Would Hitler be Allowed to Join RO

This is also the mark of a dim mind. Their grasp of history is so poor literally the only bad thing you can think of is Hitler. In my entire life I have never seen someone successfully make a Hitler analogy. It’s just a low IQ stand-in for “Someone who thinks things I don’t think”.

What was Hitler? A racial and cultural imperialist who believed in a magical destiny of a bloodline to command everyone on Earth under an authoritarian system of hard working, family focused, irreligious, loyal, and obedient population.

That’s a pretty unusual combination. I can’t think of anyone utilizing a similar worldview, or system since then. Probably the closest is Idi Amin in Uganda. But he missed on several points.

Absolutely nothing in America has even remotely resembled Hitler and the Nazi party. Their issues are about evenly split between the parties, or absent altogether.

1 Like

I was an avid student of history before you were even born. Your best move is to shut up and listen.

First of all, your post is the mark of YOUR dim mind. You obviously did not even read what this thread is all about. It was a hypothetical question. I will elaborate in a moment.

Also, your grasp of history and today’s democrats is also very poor, and another mark of your dim mind, because I can name a laundry list of comparisons between Nazis and today’s Democrat Party. Not fake comparisons like you ilk makes about Trump, but REAL comparisons. In fact, there is are several threads on that very topic:

The purpose of this thread was to ask the hypothetical question: If Hitler was a forum member would we be justified in insulting him and calling him names because he is evil. I say, yes, because he is evil. I don’t care what you say.
Therefore, I am justified in calling your friend csbrown any name I want to because I have proven he is evil. And again, I don’t a frig what your opinion is.

csbrown28 supports and defends infanticide, socialism, government control, smashing Free Speech rights, giving free stuff to illegal aliens.

csbrown28 is on the side of those who have introduced children to homosexual and transgender acceptance.

csbrown28 is on the side of those who are burning cities and destroying art, and murdering police.

csbrown is evil. Therefore, csbrown is an asshole, vermin, lowlife, etc.

And again, I don’t care what you think.

As for Nazi comparisons:

Democrats/Nazis both used strong arm tactics. Currently their leftist Antifa and BLM are literally beating the shit out of people in the streets who do not agree with them exactly like Hitler’s brown shirts did

Democrats/Nazis both murdered millions of innocent people in Planned Butcherhood and in death camps

Democrats/Nazis both embrace of socialism (Hitler always spoke of national socialism)

Democrats/Nazis both squashed free speech and other rights, confiscated guns, they both embrace junk science on human beings (like transgenderism),

Democrats are EXACTLY like Nazis. There is no denying the sameness of Democrats and Nazis. We deny it at our own peril, just as the Germans did

Now, the next time you want to talk about dim minds and a lack of historical understanding, look in the mirror and you will see the dimmest mind of all

So many words


Proof you’re a Lefty

You can’t even say what I lied about.

You however have lied. You assert I defend socialism and abortion when I’ve done nothing of the kind.

What I’ve said everyone, anyone, has a right to say their piece here unmolested, because that’s the rule of the board.

Try as you may, there is no “Hitler” exception. You’ve invented that to serve your desire not to be criticized. Which no one here owes to anyone else.

Principling, there is no reason you get to insult and attack people who aren’t doing the same to you.

You can’t cite one example in civil society where this is permissible. For good reason, it’s not. It’s just a recipe to stoke strife, anger and tribalism.

You don’t get a better forum this way.

Thank you both for re-posting my posts in their entirety. Those are probably the first truths you have ever posted.

You’re so special.

That’s self-satisfaction, that’s putting a feeling on a pedestal.

There’s no principle behind this, and you can’t point to any functioning part of society where this is done.

Your “rule” just invites disorder.

This is pretty much the conclusion of this thread.

The purpose of this thread was to ask the hypothetical question: If Hitler was a forum member would we be justified in insulting him and calling him names because he is evil. I say, yes, because he is evil.

Therefore, I am justified in calling csbrown any name I want to because I have proven he too is evil. Very evil.

csbrown28 supports and defends infanticide, socialism, government control, smashing Free Speech rights, giving free stuff to illegal aliens.

csbrown28 is on the side of those who have introduced children to homosexual and transgender acceptance.

csbrown28 is on the side of those who are burning cities and destroying art, and murdering police.

csbrown is evil. Therefore, csbrown is an asshole, vermin, lowlife, etc.

( It goes without saying that this also goes for anyone else who promotes and supports the evils that csbrown does. )

That statement of fact is the conclusion of this thread. All posts that follow are static and chatter.

1 Like

.

You aren’t and you can’t justify likening other people to Hitler. You’ve actually never justified this.

No one gave you that role. You appointed yourself to it, and you did it to empower a feeling.

Feelings don’t trump principle. Nothing you’ve said counters this.

The proof is that you can’t cite even one example where this has made anything better.

1 Like

TT seems Hitler-like focused on race. Look at his threads all revolving around black people and identity politics. Literally half of the threads.

[36% of Black Likely Voters Approve of the job President Trump is Doing]
[The Candace Owens Show]
[You are Not black if you don’t vote Biden]
[Disney confirms its first bisexual lead character, who is also multi-cultural]
[BLM graffiti painted over! #OperationPaintDrop]
[HEARTBREAKING! They Killed a Black Trump Supporter]
[Seattle’s First Black Female Police Chief Resigns After Budget Cuts]

In my 15 years on this forum, I don’t think I’ve mentioned race in a single thread title.

1 Like

Firstly, a hat tip to @CSBrown28 for having the guts to come onto this ferociously right-wing forum and defend his political beliefs. And a double tip, for giving us the opportunity to deepen our understanding of our own beliefs by defending them from a well-written attack.

I believe everyone should read, carefully, the Washington Monthly article linked to by him. It’s a very competent summary of the liberal case against conservatives. Any serious political person wants to be familiar with the arguments of his enemies, and here they are, all in one place.

If you find that you cannot answer some of those arguments, that’s not a problem. They cover 70 years of history, and are written by a pretty smart fellow (a Princeton PhD candidate) who has been researching this topic for years.

Few people, liberals or conservatives, who are not PhD-level students of history, could answer, off the tops of their heads, the arguments of a sophisticated opponent who has spent two or three years reading and preparing his case.

(And this is not only true of politics: if you have ever argued with a sophisticated 9/11 ‘Truther’, or a well-prepared ‘Moon-landing-was-a-hoax’ believer – and such people exist – you will know that someone who has spent months or years gathering evidence for even the most outlandish ideas, can be a formidable opponent against someone who is just relying on common sense. I didn’t fully appreciate this until I began reading the moon-landing-was-a-hoax arguments.)

I think it would be useful to take up the arguments in the Washington Monthly and discuss them one by one. There are far to many to engage with in a single post, so I’ll try to go paragraph by paragraph through the article, and comment on it, over a few weeks.

A response to the first paragraph, which says

" If you spend any time consuming right-wing media in America, you quickly learn the following: Liberals are responsible for racism, slavery, and the Ku Klux Klan. They admire Mussolini and Hitler, and modern liberalism is little different from fascism or, even worse, communism. The mainstream media and academia cannot be trusted because of the pervasive, totalitarian nature of liberal culture."

This assertion is an example of cherry-picking, and it’s done by both sides. What you do is to find the worst examples of arguments put forward by people ‘on the other side’, and pretend that they are typical, or representative of all the people on the other side. Since there are plenty of idiots to go around, among both right and left, this is easy to do. I’m pretty familiar with the whole spectrum of what is called ‘the Right’, and I instantly recognized these arguments. Of the sixty million people who voted for Donald Trump, there are no doubt millions who would endorse the sentiments the author attributes to the whole Right.

The problem is, there are also millions who would not. If you want to seriously engage with your political opponents, you should try to adhere to two closely related guidelines: (1) What do the people who lead your opponents say? What do their thinkers, their writers, their pundits put forward in the websites and journals which are part of their movement?

I could easily bring up quotes from Black conspiracy theorists who believe the CIA introduced crack cocaine into the Black community in order to weaken it; or who attribute the staggeringly-high Black on Black homicide rates in the inner city to white racists disguised as Blacks. I could run through the career of the shameless demagogue – embraced by Hillary Clinton – Al Sharpton. I could gather up hair-raising quotes from AntiFa flag burners who want to destroy the police forces in every city. I would quote the leader of the Huey Newton Gun Club who praised the man who murdered five Dallas policemen. It wouldn’t be wrong to do this – they’re part of American leftwing reality – but it would be dishonest to pretend that these people represent American liberalism.

To take on American left/liberal thought, I would need to engage with the ideas presented in The Progressive, the Nation, the New Republic , Mother Jones … and, moving further Left, Jacobin magazine, and websites like CounterPunch and Truthout.

Similarly, anyone wanting to attack the American conservative tradition, must read and engage with the arguments in National Review, The American Conservative, Chronicles of American Culture, First Things, and The New Criterion. Conservatism is far from a unified movement, and you won’t find a monolithic voice here.

What they have in common is a deep skepticism towards abstract proposals to radically alter the human condition via the exercise of state power, an appreciation of institutions that have evolved over time, and unwillingness to overlook the ‘dark side’ of human nature.

The father of this attitude was Edmund Burke, a friend of the American Revolution in the British Parliament, who famously predicted the outcome of the French Revolution when it was still in its benign phase. He was no reactionary – he favored gradual change – but quite rightly was hostile to proposals to re-order society based on a set of abstract principles.

So, first point: our Princeton PhD candidate should look at every manifestation of American conservatism, not just the ludicrous attitudes that can indeed be found among some self-declared conservatives.

The second point is a generalization of the first, and was best enunciated by the great Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was commenting on a book review by the Russian Bolshevik leader Nicolai Bukharin. Bukharin was reviewing a treatise on sociology by a pro-capitalist academic. Gramsci made the following observation: Bukharin, he said, attacks the weakest arguments of this man. And in physical warfare, that is exactly right: we avoid the enemy’s strong points, and attack his weak points. But in intellectual warfare, we must do just the opposite: we must attack our enemy’s strongest points.

