It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hitler and the Nazis were not Right-wing.

page: 10
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: willzilla
Fascism is only right wing to communism. Both are left of democracy. ACA is a good example today of fascist leaning. Insurance companies can stay, but they have to obey these new rules.


Democracy isn't a left/right thing.

Fascism/ Nazism are right wing ideologies.


Democracy absolutely is. When you put it on the scale of anarchy (no law) to totalitarianism (absolute law). To simplify this, anarchy would be extreme right wing. Left of that is libertarianism. Left of that is democracy. See where I am going with this?



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: willzilla

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: willzilla
Fascism is only right wing to communism. Both are left of democracy. ACA is a good example today of fascist leaning. Insurance companies can stay, but they have to obey these new rules.


Democracy isn't a left/right thing.

Fascism/ Nazism are right wing ideologies.


Democracy absolutely is. When you put it on the scale of anarchy (no law) to totalitarianism (absolute law). To simplify this, anarchy would be extreme right wing. Left of that is libertarianism. Left of that is democracy. See where I am going with this?


Not really as they are not things that go along a single scale.

It is also not a description of left/right that I have seen anywhere else.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: willzilla

thats the up/down axis.
authoritarian -top, libertarian-bottom
left -right is horizontal economic
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 28-12-2018 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: willzilla

thats the up/down axis.
authoritarian -top, libertarian-bottom
left -right is horizontal economic
en.wikipedia.org...

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Top/down and left/right...still proves my point.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   
CNN-CBS-ABC-MSNBC-NYT-Wap are all Anti-America NAZI TERRORISTS.

JOURNALIST Bre Payton died suddenly today (only age 26!), and those "news" outlets appear nowhere on the first page of Google search results. (Maybe Google is Anti-America too.)

Bre Payton Dies Suddenly: www.foxnews.com...

The Mainstream Media (90% of them) were more emotional over the death of a Saudi journalist (Jamal Khashoogi) than they are for Bre Payton.


edit on 12/28/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: willzilla

/sigh.....
en.wikipedia.org...
Anarchy is a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.
en.wikipedia.org...
In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.
en.wikipedia.org...
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.[2][3][4] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: willzilla

/sigh.....
en.wikipedia.org...
Anarchy is a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.
en.wikipedia.org...
In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.
en.wikipedia.org...
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.[2][3][4] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

whoops



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Hitler was a fascist, and did not get along with socialists or communists.

He leaned right wing, though it doesn't really matter. He was an extremist, much like Stalin.

Just because they occupy one end of the spectrum doesn't mean everyone has to own the wackos that bastardized the ideology.


If only that were true. But hey, we didn't make the game. Now we play by the rules.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

There are a number of inaccuracies in your OP.


Humm, let's see who is has a "number of inaccuracies in their claims."


originally posted by: ScepticScot
The Nazis didn't ban hunting (they did restrict some forms of it).


Several bans on hunting were enacted by the nazis.

Hunting with dogs and with the help of animals, such as horses, was banned.

The boiling of crabs and lobsters was banned to the point that even at least in one occasion Göring sent a fisherman to a concentration camp for cutting up a frog for bait. Other people, hunters and fishermen, were also sent to concentration camps. I still remember an account I posted in these forums years ago in which a German family man was sent to a concentration camp for hunting, I think it was a deer but can't recall, it didn't matter that his family was starving.

The poisoning of foxes was also prohibited, alongside trapping them, even though they are one of the main carriers of rabies.

Commercial trapping of animals was banned, but so was any way to trap an animal, including hunters using regular traps to capture game. The nazis even banned the use of animals in films.

Experimentation on animals (vivisection) was also prohibited.


