Was Hitler really right wing?
Discussion
Right in the middle for me. Strangely I would probably be considered as a righty in reality. I generally agree with anything Jordan Peterson says from what I've seen but this video of Steve Hughes (comedian) is about where I stand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8OP8Rzi0r8
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
On the subject though, I don't know nearly enough to judge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8OP8Rzi0r8
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
On the subject though, I don't know nearly enough to judge.
Balmoral said:
A true right winger wouldn't give a fk about immigration because the market reaches a level, the more right wing and free marketeer you are, the less of a fk is given. FoM is the very essence of right wing thinking, which is completely contrary to the current narrative.
Only assuming right wing is the same thing as a free marketeer. On that measure Hitler certainly wasn't right wing. However it is not a good measure in my view because free markets care nothing for continuity or authority.Cbull said:
Right in the middle for me. Strangely I would probably be considered as a righty in reality. I generally agree with anything Jordan Peterson says from what I've seen but this video of Steve Hughes (comedian) is about where I stand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8OP8Rzi0r8
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
On the subject though, I don't know nearly enough to judge.
JBP is largely centrist I believe but obviously he has been embraced by the more exuberant right wingers as he attempts to close down what he sees as post-modernism writ large, gender politicking, left wing influences on campus and the other flavours of the day. He has stated unequivocally that he is not part of any right-wing ideology though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8OP8Rzi0r8
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
On the subject though, I don't know nearly enough to judge.
I'm probably a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, so pretty homeless at the moment.
glazbagun said:
Balmoral said:
A true right winger wouldn't give a fk about immigration because the market reaches a level, the more right wing and free marketeer you are, the less of a fk is given. FoM is the very essence of right wing thinking, which is completely contrary to the current narrative.
A true right-winger with capital would think that way. A right winger without it would see it as competition in their attempts to aquire capital. Likewise I have often pondered why the left seem so in love with FOM which hurts the working classes the most. Self-identifying lefties I know boil it down to not being racist scum, but that's not really an economic position. I instead think it probably has it's roots in egalitarianism and the class struggle- Communism was supposed to spread the globe in as the proles overthrew their capitalist masters, after all, so to a true lefty the Lithuanian cleaner with poor English is your brother/sister in the class struggle, not someone who's dragging your wages down. If one views voting socialist as just a way to get more child benefit, it's possible you're not drinking the same cool-aid.
Randy Winkman said:
But do you agree that people of a left-wing persuasion shouldn't all be grouped together and described as "the left" anymore than all right-wing people should not be called "the right"? In each case they are individuals with different views about any number of things.
Absolutely. I always thought the maxim about "Tyranny being the deliberate removal of nuance" to be a bit melodramatic, but what I've seen over the years has been a real validation of it.Sadly, generalisation, labeling and tribalism is how humans work- we need generalisation to talk about any group and throwing rhetorical mud is more energy efficient than dry logic.
Big data and the internet might have the solution, but from what I've seen this decade with Twitter and Youtube I fear we're all going to become baying morons within 50 years and the lessons of the 20th century will be lost.
Countdown said:
Vanden Saab said:
In the first instance, if there is no UK based chef available then they can recruit from wherever they like, subject to any immigration limits or rules.
In the second instance, no. Bringing in workers from elsewhere when the skills and workers are available here is just daft.Why should taxpayers subsidise your company?
It's the same situation for both... there probably ARE workers available in the UK but they cost much more to employ.In the second instance, no. Bringing in workers from elsewhere when the skills and workers are available here is just daft.Why should taxpayers subsidise your company?
It's a bit like LU train drivers insisting that they should be on £50k per annum and preventing LU from recruiting anybody externally. In very simple terms that's what limiting freedom of movement does; it acts to protect certain workers.
And I'm not sure how taxpayers would be subsidising "my" company?
Secondly think how you would feel if "your" company bought in a foreign worker to do a job you could do because they were cheaper while you sat at home on the dole...For someone who seems to empathise with several oppressed minorities your lack of empathy regarding employing your fellow countrymen surprises me...
Vanden Saab said:
Countdown said:
Vanden Saab said:
In the first instance, if there is no UK based chef available then they can recruit from wherever they like, subject to any immigration limits or rules.
In the second instance, no. Bringing in workers from elsewhere when the skills and workers are available here is just daft.Why should taxpayers subsidise your company?
It's the same situation for both... there probably ARE workers available in the UK but they cost much more to employ.In the second instance, no. Bringing in workers from elsewhere when the skills and workers are available here is just daft.Why should taxpayers subsidise your company?
It's a bit like LU train drivers insisting that they should be on £50k per annum and preventing LU from recruiting anybody externally. In very simple terms that's what limiting freedom of movement does; it acts to protect certain workers.
And I'm not sure how taxpayers would be subsidising "my" company?
Secondly think how you would feel if "your" company bought in a foreign worker to do a job you could do because they were cheaper while you sat at home on the dole...For someone who seems to empathise with several oppressed minorities your lack of empathy regarding employing your fellow countrymen surprises me...
JuanCarlosFandango said:
No. The terms left and right wing as political positions originated in the French revolution when the French parliament divided into two with those on the right supporting the King and those on the left supporting the revolution. More broadly the right stood for continuity and the church, the left stood for revolution and change.
Hitler was by any measure a radical who wanted and implemented huge changes. He was not a monarchist, not a theist and believed in state intervention in all areas of life for innovative 'improvements.' He had no respect for the inherently right wing idea of different centres of power and little interest in order except as an excuse to suppress opposition.
