Skip to content
August 19, 2011 / itsnobody

The Nazi party, a left-wing liberal movement

The liberal atheist media has tried to portray the Nazis as a radical right-wing movement but any historian or politician who’s studied the Nazi party would find the exact opposite to be true.

You will always here liberals and liberal atheists claim the Nazis were “far right wing” but its time for me to completely debunk that myth.

The Nazis are labeled as “far right” simply for being fascist. By that definition, any party whether they are fiscally left or right would be labeled as “far right” if they are fascist.

But far-right as in libertarian, pro-capitalist, pro-Austrian economist or small-government the Nazis were not.

 “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

– Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.

Some liberals have claimed that Hitler retracted this statement, this claim of course turned out to be just another lie. Hitler never retracted this statement ever. Instead a historian claims that Hitler had regrets about using the word “socialism” simply because Hitler said “”Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether”. But claiming that socialism is an unfortunate word is a far cry from retracting his statement. Contrary to what liberals claim, Hitler continued to strongly oppose capitalism and never retracted this statement.

There is absolutely nothing conservative, pro-capitalist, or right-wing about the Nazis. Most conservatives are only anti-illegal immigration, not against all immigration like the Nazis were, and in the past conservatives like Ronald Reagan gave amnesty. I’m sure that most conservatives strongly oppose illegal immigration.

The Nazis or National Socialists were very fiscally left-wing on nearly all issues, although you can find some isolated incidences where the Nazis supported privatization of some industry, private property or something along those lines, the Nazis still were overall anti-capitalist (as well as anti-communist) and strongly opposed to capitalism.

The Nazis were also socially liberal on many issues as well.

So what are my reasons for labeling the Nazis are being a far-left wing liberal movement?

  • Nationalization of corporations and industries

    “13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)”
    The 25-point Program of the NSDAP

    So which party supports nationalization of corporations and industries? Is that more left-wing or right-wing?

  • Profit-sharing

    “14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries”
    The 25-point Program of the NSDAP

    Profit-sharing is definitely a left-wing liberal idea.

  • Expansion of pension

    “15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare
    The 25-point Program of the NSDAP

    Expansion of old age welfare? Couldn’t be a small-government conservative if you supported it.

  • Keynesian economic policies
    Basically all of the Nazi’s economic policies were Keynesian as opposed to Austrian. This means the Nazis supported (and in fact did) things like running large deficits and using government programs to reduce unemployment. There is absolutely nothing pro-Austrian economist about the Nazis at all.
  • Anti-free-market capitalist
    The Nazis had government-controlled capitalism, which is a form of socialism and essentially the exact opposite of free-market capitalism (where the government has little to no control). The Nazi government had control over corporations. The Nazis also had government-controlled wages and prices as well.  All these policies are the exact opposite of far right-wing free-market Austrian economists policies.
  • Pro-animal rights
    It’s impossible to deny that the Nazis were pro-animal rights.

    An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself

    – Hermann Göring, leading member of the Nazi party

    The Nazis were the very first country in history to ban vivisection. The Nazis also made restrictions on hunting and banned commercial animal trapping. Many people who violated animal rights laws were sent to concentration camps.

    So is being pro-animal rights more left or right?

  • Pro-Government control

    “25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general”
    The 25-point Program of the NSDAP

    The Nazis wanted the government to have unlimited power over all. This is once again a typical leftist viewpoint of wanting government power over personal freedom. Leftists and liberals constantly promote the idea of more government involvement, more government control, and bigger government claiming that it is a good thing for the government to have power over individuals and corporations.

When liberals argue that Hitler was some how right-wing their weak arguments usually involve:
– Pointing out quotes where Hitler spoke out against Marxism (ignoring the quotes where Hitler spoke out against capitalism and that most liberal Democrats are not Marxists)
– Intentionally ignoring the 25-point Program of the NDSAP
– Pointing out that Hitler was patriotic or believed in a strong national defense (while ignoring that many other ideologies on the left also believe in patriotism and building a strong national defense)

The simple fact is overall Hitler and the Nazis fit in closely to the left-wing liberal Democratic party. Their anti-communist and anti-capitalist views mesh very well with the modern liberal Democrat party, and there’s no way to deny this.

Even White Nationalists on the most popular White Nationalist forum have admitted that the Nazis were left-wing – http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t617746/. The very same user who made this post is also admittedly an atheist saying “I’m an Atheist and an adherent to the Darwinian-Galtonian school of evolutionary thought”.

So how can anyone deny that Hitler and the Nazis were much more left-wing than right-wing on nearly every issue, and much closer to left-wing overall than right-wing?

172 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. rowanpatrick / Jan 25 2016 12:06 pm

    Man, you’re being incredibly over-simplistic. Calling them “liberal” is objectively false. Ideology never has been linear and never will be. You have to think of economic policies and social policies. In economic terms, they were centre-left. In social terms, there were far-right. Why people can never comprehend this I’m not sure.

    • Mark Budinsky / Mar 15 2016 8:52 pm

      because it is not true. It has been driven down your throat to associate hitler with the right. I’m currently tuned in to an old BBC documentary produced prior to the current lie based propaganda machine that has you hypnotized. These old school historians repeatedly refer to the nazi party as far left. Only recently have they been re-branded far right, another example of the left changing history and the meanings of words. Also i’ve studied this for many years so dont respond

  2. Riley / Jan 22 2016 5:26 pm

    About Arthur de Gobineau :

    Luis ,

    Your friend (@ coelsblog) claims very seriously that de Gobineau , a non-white philosemite who married a non-white women , fathered antisemitism and nazism.
    You already claimed that the Semite Moses who married an African woman fathered racial theories by writing the book of Genesis.
    According to what I’ve found on the Web , Arthur de Gobineau was not considered as a White. His mother was a Martinican Creole ; at this time because of the one drop rule , he was considered as a non-White. So he was not an Aryan.
    Albeit miscegenation was lawful , it seems that the man who disliked miscegenation eventually married Clémence-Gabrielle Monnerot Destourelles, another Creole from Martinique. Did he considered himself as a Creole ?
    Wikipedia notices that Gobineau’s “influence on the development of racial theory has been exaggerated and his ideas have been routinely misconstrued”.
    Besides de Gobineau was very supportive of the Jews : he even considers them Aryans.

    PS : Luis , I have something for you but I don’t have much time right now.

    • Luis / Mar 6 2016 9:29 pm

      “Hitler railed Jewish Bolshevism , not National Bolsheviks.”

      More leeching lies emanating from you, like a fountain of feces and urine. What the fuck is a “National Bolshevik”? Hitler denounced BOLSHEVISM per se, imbecile. And BOLSHEVISM was extremely explicit in denouncing anti-Semitism, as when Lenin stood in front of crowds and openly talked about the regressive and anti-working class character of anti-semitism (you can here some of these speeches on YouTube). In other words, Nazism and Bolshevism were at opposite ends of their stance towards anti-semitism.

      “These are the words of Karl Marx who hated both Christianity and Judaism.”

      WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! Marx hated Christianity and Judaism. Let’s all sook about this and feel butt-hurt and angry at Marx. Pathetic. It’s a shame that you leeches can’t turn this finger around on yourselves and note how you guys consistently back and/or advocate Nazi-like atrocities against Muslims. And you’re also apparently too STUPID to note that even if Marx WAS an anti-semite, this would in no way necessarily translate into the inheritance of this stance to Marxists in general. Darwin was a racist (as were most people of his time in Christian Victorian England); it in no way follows that if one subscribes to Darwin’s notion of evolution by natural and sexual selection, one must also be a racist (just as one needn’t be a racist if one is a creationist, despite that the worst racists in Darwin’s day were creationists).

      You guys just have a HELL of a lot of trouble separating the essence of a doctrine with the particular shortcomings and whims of the originator of the doctrine. Thanks for “admitting”, by your logic, that all people who subscribe to Jeffersonian democracy are also advocates of slavery. Even in the tract for which Marx is widely denounced by right-wingers as an “anti-semite” (“On the Jewish Question”), one must consider that 1) there are multiple interpretations about what he meant, and whether his language was being used in a colloquial manner in his debate with his opponent, who was undoubtedly an anti-semite; 2) he was advocating for the EQUAL RIGHT of Jewish citizens; 3) even if the early Marx was a full-fledged anti-semite, he hardly invented this doctrine. He inherited it from his culture, and that culture, by definition, preceded him. Another point: most Marxists have consistently rejected anti-semitism (indeed, to such an extent that Nazis often accuse the Bolsheviks and communist movements in general of having been “controlled by world Jewry”). Note also how you stupidly contradicted yourself when you talked about “Jewish Bolshevism”. How the FUCK can there be “Jewish Bolshevism” if your stupid ass has already claimed that “Bolsheviks , Marxists are indeed antisemites.” HA? Such basic contradictions reduce you to a nonsense-sputtering lunatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously whatsoever. Which is as it should be, if you insist on being a desperate liar and huckster.

      You’re awarded no points here beyond raising an interesting question about Marx’s personal stance on Jews and Judaism.

      • Riley / Mar 9 2016 10:27 pm

        @ Luis

        You just can’t help insulting people.
        Not only you’re poorly educated, but your stupid mother never taught you the art of politeness.

        Apparently, you have nothing to say about Gobineau ?
        Coel Hellier and you are so stupid. Unlike the Nazis , Gobineau’s Jews were Aryans. Ah , ah !

        I will teach you history when I have time.
        I promise. See you soon.

      • Luis / Mar 14 2016 8:37 pm

        Hi Riley,

        thanks for your comments. But they didn’t address anything I actually said. The problem seems to be that you BEGIN with a hatred of Marx, and then work backwards from that. For example, you hate the basic premises of Marxism (you’re against class solidarity by the working class, for example, and prefer “individualism”), and then try to find something to pin on Marx, whether or not it’s essential to his overall philosophy or not, and then use that to say, “Ah-ha! Gotcha, Marxists! You see how evil your hero was?” This is really just a smear campaign, whether or not you consciously conceive of it this way.

        My other indeed taught me the art of politeness. The problem is that this comes up against hard limits when you’re confronted with people who insist on spreading disinformation and half-truths. Such people can’t be reached through polite argument, given that they are devoted to using clever-sounding and sophisticated arguments to get the unwary to miss the point.

        I will teach you the basics of materialist philosophy when you ask, I promise.

  3. djnimaodp@hotmail.com / Dec 8 2015 12:52 am

    I experience go through great deal of web-sites and even experienced some,but your job is definitely wonderful.Hats off on your motivation plus loyalty.Do retain all of us prepared at a later date also.

  4. Anonymous / Nov 8 2015 4:14 pm

    The far left has always been anti Semitic. The Soviets, the Nazis, the Chinese, even Cuba all anti-semite. The American Left has nothing but vitriol for Israel. They cannot stop fawning over the Palestinians and declaring the Jewish state to be a violent aggressive beast. The idea that Hitler’s treatment of the Jews is proof of a far right mentality is laughable. It is nothing but further proof of its alignment with the left wing of politics, it is par for the course.

    • Luis / Nov 8 2015 7:48 pm

      You’re an absolute worm for writing such despicable lies. Israel isn’t synonymous with Jews and Judaism, stupid. I suppose you must think that the increasing number of Jews in the US who are turning against Israel are also “anti-Semitic”. You’re simply a disgusting, miserable apologist for racist colonialism and terror. The Soviets, the Chinese and Cuba always denounced anti-Semitism. Lenin denounced it as a tool in the hands of the capitalists to divide the workers against each other, exactly the use that Hitler put it to when crushing the socialist movement by scraping to the lowest common denominator. Hitler railed against “Jewish Bolshevism” and whipped up white supremacist notions of German racial nativism, a common canard of the right wing in the US who rail against migrants and blacks. This is an exclusively RIGHT WING canard. As for the notion that the Chinese are “anti-Semites” – this is laughable garbage that doesn’t even rise to the level of a joke. Mao ferociously denounced the use of religious prejudices.

      • Riley / Dec 17 2015 9:09 pm

        Hitler railed Jewish Bolshevism , not National Bolsheviks .
        Bolsheviks , Marxists are indeed antisemites :

        “Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, [Page vi] of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him: this alien monster rules him and he worships it.

        “The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.

        “What is the foundation of the Jew in our world? Practical necessity, private advantage.

        “What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly God? Money.

        “Very well then: emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.”

        These are the words of Karl Marx who hated both Christianity and Judaism.

      • Riley / Mar 9 2016 10:24 pm

        @ Luis

        If you have somethings to say , say it politely instead of insulting commenters every two lines. You’re such a Waffen-SS.

        Israel isn’t synonymous with Jews ?
        Why then Israel flag is a David star. The most religious flag on Earth.

        Hitler railed against Jewish capitalism as well.
        The idea of Jews controlling Capitalism ( Rothchilds supposedly controlled Britain and the US economy ) was very popular in the Nazi Party. Nazis even claimed that Roosevelt was a Jews ,while he wasn’t.

      • Luis / Mar 14 2016 8:58 pm

        “You’re such a Waffen-SS.”

        Why do you feel the need to trivialize the Holocaust with issuing such statements? Especially given that I would praise the defenders of Stalingrad, for example, while you would more likely sneer at them. If anything, this places YOU in the role of Waffen-SS, but I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that you ARE a Waffen-SS.

        “Israel isn’t synonymous with Jews ?
        Why then Israel flag is a David star. The most religious flag on Earth.”

        Israel is Jewish, but does not represent all Jews and indeed many Jews are against Israel’s actions and even existence. Therefore, it CAN’T be synonymous with Jews and Judaism, even if it’s synonymous with a large portion of them/it. Why would you assume that all Jews are enamored of Israel, when even a cursory look at the writings and proclamation of many Jewish writers and activists would suggest otherwise?

        “Hitler railed against Jewish capitalism as well.”

        This is true – as part of his plan to replace it with non-Jewish capitalism that would “serve” the German workers (his campaign platform of “serving” the working class, to whom he made many socialist-sounding promises and pledges). Non-Jewish capitalism is still capitalism, though, and that’s the essential point. It was easier for Hitler to rail against the Jewish” aspect and to rally non-Jewish workers around a chauvinist-nativist platform than it was to make good on his pretenses towards “socialism” and actually strike at the hear of capitalism as such, given that the political-economic content of Nazism never actually deviated from capitalism, only from a particular variety of it. I’m focusing on the political-economic content, not the verbal-rhetorical pretenses, which right-wingers get hung up on.

        “The idea of Jews controlling Capitalism ( Rothchilds supposedly controlled Britain and the US economy ) was very popular in the Nazi Party.”

