Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "Adolph Hitler, A Man Of The Left"-- Title Of Chapter 2 of Jonah Goldberg's Book, "Liberal Fascism"
14 views
Skip to first unread message
John McCluskey
Nov 13, 2013, 11:38:40 AM11/13/13
to
In article <l5v881$46a$1...@dont-email.me>
David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2013 10:21 AM, Lucretius wrote:
> > In this chapter Goldberg writes: "If we put aside for the moment the
> > question of whether Hitlerism was a phenomenon of the right, what is
> > indisputable is that Hitler was in no way a conservative--a point
> > scholars careful with their words always underscore. Certainly to
> > suggest Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American
> > conservatism is lunacy.
>
> I agree with that. Hitler was right wing, but that isn't the same as
> being a conservative.
In other words, American liberalism is the same as Hitlerism.
I'd agree with that.
David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2013 10:21 AM, Lucretius wrote:
> > In this chapter Goldberg writes: "If we put aside for the moment the
> > question of whether Hitlerism was a phenomenon of the right, what is
> > indisputable is that Hitler was in no way a conservative--a point
> > scholars careful with their words always underscore. Certainly to
> > suggest Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American
> > conservatism is lunacy.
>
> I agree with that. Hitler was right wing, but that isn't the same as
> being a conservative.
In other words, American liberalism is the same as Hitlerism.
I'd agree with that.
Stumpy
Nov 13, 2013, 3:01:41 PM11/13/13
to
>>
>> On 11/10/2013 10:21 AM, Lucretius wrote:
>> > In this chapter Goldberg writes: "If we put aside for the moment the
>> > question of whether Hitlerism was a phenomenon of the right, what is
>> > indisputable is that Hitler was in no way a conservative--a point
>> > scholars careful with their words always underscore. Certainly to
>> > suggest Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American
>> > conservatism is lunacy.
>>
>> I agree with that. Hitler was right wing, but that isn't the same as
>> being a conservative.
>
> In other words, American liberalism is the same as Hitlerism.
> I'd agree with that.
>
I don't know that either the left or right would claim Hitler.
>> On 11/10/2013 10:21 AM, Lucretius wrote:
>> > In this chapter Goldberg writes: "If we put aside for the moment the
>> > question of whether Hitlerism was a phenomenon of the right, what is
>> > indisputable is that Hitler was in no way a conservative--a point
>> > scholars careful with their words always underscore. Certainly to
>> > suggest Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American
>> > conservatism is lunacy.
>>
>> I agree with that. Hitler was right wing, but that isn't the same as
>> being a conservative.
>
> In other words, American liberalism is the same as Hitlerism.
> I'd agree with that.
>
http://libertarianmajority.wdfiles.com/local--files/platform-portal/NolanChart.png
http://i43.tinypic.com/2mcfsja.png
Rudy Canoza
Nov 13, 2013, 3:20:22 PM11/13/13
to
Rudy Canoza
Nov 13, 2013, 3:38:54 PM11/13/13
to
On 11/13/2013 12:01 PM, Stumpy wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2013 10:21 AM, Lucretius wrote:
>>> > In this chapter Goldberg writes: "If we put aside for the moment the
>>> > question of whether Hitlerism was a phenomenon of the right, what is
>>> > indisputable is that Hitler was in no way a conservative--a point
>>> > scholars careful with their words always underscore. Certainly to
>>> > suggest Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American
>>> > conservatism is lunacy.
>>>
>>> I agree with that. Hitler was right wing, but that isn't the same as
>>> being a conservative.
>>
>> In other words, American liberalism is the same as Hitlerism.
>> I'd agree with that.
>>
>
> I don't know that either the left or right would claim Hitler.
The far right claims him whether they like or not.
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2013 10:21 AM, Lucretius wrote:
>>> > In this chapter Goldberg writes: "If we put aside for the moment the
>>> > question of whether Hitlerism was a phenomenon of the right, what is
>>> > indisputable is that Hitler was in no way a conservative--a point
>>> > scholars careful with their words always underscore. Certainly to
>>> > suggest Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American
>>> > conservatism is lunacy.
>>>
>>> I agree with that. Hitler was right wing, but that isn't the same as
>>> being a conservative.
