“We are socialists…we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

[Macfistowannabe]

“We are socialists…we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

The Nazi Worldview

What did the Nazi Party stand for? By definition, Nazis were members of the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Third Reich. Rather than refer to themselves as “Nazis”, they defined themselves as National Socialists. In other words, Nazism is a form of socialism with an extreme nationalist component.

Here, Adolf Hitler defines the party’s socialist impulses beyond reasonable doubt.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Obviously, all socialism is considered left wing. But is all nationalism considered right wing? Not necessarily. Present day dictatorships China and North Korea enforce a strong nationalist component in defiance of globalism. Although Marxist literature was banned – possibly to disrupt the doctrine of global domination – Hitler describes in his own words how the National Socialists were communist sympathizers.

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

In spite of this “binding”, why were the Nazis considered right wing? Originally, because the Nazis were seated on the right side of the Bundestag, while the Communists sat on the left, even in spite of the fact that both the Nazis and the Communists were far-left totalitarians. Obviously, you could argue logically that the Nazis were to the right of the Communists. Yet, they were far to the left of everyone else. The similarities are discussed at length in LEFTISM: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse by Professor Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

What would Adolf Hitler and the Nazis stand for if they came into power today? Obviously, they would represent a form of totalitarian socialism that rejected the Marxist principle of global domination. But to sight those seeking to revive National Socialism, many Neo-Nazi organizations align themselves with the environment, multi-cultural segregation, and imposing taxes on non-profit religious organizations.

Here is a list of several present-day Neo-Nazi organizations:

Australian Worker's Party - Australia
Australian Nationalism - Australia
American Nazi Party - USA
Blood & Honour - militant neo-Nazi network, distributing racist music
Blood & Honour Bulgaria
Blood & Honour Division Serbia [22]
British National Front - United Kingdom
Carecas do ABC in São Paulo, Brazil
Eesti Patriootlik Organisatsioon - Estonia
Heritage Front - Canada
Hrisi Avgi - Greece
Imperium europa - Malta
Kärntner Heimatdienst - Carinthia
Lithuanian National Socialist Party - Lithuania
National Action - Australia
National-Bolshevik Party - Russia
Nationalist Movement Party and the Grey Wolves - Turkey
National Power Unity - Latvia
National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party
Nacionalni stroj - Serbia
Patriotic Youth League - Australia
Patriotiki Symmachia - Greece
Tribu K - France
New Zealand National Front - New Zealand
Noua Dreaptă - "New Right" - Romania
Patria Nueva Sociedad - Chile
Russian National Unity - Russia
White Noise - United Kingdom

 

[melon]

Ah yes. I've seen crap like this crop up over the last few years, mainly from right-wing Christian hate groups that wish to differentiate themselves from neo-Nazism, because they don't want to be seen as linked to the Holocaust and all the baggage that goes along with being called a "Nazi" (despite the fact that these groups generally share their vitriolic anti-Semitism). As such, by implication, the solution to all the world's problems is in instituting a global Christian theocracy. After all, the alternative is what they'd likely refer to as "secular Nazism."

And this is a variant of it that I'm guessing percolated from conservative talk radio. That is:

"Conservatives aren't fascists/Nazis. Liberals are, so now we can call you one!"

My "favorite" one had to have been this rambling "book" on how all Nazis were really homosexuals, and, by implication, how all homosexuals were Nazis. So let's kill all the "Nazis."

This is essentially a political polemic masquerading as philosophy. Notice how this doesn't ask the question:

"Why are communists considered left wing?"

After all, we could similarly disown communism from the left and lump it in with right-wing Nazism/fascism. That's ultimately where the above argument falls apart.

Totalitarianism is generally a category all its own that has nothing to do with classical definitions of "left" and "right." But I see that conservatives, who bitched and moaned about how inappropriate it was for liberals to call them "fascists," are now working as hard as they can to ensure that all liberals are really seen as "Nazis."

This is getting pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

Re: “We are socialists…we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Hilarious.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Ah yes. I've seen crap like this crop up over the last few years, mainly from right-wing Christian hate groups that wish to differentiate themselves from neo-Nazism, because they don't want to be seen as linked to the Holocaust and all the baggage that goes along with being called a "Nazi" (despite the fact that these groups generally share their vitriolic anti-Semitism). As such, by implication, the solution to all the world's problems is in instituting a global Christian theocracy. After all, the alternative is what they'd likely refer to as "secular Nazism."

Care to share any examples of these "right-wing Christian 'hate' groups?"

