Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Hitler Was Not Right-Wing

Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
AmericanBlackshirt
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:08:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...
For Americans no he was Economically Left Wing and Socially Right Wing.
All radical right wing parties were like this, they fought for their Nation (Socially Right Wing), Folk (Socialism- Economically Left Wing), and Faith (Again Socially Right Wing)
Hail!
- AmericanBlackshirt
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:32:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Have a look at the fascism thread linked in my signature, and some of the others. Hitler was a right winger, just on the far far periphery of the right.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:13:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

Conservative101, you are young. You are about to walk down a path of partisan rhetoric that will involve you constantly minimizing and neglecting the opinions of those you hate (in this case "the left") and over-emphasizing and blindly following the opinions of those on your team.

If you want to find objective truth in the world, then you won't be able to do it with an agenda in mind. Take a look through the political, economic, etc. threads on DDO and observe how unreasonable and unproductive they are. You won't ever "win" an argument with even the worst debater because of semantic and perspective differences, unjustified assumptions (e.g., "Hitler is evil and anything related to him is wrong"), and points that are shifted constantly for the purpose of taking the advantage. Even debates, which have technical winners and losers, often become simply popularity contests and hardly anybody takes the long, hard work of really sorting through every point to find truth (the utter length of 3-5 round debates precludes this).

Instead of deciding you are a right-wing modern American, try to be more open-minded. What would be your opinions if you weren't the person you are at the moment? How about if you grew up in ancient Egypt, Medieval Europe, as a Native American during colonial times, or a modern inner-city ethnic minority? I ask because your "views," if good, should be consistent throughout changes in space and time. Anyway, good luck on DDO, I hope you find enlightenment here but realize it can be very frustrating ;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:15:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:08:50 PM, AmericanBlackshirt wrote:
At 4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...
For Americans no he was Economically Left Wing and Socially Right Wing.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hitler indeed favored socialism and gun control (Big government is a pretty redundant statement though, and his views on abortion depended on the race of the mother.)

What precisely do you mean by right wing though? That's a fishy set of words.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:54:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:50:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Hitler indeed favored socialism and gun control (Big government is a pretty redundant statement though, and his views on abortion depended on the race of the mother.)

What precisely do you mean by right wing though? That's a fishy set of words.

Hitler favoured socialism before he rose to power. Then he started persecuting socialists and throwing them in concentration camps along with Jews, gays, the elderly, gypsies, and more.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:56:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Maybe Hitler was so far right, he looped around and entered the circle from the left. Maybe, once you reach a certain level of A-hole, things like "left vs. right" cease to matter, and you're just an A-hole.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 11:03:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:54:00 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:50:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Hitler indeed favored socialism and gun control (Big government is a pretty redundant statement though, and his views on abortion depended on the race of the mother.)

What precisely do you mean by right wing though? That's a fishy set of words.

Hitler favoured socialism before he rose to power. Then he started persecuting socialists and throwing them in concentration camps along with Jews, gays, the elderly, gypsies, and more.

This is because socialism is a broad category that includes many people who disagreed with him and he was inclined to throw a lot of people he disagreed with in concentration camps. Not because he abandoned socialism (government control of the economy) however.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:12:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's true Hitler was for gun control for Jews. He was also for bicycle control, pet control, car control, marriage control, and eventually life control.

But for other people, gun laws were loosened (http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu...), which, given Hitler's general attitude of orienting the entire country towards being "strong," makes a great deal of sense. He wouldn't be training teenagers to serve as guerilla fighters while disarming the populace.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:29:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Citra, your link is quite funny.

"The licensing regulations
foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were
enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as
Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise
to power.3 ""

Well, we saw how well that worked out.

The way out of the cultural dilemma is not
through victory, or cultural dominance or imperialism, but instead
through mediation and reconciliation:
Like the moderation and reconciliation of the Weimar Republic, amirite?

Heh, this is fun.