Killing Humans is okay, but don’t boil a lobster-Nazi animal welfare.
...
On November 24, 1933, Nazi Germany enacted another law called Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich Animal Protection Act), for protection of animals. This law listed many prohibitions against the use of animals, including their use for filmmaking and other public events causing pain or damage to health, feeding fowls forcefully and tearing out the thighs of living frogs. The two principals (Ministerialräte) of the German Ministry of the Interior, Clemens Giese and Waldemar Kahler, who were responsible for drafting the legislative text,wrote in their juridical comment from 1939, that by the law the animal was to be “protected for itself” (“um seiner selbst willen geschützt”), and made “an object of protection going far beyond the hitherto existing law”
...

dirkdeklein.net...

What's more, if you had ever hunted, you would know that "a clean kill" doesn't always happen. Hunters most often have to track animals they shot at, sometimes for miles until they die from bleeding out. For the nazis/Hitler this was animal cruelty and could result on the hunter being sent to a concentration camp if there was no "clean kill."


Thanks to Hitler, hunting with hounds is still verboten
The Fuhrer, a vegetarian, was the pioneer of hunting bans. His draconian laws were announced in Germany on July 3, 1934, on the grounds that hunting with hounds was 'unsporting'. His odd legacy lives on, report David Harrison and Tony Paterson.
...
Professor Kershaw said that there was "a curiously ethical side" to the Nazis reforms. "The Nazis wanted a clean kill and felt that it was wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal being hunted," he said.

"So the new laws banned all field sports that involved training and using animals to kill game and vermin. There was a belief that if you put an animal through unnecessary torture you were somehow injuring the feelings of the German nation."

The official Nazi biography, which was written by Erich Gritzbach, says: "Goering is a fanatical friend of animals. He says: 'Whoever tortures animals violates the instincts of the German people.'
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...


originally posted by: ScepticScot
Gun laws where actually liberalized for the majority of Germans.


You mean similar to how Senator democrats/gun grabbers keep talking about banning, or heavily restricting firearms, and several of them have been found in possession of firearms, meanwhile others openly use firearms meanwhile demanding "gun registration," "gun bans," etc?...

The nazis used the gun registration law they passed to prohibit people they deemed as a threat the right to own a gun. This included Jews, and political opponents such as social democrats (the same ones that helped get Hitler elected). Millions of Germans were denied the right to bear arms, and if they did not willingly give up their arms, they were immediately executed. Independent gun clubs were banned by the Gestapo, and Constitutional rights were suspended.


...
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.
...
The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty.
...

www.nationalreview.com...


originally posted by: ScepticScot
They conducted a extensive program of privatisation during the 30s. Not nationalisation.


Privatization was a practice in name only, and not in reality.


...
For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
...


Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

When the government has total control over your business, is it really yours?


edit on 28-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: willzilla

Bingo.

It is only accurate to call nazism "right wing" if you mean right wing socialism, i.e. national socialism vice marxist socialism.

Either way they are both far left of our Constitutional Republic.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

All great points,

The only thing I would add is that antifa is more like the kkk than the brown shirts, though those two entities do indeed share similarities.

The kkk was just the violent illegal political arm of the dem party used to intimidate American citizens when dems could not win fairly in elections and/or get their policies implemented in Washington.

So Antifa is just the modern day version of the kkk.

Same purpose, different name.

Dems still crave a servant class to serve the ruling class, that is still their true end goal.

Whether its slaves or illegal aliens, theynstill use the same argument that those people are "better off here than where they came from".

This terrible end goal cannot be accomplished though without an all powerful centralized govt that circumvents the will of individual American citizens.

In summary, the ideologies of nazis, commies, and dems all inevitably yield the same end result, regardless of what they say their intentions are.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
BTW, one more thing... When the nazi government took businesses, not only from minorities like Jewish people but also from political opponents, and put in charge who they wanted, how is that a "right-wing" policy?

In Cuba, and other countries ruled by a socialist economy the same thing is done. The government can take your business, or your house, and give it to someone else if they deem it necessary.


originally posted by: ScepticScot
They certainly didn't ban unearned income.


