General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments" video.

National Socialism is a form of Socialism that has none of the attributes of actual Socialism.
7
So if you’re going to define leftism as anything involving strong or oppressive government without regard to the principles and goals of whatever it is you’re talking about, then “leftist” governments have been around since long before the left as we know it existed. But authoritarianism by itself doesn’t contain necessarily any of the principles of leftist economic theory such as class conflict, redistribution of wealth, or worker ownership of the means of production. If you’re going to look at an authoritarian capitalist state that promotes private ownership of the means of production and call that socialist just because the government is authoritarian and they use the word socialist without doing anything In any socialist program, then you’re just redefining the definition of the word socialist without acknowledging what you’re doing.
5
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. Adolf Hitler 1923
5
It’s not that Hitler didn’t realize how corporations are organized. It’s that you’re attempting to conflate a publicly traded Corporation with a government owned corporation. Hitler and everyone else who is not trying to change the definition of private property understood how corporations work. His point was that you need authoritarianism to make capitalism work as intended. Otherwise no one who is not already wealthy has a chance to compete according to their ability. The fact that he’s even attempting to protect free market competition should tell you that he’s not a leftist. Again this goes back to defining leftism as nothing more than any authoritarianism without any of the other attributes historically associated with leftist ideology from its inception. But if authoritarians were always leftist then the early capitalist states were actually leftist from the Italian renaissance all the way through the French Revolution.
5
Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938
5
Wulf I’m a republican small R. I don’t care for Karl Marx or Adolf Hitler. I’m interested in James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If you think it’s necessary to be a political extremist in order to oppose the falsification of history then your version of truth is defined solely by ideology and has no objective foundation.
3
Too bad Hitler himself can’t read some of this nonsense. I think he would be amazed and appalled that so many people think he wasn’t conservative, that they think he would’ve supported what he regarded as Jewish ideology designed to destroy the achievements of the “master race” and allow “Subhumans” to use the state to take the fruits of aryan labor and creative thought. I’m sure he would’ve been appalled that people who place no value on the disciplined adherence to authority would consider themselves to be conservative. I’m sure he would’ve seen anarcho capitalists as infected with “Jewish nonsense and corruption” about equality of the races and material acquisition for its own sake. And he’d probably want them arrested.
3
Wulf I don’t know where you get the idea that all Racialists were in favor of each race trying to advance itself. You’d have to be incredibly blind not to see how many times the Nazis advocate the Aryan race dominating or destroying all the other races.
3
If you pay careful attention to what Hitler actually says you will see that over and over again he advocates a conservatism that is most traditional, almost primal. He appeals to an ancient sense of German tribal identity and advocates the use of traditional power structures to preserve and invigorate it. While true socialists have appealed to naturalism as a foundation of their thought enlightenment rationalism and attempts to perfect all of humankind through science are undeniable in their thought. The Nazis rejected rationalism and any possibility of perfecting all of humankind. National Socialism is an inherently irrational and tribal belief system founded more on mysticism and myth than fact. If you spend any time studying the Nazis’s fascination with the occult and German folk myths it’s impossible to miss this. It should also be obvious that the last thing on earth the Nazis wanted to do is raise up ALL people. How can you possibly do that if you believe that most people are subhuman meant to be slaves of the master race?
3
@MadsterV No he was opposed to their ideas of re-distributing the productive labor of those who achieved to the undeserving. He was opposed to the leftist negation of the individual. He viewed these as threats to the Nordic race. He says that quite clearly. You just can’t accept it, Because you disregard history and think that anything involving government authority has to be on the left. And probably because you’re trying to sanitize Nazism as well.
2
Wulf I don’t know what you think is significant about the fact that the SS wasn’t the German state itself. It was very much the “organs” of the state, its political and cultural elite. It bore personal loyalty to the head of the state and was the embodiment of his ethos.
2
@MadsterV It’s only true Socialism to a fascist who hates left Socialism
2
Wulf Yes some people consider traditionalists and Paleo conservatives to be extremist. But I’d say they’re quite a few more and quite a lot better arguments that authoritarians left and right are extremists. As a conservative in an early American sense of that word I have the better argument to being grounded in objective reality rather than ideology. The people who call someone with my beliefs extremist are usually on the far left: People whose view of truth is almost pure ideology without any objectivity.
2
@MadsterV I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I don’t think you’re talking about anything
2
@MadsterV Capitalism requires freedom? Well for the capitalists yes to a degree. But since its birth in the Italian renaissance capitalism has flourished mostly under authoritarian governments. That may offend your libertarian cult beliefs but you just don’t know the history if you think otherwise. True Socialism is a left-wing ideology Fascism is not. The two are not related. People who say otherwise simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
2
@MadsterV ”did you misread…?” LOL No
2
@MadsterV I brought up anarcho capitalism because this whole debate was started by a post from anarcho capitalist, Resulting in a perspective with a very warped view of history and historical ideologies such as Socialism and Nazism.
2
@MadsterV It’s a dead giveaway that you’re not interested in finding the truth the way a scholar would when you seek to frame everything in binary us versus them terms so that anyone who disagrees with you must only be doing so because they are a Partisan on the other “side.” I’m not a socialist. I just don’t like the falsification of history by ideologue propagandists. Socialism like anarcho capitalism strikes me as utopian thinking that frequently causes more problems than it solves. And it’s difficult for ideologues like anarcho capitalists and socialists to maintain enough detachment to avoid introducing all kinds of biases that leave them unable to see the truth. I’m certainly aware of the fact that authoritarian capitalists often privatized businesses that were nationalized in part as a means to reward their supporters. What I take issue with is arbitrarily saying that that’s not “real privatization” because it doesn’t fit my anarcho libertarian ideologue definitions of “private” as something pure and uncorrupted, as if such purity ever really happens in the world. It’s the no true Scotsman fallacy again to avoid admitting that there was capitalism in Nazi Germany.