My "favorite" one had to have been this rambling "book" on how all Nazis were really homosexuals, and, by implication, how all homosexuals were Nazis. So let's kill all the "Nazis."

All? No. However, a fraction of SS troops were in fact homosexual.

This is essentially a political polemic masquerading as philosophy. Notice how this doesn't ask the question:

"Why are communists considered left wing?"

After all, we could similarly disown communism from the left and lump it in with right-wing Nazism/fascism.

I'd like to see you try.

Totalitarianism is generally a category all its own that has nothing to do with classical definitions of "left" and "right." But I see that conservatives, who bitched and moaned about how inappropriate it was for liberals to call them "fascists," are now working as hard as they can to ensure that all liberals are really seen as "Nazis."

This is getting pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

Melon

So obviously, putting words in the mouth of everyone you don't like is your specialty. However, it's wrong in its entirity to suggest that the Nazis were "right-wing."

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Re: Re: “We are socialists…we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions&quo

Hilarious.

I expected a lot of these arguments to suck.

 

[financeguy]

No I was just commenting on what I initially took to be rather funny satire you posted.

Are you saying this article is actually serious??

 

[melon]

Care to share any examples of these "right-wing Christian 'hate' groups?"

An example? I'll do better than that. There's an entire category of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity

"Christian Identity" groups are mainly the ones who wish to distance themselves from neo-Nazism, which they interpret as "atheist." And these are the groups whose reactionary ideas are generally filtered through conservative talk radio for the rest of the world--just like this article, and just like the furor over childless couples in a thread in this forum.

All? No. However, a fraction of SS troops were in fact homosexual.

I'm sure a small fraction were, just as the majority fraction were heterosexual.

I'd like to see you try.

Neither China nor North Korea resemble communism in the true sense. They are dictatorships that hide behind Marxism for justification, just as Syria hides behind the pan-Arab nationalist movement to justify its own dictatorship. As such, since Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were unabashed dictatorships, you could argue that today's so-called "communist governments" are really right-wing dictatorships.

Like I said, the argument can be made, but, as I stated earlier, totalitarianism truly exists outside the mainstream ideological spectrum. The whole left/right dichotomy was only envisioned around democratic governments anyway.

So obviously, putting words in the mouth of everyone you don't like is your specialty. However, it's wrong in its entirity to suggest that the Nazis were "right-wing."

No, "my specialty" is cutting through the FUD and getting to the fact of the matter. I'm sure you had no idea that this concept originated from "Christian Identity" groups, but now I'm here to tell that it is.

And the irony of all this? While they're busy trying to disown Nazism and imply that Nazis are really left-wing atheists, the "Christian Identity" movement owes its entire heritage to Nazism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

So before you go ahead and rewrite over 60 years of history to conform to your ideology, let's focus on the facts.

Melon

 

[verte76]

Where does Fidel Castro fit into all of this? Just curious.

 

[deep]

All? No. However, a fraction of SS troops were in fact homosexual.

that explains the niffy yellow stars and pink triangles patches worn on the sleeves

(they have such a way with fashion)

 

[melon]

that explains the niffy yellow stars and pink triangles patches worn on the sleeves

(they have such a way with fashion)

I guess I should clarify my earlier statement. A "small fraction" would have been gay...but closeted, just like in any organization in the world.

A lot of this FUD over Nazis being gay was because the first chief of staff to the SA, Ernst Röhm, was openly gay from 1925...until he was removed from the position and executed by Hitler in 1934.

Ernst Röhm was one of the most prominent of a number of early Nazi party members who was a suspected homosexual, and his homosexuality was ultimately the pretext used for his removal during the purge of the SA. Having been outed in 1925, however, Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was gay.

During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of gay men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures. This was despite the openly anti-gay policies of the Nazis, exemplified by their strengthening of Paragraph 175 (criminalising homosexual acts) of the German Criminal Code of 1871.

On his arrest on 30 June 1934 in the notorious Night of the Long Knives incident, he was found in bed with a young boy although there is no evidence for this and could have been part of Hitler's justification for the removal of Röhm.

Röhm really was more of a socialist and that's why, ultimately, he was taken out.

The tension within the Nazis worsened after further calls from Röhm for the "second revolution," (this time against the conservative power structure) and after a showdown between Röhm and Hitler in early June.

Similarly, the conservative industrialists that had supported Hitler's rise to the chancellorship in 1933 continued to voice unease over the socialist leanings Röhm shared with the Strasser brothers, in particular their calls for the "second revolution." Through their close relationship with President von Hindenburg, both conservative groups — the officer corps and the industrialists — made their displeasure known to him.

