“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 all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927
As I have frequently contended, the fascism of the Nazis (as well as “fascism” in general) was a species of socialism – and socialism, as the belief that a giant government should usurp power to itself and take from individuals to give to other individuals, is inherently leftist. [Here is a longer article another author has written detailing the inherent leftism of fascism and of Hitler].
This is important to understand as we see history repeating itself (“Deja vu all over again!”).
Gene Edward Veith, Jr. pointed out many of the elements that communism and fascism held in common:
“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.” Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
What did the the communist “U.S.S.R.” stand for?
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
What did “Nazi” stand for?
Nazis “believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” of the right AND the left even as they openly acknowledged that they were socialist. So why have they so frequently been branded as “the extreme right wing”? Because the winner gets to write the history, and in the case of the European theater, the big winner of the war between the Nazis and the communists were the communists. And far too many American writers and intellectuals were significantly influenced by leftist thinking. And these “thinkers” were motivated not by historical accuracy or by truth, but by the desire to create a “right wing bogeyman.” Which they proceeded to do and let the truth be damned.
Both fascism and communism clearly and overtly labelled themselves as “socialist” and both claimed that the “worker” was their base. Both rose to power using “workers” as their muscle.
And, as I will show, both socialist movements inevitably crushed the worker. Just as all socialist movements invariably do.
Now, I have had liberals frequently assert that Nazism/fascism was not actually socialist and they have offered as their “evidence” that Hitler abolished the labor unions.
Let’s examine what Adolf Hitler said about labor unions:
- “I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.”
- “Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.”
- “As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless.
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy.”
- “The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.”
And so what did Hitler do? He did NOT “abolish” labor unions, as the modern left charges; rather, the Führer – having stated categorically that such unions were essential to his National Socialism – merged labor unions into the apparatus of the State. Hitler created one mega-union that he was able to control:
“The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings. The National Socialist State recognizes no ‘classes’. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto. And, side by side with these, it recognizes subjects of the State who have no political rights whatsoever.”
Which is to say that Hitler did PRECISELY the same thing that the communist U.S.S.R. did with labor unions:
The Communist Party exerted increasing control over trade unions, which even many Communist trade union leaders resisted. By the end of the Civil War a dispute over the role of trade unions occurred within the ruling Communist Party. Leon Trotsky, Nikolay Krestinsky and some others insisted on militarization of trade unions and actually turning them into part of the government apparatus. The Workers’ Opposition (Alexander Shlyapnikov, Alexandra Kollontai) demanded that trade unions manage the economy through an “All-Union Congress of Producers” and that workers comprise a majority of Communist Party members and leaders. There were several other factions. Eventually, all of them were defeated at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) by the so-called “Platform of the Ten” headed by Lenin, which called for trade unions to educate workers, under the control of the Communist Party. Since these times Vladimir Lenin‘s saying, “Trade Unions are a School of Communism” become an indisputable slogan.
A resolution entitled About the Party Unity dissolved and banned any factions within the Party under the pretext that intra-Party discussions distract from “solving actual practical problems”. This resolution radically shifted the balance in the notion “democratic centralism” from “democratic” to “centralism” and enhanced the groundwork of Joseph Stalin‘s future dictatorship.
[…]
Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized “socialist competitions” and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas
Thus, both fascism and communism were rival brands of socialism (international socialism versus national socialism) which systematically dissolved workers’ rights after making whatever false promises were necessary to secure their cooperation. Both fascism and communism were revolutionary socialist ideologies. Both fascism and communism opposed the bourgeoisie. Both fascism and communism attacked the conservatives. Both fascism and communism were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers – which they both forms of socialism continue to have as their bases to this very day. Both fascism and communism fascism and communism favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Both fascism and communism were easily able to become militarized societies. Both fascism and communism were inherently totalitarian and dictatorial. And, yes, both fascism and communism exploited the labor unions the exact same way and then subsequently controlled the labor unions the exact same way.
