Hitler and homosexuality.

[Redress]

Because there alot of stupid professors out there and alot of leftists who believ so and wanted to see if I can get any answers from on this forum tha's the same and I'm just seeing the opposite.

And there are alot of rightists who believe stupid things, as you are proving with these threads.

 

[NEUROSPORT]

hitler is one of the examples used to justify the need for political compass and other 2-dimensional political scales.

one dimensional political scale cannot reliably place folks like Hitler anywhere.

hitler was leaning right economically but left socially so to speak.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

hitler is one of the examples used to justify the need for political compass and other 2-dimensional political scales.

one dimensional political scale cannot reliably place folks like Hitler anywhere.

hitler was leaning right economically but left socially so to speak.

You're giving me dyslexia.

 

[Donc]

There’s at least one book(The Hidden Hitler) that makes a case that Hitler was a closeted gay.

Then you have the Simon Wiesenthal camp that says that Hitler suffered from syphilis and somehow it screwed up what brains he had…this one seems a pretty good explanation to me.

As for the original…eh,er, point,I see some similarities between him and Rush. :mrgreen:

 

[kansaswhig]

hitler was leaning right economically

Well, except for that whole "means of production belong to the state" thing he had going on.

Get real, Buddy. National Socialist. That's what NAZI means. That's what Hitler was.

 

[winston53660]

Well, except for that whole "means of production belong to the state" thing he had going on.

Get real, Buddy. National Socialist. That's what NAZI means. That's what Hitler was.

Hitler was no more a socialist than Stalin was a communist. And both ideals Fascism, Communism are diametrically opposite of one another.

 

[kansaswhig]

Hitler was no more a socialist than Stalin was a communist. And both ideals Fascism, Communism are diametrically opposite of one another.

So Hitler wasn't a socialist and Stalin wasn't a communist?

Understand both were Fascist...can't they be both?

I thought Fascists established single party states and ruled through nationalism?

 

[winston53660]

So Hitler wasn't a socialist and Stalin wasn't a communist?

Understand both were Fascist...can't they be both?

I thought Fascists established single party states and ruled through nationalism?

No both were not Fascists nor Communist. Both were evil dictators and that is about all they have in common other than hatred for each others ideological systems more so on Hitler's side. In Mein Kampf Hitler really did not like the Marxists.

 

[drz-400]

Any attempt to try and place fascism on a certain point of the political spectrum would be very complicated and possibly counter productive since some of the defining elements of facism could be lost in any attempt to do so.

Fascism is an ever changing phenomenon. Although every fascist movement has similarities to other fascist movements through its gaining, aquisition, and exersize of power, every fascist movement will also have its own defining characterists due to its extreme form of nationalism. This is because every nation has its own form of nationalism, a fascist state being no different. This is why we give natzism its own name. Natzism was a particular fascist movement.

Hitler was a national socialist, and the means of production were controlled by the state. Using this as a definition of facism would be extremely shallow however. Fascisms economic policy was used to unite the workforce of the country towards the political asperations of the leader. Its ultimate goal in Natzism was to use this unity to promote its ideals of social darwinism (to promote only the strongest and best members of society.)

The means of production were not owned or controlled by the people of Germany. Germany under natzi rule was a single party state and a nonfunctioning democracy. Facist and natzi states almost always attempt to control every aspect of its peoples private life. This might lead us to define facism as an authoritarian regime.

To define facism or natzism as strictly authoritarian however would lose much of its meaning, for example:

- fascist leaders were constantly in a power struggle with not only the traditional state, but also their own party.

- fascist movements created parrellel organizations to show supremecy to the traditional state, this is a fundamental component of fascisms ability gain and exerise of power.

-fascist or natzi leaders never fully dismanteled democracy, the constitution, or the traditional government. In fact these elements were essential to its gaining and exorsize of power.

These contradictaries with authoritarianism seem to show a fascist leader's ability to use coersion to control every aspect of the state while not entirely dismanteling the state.

In every mature facist state the final goal of the leader has been realized by violence and war. They have used war as method to rid the country of the weak and inferior (hence its strong beliefs of social darwinism) and expand its master race. This also explains the existence of the holocuast (to rid the country of its weak as defined by the leader) and WW2.