        This is absolutely true. The Nazis wanted to “restore” capitalism to its rightful “owners”, and white nativist tropes about “the Jew” helped Hitler to do that. Hitler saw the economy as an arena in which the “law of the jungle”, as he put it, should be given full play, albeit with some state priorities to be set for the products produced and the overall strategic direction of it (war production, as it happened, from which capitalists profited handsomely).

        “Nazis even claimed that Roosevelt was a Jews ,while he wasn’t.”

        Okay. Well I hope you know about the attempted coup against Roosevelt by fascists on the premise that he was corrupting capitalism and trying to smuggle in socialism. It seems that whenever capitalism is in serious danger (or perceived to be in serious danger by those with right-wing ideology), fascist forces just happen to aggregate and step in against the nominal socialist and communist threats.

  5. bob / Aug 16 2015 7:08 pm

    Now this is skillfull satire.

  6. john / Jul 23 2015 9:16 pm

    Its blatantly obvious the Nazis were left-wing how people can not see that baffles me.

    • Luis / Nov 8 2015 7:52 pm

      Its only blatantly obvious to people who ignore the right-wing foundational elements of Nazi ideology: white supremacist nativism, the justice of inequality, sexual chauvinism, colonialist drives and imperialist aggression, exploitation of other nations and states, religious affiliations and Christian chauvinism, the worship of authoritarian institutions (police, army etc), the adoption of creationism motifs (the divinely created “master race”), the acceptance of social Darwinism, the maintenance of capitalism. This sure as hell doesn’t sound like a “left wing” ideology to me, though I suppose idiots might suppose it does.

      • Jack Claxton / Nov 26 2015 6:06 am

        None of those are essential characteristics of Rightism. In fact, most of them are much more abundantly manifested in Leftism, e.g: The Right acknowledges and admits that people are not equal and in honesty cannot possibly be treated as equal. Leftism treats people even more unequally (to the extent of mass extermination when convenient) but lies about it. Or finds mind boggling rationales for it.

        (The maintenance of capital? Well, that’s a good thing! Don’t you know?)

        What IS essential, though, is that the quintessential characteristics of Leftism, i.e. socialist, collectivist, totalitarian and authoritarian, are precisely those found equally in Communism, Nazism and Fascism.

        These (socialist, collectivist, totalitarian, authoritarian) are of course the exact attributes that are anathema to Rightism.

      • Luis / Nov 26 2015 11:15 am

        “None of those are essential characteristics of Rightism.”

        Doesn’t matter if they’re “essential”. These are the motifs that keep getting recycled again and again and again by right-wing movements seeking to undermine or even exterminate socialist ones. You apparently think is this by accident. The Argentine junta was avowedly right-wing and took on these Nazi themes precisely to defend the types of “freedoms” you’re drooling about here.

        “In fact, most of them are much more abundantly manifested in Leftism, e.g: The Right acknowledges and admits that people are not equal and in honesty cannot possibly be treated as equal. Leftism treats people even more unequally (to the extent of mass extermination when convenient) but lies about it.”

        Wow, talk about tying yourself in knots to defend an obscurantist position, Jack. Are you in training to be a clown at a circus? So the right explicitly treats people unequally but the doctrine of inequality is “more abundantly manifested” in leftism because the left is LESS explicit about it? Sorry, but it wasn’t leftists who exterminated the natives of countless lands in a blood-thirsty quest for gold and silver. That was done by guys like you. That’s something that not even you can deny (or you could, but that would just make you a liar).

        The mind boggles at these sorts of rationales for maintaining that racist mass extermination campaigns are more abundantly manifested in leftism when it’s right-wing traditionalist forces who are the perpetrators of most of these campaigns.

        “(The maintenance of capital? Well, that’s a good thing! Don’t you know?)”

        This shows that you stupidly don’t understand the social relations bound up in capital as it exists in capitalist society. You simply imagine it to be the continuation of economic activity. Such is the philosophical and empirical poverty of the right wing stance.

        “What IS essential, though, is that the quintessential characteristics of Leftism, i.e. socialist, collectivist, totalitarian and authoritarian, are precisely those found equally in Communism, Nazism and Fascism.”

        No, it’s what you arbitrarily take to be “essential”. Someone else can just as equally say that it isn’t essential and focus on the political-economic content of fascist movements and governments. Your stating that it’s essential (even with an all-caps “IS”) doesn’t in any way make it so.

        “These (socialist, collectivist, totalitarian, authoritarian) are of course the exact attributes that are anathema to Rightism.”

        Evidently not, given the right-wing proclivity for reproducing them so frequently, with the backing of right-wing military, paramilitary and political forces in the United States. Fascist exterminatory violence was a key characteristic of the Asian, Arabic and Latin American right-wing death squad regimes installed, financed, armed and trained by the United States and its national security apparatus for decades, all in the name of protecting capitalism from socialist- or socialist inspired resistance.

      • Jack Claxton / Nov 27 2015 6:28 am

        I’ll explain ‘essential’ to you, since you clearly do not understand: You listed a set of ‘elements’ which you stupidly allocated as ‘foundational’ to both right-wing and Nazi ideology. This miss-allocation of properties is a typical fallacy of leftist ideologues and underlies much of what is valid only in their own warped minds. (By the way, it is transparent and pathetic how you moved from ‘foundational elements’ to the now more expedient ‘motifs’ and ‘themes’ instead – this probably accurately reflects the trashy quality of your thought generally.)

        You see, Luis, there are two kinds of Leftist: The consummate idiots, and the consummate liars – where the liars exploit the idiots in order to achieve their own aspirations to power. Arguably, the liars are morally more contemptible than the idiots, but ultimately they all are equally destructive and equally despicable. And they killed many, many people, Luis, not the comparatively speaking mere handful you fraudulently claim as the consequence of rightist ideology: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro and Guevara, wherever the filthiness manages to find a foothold humanity suffers.

        But on a more personal note, since you clearly delight in Ad Hominem: You see, I KNOW you, Luis, with an all-caps “KNOW”. The leftwing psyche is one of ressentiment, the soul of the incompetent, moreover, the one who actually perceives his own inferiority and is furious at the universe for it. Pretty much the same as the mindset present in the garbage you’ll find in Daesh.

        Do the experiment, Luis. Go around and learn to know those people who can actually DO (with an all-caps “DO”) things. You will find that there is not a Leftist between them. That is because every competent person is aware of his competence and knows that this elevates him above the incompetent.

        What can YOU do, Luis? Apart from displaying your hilariously twisted thoughts on the internet?

      • Anonymous / Dec 23 2015 5:05 pm

        @ Luis

        Really ? Religious affiliation ? Christian chauvinism ?

        Ernst Rohm , one of the founders of the NSDAP was fiercely anticlerical because he was notoriously gay. Hitler also never married at church because the nazis promoted civil marriage.

        « Nazi ideas about race led to new marriage laws. In Austria, the Catholic Church opposed divorce, but the Anschluss and Nazi hostility towards Catholicism weakened this prohibition. From July 1938 the Reich Marriage Law in Austria insisted on non-church marriage ceremonies and made divorce easier, both of which undermined Catholic authority over family life. You could now get divorced if you had been separated for three years, if adultery had been committed or if you were an ‘Aryan’ who could prove you had mistakenly married a non-Aryan (typically, a Jewish)  person. Divorce, in fact, was promoted as desirable since it meant that people could form new, racially-approved partnerships and produce more ‘Aryan’ children. The divorce rate soared, and remarriage and the subsequent birth rate rose too. »

        .

        http://www.interrogating-ellie.com/race-marriage-and-divorce/

      • Luis / Dec 25 2015 2:30 am

        “Ernst Rohm , one of the founders of the NSDAP was fiercely anticlerical because he was notoriously gay. Hitler also never married at church because the nazis promoted civil marriage.”

        The Nazis had a deeply creationist notion of biology. Their racial ideology was creationist in that it saw “races” as being separately created by God. They wanted to use selective breeding to restore and maintain, not produce, superman. As for the Nazis changing things about the marriage laws: so what? Catholicism isn’t synonymous with Christianity. And Rohm being anticlerical doesn’t change that the main thrust of Nazi ideology and practise tapped into Christian chauvinist notions.

      • Riley / Dec 25 2015 6:35 am

        « Their racial ideology was creationist in that it saw “races” as being separately created by God. »

        .

        Luis , are you uncultivated , liar or lazy ?
        According to your claims , the nazis were inspired by that Bible which celebrates the glory of a Semite male who spoused an African female.
        It is said in the Ancient Testament that Moses – he wrote himself the book of Genesis that supports creationism – married and proudly had children with a black African woman.

        Ha , ha , ha… 😂

      • Riley / Dec 29 2015 5:40 pm

        Maybe I should have written “uncultured” instead of “uncultivated” , but I’m not fluent in English.

        « As for the Nazis changing things about the marriage laws: so what? Catholicism isn’t synonymous with Christianity. »

        .

        Maybe you should have named this other mysterious religion inspired by the teachings of Moses, a Semite who was born and raised in Africa , spoke some African tongues and eventually raised his Semite-African children.
        Hitler’s bodyguard himself depicted the German Fuhrer as a very secular leader.

      • Luis / Dec 25 2015 2:50 am

        “(By the way, it is transparent and pathetic how you moved from ‘foundational elements’ to the now more expedient ‘motifs’ and ‘themes’ instead – this probably accurately reflects the trashy quality of your thought generally.)”

        And it’s truly disgusting how you fail to acknowledge that when themes and motifs are spun out time and time and time again, fascist movement after fascist movement, they can only be considered foundational and essential, and can’t be chalked up as mere accidents invented by the “twisted minds” of leftists, however much naifs like you would still like that to be the case. I know that you don’t like to consider that capitalist forces are the ones who consistently and most strongly benefit from fascism, that capitalists are the biggest backers of fascist movements, that fascist governments repress socialists and communists as their first order of business, that fascist movements and governments are often supported by the United States, and so forth, but that you don’t like acknowledging something isn’t the same as providing a rational case for why that thing isn’t there. You work by simpleton rules, Jack, and it goes something like this: “Communists and other leftists use violence. Fascists use violence. Oh MY GOD! THEY’RE THE SAME! DERP DERP DERP.” By your miserable “logic”, communists are actually Friedmanite fundamentalists.

        “You see, Luis, there are two kinds of Leftist: The consummate idiots, and the consummate liars”

        Worthless ad hominem, devoid of argument. No one is obliged to accept your stupid assumptions as starting points. But nice try at setting the bounds of debate. Not so good if one deals in facts, though.

        “– where the liars exploit the idiots in order to achieve their own aspirations to power.”

        No, you’re confusing leftists with Trump supporters and other right-wing racists who express the purest forms of right-wing ideology.

        “Luis, not the comparatively speaking mere handful you fraudulently claim as the consequence of rightist ideology: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro and Guevara, wherever the filthiness manages to find a foothold humanity suffers.”

        This is a worthless statement, since all right-wing governments result in “humanity suffering”. Batista’s rapists and torturers suffering at the hand of Che is an example of “humanity suffering’, since said rapists and torturers are parts of humanity. Likewise, single mothers, Blacks, poor people, homosexuals and people from the “wrong” religion suffering at the hands of right-wing governments is an example of humanity suffering, since these victims constitute part of humanity.

        “But on a more personal note, since you clearly delight in Ad Hominem: You see, I KNOW you, Luis, with an all-caps “KNOW”. The leftwing psyche is one of ressentiment, the soul of the incompetent, moreover, the one who actually perceives his own inferiority and is furious at the universe for it. Pretty much the same as the mindset present in the garbage you’ll find in Daesh.”

        You’ve sunk to a new low of miserable dishonesty by equivocating the fuedal-religious and anti-communist terrorists of Daesh with leftism. It’s thanks to people like you and your hero Reagan that people like Daesh have become so powerful. Nothing about Daesh can be laid at the hands of leftism. You’re weaving stupid stories in a tortured effort to make the circle square.

        “Do the experiment, Luis. Go around and learn to know those people who can actually DO (with an all-caps “DO”) things. You will find that there is not a Leftist between them. That is because every competent person is aware of his competence and knows that this elevates him above the incompetent.”

        Garbage claim you pulled out of your ass. Provide evidence for this stupid statement, please. You can’t. This upsets you, so you project and issue frustrated platitudes about being better than leftists, even though you’re almost certainly a mediocre person yourself. Worse, you delight in lying. Please go and join Trump’s campaign and be done with the pretense.

        “What can YOU do, Luis? Apart from displaying your hilariously twisted thoughts on the internet?”

        Irrelevant and stupid question.

        That exhausts you “questions”. Now get off your big brother’s laptop, Jack. You’re not funny, interesting, or clever.

      • Jack Claxton / Jan 6 2016 2:54 pm

        Luis:

        What a stupid arsehole you are! IQ 73? You’re clearly one of the DUMB left-wingers. (With an all caps DUMB.)

        Although I actually agree with your sentiments regarding Fascists, since Fascism and Nazism are equally leftwing ideologies and likewise despicable. The mention of which make silly little communists like you scream blue murder.

        Where did you study, Luis? Passed anything? Have a job? A wife? Kids? Many friends? How’s your sex life? Adequate? Come, let’s be friends. Give me your hand!

      • Luis / Jan 9 2016 5:40 pm

        Riley: you’re as ignorant as a door knob, and about as intelligent as one, too.

        Here, educate yourself:

        https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/

        Example after example after example of what I’ve been talking about. I wonder when it has to sink in? Surely, at some point, honesty has to take over, even with a Trump-fanboy like you?

        “Although I actually agree with your sentiments regarding Fascists, since Fascism and Nazism are equally leftwing ideologies and likewise despicable.”

        Worthless blather, already demolished time and time again. Fascism has been right-wing demagogy from the get-go. It’s now clearly exposing its true colors and throwing off all pretenses of being even minimally “left-wing”, with racist and nationalist chauvinism exploding all over the Western world in the wake of the refugee disaster, and right-wing rhetorical lynch mobs baying for the blood of men, women and children. It’s fascists and right-wing worms like Trump who are marching in lock-step to the tune of this racism and chauvinism, and left-wingers who are OPPOSING it. It’s fascists and right-wing worms like Trump who are openly calling for militarism and mass-murder, and left-wingers who are OPPOSING this. These are FACTS, no matter what verbal gymnastics intellectual gnats want to employ. Example after example, it’s right-wingers are in lockstep with fascists on a hole range of issues. Example after example, it’s left-wingers who are bitterly opposed to the fascist goals. One can, of course, choose to ignore all this and live in a fantasy land, but then one must also front up to the inevitability of not being taken seriously by rational human beings.