The only possible right wing things about him were that he claimed to be a nationalist, and he was racist. His claim to be a nationalist is dubious as he reinvented the idea of the German nation according to his own ideals, which flies in the face of the traditionalist right wing view that it's precisely the continuity of the nation which makes it something worth defending. He then sought to build an empire, which is immediately a threat to the nation you claim to be a nationalist for. As for racism, I don't believe Hitler was racist for the legitimate right wing reasons, which are to preserve and enhance the tribal differences of your people and nothing to do with hating others. Hitler was all about hating others and creating a master race. That was simply politically expedient for an empire builder at the time, and if he actually believed in it then so much the better for him.
I have no doubt at all that if Hitler were alive today he would be a champion of diversity. a believer in climate change and an arch remainer. Not especially because he would believe in these things either but because he believed in political expedience and the concentration of power at the expense of continuity and heirarchy.
This is one of the most mind-boggling posts I have ever read, a confusion of half-baked theories conjured up and thrown together into complete gibberish. I am not sure how "Hitler was all about hating others and creating a master race" squares with "if Hitler were alive today he would be a champion of diversity" as murdering in industrial numbers anyone who was perceived to be different seemed a main part of his ideology. I cannot wait for the justification for racism for "legitimate right wing reasons". Hitler was by any measure a radical who wanted and implemented huge changes. He was not a monarchist, not a theist and believed in state intervention in all areas of life for innovative 'improvements.' He had no respect for the inherently right wing idea of different centres of power and little interest in order except as an excuse to suppress opposition.
The only possible right wing things about him were that he claimed to be a nationalist, and he was racist. His claim to be a nationalist is dubious as he reinvented the idea of the German nation according to his own ideals, which flies in the face of the traditionalist right wing view that it's precisely the continuity of the nation which makes it something worth defending. He then sought to build an empire, which is immediately a threat to the nation you claim to be a nationalist for. As for racism, I don't believe Hitler was racist for the legitimate right wing reasons, which are to preserve and enhance the tribal differences of your people and nothing to do with hating others. Hitler was all about hating others and creating a master race. That was simply politically expedient for an empire builder at the time, and if he actually believed in it then so much the better for him.
I have no doubt at all that if Hitler were alive today he would be a champion of diversity. a believer in climate change and an arch remainer. Not especially because he would believe in these things either but because he believed in political expedience and the concentration of power at the expense of continuity and heirarchy.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I have no doubt at all that if Hitler were alive today he would be a champion of diversity.
Perhaps I'm due a parrot, but that is utterly preposterous. When Hitler was actually alive he was a champion of the idea of a master race, and ran a regime that murdered millions of people who didn't fit in with his idea of what constituted that master race. He didn't do it because he thought it would be a vote-winner along the lines of a winter fuel allowance for pensioners. He did it because it was fundamental to his fked-up beliefs. How you can claim he'd be a champion of diversity were he alive today is completely beyond any evidence and common sense. glazbagun said:
Randy Winkman said:
But do you agree that people of a left-wing persuasion shouldn't all be grouped together and described as "the left" anymore than all right-wing people should not be called "the right"? In each case they are individuals with different views about any number of things.
Absolutely. I always thought the maxim about "Tyranny being the deliberate removal of nuance" to be a bit melodramatic, but what I've seen over the years has been a real validation of it.Sadly, generalisation, labeling and tribalism is how humans work- we need generalisation to talk about any group and throwing rhetorical mud is more energy efficient than dry logic.
Big data and the internet might have the solution, but from what I've seen this decade with Twitter and Youtube I fear we're all going to become baying morons within 50 years and the lessons of the 20th century will be lost.
greygoose said:
This is one of the most mind-boggling posts I have ever read, a confusion of half-baked theories conjured up and thrown together into complete gibberish. I am not sure how "Hitler was all about hating others and creating a master race" squares with "if Hitler were alive today he would be a champion of diversity" as murdering in industrial numbers anyone who was perceived to be different seemed a main part of his ideology. I cannot wait for the justification for racism for "legitimate right wing reasons".
History may paint him as a freak and plenty of the less informed judge him by the standards of today, but Hitler wasn't that far off what was current thinking of the time, so stands to reason today's Hitler would be working with current and relevant ideas. The danger of the Nazi comes from within, not externally.Teddy Lop said:
History may paint him as a freak and plenty of the less informed judge him by the standards of today, but Hitler wasn't that far off what was current thinking of the time
Remember when half the globe got involved in a war against him? It was pretty big news so even the less informed would probably know about it.But you’re right, the systematic extermination of millions shouldn’t be judged by today’s PC standards.
Dindoit said:
Teddy Lop said:
History may paint him as a freak and plenty of the less informed judge him by the standards of today, but Hitler wasn't that far off what was current thinking of the time
Remember when half the globe got involved in a war against him? It was pretty big news so even the less informed would probably know about it.But you’re right, the systematic extermination of millions shouldn’t be judged by today’s PC standards.
Dindoit said:
Teddy Lop said:
History may paint him as a freak and plenty of the less informed judge him by the standards of today, but Hitler wasn't that far off what was current thinking of the time
Remember when half the globe got involved in a war against him? It was pretty big news so even the less informed would probably know about it.But you’re right, the systematic extermination of millions shouldn’t be judged by today’s PC standards.
A lot of what Hitler did domestically isn't what led to WW2 and its a little cynical its used so heavily.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff