quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

quote:

what I knew came from scholarly works

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

only idiots fall right into the fake socialism traps of the NSDAP or the MSI and numerous other

being excluded from proper quality education is only a weak excuse

I'll take your word for it since I don't know who those groups are. I base my opinion on scholarly writing. But, blondie, go ahead and keep making inane points.

"Scholarly writing" of the kind you disqualify yourself by not even familiar with proper terms, or any explanations what the NSDAP was or how the name was developed... or, next, the Movimento Sociale Italiano ... both of which you are know absolutely nothing about ... because your "scholars" most likely don't know either. (Maybe you tell us about your favourite "scholars" ...?)

Contrary to you I live in an environment, where sources and relics about those times and topics still exist. I deal with some of those things on a daily basis. Und ich kann solche Dinge auch noch lesen, und kenne den Kontext.


Ich habe selten größeren Unsinn gelesen als deinen Mist.

I understand English is not your first language. But, blondie, again you fail to understand a very simple statement.

quote:

According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite conservatism and capitalism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes on the right (classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are classified as centrists or moderates. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is known as syncretic politics.

Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between sociocultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community).

For almost a century, social scientists have considered the problem of how best to describe political variation...

Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics an philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies;

quote:

Nazism is a politically syncretic variety of fascism, which incorporates policies, tactics and philosophic tenets from left and right-wing politics. Italian fascism and German Nazism reject liberalism [I don't think this should be understood in the least to denote today's left], democracy and Marxism.[5] Usually supported by the far right, fascism is historically anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-conservative and anti-parliamentary.[6]

Socialism
Nazis used the term "national socialism" to refer to a type of socialism that did not support internationalism, but instead nationalism and even xenophobia[8]. Thus, national socialism (unlike socialism itself, which promotes international equality), includes racism, nationalist territorial expansion (Lebensraum) and state control of the (war) economy[9].

quote:

Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[13][14] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany...

Hitler, when asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[16]...

Arthur Moeller van den Bruck was initially the dominant figure of the Conservative Revolutionaries [who] influenced Nazism.[89] He rejected reactionary conservatism, while proposing a new state, that he coined the "Third Reich", which would unite all classes under authoritarian rule.[90] Van den Bruck advocated a combination of the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.[91]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
Nazism defies a simple left/right moniker.

quote:

The only way to understand what is happening to America in our time — and for that matter, in Europe since World War II — is to understand the left.

And one way to understand the left — and its enormous appeal to many decent people — is to understand what it learned from World War II and the Nazi experience. The lessons people draw from history go a long way toward explaining how they view the world and how they behave.

Unfortunately, virtually everything the left learned from the unique evil known as Nazism has been wrong.

The first lesson was that the right is evil, not merely wrong. Because Nazism has been successfully labelled “right-wing,” virtually every right-wing position and leader has been either cynically or sincerely characterized by the left as a danger to civilization. That is why the right is so often labelled fascist and compared to Nazis. Vast numbers of people in the West truly believe that if the right prevails, fascism will follow.

Of course, Nazism was not right-wing — certainly not in American terms. How could it be? Right-wing means less government, not more. Nor was it left-wing, even though “Nazism” was an abbreviation for National Socialism.

Nazism was sui generis. It was radical racism combined with totalitarianism; and racism as a doctrine is neither right nor left.

We have no contemporary movement of any major significance that is Nazi-like. The closest thing we have is Islamist hatred of non-Muslims — but even that is mostly religion- rather than race-based.

The association of Nazism with right-wing is one reason many Jews loathe the right. In the Jewish psyche, to fight the right is to fight incipient Nazism.

The second lesson the left learned is directly related to the first. If the right is so evil that, if allowed to prevail, Nazism will follow, then surely the left must be beautiful and noble. And that, of course, is how the left sees itself — as inherently beautiful and noble. After all, how can the opposite of Nazism be anything but noble?

The third erroneous lesson is a deep fear and loathing of nationalism. Since the Nazis committed their crimes in the name of nationalism (race-based nationalism, to be precise), nationalism must be curbed. That explains much of the left’s contempt for Americans who wave the flag — indeed, the left has rendered the term “flag-wavers” a pejorative term.

How else to explain the fact that on American national holidays one finds so many more flags displayed in conservative areas than in liberal ones? The trauma of World War I had already killed nationalism in much of Europe. And World War II did that for the left in America.