2
@MadsterV Re-privatization is a claim you’re making to try to get around the fact that he was privatizing industry. Don’t think that you’re fooling anyone with your nonsense. Again you don’t seem to understand that it’s possible to appropriate words and use them in ways completely different from their original meaning. Life must be hard for you.
2
@Gvjrapiro Why don’t you try recommending that he read “considerations on France” by Maistre?
2
@Gvjrapiro I’d be interested to know what such people think the ancient regime princes were if not conservative. Perhaps Louis XVI just unaccountably forgot to tell the Jacobins that he was one of them through a tragic lapse…LOL When you’re dealing with this kind of ignorance you can take comfort in the fact that they’ll never be right no matter what they say
2
Where do you get the idea that it was all state ownership. That’s hardly true. In fact the Nazis privatized more industry than the British during the 1930s
2
@Gvjrapiro Perhaps but it’s still entertaining. And even if he never gets it someone else reading might
2
@MadsterV Yeah Einstein except that redistributing wealth from the oppressive capitalists to those who need it more is basic leftist economics and Hitler explicitly rejects that in what he’s saying. He explicitly says he’s not confiscating private property from rich aryans and red-distributing it to working class aryans. He’s rejecting the idea that people should receive income according to their need another core leftist idea. He’s not lying: he’s revealing to you that he’s not talking about the Socialism of Karl Marx or Frederick Engels. He’s saying that he’s talking about something completely different developed in the tribal past of Germany that has nothing to do with the principles of 19th or 20th century leftism. Resolving economic class conflict is foundational to leftist ideology. If it’s not doing that it’s simply not leftist ideology. And Hitler says explicitly I am using a word associated with one thing to refer to something completely different and yet you still think that he’s talking about leftism. “He doesn’t lie.” And you’re like “It must be hard for him to sleep.” And I’m like “what?!”
2
@TheImperatorKnight So to the extent that’s true your plan is to do the same thing only inverted so that the right is blameless? I’m sure that’ll help you get closer to the truth.
2
@Gvjrapiro He was also right wing because he was an advocate of capitalist elites owning private property Including the means of production
2
@Gvjrapiro Indeed the right is attempting to define anything authoritarian- collectivist is the word they use-as left wing by definition which flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history long before they even was a left is the term has ever been understood. Basically when you hear someone call Hitler a true socialist you’re probably confronting a lunatic who views all of history through a warped anachronistic and ahistorical binary perspective that can be summed up as either anarchy or collectivism(meaning any legal limitation on what the individual can do, any government at all). This is a radical nihilistic fantasy that leads only to chaos or the very authoritarianism it tries to avoid.
2
@Gvjrapiro I don’t get tired of it. I rather like disarming people who don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t realize who they’re talking to.
2
@MadsterV Well we don’t have to get inside Hitler’s brain. He explained quite clearly his views on Socialism. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler 1938 Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. Hitler 1923
2
@MadsterV Knock yourself out. But I didn’t say that leftists couldn’t be authoritarians. I said that being an authoritarian doesn’t necessarily make you a leftist and a deed that most authoritarians throughout history have been conservative you know as in monarchs nobility? The point is the authoritarianism isn’t tied to any particular ideology so it doesn’t give you proof that someone is of a particular ideology just because they’re authoritarian.
2
@MadsterV Because I do believe that it tells you what he thinks about true Socialism and where he thinks Nazism comes from. And what he says does indeed give you a true picture of where Nazis thought their belief system came from. It does tell you that the Nazis did not believe that there belief system came from the economic left. And they were right about that, as history shows. Against that all you have are the fact that the Nazis were authoritarian like other conservatives all throughout history and their use of the word socialist in an entirely different way from the way it was used by left socialists.
2
@MadsterV besides the quote illustrates Hitler’s hostility to true Socialism as well as his beliefs in Aryan mythology. It doesn’t reveal a knowledge of actual history because Hitler didn’t have one. The Nazis traced the origins of their ideas in mythology because they wanted to ennoble it. If they knew about the actual historical origins of fascism they weren’t going to admit it. You understand that ideological beliefs especially those from totalitarian belief systems are full of propaganda, deception and self delusion right. Or do you take everything the Nazis said at face value?: LOL
2
@MadsterV Yeah I quoted Hitler. You apparently don’t have enough knowledge of European history to understand the quote Or maybe it’s just a lack of common sense. It is hard to fathom how his attack on Socialism isn’t obvious in the quote. You know the way he reveals the socialist negation of the individual and his achievement? Say whatever you want but Hitler Ended government ownership of many German industries and put them in private hands. You’re trying to get around that with your anarco libertarian ideas that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism but that’s just an ahistorical utopian view from libertarian dogma. It doesn’t correspond to the vast majority of capitalistic organizations in early modern Europe that gave rise to fascism. The idea that conservatism furthermore derives from libertarian thought flies in the face of so much history that you have to be an ignoramus to believe that. The authoritarianism of fascism is how you know it comes from the right. Authoritarianism where it occurs on the left is much more of a corruption of leftist ideology than it is that of the right, and fascist and other conservatives have most often worshiped authority, power, and control throughout western history.
2
@MadsterV No no no. Fascism was not born from socialism. fascists hijacked some socialist organizations killed the actual socialists and repurposed the organizations for fascism. Fascism was born from the nationalism unleashed by the French revolution and the 19th century social movements that followed. But it also has roots in European folk traditions and mythology, the occult, social Darwinism and traditional European authoritarian rule since the Middle Ages. It doesn’t have any of the purposes of economic left socialism. It’s actually opposed to socialist ideas such as worker ownership of the means of production, economic class solidarity and conflict, the redistribution of wealth and the equality of people each to be provided for according to their needs. It explicitly condemns those ideas and defends private property. The Nazis actually were privatizing industry during the 1930s when the French and British were nationalizing it. Apart from the name socialist, the only other thing The Nazis had in common with economic leftists was authoritarianism. And as we noted authoritarianism has much older roots on the right than it does the left. And it’s only been very recently in the west that libertarian thought has come to be associated with the right. That idea would’ve made little sense until very recently in Europe or the United States. Meanwhile the Hallmark of conservative power and authority throughout Western history has been Not the rationalism at the root of Socialism but the use of force to compel obedience: irrational authority. This is the essence of fascism as well.