Yes they did. Hitler believed that any, and all "speculative income" should belong to the state/nation and not in private hands. Why do you think he had so much support from the German people? Yes, there were people who profited in nazi Germany, such as some of those the nazis allowed to partially, and in conjunction with state mandates were "in part" in charge of the means of production. But the state/Hitler were the ones who said how much everyone, including those they allowed to run the means of production, through state mandate, were to be paid.

In fact, income taxes in nazi Germany increased to 75% to the top 4% of the income distribution. Countries conquered by nazi Germany such as Austria were forced to pay ~80%, and in many occasions even 100% of their income taxes when the nazis would confiscate all property of people.



...
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

The above is not in specific about unearned income, i will get to that, but shows how in nazi Germany "price and wage control" was implemented, as well as "rationing" like in other countries in which a socialist economy rules, such as in Venezuela where "price and wage control" was also imposed there. The same happened in Cuba, just like in North Korea, just like in China, etc, etc.

BTW, before you or anyone else claims "those are only claims from a "right-winger site." Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises was a Jewish economist who was an eyewitness of the nazi/socialist economic system throughout the 1930s.



originally posted by: ScepticScot
So not really much evidence of their policies being socialist.


Why, because cutting a frog for bait for fishing, and sending the fisherman to a concentration camp for it is so "right-wing" right?

Because gun registration, gun confiscation, the removal of Constitutional rights, etc are also "right-wing" right?

But hey, after all, the belief and the brainwashing this belief, among others, on German children about "common good before individual good" is so "right-wing" as well?

In fact under Hitler even abortion became legal "in certain circumstances."


Abortion in Germany - Wikipedia
...
Legalization of abortion was first widely discussed in Germany during the early 20th century. When Germany became a country in 1871, section 218 of the Constitution outlawed abortion, requiring a penal term for both the woman and the doctor involved. During the Weimar Republic, such discussion led to a reduction in the maximum penalty for abortion, and in 1926 a court's decision legalized abortion in cases of grave danger to the life of the mother. Nazi Germany's eugenics laws liberalized abortion for both Aryan and non-Aryan women. Aryan women could obtain an abortion simply by demonstrating that either parent had an hereditary defect, or that the child would be born with a congenital defect. Non-Aryan women were "encouraged" to utilize contraception and abortion in order to reduce their populations.[2][citation needed]

In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased again. In 1943, providing an abortion to an Aryan woman became a capital offense. Abortion was permitted if the fetus was deformed or disabled.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Although abortion in Nazi Germany was not the same as it is now in countries like the U.S., abortion was liberalized in nazi Germany under Hitler.

Of note should be the fact that the "pioneer" of the abortion and eugenics movement in the west, Margaret Sanger, was a National Socialist. Her views, and protests led, and contributed to the compulsory sterilization laws of the 1930s in the U.S., which resulted in the compulsory sterilization of over 60,000 people. She believed, like the nazis and Hitler, that "the feeble minded, the idiots and morons" among other "undesirables" should be forced to abort their children. She was a racist who brainwashed the left to embrace her ideas, and those of the nazis/Hitler on eugenics and abortion.



edit on 28-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I'll take the word of a Jewish economist, Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises, who saw first hand the economic policy of nazi Germany than the claims from an Autralian, or any other person who wants to deny facts.

Gun registration, gun confiscation, the removal of Constitutional rights, the actual control by the state of the means of production, etc are not "right-wing beliefs."

Giving more value to animals than to humans is not a "right-wing belief." No matter how much you, and some others want to deny it.


edit on 29-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

If democrats had continued to try to fight "illegal immigration" like they did in the 1990s, and even more recently they claimed to want to fight illegal immigration, as for example:



Hillary Clinton on Immigration
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record Opposes illegal immigration, but doesn't vote to follow up Talking with a radio host in Nov. 2004, Hillary said, "I am adamantly against illegal immigrants."
...

www.ontheissues.org...