>>
>> In other words, American liberalism is the same as Hitlerism.
>> I'd agree with that.
>>
>
> I don't know that either the left or right would claim Hitler.
In the end, of course, as in "Animal Farm", the two extremes come to
mirror one another. It doesn't matter that they started off in
different directions; they both become totalitarian, employing identical
methods.
eric h
Nov 13, 2013, 10:54:58 PM11/13/13
to
Pretty obvious that Goldberg, himself a conservative, is just venturing a self-serving opinion about his fascist views.
Message has been deleted
Sid9
Nov 16, 2013, 10:07:49 AM11/16/13
to
"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:c9978$5283de9f$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET...
Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an estimate
60 million human beings
John Lott III
Nov 16, 2013, 10:26:22 AM11/16/13
to
After serious thinking Sid9 wrote :
Hitler was in the military and liked Guns. He even used one on his
Dog and then himself to end his big fascist party!
George Bush pretended to be that way. Despite how he stopped being a
member of the NRA and was really only in a Champange regiment to avoid
the Vietnam war.
Obama? Not the same.
He doesn't like guns, never claimed to be in the military.
Unlike Hitler or Bush.
> What's with all the definitions?
> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an estimate 60
> million human beings
The logic of history is clear.
> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an estimate 60
> million human beings
Hitler was in the military and liked Guns. He even used one on his
Dog and then himself to end his big fascist party!
George Bush pretended to be that way. Despite how he stopped being a
member of the NRA and was really only in a Champange regiment to avoid
the Vietnam war.
Obama? Not the same.
He doesn't like guns, never claimed to be in the military.
Unlike Hitler or Bush.
David R. Birch
Nov 16, 2013, 10:37:46 AM11/16/13
to
On 11/16/2013 9:07 AM, Sid9 wrote:
.
> What's with all the definitions?
> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an
> estimate 60 million human beings
More like 20 million, but either number leaves him behind Stalin and Mao.
.
> What's with all the definitions?
> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an
> estimate 60 million human beings
David
Rudy Canoza
Nov 16, 2013, 11:52:04 AM11/16/13
to
left-wing or right-wing. They were right-wing. Don't participate in
the argument if you don't wish to, you fuckwit.
> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an
> estimate 60 million human beings
estimated at fewer than 60 million, and Hitler has no responsibility for
any of the ones in the Pacific, nor all of those in Europe.
http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html
Sid9
Nov 16, 2013, 12:16:12 PM11/16/13
to
"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l683g...@news6.newsguy.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Sid9
Nov 16, 2013, 12:28:44 PM11/16/13
to
"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
The only fuckwits around here are Jonah Goldberg
M.I.Wakefield
Nov 16, 2013, 12:39:49 PM11/16/13
to
"David R. Birch" wrote in message news:l683g...@news6.newsguy.com...
More like 40 million ... the Soviet Union alone suffered between 18 and 24
million casualties.
million casualties.
Hatch
Nov 16, 2013, 2:57:17 PM11/16/13
to
On 16 Nov 2013, John Lott III <ye...@yahoo.ch> posted some
news:l682r6$h6k$1...@news.albasani.net:
> After serious thinking Sid9 wrote :
>> What's with all the definitions?
>> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an
>> estimate 60 million human beings
>
> The logic of history is clear.
Fail.
There is nothing logical about history.
> Hitler was in the military and liked Guns. He even used one on his
> Dog and then himself to end his big fascist party!
Such a limited minimalist view. We expect that of liberals however.
Hitler liked power. Guns were just one of a hundred ways used to obtain
it.
> George Bush pretended to be that way. Despite how he stopped being a
> member of the NRA and was really only in a Champange regiment to avoid
> the Vietnam war.
George Bush went through boot camp and didn't forge a draft registration
card.
Barack Hussein Obama was a draft dodger who deliberately flouted federal
law and did forge a draft registration card.
> Obama? Not the same.
That's correct. Obama is a coward.
> He doesn't like guns, never claimed to be in the military.
Oh you're so wrong on the first count.
Obama loves guns. As long as they're in the hands of his supporters. See
Eric Holder and his gun running operations.
