The Nazis were not a left wing liberal progressive party

Only a person who views genocide as the opposite of multiculturism would see Hitler as something other then Leftist. Those Japanese are genocidal murderers aren't they.

 

The Jews paid for the war expenses when Hitler stole all their assets.
He was elected into office by the Union forces that supported and voted for him.

The Party was Socialistic.
What Hitler did after gaining power was exactly what every dictator must do to change the course of nation which is failing.
He became The Father of the nation, which had filled up with Feminists and Gays and every kind of hand out.

Hitler did what the Republicans wanted done, because that was the only way Germany could start working again.

 

‘The Very Best Form of Socialism’: The Pro-Slavery Roots of the Modern Left​

by Jarrett Stepman & Inez Feltscher
6 Aug 2013 1213


The left has been waging a decades-long smear campaign against conservatives, painting them as bigots who have been on the wrong side of history on every issue, including America’s greatest sin – slavery. Vice President Joe Biden even went as far as to suggest during the 2012 election that a Republican victory would re-enslave African-Americans.

Leftist academics and historians have gone to great lengths to bury and distort the names and legacies of the men who defended the ugliest of American institutions; men whose philosophy on government, rights, and liberty, as it turns out, is uncomfortably close to their own. A modified but nonetheless similar tendency to subjugate continues to run through liberal policies today, replacing slavery with a cradle-to-grave entitlement system that trades liberty for material security, and the plantation master for government itself.

Ann Coulter, Kevin D. Williamson, Sean Trende, and others have pushed back on the idea that the modern Republican Party is primarily built on racism. However, a further examination of what makes the modern parties, and more importantly, the modern philosophies of conservatism and progressivism, is essential. Little attention has been paid to the thinkers who made Democrats the party of slavery in the lead-up to the Civil War, and their influence on modern liberal ideas.

Conservatives and liberals alike may be surprised to find that in reality John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina antebellum statesman and political theorist, and his pro-slavery allies, stand firmly as the intellectual forebears of the political philosophy of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the modern left. Calhoun and the antebellum thinkers behind the positive defense of slavery in the nineteenth century represent the first major criticism of American founding principles – principles the American conservative movement seeks to preserve – as well as the intellectual seed for the later Progressive movement and what is considered modern-day liberalism.

The ideas Calhoun and others in his school introduced in the defense of slavery contrast sharply with those of the Founding Fathers and certainly modern free-market economics. Specifically, three of the core ideas Calhoun’s pro-slavery school embraced continue to resonate on the left.

First, the slavery defenders challenged the Founder’s emphasis on the Lockean social contract, arguing that government – and natural rights – grow organically out of community.

Second, the antebellum pro-slavery school repudiated the Founders’ view of slavery as a necessary but fading evil, and instead defended the system as a “positive good,” both for slave holders and for the slaves themselves. The benevolence of the slavery system was juxtaposed against an uncaring capitalism.

Lastly, slavery’s defenders rejected the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence and argued instead for a society based on a principle of human inequality, resting their controversial beliefs on new “scientific” ideas about both human nature and the organization of government.

Each of these principles is echoed in the policy and philosophy of the modern left.

Rights From Government, Not God

The antebellum slavery defense mounted the first real challenge in America to the idea of the Lockean social contract, which was embraced at the Founding (only the Bible and Blackstone were referenced more than the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke in early American political writings). Calhoun and his fellow slavery advocates openly disagreed with Enlightenment social contract theory and instead saw rights as developing organically within society and government. Consequently, liberty for the Calhounites did not exist in a pre-government state of nature, to be protected from government incursion, but rather grew organically out of a communitarian society, including government. Calhoun wrote:

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/06/The-Pro-Slavery-Roots-of-the-Modern-Left

No matter how the "Progressive Socialist Marxists" try to hide their history and intent, the truth is there to plainly see. From their concept of slavery held over by the English and Southern gentry in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries to the acceptance of Progressivism which led to Socialist Marxism Democrats have striven to subjugate Americans in the same way Lenin and Stalin subjugated and enslaved Russia.

 

Hitler was supported by Big Business throughout the 1920s until he was able to wheel and deal to be Reichskanzler. They funded his campaigns, they gave him an allowance when he wasn't elected because he had little income of his own, he slept in their homes when he had no where else to go, etc. When Hitler was elected he persecuted the Unions. Many Union members were among the first guests at Dachau.

 

Of course he persecuted the unions.. because he nationalized the industries

a thorn in the side of the business became a thorn in the side of the state.. but I'm still left wondering how you could believe a nationalized economy is "right wing" not to mention their autarkist policies on trade.

 

It wasn't socialism, it was statism. Hitler was a conservative. He idolised the past. He didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) mostly about economic matters except that he hated communism/socialism.

 

Accurate people, yes.

Yes.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

 

he didn't condemn socialism, he condemned communism and capitalism

 

Ian Kershaw in "Hitler" says you're wrong.

