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

My Futile ‘Debate’ with a Liberal Professor of History

Well, if one could even call this a “debate”.

A conservative Facebook friend of mine yesterday had posted a status message regarding the latest health care legislation tragedy. Some liberal jumped to respond to it with the usual nonsense. I checked out his profile and saw that he has a degree in History and was a current “Adjunct Professor” at Oakland Community College. I stupidly thought that meant he could debate logic and facts on issues. Boy was I ever wrong. The following is our back-and-forth, wasted time in my life I shall never get back:

Friend’s Status Message: Prager: “The Left corrodes everything. The Left is toxic. The Left destroys. The Left is useless. But they think they’re wonderful. It is another religion… People don’t understand. The vast majority of people have been destroyed in the 20th century, enslaved, tortured, and murdered by Left-wing regimes. But it doesn’t mean anything to anybody. They’re never called that… The Left is never blamed for this.”

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: Utra-right wing = fascism and Nazism. Far-left socialism and marxism. Both have killed their fair share of people. Get it right.

FACEBOOK FRIEND: Get it right…? You might want to check what “Nazi” was shorthand for. Also, don’t forget the communists…

MICHAEL IN MI: Wonderful. Another professor of History calling NAZIs “right wing”. Brilliant.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: Nazi were the definition of far right. The name does not define their policies. Many business leaders in the US were admiriers of Hitler and the Nazis (ie Henry Ford) In fact some (conservative) business leaders (ie Rene DuPont) were planning to overthrow FDR in 1933 and establish a Nazi regime. You don’t know that marxists are communists.

MICHAEL IN MI: I didn’t know that “far right” people are socialists. The NAZIs’ policies were socialism. No one on the Right endorses socialism. “Far right” is basically libertarian, which is small government. NAZIs were about big government control of industry. No one on the Right wants government control of industry.

So, again, NAZIs were not “far right”.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: Really, then WHY are they so popular with the business leaders in the US in 1930s?

MICHAEL IN MI: The same reason the current crop of Communists in government are so popular with many business leaders today (ie, GE, Microsoft, Google, which all are HUGE supporters of the current crop of far left radical Democrats)… because some business leaders of the 1930s were NAZIs themselves. The common theme is consolidated control and power. They wanted it back in the 1930s and they want it again here in 2010. But government control is a NAZI/Communist ideology, not a conservative/libertarian ideology. Conservatives and libertarians want small government and as much free market as possible. NAZIs and Communists want the opposite… they want large government and as little free market and as much government control of industry as they can get.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: Interesting arguement with one flaw, Communists and Nazis hated each other. Why were the Nazis rounding up the communists and putting in concentration camps, if they had so much in common? Where do you get your information from? Conservatives only want a government who supports them. Its only socialism when the government helps the people.

MICHAEL IN MI: Every government which has had socialism has not been to “help the people”, but to keep the people down. Socialism helps government control the people. It spreads the misery around, it does not help the people achieve or provide them opportunity to achieve.

And just because NAZIs did not like Communists does not mean they were opposites. I’m a conservative and I don’t necessarily like or agree with the policies put forth by libertarians. But that does not make a libertarian the opposite of a conservative. Socialism and Communism have much in common, similar to conservatism and libertarianism having much in common.

Socialism (NAZIs) and Communism are both about government control of industry. The only way they differ is in the magnitude of control.

The fact remains that government control of industry is not a conservative principle, it is a principle of Communist and Socialist ideology.

And conservatives want a government which gets out of our way and allows us the opportunity to succeed on our own. Conservatives want small government, with limited regulations. Conservatives believe in the free market to be more successful than government control. And history proves that free market systems work better than government-controlled systems. That’s why China has risen over the last couple decades as they have worked in more Capitalism into their Communist society.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: That’s a lot of Glenn Beck propaganda.

MICHAEL IN MI: Okay, if you’re not going to actually address anything I stated, I’m done with you. You’re supposedly a History professor, yet when you’re challenged on something, the best rebuttal you have is to bring up Glenn Beck? Brilliant.

Take care. I pity anyone who expects to learn history from you at Oakland Community College.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: Because I know his propaganda when I see it. How typical that you end it by insulting me. I teach my students to think for themselves. Something that you seem unable to do. That’s sad.

FACEBOOK FRIEND: PROFESSOR, how do you see Nazis as the “definition of far right”? I also am unclear how you make the argument that business=far right and some business leaders supported the Nazis, therefore Nazis=far right. Michael points out numerous examples of businesses supporting the far left today. How then do you account for that?

Socialism is “government helping the people”? Like the government helps the people in Cuba? China? Venezuela? As it helped the people in the Soviet Union? Come on. You’re not Sean Penn, for Pete’s sake.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: Majority did. Site some examples of them supporting the left. What I said was if a govt helps the people that its called socialism. Helping businesses is deemed as good for everyone. Perhaps bussiness support who. Ever is in office because they help put them there. Don’t like the fact that your buddy got personal. How did he know I taught at occ?

MICHAEL IN MI: “Because I know his propaganda when I see it. How typical that you end it by insulting me. I teach my students to think for themselves. Something that you seem unable to do. That’s sad.”

Yeah, I’m gonna bet you don’t even watch Glenn Beck and have no idea about his “propaganda”. You just don’t have a response to any of the points I brought up, so instead you decide to throw out a worthless ad hominem, in order to avoid answering me. Then whine that I “insulted” you. Typical liberal. Get challenged, can’t respond, pull out the good ol’ “that’s just right-wing propaganda from FNC/Beck/Rush/etc” and then whine about insults.

What is sad is that I know how to defend my facts about history better than someone who actually teaches the subject. In case you missed the fact, I responded to all your comments with rebuttals, while you responded with blaming Glenn Beck.

MICHAEL IN MI: “How did he know I taught at occ?”

I took 5 seconds to click on your name and saw the info on your profile, that’s how. I was curious as to your background. I do that with everyone with whom I ‘debate’ on here to get an idea of the ideology I am facing. I check people’s ‘groups’ and ‘fan of’ pages to see if they are fans of say Barack Obama or Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, etc. It gives me an idea of whether or not I should waste my time discussing politics with them.

“What I said was if a govt helps the people that its called socialism.”

Socialism is not “government helping the people”. Socialism actually has a definition, you don’t just get to define it yourself to suit your own purposes, professor. Socialism is about government control of industry and taking wealth from those who produce and spreading it around to those who do not produce. And, as the saying goes, socialism fails because eventually you run out of other people’s money. Socialism is not about “helping the people”, it is about making people dependent upon the government for their livelihood. It is about encouraging people to remain at their status in life and mooch off those of higher status. This then discourages people from working hard to achieve higher status, because they won’t get to keep the fruits of their labor, as, instead, the fruits of their labor are redistributed to those who are not working as hard as they are.

MICHAEL IN MI: “Site some examples of them supporting the left.”

I already did, professor. GE (and all its subsidiaries), Google, Microsoft all fund Democrats and left-wing issues and organizations.

LIBERAL PROFESSOR: There were no facts! Since I realized where all your information came from, you got very defensive. If you presented that as a paper in my class, it would have gotten a c at best. I’ve read beck and he’s full of shit. I read evey side of an issue, unlike you

MICHAEL IN MI: I didn’t get “defensive”, I got annoyed, because I was wrong about you. I assumed you were an intelligent person who could debate facts and logic, but turns out you’re just an ignorant jackass who can’t debate, so you just throw out stupid accusations. I stopped watching TV news in 2004, professor. I don’t watch Beck, nor Fox News, nor any other mass media outlet. I do my own research.

I’m sorry I wasted my time with you, professor, and sorry that I actually thought you had the intelligence to have an actual debate of ideology and ideas, instead of taking the cowardly liberal way out of a debate and smearing your opponent.

And you may read every side of an issue, but you obviously lack the capacity to actually UNDERSTAND every side of an issue. Reading does not = comprehension.

As I said before, I pity your students.

As you should know, from being a History professor, a proper rebuttal to presented ideas is to respond with “you said X, that is wrong, because of Y”. Unless you run your classes by allowing your students to respond to one another by saying “you’re wrong and it’s obvious you’re just spouting liberal propaganda from Keith Olbermann” and “no, YOU’RE wrong and it’s obvious you’re just spouting conservative propaganda from Rush Limbaugh” and “no, YOU’RE wrong and spouting liberal propaganda from Rachel Maddow”, etc etc ad naseum.

That is how you have ‘debated’ here, so I assume that’s also how you handle your classes. Which is why I said I pity your students, because if that is the kind of education they are getting, god help them.

March 23, 2010 , 12:19PM Posted by | Communism, Debating an Obama-Lover, Fascism, Liberalism, Public Education, Socialism | 1 Comment

Yes, This is *Exactly* The Hope and Change You Voted For

Not that this was ever in doubt, but the America-hating, military-hating Communist hags at CODE PINK prove once again that they are idiots.

This commenter at AoSHQ lays it all out:

I know Code Pink is full of hopeless, idiotic bints, but when president Obama said things like:

“One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq war but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda.” -June 2007

“We’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.” -August 2007

“As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan.” -July 2008

“The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.” -July, 2008

Did they somehow not understand that meant he was campaigning on continuing and winning in Afghanistan? How can you figure that fits in with “this is not the change we voted for?” Yes, that’s exactly what you voted for, assuming you could even figure out how to vote, you brainless twit.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 06, 2009 10:03 AM

I just looked up “brainless twit” in the dictionary, and Medea Benjamin was given as an example.  I also looked up “hopeless, idiotic bints” and, whaddayaknow, CODE PINK is listed as an example.

December 6, 2009 , 1:13PM Posted by | Anti-War Groups, Barack Obama, CODE PINK, Communism, Operation Enduring Freedom | Comments Off on Yes, This is *Exactly* The Hope and Change You Voted For

“Trust Me, I’m a Scientist!”

So, when are we going to get some commercials akin to the Dr Pepper “Trust me, I’m a Doctor” commercials for the AGW-hoaxers? “Trust me, I’m a Scientist”. The first one could be Dr Venkman from Ghostbusters. The second one could be Dr Emmett Brown from Back to the Future. The third one could be Dr Jekyll. Any other famous fake scientists anyone can think of?

December 1, 2009 , 12:59AM Posted by | Communism, Fascism, Global Warming, Liberalism, Socialism | Comments Off on “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist!”

Global Warmmongers Fail The White Swan Hypothesis

There was an absolutely excellent caller on Rush Limbaugh today, who took the time to explain how the Athropogenic Global Warming hoaxers are not participating in science at all. She took the time to explain the White Swan Hypothesis to Rush and his audience. Very enlightening. We need more and more people speaking out about this and exposing these hoaxers.

RUSH: To the phones. Knoxville, Tennessee, another geologist. Betsy, you’re on the EIB Network. Hello.

[ … ]

CALLER: I’m a geologist.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: A great day for geologists on your show.

RUSH: Add to it.

CALLER: Yes. I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about scientific method and how it works, and how it is that in science, hypotheses are formulated based on data, advanced and tested, and nothing is ever proven in science. Things are ruled out. Science operates by ruling possibilities out. And that which has not been ruled out by experiment remains possible. This is something that these guys have never bothered to do. They have never bothered to formulate any hypothesis at all and test it with a view toward ruling it out. And that’s what they need to do, and that is one of the basic reasons why what they’re trying to do is not scientific.

RUSH: Pure politics. In other words, what you’re saying is we know that warming and cooling cycles happen.

CALLER: That’s correct.

RUSH: We have to first find out which are natural, and then, by finding that out, then we might be able to find out if we’re contributing to it in addition to whatever is natural, right?

CALLER: Well, we might be able to find out whether we’re not contributing to it.

RUSH: Yeah, either way.

CALLER: Well, it’s not the same thing. My favorite example of what it is I’m driving at was advanced by the historian and philosopher of science Karl Popper some number of years ago, and he formulated a thought experiment which he described as the white swan hypothesis. And what you do is you look around and you see a lot of white swans everywhere, and you come up with a notion that all swans are white. Now, how do you go about testing this hypothesis? You don’t go around counting white swans. Because no matter how many white swans you count, there may be somewhere lurking a black swan that you didn’t encounter. And so what you have to do is mount a search for the single black swan and try to disprove your hypothesis based upon evidence.

RUSH: And so these guys are not doing that at all.

CALLER: No! No. They’ve come up with the idea that CO2 causes global warming and you can read the press releases and you can read the news stories, and they go around counting, “Well, look, CO2 predicts this, and CO2 predicts that, and CO2 predict this other over there, and so it must be true.” And so what they’re doing is mounting a search for white swans. They’re not trying to rule their own hypothesis out. And that’s the only way science ever advances.

RUSH: Well, at this point, I think these e-mails indicate they know their hypotheses are already ruled out because they’re making things up.

CALLER: Exactly. Absolutely. And I have been saying that for some time ever since the data began to come in and we began to see that the last decade has shown cooling. Every hypothesis they have ever advanced has been ruled out by that finding.

RUSH: Right. And of course the sun has nothing to do with it. They also do not factor the sun at all. And they don’t factor —


RUSH: — they don’t factor precipitation.

CALLER: No. And there are glacial cycles and Milankovitch cycles, there are lots of other possibilities, none of which they have ever attempted to address and try to rule out, which is what they have to do in order for it to be called science.

RUSH: Well, here we have another scientist, in the opinion of Robert Gibbs and the White House, you’re nothing more than a Macaca.

CALLER: (laughing) Well, we have words for him, too.

RUSH: (laughing) So how about that consensus of science? Am I right when I say there can be no science if all you have is a consensus of scientists?

CALLER: Well, actually I have to take a little bit of issue with you over that.

RUSH: No! No, no!

CALLER: It’s true, science is not about consensus, and we don’t take a vote to figure out what is correct.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: Our natural world —

RUSH: I’m right, then. We have to go to a break.

CALLER: However, what we do have in many different areas of science is a consensus of scientists that is based upon elimination of all known competing hypotheses. For example, the theory of relativity. Now, we don’t regard it as proven but we know that there is no longer a serious competitor which has not been ruled out by evidence. So to the extent that we can have a consequences in science. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s not open to challenge and it doesn’t mean that it’s final, but there are agreements among scientists which, for example, another example is the theory of global plate tectonics. Now, you won’t find a great deal of serious disagreement amongst reputable geologists that that is the mechanism by which we see continents form and seabed disappearance and so forth. But that’s not because we regard that hypothesis as proven. We have ruled out the competition.

RUSH: Got it.

CALLER: Somebody may yet come forward someday.

RUSH: This has been enlightening. I can’t tell you how glad I am you called, Betsy. I’m out of time. I wish I had a couple more segments, but I don’t. Snerdley, see if she will give us her phone number so that we may consult her in the future should we have need to.


November 30, 2009 , 10:56PM Posted by | Communism, Fascism, Global Warming, Liberalism, Rush Limbaugh, Socialism | 1 Comment