> Unlike Hitler or Bush.
Here's your "manly" Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU
news:l682r6$h6k$1...@news.albasani.net:
> After serious thinking Sid9 wrote :
>> What's with all the definitions?
>> Hitler was a murdering piece of shit that caused the deaths of an
>> estimate 60 million human beings
>
> The logic of history is clear.
There is nothing logical about history.
> Hitler was in the military and liked Guns. He even used one on his
> Dog and then himself to end his big fascist party!
Hitler liked power. Guns were just one of a hundred ways used to obtain
it.
> George Bush pretended to be that way. Despite how he stopped being a
> member of the NRA and was really only in a Champange regiment to avoid
> the Vietnam war.
card.
Barack Hussein Obama was a draft dodger who deliberately flouted federal
law and did forge a draft registration card.
> Obama? Not the same.
That's correct. Obama is a coward.
> He doesn't like guns, never claimed to be in the military.
Obama loves guns. As long as they're in the hands of his supporters. See
Eric Holder and his gun running operations.
> Unlike Hitler or Bush.
Here's your "manly" Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU
F. George McDuffee
Nov 16, 2013, 5:12:50 PM11/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:57:17 +0000 (UTC), Hatch
<ha...@act.com> wrote:
<snip>
The problem with popular history is that is almost always
written by the winners, with the result the victors and
their cause are glorified and the losers and their cause
are denigrated / demonized. This is further complicated by
the durability of wartime propaganda / stereotyping in the
weltanschauung [world view/perception] of the vast majority
of the population, even after the conflict is long over.
Attempts to objectively [re]evaluate clashes/conflicts
between cultures, especially war, almost always provoke
pathological denial, selective memory, and feelings of angst
in the large majority of "loyal" citizens, resulting in a
pervasive rage against the individuals/organizations
attempting to popularize such objective and critical
analysis.
The result is the general public and policy makers are never
made aware of the objective/factual background/causes of
past conflicts, so keep repeating these at great cost in
blood and treasure. One of the most pernicious and
dangerous fallacies is the conflation of luck and skill in
determining conflict outcomes, resulting in repeated "ad hoc
propter hoc" (after this, because of this) errors of logic
and policy.
<ha...@act.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The logic of history is clear.
<snip>
The problem with popular history is that is almost always
written by the winners, with the result the victors and
their cause are glorified and the losers and their cause
are denigrated / demonized. This is further complicated by
the durability of wartime propaganda / stereotyping in the
weltanschauung [world view/perception] of the vast majority
of the population, even after the conflict is long over.
Attempts to objectively [re]evaluate clashes/conflicts
between cultures, especially war, almost always provoke
pathological denial, selective memory, and feelings of angst
in the large majority of "loyal" citizens, resulting in a
pervasive rage against the individuals/organizations
attempting to popularize such objective and critical
analysis.
The result is the general public and policy makers are never
made aware of the objective/factual background/causes of
past conflicts, so keep repeating these at great cost in
blood and treasure. One of the most pernicious and
dangerous fallacies is the conflation of luck and skill in
determining conflict outcomes, resulting in repeated "ad hoc
propter hoc" (after this, because of this) errors of logic
and policy.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David R. Birch
Nov 16, 2013, 5:32:56 PM11/16/13
to
anything about how many Soviet troops were shot by the Soviets. No way
to tell, of course, but the Soviet soldier had two options, advance or
be shot by political commissars.
David
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Barry Bruyea
Nov 16, 2013, 7:04:39 PM11/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:39:49 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:
Considering the Soviets helped give Hitler the means to start the
bloody war and before becoming our 'allies' invaded four countries,
historically playing the victim is quite ironic.
wrote:
bloody war and before becoming our 'allies' invaded four countries,
historically playing the victim is quite ironic.
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Nov 16, 2013, 7:58:32 PM11/16/13
to
Hitler killing 60 million.
Barry Bruyea
Nov 17, 2013, 6:05:57 AM11/17/13
to
the butcher Stalin said one death is a tragedy, a million is a
statistic. Making an excuse for Hitler because of a number is pure,
unadulterated idiocy.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages