Hitler The Progressive - (for OPP's Progressives)
Sep 19, 2019 11:17:16 #
crazylibertarian
Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
This is another in the mountains of evidence the Hitler was a progressive. He was a darling of the progressives of the early part of the twentieth century. Of course, people like PeterS, Kevyn, moldyoldy, wood guru, factnotfiction, Lone Wolf, etc. will never admit it but they can't escape the t***h and the t***h is that Hitler's eugenics (extermination) program was modeled after American progressives such as Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger and Lother Stoddard. In America it lead to the forced sterilizations that were performed well into the 1960s.
Progressives do not care about human rights because they worship themselves through their stand-in, government. PeterS, Kevyn, moldyoldy, wood guru, factnotfiction, Lone Wolf, etc. will not answer this but they might respond with an avoidance but they will not address the facts. They have more in common with the F*****ts and the N**is than conservatives do. They have to answer for Hitler. We don't.
www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/09/hitler-the-progressive
HITLER THE PROGRESSIVE
Has the mass murder of Europe’s Jews eclipsed the other significant horrors of Hitler’s Germany? Does it matter? And is it possible to address this without being accused by the thought police of belittling the Holocaust? Let me try.
These questions are raised in the greatest film released in the past year, Never Look Away. Made by the aristocrat Florian von Donnersmarck, the director who created the masterpiece The Lives of Others, it has yet to attract the cult following rightly achieved by his first major work. I think it ought to. It is beautiful, immensely powerful, and packed with thoughts about goodness, the temptations of power and evil, and the nature of art. The film’s depictions of the morally complicated yet triumphant birth of a baby amid misery and ruin, and of the cynical use of a******n in a father’s evil attempt to end his daughter’s love affair, are firmly on the side of humanity, and should be treasured in their own right.
At the heart of the story is a Dickensian mystery of unrevealed guilt, quite unbelievable but based upon a true story. The original evil act destroys a beautiful young woman, suffering from some unknown mental illness, who is caught by Hitler’s eugenics program. Even if you think you know about this sordid corner of National Socialism, which begins with steely pseudo-rationalism and ends in rank murder, the relatively gentle portrayal of this crime and the others happening alongside it will greatly shock and distress you. But it, and other elements of this film, ought also to waken the consciences of many on the self-described progressive left.
For these progressives, the N**i era has been both a sort of moral scripture and a source of certainties. With increasing force since the 1970s, the left has managed to associate the Hitler period with the political and moral right. Here, they insist, is every aspect of conservatism in full power. Behold, they say, the evils which follow from conservative thought, from love of country and martial strength. See here how the ideas behind immigration controls or sexual conservatism also lead inescapably to the Yellow Star and the Pink Triangle, the death camp, the gas chamber, and the crematorium.
Above all, when it studies the mass murder of Europe’s Jews it can assert with relief that nothing of this kind stains our hygienic and enlightened society, which put an end to everything of this sort nearly eighty years ago. Indeed, we all can assert this—which is interesting given that many conservative European societies, wh**ever their faults, never engaged in racial mass murder and in many cases bravely resisted and frustrated it when it was imposed on them by occupying invaders.
This fact complicates the simple logic which has permitted so many liberals, for so long, to cry “F*****t!” at conservatives, and so silence and marginalize them. It might cause the more intelligent progressives to consider, with a little more care, what National Socialism actually was. If it was what they say it was, why was it so hostile to the Christian church, a body which modern liberals tend to see as a force for conservatism? And why did N**is and C*******ts cooperate, most spectacularly in that great ignored spasm of cynicism, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939—the most astonishing political event of the twentieth century and the least known?
We are told that Stalin did it out of bitter necessity, to buy time, and that there was no true friendship or alliance in it. The awkward t***h is that it was far warmer than that. There was a joint N**i-Soviet victory parade in Brest Litovsk. Everyone in the pictures of this event looks happy (the unhappy people had already been shot or locked up). And the Soviet NKVD secret police, the essence of C*******m, the sword and shield of the C*******t Party, then staged a prisoner exchange with Hitler’s Gestapo, likewise the very core of National Socialist fervor. If you admit these things, then you are in historical trouble, and it is trouble which the film Never Look Away helps to foment.
