Nice kids..

[JoseCuervo]

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2008/10/daniel_cowart_paul_schlesselma.php



Boy if this is the future, we as a country are in a world of hurt.

Don't worry. It's just Arkansas. There are already a bunch of people like that there.

[Gaucho]

Scum. Nazis are left wing, though, as some people will tell you.

[Kicksave]

Scum. Nazis are left wing, though, as some people will tell you.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... lin-button

Because only republicans call democrats nazis?

[Gaucho]

That's not what I was referring to.

http://www.letsgopens.com/scripts/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29162&p=661827&hilit=national+socialist#p661827

[ams]

What do you mean ::sigh::? You're not glad they got caught?

[ams]

Ok, good. Sorry about that.

[AlexPKeaton]

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2008/10/daniel_cowart_paul_schlesselma.php



Boy if this is the future, we as a country are in a world of hurt.

Future? Our grandparents generation are the ones who invented Nazis. An entire country was like this. I think it is great that only a few nutjobs believe this crap anymore. That is progress.

[Shyster]

That's not what I was referring to.
http://www.letsgopens.com/scripts/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29162&p=661827&hilit=national+socialist#p661827

I'm sorry you take offense, but the Nazis and the Italian Fascists were both left-wing movements, not right wing. Each was a modification of Marxist ideas. Marx wanted class to be the focus of society: "workers of the world unite" and all that. Hitler and Mussolini took the same principles and just changed the focus. Hitler wanted everyone to focus on race, the German Volk. Mussolini wanted everyone to focus on the state, the Italian "Empire." Both were in conflict with communism because they moved away from social classes as the driving force. However, the goals all three social movements sought were substantially the same. For example, look at the National Socialist Program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program. Do nationalization of industry (#13), abolition of unearned income (#11), expansion of welfare (#15), national health care (#21), and “the good of the state before the good of the individual (#24) sound like right wing principles? Sure, Nazis were racists, but they were also leftists. Modern skinheads and other similar morons only focus on the racist aspects of that movement. I doubt those two idiots also wanted to nationalize industries and forceably redistribute land to the poor.

[Gaucho]

That's not what I was referring to.
http://www.letsgopens.com/scripts/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29162&p=661827&hilit=national+socialist#p661827

I'm sorry you take offense, but the Nazis and the Italian Fascists were both left-wing movements, not right wing. Each was a modification of Marxist ideas. Marx wanted class to be the focus of society: "workers of the world unite" and all that. Hitler and Mussolini took the same principles and just changed the focus. Hitler wanted everyone to focus on race, the German Volk. Mussolini wanted everyone to focus on the state, the Italian "Empire." Both were in conflict with communism because they moved away from social classes as the driving force. However, the goals all three social movements sought were substantially the same. For example, look at the National Socialist Program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program. Do nationalization of industry (#13), abolition of unearned income (#11), expansion of welfare (#15), national health care (#21), and “the good of the state before the good of the individual (#24) sound like right wing principles? Sure, Nazis were racists, but they were also leftists. Modern skinheads and other similar morons only focus on the racist aspects of that movement. I doubt those two idiots also wanted to nationalize industries and forceably redistribute land to the poor.

Look, I know that the fact that I'm German doesn't necessarily make me an expert on the matter, but I can assure you that I have a VERY good idea about what Nazism is. I practiacally know the 25 point program by heart and you might want to take a look at the points 1 through 8. Does that sound left wing to you? "The good of the state before the good of the individual" certainly does not sound left wing to me, either. #24 is a good example, though. It starts like this: "We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state" Fine. It goes on: "So long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race." Not very left wing, imo.

You say yourself Hitler and Mussolini changed the focus from class to race and at this point we're not talking about anything resembling lefitst ideas anymore. Your statement "Nazis were racists, but they were also leftists" honestly makes me cringe. True, they called themselves "national socialists", which in itself contradicts socialist ideas, they may have even borrowed an idea or two from Marx, but what they made of it was definitely not what Marx, a jew btw, had in mind. It is also true that early on many socialists and communists were party members, but most of them were gone by 1930, realizing that at the core the NSDAP was a nationalistic, racist and anti-communist movement that did not care one bit about the collective good of the people, instead aiming for a totalitarian, authoritarian state. They were fascists, and I hope you agree that fascism is not leftist.

[Shyster]

Look, I know that the fact that I'm German doesn't necessarily make me an expert on the matter, but I can assure you that I have a VERY good idea about what Nazism is. I practiacally know the 25 point program by heart and you might want to take a look at the points 1 through 8. Does that sound left wing to you? "The good of the state before the good of the individual" certainly does not sound left wing to me, either. #24 is a good example, though. It starts like this: "We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state" Fine. It goes on: "So long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race." Not very left wing, imo.
You say yourself Hitler and Mussolini changed the focus from class to race and at this point we're not talking about anything resembling lefitst ideas anymore. It became "workers of German race (whatever the heck that means) unite and follow us blindly like sheep to the slaughter" instead of "workers of the world unite". Your statement "Nazis were racists, but they were also leftists" honestly makes me cringe. True, they called themselves "national socialists", which in itself contradicts socialist ideas, they may have even borrowed an idea or two from Marx, but what they made of it was definitely not what Marx, a jew btw, had in mind. It is also true that early on many socialists and communists were party members, but most of them were gone by 1930, realizing that at the core the NSDAP was a nationalistic, racist and anti-communist movement that did not care one bit about the collective good of the people.

I do not agree with you that fascism is right wing. Fascism, at least Italian Fascism as practiced by Benito Mussolini, was left-wing. Look, Marxism is all about the collective good of the proletariat (screw the bourgeoisie!). Nazisim was all about collective good of the "Aryan race" (screw the other races!). Italian Fascism was all about the collective good of The State (screw all other nations!). All three involve(d) the same principles of collective behavior, e.g., nationalizing business, seizing land, redistributive fiscal policies, a welfare state, etc. I call that socialism. Socialism is left-wing.

I am not saying that racism is a left-wing characteristic. Racism is racism; it is neither left nor right. But the Nazis were socialism + racism. That is still left-wing in my book.

Also, I agree with you that the Nazis did not care about the collective good of "the people," as in "all the people." That was not their focus. They cared very much, however, about the collective good of "the race." If you counted as an "Aryan" under the Third Reich, you made out pretty well. Until late in the war when the fighting came home, a great many Germans did very well for themselves under the Nazis. The German army systematically looted the nations it occupied (both physically and financially). The Nazis intentionally devalued the currency of occupied nations so that only the reichsmark had any real value and the people in those nations couldn’t afford the items in their own stores. German soldiers were then encouraged to use their wages to “legally” buy up food, clothing, and other items, and they shipped that loot home to their families by the trainload. Land, houses, factories and other property confiscated from murdered Jews, Poles, etc. was given to “Aryan” families. If a German family lost its house to Allied bombing, they could just move into a house across town that used to belong to a Jewish family. Check out Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Gotz Aly.

[Gaucho]

Look, I know that the fact that I'm German doesn't necessarily make me an expert on the matter, but I can assure you that I have a VERY good idea about what Nazism is. I practiacally know the 25 point program by heart and you might want to take a look at the points 1 through 8. Does that sound left wing to you? "The good of the state before the good of the individual" certainly does not sound left wing to me, either. #24 is a good example, though. It starts like this: "We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state" Fine. It goes on: "So long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race." Not very left wing, imo.
You say yourself Hitler and Mussolini changed the focus from class to race and at this point we're not talking about anything resembling lefitst ideas anymore. It became "workers of German race (whatever the heck that means) unite and follow us blindly like sheep to the slaughter" instead of "workers of the world unite". Your statement "Nazis were racists, but they were also leftists" honestly makes me cringe. True, they called themselves "national socialists", which in itself contradicts socialist ideas, they may have even borrowed an idea or two from Marx, but what they made of it was definitely not what Marx, a jew btw, had in mind. It is also true that early on many socialists and communists were party members, but most of them were gone by 1930, realizing that at the core the NSDAP was a nationalistic, racist and anti-communist movement that did not care one bit about the collective good of the people.

I do not agree with you that fascism is right wing. Fascism, at least Italian Fascism as practiced by Benito Mussolini, was left-wing. Look, Marxism is all about the collective good of the proletariat (screw the bourgeoisie!). Nazisim was all about collective good of the "Aryan race" (screw the other races!). Italian Fascism was all about the collective good of The State (screw all other nations!). All three involve(d) the same principles of collective behavior, e.g., nationalizing business, seizing land, redistributive fiscal policies, a welfare state, etc. I call that socialism. Socialism is left-wing.

I am not saying that racism is a left-wing characteristic. Racism is racism; it is neither left nor right. But the Nazis were socialism + racism. That is still left-wing in my book.

Also, I agree with you that the Nazis did not care about the collective good of "the people," as in "all the people." That was not their focus. They cared very much, however, about the collective good of "the race." If you counted as an "Aryan" under the Third Reich, you made out pretty well. Until late in the war when the fighting came home, a great many Germans did very well for themselves under the Nazis. The German army systematically looted the nations it occupied (both physically and financially). The Nazis intentionally devalued the currency of occupied nations so that only the reichsmark had any real value and the people in those nations couldn’t afford the items in their own stores. German soldiers were then encouraged to use their wages to “legally” buy up food, clothing, and other items, and they shipped that loot home to their families by the trainload. Land, houses, factories and other property confiscated from murdered Jews, Poles, etc. was given to “Aryan” families. If a German family lost its house to Allied bombing, they could just move into a house across town that used to belong to a Jewish family. Check out Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Gotz Aly.

If you don't agree that fascism is right-wing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[dagny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit "Ārya" meaning "noble" or "honorable".[1][2] The Avestan cognate is "Airya" and the Old Persian equivalent is "Ariya". It is widely held to have been used as an ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians [3] Since in the 19th century, the Indo-Iranians were the most ancient known speakers of Indo-European languages, the word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to Indo-European speakers as a whole.