What is most ironic is that the ultimate model the left points to – communism – has been more brutal to the workers than any ideology that has ever existed. Joseph Stalin solved the unemployment problem by declaring unemployed workers indolent and throwing some thirty million of them into slave labor camps to be worked to death. How is THAT kind of treatment for a “workers’ party”?
Communism versus Fascism is Coke Versus Pepsi. Both amount to a slightly different version of the exact same thing. And fascism and communism warred so fiercely with one another because both movements were competing for the same base of adherents using substantially the same arguments.
Why is this understanding important? Because we’re seeing these same forces that gave us first communism and then fascism banding (perhaps “mobbing” is a better verb) together to produce the same inevitable results. And in fact we have both the Nazis and the Communists joining the labor unions and the intelligentsia, students and artists in their Occupy movement. And we’re seeing this happen on a scale that the world has not seen since the WWI (Soviet communism) and WWII (Nazi fascism) eras.
The same categories of people who reared their ugly heads during the worst periods in the history of the human race are rearing their ugly heads again.
The base of the Democrat Party is composed from the same base that has ALWAYS gone the most profoundly wrong before in serving as the useful idiots that ushered in totalitarianism. And now they are mobbing together so that we can suffer the results of deja vu all over again.
Jonah Goldberg in his great book Liberal Fascism uncovers how liberal societies invariably militarize in their own way before they look to attack external enemies:
What comes to mind when you hear the word “fascism” – immediate responses are dictatorship, genocide, anti-Semitism, racism, and (of course) right wing. Delve a little deeper, and you’ll hear a lot about eugenics, social Darwinism, state capitalism, or the sinister rule of big business. War, militarism, and nationalism will also come up a lot… But very few of these things are unique to fascism, and almost none of them are distinctly right-wing or conservative – at least not in the American sense.
Consider militarism, which will come up again and again in the course of this book. Militarism was indisputably central to fascism (and communism) in countless countries. But it has a much more nuanced relationship with fascism than one might suppose… But for far more people, militarism was a pragmatic expedient: the highest, best means for organizing society in productive ways. Inspired by ideas like those in William James’ famous essay “The Moral Equivalent of War,” militarism seemed to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable ends. Mussolini, who openly admired and invoked James, used this logic for his famous “Battle of the Grains” and other sweeping social initiatives. Such ideas had an immense following in the United States, with many leading progressives championing the use of “industrial armies” to create the ideal workers’ democracy. Later, Franklin Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps – as militaristic a social program as one can imagine – borrowed from these ideas, as did JFK’s Peace Corps.
This trope has hardly been purged from contemporary liberalism. Every day we hear about the “war on cancer,” the “war on drugs,” the “War on poverty,” and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the “moral equivalent of war.” From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to “get beyond politics” and “put ideological differences behind us” in order to “do the people’s business.” The experts and scientists know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albeit in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism – and it was on ample display in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, even John F. Kennedy. [Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, pp. 5-6]
The Occupy movement is using the moral equivalent of war even as it uses outright war to accomplish its fascist ends. As are the labor unions. As are the students. Of that group Adolf Hitler said:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930
The same people are up to the same antics. It’s deja vu all over again.
The left is also constantly demagoguing the sense of crisis to continue to ram home their increasingly failing policies. Goldberg again:
“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 42]
And of course we have the infamous words still echoing:
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” – Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, November 2008.
And:
“Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it..” — Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2009.
The left is plunging out into the very same dark and violent waters of class warfare that it has carried the world into before.
Allow me to re-submit the Hitler quote I began with:
“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 all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
What is frightening is that, apart from the admission “We are socialists,” it is a quote that could have come out of the mouth of Barack Obama. Think about it.
Jesus said to us, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Revelation 3:20) to a world that is rejecting him. But the left is demanding in more and more shrill terms that we open the door wide for the coming of Antichrist.
The beast is coming.
Start Thinking Right 
January 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Mr. Eden,
First, I must say that I really enjoy reading your conservative blog. You have a real gift of presenting the truth that is often hidden behind the intricate and convoluted lies and distortions of the left.