This post is too long already. In the next one I’ll look at that first paragraph from Washington Monthly, to see if there are any kernels of truth in it, and if so, why conservatives believe them.

2 Likes

Secondly, a bird flip to you and your defense of an evil piece of crap.

Liberalism is what it has become, not what you says it is.

Democrats are the party of infanticide, socialism, government control, smashing Free Speech rights, giving free stuff to illegal aliens, and now they are the party of mobs in the streets burning and destroying cities. See the burning cities and torn down statues, and you see the democrat party world. Mobs.

Republicans are the party of Traditional Values, Liberty and freedom. Donald Trump gave us the lowest unemployment rates since John F Kennedy until the virus hit, and now Democrats are trying to keep the virus going because they are so evil they are happy to destroy the economy simply to defeat Trump. That’s right. Masks and continued shutdowns are a joke, based totally on fear. There is a 0.04 death rate for Corona. People have more chance of dying from the Flu.

A totalitarian socialist state of mobs is what the Democrats offer, and liberty and freedom and jobs-not-mobs is what Trump offers.

csbrown28 supports and defends infanticide, socialism, government control, smashing Free Speech rights, giving free stuff to illegal aliens.

csbrown28 is on the side of those who have introduced children to homosexual and transgender acceptance.

csbrown28 is on the side of those who are burning cities and destroying art, and murdering police.

csbrown is evil. Therefore, csbrown is an asshole, vermin, lowlife, etc.

Apparently you are in his camp.

The purpose of this thread was to ask the hypothetical question: If Hitler was a forum member would we be justified in insulting him and calling him names because he is evil. I say, yes, because he is evil.

Therefore, I am justified in calling csbrown any name I want to because I have proven he too is evil. Very evil.

And again, It goes without saying that this also goes for anyone else who promotes and supports the evils that csbrown does.* )

That statement of fact is the conclusion of this thread. All posts that follow are static and chatter.

image

CWolf, Hitler and Nazi-ism is far more complicated than what you describe. Your description of them is accurate, but incomplete. You have to get into the whole reason why Hitler was the way he was–it was born in his relationship with his brutal and vicious father and his acquiescent mother whom he adored. Then, there’s the problematic ending to WWI. Hitler was a unique individual. His need for revenge against those whom he believed betrayed Germany when they surrendered was a reality that he lived in. This was a constant reminder to him during most of his adult life. He was basically full of rage and hatred. Not just for the Jews, although his hatred towards the Jews was foremost in his mind. So, when we bring Hitler into a discussion, one must have a clear knowledge of who and what Hitler was/is all about. You have a good understanding of him. But, you must go deeper. It’s not a pleasant trip down memory lane I can tell you.

3 Likes

@csbrown28 is right, @TrumpTrain2, you go well beyond disagreeing with bad politics and attack the person saying it. Yes, much of Democrat policy is evil, but that doesn’t make it right to call individual Democrats “evil” or other names.

1 Like

As for your hypothetical that started this thread, I haven’t had the patience to read through each response, but I should hope someone would have pointed out that it’s a red herring. The only qualification to join the Republican Party is to be a citizen of the US. You simply register to vote. (Though there might be other qualifications–can felons register to vote?)

Had Hitler not shot himself in the head, he surely would have been hung at Nuremberg with much fanfare, so it would never have been possible for him to become a US citizen.

1 Like

I say you are wrong.

Think about it: You cannot support evil and evil people, enable evil and evil people, vote for evil and evil people, and even donate to evil and evil people, and then turn around and say " Oh, but am not evil like they are."

I understand if don’t like my style of posting. I can wrap my head around that. But there is no way that any rational person can accept the twisted logic of someone saying “ Those politicians may be evil but I am not ” when that person supports them and their evil, votes them and their evil, enables them and their evil, and donates to them and their evil,

That just does not pass the credibility test.

CS supports evil and evil people, enables evil and evil people, votes for evil and evil people, and even donates to evil and evil people, and he is therefore evil, and I will call him whatever I want to.

You need to come to grips with the fact that you are in a WAR between good and evil, and you are suggesting giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I will not.

OK, you can call elected Democrats evil. I’ve done that. But has anyone ever even voted for CSB or AS for anything?

Refraining from calling them names is not the same as supporting them.

1 Like

I didn’t mean to you as in you personally! I meant a person cannot support evil, promote evil, vote for evil, and then say they are not evil. Don’t you get it? CS does all of those things and therefore he is evil and that’s what I’m going to call him. As for you telling me who I can and can’t call evil. That’s not your place, because you obviously don’t have a grasp on the current situation

JAnderson got banned for a whole lot less. Just sayin’

You’ll have to fill me in why I’m apart of this when I’m not a socialist nor pro-choice, nor voting Democrat.

My only “crime” was saying ad hominem is a fallacy and that even people anyone deems “deplorable” have a right to say their piece unmolested.

TT didn’t like hearing that because it ruined his buzz from thinking he cracked the perfect logic to ignore the rules.