2
The right isn’t necessarily libertarian. Historically it’s been far more likely to be authoritarian. Early American thought that’s often appreciated by modern libertarians was often considered left, if not radical in its day.
2
LOL The original sense of the word was much closer to Marxism than Hitler’s complete repurposing of it.
2
@ThZuao The author of this page and his supporters are defining capitalism as a utopian ideal of perfect freedom. Anything that doesn’t actually manifest itself as the ideal is “socialism.” So essentially what TIK is saying is that every system in history has been socialist and capitalism has never actually existed as anything more than a theory.
2
@ThZuao And if we stuck with the most restrictive definition it would still include renaissance Italy where the government was quite authoritarian.
2
If someone uses the word capitalist to describe something that doesn’t have any of the principles of capitalism you should
2
@odinisnotthesomefather4687 We’re supposed to believe that you would even understand just five words? Lol!
2
@JohnStopman It’s the work of an ideologue propagandist attempting to sanitize the right of anything unpleasant: absurd.
2
Wulf Create a society for the common good? How do you propose to do that? I don’t think that ideologies offer a likely path but you will need some sort of plan and there are a variety of different plans that all have the goals that you’re interested in. How do you know which one is best?
2
Wulf Again not everyone is thinking an ideological terms nor does the existence of both good and evil prove that either one must triumph in every case Or that there’s nothing we can do about it. Ideological polarization if that’s what you’re talking about is indeed not good precisely because it pushes so many people away from objective consideration of facts. Your response seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say that well that’s just the way things always are and have been, but that is not an accurate description of history and what it shows.
2
Wulf Which word do you use matters if you want to describe what you’re talking about. Words like ideology are not interchangeable with other concepts concerned with political views or individual perspective. If I had said that I could escape from having an individual point of view you might have a point but I didn’t say that. I said that I don’t have to describe to the tenants of an ideology, any ideology if I don’t want to. Nor do you. You do have a choice.
2
Wulf because ascribing to an ideology is an active choice. I think you’re trying to conflate ideology with point of view as if everyone is naturally thinking in ideological terms at birth. Ideology is not a constant within human history however. it doesn’t really begin to develop in the west until the early modern period. And if someone isn’t exposed to ideology they won’t even have an opportunity to make a choice as to whether or not to follow an ideology. I don’t think you know how to define the word ideology or much of anything else about the history of ideology so you’re simply confused.
2
Wulf I didn’t say that ideology is not part of objective reality. But Ideology is also not a universal condition of thought. Not every point of view is ideologically driven. mine for instance is not. It is possible to avoid ideology as an individual even if we can’t remove it from the entire planet forever. If you’re OK with trying to prevent at least some wars and murders then you shouldn’t have a problem with trying to persuade people not to fall into ideological thinking where they and many others can easily get hurt. The fact that you can’t stop everyone from doing that doesn’t mean that you can’t do some good by stopping many people from doing it. If we can’t even try then the frequency of regimes like the Nazis is sure to increase.
2
Wulf So since you can’t stop war or murder for all time you should never make any effort to stop any particular war or murder? Should we therefore legalize murder because laws against it do represent attempts to stop at least some murder? We should condemn opposition to any war as an exercise in futility? We shouldn’t even try to warn people about the dangers of Nazi, anarchist and communist ideology? I’m not saying we should burn books or prevent people from espousing hateful beliefs but to make no distinction at all between good and evil doesn’t seem like a good idea either.
2
Wulf So in other words you’re acknowledging that you are a relativist. It’s not a label that you’re trying to run from. I just wanted to clarify that point. I don’t think we can destroy ideology forever just like I don’t think we can stop murder or war forever. But that doesn’t mean we should be OK with it! That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to prevent it whenever we can.
2
Wulf So because people are self righteous that means that good and evil don’t exist? You sound like a true moral relativist.
2
Wulf no I’m saying that awful things can and often have happened BECAUSE of ideology. This happens less likely within individual households(Bad things happening because of ideology are more likely to be done by the state) but it has certainly happened. For instance in Stalinist Russia ideology compelled people to inform on their own family members and get them sent to concentration camps often for no other reason.
2
Wulf Hitler himself sought advice from occult mystics and tried to divine the future through occult practices. If you look at what the Nazis called research it’s as much mysticism as it is pseudoscience. And a lot of the Nazi regalia and heraldry, even the names of SS military units were heavily derived from Teutonic mythology. Like the mad king Ludwig of Bavaria Hitler viewed Wagner as much more than just music. It wasn’t fantasy to him. It was prophecy and divinity.
2
Wulf I’m not sure what you mean when you use the word racialism. It’s clearly not a description of any form of fascism such as that of the Nazis. You’d have to be unimaginably blind not to see that the Nazis were doing everything they could to uplift one people at the expense of others.
2
Wulf And its more narrow sense a revolution just means a change in government. It doesn’t specify whether or not that restores an earlier form of government or attempts to do something new.
2
Wulf Indeed in many cases Marxist claims to fight for the working class didn’t pan out, usually because gangsters opportunistically seized upon the revolution to grab power away from the idealistic Marxists who provided the theory. But the Nazis didn’t even start with a theory of advancing an economic class. Indeed they explicitly rejected that idea as a threat to advancing the Aryan RACE.
2
Wulf Well the American founders on numerous occasions warned us against overseas adventurism. I find it bizarre that you are trying to separate ideas from actions as if they have no relationship to each other despite all the evidence of people acting on their ideas throughout history.
2
Wulf That’s why I included the quote from Solzhenitsyn. He answers that question directly that it is ideology which makes people capable of doing really awful things and he understood this better than most as a victim of Stalin’s brutality who became a Nobel laureate in literature. I highly recommend Solzhenitsyn if you want to learn more about how ideology poisons human actions, Maximizes human potential for corruption and depravity.
2
Wulf Force isn’t necessarily evil. It depends on how and why it is used. As our American founders recognized you can’t have government or liberty without force. I know anarchist ideology says otherwise but the results of that have always been contrary to what the ideology states.
2
Wulf No ideology isn’t simply identity. It’s forming your identity around a rigid dogma that defines the world only according to its own terms a priori and disregards everything else no matter what.
2
Wulf My sources include the writings of Marx, Engels, Babeauf, Rousseau, Eugene Debs,Thomas Paine, Antonio Gramsci, Totsky, Clement Attlee, Gajo Petrovic among others. They’re not hard to find
2
Wulf “Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
2
Wulf Nationalism as an ideology came after the revolution: that doesn’t mean that nationalist thought had no origin before the French revolution or that nationalist didn’t try to preserve what they saw as a traditional sense of tribal identity. Indeed the whole point of nationalism was to preserve tribal identity thought to have much earlier origins.
2
Wulf Yes but not every point of view reflects extreme ideological blinders On top of individual perspective. It takes something like Marxism, fascism, or anarchism to blind you to that degree. Then you don’t even see what your own eyes tell you, just what the ideology and or its leader dictates. This is why ideologically driven thinking is so dangerous
2
Wulf Because there are standards to measure objectively what is factual and what isn’t. They are the same standards used by the founding generation: rationalism and empiricism. Since each individual sees only a part of reality it is impossible for anyone to be perfectly objective. But that doesn’t mean that every perspective is just as ideologically driven away from facts as any other.
2
Yeah I think framing it in religious terms is a telling reveal of a total lack of objectivity and inability to see things outside of a messianic “us versus them” perspective. That will only give you a warped view of history where you seek to purge your “side” of anything unholy, such as Nazism. The problem is that authoritarian structures have been on the right for far longer than the left as we know it has even existed. So there’s no way to identify something as left just because it’s authoritarian. And that’s really all you’ve got as a means to label fascism as leftism.
2
@MadsterV Again your equating state control with the left and only the left flies in the face of literally thousands of years of history. In your addled brain ancien regime monarchs like Louis the 14th were leftists: laughable! Only modern day anarcho libertarians with no sense of history could possibly think that.
2
Wulf Oh I didn’t say the SS ruled Germany. Hitler ruled Germany. The SS was his praetorian guard and his his ideological elite. You are confusing Stalin’s paranoid purge of the red Army officer corps with the earlier Bolshevik liquidation of the Russian aristocracy. The former didn’t necessarily target ideological enemies so much as Stalin’s personal enemies: real or imagined. The latter is something that the bolsheviks did immediately upon gaining power because their ideology was about destroying the aristocracy. Stalin‘s purge of landholding peasants also followed that motivation. Neither one was taken as a measure to defend against invasion. And there was no such purge of people in Nazi Germany because they held property or represented some sort of class enemy. It wasn’t just that the aristocracy survived in Germany. It was never touched. Nazi ideology violently opposed the leftist notion of class conflict because it pitted members of the master race against each other. That’s why Hitler saw Bolshevism as a Jewish plot to destroy the master race.
2
@AppliedMathematician The Chinese can’t get anything to work? I guess you’ve never been to an American big box store
1
@LeavingGoose046 Well whatever word YOU choose to use to describe Nazi Germany in employed no more control over the economy than did the United States or Britain at the time. Hitler actually privatize more industry during the 1930s than several supposedly more democratic countries. And he argued that capitalism was harder to preserve in a more democratic country because democratic countries in Hitler’s view inevitably used socialistic measures to take over the market whereas fascist like him refused to do so. The Nazis did not exercise total control over their economy not even close. But It isn’t just a matter of the extent of control whether you call it authoritarian or totalitarian that makes someone a leftist. And you have to be completely ignorant of leftist ideology to think that it’s only about control. Leftist ideology has particular goals including the elimination of inequality of wealth and social classes and the internationalization of working people. It’s six to put all working people in control of the means of production not just any government elite and certainly not a racist nationalist elite which flies in the face of leftist principles. No matter how much control the Nazis exerted over German society and the economy they never supported these goals and in fact violently opposed him as mortal threats to their own ideology. And there’s just no way you can finesse that or parse it any other way then a complete conflict between Nazism and leftism. It ain’t just about a degree of control by Government. If that were true then a king Ramses the second would’ve been a leftist Oh and by the way you do know that there have been genuinely leftist governments that were not at all authoritarian right? You’re probably going try to deny this but it’s happening right now in Scandinavia
1
Wulf Yes traditionalism and conservatism are not the same thing. But until relatively recently a conservative was almost always a traditionalist. You do have conservative theories such as those of Edmund Burke or Joseph Demaistre who by the way is one of the forerunners of fascism.
1
Wulf The Nazis treasured ancient and medieval German culture before the rise of the later aristocracy. But they certainly didn’t “hate” the German aristocracy of their time. Under than the Nazis, there was no purge of the German aristocracy or confiscation of its wealth, no cancellation of its titles, nothing like what the bolsheviks did. It’s laughable that you’re attempting to minimize the significance of the SS within Nazi Germany. The SS was the pinnacle and backbone of Nazi Germany. It was the purest expression of Nazi ideology.