        The rest of your post was mindless blather unworthy of response, as I expected. Please provide arguments in future rather than stupid tangents about your opponent’s “sex life”. Such asides make you look stupid and uncultivated. Why is this not clear to you?

        Here, educate yourself, dumbo, and don’t bother me again until you have something you didn’t pick up from the school yard:

        http://ongenocide.com/2016/01/08/the-resistible-rise-of-global-fascism-part-2-8-signs-you-are-living-under-a-fascist-regime/

      • Riley / Jan 10 2016 6:55 am

        First off, most of what you wrote as nothing to do with my previous comments ; so I will only answer to what matters to me .

        Once again Luis , to prove you are right you just should have quoted the biblical verses that claim that Whites , Germans and Scandinavians are superior to Semites ( Jesus , Mary , Moses and all the apostles in the Bible ) and Blacks.
        The link you posted is not a scholars’ study , it’s a bullshit compilation of a low-life guy who does not even know who are Hermann Klatsch , Voltaire and Karl Marx.

        An ignorant person , is the one who ignores that the very first Christians were “Jewish Christians” ; they were totally faithful religious Jews.

        « Jewish Christians, also Hebrew Christians or Judeo-Christians, were the original members of the Jewish movement that later became Christianity.[1] In the earliest stage the community was made up of all those Jews who accepted Jesus as a venerable person or even the Messiah (Christ). As Christianity grew and evolved, Jewish Christians became only one strand of the early Christian community, characterised by combining the confession of Jesus as Christ with continued adherence to Jewish traditions such as Sabbath observance, observance of the Jewish calendar, observance of Jewish laws and customs, circumcision, and synagogue attendance, and by a direct genetic relationship to the earliest Jewish Christians.»

        . ➟ Wikipedia .

        Of course , as they were all dark-skinned Middle Eastern Sephardim , true Semites ( I mean they were not even Ashkenazim ) , none of them were blond aryan-looking guys like the ones you claim the Bible’s teachings favor.

        An ignorant person is the one who ignores that there were much more Christians in Africa and in the Middle East than in Scandinavia in the very beginning of the Middle Age.

        «The Christianization of Scandinavia took place between the 8th and the 12th centuries. The realms of Scandinavia proper, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, established their own Archdioceses, responsible directly to the Pope, in 1104, 1154 and 1164, respectively. The conversion to Christianity of the Scandinavian people required more time, since it took additional efforts to establish a network of churches.»

        ➟ Wikipedia .

        Why is that ? Because no apostle taught the Moses and Jesus Semitic teachings in Northern Europe ; instead , some of them went and lived in Africa. Quite bizarre isn’t it that one of the very first Gentiles to be baptized was …an Ethiopian.
        Neither a Viking , nor a German was baptized in the Bible.
        ( Maybe the Semite apostle Mark who spent years in Africa should have taught Creationism in Northern Europe first …if the Bible intended to promote a racist ideology based on the white race supremacy.
        Maybe Thomas should have spent less years in India and went north to meet more blond Europeans …)

        Then all of sudden – thousand years after Moses -the Semite who freed the Jews – married an African woman- the nazis inspired by all the Jews who blessed some dark-skinned Arabs , Asians and Africans , declared that only white Europeans are the true children of God. Who can believe this ? Donald Trump ?

        But who cares about Donald Trump in this current debate ? Are you trying to troll this blog ?
        Although, if you take Trump at his own words , there are good reason to believe he is not a Christian ; Donald Trump is very likely a closet atheist since he could not even name just one biblical book or verse.
        Therefore, when asked the typical Christian question of whether he ever asks God for forgiveness , he simply answered like an atheist that he does not care much about God :

        « I’m not sure I have»

        .

        😂 Lol , how can’t he be sure of that ?
        Is he sure he do not attend regularly a mosque ? Ha , ha…
        Maybe he can name Quran chapters if he can’t name some biblical ones. 😜
        Trump eventually admitted :

        “I don’t think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”

        .

        Donald Trump claimed without hesitation : “ I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t. “.

        Historians will remember that Trump just doesn’t believe faith in God is important.
        He also already flip-flopped about a lot of issues dear to the Christian community , didn’t he ?

        http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/26/3716293/trump-doesnt-know-what-it-means-to-be-presbyterian/

        Also , notice that American churchgoers seem to be aware that Donald Trump’s church is probably a casino in Las Vegas :

        « Some leaders of the Religious Right are also taking a stand against Trump. In September, Rev. Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, wrote an o-ed declaring that Trump is against “everything [evangelicals] believe.” Moore published another letter this week urging fellow Christian conservatives to speak out against the candidate’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country. »

        .

        By the way , I am not an American…
        So Luis , do you have something more stupid to add ?

        Let’s come back to the initial topic about the leftist origin of nazism and remind some more relevant historical facts reported by historians -based on German laws and important witnesses such as Hitler’s bodyguard, Rochus Misch- that proved Hitler and his thugs could not be married by Christian clerics :

        « As with other radical social plans, the Nazis postponed the complete “coordination” [Gleichschaltung] of ecclesiastical life, or even its total elimination, until after the end of the war. […] Himmler, however, was a particularly vehement enemy of the church and encouraged the members of his SS to make a clear break with it. […]
        The Nazi Party devised new festivals to take the place of such Christian events as Christmas and Easter, and officially wrote out baptism and marriage ceremonies hoping that the Aryans would leave the church and that, when the time came, they would opt for a “marriage consecration” [Eheweihe] instead of a church wedding. […]
        Aryans should only marry before a party functionary and an altar bedecked with S.S. runes and oak-leaves instead of in a church before a Christian cleric.
        Thus a minor official of the Propaganda Ministry, Walther Wagner, married Hitler and Braun in the early hours of April 29, 1945. […]
        »

        .

        This is not the way Moses married his African wives.

      • Riley / Jan 10 2016 8:25 am

        I forgot to say that we can easily evidence how fallacious and despicable are your sources ( your links ) :

        «German soldiers had Gott mit uns inscribed on their helmets in the First World War.
        […]
        After the World War Ii, the motto was also used by the Bundeswehr and German police.»

        . ➟ Wikipedia

        “Gott Mit Uns” was the motto of the German empire even before Hitler’s birth.
        The Waffen SS, the actual Nazi Party military force replaced it by “Meine Ehre heißt Treue”.
        What a coincidence, isn’t it that the hardcore nazis have chosen a more secular motto.

        There are many other misleading assumptions ( not to say bullshit ) in your favorite atheist websites. Ha , ha… 😜

        And when you say this :

        « imperialist aggression, exploitation of other nations and states, … the worship of authoritarian institutions (police, army etc), »

        .
        Who conquered half Europe and asked the indigenous people to worship military and police forces from 1917 to 1993 ?
        I wonder if you’re not depicting , Cuba , the USSR , China , North Korea ; those are retarded atheistic states : far-left wing fascist tyrannies.
        See how the stupid North Koreans have to whine on demand (this happened in Europe as well , in 1953.) ; isn’t it laughable ?

        Some say the atheists are rational people ; I’m not sure of that …

        Have a good day , Luis

      • Luis / Jan 9 2016 6:23 pm

        Jack Claxton writes:

        please provide arguments in future rather than stupid tangents about your opponent’s “sex life”. Such asides make you look stupid and uncultivated. Why is this not clear to you? So yes next time, try to argue about specific points I make, rather than continuing to pat yourself on the back as though self-congratulation adds up to a good argument. It doesn’t. What you’ve done is the equivalent of walking into a job interview, taking a shit on the boss’s table, and then walking away, whistling, and assuming that you got the job.

        Here, educate yourself, dumbo, and don’t bother me again until you have something you didn’t pick up from the school yard:

        http://ongenocide.com/2016/01/08/the-resistible-rise-of-global-fascism-part-2-8-signs-you-are-living-under-a-fascist-regime/

        Also, in the future please keep in mind that you’re projecting the fascist ethos when you scream about “competence”. Elites always ascribe their success to their own inherent brilliance, and it’s left to foot-soldiers like you to buttress the hateful inequalities in the world by providing ideological cover for these inequalities by regurgitating the talking-points and sound-bites that are thrown around by the likes of Fox News and other neo-fascist outlets. But a paradigm revolving around inherent brilliance and deserved wealth is circular and automatically commits you to the white supremacist and fascism-facilitating narrative that Blacks tend to be poorer in the US due to their own “laziness”, or some other fiction that study after study has exposed as a racist self-serving lie. Now, I presume that when you use the term “competence”, it’s in the sense of technical competence geared towards producing things that are useful for a large number of people in society. Yet a cursory look at reality tells us that there are many modes of “competence” through which wealth accumulation can be fostered:

        – fraud and taking advantage of legal loopholes;
        – lobbying, paying politicians and political maneuvering;
        – takeover of other enterprises and asset stripping;
        – charging interest;
        – stock-market manipulation.

        Only an ignorant fool would be apt to miss that these have been absolutely central to the right-wing program in the United States and across much of the rest of the world. Yet you completely leave this out. An IQ of 73 seems too high for you, Jack. I’d place yours somewhere between a doorknob and a cockroach, which of course makes you ideal Trump material, and, therefore, a fascist.

      • Luis / Jan 9 2016 6:31 pm

        Typo. Meant to say “Jack Claxton writes:”, followed by:

        “What a stupid arsehole you are! IQ 73? You’re clearly one of the DUMB left-wingers. (With an all caps DUMB.)

        “Although I actually agree with your sentiments regarding Fascists, since Fascism and Nazism are equally leftwing ideologies and likewise despicable. The mention of which make silly little communists like you scream blue murder.

        “Where did you study, Luis? Passed anything? Have a job? A wife? Kids? Many friends? How’s your sex life? Adequate? Come, let’s be friends. Give me your hand!”

        followed by what I wrote in the message above. Take you best shot, Jack. Try to refute SOMETHING I’ve written, rather than this pitiful drivel. Wipe the drool off your keyboard, roll up your sleeves and get to work on an actual argument. You’re not entitled to intellectual hand-outs and special treatment just because you were born into the “right” race, country and ideological background.

      • Luis / Jan 20 2016 4:11 pm

        Riley said:

        “Once again Luis , to prove you are right you just should have quoted the biblical verses that claim that Whites , Germans and Scandinavians are superior to Semites ( Jesus , Mary , Moses and all the apostles in the Bible ) and Blacks.”

        No, I don’t. I only have to show that white supremacists regularly cite Scripture. I never said that early Christianity was white supremacist; I said that European imperialism has taken on a Christian hue (I should also add that it has spread Christianity to many parts of the world, but I suppose you think that’s the work of left-wing atheists).

        “The link you posted is not a scholars’ study , it’s a bullshit compilation of a low-life guy who does not even know who are Hermann Klatsch , Voltaire and Karl Marx.”

        It doesn’t matter that it’s “not a scholar’s study”. What matters – the ONLY thing that matters – is whether or not what he says is correct. Focus on content rather than form, you clown. Next you’ll be telling me that nothing Charles Darwin said was of value because he wasn’t an academic biologist. Please also note that official scholarship is often a tissue of lies and distortions, such as the scholarship that seeks to show that the US only ever makes “mistakes” and “blunders” in its foreign policy.

        “Of course , as they were all dark-skinned Middle Eastern Sephardim , true Semites ( I mean they were not even Ashkenazim ) , none of them were blond aryan-looking guys like the ones you claim the Bible’s teachings favor.”

        The last sentence is a pure lie. Of course, I never even implied that the Bible’s teachings “favor blond aryan-looking guys”. Here, I’ll repeat it again, since you don’t listen: I said that European imperialism has a Christian hue, and that white supremacists have used the Bible for their own ends. This is something that not even an intellectual gnat could deny.

        I won’t address the rest of what you wrote concerning the history of Christianity because it’s irrelevant. Well done on wasting your own time, dumbo.

        “But who cares about Donald Trump in this current debate ? Are you trying to troll this blog ?”

        Trump is a symptom of creeping fascism. Are you too stupid and ignorant not to know that? He throws around right-wing white nativist tropes, and has helped drive the intellectual level of debate down to almost zero. He lies without shame and doesn’t even BOTHER making sense. These are fascist tools.

        “Although, if you take Trump at his own words , there are good reason to believe he is not a Christian ; Donald Trump is very likely a closet atheist since he could not even name just one biblical book or verse.”

        Doesn’t matter if he’s a closet homosexual Muslim. He uses right-wing white nativist tropes to gain support, and this is undoubtedly a symptom of a fascist movement.

        “Therefore, when asked the typical Christian question of whether he ever asks God for forgiveness , he simply answered like an atheist that he does not care much about God :
        « I’m not sure I have»”

        Again, kind of a tangent on your part. Sarah Palin, a self-avowed deep believer, is now endorsing Trump. If you can’t see the fascist conglomeration n the form of the forces congealing together, then I can’t do anything for you, Riley. Besides, Trump is a narcissistic sociopath, who has already banked his political capital on the notion that he never has to apologize for anything. Why then why he admit that he has ever had something to ask God to forgive him for?

        “He also already flip-flopped about a lot of issues dear to the Christian community , didn’t he ?”

        Irrelevant. A good chunk of the right-wing Christian community in the US has its head so far up its own rear-end that it can’t think straight about anything. And Trump taps into that. Flip-flopping is in the nature of fascist demagoguery (what, you DIDN’T KNOW?). You should stop getting so hung up on the personal proclivities of fascist leaders and start looking at the political-economic content of what they’re aiming for when they issue their right-wing white nativist tropes. Clue: they’re not trying to being a Marxist analysis to the table. They’re allying themselves with people like you against such an analysis. They’re trying to expunge the issue of class. They’re trying to dumb people down with notions of “national revival”, “law and order”, and a love for militarism, while protecting the privileges of the super-rich.

        “Also , notice that American churchgoers seem to be aware that Donald Trump’s church is probably a casino in Las Vegas”

        Here’s the relevant part: Trump is being rewarded in the polls for his rhetoric, not punished. And not by the atheists. He’s being rewarded by – you guessed it – right-wing white nativists who more often than not are themselves religious chauvinists.

        “This is not the way Moses married his African wives.”

        King Henry VIII “broke with the Church”. So by your lights, he “wasn’t a Christian”. But we all know that he was. Hitler, on several occasions, ascribed his survival of major events as being due to divine favor. He wrote about how he saw Jesus as a “fighter” doing battle against a “pit of vipers”.

        “Gott Mit Uns” was the motto of the German empire even before Hitler’s birth. The Waffen SS, the actual Nazi Party military force replaced it by “Meine Ehre heißt Treue”.