Again, this should put to rest any folly that Hitler's regime was, in any way, "left-wing."

Melon

 

[BVS]

You really need to quit hanging out in your Ann Coulter chat rooms and get out in the real world every once in awhile there Mac.

 

[Sylvia127]

Ernst Rohm mentioned in the wonderful, and historical Past, Present and Future album by Al Stewart. (song is Last Day of June 1934) For those unfamiliar w/this-Stewart a real history buff and entire album addresses WWII years.

(OT I know...)

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that Hayek put it better,

 

[Se7en]

Where does Fidel Castro fit into all of this? Just curious.

castro, much like ho chi minh was, is a nationalist revolutionary pragmatist first and foremost. their association with communism came about more because of the support the ussr threw behind third world nationalist movements than because of an inherent ideological loyalty, imho (this is readily confirmed by ho chi minh himself). castro is not a totalitarian. a moderate despot? perhaps. a kim il sung? nope.

 

[BVS]

Seriously, ignore these threads. This poster comes in spouts out ultra right-wing hatred and then never comes back to retort. He comes back a few weeks later when his comments are buried in the 2nd or 3rd page and doesn't bother to actually debate the issue.

He's a troll...

 

[A_Wanderer]

The contentions that multi-culturalism, environmentalism and anti-theism are fascist is wrong but the category of the Nazis as statist totalitarians has some merits.

 

[Se7en]

Nazis as statist totalitarians has some merits.

certainly.

there is also merit to what melon said - that no matter what part of the ideological spectrum despotism begins, once it reaches a totalitarian level it's pretty much all the same bullshit.

 

[Calluna]

No I was just commenting on what I initially took to be rather funny satire you posted.

Are you saying this article is actually serious??

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You really need to quit hanging out in your Ann Coulter chat rooms and get out in the real world every once in awhile there Mac.

To the best of my knowledge, Ann Coulter nor any other conservative pundit has bothered to challenge the "right-wing" association of the National Socialists. But to put another bug in your ear, that leftist human tick Peter Singer is comparable to Adolf Hitler on MANY levels - like Hitler, he was a vegan, and like Hitler, he wants to euthanize not only newborn children, but the handicapped as well. And that empty soul Margaret Sanger would fit right in with the Nazis as well - she was the death worshipper that founded Planned Parenthood, mainly because she was irate over the idea of women giving birth to as many children as they wanted.

And the "real world" you live in is where only a cokehead comedian on Air America is considered a grown up.

Perhaps you've never been taught in addition how Hitler banned guns from private citizens in the early 1930s. If you connect the dots, it was so that private citizens couldn't defend themselves from another madman who was brainwashed by the ideology of Karl Marx.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The contentions that multi-culturalism, environmentalism and anti-theism are fascist is wrong but the category of the Nazis as statist totalitarians has some merits.

They are not exclusively fascist, and in no way did I intend on implying that.

But neo-nazis nor nazis have never been pro-capitalist, never pro-integration, and never pro-religion. Therefore, they cannot possibly be "right-wing."

Here you can find some of the stances that neo-nazis have taken to this day: www.nazi.org.

They don't exactly remind me of the neocons.

"Neo" means "new" for those of you who don't know what you're talking about.

 

[BVS]

that leftist human tick Peter Singer is comparable to Adolf Hitler on MANY levels - like Hitler, he was a vegan,

And that empty soul Margaret Sanger would fit right in with the Nazis as well - she was the death worshipper that founded Planned Parenthood, mainly because she was irate over the idea of women giving birth to as many children as they wanted.

She was forcing abortions? Wow, you are so educated on the subject.

And the "real world" you live in is where only a cokehead comedian on Air America is considered a grown up.

But what about the cokehead in the White House? Is he considered grown up?

Perhaps you've never been taught in addition how Hitler banned guns from private citizens in the early 1930s. If you connect the dots, it was so that private citizens couldn't defend themselves from another madman who was brainwashed by the ideology of Karl Marx.

This is your funniest comparision, though the vegan one was good. You really think your handgun is going to protect you against the government? When you allow citizens to own tanks, then you can use this crap argument.

 

[Axver]

But to put another bug in your ear, that leftist human tick Peter Singer is comparable to Adolf Hitler on MANY levels - like Hitler, he was a vegan, and like Hitler, he wants to euthanize not only newborn children, but the handicapped as well.

But to put another bug in your ear, that crazy Interferencer Macfistowannabe is comparable to Adolf Hitler on MANY levels - like Hitler, he was a human, and like Hitler, he breathed air, and like Hitler, he drank water and ate various foods, and like Hitler, he was alive at some point in the 20th century!