The lesson of history, if we take the facts as the link presents them, is-- Governments that ban guns lose. Governments that selectively ban guns while encouraging, the arming of their own constituents, and arming themselves illegally before they take power, win, at great price to those who don't arm themselves.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:34:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, by said link's arguments, most gun control advocates today are pro-gun-- they want to arm a subsector of the populace called the police. The Nazis wanted to arm a racial militia. It's called "Gun control" for a reason. The question is not "arm people or don't" but "arm who, how thoroughly and how selectively?" The "Anti gun" position is in favor of additional selectivity, and perhaps reduced arms capabilities.

The "Pro gun" side is against the government picking particular subgroups as eligible arms-bearers.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:29:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 12:29:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Citra, your link is quite funny.

"The licensing regulations
foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were
enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as
Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise
to power.3 ""

Well, we saw how well that worked out.

Actually it worked out pretty well--Hitler first gained power through legal means rather than by overthrowing the government... and he was so popular that any armed resistance would actually be doing him a favor, since it could easily be put down.

A fair number of Germans helped Jews survive the Holocaust. Frustrating as it may be, attempting armed insurrection would probably have lowered the number of Jews who survived. The Nazis used a similar tactic before--it resulted in the Night of Broken Glass.

Oh, and the Nazis did attempt an armed takeover. It failed: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way out of the cultural dilemma is not
through victory, or cultural dominance or imperialism, but instead
through mediation and reconciliation:
Like the moderation and reconciliation of the Weimar Republic, amirite?

Well... actually, the Weimer Republic kind of was moderate and re conciliatory. It did manage to eliminate much of the most harmful terms in the Treaty of Versailles, it was a democracy rather than an imperial government, and it enacted the Dawes Plan. The main problem was the crash in 1929. General consensus is that Nazi Germany wouldn't have existed without the hyperinflation and various economic woes.

The lesson of history, if we take the facts as the link presents them, is-- Governments that ban guns lose. Governments that selectively ban guns while encouraging, the arming of their own constituents, and arming themselves illegally before they take power, win, at great price to those who don't arm themselves.

Even if the link did support your argument, a wider analysis indicates that there is no correlation between an armed populace and political freedoms: http://www.theatlantic.com...

At 4/4/2014 12:34:45 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, by said link's arguments, most gun control advocates today are pro-gun-- they want to arm a subsector of the populace called the police.

Who face severe limits on the use of the guns, and are given the guns for one reason only, and that is to protect the public. Granted, in practice that ideal doesn't work out perfectly, since police brutality does exist, but most gun control advocates favor measures to fight police brutality, and see it as a terrible crime.

Your analogy is flawed--you're trying to compare denying guns to a subgroup of people as part of a general policy of systematized oppression and racism to favoring severe limits on gun ownership for anyone who is not given the gun for the specific purpose of protecting other people.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:05:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:29:43 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2014 12:29:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Citra, your link is quite funny.

"The licensing regulations
foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were
enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as
Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise
to power.3 ""

Well, we saw how well that worked out.

Actually it worked out pretty well--Hitler first gained power through legal means rather than by overthrowing the government... and he was so popular that any armed resistance would actually be doing him a favor, since it could easily be put down.
Citra, it is impossible to frame any gun policy intended to shape the political landscape of pre-Nazi Germany as having "gone well." We know the conclusion from history already, the question is only what happened beforehand.


A fair number of Germans helped Jews survive the Holocaust. Frustrating as it may be, attempting armed insurrection would probably have lowered the number of Jews who survived.
I'm pretty sure there WAS armed resistance to the Nazis-- outside Germany.

Well... actually, the Weimer Republic kind of was moderate and re conciliatory. I
Which was kind of my point. As in, we saw how that ended already.

The lesson of history, if we take the facts as the link presents them, is-- Governments that ban guns lose. Governments that selectively ban guns while encouraging, the arming of their own constituents, and arming themselves illegally before they take power, win, at great price to those who don't arm themselves.

Even if the link did support your argument, a wider analysis indicates that there is no correlation between an armed populace and political freedoms
I didn't say anything about "political freedom." I was speaking of who won and who lost. Neither the Nazis nor the Weimar were fans or enactors of political freedom; therefore that can't be what was tested in that instance.

At 4/4/2014 12:34:45 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, by said link's arguments, most gun control advocates today are pro-gun-- they want to arm a subsector of the populace called the police.

Who face severe limits on the use of the guns
I lol'd. It's practically impossible in our present legal climate to enforce anything against the police.

and are given the guns for one reason only, and that is to protect the public.
I lol'd again. Police probably draw their guns more often to point them at a harmless drug user than anyone else.

Granted, in practice that ideal doesn't work out perfectly, since police brutality does exist, but most gun control advocates favor measures to fight police brutality
We already saw how well that one worked out. (It didn't. And in societies more to the left of ours, where guns are more controlled yet, the police are subjected to even less scrutiny-- see Japan or the UK).

and see it as a terrible crime.
I don't care how they see it when their actions worsen it.


Your analogy is flawed--you're trying to compare denying guns to a subgroup of people as part of a general policy of systematized oppression and racism to favoring severe limits on gun ownership for anyone who is not given the gun for the specific purpose of protecting other people.
You realize that militias are there "to protect people." Including racist militias like the SS. The difference is what the set of people protected is. A member of the ATF is no more going to protect what his leftist masters regard as a "redneck" than the SS would a non-Aryan.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If someone's really concerned about limiting police abuses as in actual limits, as in dealing with it as a crime, then they support an armed populace and the right to defend oneself against law enforcement who break into your home without a warrant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 4:45:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 2:05:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Citra, it is impossible to frame any gun policy intended to shape the political landscape of pre-Nazi Germany as having "gone well." We know the conclusion from history already, the question is only what happened beforehand.

It prevented an armed rebellion of the Nazis. In otherwords, it accomplished its purpose--the purpose was not to prevent the Nazis from seizing power through politicking (what happened) but to prevent someone from overthrowing the government in violent revolution (this did not happen).

I'm pretty sure there WAS armed resistance to the Nazis-- outside Germany.

Yes. A good example is the Warsaw Massacre... which didn't end very well.

Who face severe limits on the use of the guns
I lol'd. It's practically impossible in our present legal climate to enforce anything against the police.

Yes. This is due to social problems, though, and you'll notice that progressive groups are trying to fight it.

and are given the guns for one reason only, and that is to protect the public.
I lol'd again. Police probably draw their guns more often to point them at a harmless drug user than anyone else.

See above.

Granted, in practice that ideal doesn't work out perfectly, since police brutality does exist, but most gun control advocates favor measures to fight police brutality
We already saw how well that one worked out. (It didn't. And in societies more to the left of ours, where guns are more controlled yet, the police are subjected to even less scrutiny-- see Japan or the UK).

Prove a trend, and causation.

You realize that militias are there "to protect people." Including racist militias like the SS. The difference is what the set of people protected is. A member of the ATF is no more going to protect what his leftist masters regard as a "redneck" than the SS would a non-Aryan.

They most certainly are.

At 4/4/2014 2:08:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If someone's really concerned about limiting police abuses as in actual limits, as in dealing with it as a crime, then they support an armed populace and the right to defend oneself against law enforcement who break into your home without a warrant.

Show that this is actually effective at stopping police brutality (if they break into your home without a warrant, there's going to be more than one, they're going to be pointing guns at you, they very possibly will be wearing body armor, and if you try to fight back they will kill you), as opposed to measures like filming the police. Those are scientifically proven to work (http://www.theguardian.com...).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 5:25:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 4:45:14 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
It prevented an armed rebellion of the Nazis. In otherwords, it accomplished its purpose--the purpose was not to prevent the Nazis from seizing power through politicking (what happened) but to prevent someone from overthrowing the government in violent revolution (this did not happen).