For some background it is worth turning to Julia Boyd’s fascinating Travellers in the Third Reich. This work is unusual in that it discusses just how similar C*******m and National Socialism were, in some respects. She quotes Denis de Rougemont, a Christian Swiss writer and cultural theorist. De Rougemont began by thinking that Hitler’s state was a regime of the right. But during a lengthy stay in Frankfurt as a visiting professor, he found himself involuntarily questioning this. “What unsettled him,” writes Boyd, “was the fact that those who stood most naturally on the right—lawyers, doctors, industrialists and so on—were the very ones who most bitterly denounced National Socialism. Far from being a bulwark against C*******m, they complained, it was itself c*******m in disguise” [my emphasis].
De Rougemont recounted: “They pointed out that only workers and peasants benefited from N**i reforms, while their own values were being systematically destroyed by devious methods. They were taxed disproportionately, their family life had been irreparably harmed, parental authority sapped, religion stripped and education eliminated.”
A lawyer’s wife complained to him, “Every evening my two children are taken over by the Party.” This experience was not all that different from what was happening at the same time to the children of Soviet parents. The N**is, being utopian fanatics more concerned with the future than the present, were prepared to pay quite a high price for taking over the minds of the young. As Thomas Mann’s daughter Erika pointed out in her excoriating book on the subject, School for Barbarians, the quality of education was gravely damaged under the Hitler regime, which (as left-wing regimes also often do) promoted or protected bad but politically acceptable teachers, and polluted the teaching of all arts and historical subjects. It believed it was more urgent to teach the young what to think than to show them how to think.
Hitler himself taunted his opponents for their powerlessness against him. They might rage at him as much as they liked, but “When an opponent declares ‘I will not come over to your side’ I say calmly ‘Your child belongs to us already . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.’” He was so nearly right.
As for the defeated left, a startling number of them came over to the new camp almost immediately. De Rougemont spoke to a renegade C*******t who had switched sides and joined the Hitlerites, who said,
Now that [Hitler] has won, he has only to implement his programme. It was almost the same as ours. But he has been more cunning, he reassured the bourgeois by not immediately [my emphasis] attacking religion . . . I will tell you one thing: if they abandon him, all these fat pigs who are around him . . . I will go and fight for him! He at least is a sincere man; he is the only one.
National Socialism was egalitarian and horribly modern. It sided with children against parents and (often) teachers. It built super-highways, gigantic holiday camps, space rockets, and jet engines. It planned to create mass car ownership—though tanks, in the end, came first. In military matters it was open to the newest ideas and encouraged innovation and initiative. It poured resources into the movie industry, developed television, and sponsored a type of Godless modern architecture which can still be seen in the Berlin Olympic Stadium and the remnants of the Nuremberg parade grounds. Its leaders embraced sexual freedom.
And then there were Hitler’s eugenics schemes, portrayed so heartbreakingly in Never Look Away. These were conducted in public at the beginning, and even endorsed by noisy propaganda campaigns in the media. And they were far from unique: N**i Germany, in this case, was following the democracies. Hitler’s eugenics squads began in ways that the rest of the world (at the time) could not easily object to. Compulsory sterilization of the supposedly mentally unfit was introduced in Germany a few months after National Socialism came to power. But several free and enlightened countries—including Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.S.—had also permitted it in various forms, and would in some cases carry on doing so into our own era.
It was a progressive cause, embraced at the time by the progressives’ progressive, H. G. Wells. Marie Stopes, the great apostle of contraception in interwar Britain, was also—like many among the progressives of the time—a keen eugenicist. In 1935, she attended a Congress for Population Science in N**i Berlin. In August 1939, she even sent Hitler a volume of her dreadful poems, accompanied by a treacly epistle about love. Yet all this has been forgotten amid continuing progressive admiration for Marie Stopes’s embrace of what are nowadays known as “reproductive rights.” Marie Stopes International, a powerful and flourishing modern organization, still bears her name as it campaigns for and defends those “reproductive rights.”
Am I saying (someone will accuse me of this) that modern a******n and contraception campaigners are N**is, or inheritors of N**is? Certainly not. I regard any such claim as ridiculous rubbish—as ridiculous as the claim that modern patriotic conservatives, skeptical about mass immigration, are N**is or inheritors of N**is.
My point is wholly different. It is that all ideas must be argued on their merits, and that all attempts to establish guilt by association should be regarded with suspicion. And that those who wish to use the Hitler era as a way of depriving others of legitimacy should understand that this period, precisely because it cast aside the restraints of Christian morality and duty, liberated many ideas from ancient, sometimes despised limits which turned out, in the end, to be wise and kind.
