Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Mormegil]

25 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

What do you mean by TRUE Christian? Mystics like Meister Eckhart?

sorry for not clarifying. I can see why this is not a good choice of words

I simply meant that at its core each religious message is simple. Love one another, treat each other with respect because you literally ARE them. Obviously that's as far away from Nazism as it could get (because the discussion before was about the common ground of Nazis and conservatives).

But as Leo already said, people think too little and follow too much, and they rather talk about the superficial stuff of religion, so all these teachings sadly become pointless. And people who claim to follow Jesus teachings fall into these right-winger traps.

Edited March 26 by Mormegil

[Deadline]

Hitler is firstly a humanist, then a progressivist, utilitarian, biological darwinist, nationalist. To call him a conservative is definitely partial, but I think it’s fair to also see him as reactionary conservative from that perspective narrative as being anti-degenerate leftist. A mapping to liberal conservative is order/disorder, Hitler like Stalin had no problem with forgoing personal freedoms for the interests of the collective and social order. Pornography for example was banned in Germany and the USSR and not in France 

Edited March 26 by Deadline

[Bobby_2021]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@OBEler Why do you distinguish between right-wing and conservative?

Conservatives vs Liberals is not an accurate assessment. You can be conservative and liberal at the same time. These are two discrete sets of ideologies that can be coopted by left wing or right wing at a point in time.

Individual rights, Free speech is a liberal value, but the right wing is the champion of it at the moment, in the USA which is why the liberal vs conservative comparison doesn't even make sense.

A liberal is not the opposite of a conservative.

Conservatives vs liberals is not on the same spectrum neither are they mutually exclusive.

Left vs Right is a valid comparison since they are on the same spectrum. 

So, are soviet communist dictators libs question is pretty meaningless. They don't have to. They were leftists extremists and they killed 10x more people than right wing fascist Nazis.

Also I wonder why the definition of Fascism applies only to right wing. That some reall bullshit. Leftists dictators are the biggest fascists. To argue otherwise will need some real mental gymnastics. 

[Danioover9000]

@OBEler

5 hours ago, OBEler said:

Hitler was not conservative. You probably consumed propaganda. Just hear original Hitler speeches like this one

 

Hitler said you should have respect of the past but you should not identify with it (big difference !!). You should respect their achievements but that should not mean that what they did is still good.

Hitler said, It is good to build up from ancestors achievements but then put your own will into it. So just copy what the ancestors did is utterly stupid.

A conservative would never said that.

Hitler: Nationalsocialism is based on biological insights and not on ancient tradition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   I actually agree with your takes here, as argumentatively this:

@Leo Gura

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What you have to understand is that the far-right mind is full of shit. It talks out of both sides of its mouth. It's not an internally coherent intellectual system. It's a loose network of fears, hatreds, disgust, dogma, myths, and rationalizations.

As I said, if you go far-right far enough you overturn your own traditions. This is not a mistake in my analysis. A far-right Islamic fundamentalist does not truly observe the tradition of Islam.

Hitler was above all an ego-maniac like Trump. So of course he wanted to put his own stamp on things. It takes humility to blindly follow tradition as Mike Pence does.

All you have to do to see that Nazism is conservative is to look at the kind of people who find it appealing, and the type of people Nazis consider their enemies.

Who finds it appealing?

Conservatives!

Who are it enemies? Who did Hitler kill?

Liberals!

   Is a weak argument to make. So much ad hominems, judgments, obfuscations, appeals to authority and popularity, red herrings, slippery slopes, and a few other fallacies that an arguer can break down into several sub arguments.

   That being said, when it goes from argumentation into reality, it's both complex and combinatory with other factors involved. But in argumentation it's weak and has some performative contradictions.

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura

While the categorization of political movements can be influenced by perspective and semantics, recognizing the foundational differences in ideology, goals, and methods is key to a thorough understanding and discussion of these topics.

Maybe that's the difference why Germany was so successful in philosophy,science and engineering compared to the rest of the world. We value precision and nuance in our native language when we talk about a topic.

 

[Bobby_2021]

The opposite of a conservative Nazi would be a liberal social justice warrior. Which was communist USSR.

