AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Actually, it is Blatantly Obvious that Hitler was a Leftist

Great comment here in response to this post at Gateway Pundit: Howard Zinn, Left’s Favorite Historian Now Proven Member of US Communist Party

Andreas K.
August 1st, 2010 | 8:59 am | #31

I was reading through the link provided by S. Wolf “What the Left Really Thinks of Hitler”

And I had to post this as a comment to it:

Actually Hitler was a leftist. Saying he wasn’t is just further pushing the lie that Hitler was “right wing” and that all Nazis were and are “right wing.”

How was Hitler left wing? It’s blatantly obvious. The only problem is that these facts are usually swept under the carpet by the people selling this “collective guilt” to Germans these days, which means: German politicians and media telling Germans people who were born after the war, that they bear responsibility for the Holocaust, which is, in fact, a Nazi principle by itself. It was called “Sippenhaftung”. One member of a group committed a crime and thus all members of the group were criminals.


First off, national socialism is exactly that. Socialism on a national level, focusing primarily on this strange idea of “race” instead of “class”. “Race” is nothing new in socialism. It was an important point long before Hitler. Plus, Hitler’s national socialism has plenty of “class warfare” themes. Even today you can watch one national socialist country: North Korea. It’s always sold as stalinist, but North Korea has copied the “Aryan master race” idea and calls it “national bloodline”, for which people are murdered, similar to what the Nazis did.

Most importantly though are the statements of Nazi leaders themselves.

Göbbels said in a speech in December 1933 that the NSDAP is, by definition, the German left wing (he called it “die deutsche Linke”) and that they hate nothing more than a “rechtsstehendes Besitzbürgertum”, a right-wing bourgeousie (literally a “right-wing property owning citizenry”.)

In early 1945, Hitler held a conference of the Gauleiters. During this Hitler lamented that, while the Nazis had succeeded in destroying the “Klassenkämpfer” (lit. “class warriors”, aka the Communists, Hitler’s direct competition for power), they had failed to destroy the German right wing. Hitler called this their biggest sin.

In comparison, right wing people under Hitler were men like Stauffenberg.

And if we go back into the history of the socialist movement, then we find men like Karl Kautzky, chief ideologist of the German Socialist Party, SPD, which still exists today. Kautzky once wrote, in 1914, that the ultimate goal must be the destruction of capitalism, because if you destroy capitalism, you destroy the Jews, and that is good.

And even the founder, Karl Marx himself, ranted about how “inferior classes and races must be wiped out.”

Genocide is part of the program, coming from Marx himself. Lenin. Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Che. Castro. And so on. They all just followed the orders from Marx himself. Without Marx, there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. Without Marx no gulags, no famines from Lenin, and so on.

Also, calling Hitler far right is a logic fallacy.

Communism, socialism always lead to what? Oppression, dictatorship, mass murder, as history proves without a doubt. If we call Hitler “far right”, then the extreme opposite to socialist mass murder and oppression is… socialist mass murder and oppression. Which doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Far right, that’s not the Nazis, that’s the extreme support of liberty, freedom and democracy.

Let me add this specifically here:

There are a handful of historians in Germany and Austria these days, who are pushing against this “Hitler = right wing” mantra. They are, as of now, not very popular and are called many nasty things. However, they provide actual evidence for Hitler not being right wing, but rather left wing. Evidence like speeches and notes. And the conclusion from this evidence is pretty clear: Hitler was as left wing as Lenin, just focusing on race instead of class, while Lenin focused on class instead of race. The basic idea, though, is essentially the same. Race and class are the two driving points of socialism in its many forms.

Marx always leads to Stalin and/or Hitler. Always.

And let’s not forget that Hitler received his first political indoctrination and training from whom? The German communists. Essentially Hitler agreed with their ideas. He just hated that they weren’t racist enough. The result was the German Workers’ Party (DAP), or better said, Hitler joining the already existing DAP. Eventually the DAP was renamed into the, yes you guessed right, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the Nationalsocialist German Workers’ Party, the NSDAP.

Also let’s not forget what Hitler promoted: German nationalism, anti-semitism, anti-capitalism and anti-communism (since the communists were the direct competition for power.)

Andreas added this great comment earlier in the thread:

Andreas K.
August 1st, 2010 | 6:56 am | #24

“You see, even I as an ardent anti-Communist, can understand why so many western leftists thought that the early communist movement(s) was a great idea. Early in the history of socialism/communism it all seemed so high-minded, such a bold experiment. This was before Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot began to murder millions.”

Let me just say this:

The murdering began before Stalin, before Mao, before Pol Pot.

Lenin triggered famines in Russia which killed the people in the millions. Hunger was a weapon on the civil war and the Communists used it whenever they could. Millions of Russians perished. Men, women, children, because comrade Lenin said so. That was long before gulags and other camps.

If we go back even further we can see Marx himself writing about how “inferior classes and races” must be wiped out. The basic idea of socialism from Karl Marx itself includes genocide. Genocide is part of the ideology.

And every socialist, communist, marxist, maoist, etc, supports this.

Yep. And the modern day genocide is the promotion of abortion-on-demand and encouraging the elderly to simply “die with dignity”… which is promoted by liberals and the LEFT, not conservatives and the Right.

August 2, 2010 , 10:06AM Posted by | Communism, Hitler, Leftist Groups, Liberalism, Marxism, Racism, Socialism | Comments Off on Actually, it is Blatantly Obvious that Hitler was a Leftist

Where Have the Liberal Feminists Been All This Time Regarding Subjugation of Afghan Women?

Good comments in response to this post at Blackfive: The Face of Our Ally, as Made by Our Enemy

jordan said…
I agree, our guys are at the top of the “save and protect” list. That’s why so many families have been so infuriated about the ROE, even knowing all the factors and advantages of “courageous restraint.” If it’s us or them, I pick us, even if “them” is an Afghan civilian just working for Taliban money. Even if it means collateral, horrible damage. I pick us, and I don’t think “saving the women” is a reason to fight and put our guys in harm’s way. (Even as a woman.)

That said, we’ve been making this argument about Afghan women for a decade, and the liberal press has dutifully ignored the issue. Why, after ten years, does a major publication all of sudden do a story on subjugation of Afghan women? Where have the liberal feminists been all this time, while their sisters have lived in misery and fear? I’ll tell you where, undermining, mocking and disappearing the very strength and power it takes to free them. Cutting off at the knees the force and the “macho neanderthals” necessary to make that freedom happen. Liberal feminism? Epic Fail. That’s what that cover says. It also says something lib feminists are too dumb to consider: gratitude. Gratitude toward the very western ideals, thought and power — and men –that make their good, free lives possible.

There’s a tendency with the group currently in power to idealize and worship third world cultures and ways as if they’re somehow more noble than ours. Yet, would they choose to subject themselves to those things they praise in such politically correct terms? No.

Egalitarianism for women in the west is possible because we have civilized and reasonable men. Afghan women are dealing with a whole different animal, and even the U.S. military achieving it’s goals there won’t liberate them. They’ll probably have to resort to arms and deadly force. The women, I mean. I say we give all the Afghan women combat training, arm them to the teeth, and then go home. No, we don’t justify our presence over there on the idea of saving Afghan women.

July 30, 2010 at 09:47 AM

jordan said…
One more thing. There was no end to the media bashing on Gen. Mattis’ comment about Taliban slapping their women around, and how that meant they had no manhood left. They couldn’t stop saying what a caveman Mattis was. (No comment on the Afghan men who preside over the punishment of their women.) It’s probably too much to hope for that this article serves as a reality check for that view, but given that, it’s still what’s in America’s interests that should drive our presence there, and nothing else. Frankly, I’m inclined to let the whole lot of them jump in the lake.

July 30, 2010 at 10:05 AM

August 2, 2010 , 9:17AM Posted by | Afghanistan, Feminism, Liberalism | Comments Off on Where Have the Liberal Feminists Been All This Time Regarding Subjugation of Afghan Women?