Peter Hitchens is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday.
Become a fan of FIRST THINGS on Facebook, subscribe to FIRST THINGS via RSS, and follow FIRST THINGS on Twitter.
Progressives do not care about human rights because they worship themselves through their stand-in, government. PeterS, Kevyn, moldyoldy, wood guru, factnotfiction, Lone Wolf, etc. will not answer this but they might respond with an avoidance but they will not address the facts. They have more in common with the F*****ts and the N**is than conservatives do. They have to answer for Hitler. We don't.
www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/09/hitler-the-progressive
HITLER THE PROGRESSIVE
Has the mass murder of Europe’s Jews eclipsed the other significant horrors of Hitler’s Germany? Does it matter? And is it possible to address this without being accused by the thought police of belittling the Holocaust? Let me try.
These questions are raised in the greatest film released in the past year, Never Look Away. Made by the aristocrat Florian von Donnersmarck, the director who created the masterpiece The Lives of Others, it has yet to attract the cult following rightly achieved by his first major work. I think it ought to. It is beautiful, immensely powerful, and packed with thoughts about goodness, the temptations of power and evil, and the nature of art. The film’s depictions of the morally complicated yet triumphant birth of a baby amid misery and ruin, and of the cynical use of a******n in a father’s evil attempt to end his daughter’s love affair, are firmly on the side of humanity, and should be treasured in their own right.
At the heart of the story is a Dickensian mystery of unrevealed guilt, quite unbelievable but based upon a true story. The original evil act destroys a beautiful young woman, suffering from some unknown mental illness, who is caught by Hitler’s eugenics program. Even if you think you know about this sordid corner of National Socialism, which begins with steely pseudo-rationalism and ends in rank murder, the relatively gentle portrayal of this crime and the others happening alongside it will greatly shock and distress you. But it, and other elements of this film, ought also to waken the consciences of many on the self-described progressive left.
For these progressives, the N**i era has been both a sort of moral scripture and a source of certainties. With increasing force since the 1970s, the left has managed to associate the Hitler period with the political and moral right. Here, they insist, is every aspect of conservatism in full power. Behold, they say, the evils which follow from conservative thought, from love of country and martial strength. See here how the ideas behind immigration controls or sexual conservatism also lead inescapably to the Yellow Star and the Pink Triangle, the death camp, the gas chamber, and the crematorium.
Above all, when it studies the mass murder of Europe’s Jews it can assert with relief that nothing of this kind stains our hygienic and enlightened society, which put an end to everything of this sort nearly eighty years ago. Indeed, we all can assert this—which is interesting given that many conservative European societies, wh**ever their faults, never engaged in racial mass murder and in many cases bravely resisted and frustrated it when it was imposed on them by occupying invaders.
This fact complicates the simple logic which has permitted so many liberals, for so long, to cry “F*****t!” at conservatives, and so silence and marginalize them. It might cause the more intelligent progressives to consider, with a little more care, what National Socialism actually was. If it was what they say it was, why was it so hostile to the Christian church, a body which modern liberals tend to see as a force for conservatism? And why did N**is and C*******ts cooperate, most spectacularly in that great ignored spasm of cynicism, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939—the most astonishing political event of the twentieth century and the least known?
We are told that Stalin did it out of bitter necessity, to buy time, and that there was no true friendship or alliance in it. The awkward t***h is that it was far warmer than that. There was a joint N**i-Soviet victory parade in Brest Litovsk. Everyone in the pictures of this event looks happy (the unhappy people had already been shot or locked up). And the Soviet NKVD secret police, the essence of C*******m, the sword and shield of the C*******t Party, then staged a prisoner exchange with Hitler’s Gestapo, likewise the very core of National Socialist fervor. If you admit these things, then you are in historical trouble, and it is trouble which the film Never Look Away helps to foment.
For some background it is worth turning to Julia Boyd’s fascinating Travellers in the Third Reich. This work is unusual in that it discusses just how similar C*******m and National Socialism were, in some respects. She quotes Denis de Rougemont, a Christian Swiss writer and cultural theorist. De Rougemont began by thinking that Hitler’s state was a regime of the right. But during a lengthy stay in Frankfurt as a visiting professor, he found himself involuntarily questioning this. “What unsettled him,” writes Boyd, “was the fact that those who stood most naturally on the right—lawyers, doctors, industrialists and so on—were the very ones who most bitterly denounced National Socialism. Far from being a bulwark against C*******m, they complained, it was itself c*******m in disguise” [my emphasis].
De Rougemont recounted: “They pointed out that only workers and peasants benefited from N**i reforms, while their own values were being systematically destroyed by devious methods. They were taxed disproportionately, their family life had been irreparably harmed, parental authority sapped, religion stripped and education eliminated.”
A lawyer’s wife complained to him, “Every evening my two children are taken over by the Party.” This experience was not all that different from what was happening at the same time to the children of Soviet parents. The N**is, being utopian fanatics more concerned with the future than the present, were prepared to pay quite a high price for taking over the minds of the young. As Thomas Mann’s daughter Erika pointed out in her excoriating book on the subject, School for Barbarians, the quality of education was gravely damaged under the Hitler regime, which (as left-wing regimes also often do) promoted or protected bad but politically acceptable teachers, and polluted the teaching of all arts and historical subjects. It believed it was more urgent to teach the young what to think than to show them how to think.
Hitler himself taunted his opponents for their powerlessness against him. They might rage at him as much as they liked, but “When an opponent declares ‘I will not come over to your side’ I say calmly ‘Your child belongs to us already . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.’” He was so nearly right.
As for the defeated left, a startling number of them came over to the new camp almost immediately. De Rougemont spoke to a renegade C*******t who had switched sides and joined the Hitlerites, who said,
Now that [Hitler] has won, he has only to implement his programme. It was almost the same as ours. But he has been more cunning, he reassured the bourgeois by not immediately [my emphasis] attacking religion . . . I will tell you one thing: if they abandon him, all these fat pigs who are around him . . . I will go and fight for him! He at least is a sincere man; he is the only one.
National Socialism was egalitarian and horribly modern. It sided with children against parents and (often) teachers. It built super-highways, gigantic holiday camps, space rockets, and jet engines. It planned to create mass car ownership—though tanks, in the end, came first. In military matters it was open to the newest ideas and encouraged innovation and initiative. It poured resources into the movie industry, developed television, and sponsored a type of Godless modern architecture which can still be seen in the Berlin Olympic Stadium and the remnants of the Nuremberg parade grounds. Its leaders embraced sexual freedom.
And then there were Hitler’s eugenics schemes, portrayed so heartbreakingly in Never Look Away. These were conducted in public at the beginning, and even endorsed by noisy propaganda campaigns in the media. And they were far from unique: N**i Germany, in this case, was following the democracies. Hitler’s eugenics squads began in ways that the rest of the world (at the time) could not easily object to. Compulsory sterilization of the supposedly mentally unfit was introduced in Germany a few months after National Socialism came to power. But several free and enlightened countries—including Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.S.—had also permitted it in various forms, and would in some cases carry on doing so into our own era.
It was a progressive cause, embraced at the time by the progressives’ progressive, H. G. Wells. Marie Stopes, the great apostle of contraception in interwar Britain, was also—like many among the progressives of the time—a keen eugenicist. In 1935, she attended a Congress for Population Science in N**i Berlin. In August 1939, she even sent Hitler a volume of her dreadful poems, accompanied by a treacly epistle about love. Yet all this has been forgotten amid continuing progressive admiration for Marie Stopes’s embrace of what are nowadays known as “reproductive rights.” Marie Stopes International, a powerful and flourishing modern organization, still bears her name as it campaigns for and defends those “reproductive rights.”
Am I saying (someone will accuse me of this) that modern a******n and contraception campaigners are N**is, or inheritors of N**is? Certainly not. I regard any such claim as ridiculous rubbish—as ridiculous as the claim that modern patriotic conservatives, skeptical about mass immigration, are N**is or inheritors of N**is.
My point is wholly different. It is that all ideas must be argued on their merits, and that all attempts to establish guilt by association should be regarded with suspicion. And that those who wish to use the Hitler era as a way of depriving others of legitimacy should understand that this period, precisely because it cast aside the restraints of Christian morality and duty, liberated many ideas from ancient, sometimes despised limits which turned out, in the end, to be wise and kind.
Peter Hitchens is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday.
Become a fan of FIRST THINGS on Facebook, subscribe to FIRST THINGS via RSS, and follow FIRST THINGS on Twitter.
Sep 19, 2019 11:36:22 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Two opinions taken from the internet under pseudonyms, and speaking to this topic....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Glenn Beck has/had a similar argument that Hitler was a progressive liberal. All this debate is about is assuming by equating Hitler with Liberalism would mean all liberals are Hitlers. So the premise is false in the first place.
First of all, Hitler was a N**i. The N**i party had nothing to do with the contemporary political dynamic of today between liberalism and conservatism.
I would not equate Hitler as a liberal OR a conservative in these terms. There are a many people that are not fans of George W. Bush or Barack Obama but neither deserve to be compared to someone who would be capable and willing to murder 6 million Jews, Gays, and political prisoners.
Unfortunately, people like to pick and choose facts or pseudo facts to support their political arguments. I am a libertarian, right smack dab down the middle, so I won't be rooting for or arguing against either side.
Having said that, after reading massive volumes about the Weimar Republic, Germany during WWI, WWII, & all the way back to the emperor, Hitler's history of staunch conservatism is pretty clear.
Hitler exemplified extreme far right policies over anything else. In fact, the only way he was elected chancellor and appealed to the public (which he lost the first time he ran because he ran as a conservative) was PRETENDING to be a liberal socialist. Once in power, his policies very quickly shifted to extreme right wing conservatism and f*****m. And this is not to say that conservatism has anything to do with f*****m, but the history has been clearly stated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Words and labels are tricky. I think people confuse American conservatism and liberalism with German conservatism and liberalism in the times of the Weimar Republic (welfare state). The Weimar Republic was mainly supported by the Social Democrats (liberal-left). Hitler was a German Nationalist (conservative-right). In the end, he crushed both. If you want to read more on this issue, read “The Coming of the Third Reich” by the historian Richard Evans."
Excerpt QUOTE: “Yet the depth of hatred and resentment which N**i stormtroopers felt against the Social Democrats (liberal) as well as the C*******t can only be understood in terms of their feeling that they were under constant attack not just from Social Democrats’ paramilitary affiliate, the Reichsbanner, but also in many areas from the police, who in Prussia at least were controlled by Social Democrats ministers such as Carl Severing and Albert Grzesinki."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Glenn Beck has/had a similar argument that Hitler was a progressive liberal. All this debate is about is assuming by equating Hitler with Liberalism would mean all liberals are Hitlers. So the premise is false in the first place.
First of all, Hitler was a N**i. The N**i party had nothing to do with the contemporary political dynamic of today between liberalism and conservatism.
I would not equate Hitler as a liberal OR a conservative in these terms. There are a many people that are not fans of George W. Bush or Barack Obama but neither deserve to be compared to someone who would be capable and willing to murder 6 million Jews, Gays, and political prisoners.
Unfortunately, people like to pick and choose facts or pseudo facts to support their political arguments. I am a libertarian, right smack dab down the middle, so I won't be rooting for or arguing against either side.
Having said that, after reading massive volumes about the Weimar Republic, Germany during WWI, WWII, & all the way back to the emperor, Hitler's history of staunch conservatism is pretty clear.
Hitler exemplified extreme far right policies over anything else. In fact, the only way he was elected chancellor and appealed to the public (which he lost the first time he ran because he ran as a conservative) was PRETENDING to be a liberal socialist. Once in power, his policies very quickly shifted to extreme right wing conservatism and f*****m. And this is not to say that conservatism has anything to do with f*****m, but the history has been clearly stated."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Words and labels are tricky. I think people confuse American conservatism and liberalism with German conservatism and liberalism in the times of the Weimar Republic (welfare state). The Weimar Republic was mainly supported by the Social Democrats (liberal-left). Hitler was a German Nationalist (conservative-right). In the end, he crushed both. If you want to read more on this issue, read “The Coming of the Third Reich” by the historian Richard Evans."
Excerpt QUOTE: “Yet the depth of hatred and resentment which N**i stormtroopers felt against the Social Democrats (liberal) as well as the C*******t can only be understood in terms of their feeling that they were under constant attack not just from Social Democrats’ paramilitary affiliate, the Reichsbanner, but also in many areas from the police, who in Prussia at least were controlled by Social Democrats ministers such as Carl Severing and Albert Grzesinki."