Tell me,

How do you define the dual state (power struggle, parrellel movements, cooperation with traditional elites) on a political spectrum? It would seem to me they would contradict each other.

How do you define its extreme form of nationalism (one that will be different from country to country) on any politcal spectrum?

How do you place its final asperations of violence and war on any political spectrum?

To me fascism is political behavior rather than ideaology that cannot be defined with a political spectrum. Its contradictory elements seem to form a very unstable environment. This is why every muture fascist movement has been short lived. Although it is short lived, it can and has produced an exreme amount of destruction and death, the likes of which world will hopefully never see again. However, it is for this reason we should attempt to define it and not attempt to place it anywhere on political spectrum that may hamper its meaning; so we may never see it again.

To declare Hitler as a Homosexual or not against homosexuals because he did not kill them (this sounds strange already) and use this as a bases to place his movement upon the left commits many fallicies. Guilt by association or hasty generalization possibly being two (gays are usually leftist, if hitler was gay he was leftist.)

Another thing to remember:

Even if hitler was gay or not against gays, this would only make him a hypocrite if he did murder them, which would seem to follow another quality history has shown in fascist leaders. What facist leaders said was one thing, what fascist leaders did was quite another; which essentially means it proves nothing about fascism proving hitler was gay, although it may be interesting.

If hitler did not kill homosexuals, it still proves nothing about the movement other than he did not murder homosexuals.

 

[American]

No it was Hitlers left ball that was missing, but please stay on topic re hitler/abortion!

Ps Goeball's had no balls at all.

Watch some libtard make him a right winger out of that. :rofl

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Understand both were Fascist...can't they be both?

Stalin was not a fascist.

I thought Fascists established single party states and ruled through nationalism?

Fascism is a little more complex than that. :roll:

Well, except for that whole "means of production belong to the state" thing he had going on.

Except that didn't happen in NAZI Germany.

 

[Agnapostate]

...which was fundamentally capitalist in nature, which supports Charles Kesserich's definition of fascism as "the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital."

 

[drz-400]

...which was fundamentally capitalist in nature, which supports Charles Kesserich's definition of fascism as "the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital."

I would definitely agree fascism is a reactionary and terroristic dictatorship but I think it was more of a reaction to democracy rather than capital. Just look at the Ku Klux Clan, possibly one of the first fascist movements, was a reaction to african american suffrage in the U.S. I am not sure I agree that fascism was any sort of economic reaction, but more of a cultural one.

I would also question whether it truley was a dictatorship, since most movements had broad appeal and the leaders were constantly in struggle with their own party and the state.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, fascism doesn't simply consist of any form of authoritarianism, which is why the premise that Stalin was a "fascist" was rejected. Historically, fascism has involved authoritarianism through collusion between state and corporate power, extreme jingoism and associated militarism, and exaltation of specific racial/ethnic/religious groups so as to justify discriminatory state policy against others.

 

[Redress]

Watch some libtard make him a right winger out of that. :rofl

You mean like the rightard that made the thread in the first place tried to make him out to be a left winger? Funny how you ignored that part.

 

[winston53660]

Well, fascism doesn't simply consist of any form of authoritarianism, which is why the premise that Stalin was a "fascist" was rejected. Historically, fascism has involved authoritarianism through collusion between state and corporate power, extreme jingoism and associated militarism, and exaltation of specific racial/ethnic/religious groups so as to justify discriminatory state policy against others.

By the delineations some people are trying to use monarchies could also be fascists. Really monarchies and fascism have nothing in common beyond a power the head of state assumes.

 

[drz-400]

Well, fascism doesn't simply consist of any form of authoritarianism, which is why the premise that Stalin was a "fascist" was rejected. Historically, fascism has involved authoritarianism through collusion between state and corporate power, extreme jingoism and associated militarism, and exaltation of specific racial/ethnic/religious groups so as to justify discriminatory state policy against others.

I would agree with this and stalin definetly was not fascist, I just did not think facsism was necessarily a reaction to any economic system, but rather a reaction to democracy.