The left regards any assertion of American national identity — not merely flag-waving — as chauvinism bordering on fascism. When the left charges Americans who fear the dilution of American national identity that could follow citizenship for tens of millions of illegal immigrants with “xenophobia,” and “racism,” it is not only a cynical attempt to cultivate Latino votes for the Democratic Party. It is also a sincere belief that conservative concerns about American national identity are reminiscent of chauvinist bigotry.

The most obvious example of left-wing opposition to American nationalism is its cultivation of “multiculturalism” as a replacement for American national identity. For the left, American citizens are no longer Americans first and foremost; we are African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic- or Latino-Americans, Native-Americans, etc. The left celebrates what precedes the hyphen far more than the “American” that follows it. As a result, America no longer instills traditional American values and an American identity on either those born here or in its immigrants, which is the reason for the right’s concern over illegal immigration, not bigotry and xenophobia.

A fourth lesson the left learned from Nazism has been that no judging of cultures is permissible. Because the Nazis deemed Jews and others as inferior, we are no longer allowed to judge other cultures. In the post-World War II world of the left, all cultures are equal. To say that the contemporary Islamic world, or that black inner city culture, has serious moral problems that these cultures need to address is to be labelled dangerously racist — again reminiscent, for the left, of the Nazis who declared other groups (inherently) defective. For the left, the only cultures one may judge adversely are white American and religious Jewish and Christian.

Fifth and finally, the left has affirmed pacifism as an ideal. One would think that the most obvious moral and rational lesson to be learned from the Nazi experience is the need to fight evil. After all, if decent nations were not as militarily strong as they were, and were not as prepared as they were to use that might, the Nazis would not have been defeated, and many millions more “non-Aryans” would have been enslaved and murdered. But the left, including, sad to say, Germany, did not draw that lesson. Instead of learning to fight evil, the left has learned that fighting is evil — and it has taught this to two generations of Americans.

To amend Santayana’s famous dictum, it is those who learn the wrong lessons from history who are condemned to repeat it.

quote:

Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism is a conservative’s wet dream. No, it’s better than that. The moment you read it — presuming you’re right-wing, that is — you will experience not only a rush of ecstasy, but also a surge of revolutionary fervour and evangelical zeal. You’ll want to email all your friends and tell them the wonderful news: ‘I’m not an evil bastard, after all!’

What Goldberg very effectively does is to remove from the charge sheet the one possible reason any thinking person could have for not wanting to be right-wing: viz, that being on the right automatically makes you a closet fascist/Nazi scumbag. By accumulating a mass of historical evidence so extensive it borders on the wearisome, Goldberg comprehensively demonstrates that both Nazism and fascism were phenomena of the Left, not of the Right.

The book, a New York Times No. 1 bestseller has, needless to say, enraged lefties (‘liberals’ as they’re more usually known in the States) everywhere. ‘In the first week I had half a dozen emails from total strangers saying, “How dare you accuse us caring liberals of being fascists!” and then going on to say what a shame it was that my family hadn’t been sorted out once and for all a few years back in the concentration camps,’ he says.

Goldberg is a New York Jew and growing up as a conservative in Manhattan’s impeccably liberal, Jewish Upper West Side, he said he often felt like a Christian in Ancient Rome. At school and university, whenever he spoke in favour of tax cuts or a free market economy, the response was invariably the same. ‘Nazi’, he was called. Or ‘fascist’. By the time he was established as a contributing editor to National Review, he’d had quite enough of this. He spent four years researching and writing the book which would put the record straight.

What he found astonished him. Nazism and fascism, it turned out, were closer kindred spirits of Soviet communism than he could ever have imagined. The first expressed itself through ideas about racial purity and Jew-hatred, the second with ideas about the primacy of the nation, but in most other respects they were all remarkably similar: seizing the means of production; empowering the masses; rule by experts; the elevation of youth and brute emotion over wisdom, tradition and intellect; the submission of the individual to the will of the state. As Goldberg wryly puts it, ‘The Nazis were not big on property rights and tax cuts.’

You wonder why no one has made this point properly before. ‘Yeah, that’s what one of my reviewers said: “That sound you can hear is the sound of millions of conservatives slapping their foreheads and going: ‘Why didn’t I write this book?’”’ says Goldberg. ‘So much of this information was low-hanging fruit. It really wasn’t hard to find.’

He has certainly plucked some gorgeous peaches. Here, for example, is what sounds like a spokesman for the animal rights advocacy group PETA: ‘How can you find pleasure in shooting from behind cover at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood, innocent, defenceless and unsuspecting? It’s really pure murder!’ In fact this is Heinrich Himmler talking. And compare and contrast — well, compare mainly — the attitudes of our current nanny state on everything from child obesity to non-smoking to those in the Hitler Youth manual: ‘Food is not a private matter!’ ‘You have the duty to be healthy.’

Elsewhere, Goldberg points out that it was liberals — not conservatives — who were the biggest advocates of eugenics; that America’s most racist (and fascistic) president was the arch-liberal Woodrow Wilson; and that during the supposedly wondrous New Deal of the beloved liberal president FDR, an immigrant dry-cleaner could have his door kicked in and be imprisoned for cleaning suits for five cents less than the agreed government minimum, while Nuremberg-style rallies — prompting a visiting British Independent Labour MP to complain it all felt far too much like Nazi Germany — were staged in New York.

Goldberg’s purpose is not to argue that liberals are bad people, still less that they’re all closet fascists. But he does want them to realise that people in glass houses are scarcely in the ideal position to throw stones. ‘I’m not a big believer in guilt by association. But their lack of self-awareness about the demons in their own midst is really astounding.’

But then, he argues, the problem with liberals is that they’ve always been so convinced of their moral righteousness that they never feel the need to analyse their position too deeply. Conservatives are continually agonising among themselves about precisely what the role of government should be — ‘where to draw the line between freedom and virtue’. For leftists, the dogma is settled: ‘Government should do good where it can, whenever it can, period.’

Which, of course, leaves little room for those who — as proper conservatives do — believe that government more often makes things worse than better. This is what bothered Goldberg about a recent speech by Obama stating his opposition to ‘ideology, small-mindedness, prejudice and bigotry’. That word ‘ideology’ is, of course, leftist code for ‘anyone who doesn’t believe in big government’. ‘It’s a deeply offensive and undemocratic way of pre-empting any principled disagreement to his statist policies,’ says Goldberg. In other words, in the US, it’s very likely going to be a case — after Wilson, then FDR — of Liberal Fascism redux.

But hang on a second: isn’t fascism all about war when liberals are all about peace and love? Not quite, says Goldberg, though this is indeed the most common misconception about the ‘f’ word. It’s not the war part of fascism’s inherent militarism that liberals find so attractive but the way it gives the state the chance to take control and put the whole of society on a war footing. In order to effect this sweeping social mobilisation, liberals need grand and apparently urgent causes to justify the bossiness and repression that this inevitably entails. ‘Climate change’ provided them with a perfect excuse for this kind of statist bullying; the new Great Depression has given them an even better one.

These are dark times for those who think big government is the disease, not the cure. The big problem in bipartisan political systems when governments move leftwards, says Goldberg, is that right-wing oppositions move leftwards too, creating what Barry Goldwater christened ‘Me Too Republicanism’ and what Dubya (a much bigger leftie than anyone yet credits) called Compassionate Conservatism. ‘It means buying into the fundamental assumptions of the Left, but promising to do everything a bit more efficiently,’ says Goldberg. ‘Which sounds nice, but is incredibly dangerous. Once conservatives abandon their dogma about the limits of state, there is nothing to restrain the “will to power” that makes them almost as destructive in government as a left-wing regime.’

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

You have just exposed Nnanji, this self styled expert on Nazi philosophy, as not knowing the acronym for the Nazi Party or Mussolini's fascist organisation in Italy. So he is most unlikely to know that the term 'nazi' derives from a shortened form of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National-Socialist German Workers' Party; NSDAP. All of which makes it pretty clear that his knowledge of and insight into the fascists of the 30s, and in particular the German Nazis and Italian fascists is minimal at best, close-to-nonexistent at worst. So don't be too surprised that he has chosen to resort to sexist patronising in an effort to deflect attention from his lack of knowledge about the Nazis.

It ought to be incredible that someone who doesn't even know how to recognise the Nazi Party or the Italian fascists can set themselves up as an expert on their philosophy but our Nnanji is a card carrying member of the looney Right. So perhaps in this instance it's not all that surprising - what does anyone expect from the looney Right except insanity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

only idiots fall right into the fake socialism traps of the NSDAP or the MSI and numerous other

being excluded from proper quality education is only a weak excuse

I'll take your word for it since I don't know who those groups are. I base my opinion on scholarly writing. But, blondie, go ahead and keep making inane points.

"Scholarly writing" of the kind you disqualify yourself by not even familiar with proper terms, or any explanations what the NSDAP was or how the name was developed... or, next, the Movimento Sociale Italiano ... both of which you are know absolutely nothing about ... because your "scholars" most likely don't know either. (Maybe you tell us about your favourite "scholars" ...?)

Contrary to you I live in an environment, where sources and relics about those times and topics still exist. I deal with some of those things on a daily basis. Und ich kann solche Dinge auch noch lesen, und kenne den Kontext.


Ich habe selten größeren Unsinn gelesen als deinen Mist.

I understand English is not your first language. But, blondie, again you fail to understand a very simple statement.

Historical and scholarly arguments aside, these "blondie" digs surprise me. I thought you were one of the few posters on here that could have a discussion without resorting to this type of behavior (unless provoked, which invariably happens on this board but I don't see to be the case in this instance). Or maybe I just never noticed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

only idiots fall right into the fake socialism traps of the NSDAP or the MSI and numerous other

being excluded from proper quality education is only a weak excuse

I'll take your word for it since I don't know who those groups are. I base my opinion on scholarly writing. But, blondie, go ahead and keep making inane points.

"Scholarly writing" of the kind you disqualify yourself by not even familiar with proper terms, or any explanations what the NSDAP was or how the name was developed... or, next, the Movimento Sociale Italiano ... both of which you are know absolutely nothing about ... because your "scholars" most likely don't know either. (Maybe you tell us about your favourite "scholars" ...?)

Contrary to you I live in an environment, where sources and relics about those times and topics still exist. I deal with some of those things on a daily basis. Und ich kann solche Dinge auch noch lesen, und kenne den Kontext.


Ich habe selten größeren Unsinn gelesen als deinen Mist.

I understand English is not your first language. But, blondie, again you fail to understand a very simple statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism defies a simple left/right moniker.

besides which, apart from an academic exercise, the designation only matters so much as who is behaving in such a way today so as to head down that path. the comrades think the way trump and his supporters are acting today is akin to Nazism; its a joke.

in terms of violently abrogating peoples rights, again, my money's on the left. you comrades think you are immune from it just because you want to lay Nazism wholly at the right's feet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

quote:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

For instance you stated nobody writes scholarly works that states the nazis were leftists. I've posted links disproving you..

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism defies a simple left/right moniker.

besides which, apart from an academic exercise, the designation only matters so much as who is behaving in such a way today so as to head down that path. the comrades think the way trump and his supporters are acting today is akin to Nazism; its a joke.

in terms of violently abrogating peoples rights, again, my money's on the left. you comrades think you are immune from it just because you want to lay Nazism wholly at the right's feet?

Not going to argue with you that Nazism was not in many ways a complex ideology and that the left/right binary is not always the best discourse on this subject.

However Nazism is hardly the fault of the right, any more than Stalinism is the fault of the left, however you categorise each regime.

The most unhelpful thing about the whole alt left discourse is that it is used as a way of labelling and dismissing whole sections of the body politic as being extremists.

If we persist in creating left and right wing bogeymen (and women) and use them to resort to flinging labels as insults, we are simply avoiding detailed thoughtful political debate.

I think however when I look at what is posted, I can't help but feel that is exactly what some posters are trying to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

quote:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources. His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

Let's for a moment assume the author of that book, George Watson, being a "scholar".

The summary in the Independent also named Watson's primary sources and witnesses for his theories being Hermann Rauschning's "Gespräche mit Hitler" and Otto Wagener's "Hitler aus nächster Nähe." (English edition: Memoirs of a Confidant; literally Hitler from closest possible)

Rauschning claimed to have had over 100 personal talks with Hitler, which made his book an interesting source for historians - until a Swiss historian in the early 1980s researched how often Rauschning and Hitler actually met, and found four (4!) occasions, and never in personal communication. Rauschning's book has since been checked for its content and has been found a fabrication.

Wagener's book on the other hand has simply a title that is based on nothing. Wagener never has been close to Hitler, and never been a confidant. He was ambitious to become Minister of Economy and failed, has almost been killed in 1934 for his acquaintance with Röhm, and kept a very low profile until he made a military career in the war which ended being the military Governor of the Dodekanes. He considered himself a member of the inner party circle but apart from a few weeks in 1933 he was never a leading figure of any significant importance. So his claim of being close to Hitler was hardly anything more than wishful thinking.

To cut it short: The sources Watson used are unreliable, taking their claims verbatim is careless and should and could have been avoided easily doing a background check of Rauschning and Wagener using research done on them in the 1970s and 1980s so a "study" based on them is not worth the paper it was printed on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

For instance you stated nobody writes scholarly works that states the nazis were leftists. I've posted links disproving you..

You must really get off on self-delusion. Your posts are permeated with it.

The "scholarly works" that you offer as your source turns out to be a newspaper article written by an academic trained in English language, not history or political science. Academics working outside their field of specialisation are no different to any other non-specialist or lay person. This English language specialist has no expertise or status outside of that field. So much for "scholarly". Now it turns out that this amateur historian made elementary errors in compiling his work, and the main sources he relies upon for his ridiculous claims turn out to be bogus, thereby invalidating his entire work.

So rather than "disproving" my position, all that the sources you cited have done is invalidate your position.

Somehow I doubt that you will change your mind. From my observations of your posts here over time, it seems that you live in a fact-free zone, where any evidence that disproves your idiotic ideology is either denied or dismissed while your insane philosophy is continually fortified with fake news, false 'facts' and neurotic interpretations of reality.

Of course you need to do this. For as long as you continue to believe against all the evidence and the historical record that the Nazis were "leftists', you relieve yourself of the burden of addressing the fact that right wing ideologies, with their strong emphasis on jingoistic nationalism and theories of racial purity/superiority*, facilitated and enabled the horrors of fascism and the Nazis. Historically and across the Western world, the Right has held virtual monopolies on both jingoistic nationalism and theories of racial purity/superiority. It is difficult to conceive of fascism without those two pillars of extreme right wing ideology to nurture and support it.

Maintaining the delusion that the Nazis were leftists frees you from having to confront this fact. Your comfort zone would lose many of its comforts very quickly if you ever allowed yourself to face the facts. However expecting a looney right winger to address the facts of any matter is an expectation far greater than its chance of ever being realised.


* No matter how absurd such 'theories' of race purity and racial superiority are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

For instance you stated nobody writes scholarly works that states the nazis were leftists. I've posted links disproving you..

You must really get off on self-delusion. Your posts are permeated with it.

The "scholarly works" that you offer as your source turns out to be a newspaper article written by an academic trained in English language, not history or political science. Academics working outside their field of specialisation are no different to any other non-specialist or lay person. This English language specialist has no expertise or status outside of that field. So much for "scholarly". Now it turns out that this amateur historian made elementary errors in compiling his work, and the main sources he relies upon for his ridiculous claims turn out to be bogus, thereby invalidating his entire work.

So rather than "disproving" my position, all that the sources you cited have done is invalidate your position.

Somehow I doubt that you will change your mind. From my observations of your posts here over time, it seems that you live in a fact-free zone, where any evidence that disproves your idiotic ideology is either denied or dismissed while your insane philosophy is continually fortified with fake news, false 'facts' and neurotic interpretations of reality.

Of course you need to do this. For as long as you continue to believe against all the evidence and the historical record that the Nazis were "leftists', you relieve yourself of the burden of addressing the fact that right wing ideologies, with their strong emphasis on jingoistic nationalism and theories of racial purity/superiority*, facilitated and enabled the horrors of fascism and the Nazis. Historically and across the Western world, the Right has held virtual monopolies on both jingoistic nationalism and theories of racial purity/superiority. It is difficult to conceive of fascism without those two pillars of extreme right wing ideology to nurture and support it.

Maintaining the delusion that the Nazis were leftists frees you from having to confront this fact. Your comfort zone would lose many of its comforts very quickly if you ever allowed yourself to face the facts. However expecting a looney right winger to address the facts of any matter is an expectation far greater than its chance of ever being realised.


* No matter how absurd such 'theories' of race purity and racial superiority are.

Oh teak, your closed minded little projections of your small world are merely fluff. You don't think, you copy and paste that which people with better minds feed to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


... What I did claim was that with just a few minutes of open minded searching such information is available. In this case, I'm sorry I did not know this writer was a fraud when I selected him from several available sources. However, the ounces are there.