Capitol Hill Blue Forums Military & Security Non-Conventional Theories Hitler was not a lefty

It's not interesting because I addressed that about ten posts back.
I said that Margaret Sanger indeed was a eugenicist, and bigoted, but that she is also quite dead (like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch) these many years and PP staff today are most decidedly not.


Call it evolution.

So why ignore the fact that I addressed the issue head on?
I know why.

Because Margaret Sanger was only one of the American eugenicists who influenced the Nazis. The entire eugenicist movement did had a hell of lot more influence on the Nazis than Henry Ford did!
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
"During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."
You did not address this you ignored it.

The National Vanguard?
Hatrack, do you even understand that you sourced a neo-Nazi publication?



Here Jeffery J. Haas is rejecting an article, that proves him wrong, because it was written by a Nazi and published in a Nazi newspaper. What he is doing when he rejects this article is saying that he, Jeffery J. Haas, knows more about Nazism than a Nazi does.

I will address it right now for you as best I can.
Agreed. You're right.
It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Herr Hitler implemented it via an autocratic right wing fascist authoritarian dictatorship.

The hierarchy in the Third Reich was, as Rick pointed out, top-down, not egalitarian, not horizontal.

You argued previously about the wealthy industrialists who were so tightly controlled by the Reich that the government "might as well have owned the industries".

This is hair splitting in comparison to the difference between the privatized wealth of industry under fascism and the barenaked cold reality of nationalized communist state control OWNERSHIP.

German cars, under both liberal left wing and authoritarian right wing administrations, were opulent, luxurious, well engineered.
Soviet cars (and Communist Eastern bloc cars in general) are cursed with being dour, grey, handicapped by tepid, almost sullen performance, and built of substandard materials fitted together with all the pride and flair of a mollusk laying eggs.

The difference is between regulated free market, fascist cartel, and state ownership. The first two allow at least for some entreprenurial craft and profit. The latter (communism) makes no such allowance.

Nope.
I reject the article because I know Shinola.



I am also good at detecting something else, which that National Vanguard article is full of.

Please, since you brought up that article, support what it says.
It's your bar of proof and your argument.

As stated elsewhere on Reader Rant, during Margaret Sangers time, there were a lot more white poor Americans than there were black Americans. Sanger was pointing out to poor white Americans that having more children made you even poorer as children cost money to rear, clothe, and feed and having more children was a vicious circle that kept you poor.

Sanger may have belonged to the KKK but that's an entirely different issue.

Was Margaret Sanger a racist?
National Institute of Health

The article speaks for itself. I do not need to prove that a person's knowledge and experience has greater validity than another person's opinion. The article was written by a Nazi and published in a Nazi newspaper. It is an article written from first hand experience and knowledge and approved by Nazis. It is your opinion that Nazis are right wingers. The article is a Nazis' experience and knowledge on what his political party is. So who should I believe? Someone's first hand knowledge and experience on the subject or the opinion of someone who is not and never was a Nazi? Experience and knowledge trump opinion everyday of the week!

OMG, my friend, use your brain! This is a propaganda piece in a propaganda publication! Was Goebbels a truth-teller? You don't have to get past the first paragraph to see it for what it is.

Yes, because the author of the article is a Nazi and it is in a Nazi publication it must be propaganda. Those damn Nazis never tell the truth they always lie.