 

okay.. and history says otherwise.. it's in his (Hitler's) writings and in his speeches

"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

it's not a matter of opinion, Hitler condemned capitalism and he condemned communism, but he never condemned socialism. Not once

 

Which is ironic because socialism leads to communism.

or at least, communists will use socialism to set up and prop up communism.

 

And then once elected he went, "LOL! JK!"

 

It's the rise of stupidity in this country, this growing pride among our right-wingers. I feel it must be a combination of the right-wing media, of right-wing echo chambers, slipping educational standards, and Gawd knows what all else, that is shaping this situation. The greatest shame, though, has to be this left-right schism that just seems to grow and grow. It looks to me like a civil war in the making, though perhaps still a long way out, or perhaps just waiting for the proper trigger, like a major economic upset.

 

According to Marx, all capitalistic nations will eventually adapt socialism, and then communism. He also predicted that once communism was established, the state would gradually be phased out

That didn't happen, there is no historical document in existence of Hitler condemning socialism. Even when he was in power he touted his election as the "socialist revolution"

to say he condemned socialism is rewriting history

 

Nationalsozialismus

 

provide one historical document of him condemning socialism, if you're going to try to rewrite history.. please.. for the love of god provide some form of proof to back it up

 

The only thing God has to do with it is Hitler's Catholicism and frequent references to his religiosity ... "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter...."
As for Socialism, The "National Socialists" (Nazis) rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property. The toxic mix of fascism, antisemetism and "scientific" racism are all rooted in the far right.

 

Let me see if I've got this right a party that supported National health care, Gun control, and a host of other once and future leftist shibboleths and demanded wholesale changes in the way governments did things and effectively nationalized most major industries is a conservative party if they want to kill Jews? Next you'll be telling me Margaret Sanger Smith was a Nazi. Yeah Hitler was hands off. That's why he had ministries for virtually every human activity in Nazi Germany. He was also fairly hands off in the implementation of the final solution to the Jewish problem.

 

Communist, socialist, marxist, progressives and Leninist or what ever they call themselves protest too much. The fact is the Nazis looked at government just like all the above and the Obama admin does. They all want big government to have absolute control over everything in our lives!!!!!!!

 

Considering how nowadays the average U.S. leftwinger seems to despise Jews in general I also rather suspect that the OP creator is logically off base in his or her fundamental premise. On the other hand I've never really understood this Left/Right tension where Nazism and Hitler's activities were concerned when it should instead be a matter of, "See what those scum bags did? Don't do that sort of stuff!"

It's even more baffling to me, however, when we take something like the communist and socialistic movements that are never, EVER supported by Right of Center people inside the United States and STILL our leftwingers keep wanting to say that the old Soviets and original Communist Chinese leaderships were . . . rightwingers.

Still it should also boil down to a case of (Left or Right), "There! Did you see what those scum buckets did over there to their separate nations and to the people therein? Don't . . . do . . . that . . . stuff!"

End of problem . . . though obviously I must be missing some key aspect of the historical back and forth stuff regarding these particular topics. Not that I am incapable of engaging in them for the sheer fun of it . . .

It boils down to fanaticism whether one is talking about the far Left or the far Right and the tendency for radical leaders with a certain amount of fiery charisma and gutter quality cunning to emerge at key moments in time coupled with the natural tendency of about eighty percent of any population essentially being some form or the other of natural follower types. Then whammo! The whole world is having -- er -- interesting times.

So the real lesson (or so it seems to me) to be learned is the recognition of certain patterns of behavior and of speech rhetoric and of social and cultural movements and then keep a wary eye on the key players involved whether they be far Left or far Right.

 

In certain respects I would agree any attempt at political classification that places nazis in the same sphere as libertarians is at best grossly flawed. If one wishes to use a linear system then one should place totalitarians on one end of the line and there opposite number at the other.

 

The Nazis relaxed German gun control. Stop believing the NRA on that one.

Hitler was about getting rid of this newfangled thing called democracy in Germany. That's conservatism right there. He fought the Unions, throwing many members in Dachau. Long term unemployed were also thrown in Dachau. He received huge amounts of donations from the industrial elite. Many Germans became filthy rich from the war.

- - - Updated - - -

Since when am I American? Since when does the US determine what is left or right wing in another country?

- - - Updated - - -

Left and right is not about small vs big government.

 

Exactly who is the idiot that rights your script for you? I don't want the federal government involved one way or the other with who or for that matter what you have sex with. That is a state and local issue if that. I don't want the federal government involved in education. That is a lso a state and local issue. Nor do I want the federal government involved in my health care choices. that is a personal issue not an issue for any government at any level. Yeah there's a war going on for the heart and soul of the Republican party that war is entirely based on the size and scope of the federal government. There is for all practical purposes no other question worth discussing doe ultimately it is a discussion about whether we are the borg collective in which the collective decides what is success or failure or a free people who determine on our own what is sufficient success for us.

 

The Nazis were all about total control, and so is Obama. Sameo Sameo.

 

Wtf are you on about? Did you have a point?

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing to do with anything.