You know what else happened? Politicking was bad enough with unarmed targets.

I'm pretty sure there WAS armed resistance to the Nazis-- outside Germany.

Yes. A good example is the Warsaw Massacre... which didn't end very well.
Resistance indeed does not tend to fare well against a superior invader with a united country, securely ruled, behind them. Especially when only tiny numbers step up to the plate.

But even then it has some value. For example, resistance in Norway was responsible for knocking out the Nazis' deuterium supplies.

Yes. This is due to social problems, though, and you'll notice that progressive groups are trying to fight it.
While simultaneously decrying anyone who does anything effective as a redneck nutjob in Florida.

We already saw how well that one worked out. (It didn't. And in societies more to the left of ours, where guns are more controlled yet, the police are subjected to even less scrutiny-- see Japan or the UK).

Prove a trend, and causation.
You speak as though politicking is a science. You can't prove these things, although you can prove through deduction praxeological effects, the summing of conflicting arrows must be done through the muddiest of observations. You haven't provided an arrow in conflict though.

You realize that militias are there "to protect people." Including racist militias like the SS. The difference is what the set of people protected is. A member of the ATF is no more going to protect what his leftist masters regard as a "redneck" than the SS would a non-Aryan.

They most certainly are.
I suggest you reread the part about "a member of the ATF." As in, the federal police force that exists, essentially, to ruin the day of rednecks and black people and not actually protect anyone. The ATF does not exist to catch murderers or things like that, things that, you know, protect people.

At 4/4/2014 2:08:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If someone's really concerned about limiting police abuses as in actual limits, as in dealing with it as a crime, then they support an armed populace and the right to defend oneself against law enforcement who break into your home without a warrant.

Show that this is actually effective at stopping police brutality (if they break into your home without a warrant, there's going to be more than one, they're going to be pointing guns at you, they very possibly will be wearing body armor, and if you try to fight back they will kill you).
Considering how no judge outside Florida has ever to my knowledge ruled in favor of someone who, in self-defense, killed a criminal who was issued a badge, and very few within, it's rather hard to gather data, even if political data resulted from controlled experiments (it doesn't).

as opposed to measures like filming the police. Those are scientifically proven to work (http://www.theguardian.com...).
There is no such thing as science in politics.But this is nonetheless a good idea, and should be more widespread. It can't have lasting effect, however, with a disarmed populace.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Charliecdubs
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 7:21:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well since Hitler's movement was antisemitic, religiously motivated, racially discriminatory and authoritarian to the point of being a dictator he and his NAZI movement could certainly never be called liberal. I mean we are talking about a guy who actively killed people for being homosexual and said he would hunt down the atheist movement. Obviously the last thing he wanted was a secular state with democratic autonomy. Also even though he supported abortion it was really only for those who were not racially or religiously complying with the regime, so in other worlds killing white-christian babies would be the last thing on his mind let alone the regime's, it really was only to stunt the Jewish and Gypsie population along with any blacks that may still be there. As for being socialist this is kinda yes and no. Even though that was in the parties name (Socialist German Workers Party) there wasn't much economically socialist about him nor does socialism define your left or right wing. So yes Hitler was considered then as he is now an extreme right wing individual at the head of an extreme right wing movement. The important thing here is that if you are conservative you cannot run away from the fact Hitler was too but you can't run away from the fact that Al Qaeda, Iran's government, most of Iraq's old and present government and Vladimir Putin are conservative as well. So obviously you are not as conservative as they are.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:27:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:56:51 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 4/3/2014 3:20:06 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
How was Hitler right-wing? As far as I'm concerned he was socialist, pro-big government, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion. Seriously? Do your homework people.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Maybe Hitler was so far right, he looped around and entered the circle from the left. Maybe, once you reach a certain level of A-hole, things like "left vs. right" cease to matter, and you're just an A-hole.

This post made my day.

Graham's number of cookies for you, sir.