This post explaining leftwing idealogy is a masterpiece.
Whenever I need info that exposes the truth about the left, I always consult your blog and use the categories to find what I need. As a result of referrencing your blog, my positions and arguments are always iron clad. I live near Toledo, Ohio which is a democrat union town. I know many that are part of some type of labor union and it amazes me how deceived these people are. I often find myself debating these useful idiots.
It is obvious you spend alot of time writing and researching. Is this blog your main purpose or is this something you do on the side. If this is something you do on the side, I am even more impressed…
January 23, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Free Market Capitalist,
Thank you very much for your gracious appreciation. I very much look forward to getting such notes, and I look forward to getting comments from you personally.
You in fact capture my purpose for blogging to a ‘T.’ I am primarily looking to inform conservatives and conservative-leaning independents about how to see and articulate what in the sam hill is going wrong with this country. I also want to leave behind a record of what Obama did to America (otherwhise, Obama can keep blaming somebody else, whereas if we predicted what he would do would fail – and then it DID fail just as we predicted – it’s a little tougher for him to weasal out of his own policies and the failed consequences of them). So you can find plenty of articles such as where I predicted the Obama stimulus would massively fail – which it did; such as where I predicted Obama’s minimum wage hike would result in more unemployment for the young workers Obama said he was helping – which it did; and such as where I predicted ObamaCare would be an abject disaster – which it was.
When I saw the Jeremiah Wright sermons, I knew that the man who was running for president who had sat in that toxic synagogue of satan was a truly evil man. You might say I even had a “vision” of an Obama presidency. And that vision inspired me to do everything I personally could to warn the nation that I have served in several capacities of what this evil man would do.
Something that motivates me from the other side of the coin is the fact that I often do searches looking for material – and my own work keeps coming up. That is both encouraging and very discouraging at the same time. Yes, I like to see my work come up in my own independent searches, but sometimes it seems like I’m the only one writing about many of the topics that I believe people desperately need to know about. And as they say, if you look around, and there’s nobody else whose stepping up, that means you’re “on” whether you like it or not.
I have to be rather vague about what I do, as there are people who would take such knowledge and use it against me, but actually, yes, I continue to work (although fortunately not nearly as much as I used to!).
Blogging gets easier as you do it. For instance, I’ve already got a rather huge stockpile of my own articles to refer to and an even bigger stockpile of articles that I’ve put into text files to draw from. Also, you become very adept at finding what you are looking for in searches for info. Also, I just love to read, and can draw a lot from that education. It also helps knowing how to properly type!!!
It takes me quite a bit more time to respond to comments than it does to write the articles I do. If I’m pressed for time I’ll be more curt; if I’m okay time-wise I’ll be more expansive.
January 24, 2012 at 6:17 am
Good points. Reuters news covered the re-issue of Mein Kampf in Germany and the news story’s author is apparently ignorant that the word “nazi” and “swastika” never appeared in the original Mein Kampf, nor in any edition published by/under Hitler. The word “fascist” never appeared as a self-description either.
You should always point out the above facts and the fact that they called themselves socialists and they called their symbol a
Hakenkreuz (hooked cross, a type of cross) and they used it to
represent crossed S-letters for their Socialism. See the work of the
symbologist Dr. Rex Curry.
Similar swastika-style alphabetical symbolism was used under the NSDAP for the “SS” division, the “SA,” the “NSV,” and the VW logo (the letters “V” and “W” joined for “Volkswagen”).
The Reuters news photo of the front pages of Mein Kampf also shows Hitler’s signature before Hitler changed it (his first name signature) to resemble an S-letter for his socialism. The modern misuse of the term swastika for the German national socialist symbol is done to maintain public ignorance in an attempt to rehabilitate socialism by distancing the Hakenkreuz from socialism, and to instead defame a foreign symbol.
January 24, 2012 at 11:42 am
Francis,
I love to learn, so I loved your comment!
I did not actually know much of what you wrote apart from the fact that Hitler’s Mein Kampf was an early work that served as a “vision” of what was to come.
I also know tht Hitler was HEAVILY into symbology, and used a great deal of pagan symbology to begin to undermine what little Christian faith was left in Germany (the most atheist and “modernist” country in Europe). But I had never studied the symbology behind the Swastika symbol itself.
Thanks for that contribution!
January 26, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Today, the average person does not know that Hitler was heavily involved in the occult. Before his involvement in politics, young Hitler spent much of his time in the Hofberg Library in Vienna, Austria reading books on the history of the occult and Eastern religions. In that same library, there was a spear that was believed to be the actual spear that pierced the side of Christ, commonly known as the Spear of Destiny or the Holy Lance. Hitler became fascinated by this spear and believed that it had occult powers. He spent hours, days staring at the spear, mesmerized. Hitler claims that he invited the occult powers of the spear into his being. Many would not disagree that Hitler was possessed, usually in a metaphorical way, but the truth is that Hitler actually was possessed. I have heard by some theological scholars that Hilter was possessed by the same demonic prince spirit as Alexander the Great was. Shortly after this experience, young Hitler was introduced to mescaline, where he quickly began having visions and believed he had tapped into other worldy powers that he could use for his own sick purposes.
It is a little known fact that the original members of the nazi party were hardcore satanists and that the nazis helped cultivate and promote Hitler’s occultic involvement. Members of his own party believed that he was truly possessed and these demonic powers worked through him to kill millions, most of whom were Jews, who, according to the Bible, are God’s chosen people and, as a result, Satan’s most hated people, a people he has been trying to eliminate for eons. HiItler was nothing more than a medium promoting Satan’s evil will on a grand scale and also a type of antichrist and one can easily see satan’s finger prints with the near genocide of the Jews.
While both Hitler and Obama share many narcissistic qualities, it would probably be unfair and quite a stretch to say that Obama could be capable, under the right circumstances, to perpetrate such acts as mass murder or geonocide like Hitler did. I have a strong belief that a narcissistic person can be easily influenced or invaded by demonic forces and that they may be prime targets for these evil spiritual forces, who are looking for vessels to promote their will. It seems that almost all of the most notable narcissists – Hitler, Jim Jones, Stalin, Sadam Hussein etc. had some connection with the occult or some twisted belief that they were some type of messiah or reincarnated person, like Hussein believing that he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. Anyway, it is not exactly known Obama’s true spiritual beliefs, but having Jeramiah Wright as his spiritual mentor for many years, reveals alot. Personally, I think Wright is a puppet of satan with his false liberation theology. I also think that Obama, compelled by his narcissisim, through exposure to Wright’s chuch and possilby other avenues, has opened himself up to demonic spirits and may explain the spell that he seems to have over some crowds. Like I already stated that to say that Obama would be capable of such atrocities, at this point, is really unjustified and unfair; however, he has done serious damage to this country without killing on person.
It is funny but sad that a high percentage of the liberal left (socialists, communists, fascists etc. included) despise true Christianity and promote beliefs and doctrine that are clearly satanic. These are the same that are trying to cultivate the one-world government and prepare the way for the ultimate narcissist and demon possessed (actually he will be indwelt by satan), the antichrist. I’ve heard it said that liberalism is a mental disorder, which it is, but, ultimately, it is a spiritual disorder. All aspects of the left get their power from dark and sinister spiritual forces.
Actually, this response would be more appropriate in your most recent blog post, Déjà Vu All Over Again: Watching How A Führer Is Made, but I was reading both and my response ended up in this one.
January 27, 2012 at 11:47 am
Free Market Capitalist,
You raise quite a few good points.
Here is an article on Nazism and the Occult that I came across and have saved in a text file: http://juchre.org/nor/nazis.htm
Here’s one I wrote about Hitler and “Christianity”: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/hitler-wasnt-right-wing-wasnt-christian-and-nazism-was-applied-darwinism/
I agree with you, fwiw, that Obama would not intentionally set out to kill people if he had true dictatorial power.
That said, mass murder has a way of creeping in to dictatorships. The dictator just keeps getting drawn in further and further until he is doing things he never would have imagined himself doing. I DO believe Obama would fall prey to THAT sort of “creep.”
Obama has shown such thin skin it is beyond unreal – which he just displayed again. You’ve got to go back to Nixon to find a president who has born such a grudge against media reporters and outlets he didn’t like. He has had his White House try to punish reporters and punish Fox News repeatedly. So if Obama really DID have all the powers of a Hitler or a Stalin, do you think he wouldn’t use them to punish his enemies???
What was it Obama said to Latinos? We’re gonna punish our enemies.
The thing is that if STALIN or HITLER were presidents of America, they wouldn’t be able to do here what they did in their socialist countries. At least they couldn’t until they made America socialist too. They would be just like Obama in this one sence: they would be as socialist and as tyrannical as they could possibly be within our system while they tried to “fundamentally transform” said system.
In that “fundamentally transformed America,” anything is possible. We are now in blue skies as we move toward fascism.
The other thing I would point out is that Obama actually HAS “perpetrated such acts as mass murder” given his participation in the holocaust of abortion.
That’s how I would unpack the issue of Obama vs. Hitler and Stalin.
March 29, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Do not you tired of old! Hitler was also a hard right-wing fascism idea.and right-wing .fasism = anti matxist 100% right wing barder.
March 30, 2012 at 3:03 pm
kerszténynaci,
So naked fact-free assertions trump documented facts in your world?
Socialism is left-wing; capitalism is right-wing. I documented that Hitler was a socialist, and “Nazi” stands for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.” And I documented Hitler saying that “we are enemies of capitalism.”
I document that Nazism/fascism was a rival brand of socialism with communism and showed exactly how they were identical.
I documented quite a few facts in this article. But people like you don’t give one flying damn about facts or history or anything that stands in the way of you creating the next totalitarian government State.
July 1, 2012 at 2:46 am
Fascsim is far right. Gene Edward Veith, Jr is not good source as just a Right-Winger Christian. I am not supprised you use Dailycaller website which mouth piece of right-wing nonsense. Also KKK support Obama & American Nazi Party which both are still far right.
Jonah Goldberg is not good source either as this guy just create “Liberal Fascism” just because he did not like people who of conservative though being called fascist & did not like when asked when they told him the left wing people were arrest after Enabling Act of 1933. In the rest of the world conservatism is form authoritarianism as American conservative are more hypocritical as they love to say small government like ingoring 4th amendment in the name of national security. Even Jonah Goldberg could not hide his fascism (consevatism) to long when he said the youth sould not be able to vote as they vote “The fact that young people think socialism is better than capitalism“ & “that’s something that conservatives have to work hard to beat out of them” Writing “Liberal Fascsim” is like liberal who got tired of being called communist so he/she will write book called “Conservative Communism.” There is actually form Conservative Communism called Christian Communism.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic econmic system for the exploitation of the economically weak” Your conservative it excect to type in ingorance as you did not understood what he meant he was againist capitalism in the sense that was runned by “Jewish Financiers” The “socialism” he did support was & still is called Right-wing socialism (oxymoron & Karl Marx disagree as socialist tries to remove the social hierarchy which are in Europe was the monarchies; right-wing socialism tries to maintain the social hierarchy. The creator of right-wing socialism was Klemens von Metternich.) I will quote Murray Rothbard “Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within Socialism: one was the Right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of Conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization.”
I will quote of the creator of fascism Benito Mussolini “Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” Mussolini another quote from him “The theory of Fascist authority has nothing to do with the police State. A party that governs a nation in a totalitarian way is a new fact in history. References and comparisons are not possible. Fascism takes over from the ruins of Liberal Socialistic democratic doctrines those elements which still have a living value. It preserves those that can be called the established facts of history, it rejects all the rest, that is to say the idea of a doctrine which holds good for all times and all peoples. If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the “Right,” a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual it may be expected that this one may be the century of “collectivism” and therefore the century of the State. . . . The doctrine itself, therefore, must be, not words, but an act of life. hence, the pragmatic veins in Fascism, its will to power, its will to be, its attitude in the face of the fact of “violence” and of its own courage.”