1
Wulf Again I know that you’re in capable of thinking outside of a binary us versus them paradigm. But I’m not a socialist. I’m closer to a Paleo or Burkian conservative. But I doubt you know what either of those things are, given what you just revealed about your ignorance of the history of conservatism and tradition. It wasn’t just a few individuals that appealed to mysticism and supposedly Ancient German culture. It was the entire Nazi party apparatus. It became a state religion complete with rites, sacraments, and ceremony. Hitler’s government even sponsored archaeological expeditions to study the evidence of this “ancient” Aryan race. The more you talk the more you reveal how little you know of what you’re talking about. And with a handle like Wulf Shouldn’t you be ashamed that you don’t know more about Nazi beliefs? At this rate you’ll never be accepted into the SS, even if you can prove a lineage free of Jewish blood back to your great grandparents as required.
1
Wulf yes after all of the terrible defeats early in the war the Stalin regime fell back on Russian nationalism and restored a bunch of practices that had been banned by the bolsheviks in order to fortify national pride against the invasion. That just proves that they were doing whatever they could to win the war
1
Wulf Mysticism was the means by which the Nazis adhered to tradition. It’s not a conventional form of traditionalism but one that mixes in the Nazis mythological religion folklore and the occult.
1
Wulf If we were to use an analogy to watch you’re saying it would be that the Catholic Church is only a small part of medieval Europe and doesn’t really tell us very much about medieval European society, Because relatively few people in Europe were Catholic clergy. Ridiculous! The fact that you can’t see how absurd your position about the SS is reveals a profound ignorance of history if not a lack of common sense.
1
Wulf I would view myself as a traditionalist conservative in many ways. But I’m not a fascist. And although fascists can be considered a type of traditionalist conservative, they are not the only type. And the tradition that I want to preserve is of republican federalism, Which wasn’t very conservative at the time it was founded in this country. In 1789 a conservative would be someone who defended monarchy, a unitary state, and aristocratic rule. It also depends on the location. Historically German states have been much more frequently authoritarian. So a conservative especially in Germany is someone who preserves authoritarian structures. And the Nazis certainly did that You see how complicated this can get.? No probably not because you just don’t know enough to understand the different varieties of conservatism and traditionalism. So if you can’t recognize the one in question, you make an assumption that it’s not conservative. This is just your ignorance talking.
1
Wulf It’s laughable and absurd that you’re trying to make the SS seem like something peripheral to Nazi Germany as if it doesn’t tell you very much about Nazi ideology. I’ve never heard anything more absurd and that in my life. The SS was Hitler’s model for everything Nazi ideology stood for.
1
Wulf Now you’re actually going to dispute the role of the Catholic Church in medieval Europe? No wonder you’re so confused. The point is not that everyone was high clergy in medieval Europe but that they didn’t have to be for the Catholic Church to dominate the whole society. And if you don’t know how it did that, your education is just too woefully inadequate for you to understand much of anything and this is really a waste of time.
1
Wulf You obviously have no idea of the dominant role of the Catholic Church within medieval Christendom. And with that kind of ignorance you just don’t know enough about history to even be discussing the subject. You wouldn’t be able to pass one of the western civilization classes that I used to teach as a grad assistant.
1
Wulf Traditionalism isn’t merely distinguished by geographic area. The varieties of traditionalism are also distinguished by time period, Culture ideology and other factors. The point is there’s no one single belief system called traditionalism but many different varieties of it of which Nazism was one. You had German traditionalist who wanted to support the Junker class and the German Hohenzollern house but you also had Nazi mystics who wanted to revive a much older form of German nationhood and identity. You can consider both of them to be varieties of traditionalism. There is also considerable overlap between the two because it’s not like the Nazis wanted to destroy the Junkers. And the same families that hailed Bismarck and the kaiser supported Hitler for the same reason: because he had done a lot to contribute to the development of the state just like German hereditary autocrats that preceded him. You may be ignorant of the fact that Germany has been traditionally authoritarian and that it’s conservative in Germany to adhere to authoritarianism but that doesn’t change the reality. Your ignorance proves nothing but that you’re ignorant.
1
Wulf You don’t have any idea because you don’t know anything about the history of ideology. The essence of conservatism historically has been traditionalism. It’s funny that you’re introducing an ahistorical and very recent definition of conservativism that doesn’t include tradition and then you’re unable to even imagine most of the history of conservatism. But maybe that isn’t all that surprising.
1
@trystdodge6177 Marx may have been wrong but he was attempting to find the truth through reason not by some mystical sense of nationhood.
1
Wulf What kind of traditionalism are you talking about? You need to specify before that question can be answered.
1
Wulf Yes I’ve read Oswald Spengler. I don’t know how you think his writing demonstrates that Nazism is a leftist political ideology.
1
@JohnStopman Yeah Socialism and the left more broadly don’t uplift one “tribe” over others. They are not based on religion or other irrational thought necessary to do that. The idea of referring to Socialism as religion is just projection. Socialists might be wrong but they attempt “progress” through rational means.
1
@TheImperatorKnight His religion was his nationalism, his faith in a German tribal identity and belief that Germans were the race of destiny. True socialism is based on the idea of advancing people without regard to nationality or tribal identity. It’s egalitarian something that the Nazis were appalled by.
1
Wulf Yes I know the Nazis modernized their technology and prized engineering but they didn’t seek to modernize social relations people or politics. For instance women were prohibited from playing important roles in politics or industry. And were expected to stay at home and raise the master race.
1
Wulf There were some traditionalists who called out the Nazis especially before Hitler converted the movement into fascism. Hitler’s traditionalism appealed to something that he believed was older than what 19th and early 20th century German traditionalists appealed to. We don’t have to determine if one or the other was correct about what is true traditionalism to know that the Nazis were striving for the preservation of the past as they saw it rather than attempting to perfect all of human kind as a true socialist would. True socialists on the other hand are people who believe in using rationality for social progress by eliminating economic classes, redistributing wealth and providing to each individual according to their need without regard to racial or ethnic identity or even national boundaries. True socialists don’t care for nationalism and see tradition as a means of oppression.
