Hitlers social views were right wing? He was an environmentalist, animal rights believer and anti religious. Exactly where do you get conservative from this?

If Orwell were alive today he may have said, “The word Neo-con has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”

The point Orwell was making was not anything to do with Fascism, rather that people had forgotten the true meaning of the Word Fascism. He was lamenting the incorrect use of the word to describe things which were most definitley NOT fascist, ie the US constitution or common law. The same can be said for “Conservative”, “Republican”, “Libertarian” and “Christian”.

Hence I’ll be voting Green in the hope of a Green/Labour coalition – not because I support deindustrialisation, but because there isn’t another liberal/left party that is likely (sorry Alliance) to get MPs.

Hence I’ll be voting Green in the hope of a Green/Labour coalition – not because I support deindustrialisation, but because there isn’t another liberal/left party that is likely (sorry Alliance) to get MPs.

Nice bit of circular logic there. And thanks for proving my previous points ridiculing the ‘Hitler was a Socialist’ myth in such spectacular fashion.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

It is long, but very informative.

But the question also illustrates how meaningless the categories of left-wing/right-wing are when discussing historical figures. Was Mobutu right wing? Augustus? Pericles? Was Buddha a liberal? Was Robespierre? The questions are meaningless because they apply to political beliefs that didn’t exist at the time.

Technically, Fascism is the exultation of the state over the individual – which doesn’t really describe Nazi Germany, where the emphasis was on race, but Fascism is also characterised by a partnership between big business and government. In a sense almost every modern industrialist state could be described as Fascist (Japan and the US esp).

However, Orwell provides my favourite contemporary definition of fascism: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”

Dim, why do lefties imagine that Hitler was a right-winger? Is it because the def of facism is using business to do the work of the state, and because of that association with business you imagine that makes him a right-winger? What about Stalin, was he a leftie, or a right-winger? I’m not being disingenuous, just curious to know, that’s all.

I’m also curious to hear WHY whig thinks that the Greens are going to disappear in the next election – their support has been pretty consistent for some years now, and, barring some public relations disaster, things will probably stay this way. Pity the same can’t be said for ACT, and good riddence to United Future.

I have studied WWII a lot over the years, and one of my personal interests is understanding the dynamics of Hitler’s ability to persuade and convince all around him even in the face of tremendous contrary evidence. I have always remembered a comment on one of the docos, where a German said that if Hitler had died just after the fall of France, he would have gone down as the greatest leader Germany ever had.

Now just in case you didn’t hear me, please read that second sentence again and again until you get it. I don’t wish to be flamed for saying something I’m not guilty of. And if you think I admire Hitler in any way, read it again. And if you still don’t get it, read my other post above about those who are a few clowns short of a circus, because it might apply to you.

This is quite removed from the Capitalist impulses of today, but it was a right-wing opinion back in those days. The Nazis smashed the German Unions apart, and that was where the dichotomy rested, between business and Unions.

It is not a valid argument to say that because Nazis were pro-environment (something I have never heard before, didn’t Hitler establish the most comprehensive network of motorways in the world?) therefore we should be anti-environment. Hitler was also pro-defence and pro-breathing air. Should we divest ourselves of any defense forces and stop breathing on that basis?

This is quite removed from the Capitalist impulses of today, but it was a right-wing opinion back in those days. The Nazis smashed the German Unions apart, and that was where the dichotomy rested, between business and Unions.

It is not a valid argument to say that because Nazis were pro-environment (something I have never heard before, didn’t Hitler establish the most comprehensive network of motorways in the world?) therefore we should be anti-environment. Hitler was also pro-defence and pro-breathing air. Should we divest ourselves of any defense forces and stop breathing on that basis?

Baxter, re: the GE aspect of the greens policy, I am in 2 minds about it, but one thing that greatly concerns me is the potential loss of scientists if we don’t let them play with their matches. That would be a major hit on the long-term viability of our agriculture. Do you have an opinion on that aspect?

When righties implement their policies, the bad things that clever people predicted beforehand, actually happen.

Righties however don’t notice this and instead seem to live in some fairyland where their policies would work, if only people and societies actually worked in the way that righties thought they did.

However, the rest of us who struggle along in realityland, under the yoke of the righty illusion, know they don’t work, can see they don’t work, and try desperately hard to explain this to the righties, who don’t notice because they don’t live here.

Therefore, righties, apparently, are indeed stupid, and no amount of weeping or wailing can change the logic of the argument.