In Europe, the concept of an Aryan race became influential in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as linguists and ethnologists argued that speakers of these Indo-European languages constitute a distinctive race, descended from an ancient people, who were referred to as the "primitive Aryans", but are now known as Proto-Indo-Europeans.

In linguistics, Aryan is most often used in the context of the sub-branch of Indo-Iranian languages referred to as Indo-Aryan languages.

I wonder if Hitler knew this.

[Gaucho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit "Ārya" meaning "noble" or "honorable".[1][2] The Avestan cognate is "Airya" and the Old Persian equivalent is "Ariya". It is widely held to have been used as an ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians [3] Since in the 19th century, the Indo-Iranians were the most ancient known speakers of Indo-European languages, the word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to Indo-European speakers as a whole.

In Europe, the concept of an Aryan race became influential in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as linguists and ethnologists argued that speakers of these Indo-European languages constitute a distinctive race, descended from an ancient people, who were referred to as the "primitive Aryans", but are now known as Proto-Indo-Europeans.

In linguistics, Aryan is most often used in the context of the sub-branch of Indo-Iranian languages referred to as Indo-Aryan languages.

I wonder if Hitler knew this.

I think he did, yes.

[Shyster]

If you don't agree that fascism is right-wing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you wish, but I ask you to think about this: what characteristics of fascism are traditionally "right wing?" Fascism is often called right-wing because it merges corporate and government power. However, under fascism the corporations are firmly under the control of the government. If it were right-wing, wouldn't that be the other way around? I thought right-wingers don't want government regulation of business. How about the nationalist aspects of fascism? Nationalism is an element of right-wing politics, but plenty of leftist governments are nationalistic too (see China, North Korea, etc.). Totalitarianism form of government? Stalin, Mao, Castro and many other communist dictators tell me totalitarianism is not an exclusive right-wing characteristic. In fact, there is no accepted definition of fascism. As an example, the Wikipedia page lists more than a dozen different competing definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism.

Much of the perception that fascism is right-wing comes from the long history of fascism and socialism/communism being enemies. Fascists and communists don’t like each other because they each believe their preferred system is the true way society should “work,” and each theory doesn’t leave any room for the other. Take, say, Christianity vs. Hinduism; you can’t believe all of the tenets of both because they directly conflict on some very fundamental points. Communism and fascism conflict in a similar fashion. However, the fact that fascists and communists don’t like each other doesn’t mean they are automatically on opposite ends of the left-right political spectrum.

Sorry if I am belaboring this point, but I could list this as a "pet peeve" of mine under that other thread. Many people on the left (and I am not referring to you here) just like to throw the word “fascist” at conservatives as an pejorative, and take it as a given that fascism automatically equals anything conservative or right-wing. That is just not true.

[Gaucho]

Well, see, that's the problem

If you don't agree that fascism is right-wing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you wish, but I ask you to think about this: what characteristics of fascism are traditionally "right wing?" Fascism is often called right-wing because it merges corporate and government power. However, under fascism the corporations are firmly under the control of the government. If it were right-wing, wouldn't that be the other way around? I thought right-wingers don't want government regulation of business. How about the nationalist aspects of fascism? Nationalism is an element of right-wing politics, but plenty of leftist governments are nationalistic too (see China, North Korea, etc.). Totalitarianism form of government? Stalin, Mao, Castro and many other communist dictators tell me totalitarianism is not an exclusive right-wing characteristic. In fact, there is no accepted definition of fascism. As an example, the Wikipedia page lists more than a dozen different competing definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism.

Much of the perception that fascism is right-wing comes from the long history of fascism and socialism/communism being enemies. Fascists and communists don’t like each other because they each believe their preferred system is the true way society should “work,” and each theory doesn’t leave any room for the other. Take, say, Christianity vs. Hinduism; you can’t believe all of the tenets of both because they directly conflict on some very fundamental points. Communism and fascism conflict in a similar fashion. However, the fact that fascists and communists don’t like each other doesn’t mean they are automatically on opposite ends of the left-right political spectrum.

Sorry if I am belaboring this point, but I could list this as a "pet peeve" of mine under that other thread. Many people on the left (and I am not referring to you here) just like to throw the word “fascist” at conservatives as an pejorative, and take it as a given that fascism automatically equals anything conservative or right-wing. That is just not true.

Well, socialism means or anyway should that the people control the means of production and not the government, and it is also not meant to be nationalistic. Sadly, it didn't work out like that in history and maybe it's all just an impossible utopia.

Don't get me wrong, you're making good points. Maybe the problem is that we dwell on the rather outdated concepts of "left" and "right" too much. Yeah, I would say that I am on the "left", which may be just a convenient term to indicate what I am NOT, for example a fascist and there are many so-called leftists I despise with a passion. The interesting thing is, you won't find too many people in Germany and all of Europe that will tell you that fascism and nazism are not right-wing.

Anyway, what is really important is that I think we both agree that fascism and nazism and totalitarism and racism and anti-semitism and whatnot are bad and that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Mao were all murderers and pigs. Right? (no pun intended)