1
Wulf National Socialism itself doesn’t have to be very old for it to defend what it saw as tradition. It’s the intent that tells you the contents of the ideology. And unlike leftist ideologies Nazism did not seek progress for all humankind through science and the redistribution of wealth according to each individual‘s need. Instead it tried to preserve a mystical ancient sense of German identity that harkened back thousands of years. And the Nazis didn’t just endorse Ancient Greece. Among other things Nazi myths speak of the ancient Teutonic land that may correspond to the Orkney islands today called Thule. They even named an SS Panzer unit after it. And SS ritual incorporates runic symbols that the Nazis believe are derived from ancient German tribes. This was an attempt to restore ancient Germanic tribes through mysticism. It’s a far cry from left ideology.of progress, science and modernization. Whether the leftists or Nazis were right about where their beliefs were headed isn’t the point.
1
Wulf I’m not a socialist. I don’t like socialism much better than I do fascism because both tend towards the unattainable and have produced authoritarianism. I believe in a republic of laws and liberty a la James Madison.
1
@gsmiro Whether or not the Nazis were truly Christian is less important than whether or not they shared with Christianity a belief system based fundamentally on irrationality and the supernatural. And the answer to that question is definitely yes.
1
Wulf You don’t have to have dialectical materialism in order to have redistribution of wealth based on economic status. Proto Socialists even during the 18th century were advocating such measures. Read Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine if you want to know more about that.
1
Wulf The only Nazis who advocated redistributing wealth to non-Aryans quickly became targets for Hitler’s violence.
1
Wulf The Nazis wanted to preserve the “original Aryan race” which they viewed as ancient, pure and noble.
1
Wulf Nationalists came after the French revolution but again they appealed to what they believed was a much older past.
1
@trystdodge6177 And therein lies a world of difference. It’s the difference between the left and the right, between seeking equality for all and seeking to preserve a mythical tribe supposed to be from a distant past at other’s expense. There is irrationality in any authoritarianism. That’s where socialists so often fall apart. But they do differ from fascists in founding their theory upon rationality rather than irrationality.
1
@trystdodge6177 LOL Well in order for you to make a valid point the Marxian concept of people as social organized would have to be the only one in history! And you know that’s not true. And you can’t demonstrate that the Nazi conception of people as social animals is remotely like that of the Marxist version. Indeed Hitler himself explains in detail why it isn’t with one key difference being the Marxist negation of the individual. Simply Acknowledging the social organization of people hardly defines them as Marxist or even totalitarian.
1
@trystdodge6177 Marxists are hardly the only people historically who viewed people as social and the creators of social organizations. Apart from some relatively recent, radical individualists, most people all across the ideological and political spectrums have throughout history. So if all you’re saying is that a given belief system views people as socially organized then you’ve told us almost nothing about the belief system. Mostly it suggests that you’re trying to force an an acronistic, radical individualist perspective onto a past place where doesn’t make any sense, where it certainly wouldn’t have been understood by anyone who you’re trying to describe with it. And it would be very hard to characterize fascist as utopians because they’re not seeking any sort of ideal world for anyone but their “tribe.” Indeed they want anything but utopia for the “Subhumans” they seek to enslave or destroy. It’s more like a dystopian world that the Nazi seek.
1
@AppliedMathematician The Chinese abandoned Socialism in favor of authoritarian and state capitalism.
1
@AppliedMathematician I seriously doubt that
1
@AppliedMathematician You’re engaged is a desperate process of self delusion, the kind of ideological blinders which fascists exploit to bring tyranny.
1
@AppliedMathematician If you don’t like absurd mental gymnastics, you should look into a mirror.
1
@AppliedMathematician LOL if you weren’t obsessed with labels, you wouldn’t be insisting against all reason that Nazis were leftists.
1
Wulf you just won’t acknowledge what you don’t know, a mark of a fool. What you’re suggesting however would be like suggesting that we all are born with a knowledge of architecture or 19th century impressionist painting. Ideology is not an a priori human attribute. Just accept that you don’t know what you’re talking about and learn something. Or not and continue to be a petulant fool.
1
@AppliedMathematician The Nazis before Hitler included some people who tried to use some socialist ideas but even then they did a number of things are inconsistent with Socialism. Hitler purged these people literally from the party. And once he got power Hitler implemented authoritarian capitalism, not Socialism or anything like it. People who say otherwise are disregarding what he actually did when he had power
1
Wulf OK you are still saying though that people automatically start acquiring not just knowledge and beliefs but ideology. This is like saying that everyone automatically acquires the qualifications to be a pilot as they age or that everyone naturally becomes a ballet dancer as they grow and mature through their experiences. beliefs may be inevitable but again an ideology is a particular and developed system of thought and way of thinking. You have to be exposed to it and not everyone is certainly not automatically because it’s not present everywhere you can’t form an ideology unless you’ve been exposed ideological thinking of some sort.
1
Wulf rather than admit that you don’t know what ideology is you’re trying to say that it is whatever we want it to be which is the same thing. I mean I can tell you that a physician is a person who repairs cars because I don’t like the universal definition of a physician as someone who tries to heal people but that doesn’t change the fact.
1
Wulf I didn’t say I was unique in whether or not I can choose to follow an Ideology. I think it’s a free willing choice for anyone assuming they even know about the option which is a big assumption.
1
Wulf I don’t understand your second question. As to the third meant to point out that you don’t automatically adopt ideological thinking anymore than you automatically become a pilot or a ballet dancer. All of those involve choices and study at least to some degree. Perhaps a better analogy might be you don’t automatically become Catholic or a Satanist or practice any religion. You have to decide to do so and be taught. If you raise someone without religion it’s unlikely that they will practice any religion at least until they are exposed to it. I was raised under one religion and then decided to abandon it and practice a different one but for a while I chose not to practice any.
1
Wulf Again I’m not doing anything with the concept of ideology other than telling you what it means in the history of ideas. I didn’t make it up. I learned this in college classes for the first time if you want to know. That you don’t know doesn’t make it something that I made up just to control an argument or whatever it is you think I’m doing. I think your big problem is that you don’t think that you need to know anything in order to have a meaningful opinion about ideas that have a history and a conceptual framework. You’re trying to understand a historical phenomenon that is rather complicated without any education or knowledge of it. So it’s no wonder that you’re totally lost and come up with all sorts of false and absurd notions. If you don’t want to learn anything you’re wasting my time and yours
1
Wulf You don’t necessarily have to go to college to understand the history of ideology but it helps. And you can’t understand it without reading anything
1
@AppliedMathematician Or instead of explaining evil rather than agreeing with it they could be distorting the truth in order to promote the puritanical worldview that can only come from an ideologue. “Evil only happens on the other side. Our views are perfect and even defy human nature. If you think that anything evil could come from our side you’re mistaken.” TIK’s isn’t “shining a light” on anything. He’s trying to cleanse his “side” of all blame.
1
Wulf So where did you “prove” that he “faked” any quotes? That’s a serious allegation that requires proof.
1
Wulf Ad homonym abusive doesn’t prove that you read anything or that he didn’t. It’s just a way to avoid the issue and argue fallaciously.
1
Wulf Well you’re just making it another assertion that he has falsified evidence without any proof. Without even a single example there’s no reason for me to believe you, especially when he has posted several specific quotes that we can all independently source. Then you add some other ad hominem attacks. It’s not a very credible response
1
Wulf So you’re telling me that you haven’t actually checked the source itself that he’s quoting from to determine whether or not he really did Dr the words in it? You’re saying that you don’t even know what’s in the source he’s quoting from yet you’re accusing him of falsifying it?
1
Wulf I haven’t seen the original source-At least not recently enough to remember-and you’re repeating his quote with an equivocal statement about whether it’s part of the source. “ Or more likely added.” Is it “likely” or do you “know”? You can prove your point with a side-by-side citation of his text versus text from the actual source that differs from it. But so far I don’t see where you did that. And if you’re trying to prove a factual point (That a quote was doctored) especially leave out the ad homonym which is by definition irrelevant to the argument.
1
Wulf And you also can’t do this by asking a question. You have the burden of proof. We don’t presume that what you’re saying is true until proven otherwise in other words.
1
Wulf And you also can’t do this by asking a question. You have the burden of proof. We don’t presume that what you’re saying is true until proven otherwise in other words.
1
Wulf No I’m just asking you to quote the passage where the supposedly fake words were added so that we can see that they’re not in the original. Why would you think that you have to quote the entire book to do that? Sounds pretty evasive to me as if you know that you can’t prove that it was doctored or at least that you’re not sure if you can.
1
Wulf So at what point have you provided any proof of how the original text differs from what he quoted? What are you claiming are the actual words versus what you say he added? What’s the page number of the actual wording that you claim has been doctored? Which words that he used in quotes are you claiming are not really in the original text?
1
@dgray3771 It’s not any kind of leftist economic ideology. It’s not anarcho capitalism. It is authoritarian capitalism
1
Wulf Well if you’re not saying that big government is only a phenomenon of the left then there isn’t really anything about Nazism that you can point to that it has in common with any left ideology except for the word socialist which as we’ve already noted is used in an entirely different way by the Nazis.
1
Wulf It seems like you’re denying that it’s conservative or traditionalist for a German to be a authoritarian, by asserting that anyone who believes in a strong government/statism must also be a leftist. Seems like you get to a point where you always ask the question “do they support a strong government?” and if the answer is yes then to you they must be on the left, even though that’s a completely ahistorical viewpoint, especially in German history. I think that your ideology simply doesn’t allow for the possibility of right wing authoritarian statism. It can’t exist in your worldview, even though it has for centuries.
1
“He doesn’t lie.” “He must not get much sleep then.” “What?!”
1
@LeavingGoose046 I don’t think that it’s funny when someone refuses to consider anything other than what confirms what they already believe. But it is ludicrous when it involves ignoring hundreds of years of history that even a high school student should know more about than to think so.
1
@LeavingGoose046 It’s ridiculous to say that the Nazis were socialist based on wartime economic controls which were even more pervasive in western countries including the United States and Britain and then ignore all the privatization and unimpeded profit taking by property holders, corporations that went on throughout the entire history of the third Reich. Hitler promised these capitalists that there would be no socialist take over of their property if they backed him as chancellor Germany, they backed him, and he kept his promise. Many of these German corporations continued to profit handsomely even after World War II and you’re talking about this as if there was some kind of nationalization of industry? Ludicrous!
1
@LeavingGoose046 Far from the state limiting private property rights, the Nazis actually helped capitalists by reducing workers rights and doing away with unions. And you’re talking about it as if they did the opposite?! This is nuts!
1
@AppliedMathematician The word was Hitler’s Trojan horse vs. the left.
1
@AppliedMathematician Except that Hitler isn’t a socialist and never did anything consistent with socialist ideology. No one should accept a falsehood promoted by people who refuse to face the truth themselves. No one should come to terms with accepting propaganda that distorts history.
1
@user-wi3yx3gy2o Those who accept propaganda because it tells them what they want to hear are not learning to understand. They’re helping to distort history
1
@peaknonsense2041 Except that he’s not close to being correct nor is he being honest
1
@StickNik That’s ridiculous! There were not enough “officials” in the Nazi party or even close to that to account for the number of private business owners in Germany throughout Hitler’s rule. This is just a lame attempt to get around the fact that the government didn’t actually own businesses in Nazi Germany and therefore its system cannot be said to be socialist.