Sep 19, 2019 11:37:45 #
crazylibertarian wrote:
This is another in the mountains of evidence the H... (show quote)
Good good luck with that but I'm sad to say that Trump and the new Trump party are F*****t r****t and quite similar to N**is
Sep 19, 2019 11:42:21 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
Lonewolf wrote:
Good good luck with that but I'm sad to say that Trump and the new Trump party are F*****t r****t and quite similar to N**is
No, its DumboRat Party that you belong to are f*****ts,r****ts and belong to N**i Party
Sep 19, 2019 11:44:48 #
peter11937
Loc: NYS
proud republican wrote:
No, its DumboRat Party that you belong to are f*****ts,r****ts and belong to N**i Party
Exactly so.
Sep 19, 2019 12:00:54 #
Lonewolf wrote:
Good good luck with that but I'm sad to say that Trump and the new Trump party are F*****t r****t and quite similar to N**is
As soon as I read Slatten, I knew this ignorance was coming. Trump is not a f*****t nor is he the rebirth of Hitler. Get off this kick.
Sep 19, 2019 12:10:30 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Carol Kelly wrote:
As soon as I read Slatten, I knew this ignorance was coming. Trump is not a f*****t nor is he the rebirth of Hitler. Get off this kick.
Carol, I'm not sure why you equated my post of quoted opinions to LoneWolf's comments. IMO, the quotes I posted were reasonably ambivalent, and spoke to the thread topic.
Personally, I appreciate Crazy Libertarian's approach to posting, not only for his civility but for his informed opinions. Because I do...as best I can...I try to reciprocate. 
Sep 19, 2019 12:23:08 #
slatten49 wrote:
Carol, I'm not sure why you equated my post of quo... (show quote)
Your piece was well done. I simply knew when I read it that the slurs would be forthwith. I’m sickened by the name calling, especially equating to Trump and Hitler.
I apologize if you were offended.
Sep 19, 2019 12:31:24 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Carol Kelly wrote:
Your piece was well done. I simply knew when I read it that the slurs would be forthwith. I’m sickened by the name calling, especially equating to Trump and Hitler.
I apologize if you were offended.
I apologize if you were offended.
Thank you, Carol, but I wasn't offended so much as confused.
I'm with you insofar as name-calling is concerned. I work at being fair and non-confrontational...though, at times, it becomes difficult.
Sep 19, 2019 12:32:53 #
crazylibertarian
Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
slatten49 wrote:
Two opinions taken from the internet under pseudon... (show quote)
I consider myself a libertarian also Slatten. While I not as well read as you in the history of Germany, nevertheless, I was stopped flat by Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom. One chapter documented how when students graduated from German universities in the 1920s, they didn't know if they were national socialists or c*******ts.
Mussolini had been a socialist. Hitler made many socialistic and c*******tic statements. One of the top N**is, I think it was Goebbels, had been a c*******t.
An inevitable conclusion of one or even three of the planks and Marx's agenda smacks of a partnership of government with business, f*****m. Mussolini bought off the Italian industrialists as did Hitler. Opposition to Hitler was from within the conservatives.
On this whole matter we differ sa bit but as usual, your posting lacks the name calling that characterizes the progressives of OPP.
Take care.
Sep 19, 2019 12:33:54 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
slatten49 wrote:
Thank you, Carol, but I wasn't offended so much as confused.
I'm with you insofar as name-calling is concerned. I work at being fair and non-confrontational...though, at times, it becomes difficult.
I'm with you insofar as name-calling is concerned. I work at being fair and non-confrontational...though, at times, it becomes difficult.
You are fair,Slate...Though we disagree sometimes, i like reading your posts!!!
Sep 19, 2019 12:36:02 #
crazylibertarian
Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
Lonewolf wrote:
Good good luck with that but I'm sad to say that Trump and the new Trump party are F*****t r****t and quite similar to N**is
Sic.
Sep 19, 2019 12:37:10 #
crazylibertarian
Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
proud republican wrote:
You are fair,Slate...Though we disagree sometimes, i like reading your posts!!!
I hope Slatten, CarolKelly and proud republican read Lone Wolf's response. He has to go to the gutter.
Sep 20, 2019 05:50:03 #
crazylibertarian wrote:
This is another in the mountains of evidence the H... (show quote)
One of his ideas was c*****e c****e.
He got the kids to turn against their parents and believe his drivel.
I learned that one from a Holocaust survivor.
He got rid of religion.
Sep 20, 2019 05:51:04 #
proud republican wrote:
No, its DumboRat Party that you belong to are f*****ts,r****ts and belong to N**i Party
Yes it is.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.