Just because they didn't paint their hair blue does not mean they weren't fighting for social justice. Atleast in their minds, they were fighting against the evil capitalism and wrecked havoc on the world doing so killing 100 million people. These countries can't still free themselves from the clutches of communism despite ending it decades ago. 

[Mormegil]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

they killed 10x more people than right wing fascist Nazis.

Only because the Nazis were stopped before they could cause any more harm (which they most definitely would have).

 

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Leftists dictators are the biggest fascists.

Why are they the "bigger" fascists? They were all horrible. Why would you distinguish between those dictators?

Be mindful not to use whataboutism or relativizations to defend Nazis.

Edited March 26 by Mormegil

[Danioover9000]

@OBEler

5 hours ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura

It's not accurate to reduce the complex dynamics of Nazi appeal and enmity to simple contemporary political labels like "conservatives" and "liberals." The Nazis drew support from various segments of German society at the time, especially the intellectual elite, scientists. They all were 100% in it.

   Not to mention borrowed a bit from Buddhism and spiritual traditions, the windmill symbol for peace they took, even from Judaism's Kabbalah and qlippoth they took As well, so I agree argumentatively this is a false dichotomy and false dilemma being set here.

[Danioover9000]

@OBEler

6 minutes ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura

While the categorization of political movements can be influenced by perspective and semantics, recognizing the foundational differences in ideology, goals, and methods is key to a thorough understanding and discussion of these topics.

Maybe that's the difference why Germany was so successful in philosophy,science and engineering compared to the rest of the world. We value precision and nuance in our native language when we talk about a topic.

 

   Have you made this thread in response to this blog?

https://www.actualized.org/insights/fyi-hitler-was-a-conservative

 

[Bobby_2021]

5 minutes ago, Mormegil said:

Only because the Nazis were stopped before they could cause harm (which they most definitely would have).

You don't know that. It's not like he was stopped from killing people.

He simply lost the war. History could have been very different. Either way, the numbers speak for themselves. Leftists are capable of greater harm that the most evil fascist right wing extremists dictators in history. 

5 minutes ago, Mormegil said:

Why are they the "bigger" fascists?

Ummm.. because they kill 10x more people?

No one is defending the Nazis. It's simply the case that leftism has done bigger damage that the damage done by Nazis look tiny in comparison. 

It's a fact of history. 

Edited March 26 by Bobby_2021

[Mormegil]

8 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You don't know that. It's not like he was stopped from killing people.

He simply lost the war.

If you lose a war how do you want to continue your fascist regime, expand for more territory or continue the Holocaust? Of course they would have continued their insanity. Don't be naive. Mao and Stalin didn't start a war with the entire world (and Stalin was on the winning side of WW II anyway) that's why they could continue their bloody regime and more people died to it. Why the need to compare them to each other? Why the need to defend and downplay Hitler?

Edited March 26 by Mormegil

[OBEler]

@Danioover9000 Yes. I didn't watched the video but read about Leos opinion and needed to address how wrong it is to even consider a Nazi as ultra conservativ. Even if there is a semantic spectrum around these categories, there is a foundational difference between a Nazi and an (ultra) conservative man. You cannot put a Nazi in this category.

[Danioover9000]

   Also, I have to point out to @Leo Gura in his blog this statement: 'It's a shame that Destiny let JP get away with such trash.'.

   If you consider Jordan Peterson disqualified for making this Nazi/conservative ahistorical, associating Nazis as a left-far left ideology, does that also cover Destiny as well?

 

   Seems Destiny is buddying up with Nick Fuentes, a neo nazi. Should this also disqualify Destiny as well as Jordan?

[Bobby_2021]

2 minutes ago, Mormegil said:

If you lose a war how do you want to continue your fascist regime, expand for more territory or continue the Holocaust? Of course they would have continued their insanity. Don't be naive. Mao and Stalin didn't start a war with the entire world (and Stalin was on the winning side of WW II anyway) that's why they could continue their bloody regime and more people died to it. Why the need to compare them to each other?

I can accept all that. But the Soviet communists killed more than 100 million people. I don't think anything could excuse that away.