1
@theprinceofcrows8691 What they’ve been saying when you point out the historical location of ideology is that you’re using out of date definitions when you define something as it was defined at the time by the people who created it. The people who support TIK are claiming the ability to change History by updating concepts from the past retroactively. Of course it would be better for them just to admit that Nazism wasn’t actually socialism but it can be if we change what THEY considered to be social to be. We just need a time machine in order to give them an up-to-date understanding of how they should’ve been looking at it. But again if we do get the Time Machine it would be better to use it to simply take out Hitler and worry about the butterfly effect later🤣
1
@calebnemrow2677 Yes that’s why it’s so important not to delude yourself in the belief that nasty authoritarianism can only come from the left by adopting the ridiculous utopian dogma of those who insist that conservatives can’t be authoritarians by definition.
1
@AppliedMathematician Well in that case you should be able to further your research by spending a lot of time looking in a mirror.
1
@larryselkirk426 It was neither one of those things and also wasn’t socialist
1
@MadsterV You’re ignorant of history. In the 18th century the authoritarian right was made up of monarchists. One of the forerunners of fascist thought was a counterrevolutionary monarchist named Joseph Demaistre who argued in favor of putting the French king back on the throne during the French Revolution.
1
@MadsterV Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Hitler 1938
1
@karmanic7492 Could be or it could be a sign of ignorance; not knowing enough to recognize something is incorrect on its face.
1
@AppliedMathematician You seem to be under the impression that there are a number of scholarly historians who aver that Nazism was a leftist ideology, As if this idea has some sort of respectability within the academic community and is based on sound research as opposed to being just a conspiracy theory by crackpot Nazi apologists on the alt right who are trying to avoid associating their extremist views with anything negative. Let’s hear it. Put up or shut up. Who are these respected scholarly historians and where can I read their research into the supposed leftism of fascist ideology? I’d really be fascinated to see how they can make 150 years of history not to mention the plain words of the fascists themselves simply disappear.
1
@AppliedMathematician Before we even get to how the Nazis themselves defined their ideology, I dare you to cite a respected scholarly historian, even one, who defines Nazism or other fascism as a leftist ideology. I’ll wait.
1
@AppliedMathematician Doesn’t matter what you’re trying to say or obfuscate in order to get away with calling Nazism something other than what it is. What matters is the historical reality. And in history true socialism is a left-wing ideology with a multi point set of principles that are all based on the economic theory of the left starting with the enlightenment and the French revolution in Europe. If Hitler’s party was “socialist,” he was adapting the word to mean something entirely different and unrelated to its use by that aforesaid historical left-wing ideology. To say otherwise is to promote a dangerous myth that discourages people from being on the lookout for threats on the right. It’s propaganda designed to absolve the right of responsibility for its worst crimes and blame everything on the left as if the potential of human nature for depravity can only exist on the left. I’m not a Christian, but I don’t think that’s at all consistent with Christian teaching regarding fallen human nature.
1
@AppliedMathematician Who said that capitalists are consistently rational or that an irrational ideology like fascism can’t endorse capitalism for its own purposes?
1
@AppliedMathematician Hitler didn’t have economic left socialist ideas. He reviled socialist concepts such as class conflict and redistribution of wealth. He opposed nationalization of industry. How could he be a socialist in the sense used by the left?
1
@mikhailv67tv Well researched propaganda
1
@farmerchick3040 Reality Hitler was a right wing Statist romantic nationalist dictator. The right has a much longer history of authoritarianism than the left and you’re just trying to dodge that
1
@farmerchick3040 No Hitler was an applicable opponent of the left because it denied individual achievement and superiority of the master race in his mind
1
@radioactiverat8751 Or actual Nazis dodging what they really are by splitting hairs?
1
@trystdodge6177 So you’re claiming that in order to identify people as social beings you have to ascribe to a totalitarian ideology? Then it’s hard to explain how people were doing that for thousands of years before totalitarian ideology as we know it even existed. You’re not going to get very far by trying to make up your own make-believe standards and apply them to history, because you can’t change the history.
1
@MCCrleone354 You’re speaking about capitalism the way ideologue Marxists speak about communism: something that has never actually existed.
1
@MCCrleone354 Capitalism has never existed anywhere in history without some government intervention
1
@Anthony-jo7up Communism actually doesn’t assert the permanence of state authority but fascism does
1
@MCCrleone354 It doesn’t have to be absolutely pure to be capitalism. Even advertising diminishes the purity of the market
1
@mephistopheles6806 Well there are degrees of statism
1
There’s nothing logically inconsistent with being socialist and libertarian although I would consider that rather utopian and naïve, like being an anarchist. But you can’t be a fascist without being authoritarian
1
@trystdodge6177 Against the “arguments” you’re making? Of course I will.
1
@trystdodge6177 A nation made up of everyone without regard to national boundaries or identity is a non sequitur. Marxists were also idealists and that tends to lead to blind faith in what the ideology says will happen even if the ideology tries to base itself on rationality The Nazis didn’t even start with an attempt to find truth through rational inquiry..
1
@dgray3771 Yes those are authoritarian not necessarily leftist policies. You just don’t get the idea that in world history such authoritarian structures have usually not been leftist.
1
@dualdiamonds811 LOL Western capitalism was born in and flourished under authoritarian regimes for hundreds of years. Among them was the mother country of the United States. Attempting to separate capitalism from its authoritarian roots is ludicrous an ahistorical libertarian fantasy. You’re wasting your time. I know a lot more about this than you do. You’d be better off putting down the conspiracy theories and the crockpot anarcho libertarian fantasies and read
1
Wulf I didn’t say that the Nazis were against women. But they weren’t encouraged to fulfill roles that men were supposed to occupy in society and in the workforce the way they were in a leftist country like the Soviet Union at the time. What the Nazis did to improve working conditions they consistently justified as a restoration of an ancient German social order not the creation of something new.
1