lower barriers for entry to small businesses.
13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
No. I'm curious what "ground" rent is, but no.
14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
I think this one is worded badly. "The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life." sounds kinda scary. "Education should be focused on the requirements of practical life." sounds better, since it doesn't talk about how people must be brought into line.
I believe the "education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State" is otherwise known as a scholarship, and I'm all for governments levying taxes to beef them up.
If anything, this one just seems a bit modest and unfocused. I agree that "practical life" leaves a bit too much leeway, I'm thinking it would be things like civics, personal finance, career planning, etc., and not things like shop class (though shop class is good too).
15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Some of this exists already (child labor laws), and compulsory gymnastics and sports...for kids going to school (at least in my K-12 it was). I'm not for making exercise/sports mandatory for adults, but I think we'd do well to have some types of diet and exercise programs covered by our health care plans.
16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
The way this is written, it almost sounds like they don't even want the states to run their own militias, and I certainly don't think those should be dismantled. I don't even have an issue with the idea of private military companies like Blackwater, as long as they aren't corrupt and evil like Blackwater. I would want a fat regulatory agency looking over their shoulder, with backing from the US military, but I wouldn't necessarily want to abolish them outright.
I don't care for the people who call themselves militias but are really talking about plotting a revolution against the government, or fighting off the IRS with assault rifles. Those people are criminals, not militias.
17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.
I'm not sure what half of this one is supposed to mean. Personally, I think anyone on the left talking about the size of government in the current political era is making a mistake, and adopting the preferred framing of the right.
It's good policy vs. bad policy. Government that believes it bears an important duty to the people vs. government that wants to prove government can't do anything right. Empathy vs. selfishness. We're in this together vs. You're on your own.

Ever heard of context, blankfist? "Lebensraum" today has a slightly different connotation than it did in early 20th-century Germany.

It's not written as if it's clearly nazi policies - some of the nazi ideals were not so out of whack, there's a reason he won the election back in the early thirties.

If this was all a big ploy at a "gotcha" at netrunner, then meh. Who cares.

Blankfist, you are a jerk, no doubt about it! Yes, I understand you disagree with Net with pretty much everything, but what gives you the right to be this high and mighty! You pestered him to give his opinion to your innocent 'guidelines' post and he gave in. And what do you do? You bring you 'ta-da! This is nazi propaganda! you agreed to it!'.

I am too tired to even read through this! I don't really know what your problem is! Leave him alone, or at least show him some RESPECT!!! I am tired after work, and I hate to see him upset because of you! If you have problems with the system/politics/whatever, at least be straight about it! You take a piece of any propaganda and make it sound ambigous enough, and you have people agreeing/disagreeing left and right, no matter what the original context was!

I am sorry that my English at this point isn't good enough to explain myself well enough. I am just telling you, stop pestering Net! Be fair! And show some respect! Stop being sneaky! Just frigging stop!!!!

I am dealing with enough jerks at work on daily basis. No matter if you agree on his views or not, just be fair, and HONEST! I do NOT want to come home after work again and feel that I need to come online and yell at you!!!!!!

And believe me, I will yell far worse than this if this keeps going on!

I might not a big respected member of this community, but I love my hubby, and I will defend him until I am foaming in the mouth and cannot type any more!

Thank you,

for listening, or something

But then I would lose the moniker of harasshole.

I thought this was somewhat funny, and I wasn't just trying to bait him over this. I was trying to snare DFT, too! But, he's on here maybe two days out of the month.

Tell NR not be upset over something as lame and trivial as this. If I didn't like the guy I wouldn't mess with him. But, he's gonna have to admit at some point or another this was is a little bit funny even if petty and a touch pathetic. And I promise to say twenty Hail Obamas tonight to make up for it.

For what it's worth I agree with mintbbb. This was a dick move. I also think that NRs answers were pretty reasonable, even if I don't agree with him on several issues.

those who do not know history are doomed to be embarrassed by it

Oh. Snap!

>> ^blankfist:
You seem to take this personally.
[snip]
You just put yourself out there all pink and naked.

I did put myself out there, and that's why I took it personally.

I don't feel particularly ashamed about not recognizing Nazi propaganda that's been scrubbed of all the nationalistic, racist, anti-immigrant stuff (as well as the bit about putting people to death for going against the common interest).

That Hitler used pro-labor rhetoric to sucker in people with leftist leanings doesn't mean he believed in it, or even that he tried to implement it. I would certainly argue that Hitler wasn't interested in emphasizing things like democracy, empathy, fairness, equality, mutual respect, etc. the way the contemporary "left" I'm familiar with wants to.

More generally, I don't really understand your whole fixation with continually trying to make the Nazis out to be left-wing; it doesn't really buy you anything. It's a giant guilt by association fallacy, like trying to argue that if Hitler believed 1+1=2, that anyone else who believes 1+1=2 is just as evil as Hitler. Or saying that since Hitler was a vegetarian, and Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews, we know that all vegetarians are plotting ways to exterminate the Jews.

No, what set me off was the betrayal of trust, both in the way you unfolded the whole exercise, and by reposting my comment when I clearly wanted to retract it. And for what? To try to publicly humiliate me? Because you think people will look at what you did here and change their minds about me or the "left" in general?

It's the sheer petty cruelty of it that really just shocks me. At the risk of sounding like your mother, I honestly expected more of you.

Embarrassed by history.

Here is a link to the full text and English translation of "The Road to Resurgence" written by Hitler, at the request of wealthy far right industrialist Emil Kirdorf.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878145

It costs. (I had a print copy stashed away somewhere. Can't seem to find it, sry.)

------


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkirdorf.htm

Kirdorf, who held extreme right-wing political views, first heard Adolf Hitler speak in 1927. He was so impressed that he arranged to meet Hitler at the home of Elsa Buckmann in Munich. Although Kirdorf supported most of Hitler's beliefs he was concerned about some of the policies of the Nazi Party. He was particularly worried about the views of some people in the party such as Gregor Strasser who talked about the need to redistribute wealth in Germany.

Adolf Hitler tried to reassure Kirdorf that these policies were just an attempt to gain the support of the working-class in Germany and would not be implemented once he gained power. Kirdorf suggested that Hitler should write a pamphlet for private distribution amongst Germany's leading industrialists that clearly expressed his views on economic policy.

Hitler agreed and The Road to Resurgence was published in the summer of 1927. In the pamphlet distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists, Hitler tried to reassure his readers that he was a supporter of private enterprise and was opposed to any real transformation of Germany's economic and social structure.

Kirdorf was particularly attracted to Hitler's idea of winning the working class away from left-wing political parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Kirdorf and other business leaders were also impressed with the news that Hitler planned to suppress the trade union movement once he gained power. Kirdorf joined the Nazi Party and immediately began to try and persuade other leading industrialists to supply Hitler with the necessary funds to win control of the Reichstag.

------



------

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers.

...

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

-------

*face palm*

Honestly what are you going to say next? Bush actually cared about democracy while bombing two nations back to the stone age?

The GDR, The DPRK shit even my own nation says they are democratic and for the people while remaining entirely dictatorial.

There is a difference between saying something to again acceptance and power. Then doing something entirely contrary. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and every other great dictator has been a master at saying one thing while pursuing their own agendas.

I think we're simplifying too much again with this "right wing" vs. "left wing" rhetoric. The Nazis had elements of both.

Whatever. You can feign hurt feelings, but in the end the social experiment was harmless. I wasn't meant as an insult, but you and a lot of the other supposed Left-leaning Dems on here are convinced Hitler was a Rightist. If he was, it wouldn't mean that much to me, because I don't really conjure many feelings for right/left politics, but you guys want to believe all those on the left are good guys and all those on the right were bad guys. It's too simple.

I wanted to see if I changed the NSDAP program slightly then would those who claim the National Socialist German Workers' Party is Right-wing would agree with any of its politics? Sure, I cherry-picked 17 from the 25, because without doing so it would've been obvious it was Nazi rhetoric. And it certainly wasn't "scrubbed" of its nationalistic "stuff". Hell, read the very first one on the list. National self-determination?

Don't take it personally. Apparently if I anger you, DFT gets angered in the process. Not once did I mean this to be a personal attack, but calling me a jerk (which doesn't bother me) or saying I'm not politically mature is trying to make this personal and beneath all of you. Suck it up. Take your lumps.

I'm not mad at you, I've just lost respect for your critical thinking skills. If you don't want people to think you are ignorant, then don't be ignorant. It's not that difficult.

Your politics of late have become impossible to differentiate from those of the far right. It may not be polite to tell you this, but I would hope you'd want to be aware of how your increasingly irrational behavior is perceived.

Why do you people continue to feed the trolls? He's absolutely proven what he is...now leave him to stew alone in his own bile.

I guess if you can't win an argument with facts, then all you really have are insults. What's next? Violence, perhaps.

...or downvotes.

Oh come on... all of you, grow the hell up and let's move on. This prank was juvenile, but it certainly wasn't all that bad. I fell for it too, and I'm not hurt at all.

^I'm not insulting you, I'm making an honest value judgment.

You need to sort yourself out, brother.

I doubt that's true, DFT. My politics hasn't changed once since you've known me. When Bush was in office, we all allied ourselves to speak fervently against that Administration, but once Obama got into office I'm all of a sudden "politically immature" and my critical thinking skills have suffered and, even worse, I'm far right?

Ad hominem. You should be above that.

Your politics may not have changed, but your arguments have become increasingly more irrational. If you do not understand the multiple failings in logic of this post, then yes, you are both politically immature and naive. If you want to become the anarcho-capitalist Ann Coulter, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Economically speaking, you have always been far right. Is this news to you?

Anarcho-Capitalist Ann Coulter? Obviously you don't understand the difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and Neoconservatism, of which I'm neither.

I copy and pasted the NSDAP program nearly word-for-word and substituted The US for German and Congress for the Reich, and because you know it echos the authoritarian poly-babble you spew as a Democratic Socialist, you want to make personal attacks on my intelligence, which is extremely childish. I have also lost respect for you if you must condemn and castigate any opposing your belief system.

Your socialist ideals are utopian and silly, but I've always entertained them as points worth consideration in a debate. Not any more. You Democrats have worked very hard to isolate yourself from the moderates of late, and you'll soon need us on your side again, but I promise you we won't be duped.

Congratulations BF. You tricked someone into wasting a lot of time posting a big, detailed response to your list--in good faith--so you could chuckle at him.

uggh.

If you want to talk about silly ideologies, maybe you should start with your own.

Have you ever considered how convoluted your concept of liberty is? It excludes social liberty, opposes democracy and embraces the free market, which is a constant source of tyranny all around the world. There is no functioning example of this brand of 'liberty' in action, nor has there ever been, yet on faith alone you are 100% convinced that somehow such a style of governance would be a good idea.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you have been duped, and that the American libertarian movement is only telling you what you want to hear? Have you ever considered the possibility that the 'virtue of selfishness' was meant to discourage your own sense of empathy and community?

A coupla points:

-Why does American 'libertarianism' need to be joined at the hip with the so called free market? Doesn't this compromise it's objectivity? Doesn't this hamper it's ability to criticize free market tyranny? Why is it necessary to have a bond with a system that has wrought so much havoc on small countries and big countries alike?

-Have you ever wondered why the libertarian think tanks that tell you what to think (like Cato) are funded by large corporations and dubious individuals like Mellon Scaife? Do you think Richard Mellon Scaife, the Ford Foundation, Wal*Mart, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, credit card companies, etc. really all have your best interests in mind? Or is it possible that they have adopted disingenuous postures of liberty only to further their own interests?

I know you pride yourself on individualism and that in your own mind it is everyone else that has been taken for a ride, but have you ever considered the possibility that it is you that has been duped?

You've admitted that most of your friends are liberals, including the smartest person you know. You work in a creative industry populated primarily by liberals. You hang out on a website populated primarily by liberals.

Maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.

I thought it was a rather clever trick. But, I'm sure 'leftists' could have pulled the same trick on you using elements of Communists propaganda.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:


I've always been dubious of the two parties, so I've always referred to myself in the past as independent.

I've only become Libertarian (or more specifically a Minarchist) in the past several years, so I've considered all sides of the political equation. I voted Kerry in the 2004 election. Does that make you feel better?

And, I'm a liberal. I'm just not left if being left means large government. I also don't think Capitalism is the answer, but it's better than any solution I've heard yet. I do believe in free markets, because I believe in two people engaging into a mutually beneficial agreement without government coercion. That's exactly what free market means. It doesn't mean an open ticket for Corporations to be corrupt and manipulate the system so small businesses suffer.

I think more on a local level that affects small businesses and individuals more than large Corporations. I've told you many times before (yet you choose to ignore it for some reason) that I am not for Corporatism, and all of the ideas of free market would actually hurt the Corporations more than help them. Small businesses are being strangled by large government restrictions and "regulations". Minimum wage, benefits for workers, etc. are all things that seem like they'd be of great help to the people, but they actually force small business owners to hire less because they cannot afford it, so that creates more unemployment. The Corporations can afford to pay the minimum wage, and being that less jobs are available because of it, they're not incentived to offer more pay for positions that may require it because the competition is so high for low earning jobs.

I ..

I'll just leave this here...

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.



Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

* Individualism over collectivism.
* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
* Merit over equality.
* Competition over cooperation.
* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
* Capitalism over Marxism.
* Realism over idealism.
* Nationalism over internationalism.
* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
* Gun ownership over gun control
* Common sense over theory or science.
* Pragmatism over principle.
* Religion over secularism.

Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his own words. Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or "conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position." (6)

And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:

"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture." (8)

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…" (14)

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…" (16)

Merit over equality.

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…" (17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)

Competition over cooperation.

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won." (20)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler's political method in one sentence:

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force." (21)

The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:

"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy." (32)

Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)

As Hitler himself would write:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)

Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41)

Nationalism over internationalism.

"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated." (42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…" (44)

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." (46)

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." (47)

Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)

Pragmatism over principle.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle." (52)

Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)

Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)

Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting:

"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)

Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him." (60)

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.

There's no place for people like me to exist in your paradigm of Right vs. Left.

I'm your version of Leftist in terms of civil liberties and the belief that all people are absolutely equal. I'm your version of Rightist in terms of limited government and anti-Statist nanny systems.

The true right is no government and the true left is absolute government. There really can be no other way to define left and right. In this way, yes, Hitler would be very, very far Left. So would Karl Marx and Stalin and Mao and everyone else who wants us to live under the government's thumb.

"I'm your version of Leftist in terms of civil liberties and the belief that all people are absolutely equal."

No you're not. You're an Ayn Randian and a right-wing libertarian. Your concern for equality emerges from a very different starting point than those of the left.

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm

"The true right is no government and the true left is absolute government." -- "True" as defined only by Aryn Randians and USian right-wing libertarians. Any non-Aryan Rand/right-wing libertarian with a political science education will laugh at you, though. You're trying to set up a circular argument here. You fail.

I never said I was "Randian" or an Objectivist. Furthermore, I believe in absolute equality and natural human rights. I defy you to argue the contrary.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

>> ^qualm:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Not very good at this debating thing are you? I liked your "whatever, spock" comment better before you changed it. Haha. Lame.

You're so transparent. You're against the ropes and you try to ridicule me on a false assumption. (Debating with right-wing libertarians is exactly like debating with evangelical Christians.)

Ridicule you on a false assumption? Um, okay? Whatever you say, dear sir. I think the stress of defending your cognitive dissonance on the interwebs has finally taken its toll. With comments like "blankfist, fuck you're stupid" and "Whatever, Spock" I think it's time to take a break, and hopefully when you come back rested you'll be wittier next time.

What the hell does "whatever, spock" mean anyway? LOL!

lol! The Ayn Randian spammer concedes.

Blankfist: "The true right is no government and the true left is absolute government."

Go tell that to the anarchists.

@qualm: http://www.videosift.com/video/Collectivism-in-Recent-History?loadcomm=1#comment-931451

^Blankfist: "The Left v. Right model is antiquated and arbitrarily modified throughout time which should render it irrelevant. The only true way to label the left or right is to abide by criterion such economic, social and government systems. If we did this, the Left would be absolute government and the right would be no government."

The left/right scale is not antiquated so much as rendered useless in the United States, where up is down, left is right, etc. In the rest of the world we don't have such problems around the definition of terms.

I happen to enjoy the political compass test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I've taken the test several times over the years. Not much movement for me.

Here are the VS PCT results: http://videosift.com/talk/Take-the-Political-Compass-Test

Qualm: Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

Blankfist: Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

You're so authoritarian!

Edit: Apologies to NordlichR. There's that term 'social libertarian'. I don't know if Chomsky has every self-identified as such, but...there ya go.

>> ^qualm:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....


So, what you're saying is that you're an asshole?

Zing!