I am not here to speculate what could happen and what could not. That's too long and complicated of a discussion to take place here. Let's talk about the concrete numbers. 

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Maybe that's the difference why Germany was so successful in philosophy,science and engineering compared to the rest of the world. We value precision and nuance in our native language when we talk about a topic.

Haha

Be careful that your German precision doesn't make you miss the forest for the trees.

[Danioover9000]

@OBEler

2 minutes ago, OBEler said:

@Danioover9000 Yes. I didn't watched the video but read about Leos opinion and needed to address how wrong it is to even consider a Nazi as ultra conservativ. Even if there is a semantic spectrum around these categories, there is a foundational difference between a Nazi and an (ultra) conservative man. You cannot put a Nazi in this category.

   That's true, furthermore in reality it is possible that a person is so far right extremist that in some situations they become far left extremists too, AKA the strange loop effect. Anarchists/libertarians or even communists are so far left that they can be so far right in certain issues, for example looking at the concentration camp in China's country with the Ugyers.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Seems Destiny is buddying up with Nick Fuentes, a neo nazi. Should this also disqualify Destiny as well as Jordan?

Talking to a neo-Nazi is not the same thing as not knowing that Nazis are conservative.

I don't see a serious risk of Destiny becoming a Nazi. Precisely because he is left-wing.

[Bobby_2021]

Leo's assessment is correct. It's hard to deny that Nazis had a conservative appeal. The structural similarities that Nazis has to conservatisms is pretty much in your face.

But he is wrong in trying to equate conservative Nazis to liberalism in the Soviet communists.

The communists are more akin to social justice warriors. That's what they are. SJWs with more muscles and less blue hair. They are war with the fundamental injustice in society. The divide between the worker class and owner class. 

And that led to them killing 10x more people than the evil Nazis.

Also Fascism is not a right wing exclusive thing. Leftists can as easily be fascists as much as right wing.

In fact there are more left wing fascists in the world right now than right wing ones. 

[Danioover9000]

@Mormegil

10 minutes ago, Mormegil said:

If you lose a war how do you want to continue your fascist regime, expand for more territory or continue the Holocaust? Of course they would have continued their insanity. Don't be naive. Mao and Stalin didn't start a war with the entire world (and Stalin was on the winning side of WW II anyway) that's why they could continue their bloody regime and more people died to it. Why the need to compare them to each other? Why the need to defend and downplay Hitler?

   He lost the war because Hitler was known to not listen to more experienced generals in warfare. If he did so much as take in 30% of advice more, then the outcome would be drastically different. Due to Hitler dismissing 95% of general's advice in war, he lost the war. Instead of trying to recruit Spain which at the time was in major debt to Germany, he ignored that advice. Instead of focusing on one side of the war, he divided his troops everywhere, westwards and eastwards. Instead of delaying the holocaust at least until he won and conquered much of Europe, he made the holocaust happen too early and lost 40% of Germany's workforce. Instead of working more closely with Japan against Russia, he didn't.

   Due to Hitler's egotism and not listening to general with good experience in war, he lost the war. 

[Leo Gura]

What you guys are missing about leftist dictators is that they use leftist ideology as a cover for a ruthless authoritarian power grab. None of those leftist dictators had the level of development necessariy to actually govern in a democratic, progressive, or even neoliberal manner.

There is a deep asymmetry between right and left governance. Left governance is much harder because it requires higher levels of development. Right governance does not. Therefore someone who wants power can use left ideology as a smokescreen to get it. But in practice these people are still quite conservative in their manner. It's like an ape who tries to act like a saint.

The reason these issues are so complex and messy is because all ideology is overridden by survival, unconsciousness, and lust for power. So people claim to be one way, or believe one thing, but then act the opposite when things get tight.

Soviet Russia did have genuinely progressive people, but they were all quickly purged even before Stalin took power. In reality the Soviet system was run by criminals and thugs.

Stalin was a bank robber. So him professing progressive ideals was always a load of shit.

Do not confuse Stalin and Mao for stage Green SJWs. Those are very different beasts. Soviet and Chinese Communism is not stage Green. It never could be. Which is why it failed so badly.

Edited March 26 by Leo Gura