Or like her husband had done in the past...



Because even to this day I have seen websites of "National Socialists" calling for "socialist policies." Except that the real "nazis" don't want just illegal immigration, but they even want to stop "legal immigration." (which most of the right in the U.S. only want something done about illegal immigration, and many in the "right" are minority groups) The "National Socialists of today would vote democrat if the democrats adhered to their claims, even in the not too distant past, of wanting to fight illegal immigration.



edit on 28-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.

edit on 29-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   
BTW, as to "the imprisonment of gay people, etc," communist regimes have done so time and again. In Cuba for example, despite the false claims from raul castro's daughter who is lesbian, there are still homosexuals, lesbians, etc who are imprisoned.


Once a prisoner in Cuba, a transgender Cuban woman vows to never return
Global Nation
PRI's The World

PRI's The World

January 28, 2016 · 12:45 PM EST
By Nadege Green



Ana Marrero, a transgender woman, says she was repeatedly thrown in prison in Cuba for wearing makeup and women's clothing.
Credit:

Tim Padgett/WLRN

Ana Marrero pulls back her shirt sleeve and holds out her left arm.

“In Cuban prisons, I tried on various occasions to kill myself with knives,” she says.

Eight times.
...

www.pri.org...

To this day it is illegal in Cuba to engage in homosexual/gay behaviour, such as kissing in public, among other policies.


A member also mentioned "Hitler closed/shut down unions." Yes he did, and he replaced them with a state union. The same thing has been done in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, China, etc. These left-wing regimes always disband unions that rose up under capitalism, and they replace them with state run union/s. Hitler did the same thing.



Trade Unions and Nazi Germany
Citation: C N Trueman "Trade Unions and Nazi Germany"
historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 9 Mar 2015. 29 Dec 2018.

When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.
...
Hitler announced that the German Labour Force, headed by Robert Ley, would replace all trade unions and would look after the working class. The title was chosen carefully. The new organisation was deliberately cloaked in patriotism, as it was now a German entity as was seen in its title. The working class was now a ‘labour force’. The Nazi Party did all that it could to ensure the workers felt that they were better off under the guidance of the Nazi Party via the German Labour Front.
...
Hitler offered the working class an improved leisure life in one hand and took away their traditional rights in the other. Strikes – the traditional way for the working class to vent their anger over an issue – were banned. Strikes had been a thorn in the side of Weimar Germany in its final years. In 1928, the equivalent of 20,339,000 days had been lost as a result of strikes. In 1930, 4,029,000 days had been lost. In 1933, it was just 96,000 days and from 1934 to 1939 there were none. New laws had been brought in after the burning down of the Reichstag and one covered ‘un-German activities’ and strikes were classed as un-German. In January 1934, the Law Regulating National Labour (the ‘Charter of Labour’) banned strikes at statute level.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...



edit on 28-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add excerpt and comment.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If you break it down esoterically...
They were just using the "ISMs" of whatever"worked" for the aspects of social psychology that worked for the situations that arose surrounding the day and age that gelled with their agenda.

AS WILL ANY POLITICIAN DO.

Ie: whatever worked for the "PLAN" to be executed as efficiently as possible...

...theirs being... "What are these "consciousness containers" in which we experience life through... What can we do to reduce limitation of our WILL through this "Matrix" we are trapped in through death and reincarnation...essentially...how can we defeat the "Archons" that administer this "prison", and liberate us from it to become Gods and delete suffering...defying the Demiurge and createthe most IDEAL TEMPORAL EXPERIENCE"... Through any means necessary, focusing on constant renovation and renewal to create "heaven"
Ie: " Salvation Through Sin"...
German flag is black red gold... Ie: out of darkness into the gold..Through blood. (Was white, representing enlightenment)

So is that "right wing" or "left-wing"?...
Dunno...
But plenty of preemi people choose to label out either AFTER the fact...
edit on 12/29/2018 by prevenge because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join