When Germany passed Enabling act of 1933, Adlof Hitler arrest all the left-wing people like liberals, socialist, communist, etc and banned labour unions to support corporate friends. Hitler called left-wing people as traitors as quote “Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors.” Hilter also criticizes The right-wing as for being coward for stand up for their believes as quoted “But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.”
Another quote by Hitler “The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism” Hitler use Christanity to promote his beliefs called “Positive Christianity” which a right-wing rascist Jesus that hates Jews & inspired by Protestant Christian Martin Luther’s book “On the Jews and Their Lies.” Also Fascist blame Jews for the murder of Jesus Christ.
Fascism & Conservatism list of what make them the same.
1. Both want to outlaw what see is immoral like homosexuality
2. Corporatocracy
3. Scapegoat the left like liberals, libertarians, communist, anarchist, feminist e.g. enabling act 1933
4. Support of militaristic & imperialistic
5. Talk about the glorious past
6. Extreme patriotism that doesn’t question any authority
7. Religion is used to justify their actions
8. Obsession with National Security
9. Labor Power is Suppressed
10. Disdain for Intellectuals, the Arts, education, etc
11. Both see liberal democracy (liberal federal constitutional republic) as a failure
12. Both support authoritarianism
13. Both support social hierarchy & elitism
14. Both support ethnic nationalism
15. Both support national conservatism
16. Both support Social Darwinism
17. Rejected the idea of social equality
18. Preservation of private property
19. Support a right wing version of individualism aka hierarchical individualism
July 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm
J,
You want to argue that Nazism was “right-wing”? Fine. As long as it is clear that socialist Nazism was the “right-wing” of the rabid far LEFT.
I’ll be blocking you simply because there is no point having any kind of rational discussion with someone who relies on THE GENETIC FALLACY as the very heart of their argument.
Yes, Adolf Hitler said:
Yes, I know, you cockroach. If I were only smarter I would know that Hitler’s statement “We are socialists” and “we are enemies of today’s capitalistic system” REALLY means “We are most certainly NOT socialists” and “We truly and sincerely LOVE today’s capitalistic system.” But sadly, I am lacking in the cockroach brain department. It’s clearly my failing.
Hitler also said, of course, that “we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” Which leads to the question, “If Hitler was a ‘conservative,’ precisely just what in the hell was he trying to conserve?”
I’m not going to bother to respond to all of your 19 assertions of fascism/conservatism. I’ll take on your first five as examples of how incredibly piss-poor both your thinking and your complete absence of facts are.
1. Both want to outlaw what see is immoral like homosexuality
Your chart topper is something of a joke in light of history and the fact that the SA was blatantly homosexual and Adolf Hitler was FINE with homosexuality until it served his usefulness. The SA that Hitler rode to power was virtually pure homosexual. That is an amply documented fact.
Here’s a couple of more quotes from a History program called “The Gestapo: The Sword Forged” That gets to the cruciality of the [homosexual] SA in the rise of Nazism and the reasons for the purge after they’d lived out their usefulness to Hitler:
It’s not enough to say that Hitler and Nazism was fine with homosexuality; in fact, it must be said that without homosexuals and homosexuality you never would have had a Nazi Party rising to power to begin with. Homosexuals and homosexuality was central to the rise of Nazism. There would have BEEN no “Thousand Year Reich” without homosexuals. The Third Reich never would have even got off the ground without homosexual thugs fighting for it in the street brawls and then terrorizing those who might have spoken out into silence in the early years. Hitler rode the SA – rife with homosexuality and 3 million strong – to power. That is a fact. It is a fact that homosexuals were essential to the rise of Nazism. And don’t you dare blame me that they got hung on their own petard by their own ideology that they imposed on Germany.
One of the things that Veith points out is that Nazism was very much into avant garde art in the early years. Basically, whatever challenged the established order, including open homosexuality, was fine with them – until they took over and themselves BECAME the established order. Then anything that could or would challenge them was ruthlessly suppressed. Philosophers embracing existentialism (Martin Heidegger) and artists embracing expressionism (Gottfried Benn, Emil Nolde) were open Nazis who ended up on the wrong side of the Nazi Party after their destruction of the social order had served its purpose and was no longer useful.
2. Corporatocracy
“Corporatocracy”??? Are you serious? Let me show you what “corporatocracyy” looks like:
July 16, 2012 at 4:19 pm
fascism is inherently right wing. Deal with it…
July 16, 2012 at 8:37 pm
this kid is a beeeeootch,
You are inherently a dumbass. Unfortunately it’s all the poor souls around you who have to deal with that.
“Fascists” like you make me sick. I present fact; you ignore fact and produce mindless assertions.
December 12, 2012 at 7:37 am
I came to this site Michael, when i did a word search to try and find out how 1930’s union leadership, in the U.S. felt about the Nazi take over in Germany. And I got your post. I was wondering if you have any quotes for the Union leaders of the 1930’s, and whether on the Nazi leadership, and whether these quotes are positive or negative towards Adolph Hitler and National Socialism. I would assume that they would be favorable, but I really do not know. Thanks
December 12, 2012 at 9:42 pm
gene,
That’s a really good question.
It will take a little time to try to answer it, but it is intriguing.
I know that Jonah Goldberg in his book “Liberal Fascism” details that FDR and his officials were initially very impressed and interested in Hitler’s “achievements.” And there was a lot of back-and-forth. But I don’t know about the unions.
The thing is that a LOT of labor unions had already thrown in their lot with the communists by the early 1930s. Both communism and fascism are socialism – “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party – but communism was INTERNATIONAL socialism with its “workers of the world unite!” and fascism was national socialism. And these cousins got along like Pepsi and Coke with the fact that they were both basically the exact same thing not getting in the way of their hating one another.
June 4, 2014 at 10:03 am
You argue that Conservatives are not fascist and then, when someone questions your arguments, you announce that you are going to silence their dissent by blocking them. Thus undoing your own argument.
June 4, 2014 at 11:18 am
Carson,
Two things.
Thing one, it is frankly beyond stupid to assert that whether I block somebody or not somehow means that “conservatives are fascists” or that “conservatives are not fascist.” I mean, thanks for believing that I literally personify and represent all conservatives, but again, idiotic.
Thing two, I notice that you don’t bother to tell me which “block” you’re pointing at when you assert that my blocking is fascist. Which apparently means that you don’t believe that ANYBODY should be allowed to block ANYBODY for ANY reason. Or else that person is a fascist. Which, again, is idiotic.
You are literally saying that if an event removes a heckler at a speech, that event is intrinsically “fascist.” Why? Because apparently the one on your view has the right to trump the rights of everybody else. And YOU’RE the fascist for believing that.
So you qualify as an idiot on two separate fronts in just what, two sentences?
I block two sorts of people: 1) people I catch in lies and 2) people who write “drive-by comments” that refuse to in any way, shape or form deal with ANYTHING I said while making idiotic assertions that somehow I’m clearly wrong. I frankly don’t have time to waste with either.
Which side is “fascist” comes down to a number of different FACTS that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Michael Eden blocks somebody, contrary to your incredibly stupid assertion to the contrary. “Fascism” is SOCIALISM, number one, and that is just a fact. Are conservatives socialist or are liberals socialist? Guess what? it’s YOU. And “fascism” is PROGRESSIVE, number two. Conservatives are called “conservatives” because they are attempting to CONSERVE. Fascism seeks to throw out what conservatives try to conserve and replace it with their totalitarian statism – which again is precisely what you’re side is doing. If you want to argue that fascism is conservative, then please tell me just what the hell was Adolf Hitler trying to “conserve”???