Perhaps you've never been taught in addition how Hitler banned guns from private citizens in the early 1930s. If you connect the dots, it was so that private citizens couldn't defend themselves from another madman who was brainwashed by the ideology of Karl Marx.

Wow, you clearly have no clue about the writings of Karl Marx, do you?

 

[BVS]

What's even funnier about Macs comparisons is that Peter Singer was Jewish.

 

[melon]

But to put another bug in your ear, that leftist human tick Peter Singer is comparable to Adolf Hitler on MANY levels - like Hitler, he was a vegan, and like Hitler, he wants to euthanize not only newborn children, but the handicapped as well.

Peter Singer is such a non-issue. He's a philosopher that nobody listens to, so to compare him to Hitler, who not only came up with kooky ideas, but created an entire paramilitary (SA) to rise to power to enact those ideas, is nothing short of hysterical.

At the very least, he bothers to ask the question of what makes us human, and his rather extremist philosophical responses should challenge people to think.

And that empty soul Margaret Sanger would fit right in with the Nazis as well - she was the death worshipper that founded Planned Parenthood, mainly because she was irate over the idea of women giving birth to as many children as they wanted.

Why don't you bring up the Scopes trial while you're at it?

Margaret Sanger did *not* create abortions in this country. Abortion was illegal in her lifetime, and the Planned Parenthood she founded did not advocate for abortion in that time.

Even at that, you really don't get it at all. Sanger's push for birth control was because *women* wanted to control the number of children they wanted. Do you really honestly believe that women had a decision in this matter in the 1920s? No, their husbands did. And that's what really makes you and likeminded paleoconservatives angry: you no longer got to own your women. They actually had a decision in the number of children they wanted to have, and (lucky for you) men didn't have to give up their sex lives in the process.

Perhaps you've never been taught in addition how Hitler banned guns from private citizens in the early 1930s. If you connect the dots, it was so that private citizens couldn't defend themselves from another madman who was brainwashed by the ideology of Karl Marx.

Banning guns is a standard feature of totalitarian governments, which, as I stated before, has nothing to do with the left/right-wing dichotomy.

But, by all means, don't let fact and reason get in the way of your goutrage.

Melon

 

[melon]

But to put another bug in your ear, that crazy Interferencer Macfistowannabe is comparable to Adolf Hitler on MANY levels - like Hitler, he was a human, and like Hitler, he breathed air, and like Hitler, he drank water and ate various foods, and like Hitler, he was alive at some point in the 20th century!

And, like Adolf Hitler, he looks at the world as completely black-and-white and blames leftists for all the world's problems (Hitler's standard response during the Weimar Republic was that Germany was in bad shape because of Jews in the government, which he perceived as all communist; as such, when it came to anything he disliked, he blamed "Jewish communists"), even if it doesn't make sense.

Melon

 

[najeena]

Where is STING2 when we need him? He argues with facts, and has respect for the rest of us, as we do for him.

 

[INDY500]

Margaret Sanger did *not* create abortions in this country. Abortion was illegal in her lifetime, and the Planned Parenthood she founded did not advocate for abortion in that time.

Even at that, you really don't get it at all. Sanger's push for birth control was because *women* wanted to control the number of children they wanted.

It's a bit more complicated than that. She was a proponent of Eugenics which has as it's goal "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks." She referred to immigrants and the poor as "human weeds" with "inferior genetic material" and favored sterilization to prevent "the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Seriously, ignore these threads. This poster comes in spouts out ultra right-wing hatred and then never comes back to retort. He comes back a few weeks later when his comments are buried in the 2nd or 3rd page and doesn't bother to actually debate the issue.

He's a troll...

I'm not full of "hate" (Supa-speak for anyone who opposes socialism in any of its forms), you're just full of shit.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It's a bit more complicated than that. She was a proponent of Eugenics which has as it's goal "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks." She referred to immigrants and the poor as "human weeds" with "inferior genetic material" and favored sterilization to prevent "the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

This is correct, her biography would not be complete without mentioning the racial component she advocated.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

And, like Adolf Hitler, he looks at the world as completely black-and-white and blames leftists for all the world's problems (Hitler's standard response during the Weimar Republic was that Germany was in bad shape because of Jews in the government, which he perceived as all communist; as such, when it came to anything he disliked, he blamed "Jewish communists"), even if it doesn't make sense.

Melon

And would you consider FDR to be a moral relativist?