        “What a coincidence, isn’t it that the hardcore nazis have chosen a more secular motto.“

        What a coincidence, isn’t it, that you’re too dishonest to also mention that the SS was formed specifically as an elite bodyguard to Hitler? Thus it would make perfect sense that their motto would be more secular and centered around the fucking PURPOSE for which it was made, which was unquestioning loyalty to the leader. Maybe the question you should be asking isn’t why the Waffen SS has “Meine Ehre heißt Treue” as its motto, but why not ALL German military and police units did.

        “There are many other misleading assumptions ( not to say bullshit ) in your favorite atheist websites. Ha , ha…”

        Prove it, Riley. I’ll be patient.

        “Who conquered half Europe and asked the indigenous people to worship military and police forces from 1917 to 1993 ?”

        No one. The Soviets never asked anyone to “worship” military and police units; neither did the Americans. Who are you talking about?

        “I wonder if you’re not depicting , Cuba , the USSR , China , North Korea ; those are retarded atheistic states : far-left wing fascist tyrannies.

        See how the stupid North Koreans have to whine on demand (this happened in Europe as well , in 1953.) ; isn’t it laughable ?”

        This is stupid, since I never said that authoritarianism can’t be left wing. I’m just questioning your stupid presumption that ALL authoritarianism is left wing. By arguing like a low-life leech who sounds like he’s in the pay of some right-wing “libertarian” think tank funded by corporations, you’re also implying that the Argentine right-wing junta was “left wing” and that the Salvadoran death squads, set up by the US military to kill union leaders and terrorize the country, were “left wing”. But I wouldn’t put this past you, given how miserably incapable you are of separating political-economic content from means. For you, “violence” = “left wing” simply because you start off with that imbecilic assumption as an axiom. In the meantime, keep crying.

      • Riley / Jan 23 2016 4:50 pm

        Donald Trump , the closet atheist

        Answer to Luis , the atheist :

        Irrelevant. A good chunk of the right-wing Christian community in the US has its head so far up its own rear-end that it can’t think straight about anything. And Trump taps into that. […] Blah-blah , blah-blah… […]
        They’re trying to dumb people down with notions of “national revival”, “law and order”, and a love for militarism, while protecting the privileges of the super-rich.
        […]Trump is being rewarded in the polls for his rhetoric, not punished. And not by the atheists. He’s being rewarded by – you guessed it – right-wing white nativists who more often than not are themselves religious chauvinists.
        ➟ Luis

        Maybe you should read the comments on some committed atheist sites who support Trump and his project to build a wall :

        « Colbert – typical liberal idiot who probably thinks no borders are just great, and that Trump is a Nazi for even suggesting one.
        Trump may not be right about everything, but he’s right about closing the border, deporting illegals, and banning Muslim immigration. These are such huge priorities that he’s worth electing just for that.»

        .
        http://theatheistconservative.com/2015/12/28/trumps-wall/

        Trump appeals to atheists because he is a closet liberal and an atheist.

        « I’m genuinely grateful to the reader who posted this on an earlier thread. He explains Trump better than anyone I’ve yet read:»
        I am an atheist white Southerner who has always voted a straight Democratic ticket because I found the Republicans to be repulsive. But even I feel the appeal of Trumpism. […] Trump looks like the only way to even have a shot at making them hurt like they’ve made us hurt. That is a tough proposition to turn down.

        . ➟ The Heart of the Trump Matter @ the American Conservative

        The fact is that a good chunk of the religious right already stood against Trump ; please update your brain.

        « “Two Corinthians, 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame,” Trump said, drawing laughter from the crowd of students at Liberty University, who knew Trump was attempting to refer to “Second Corinthians.” »

        ➟ Donald Trump

        Trump unfamiliarity with the Bible speaks for itself . It reminds your belief that the Bible excludes the Semites because it was written to favor the Vikings.

        «Trump has previously received criticism from the Evangelical voter base over his shaky knowledge of the Bible. […]
        The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said Donald Trump’s recent Bible gaffe at Liberty University proves the 2016 presidential candidate is “not familiar with [the] Bible.” »

        . ➟ The Christian Post

        Donald Trump is obviously a wolf in sheep’s clothing : an atheist
        .

      • Luis / Mar 6 2016 10:13 pm

        “Donald Trump is obviously a wolf in sheep’s clothing : an atheist”

        You stated that on the basis of the opinions of a conservative atheists and the fact that many religious people stood against Trump. By your logic, I can claim that Trump is the embodiment of evangelicalism because many evangelicals have strongly endorsed him.

        “Trump unfamiliarity with the Bible speaks for itself”

        Oh, you mean like it does for most Christians in the US, who pick and choose what to obey in Scripture and what to leave aside, and who most of the time couldn’t quote the Ten Commandments if their lives depended on it?

        One could take Trumps’ ignorance of Biblical Scripture as evidence that he’s the antithesis of evangelicalism – or that he’s in fact the continuation of this fetid right-wing religious culture. People like you would feign surprise and shock that he is in fact being endorsed by many evangelicals, but there needn’t be any shock at all. Here, update your brain: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/templeofthefuture/2016/03/trump-is-evangelical-christianity/

        Look, I’ll be frank: it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Trump was an atheist. I just think the man is an opportunist who will say whatever gets him into office. The relevant point is that, right now, he’s stoking up the white nativist Christian sentiment, and it’s WORKING. This should tell you something that “speaks for itself”, but apparently you need me to spell it out for you.

        Checkmate.

      • Luis / Mar 6 2016 10:34 pm

        Oh, and Riley: please explain how exactly Trump is donning “sheep’s clothing”. Please tell us what sort of “sheep” OPENLY spout predatory, reactionary, racist platitudes beloved by multitudes of people on the religious RIGHT. Even if one can make the argument that none of these platitudes are actually Christian, how does that translate into them being “atheist”? “Non-Christian” doesn’t mean “non-Yahweh abiding”. Belief in Yahweh precedes the legend of Christ. Evangelicals who go after homosexuals might not be holding Christ’s teachings at heart when they engage in their despicable victimization of people carrying out “sin”, but to claim that they’re doing so from an “atheist” perspective is both stupid and demonstrably wrong – unless of course, one arbitrarily DEFINES a no-believer in one’s preferred deity as an “atheist” (as many Christians did of Muslims during the Middle Ages). You’re bursting at the seams with excuses, Riley. Time to pack up and leave. An apology from you would also be in order for wasting everyone’s time here. Because according to Riley, right-wing evangelicals in the US are just hidden atheists who co-tow to religious terminology and devote themselves to persecuting homosexuals because…other atheists want this, even though atheists don’t want this and are constantly denouncing evangelicals for doing this, and…wait, what? I guess you just enjoy chasing your tail.

  7. Anonymous / Apr 23 2015 2:24 am

    This was the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. There’s also a typo in the second sentence.

    • blahblah / Aug 19 2015 8:38 am

      Exactly!
      “An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself”
      So torturing animals is inhumane but enslaving/torturing/murdering humans is not.
      Mind = Blown.

  8. Jack / Mar 25 2015 5:51 pm

    Obviously you didnt read the text of the StormFront article and stopped after the title. His conception of left and right was simply “new”, and “old” but then he goes on to say that their “attitudes” are of the right, and those are the people they have been trying to appeal to for ages. No one in the comment section agreed with his assessment and quickly dismissed the article.

  9. Jack / Mar 25 2015 4:57 pm

    but any historian or politician who’s studied the Nazi party would find the exact opposite to be true.”

    Glenn Beck, and the goofballs at Breitbart, and Free Republic are not “historians”. Historians are: Richard J. Evans, Saul Freelander, Raul Hilberg, Ian Kershaw, Lucy Davidowicz, Robert Jay Lifton, etc. and like all historians place Nazis where they belong, on the far-right of the political spectrum. I almost pissed myself when you claimed the Nazis had socially liberal policies because they banned vivisection of animals! Instead they just did vivisections on live Jews, Roma, Communists, Liberals, Homosexuals, etc. you idiot. The Nazis were a patriarchal, social darwinist, anti-union, anti-feminist, anti-homosexual, nationalistic, militaristic, party, hostile to all forms of modernism, internationalism, and cosmopolitanism. That means they’re conservatives. To say they’re “like the democratic party” makes you sound like an idiot. They were also supported by the bourgeoius right in Germany out of fear of communists, and part of a coalition with the German National People’s Party, which was the German Conservative Party in the parliament. Pro-capitalism doesn’t mean strict Austrian economics that exists only in textbooks. If that was the case then not a single major corporation or bank is “capitalist”. This nonsense idea of naive conservatives have that this thing called “cronyism” isnt capitalism and is socialist, is absurd. All big companies use their money to buy politicians and write laws to benefit them, and their industry. Thats intrinsic to actual capitalism, and was very much a feature of the Nazi government as companies like IG Farben, and Krupps supported the war effort, in exchange for government cooperation, and giant expanding markets which would increase their profits.

    • john / Jul 23 2015 9:22 pm

      Just another person whos been fooled into our brainwashing controlled history, you see half the history we are taught is all aload of b******t, dont let people tell you what, research yourself look at all perspectives, guarntee u will have doubts on many of things youve been told

    • Zig Zag Ziggy / Apr 26 2016 6:04 pm

      Right wing ideology is about limited government, the left is about unlimited. Pre-constitutionalists of America were divided into two groups. One was anti federalist and one was federalist. The anti federalists were about small limited government and the federalists wanted a stronger dictatorship like a monarchy. The anti federalists were known as Right wing and the federalists were known as Left wing. These two groups eventually morphed into the Democrats and Republicans. Fascism and Nazism would not be effective if they were a true right wing ideology because the government would be limited in its powers and abilities to force their will on the masses. Therefore fascism and Nazism thrive and are more compatible with the left wing ideology of unlimited government. The end. Simple, yet accurate.

  10. Anonymous / Mar 23 2015 10:55 pm

    this is hysterical

  11. tylercalvin / Mar 5 2015 2:02 pm

    boring

  12. JustaTypicalTheist / Feb 5 2015 5:48 pm

    Oh this is quite amusing. It seems that some lefty’s don’t want to admit to the idea that Fascism is just a form of Socialism. Little do they know that there are many forms of Socialism than just Marxist.

    When Hitler says that he opposes socialism. He’s most likely referring to the Marxist and Leninism view of Socialism. Both of these forms were failing the USSR’s economy. So much that Stalin had to fix it with his own view of Socialism.

    Now going on to refute some of those cherry picker claims that they are “right-wing”

    “Hitler was homophobic and anti-gay”
    So? Stalin, Castro, Mao, and pretty much every Communist dictator were also anti-gay. They criminalized homosexuality. Are you meaning to tell me that they are actually fascists as well?

    “Hitler was Xenophobic and Racist”
    You do realize that Marx himself would also be considered Racist, correct? Marx ridiculed the Jews saying that “Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist”

    In fact he referred Ferdinand Lasalle as a “Jewish Nigger” I won’t go in depth as he also ridicules Africans as well but needless to say; Marx also championed American Slavery.

    This is the guy who you claim to be racial tolerant?

    http://links.org.au/node/3429

    Likewise, Stalin and Mao were also very Xenophobic. They wanted to eliminate any trace of Capitalism and traditional values believing that it would Corrupt the “true Communist way.” So of course, they would be Xenophobic.

    “Hitler was Cultural Intolerant”
    Oh, don’t make me laugh. If you’re going to use this claim, then you clearly haven’t dipped your head in a history book in the last 50 years. I’ll just ring out this Statement. Ever heard of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution?” AKA the “Great Leap Forward” I think that says enough.

    Oh how interesting. It seems like Fascism and Socialism actually have a lot in common. Jeez, I wonder why?

    Oh, here’s something a little extra that will blow your mind. Hitler was Pro-Abortion. “Damn! That so called far-right wing nut-job supports abortion!”

    As I said before Fascism is a form of Socialism. A slightly less left form of Socialism. You Liberals can deny that all you want and try to sugar-coat it.

    I find it interesting on how the Left mind works. They’ll do whatever they can to portray the right as “evil” and “oppressing” Yet somehow praise the truly oppressing ideas such as Socialism. In the end, they’ll dismiss any true facts or evidence you have against them.

    • Jack / Mar 25 2015 5:10 pm

      Abortion was outlawed for German women up until the very end of the war. Forcing Jewish women to have abortions is not what we’d call “pro-choice” and is closer to the forced births conservatives support. Second, the nazis were completely anti-feminist, thought a woman’s place was in the home, and even up until the end of the war wouldnt allow women to work in factories building planes, tanks, etc. They even outlawed smoking for women because they felt it was “unlady like”. Then you’re examples of Hitler supposed “liberalism” even though the Weimar Republic was liberal and despised by nazis due it’s “cultural degeneracy, and cultural “bolshevism”(that’s right out of Nazi propaganda and sounds no different than what conservatives say about our current liberal culture, and government)are all features of totalitarian regimes, not those of democratic capitalists. Homophobia, nationalism, anti-feminism, hostility to modernism(and post modernism)xenophobia, etc. are all features of nazism and conservatism. Not a single one of these things is a hallmark of liberalism, dummy. Because conservatives suddenly have a hard on for Netanyahu’s Israel and it’s Warsaw ghetto full of Palestinians doesnt suddenly erase who you actually are.

    • Luis / Nov 8 2015 7:54 pm

      “Oh this is quite amusing. It seems that some lefty’s don’t want to admit to the idea that Fascism is just a form of Socialism.”

      Which must why right-wing forces in the US are trying to institute fascism. Take your stupid analytical fuck-ups elsewhere.

    • Luis / Jan 9 2016 6:01 pm

      “Marx also championed American Slavery.”

      It’s utterly miserable how you can sit there and tell such bold-faced lies and try to fob them off capitalism’s crimes on Marx. You’re a special type of miserable. Soon, intellectual gnats like you will be telling us that the Spanish conquest of the Americas was inspired by Marxism and that the British East India Company was trying to spread Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

      Marx: “‘Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.'”

      Oh yes, so much “championing” of American slavery.

      Here’s one of the most hilariously stupid paragraphs I’ve had the misfortune of enduring on this blog: “When Hitler says that he opposes socialism. He’s most likely referring to the Marxist and Leninism view of Socialism. Both of these forms were failing the USSR’s economy. So much that Stalin had to fix it with his own view of Socialism.”

      HA? Do you even read this vomit? This is so replete with your own evidence lacking assumptions and confusions about the Soviet economy that it’s hard to know where to begin, but a good place to start might be to acknowledge that it was Lenin was instituted the NEP. And I’m guessing that you won’t want to maintain that “Stalin fixed socialism with his own version” spiel when it comes to critiquing Marxism, where we all know that you’ll go rushing back to equivocate Stalin’s actions with “Marxism”.

    • Luis / Jan 9 2016 6:05 pm

      “Likewise, Stalin and Mao were also very Xenophobic. They wanted to eliminate any trace of Capitalism and traditional values believing that it would Corrupt the “true Communist way.” So of course, they would be Xenophobic. ”

      Errr…that’s not what xenophobic means, dumb-ass.

  13. Rob Davies / Jan 26 2015 5:17 pm

    Ha ha, this blog has all the breadth and depth of a 15-year old who has read half a book and thinks he now knows it all. There was a good recommendation on here to read Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. All of it. Then try Mein Kampf. All of it. Then another 10-20 serious works by well-respected authors from across the political spectrum. Find out about the ideological roots of fascism in Italy and Germany, about the history of German nationalism, anti-Semitism and Marxism/ Social-Democracy. Read Hitler, Drexler, Goebbels and the rest on why they used the colour red and the word ‘socialism’ (rather than some quotes picked out by your deluded confederates). Research the sources of funds and increased electoral support for the Nazis. Examine the structure of the German economy in the 1930s, who owned it and what policies the Nazis carried out with the largely contented support of big business. Discover the fate of independent trade unionism. Try Allen Merson’s unique (in English at any rate) book Communist Resistance in Nazi Germany. Then carry on reading and lecture in this and other modern subjects for, say, 15 years. Like I’ve done. Try to imagine that inter-war Germany was nothing like US politics at the beginning of the 21st century.Then come back and apologise for writing the most economically, politically and ideologically illiterate horseshit I’ve ever read on the web.

    • itsnobody / Jan 26 2015 7:47 pm

      lol, you’re just saying nothing but throwing personal attacks me.

      How am I wrong?

      Throwing personal attacks at me doesn’t refute any statement that I made…I’ve personally spoken to many Nazis and none of them describe themselves as conservative (especially with regards to fiscal issues).

      You just can’t handle the truth.

      • Anonymous / Apr 23 2015 2:28 am

        Omfg you are such an idiot… It’s actually pretty funny. Like, do you just wake up and decide what to believe on any given day when you hear or read whatever? How does that brain of yours work. Fascinating.

  14. poser, the / Dec 12 2014 5:27 pm

    I like how all these people are blasting one another for not knowing their History or being deluded about what the Nazi’s place in History was really about, or whether or not you can compare the 3rd Reich more accurately to far left of far right political thought. Good job missing what’s important. What they did and how they were allowed to do it. ***SPOILER ALERT*** By taking advantage of a country’s weakened political unity, scaring the $*** out of the masses, finding a scapegoat and convincing the populace they were doing the right thing. Along the way the did a few things associated with the far left and a few things associated with the far right. To say that the Nazis were off the far left or far right is to proclaim one’s ignorance of modern political theory and to also trivialize just how tumultuous the first half of the 20th century was, how violent and nationalistic Europe and Industrialized Asia was and just how complex and diverse the reasons were for the rise of the Nazi party, WWII and the subsequent Cold War era.

  15. C. Nonoyo / Dec 1 2014 12:23 pm

    Thank you so much for posting this, and especially for all of the citations so we can look up the info for ourselves. This is an area of much interest to me and I appreciate your sharing informed knowledge.

  16. wardenhallis / Nov 6 2014 12:30 am

    This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. As a Jew with a mother who was murdered in Nazi Germany and a father who survived he camps, and someone who lived there during this time, it is clear you did not. And, clear, you are the most stupid human being since those who followed Hitler himself. Educating yourself is obviously not going to occur, you are only a danger to the human species. Do us all a favor and kill yourself before you hurt someone.

  17. ymvugr@gmail.com / Feb 27 2014 1:55 am

    Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.

  18. Luis / Jan 28 2014 9:56 am

    Sorry, but didn’t work.

    You seem incapable of appreciating that the Nazis were led by degagogues who used socialist terminology in order to draw supporters away from the socialists and communists, who were their biggest (and bitterest) working-class rivals at the time. You don’t just fight socialists with bricks and guns, you fight them with words and promises as well. Once in power, the Nazis went on to BETRAY most of their left-wing promises.

    ”There is absolutely nothing conservative, pro-capitalist, or right-wing about the Nazis”

    Conservative: homophobic, anti-atheist, patriarchal, social-Darwinist, pro-traditional authoritarian institutions (military and police), pro-family, creationist (see last comment). Pro-capitalist: backers of (and backed up) big capital, disciplined and suppressed the working class, banned real unions, refloated industries that were lagging in order to hand them back to private hands, maintained the stock-market, retained strong class distinctions, FAILED to do anything to overturn class distinctions. Right-wing: racist, nationalistic, national chauvinist, law-and-order platform.

    I don’t know how you extract ‘socialist’ from all of that or why you choose to believe Hitler and allow a dead man to play you, unless your definition of socialist is so shallow as to be worthless (you seem to equivocate it with simple government control and/or ownership, ignoring completely the class content and character of the state, in whose interests it is acting, and how it has been shaped, all of which are class questions).

    ”the Nazis still were overall anti-capitalist (as well as anti-communist) and strongly opposed to capitalism.”

    Only if you understand capitalism to mean the fantasies one finds in economics textbooks where the ‘guvumint’ is the source of all disquiet. Capitalist ideologues have an absolutely goofy conception of their system, unable to see through the muck of their own agitprop. They’re so hopelessly deluded that some of them come to see Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs as examples of ‘socialism’! Anti-social theft in the service of a tiny minority of big capitalists, at the expense of almost everyone else, is seen as ‘socialism’. Sorry, but I’m not that gullible or loose with my terms.

    The Nazis weren’t trying to get rid of capitalism. They were trying to manage the interests of the big capitalists (what are often called ‘strategic interests’ in the West), discipline smaller capitalists, and simply control the masses. Capitalist-state alliances of these sorts are examples of the big capitalists doing what the jealous small-time capitalists would themselves do if given half the chance (the very same capitalists who complain ‘this isn’t real capitalism!’). The beautiful irony is that a lot of ‘libertarians’ can’t see that the very free markets they love so much are themselves mechanisms for concentrating vast pools of capital with which to invest in the state for inluence against other capitalists, and it’s doubly beautiful given that you guys also advocate the government being ‘small’. Yet you can’t seem to put these simple things together and form a logical narrative of what comes next. You blithely imagine that a free market is the end of the discussion rather than the beginning of the analysis. It has to be spelled out to you that when a government is weak and has few instruments with which to regulate and reign in the market, the most powerful players in that market will inevitably, by the pure logic of capital accumulation (CAPITALism, remember?), come to increasingly dominate and control the government as a further mechanism for capital accumulation. Why is that hard to understand?

    ”All these policies are the exact opposite of far right-wing free-market Austrian economists policies.”

    Who care? One still follows the failure of the other. Fascism, as capitalism in crisis, is obliged to dispense with Austrian economic practise (if not doctrine), but only as a prelude to restoring it (albeit with the big kids on the block coming out on top).

    ”- Pointing out that Hitler was patriotic or believed in a strong national defense (while ignoring that many other ideologies on the left also believe in patriotism and building a strong national defense)”

    ‘National defense’ is a mute point. What’s pointed to is imperialism, armed aggression and racial slavery. Why downplay these by equivocating them with basic patriotism and national defense?

    ”The Nazis were also socially liberal on many issues as well.”

    I guess so much so that they sent homosexuals and Roma to concentration camps, which is something that modern conservatives rather than liberals would be apt to do. Could you please name the ‘many issues’ on which the Nazis were socially liberal?

    And finally: the Nazis had a creationist conception of biology, not a genuinely Darwinian one. They believed in perfectly created forms that were being diluted, rather than an advance TOWARDS perfection from an imperfect starting point. Nazi eugenics had a restorative goal, not an evolutionary one. The Nazis believed that whites were already superhumans but that their quality was being undermined by breeding with lesser beings. Thus, they were concerned with filtering out this diluting influence and RESTORING the God-bestowed forms that had existed at the creation. Darwin, on the other hand, while being a racist, was much LESS of a racist than most of his contemporaries, and it’s actually quite easy to see why this would be the case: he saw humanity as deriving from a common stock, while the Nazis believed that whites were specially designed and chosen by God. Modern evolutionary biology posits that humans indeed come from a common ancestor. I doubt that Hitler would be very enamoured of the idea that his people originated in Africa.

    • Derp / Jul 20 2014 8:04 pm

      This ^

      • Luis / Jul 21 2014 3:14 am

        Stop crying.

  19. Anonymous / Jan 9 2014 11:06 pm

    THANK YOU!!! I’m glad someone finally gets it!

    Everytime Dems say the Nazis were right-wing I call them out on it! The Nazis wanted control, their entire GOVERNMENT was run by their party, they OUTLAWED religious freedom of Jews, they OUTLAWED anything in Germany that was non-German, such as radio stations that didn’t play German music only, etc. They also weren’t Christians as many leftists claim. It’s true that Hitler at his early ages was probably Christian, but once he got into power, he became a peganists/occultists. Just look at the symbols the Nazis used for their political party—-the swatsika & others—all occult symbols! Not to mention the fact “Nazi” stands for National SOCIALIST Work Party”. They took control of private business & destroyed others (specifically those owned by Jews). They are so obviously LEFT-WING!

    I am so tired of the Liberal elite rewriting the history books to further push their agenda. We need to do something about & expose these liars for what they are.

    • Chris Curley / Aug 30 2014 2:39 am

      Hitler himself referred to his movement as a right wing nationalist struggle against Bolshevism in Mein Kamph you idiot.Believe these retards,not the man who started the movement in his own words!!!!!.Hitler puit the word Socialist in merely to appeal to the younger idealist.The biggest backer of socialism,Gregor Strasser was murdered by the SS during the night of the Long Knives because of his foolish belief in the socialist aspect.Hitler described his brand of social;ism as follows.”Any man who puts Germany before himself and his family and their self interests,that man is a socialist.Thats Fascism my friend…as far right wing as they come.

  20. RJP3 / Dec 24 2013 1:21 pm

    The level of ignorance on display here in America is going to destroy this country. We have Americans on here who do not know WW2 was a fight against Far Right Wing German and Japanese fascism. The American Far Right Wing propaganda machine is successful – these fools parrot the American Right Wing propaganda that Nazi’s were liberals. Damn sickening — but at least I am not them.

    • Jeff Isles / Apr 17 2014 11:43 am

      You really are a special kind of stupid. Of course the NAZI’s were “liberals” in practice. You can put whatever label you want on it but only modern liberals are running around banning smoking or 32 oz. drinks. Demanding private corporations do what the government says from minimum wage to corporate salaries. Across the spectrum you see NAZI policies being advocated by the left in the US. I am not suggesting that the left in the US is therefore in favor of the murderous policies the NAZI’s resorted to, one has nothing to do with the other. But it does tend to be a symptom of all powerful centralized governments throughout history. It is a very slippery slope when you vest ANY form of government with unlimited power and charge it with fixing all the problems of the world. To quote a famous “statists”, some eggs are going to get broken to make that omelet.

      • Chris Curley / Aug 30 2014 2:50 am

        You are a really idiotic imbecile!!!!IPerhaps if you can read,you should pick up Mein Kamph,Inside the Third Reich,or rise and fall of the third Reich.You use a term like eggs being broken to make an omelet?You lable the author as a statist???????Get a fu—-ing education you imbecile.Facism is as right wing as it gets and Hitler REPEATEDLY,stated his mission was to radicate leftism and Bolshevism on earth.Hitler has had more books written about him and Nazism than any figure of the last several hundred years,yet you know more than thousands of scholars.I suggest you inquire about surgery to remove your head from your ass.

      • Chris Curley / Aug 30 2014 9:48 am

        Uuuuh… I’m so scares of your cursing. But again, I think by now everybody expects this from leftist, liberals like yourself. When they don’t know what else to say. And honestly I’ve grown tired of it.
        First of all, the whole argument that Hitler was a right wing fascist (which by the way is an oxymoron) because he fought socialists it’s not proof of anything. You know what the worst enemy of a socialist is?! A socialist in power who is nit his friend. They were both hunters fighting for the same prey, so they should exterminate the competition to keep the spoils. You know, sheeps like yourself.
        And second of all, if you wanna use Hitler’s words, why don’t you use these ones:
        “We are socialists, we are enemies of todat’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
        – Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927

  21. Anonymous / Aug 15 2013 9:19 am

    There is no denying that Socialism is left wing.
    Okay, so there have been some subtle changes to the edges in 60 years, but the core is the same.
    Nobody wants to be associated with the NAZIS because we all have to agree they were/are bad.
    So the left, being heavily into propaganda, tries incessantly to say that teh NAZIS are right wing.
    They cite things like “Socialist in name inly” and “National socialism is really right wing because it is nationalism” etc. Well, sicne the great left-wing leader is taking us down the same road as the NAZIS I guess that he is right wing and should have been in the Republican party huh? Leftists, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. NAZIS are left wing and always have been. The truth hurts.

  22. frank / Aug 9 2013 3:14 am

    Look at the most important features of the NAZI regime, not the inconsequential details such as protecting wild-life. (sure it’s an issue today, but there are really bigger things out there, such as wars that killed 50 million people)

    As is pointed out before, You couldn’t have a better example of
    Nationalism,
    Xenophobia,
    Jingoism,
    Racism,
    Hierarchical organization,
    Authoritarianism,

    Economically it’s true they had some elements of left wing influence. However the socialist policies they enacted were counterbalanced by:

    Banning of unions
    Alliance and support with Business and Industry leaders

    Conservatives just don’t like the fact that NAZI’s are called right wingers so they have to try really hard to come up with a reason to paint them on the left.:/

    • Zig Zag Ziggy / Apr 26 2016 6:08 pm

      The KKK was spawned out of the Democrat Party. You are an idiot!

      • Zig Zag Ziggy / Apr 26 2016 6:10 pm

        Abraham Lincoln, man who “freed” the slaves, was a Republican.

  23. superzeroes41 / Aug 3 2013 8:57 am

    I’ve long held this belief that Nazism was in fact lefty not righty. Currently I am in an intense and ongoing debate with a friend over this. I read your piece here to see if I could learn more and have some talking points. Only one I hadn’t known previously was animal rights.
    I as some posting comments suggest we go to stormfront website most certainly will not. I don’t need FBI or any law enforcement agency after my butt. Big differences between the Neo-nazis’ and the nazis’ of Hitler. It has evolved/morphed into something wholly different.
    Read The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich. Hitler had control over almost every aspect of Germans. Only time he had to bite his tongue and sit on his hands was during the Olympics.
    Look at the way he had a big government approach. The real reason he was considered right-wing was he destroyed the labour unions. Big labour nowadays loves big government because then government employees were not unionized. They certainly are now.

  24. blue waffle / Apr 18 2013 2:25 pm

    Revisionist cretins trying to argue up is down because Australia is on the other side of the world in 3.. 2.. 1.

  25. Satan / Apr 13 2013 4:54 pm

    As a conservative, I found that this article and most of the commentaries for and against it remarkably ignorant of basic history. The notion that the Nazis were leftwing is an absurd theory peddled by the neocon Jonah Goldberg and his National Review lapdogs as well as various libertarian tool bags. It’s sad that so many have bought into this nonsense.

    Firstly, the idea completely ignores basic political terminology established during the French Revolution. The term ‘Leftwing’ doesn’t refer to the degree of statist intervention in the economy, it refers to the degree that a political movement is committed to socio-politico-economic egalitarianism. Equality has historically been enforced through powerful governments (ie: New Deal, social democracy, welfare, and in the extreme, communist parties). Hence, Leftwing=Equality

    The term ‘Rightwing’ describes those who believe that inequality and social hierarchy are natural, normal, or desirable. The Rightwing rejects the leveling down of social differences that would lead to human equality. Hence, Rightwing=Hierarchy.

    The idea that the term rightwing implies support from free-markets and little to no government intervention (Anarcho-Capitalism) is historical revisionism invented by modern Libertarians to discredit other rightwing movements (including conservatives). Ironically, American libertarians are actually classical liberals, making them left-of-center. However, it should be pointed out that capitalism is historically conceived of as rightwing precisely because it enforces inequality and social control in the privately owned workplace, hence capitalism is contextually more rightwing then socialism. Both the Nazis and Fascists allied with the capitalists, abolished unions, stifled all workplace dissent, and in the Final Solution, resorted to Jewish slave labor in order to manufacture goods for the capitalist war industry. Thus, the Nazis were not leftwing (even if they had leftwing origins, ideas, and supporters). The fact that they were tree-hugging vegetarians and animal-rights supporters has nothing to do with where they stand on the political spectrum (conservatives were the first environmentalists by the way). Simply because they had the word ‘socialist’ in their name doesn’t imply that they are leftwing, since historically there were many anti-capitalists and self-described socialists who were staunchly rightwing reactionaries (Metternich, Bismarck, Plato, Spengler). Furthermore, despite their common inspirations, policies, and alliance, the Nazis were not Fascists, those are two different political groups. Saying the Nazis were Fascists would be like saying Canada and the USA are the same since they have similar governments.

    Saying that the Nazis and Fascists were leftwing is about as ridiculous as saying that American Conservatives are leftwing because they support democracy and human rights. Don’t be an idiot.

    • Anonymous / Jul 1 2013 3:21 am

      Go sell crazy (your pseudo-intellectualism) somewhere else. The Nazis were far left. True story. Don’t you be an idiot : )

    • sabretruthtiger / Jul 26 2013 12:04 pm

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Wow…just wow. Left-wing = equality he says after mentioning Communism as an example. Funny how ‘enforced equality means the group running it is far, far more ‘equal’ than the rest who somehow becomes less ‘equal’ than they were previously.

      By definition and nature left wing involves STATIST INTERVENTION as it involves the notion of attempting blanket equality and it must be enforced to prevent natural market and social dynamics from shaping it. This never works because it is against human nature and merely serves to crush creativity, aspiration, talent and progress. Note how China started to prosper once it embraced capitalism. Communism/Marxism also serves to transfer power to a small group more absolutely than any free market capitalist model.

      Perhaps you missed the quote from hitler you retard. ”We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

      Game over.

    • sabretruthtiger / Jul 26 2013 12:19 pm

      Your handle Satan, also reveals your psyche, that of a globalist Luciferian zealot. Vermin like you are what hold back civilisation. Go back into Saruman’s shadow Wormtongue.

    • nicholas4808 / Sep 29 2015 2:57 pm

      Thank you for taking the time to inject some reason into this page. Ironically, this blog is itself early grooming for neo-nazism. This is how it starts, ten years down this path blogger will start wondering if the holocaust is a hoax (if he doesnt already). Then comes his realization of Hitlers capitalist financiers. Until eventually nationalist right wing authoritarianism itself starts to become undeniably attractive.

      • itsnobody / Oct 1 2015 9:04 am

        Like who? None of the Nazis I’ve spoken to identify themselves as conservative or right-wing. Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance (atheist) commented on this blog site, he doesn’t identify himself as conservative, he won as a Democrat but got kicked out by the Republicans.

        Hitler supported capitalism? How ridiculous.

        Liberal atheists Richard Lynn, JP Rushton, and James D. Watson support scientific racism.

        Socialism works to automatically stop migration and immigration even without any type of anti-immigration laws. All you need to do is expand the size of the government, add more regulations, and increase taxes, then immigration will naturally go down.

        It’s the free market, free speech, free society!
        Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

  26. Anonymous / Mar 19 2013 8:16 pm

    Until you learn the difference between “here” and “hear”, nobody is going to listen to you. I’m on your side.

  27. Steve Di Renno / Feb 16 2013 12:58 am

    Nazi’s were both, after the night of the long knives all pretenses to being socialistic went out the window though. Hitler hated both extremes he simply wanted a strong Germany and probably couldn’t care less how he got there.

  28. Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:25 am

    The National Socialists were, on economic issues, to the Left (command economy).

    But simply because the Nazis were statists does not mean they were left wing…

    Their essential program was right wing —>

    Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
    Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
    Staunch Xenophobia and hatred of foreign elements
    Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
    Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
    Ceaseless glorification of Militarism, Imperialism and the Marshal ethic.
    Furthermore:

    Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

    Marxism, (the Jewish founder of Communism) Marx and Bolshevism (Russian Communism) are mentioned more than 200 times in Hitler’s book in a negative light.

    Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

    In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world. He suspected that Jewish financiers were merely funding this movement.

    Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement. Nazism held that Communism and Jewry were one and the same (see Alfred Rosenburgs the Jewish Bolshevism)…

    The Nazis grew out of the intensely racist German Nationalist movement called the völkisch and the anti-communist Freikorp movement — both of which were intensely anti-left.

    The Nazis were strongly opposed to the communist party and the social democrats…

    The term socialism was employed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.

    • Anonymous / Jun 4 2013 2:59 pm

      Typical democrat bullshit. Why is it that all of you liberal dicks gloss over the fact that when the Democratic Party started out, it consisted entirely of racists? Why do you deny that it was liberals that started slavery and that American democrats created the Ku Klux Klan after slavery was abolished? The KKK was responsible for the murder of thousands of black people. The Nazis were responsible for the murder of millions of Jews. Am I the only one who can see the obvious connection here? I am obviously conservative, but what I stated here is historical fact. Like it or not, democrats, you can’t change history.

      • SD. / Jun 8 2013 1:40 am

        Back when slavery was around the Republicans were the “liberals.”

        The Republican party of today is considerably different than it was even 40 years ago. THe Republicans have gotten so bad that even though I have many conservative ideals I cannot support them or the democrats. For many different reasons but also a lot of the same ones.

      • itsnobody / Jun 9 2013 8:21 am

        The older Republicans were classic liberals in the libertarian sense, which by this definition would mean that people who support gun rights are ‘liberal’.

        The main things the Nazis hate about the Republicans are:
        – Supporting capitalism and the free market
        – Supporting Israel
        – Opposing the belief in evolution and natural selection

        What a terrible thing capitalism is in the eyes of every Nazi.

        The Democrats oppose Nazism far less that’s why Tom Metzger won the nomination when he ran as a Democrat, but when he attempted to run as a Republican he didn’t get enough support for his name to even appear on the ballot

  29. TriCountySyndicate / Jan 3 2013 6:20 pm

    And your argument seems to have no real point since nazis were hated because of their anti semitism and genocide which ha nothing to do with the left wing. Most Germans with the exception of gays, jews, gypsies, and communists had a good life or were fairly happy during nazi rule. Plus putting all the jews out of work and the government regulation practically eliminated unemployment.

  30. TriCountySyndicate / Jan 2 2013 11:41 pm

    Th left wing doesn’t oppose free speech. They arn’t conservatives because I say so, their conservatives by definition, not my definition but the dictionary definition, and modern day nazis and white power groups consider themselves conservative just go on stormfront and look. The nazis believe in private property and abolished land taxes. Many capitalists got rich an profited during the national socialist regime like BMW, Hugo Boss, Ford Motors, etc. Socialism puts all means of production in the hands of the government. The nazi party and the reich did not control all means of production. They did nationalize some heavy industries but mainly as part of rebuilding Germany and the war effort. Their economy was not left wing and they hardly opposed the free market. Animal rights is not a strictly left wing principal just like Keynesian economics. Maybe you should read the comments in that stormfront article and see what most nazis and white nationalists think?
    The nazi where hardly purely left wing. My argument isn’t that the nazis are right wing because “I consider” them right wing its that they are by definition. The nazis didn’t consider themselves left wing or reactionaries but that didn’t stop you from arguing that they where even though national socialists would say otherwise. Fascism I generally considers reactionary.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 11:48 pm

      Well you’re wrong again.

      The left-wing indeed opposes free speech, they want hate speech laws.

      Most Stormfront users don’t label themselves as conservatives, but as National Socialist, I think I can find the link later on.

      The Nazis opposed capitalism and a free market throughout their whole regime.

      During the Nazis Four Year Plan, the Nazi government gained full control over employment, the Nazi government assigned people positions, just like in a socialist type government

      I’m still waiting for you to explain how the Nazis weren’t anti-capitalist or not socialist.

      The Nazis controlled wages, set prices, controlled what businesses could and could not do, and had full control over all businesses, it’s just basic history, regardless of what you want to believe.

      So the government setting wages and prices and gaining full control over employment is not left-wing?

      • TriCountySyndicate / Jan 3 2013 3:26 am

        Socialist/communist governments and/or people control the means of production and in national socialist Germany most means of production where still private with some exceptions like the banking industry and others. Hitler disliked homosexuals much like conservatives today, maybe with the exception of Ernst Rohm. That is a decent comparison. How do you prove that nazis were in fact socialists and believed in the elimination of classes as well as giving workers control over the means of production. Socialism does not allow the government to dictate the economy it is democratic and communally owned. An ideal socialist communist state has no governing body only the proletariat. Maybe you should read the communist manifesto. If conservatives believe that people have free will and that the government should have less control over our lives then outlawing abortion would be contradictory to such beliefs because it allows the state to have control over our own bodies which, from a conservative point of view, is leftist.

      • TriCountySyndicate / Jan 3 2013 6:16 pm

        I think the word is best described as state capitalism or a mixed economy but not socialism now that I think about it …

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:01 am

        Sure! On economic issues they were left wing…

        But they were utterly devoted to a right wing program:

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of social elements
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia.
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy.
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Glorification of Militarism and Imperialism.

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:27 am

        The National Socialists were, on economic issues, to the Left (command economy).

        But simply because the Nazis were statists does not mean they were left wing…

        Their essential program was right wing —>

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia and hatred of foreign elements
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Ceaseless glorification of Militarism, Imperialism and the Marshal ethic.
        Furthermore:

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Marxism, (the Jewish founder of Communism) Marx and Bolshevism (Russian Communism) are mentioned more than 200 times in Hitler’s book in a negative light.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

        In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world. He suspected that Jewish financiers were merely funding this movement.

        Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement. Nazism held that Communism and Jewry were one and the same (see Alfred Rosenburgs the Jewish Bolshevism)…

        The Nazis grew out of the intensely racist German Nationalist movement called the völkisch and the anti-communist Freikorp movement — both of which were intensely anti-left.

        The Nazis were strongly opposed to the communist party and the social democrats…

        The term socialism was employed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.

      • TriCountySyndicate / Jan 28 2013 2:21 am

        Also one

      • TriCountySyndicate / Jan 28 2013 2:24 am

        Also one of the reasons hitler had Ernst Rohm killed was because he hated and wanted to fight capitalists and reactionaries. Hitler reassured many business men that such actions would not take place and had Rohm and the nazi leftist subgroup of strasserists killed in the night o the long knives.

  31. TriCountySyndicate / Dec 24 2012 1:41 am

    Nazis believes in social inequality and hierarchy which are the base principals of
    right wing politics. The term national socialist
    was used to turn the German workers away
    from communism and Bolshevism. There was very little socialism in the national socialist party. The author left out point 17 which abolished taxes on land as well as the specification of nationalizing trusts (monopolies) in point 13. Point 24 supports freedom of religion (with the exception of Judaism). I’m not a liberal so don’t label me as such I’m just stating basic facts about nazi
    ideology.

    • Stephanie Stach Wetzel / Dec 24 2012 4:17 am

      First of all, Nazis do not believe in social inequality, they do believe, in contrast with international socialists, in equality among Germans only. Hitler thought that the concept of “class-conscience” promoted by Marx could not be achieved without Nationalism. That’s their main difference. Apart from that, there is almost no difference between National Socialism (Nazism), and International Socialism (Marxism). Hitler fought against Bolshevism in Germany because he believed Socialism could only be achieved when Germans embrace a sense of Nationalism. And Bolshevism had an International goal.

      Right-wing politics do not hold social inequality as one of their premises because right-wingers see political relations as an individual goal, not a social one. The whole idea of social politics is a left-wing concept. A right-winger would put the individual as supreme in all political decisions, something Hitler clearly did not believe.

      Hitler nominally and seemingly preserves property ownership of the means of production, however, there were no entrepreneurs, but only shop managers bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government. In this scenario private property is evidently non-existent.

      Name one policy promoted by Hitler that would put him as a right-winger?!

      • TriCountySyndicate / Dec 28 2012 8:01 pm

        Hitler expressed his extreme distaste for Marxism on almost every page of Mein Kampf. Nazism attempted to apply old conservtive german nationalist views and thought to society through fascism making him a reactionary. Social hierarchy and inequality is not a left wing concept applied to the right wing it is one of the principals that capitalism and the base principal of right wing ideology. Hitler believed in the class system and social inequality and uniting the classes behind him not eliminating the classes (eliminating classes bieng left wing) I’m not saying he was exclusively conservative because he blamed both ideologies for destroying Germany, I’m just dismissing the stupid illusion that him and his party where left wing radicals when nazis themselves wouldn’t describe themselves as such, go on stormfront and ask them yourself!

      • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 11:36 pm

        Karl Marx was anti-Semitic, made racist remarks and expressed his hatred of Jews, so was Karl Marx not a socialist then?

        Hitler can hate whomever he wanted, in the end the Nazi government CONTROLLED what businesses could produce, the quantity they could produce, and even set the price, that is indeed socialism. There’s no way to interpret it differently.

        Anyone who argues that a government that controls all employment and business is not socialist or close to socialist is just plain delusional.

        How can a government that controls all employment and business not be labeled as left-wing?

      • TriCountySyndicate / Dec 28 2012 8:16 pm

        Schwerin Von Krosigk economic minister of the reich chancellery reduced germanies taxes to 532 billion reichmarks per year and newly built homes were exempted of income tax, property tax and rural land tax. These policies favored middle class property owners. The wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) of Was achieved through the free market and the nazis only privatized state owned enterprises like the duestch bank an comments bank.

      • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 11:25 pm

        You can point out one or two instances of what the Nazis did that seems right-wing or whatever, but in reality basically everything the Nazis did fiscally was left-wing.

        I can give some examples:
        – The Nazi government had full control over businesses, they regulated and controlled what businesses could do
        – Businesses were told by the state what they could produce, the quantity that they could produce, and at what price
        – Businesses were burdened with taxes, and were even forced to contribute to the Nazi party
        – The Nazi government controlled all employment and determined who would work where, and for what salary
        – The Nazi government assigned workers positions, and workers could not switch positions without permission from the government

        You can try to cherry-pick supposed examples of how the Nazis were pro-free market or whatever, but all the historical sources and observations clearly show that the Nazis were socialists.

        The Nazi government was nearly the spitting image of socialism, just face reality.

      • Stephanie Stach Wetzel / Dec 29 2012 6:13 pm

        TryCountySyndicate,

        A few years ago Raul Castro allowed the population of Cuba to keep 2% of their earning. He “lowered taxes”, can I call him a right-wing politician for lowering taxes? As of this year Cubans can now legally sell their houses, which was a government run “program”, are they Capitalists?

        Remember that correlation does not imply causation. Just because Hitler went after Communists, that doesn’t make him a right-winger. For example, if you dislike Obama and/or Bush doesn’t make you a right-wing Libertarian. Hitler went after EVERYBODY that would oppose a threat, and that would stand in his way. Since fighting in the World War I, Hitler preached the Volkgemeinschaft spirit (people’s community – German people’s community. It was an expression meaning “to break down elitism and class divides”).

        This idea that left-wing seeks a society with no classes, while right-wing preserves social hierarchy and inequality is a left-wing way of seeing things. A right-winger would classify left-wing politics as being collectivist, while right-wing as being individualist. For instance, a left-wing would say that private property must serve a social purpose and that since billionaire “X” have too much money, he ought to “share” more than the others. A right-wing being an individualist would say that private property is sacred.

        Hitler NEVER preached the individual, he would always come with policies for the “good” of the collective. He banned firearms and the freedom of speech, he centralized the federal government, and abolished state rights – all for the well of the collective. While a right-winger would favor local rule, individual sovereignty, etc…

        Hitler “governed” upon two amends in the German Constitution: Article 48 (that allowed the President, to take emergency measures without the prior consent of the Reichstag), and the Reichstag Fire Decree (that suspended basic rights).
        Even before being the Fuhrer of Germany, as a Chancellor, Hitler was a key element on passing the Reichstag Fire Decree on 28 February 1933:
        “Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123 and 153 of the Constitution of Germany Reigh are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom (habeas corpus), freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise described.”

        Do you have the rights to personal freedom on a right-wing society? YES. Do you have the right to personal freedom on a left-wing society? NO. Do you have the right to freedom of speech on a right-wing society? YES. Do you have the right to freedom of speech on a left-wing society? NO. Do you have private property on a right-wing society? YES. Do you have private property on a left-wing society? NO.

      • TriCountySyndicate / Dec 30 2012 1:32 am

        What you said doesn’t prove anything at all used basic facts about NS ideology and the textbook definitions of right and left wing that’s evidence enough. You proved nothing in your rebuttal. I’m not trying to insult your intelligence but your wrong. I proved that hitler was a right wing reactionary and that even nazis today consider themselves conservatives. Hitler was a fascist AND a conservative/right wing politician. The right wing and facsim are not in the same boat but that does not chane the fact that nazis where right wing conservatives who wanted to restore Germany to its imperial glory.

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:27 am

        The National Socialists were, on economic issues, to the Left (command economy).

        But simply because the Nazis were statists does not mean they were left wing…

        Their essential program was right wing —>

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia and hatred of foreign elements
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Ceaseless glorification of Militarism, Imperialism and the Marshal ethic.
        Furthermore:

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Marxism, (the Jewish founder of Communism) Marx and Bolshevism (Russian Communism) are mentioned more than 200 times in Hitler’s book in a negative light.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

        In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world. He suspected that Jewish financiers were merely funding this movement.

        Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement. Nazism held that Communism and Jewry were one and the same (see Alfred Rosenburgs the Jewish Bolshevism)…

        The Nazis grew out of the intensely racist German Nationalist movement called the völkisch and the anti-communist Freikorp movement — both of which were intensely anti-left.

        The Nazis were strongly opposed to the communist party and the social democrats…

        The term socialism was employed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.

      • Luis / Jul 21 2014 3:26 am

        “That’s their main difference. Apart from that, there is almost no difference between National Socialism (Nazism), and International Socialism (Marxism).”

        Don’t be a stupid cunt.

    • Stephanie Stach Wetzel / Dec 30 2012 4:33 pm

      TriCountySyndicate,

      You didn’t insult me.

      Showing the ideology of the Nazi Party, what they did when they were in power, what Hitler preached since his teen days until he died, is not proof? A group of uninformed people that are rebel without a cause, and call themselves “Nazis” is not proof. Hitler lowering taxes on what he thinks is better, is not proof of him being a right-wing politician. Obama lowered taxes on what HE thinks is best: on green energy. Is he a right-wing conservative? “A right-wing fascist” is an oxymoron.

      Hitler suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurances, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

      And last, but not least, Hitler’s economists rejected laissez-faire and admired… guess who? Keynes. That’s why the leftist of today, and since the World War II have tried to, or succeeded at, portraying Hitler as a crazy right-wing extremist, because they don’t want their Socialistic ideas being traced back in Nazi Germany.

      • TriCountySyndicate / Dec 31 2012 3:02 am

        Keynesian economics proposes a mixed economy believing that the private sector is good but with the role of government intervention during recessions. Just because some left wingers believe in Keynesian economics does not make it exclusively left wing or socialist just like second amendment rights arn’t strictly right wing as they can be embraced by both. “Our adopted term, socialism, has nothing to do with Marxian socialism, Marxism is anti property true socialism is not”-Adolf Hitler. Hitler was a reactionary and by definition a conservative and right winger. His economic policies were mixed not falling in a capitalist or socialist category. Hitler and the nazi party were populist authoritarians and also reactionaries that is fact and it can’t be denied. You could say that tha NS plan to reform Germany back to its imperial days right wing and their economic policies as mixed but certainly not left wing or right wing in its entirety. And you would really consider the government building a road network left wing? Governments in all kind of societies build basic infrastructure. Also I don’t copy and paste my arguments like it looks like you did in your second paragraph.

      • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 9:30 pm

        What a lame weak argument.

        You’re arguing Hitler was a conservative because you say he was by definition. National Socialists never considered themselves to be reactionary, so how was Hitler reactionary, can you explain?

        How can a plan to reform Germany back to it’s imperial days be considered right-wing, because you say so?

        So your basic argument is that “The Nazis were right-wing because I consider them to be right-wing”, what a lame weak argument.

        Marxism is only slightly more far-left than Hitler’s Nazism.

        The Nazis were almost entirely left-wing on basically all issues (both fiscally and socially).

        Socially left-wing:
        – Oppose Israel and the Jews
        – Support eugenics and the belief in evolution and natural selection
        – Support animal rights

        Fiscally left-wing:
        – Oppose the free market and a free society
        – Give the government power over corporations and the people
        – Strongly strongly oppose a constitutional government which strongly limits the power the government has

        So basically everything the Nazi party is purely left-wing

  32. Stephanie Stach Wetzel / Dec 15 2012 3:54 pm

    itsnobody,
    I read the entire article and was really perplexed. I mean, I already knew that the Nazis were leftist, however, you’ve picked a lot of good examples and proofs said by the founders of that horrific movement to support that.
    However, I was awestruck, in a really bad way, when I started reading the comments. How can people be SO blind? You can smack the truth in their faces, but they’ll still refuse to see it. They don’t realize that there are different “ways” that the leftism can be carried out.

    • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:00 am

      Hitler insisted that he was at war with Judeo-Bolshevism, or Jewish Communism….

      He detested Marxism in all its forms…

  33. Anonymous / Nov 1 2012 11:20 am

    …You do realise that the assertion that Austrian economics is the only element of ‘right wing’ politics is a very new phenomenon that has only existed for thirty years or so? You’re attempting to judge the Nazis by a standard that just didn’t exist at the time. There are other components of ‘right wing’ politics, you know…the frothing hatred of anything vaguely Socialistic and culturally liberal being one of them I’m sure you could relate to…

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 9:38 pm

      Much more than 30 years, so fiscally the Nazis were definitely left-wing.

      The ones who oppose Israel and the Jews in modern times is the far left, so socially the Nazis were also left-wing.

      The people arguing that the Nazis were right-wing are just arguing that they are right-wing because they label the Nazis as right-wing, not because they have actual reasons

      • TriCountySyndicate / Jan 3 2013 6:11 pm

        What would your reason for labeling nazis as left wing be, you seem to be cherry picking as well and seem to not completely understand socialism. I’m not delusional you just don’t seem to differentiate between economic dictatorship and socialism which are different.

  34. mark dear / Oct 19 2012 1:26 pm

    Typical liberal reaction to the truth. Deny it, and then attempt to smear both character and intellegence of the author, and of course guise your opinion under the shell of a learned intellectual. Typical, and to be expected. There are many apt comparisons between Barack Obama and Hitler, in spite of the denials to the contrary.

    • TriCountySyndicate / Jan 4 2013 12:28 am

      Let me see some comparisons then.

    • Responder / Jan 19 2013 1:56 am

      On economic issues, the Nazis were largely Left wing… Command Economy was central to their program.

      But they were Right wing in the following ways:

      Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of social elements
      Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
      Staunch Xenophobia.
      Belief in Racial Hierarchy.
      Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
      Glorification of Militarism and Imperialism.

      Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

      Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:33 pm

        Command economies are neither left wing or right wing. Absolute monarchies are comman economies, they are however, by no means socialist in any way whatsoever.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 9:44 pm

      Thanks for the laugh, maybe you should try harder.

      The far-left opposes Israel and the Jews, Arthur Jones has no power in the GOP. He has been ridiculed by the GOP.

      There have been people with Nazi-ish views who have attempted to gain power in the Democratic party and Republican party. Pointing out one instance doesn’t mean anything.

      Tom Metzger, an atheist who is the founder of the Neo-Nazi group “White Aryan Resistance” tried to run as a Democrat and a Republican.

      When he ran as a Democrat he got 37.1% of the vote and won the Democratic party nomination for the US House of Representatives, when he ran against a Republican he only got 13.4%.

      In 2010 when Tom Metzger tried to run as a Republican he didn’t even make the ballot, lol!

  35. Anonymous / Aug 10 2012 5:51 am

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/arthur-jones-holocaust_b_1312530.html

    As a Jew, I find you to be a FUCKING NAZI, FOLLOW YOUR LEADER!

    • John Mikael / Dec 10 2012 5:06 pm

      This was a good post

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 9:55 pm

      Since you’re a Jew I’m sure you know how much the far-left hates and opposes Israel and Jews.

      Here’s an excerpt from a news article about the Jews fleeing Malmo:
      “More often it’s the far-left that commonly use Jews as a punching bag for their disdain toward the policies of Israel, even if Jews in Malmö have nothing to do with Israeli politics.” – http://www.thelocal.se/24632/20100127/#.UOTyy2xkyAg

      Sweden is a liberal atheist country so it makes sense that they have recently seen a surge in Nazism as the atheist population rose in Sweden

      So Nazism is definitely fiscally and socially left-wing in almost every aspect.

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 1:58 am

        The Far Left is not the only entity with a problem with Israel.

        Ever heard of the Right winger and self-proclaimed Conservative David Duke?

        The White Nationalists are right-wing, and are staunch opponents of “world Zionism”…

  36. Anonymous / Aug 10 2012 5:50 am
    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 9:58 pm

      An unconvincing article, Nazis have basically no power in the GOP, there have been Nazis who have attempted to run as Democrats and Republicans.

      The old Dixiecrats were closer to the Nazis and they were also left-wing.

  37. Anonymous / Aug 10 2012 5:44 am

    Lets see, Nationalistic patriotic, war loving, hates others not of their race or culture, national ID strict border policies, hates communist, believed in killing people and torture ( see Bush on ” define torture”) for god and country, sounds strongly like the right wing of America. Don’t forget nation building and strong drug control , also tough on street crime, police state. I swear, nobody, and I mean nobody loves fear and propaganda like the Nazis and the GOP! Where did you do your graduate work in history at, University of Phoenix ( profit based college btw) What an idiot you are!

    • John Mikael / Dec 10 2012 5:07 pm

      the nazis were socialist left wingers and the Gop is anti capitalist

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:37 pm

        The Nazi party were not left wingers. Only a small portion of what they believed in could be, if you squinted really hard to see what you wanted to see, seen as socialist, that’s the command economy part. Everything else was extreme right. However, command economies are not restricted to the left or the right. An absolute monarchy is a command economy and is the furthest thing from left wing.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:15 pm

      All the things you listed were done by Democrats in the past, so your argument falls into the category as “the Nazis were right-wing because I label them as right-wing”

  38. Anonymous / May 11 2012 4:50 pm

    I don’t suppose mass vivisection on human beings, plus training dogs to rape people, counts for anything?

  39. Rodger / Apr 16 2012 4:53 pm

    The author is a bloomin idiot. Try studying and comprehending some authentic history rather than propagandic tripe. The Nazi’s were not liberals or left wing. There is plenty of citeable evidence to refute such nonsense. There is also a pretty simple litmus test; simply look at the politics of those in the US who most supported the NAZI’s before and even during WWII. Wake up man!!

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:10 pm

      Well then go ahead and post your cite-able evidence to refute my claims.

      The modern day GOP supports Israel and the Jews, are you trying to say that the Nazis would’ve supported Israel?

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:32 am

        The National Socialists were, on economic issues, to the Left (command economy).

        But simply because the Nazis were statists does not mean they were left wing…

        Their essential program was right wing —>

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia and hatred of foreign elements
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Ceaseless glorification of Militarism, Imperialism and the Marshal ethic.
        Furthermore:

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Marxism, (the Jewish founder of Communism) Marx and Bolshevism (Russian Communism) are mentioned more than 200 times in Hitler’s book in a negative light.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

        In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world. He suspected that Jewish financiers were merely funding this movement.

        Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement. Nazism held that Communism and Jewry were one and the same (see Alfred Rosenburgs the Jewish Bolshevism)…

        The Nazis grew out of the intensely racist German Nationalist movement called the völkisch and the anti-communist Freikorp movement — both of which were intensely anti-left.

        The Nazis were strongly opposed to the communist party and the social democrats…

        The term socialism was employed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:40 pm

        You can take one portion “support of Israel and Jews”, that doesn’t make everything else go away. There was only one part of NAZI politics that could be viewed as left wing the “command economy” but even then that is not exclusively left wing. Total monarchies are right wing (they are certainly NOT socialist) and yet they are control economies.

  40. roy / Mar 5 2012 7:12 am

    ahem, you are forgetting gregor strasser (night of the long knives and the left-wing nazi faction). even if in some alternate universe where one chooses to erroneosly define the nazis as left-wing, to suggest that the nazis were somehow in any way liberal is pattenly absurd. liberal means free and even the most conservative elements in current US politics embrace some form of liberalism (classical, neo-liberal, libertarian). the nazis were about as liberal as micheal jackson was a normal white anglo-saxon protestant. and so, it is important to recognize that totalitarianism can occur anywhere along the so called ‘left/right’ spectrum. it is ignorant to conflate ‘liberal’ with ‘leftist’.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:19 pm

      You’re just using a no true Scotsman fallacy , I’m not talking about the “classic liberal” definition, I’m talking about the modern liberal definition.

  41. Maude LL / Feb 8 2012 2:03 pm

    Libertarians are a (relatively recent) faction of liberalism. Being a liberal isn’t necessarily synonymous to being “left wing”, and definitely not synonymous to being a socialist. Socialism and conservatism (Burke) were both reactionary (not in the pejorative sense, simply a reaction to) movements against liberal movements in Europe. Both conservatism and socialism are based on the notion that the benefit of the community passes before individual rights, and the logic behind conservatism is that individuals must be restrained from acting their passions to be free. Liberals believe in individual freedoms, economic or social depending on the school of thought, and they believe individuals know what is best for them and should be constrained as little as possible from doing what they want. They also believe competition and reward through merit rather than social status from birth is what brings innovation, while conservatives believe in cooperation and they see freedom as the elimination of human passions through an outside medium (it can be government, but also church, families, etc.). The United States was completely founded on liberalism, that is why to this day, people are very sensitive about individual freedom here. Canada, on the other hand, was founded on liberal and conservative (loyalists) principles, which evolved into many community-oriented systems such as universal health care. But the idea of “little government” is absolutely liberal.
    I recommend you read history of political theory and the founders of these schools of thoughts. It is fascinating, and you will see it is much more sophisticated than the colloquial understanding of these political philosophies. Adam Smith’s laissez-faire capitalism in Wealth of Nations is a well-known liberal concept, Michael Oakeshott is an interesting conservative (and more modern than Burke), and I suggest you read about Robert Owen and Charles Fourier for socialism, as well as Antonio Gramsci for communism. They are all very enlightening thinkers.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:22 pm

      You’re also using the no true Scotsman fallacy.

      Just the face the facts, in modern liberal terms the Nazis were liberal and left-wing.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:44 pm

        Really, so liberals would have sanctioned the murder of homosexuals, would have killed Jews and Slavs and anyone else they thought were inferior races by the million, would’ve built massive armies to invade and conquer surrounding countries and lots more besides? You don’t know the meaning of the word liberal if you think that.

  42. Anonymous / Feb 8 2012 8:23 am

    Could this momentously mentally deficient idiotic know-nothing point to actual similarities between major so-called Liberal Democrats in the public arena, in particular politicians who hold or have held office over the last thirty years, and individual Nazis or the actions of the Nazi Party once they ascended to power?

    Of course the laughable loon who runs this blog won’t be able to produce anything resembling a similarity, either in terms of party platform or pronouncement or overarching political ideology, so my question was more designed to show up how pitifully poor this man is at making coherent, evidence-based arguments.

    This article is so astoundingly stupid in every respect that it can’t but be an attempt at satire. I certainly hope so, because if this blog is meant in earnest the only conclusion to draw from the author’s mental state is that he should be instantly confined to a mental institution. I mean that with all due contempt.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:26 pm

      But I have, are you mad that the Nazis really were left-wing?

      I pointed out lots of similarities. Are you trying to say that the Democrats support a libertarian free market type of society or what? What a joke.

      Here’s another similarity:
      – Hitler and the Nazi government had power over corporations
      – Obama and other liberals talk about how the government should have power over corporations

      Next time try to give actual reasons instead of going into an ad hominem rant.

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:10 am

        Nazis were, on economic issues, to the Left —>

        But on other issues, their essential program was right wing —>

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia.
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Glorification of Militarism and Imperialism.

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

        In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world.

        Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:46 pm

        Command economies are not even exclusive to the left. Both right wing and left wing have command economies. The best example of that would be absolute monarchies, which are against absolutely everything the left wing stands for, and yet they are controlled economies.

  43. Most of the 25 points were never implemented; in fact that whole approach was largely abandoned after Hitler took control of the party. It was the conservative, clerical parties that supported Hitler and voted for the Enabling Act which gave him dictatorial power. Only the Socialists voted against it.

    I think you need to go back to school son. You obviously don’t know a damn thing about history…

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:48 pm

      Regardless of what was implemented, the fact remains that the Nazi government had full control of the means of production, which means the Nazi economy was socialist.

      Just face reality.

  44. steve / Feb 6 2012 3:20 pm

    You are the infinite number of monkeys with typwriters and time on your hands and I claim my £5

  45. Carbon Based Life Form / Feb 6 2012 10:46 am

    I’ve always loved the “Well, ‘socialist’ is part of the party name” argument. Obviously, the people who make that argument believe that the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea is a democracy: It is, after all, exactly the same argument.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:58 pm

      Except it isn’t, I’m not using the name argument or whatever. The Nazi economy was socialist and the Nazi government had control over corporations and basically everything.

      Marxism is only slightly more left-wing than Nazism.

      Just ask any modern day Nazi what they think of capitalism.

    • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:47 pm

      Exactly or the German Democratic Republic (DDR, East Germany)

  46. Horgan Jussiduich / Feb 6 2012 5:52 am

    I suspect the author is another of the same kind of left wingers.

  47. Anonymous / Feb 6 2012 3:39 am

    Golly. Perhaps you can explain why the first targets for extermination by the nazi’s were trade unionists, socialists, the intelligentsia at the universities, and communists. Your belief is beyond belief and not at all befitting someone who paints himself as a superman. Pathetic.

    • itsnobody / Jun 23 2012 1:17 am

      Sure I can explain.

      The Nazis targeted lots of different groups, including religious groups. Their prosecution had to do with those who they felt opposed the Nazis regardless of their political or religious affiliation.

      Overall the Nazis were still fiscally left-wing on basically every issue.

      Modern day Nazis and Nazis of the past strongly oppose free-market capitalism and limited government. The Nazis have just been labeled as “right-wing” by the far-left for being nationalist and anti-Semitic and nothing more.

      Racists all know that free-market capitalism doesn’t support or fit into nationalism.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:52 pm

        In addition to Jews, the targeted groups included Poles (of whom 2.5 million gentile Poles were killed) and some other Slavic peoples; Soviets (particularly prisoners of war); Romanies (also known as Gypsies) and others who did not belong to the “Aryan race”; the mentally ill, the deaf, the physically disabled and mentally retarded; homosexual and transsexual people; political opponents such as social democrats and SOCIALISTS; and religious dissidents, i.e. members of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

        To claim they were left wing or socialist when socialists were one of the persecuted groups they killed en-mass, is just ridiculous. They would have to be killing themselves. What utter nonsense.

        Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, pp.125ff.
        “Non-Jewish victims of Nazism,” Encyclopædia Britannica..

  48. Cameron / Feb 6 2012 2:27 am

    I recommend you read William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or a similar history book.

    Whilst Hitler promised those things you have quoted above, the first things he did when he got in to power were abolishing unions, giving tax breaks to the big industries, forcing out small businesses and allowing the big companies to take control of their employees. The wealth was not shared or distributed, the rich got a whole crap lot richer. Hitler, Schacht, Funk and co. were all about increasing profits, the work force and production. They had an economic model suited for extreme Capitalism that got the best out of the workers for little pay with huge returns.

    • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 11:10 pm

      This is not true. The Nazi government had control over basically everything, so everything they did was far-left.

      The Nazi economy was nothing like extreme capitalism, it was just socialism since the government controlled and regulated almost everything.

      The Nazi government forced taxes onto businesses, and regulated exactly what businesses could and could not do, which is nothing like the far-right at all.

      There’s nothing even close to laissez faire capitalism in the Nazi economy.

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:04 am

        Big government is not necessarily Leftwing by definition.

        Please remember that left wing simply means promotion of equality and egalitarianism.

        These were fundamentalism opposed to Nazism.

        It is true that their economic system was leftist… but understand that there were Right wing elements to their program….

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of social elements
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia.
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy.
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Glorification of Militarism and Imperialism.

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:54 pm

        Cite your proof itsnobody. You are talking nonsense.

  49. red wolf / Feb 6 2012 12:37 am

    Completely brain-spatteringly stupid. Just how crazy do these nazis think we are ?

  50. Chris P / Feb 5 2012 11:36 pm

    Hitler was an egotistical maniac. He was not a liberal. Liberals work for the common good and for all, regardless of who they are.

    Liberals do not advocate extermination.

    You sir are just another liar for Jesus. It’s a popular sport these days. Rick Santorum does it all the time.

    • itsnobody / Jun 23 2012 1:13 am

      lol, learn basic politics, both conservatives and liberals believe in the common good of all (supposedly) they just believe in accomplishing it in different ways.

      Your definition of politically liberal is just biased and laughable.

      I’m sure lots of Nazis would claim that Hitler worked for the common good of all, so he would be liberal to them by your definition. What’s defined as being for the “common good” is merely a subjective opinion and can be interpreted to mean anything. So you’re basically arguing a subjective opinion just like someone arguing that “blue is the best color” or any other subjective opinion.

      You still haven’t refuted the claim that the Nazis were definitely fiscally left-wing.

  51. maddy / Oct 30 2011 5:18 am

    This is an excellent write-up tarnished by the intro line. “Liberal atheist media”? Really?

    You also claims they were socially liberal, but never explain how, other than a vague reference to animal rights. Nazi Germany wasn’t exactly friendly to gay rights.

    • itsnobody / Nov 2 2011 12:31 am

      Socially liberal with animal rights.

      As for the media being liberal and atheist I can easily show so in hopefully one of my next articles.

      • Chris P / Feb 5 2012 11:38 pm

        Really – Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Rush, ……. are liberal atheists.

        You sir are a joke.Very few members of the media will even claim to be atheists because they know of the backlash from the crazy religious.

      • Andrew / Feb 6 2012 12:28 am

        I suspect Rupert Murdoch might take exception to this.

  52. Keratoconus / Oct 19 2011 3:59 pm

    I especially like your last paragraph – and I did start a blog – two in fact – just a few months ago! I always write letters to my children at Christmas – sometimes more often, but at least once a year. They know their letters will be in their stockings! Probably wouldn’t do anything you said not to – just a little bit inhibited! But that’s just me. Congratulations on being freshly pressed!

  53. TwoWolves / Sep 28 2011 10:46 pm

    Exactly how many massive brain injuries did the author of this piece of rambling fantasy endure?

    • itsnobody / Sep 30 2011 3:22 am

      Maybe you could explain to me what an argumentum ad hominem is….lol

      • Chris P / Feb 5 2012 11:39 pm

        Maybe you could explain anything. Calling it an “ad hominem” is just an excuse on your part.

      • itsnobody / Jan 2 2013 10:03 pm

        It’s not an excuse, an ad hominem is when you throw personal attacks instead of refuting an argument, so it is indeed an ad hominem.

        I already explained everything in detail, what don’t you understand.

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:07 am

        Nazis were, on economic issues, to the Left —>

        But on other issues, their essential program was right wing —>

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia.
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Glorification of Militarism and Imperialism.

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

        In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world.

        Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement.

    • John Mikael / Dec 10 2012 5:06 pm

      the nazis were socialist

      • Responder / Jan 19 2013 2:33 am

        The National Socialists were, on economic issues, to the Left (command economy).

        But simply because the Nazis were statists does not mean they were left wing…

        Their essential program was right wing —>

        Their Social Darwinism – belief in the innate inferiority of “undesirables”….
        Extreme Ethnic-Nationalism (opposition to diversity and multiculturalism).
        Staunch Xenophobia and hatred of foreign elements
        Belief in Racial Hierarchy and domination by racial superiors (not a left-wing or Marxist notion)….
        Belief in total Cultural Homogeneity.
        Ceaseless glorification of Militarism, Imperialism and the Marshal ethic.
        Furthermore:

        Mien Kampf is completely littered with denunciations of Marxism.

        Marxism, (the Jewish founder of Communism) Marx and Bolshevism (Russian Communism) are mentioned more than 200 times in Hitler’s book in a negative light.

        Hitler did not want his National Socialism conflated with Marxian Socialism.

        In fact, Hitler constantly rants against what he believes to be a Jewish-Communist scheme to take over the world. He suspected that Jewish financiers were merely funding this movement.

        Hitler believed that Jewish financiers were funding the Communist movement. Nazism held that Communism and Jewry were one and the same (see Alfred Rosenburgs the Jewish Bolshevism)…

        The Nazis grew out of the intensely racist German Nationalist movement called the völkisch and the anti-communist Freikorp movement — both of which were intensely anti-left.

        The Nazis were strongly opposed to the communist party and the social democrats…

        The term socialism was employed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.

      • Chaz / Mar 11 2013 2:57 pm

        You would like to believe that because of the evils of the right wing under NAZISM, that doesn’t make it true or correct though.

  54. hotshot bald cop / Aug 31 2011 6:39 pm

    Right on!

  55. hotshot bald cop / Aug 30 2011 5:26 am

    Now that is some great literature.

    • Sak / Feb 7 2012 10:11 am

      You, sir, are a funny man.

Trackbacks

  1. No Platform Policy Rise Of Evil Within UK University Student Campuses | Student News UK - SNUK
  2. The Nazi party, a left-wing liberal movement | pauloc2013's Blog

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: