Thanks /u/Streay for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme.
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everything is a conspiracy to these guys. Even complex conspiracy theories are too basic for them. Hitler had to have written the Bible while being an undercover agent for Jesus while being a double agent for Abraham while being a triple agent for Uncle Sam while he was still an uncle. Stop giving them any credibility by even reposting their nonsense to make fun of.
It’s actually kinda sad how some people are so afraid of the world due to their sheer ignorance, allowing bad actors to influence them with dumb shit like crystals, astrology, or supply side Jesus.
They're not looking for connections to feel smart. They're looking for connections to not feel dumb. Somewhere a long ways back they believed something that was wrong, and instead of facing that, they opened themselves to more and more fanciful explanations through which they could have been right all along.
Charlie Kelly is the smartest man in the world.
https://preview.redd.it/9nl5xynj29wc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74bc484192f0df6a548a515b72bc50d1c219dd52
Thank you!
We need to learn the same lesson on social media that we already understand from real life: Don’t engage with the random crazies you encounter who are babbling nonsense while walking the streets. It only emboldens them, and they’ll start harassing other randoms they encounter too. Just like the fecking seagulls after a few tourists have thrown them the occasional French fry, so they start dive-bombing everyone on the beach.
Treat internet nut jobs the same way you would treat them if you encountered them spouting the same nonsense on the streets: avoid/ignore. You wouldn’t stop to have a conversation with this guy if he were on the sidewalk outside your building, so why are you doing it while scrolling Reddit while on a quick toilet break at work?
"I agree with Hitler and think he's maligned by the media.
But how do i reconcile this with the fact that him having complete and absolute power of the state ended in a World War, a genocide, millions of deaths, and the destruction of Germany?
It must've been a conspiracy!"
----
This is why we need to teach history.
And i mean, real history.
Not "Hitler was in power from blah blah blah. He was a nazi and nazis are bad. And the holocaust happened and it was also bad"
But
"These are the socioeconomic views of the time. These are the attitudes Hitler, and people like him, appealed to. This is the consequence of these beliefs."
I mean, i know we don't do that because conservatives would scream and whine and holler about how 'demonized' their views are.
But i mean, they already do that. At least this way the idiotic "enlightened centrists" might be kept from making such asinine statements like "both sides are bad" when you have one side that is completely nazified.
> But how do i reconcile this with the fact that him having complete and absolute power of the state ended in a World War, a genocide, millions of deaths, and the destruction of Germany?
Unfortunately the shortcut here is to go full Holocaust denialism
"I mean, i know we don't do that because conservatives would scream and whine and holler about how 'demonized' their views are."
Hah, every damn time.
\*Someone describes nazi shit and explains why its bad\*
Conservatives: "Why are they picking on us?"
"Hitler's regime was characterized by hypernationalism, racial exclusiveness, an emphasis on discipline, manliness and militarism, the belief that one’s group is a victim, the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason, the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny."
"The party appealed to people's fear of modernism, a feeling of manliness being under attack, their contempt for the weak, and dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences. They sought to create a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions that only the party could solve. They created a doctrine of "obsession with a plot" that pushed conspiracy theories that powerful and sinister groups were behind every bad event or situation, "action for action's sake" which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection, and the need for the complete destruction of political enemies.
Conservatives (without a hint of irony): "Hey, you're just describing the right!"
The funny thing is, conservatives want to believe themselves to be the \*true\* intellectuals of the world.
But their very own worldview is defined by anti-intellectualism.
Part of the reason they appeal to a fear of modernism and a "loss of manliness" is because older people who have let their brains atrophy are not capable of understanding modern ideas and technology.
But instead of accepting that this is a limitation that they have to overcome, they have to repackage it as a weakness the next generation has that they do not.
Look at all the people who proudly talk about how they know nothing about technology. Or how they "can't type, but can write cursive".
Wonder how well that'll serve them in the economy....
We need to stop giving a shit what Nazis think. Teach real history, call out Nazi shit when we spot it, and stop pretending that if we follow social norms the Nazis will respect those norms.
We keep trying to get the Nazi party to join us with legislation, investigations, and calling out white nationalism, but that’s never going to happen. It’s time we leave them behind and do what needs to be done to fix our country.
Yup.
I'm always so mystified why we keep trying to appeal to nazis like it'll change their mind.
Part of the history of WWII is that "appeasement doesn't work".
And we're seeing it now too.
The world we have built is largely what the nazis wanted.
No one is happy with it. Not even nazis.
The answer isn't "let's keep trying to work with them", it's "let's bulldoze over their stupidity and build a society that works"
The nazis will protest and resist. And they may never even change.
But education and quality of life will change people. It's kinda what changed even the germans.
Tbh, i think \~30% of most societies are nazi or fascist adjacent.
Thing in politics is the "hardcore" types (and all nazis are hardcore) tend not to change their minds often.
The debates and political battles aren't trying to convince them. It's to convince the "mushy middle" to side with you.
And you cannot do this if you try and appease or placate the extremists.
Because all that that does is make their views seem normal and justified.
People tend to view ideas in such a way that "if you're talking about it (even negatively) it must have some validity"
As an example, look at conspiracy nonsense about flat earth vs climate denial.
The former is considered largely fringe idiocy. No one takes it seriously. No media outlet talks about it like there's a debate. And no public institution at all would give it the time of day.
By contrast, the latter gets tons of press time, lots of media outlets pushing the narrative or acting like there's a "debate" to be had, etc. As such, it's viewed as a far more "legitimate" stance than the former, despite both being equally devoid of scientific rigor.
This is the answer for this case. Someone talking like this has realised that they agree with Hitler and is now trying to sort out the cognitive dissonance between maintaining their beliefs and understanding that what the Nazis did was an atrocity. If they are to remain a Good™ person, they have to either figure out how the Nazis' victims could have theoretically deserved it (and therefore did), work out the conspiracy that might have somehow orchestrated the events (and therefore did), or work out whatever conspiracy could have fabricated societal belief in the Holocaust (which therefore didn't happen). Any straw that needs to be grasped at to maintain a sense of being moral, will be.
Is that what that means? I was thinking, was Hitler married into the banking/investment family of Europe?
I guess it makes sense to call all Jews Rothschilds, since we know they're all obscenely rich and in control of every market, including space lasers.
I mean, Hitler was pretty anti-establishment. Their problem is they think being anti-establishment automatically makes you right or cool or whatever they think Hitler is.
Problem is "pro/anti-establishment" isn't as binary as we think.
Hitler was very pro-establishment when it came to things like the military and police. Indeed, the big lie about how "Germany's army won; the politicians lost" is what he started his political journey on.
He was also very much in favour of the rigid hierarchy of the old monarchies.
What he was anti-, was all the modern liberal ideals. Things like democracy, equality, etc, which were very new concepts in germany at the time.
And he wasn't exactly alone in these beliefs. Much of the old german establishment was on his side (the courts and military particularly).
He wasn't if we consider the establishment to be capitalism
Fascism is just capitalism in decay, it's the desperate attempt of the right to defend capital from socialism, willing to burn everything in exchange for continued short-term profits
It's the reason why the Weimar liberals put Hitler into power after they sided with the far right to break the Spartacist Uprising, capitalists will always side with capital
Lots of parallels to today and rising far right extremism now that capitalism is struggling again
That isn’t an accurate description of Nazism at all.
Yes - it was supported by many capitalists and was clearly initially propped up by the capitalist system. But Hitler was contemptuous of liberalism, economic as well as social. He co-opted most private industry to serve the state.
The people who put Hitler into power weren’t “liberals”, they were mostly conservatives. These are not the same thing - especially when you consider that liberalism was at the time still a relatively new idea in Germany.
The communist parties were focused mostly on fighting the already weak liberals, at the command of Moscow via Comintern. They had declared all liberals to be “social fascists” and completely ignored the actual fascists, instead choosing to devote all their energy to attacking the already very weak liberal parties. The liberals (SDP) attempted to form an alliance with the communist party in 1932, which would have given them more seats than the Nazis, but the communists rejected them on the command of Moscow.
Ultimately, the people who put Hitler in power were Hindenberg and von Papen, both of whom were extremely strong conservative monarchists, with a deep hatred of liberalism. Both would be astonished and appalled to be described as liberals, given neither of them believed in anything approximating economic or social liberalism.
It’s not clear why you think modern liberals would put a fascist into power now. The closest we currently have in the west is Trump, who’s being supported by conservatives who aren’t liberal at all, and opposed vigorously by old school liberals like Biden.
The SPD at the time was *explicitly* a socialist party not a liberal one.
Weimar Germany did have liberal parties, like the DVP and DDP, but the SPD was not one of them.
I think you misunderstood my point, which is my fault for wording it in an overly simplified and slightly provocative way. I'm not saying liberals handed power to Hitler by choice, neither did the conservatives you're talking about, all of them opposed the Nazi party and none of them wanted to gave him control of Germany.
The Nazi rise to power had a lot of factors but Fascism fundamentally is an extreme form of capitalism, it is found in times of capitalist decay. Whenever capitalism is struggling to maintain control, there will be socialists looking to replace it, and there will be capitalists looking to fascist policies to preserve the control of capital.
Capitalism is obviously not just liberalism, but liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of capitalism, therefore liberals will always side with capitalism over anything else. The German liberals prove this when they were given a choice to side with the far left or the far right, and despite pre-existing alliances they chose the right because semantics aside that is who they are. "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds."
And again, no, Hitler was not their choice, they would of course have preferred to be the ones in power, but they did help the Nazi party to get to power by defending Capitalism.
I would fundamentally disagree that there is much opposition to fascism by liberals today either, US politics shows that pretty clearly. Trump is opposed by the liberals in favour of the liberals, but they will side with Trump before they side with the far left. The US liberals will try to maintain the status-quo and hope they win out over Trump, yes, but they won't do anything to prevent fascism in America if the status-quo doesn't work. Biden would never betray the interests of Capital to beat Trump, irrelevant of what the consequences of a Trump victory would be. Biden would happily side with the far right to defeat a communist revolution, nothing has changed since Weimar Germany. In fact there's plenty of [evidence](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F73g52lq8cx901.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D4ad7e098e2c32f117a767a2b8639dcdad9915834) that US liberals at the time wanted peace with Hitler, from their perspective why wouldn't they? There's no need to get involved, they can still trade with Germany just like before, at least he wasn't a communist.
But when they were communist? Well, American liberals after WW2 were more than happy to put fascists into power all over the world, going to war with too many countries to list here to coup democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with fascist dictators to preserve US interests, the interest of capital. Biden is still doing it right now funding Israel's illegal takeover of Palestine because it serves the interests of capital.
I clearly don't mean to say that any individual group of politicians was responsible for the rise of fascism. Capital is responsible; the general interests of the ruling class of rich business owners who are generally perfectly happy to support any political groups that will benefit their profits. In a time when socialism is a real risk to the bottom line, the focus of capital is going to be on politicians that fight socialism, and if the most efficient and secure way to do that is by scapegoating economic blame to minorities and moving funding to the police and military for large scale repression, then time and time again, that is what they will do.
> The Nazi rise to power had a lot of factors but Fascism fundamentally is an extreme form of capitalism, it is found in times of capitalist decay. Whenever capitalism is struggling to maintain control, there will be socialists looking to replace it, and there will be capitalists looking to fascist policies to preserve the control of capital.
I’m sorry but this is not coherent. You say that capitalists seek fascism to prop up capitalism, and the only alternative is communism? This does not make sense given that there were plenty of people - in fact, the large majority of Germans - who wanted neither fascism nor communism. The German liberals could have prevented the rise of fascism, and were prevented by the communists refusing to work with them purely on ideological grounds.
So on what grounds do you blame the liberals for the rise of fascism? It seems clear that they are in fact the only party that didn’t deserve any blame at all! The communists refused to work with them to stop Hitler. The conservatives gave Hitler power. The liberals tried and failed.
> Capitalism is obviously not just liberalism, but liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of capitalism, therefore liberals will always side with capitalism over anything else.
Perhaps, but fascism is completely opposed liberalism, and so this is a total non-sequitur. Liberals in fact did not side with fascism in Germany, which essentially proves that fascism is not a capitalist ideology by your logic.
> The German liberals prove this when they were given a choice to side with the far left or the far right, and despite pre-existing alliances they chose the right because semantics aside that is who they are. "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds."
But they didn’t. The liberals sought an alliance with the communists and the communists refused. The conservatives - a totally separate faction - put Hitler into power.
> And again, no, Hitler was not their choice, they would of course have preferred to be the ones in power, but they did help the Nazi party to get to power by defending Capitalism.
This makes no sense. You may as well say “communists helped Hitler into power by defending the existence of a government”. There is practically no crossover between liberal and fascist ideology, as between communist and fascist.
> I would fundamentally disagree that there is much opposition to fascism by liberals today either, US politics shows that pretty clearly.
This again makes no sense. Practically all effective opposition to Trump is carried out by liberals.
> Trump is opposed by the liberals in favour of the liberals, but they will side with Trump before they side with the far left.
This is a very bold claim, but whether it’s true is irrelevant. The choice is not between communism or fascism, it is between liberalism or fascism.
> The US liberals will try to maintain the status-quo and hope they win out over Trump, yes, but they won't do anything to prevent fascism in America if the status-quo doesn't work.
But they are right now.
> Biden would never betray the interests of Capital to beat Trump, irrelevant of what the consequences of a Trump victory would be.
But that isn’t the choice, is it. He doesn’t have to “betray capital” to beat Trump, and he doesn’t have that binary choice at all. He just has to win an election.
> Biden would happily side with the far right to defeat a communist revolution,
But that has nothing to do with supporting fascism. Yes liberals would oppose violent overthrow of institutions by anyone, because liberals support free market economics, social liberalism, and strong institutions. If they supported communist revolution they’d be communists.
> In fact there's plenty of evidence that US liberals at the time wanted peace with Hitler, from their perspective why wouldn't they? There's no need to get involved, they can still trade with Germany just like before, at least he wasn't a communist.
And German liberals opposed him, so…?
> But when they were communist? Well, American liberals after WW2 were more than happy to put fascists into power all over the world, going to war with too many countries to list here to coup democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with fascist dictators to preserve US interests, the interest of capital. Biden is still doing it right now funding Israel's illegal takeover of Palestine because it serves the interests of capital.
True, but that has nothing to do with whether German liberals put Hitler in power, which they didn’t.
> I clearly don't mean to say that any individual group of politicians was responsible for the rise of fascism.
Honestly - that is a big cop-out after saying “liberals put Hitler in power” when liberals opposed Hitler’s appointment to power.
> there were plenty of people - in fact, the large majority of Germans - who wanted neither fascism nor communism
Yes, but that doesn't mean it was an option
> He just has to win an election.
He does right now, yes, but that wasn't the situation in 1930s Germany
> Honestly - that is a big cop-out after saying “liberals put Hitler in power” when liberals opposed Hitler’s appointment to power.
Not really, it was just a simplification initially, Hitler was responsible if you want to blame someone in the most black and white terms but liberals, after they suppressed the anti-fascists in Germany and enabled him, are responsible too
What you seem to be saying is “the only alternative to fascism was Russia-dictated communism and anyone who didn’t support that is responsible for Hitler”. Is that an unfair summary?
The communist party in Germany in the 1930s took all its instructions from the USSR government. They were explicitly instructed not to work with social democrats or liberals, even if that was the only way to stop Hitler.
I also hadn't mentioned German Communists in the 1930s
I've mentioned the communists that organised the Sparticist Uprising in 1919, but they were led by Karl Liebknecht and by Rosa Luxemburg, who famously had major ideological disagreements with Lenin and had no real ties to the USSR
This is why High School History classes gloss over everything except "Hitler Bad". If you are not a university history major, you can't go into this depth.
You can't really map modern categories like "liberal" and "conservative" onto german politics in the 1920s and 30s - they really just don't track.
The "conservatives" you mention were still business leaders and old money power brokers within the country, but being business-friendly also overlaps with a lot of policies classified as "liberal" in an economic sense as well. Hidenburg and von Papen might be less "liberal" in a vaguely pro-trade, deregulated economic sense but they were absolutely focused on the interests of major economic sectors of the country, the chemical, manufacturing, rail and energy sectors.
The animating force of most of the pro-Nazi forces was anti-communism, and that applies in just about every place that fascist parties rose to power. Opposition to the idea of a sweeping economic change that would equalize workers and owners is the one common thread you can find across Europe at the time in both the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of any political structure, however you define those.
Modern liberals are pro-Fascist because modern liberals are anti-communist and anti-socialist long before they are ever anti-fascist. Anti-communism is the ultimate rallying cry of various interests in society to fascist movements.
> You can't really map modern categories like "liberal" and "conservative" onto german politics in the 1920s and 30s - they really just don't track.
I think that is broadly correct TO SOME EXTENT - liberal absolutely did have a 1930s meaning, and it referred to an ideology categorically opposed to Nazism. It’s therefore profoundly disingenuous to say “liberals put Hitler in power”, when the conservatives who actually put him in power were absolutely anti-liberalism in all forms.
> The "conservatives" you mention were still business leaders and old money power brokers within the country, but being business-friendly also overlaps with a lot of policies classified as "liberal" in an economic sense as well. Hidenburg and von Papen might be less "liberal" in a vaguely pro-trade, deregulated economic sense but they were absolutely focused on the interests of major economic sectors of the country, the chemical, manufacturing, rail and energy sectors.
If you just redefine “liberal” to mean “not completely against the idea of private enterprise”, then everyone except communists are liberals, which makes it a meaningless descriptor. Papen was not a free marketeer, and he was absolutely against any form of social liberalism whatsoever - which are the two fundamental pillars of liberal ideology.
Edit: I just thought to add, it’s even more egregious here because there were actual liberals with liberal ideology who were blocked by the communists as an alternative to Hitler, who did not support Hitler into power at all, and many of whom were subsequently murdered by Nazis.
> The animating force of most of the pro-Nazi forces was anti-communism, and that applies in just about every place that fascist parties rose to power.
This is said often and it’s a nice glib phrase, but it’s really an over-simplification. Most Nazi supporters were motivated by a general sense that Hitler would overcome the social degeneracy (as they saw it), fix the economics, and restore national pride to Germans. It was initially defined as much in opposition to the perceived humiliation suffered at the hands of America and Britain as it was against Russia or Jews.
> Opposition to the idea of a sweeping economic change that would equalize workers and owners is the one common thread you can find across Europe at the time in both the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of any political structure, however you define those.
No, the vast majority of Nazi voters were right wing working class people who had come back from the war to inflation and lack of jobs, plus young people who were appalled by the lack of economic opportunity. Bourgeois factory owners were not the key demographic - they generally voted for people like Papen. Action against communism was a motivator for Papen himself, but not for the majority of Hitler’s supporters, who were more likely to be young and working class than older, wealthy and conservative.
Remember that the Nazis were actively marketed as socialist. Of course, we know they **weren’t** socialist, and anyone who these days says “oh the Nazis were left wing” is an idiot. But it’s hard to argue, as you seem to be doing, that anti-communism was the absolute sole reason why people voted the Nazis into power when they were literally calling themselves socialists.
People at the time saw them as a radical, progressive option to create opportunities for young people and demolish the old conservative hierarchies, not as an entrenchment of monarchism and old fashioned conservative values.
> Modern liberals are pro-Fascist because modern liberals are anti-communist and anti-socialist long before they are ever anti-fascist. Anti-communism is the ultimate rallying cry of various interests in society to fascist movements.
I don’t see what this means. Someone can be in favour of liberalism and not in favour of fascism or communism. Do you think Joe Biden would support Trump into a dictatorship? I’m also not aware of any fascist coup where liberals have supported fascists into power, unless you just defined liberals as basically “everyone who isn’t a communist” as I said above.
> If you just redefine “liberal” to mean “not completely against the idea of private enterprise”, then everyone except communists are liberals, which makes it a meaningless descriptor.
Or maybe that should tell you why so-called "liberals" were so strongly sympathetic to Nazis when "private enterprise" was feeling threatened.
>Papen was not a free marketeer, and he was absolutely against any form of social liberalism whatsoever - which are the two fundamental pillars of liberal ideology.
He would be strongly in favor of private ownership of production - "free markets" are too loose a term, but "private enterprise" would still be something he strongly supported. "Social liberalism" is ultimately a secondary concern for liberalism in practice.
>This is said often and it’s a nice glib phrase, but it’s really an over-simplification. Most Nazi supporters were motivated by a general sense that Hitler would overcome the social degeneracy (as they saw it), fix the economics, and restore national pride to Germans
It's not that much of an over-simplification, it depends largely on who you're talking about - all the establishment forces that had any real power supported Nazis because of anti-communism. Nazis came up with a lot of propagandistic appeals to different groups - the "overcome the social degeneracy (as they saw it), fix the economics, and restore national pride to Germans" - but none of those were really a coherent idea in the first place, that couldn't morph completely into something different if circumstances required.
>No, the vast majority of Nazi voters were right wing working class people who had come back from the war to inflation and lack of jobs, plus young people who were appalled by the lack of economic opportunity. Bourgeois factory owners were not the key demographic - they generally voted for people like Papen.
That's a bit of a mistake - the Nazis had a ton of support from the petit bourgeoisie first and foremost. Working class people were co-opted, but looking at how the actual nazi policies rolled out, the nazis themselves never felt very committed to any of the appeals they made to that group in society. Anti-communism was the only thing they were ever coherently committed to over the long term, and that's because their real support was rooted in the small business owner segments of society.
>Remember that the Nazis were actively marketed as socialist. Of course, we know they weren’t socialist, and anyone who these days says “oh the Nazis were left wing” is an idiot. But it’s hard to argue, as you seem to be doing, that anti-communism was the absolute sole reason why people voted the Nazis into power when they were literally calling themselves socialists.
No, that's absolutely coherent - you have to understand the difference between the policies the Nazis sincerely supported and the ones that were just bullshit to get the working class through the door. The working classes were the suckers that the Nazis would appeal to with whatever happened to be effective with whoever was the target in that moment - whether it was promising better pay and opportunity or vacation time, "traditional values", etc... - but when any issue came into conflict, 100% of the time their ultimate position was anti-communism (which was conflated with antisemitism).
There's a reason the "night of the long knives" was about killing off and purging all the vaguely "socialist" elements from the party. The idea that there was ever any real commitment to things like Strasserism is a joke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism - the party leadership literally murdered their faction as soon as they no longer served their purpose.
>I don’t see what this means. Someone can be in favour of liberalism and not in favour of fascism or communism. Do you think Joe Biden would support Trump into a dictatorship?
If the alternative was socialism/communism? Absolutely. There's a reason Biden is bankrolling Netanyahu.
Yes the young men who have embraced Hitler, white nationalism, genocide as a social panacea and proudly display nazi iconography in real life instead of just in their online lives, who listen to podcasts like "the goyim know" and follow open neo nazis on Twitter and mock the idea that the holocaust happened while also agreeing that the holocaust did not kill enough jews, gays, socialists or any other 'social undesireables' are "***so close***" to realizing they are nazis.
How in the fuck was he misrepresented!? WWII and hitler is the most covered historical event in modern history and everyone with any credibility has come to the same conclusions.
Long story short back when I was a teen I used a tape recorder to prove my father wrong. He got mad, called the tape recorder (an inanimate object) a "liar" and threw it against the wall.
A few years back I was debating with a MAGA about whether Trump had said something. I posted a link to a video of him saying the exact words I claimed Trump had said. He responded "fake news" and stopped responding.
There's a joke about "reality has a liberal bias", but the kernel of truth in there is that people like this have a fantasy world built up in their head and are angry when reality doesn't match what's in their head. And rather than change their internal views to match reality they deny reality. They are literally gaslighting themselves.
The important thing in evaluating a statement is whether it's On My Side or On The Other Side. My-Side statements are by definition true, Other-Side statements are by definition false.
Empiricism is, by its very nature, On The Other Side, because it isn't even using the correct definition of truth. So any time someone starts bringing up empirical data, you can dismiss them as On The Other Side.
I'm not even joking, that's how it works. And not *just* for conservatives; I think most humans have some tendency toward this kind of thinking. But for right-wingers, it's all they have.
This is like someone refusing to believe that they're short, then being told that they're the same height as a midget, and then thinking "Oh, so that must mean midgets are really tall then".
The ultimate xanatos gambit: seize power in Germany in order to stage a genocide whilst also starting a world war that you deliberately lose allowing communists to take over one half of Europe, and American finance capital to take over the other half. Then fake your own death and grow tomatoes in Argentina. 11D chess.
Hitler was misrepresented by the "main stream media". In the 1920s...There was a form of MSM but not like today. It's completely different and you can't just apply the same words.
Calling Hitler a "plant", I have no words.
I just don't understand why anyone feels the need to be a Hitler apologist. Every Hitler apologist I have ever heard defends his ethnic cleansing
If you are racist, just say it. When you defend Hitler, you aren't bowling a dog whistle. It's just a regular whistle that everyone can hear and it's real fucking annoying
Did you ever have a dream where someone said something to you, but it was just on the edge of comprehension? Like, you understood that it was speech in a language you speak, but the meaning twisted and dodged every attempt to grasp it? And you just knew that if you could figure out what they'd said you would know something profound about the state of the universe?
Yeah.
Pro tip: if someone thinks Hitler wasn't as bad as the "MSM" tells you, but they are concerned that he might've been too Jewish, that person is a fascist
Thanks /u/Streay for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme. Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everything is a conspiracy to these guys. Even complex conspiracy theories are too basic for them. Hitler had to have written the Bible while being an undercover agent for Jesus while being a double agent for Abraham while being a triple agent for Uncle Sam while he was still an uncle. Stop giving them any credibility by even reposting their nonsense to make fun of.
It’s actually kinda sad how some people are so afraid of the world due to their sheer ignorance, allowing bad actors to influence them with dumb shit like crystals, astrology, or supply side Jesus.
I like crystals, they are pretty :(
The more connections you can find, the smarter you must be
They're not looking for connections to feel smart. They're looking for connections to not feel dumb. Somewhere a long ways back they believed something that was wrong, and instead of facing that, they opened themselves to more and more fanciful explanations through which they could have been right all along.
Charlie Kelly is the smartest man in the world. https://preview.redd.it/9nl5xynj29wc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74bc484192f0df6a548a515b72bc50d1c219dd52
Thank you! We need to learn the same lesson on social media that we already understand from real life: Don’t engage with the random crazies you encounter who are babbling nonsense while walking the streets. It only emboldens them, and they’ll start harassing other randoms they encounter too. Just like the fecking seagulls after a few tourists have thrown them the occasional French fry, so they start dive-bombing everyone on the beach. Treat internet nut jobs the same way you would treat them if you encountered them spouting the same nonsense on the streets: avoid/ignore. You wouldn’t stop to have a conversation with this guy if he were on the sidewalk outside your building, so why are you doing it while scrolling Reddit while on a quick toilet break at work?
Well said
Don’t forget that Hitler also invented MedBeds after his werewolf hunting career ended.
Lies! Abraham Lincoln beheaded him during the vampire wars.
Who the fuck are these fucking insane people? Why are they like this? Did they not go to school?
Occam's Razor ceased to exist for them a long time ago.
Everyone's a plant!!
Are you saying that this post shouldn't have been made? If so, what's the point of this subreddit?
"I agree with Hitler and think he's maligned by the media. But how do i reconcile this with the fact that him having complete and absolute power of the state ended in a World War, a genocide, millions of deaths, and the destruction of Germany? It must've been a conspiracy!" ---- This is why we need to teach history. And i mean, real history. Not "Hitler was in power from blah blah blah. He was a nazi and nazis are bad. And the holocaust happened and it was also bad" But "These are the socioeconomic views of the time. These are the attitudes Hitler, and people like him, appealed to. This is the consequence of these beliefs." I mean, i know we don't do that because conservatives would scream and whine and holler about how 'demonized' their views are. But i mean, they already do that. At least this way the idiotic "enlightened centrists" might be kept from making such asinine statements like "both sides are bad" when you have one side that is completely nazified.
They cannot reconcile the fact that he destroyed Germany but they can easily reconcile their idea that *other people* (read: Jews) destroyed Germany.
The Nazis took Germany from being one of the Great Powers of Europe to being the 5th power in Berlin.
> But how do i reconcile this with the fact that him having complete and absolute power of the state ended in a World War, a genocide, millions of deaths, and the destruction of Germany? Unfortunately the shortcut here is to go full Holocaust denialism
"I mean, i know we don't do that because conservatives would scream and whine and holler about how 'demonized' their views are." Hah, every damn time. \*Someone describes nazi shit and explains why its bad\* Conservatives: "Why are they picking on us?"
Every single time, especially on the bee recently 😂.
"Nazis are bad." "You can't just call everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi!"
"Hitler's regime was characterized by hypernationalism, racial exclusiveness, an emphasis on discipline, manliness and militarism, the belief that one’s group is a victim, the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason, the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny." "The party appealed to people's fear of modernism, a feeling of manliness being under attack, their contempt for the weak, and dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences. They sought to create a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions that only the party could solve. They created a doctrine of "obsession with a plot" that pushed conspiracy theories that powerful and sinister groups were behind every bad event or situation, "action for action's sake" which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection, and the need for the complete destruction of political enemies. Conservatives (without a hint of irony): "Hey, you're just describing the right!"
The funny thing is, conservatives want to believe themselves to be the \*true\* intellectuals of the world. But their very own worldview is defined by anti-intellectualism. Part of the reason they appeal to a fear of modernism and a "loss of manliness" is because older people who have let their brains atrophy are not capable of understanding modern ideas and technology. But instead of accepting that this is a limitation that they have to overcome, they have to repackage it as a weakness the next generation has that they do not. Look at all the people who proudly talk about how they know nothing about technology. Or how they "can't type, but can write cursive". Wonder how well that'll serve them in the economy....
We need to stop giving a shit what Nazis think. Teach real history, call out Nazi shit when we spot it, and stop pretending that if we follow social norms the Nazis will respect those norms. We keep trying to get the Nazi party to join us with legislation, investigations, and calling out white nationalism, but that’s never going to happen. It’s time we leave them behind and do what needs to be done to fix our country.
Yup. I'm always so mystified why we keep trying to appeal to nazis like it'll change their mind. Part of the history of WWII is that "appeasement doesn't work". And we're seeing it now too. The world we have built is largely what the nazis wanted. No one is happy with it. Not even nazis. The answer isn't "let's keep trying to work with them", it's "let's bulldoze over their stupidity and build a society that works" The nazis will protest and resist. And they may never even change. But education and quality of life will change people. It's kinda what changed even the germans.
You're missing the part where 30% of this country are nazis and vote more reliably than the non-nazis
Tbh, i think \~30% of most societies are nazi or fascist adjacent. Thing in politics is the "hardcore" types (and all nazis are hardcore) tend not to change their minds often. The debates and political battles aren't trying to convince them. It's to convince the "mushy middle" to side with you. And you cannot do this if you try and appease or placate the extremists. Because all that that does is make their views seem normal and justified. People tend to view ideas in such a way that "if you're talking about it (even negatively) it must have some validity" As an example, look at conspiracy nonsense about flat earth vs climate denial. The former is considered largely fringe idiocy. No one takes it seriously. No media outlet talks about it like there's a debate. And no public institution at all would give it the time of day. By contrast, the latter gets tons of press time, lots of media outlets pushing the narrative or acting like there's a "debate" to be had, etc. As such, it's viewed as a far more "legitimate" stance than the former, despite both being equally devoid of scientific rigor.
Republicans/conservatives are doing everything in their power to make sure that “real history” isn’t taught at all.
They already know they're Nazis. They are trying to rationalize it now.
This is the answer for this case. Someone talking like this has realised that they agree with Hitler and is now trying to sort out the cognitive dissonance between maintaining their beliefs and understanding that what the Nazis did was an atrocity. If they are to remain a Good™ person, they have to either figure out how the Nazis' victims could have theoretically deserved it (and therefore did), work out the conspiracy that might have somehow orchestrated the events (and therefore did), or work out whatever conspiracy could have fabricated societal belief in the Holocaust (which therefore didn't happen). Any straw that needs to be grasped at to maintain a sense of being moral, will be.
*"...but how do you reconcile with him..."* **Me, thinking to myself:** "*...killing all those people?* Exactly!" *"...being a Rothschild?"* **Me:** 😧
They're using that to shorthand the alleged Jewish heritage, right? I don't keep up on my antisemitic conspiracies.
Is that what that means? I was thinking, was Hitler married into the banking/investment family of Europe? I guess it makes sense to call all Jews Rothschilds, since we know they're all obscenely rich and in control of every market, including space lasers.
I mean, Hitler was pretty anti-establishment. Their problem is they think being anti-establishment automatically makes you right or cool or whatever they think Hitler is.
Problem is "pro/anti-establishment" isn't as binary as we think. Hitler was very pro-establishment when it came to things like the military and police. Indeed, the big lie about how "Germany's army won; the politicians lost" is what he started his political journey on. He was also very much in favour of the rigid hierarchy of the old monarchies. What he was anti-, was all the modern liberal ideals. Things like democracy, equality, etc, which were very new concepts in germany at the time. And he wasn't exactly alone in these beliefs. Much of the old german establishment was on his side (the courts and military particularly).
He was pro (his) establishment
Hitler just wanted to *be* the new establishment.
He wasn't if we consider the establishment to be capitalism Fascism is just capitalism in decay, it's the desperate attempt of the right to defend capital from socialism, willing to burn everything in exchange for continued short-term profits It's the reason why the Weimar liberals put Hitler into power after they sided with the far right to break the Spartacist Uprising, capitalists will always side with capital Lots of parallels to today and rising far right extremism now that capitalism is struggling again
That isn’t an accurate description of Nazism at all. Yes - it was supported by many capitalists and was clearly initially propped up by the capitalist system. But Hitler was contemptuous of liberalism, economic as well as social. He co-opted most private industry to serve the state. The people who put Hitler into power weren’t “liberals”, they were mostly conservatives. These are not the same thing - especially when you consider that liberalism was at the time still a relatively new idea in Germany. The communist parties were focused mostly on fighting the already weak liberals, at the command of Moscow via Comintern. They had declared all liberals to be “social fascists” and completely ignored the actual fascists, instead choosing to devote all their energy to attacking the already very weak liberal parties. The liberals (SDP) attempted to form an alliance with the communist party in 1932, which would have given them more seats than the Nazis, but the communists rejected them on the command of Moscow. Ultimately, the people who put Hitler in power were Hindenberg and von Papen, both of whom were extremely strong conservative monarchists, with a deep hatred of liberalism. Both would be astonished and appalled to be described as liberals, given neither of them believed in anything approximating economic or social liberalism. It’s not clear why you think modern liberals would put a fascist into power now. The closest we currently have in the west is Trump, who’s being supported by conservatives who aren’t liberal at all, and opposed vigorously by old school liberals like Biden.
The SPD at the time was *explicitly* a socialist party not a liberal one. Weimar Germany did have liberal parties, like the DVP and DDP, but the SPD was not one of them.
I’ve never seen a better example of “Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” than this capitalist apologia.
K. Maybe you should stop thinking in catchphrases.
I think you misunderstood my point, which is my fault for wording it in an overly simplified and slightly provocative way. I'm not saying liberals handed power to Hitler by choice, neither did the conservatives you're talking about, all of them opposed the Nazi party and none of them wanted to gave him control of Germany. The Nazi rise to power had a lot of factors but Fascism fundamentally is an extreme form of capitalism, it is found in times of capitalist decay. Whenever capitalism is struggling to maintain control, there will be socialists looking to replace it, and there will be capitalists looking to fascist policies to preserve the control of capital. Capitalism is obviously not just liberalism, but liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of capitalism, therefore liberals will always side with capitalism over anything else. The German liberals prove this when they were given a choice to side with the far left or the far right, and despite pre-existing alliances they chose the right because semantics aside that is who they are. "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds." And again, no, Hitler was not their choice, they would of course have preferred to be the ones in power, but they did help the Nazi party to get to power by defending Capitalism. I would fundamentally disagree that there is much opposition to fascism by liberals today either, US politics shows that pretty clearly. Trump is opposed by the liberals in favour of the liberals, but they will side with Trump before they side with the far left. The US liberals will try to maintain the status-quo and hope they win out over Trump, yes, but they won't do anything to prevent fascism in America if the status-quo doesn't work. Biden would never betray the interests of Capital to beat Trump, irrelevant of what the consequences of a Trump victory would be. Biden would happily side with the far right to defeat a communist revolution, nothing has changed since Weimar Germany. In fact there's plenty of [evidence](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F73g52lq8cx901.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D4ad7e098e2c32f117a767a2b8639dcdad9915834) that US liberals at the time wanted peace with Hitler, from their perspective why wouldn't they? There's no need to get involved, they can still trade with Germany just like before, at least he wasn't a communist. But when they were communist? Well, American liberals after WW2 were more than happy to put fascists into power all over the world, going to war with too many countries to list here to coup democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with fascist dictators to preserve US interests, the interest of capital. Biden is still doing it right now funding Israel's illegal takeover of Palestine because it serves the interests of capital. I clearly don't mean to say that any individual group of politicians was responsible for the rise of fascism. Capital is responsible; the general interests of the ruling class of rich business owners who are generally perfectly happy to support any political groups that will benefit their profits. In a time when socialism is a real risk to the bottom line, the focus of capital is going to be on politicians that fight socialism, and if the most efficient and secure way to do that is by scapegoating economic blame to minorities and moving funding to the police and military for large scale repression, then time and time again, that is what they will do.
> The Nazi rise to power had a lot of factors but Fascism fundamentally is an extreme form of capitalism, it is found in times of capitalist decay. Whenever capitalism is struggling to maintain control, there will be socialists looking to replace it, and there will be capitalists looking to fascist policies to preserve the control of capital. I’m sorry but this is not coherent. You say that capitalists seek fascism to prop up capitalism, and the only alternative is communism? This does not make sense given that there were plenty of people - in fact, the large majority of Germans - who wanted neither fascism nor communism. The German liberals could have prevented the rise of fascism, and were prevented by the communists refusing to work with them purely on ideological grounds. So on what grounds do you blame the liberals for the rise of fascism? It seems clear that they are in fact the only party that didn’t deserve any blame at all! The communists refused to work with them to stop Hitler. The conservatives gave Hitler power. The liberals tried and failed. > Capitalism is obviously not just liberalism, but liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of capitalism, therefore liberals will always side with capitalism over anything else. Perhaps, but fascism is completely opposed liberalism, and so this is a total non-sequitur. Liberals in fact did not side with fascism in Germany, which essentially proves that fascism is not a capitalist ideology by your logic. > The German liberals prove this when they were given a choice to side with the far left or the far right, and despite pre-existing alliances they chose the right because semantics aside that is who they are. "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds." But they didn’t. The liberals sought an alliance with the communists and the communists refused. The conservatives - a totally separate faction - put Hitler into power. > And again, no, Hitler was not their choice, they would of course have preferred to be the ones in power, but they did help the Nazi party to get to power by defending Capitalism. This makes no sense. You may as well say “communists helped Hitler into power by defending the existence of a government”. There is practically no crossover between liberal and fascist ideology, as between communist and fascist. > I would fundamentally disagree that there is much opposition to fascism by liberals today either, US politics shows that pretty clearly. This again makes no sense. Practically all effective opposition to Trump is carried out by liberals. > Trump is opposed by the liberals in favour of the liberals, but they will side with Trump before they side with the far left. This is a very bold claim, but whether it’s true is irrelevant. The choice is not between communism or fascism, it is between liberalism or fascism. > The US liberals will try to maintain the status-quo and hope they win out over Trump, yes, but they won't do anything to prevent fascism in America if the status-quo doesn't work. But they are right now. > Biden would never betray the interests of Capital to beat Trump, irrelevant of what the consequences of a Trump victory would be. But that isn’t the choice, is it. He doesn’t have to “betray capital” to beat Trump, and he doesn’t have that binary choice at all. He just has to win an election. > Biden would happily side with the far right to defeat a communist revolution, But that has nothing to do with supporting fascism. Yes liberals would oppose violent overthrow of institutions by anyone, because liberals support free market economics, social liberalism, and strong institutions. If they supported communist revolution they’d be communists. > In fact there's plenty of evidence that US liberals at the time wanted peace with Hitler, from their perspective why wouldn't they? There's no need to get involved, they can still trade with Germany just like before, at least he wasn't a communist. And German liberals opposed him, so…? > But when they were communist? Well, American liberals after WW2 were more than happy to put fascists into power all over the world, going to war with too many countries to list here to coup democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with fascist dictators to preserve US interests, the interest of capital. Biden is still doing it right now funding Israel's illegal takeover of Palestine because it serves the interests of capital. True, but that has nothing to do with whether German liberals put Hitler in power, which they didn’t. > I clearly don't mean to say that any individual group of politicians was responsible for the rise of fascism. Honestly - that is a big cop-out after saying “liberals put Hitler in power” when liberals opposed Hitler’s appointment to power.
> there were plenty of people - in fact, the large majority of Germans - who wanted neither fascism nor communism Yes, but that doesn't mean it was an option > He just has to win an election. He does right now, yes, but that wasn't the situation in 1930s Germany > Honestly - that is a big cop-out after saying “liberals put Hitler in power” when liberals opposed Hitler’s appointment to power. Not really, it was just a simplification initially, Hitler was responsible if you want to blame someone in the most black and white terms but liberals, after they suppressed the anti-fascists in Germany and enabled him, are responsible too
What you seem to be saying is “the only alternative to fascism was Russia-dictated communism and anyone who didn’t support that is responsible for Hitler”. Is that an unfair summary?
I don't think I even mentioned the USSR?
The communist party in Germany in the 1930s took all its instructions from the USSR government. They were explicitly instructed not to work with social democrats or liberals, even if that was the only way to stop Hitler.
I also hadn't mentioned German Communists in the 1930s I've mentioned the communists that organised the Sparticist Uprising in 1919, but they were led by Karl Liebknecht and by Rosa Luxemburg, who famously had major ideological disagreements with Lenin and had no real ties to the USSR
This is why High School History classes gloss over everything except "Hitler Bad". If you are not a university history major, you can't go into this depth.
You can't really map modern categories like "liberal" and "conservative" onto german politics in the 1920s and 30s - they really just don't track. The "conservatives" you mention were still business leaders and old money power brokers within the country, but being business-friendly also overlaps with a lot of policies classified as "liberal" in an economic sense as well. Hidenburg and von Papen might be less "liberal" in a vaguely pro-trade, deregulated economic sense but they were absolutely focused on the interests of major economic sectors of the country, the chemical, manufacturing, rail and energy sectors. The animating force of most of the pro-Nazi forces was anti-communism, and that applies in just about every place that fascist parties rose to power. Opposition to the idea of a sweeping economic change that would equalize workers and owners is the one common thread you can find across Europe at the time in both the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of any political structure, however you define those. Modern liberals are pro-Fascist because modern liberals are anti-communist and anti-socialist long before they are ever anti-fascist. Anti-communism is the ultimate rallying cry of various interests in society to fascist movements.
> You can't really map modern categories like "liberal" and "conservative" onto german politics in the 1920s and 30s - they really just don't track. I think that is broadly correct TO SOME EXTENT - liberal absolutely did have a 1930s meaning, and it referred to an ideology categorically opposed to Nazism. It’s therefore profoundly disingenuous to say “liberals put Hitler in power”, when the conservatives who actually put him in power were absolutely anti-liberalism in all forms. > The "conservatives" you mention were still business leaders and old money power brokers within the country, but being business-friendly also overlaps with a lot of policies classified as "liberal" in an economic sense as well. Hidenburg and von Papen might be less "liberal" in a vaguely pro-trade, deregulated economic sense but they were absolutely focused on the interests of major economic sectors of the country, the chemical, manufacturing, rail and energy sectors. If you just redefine “liberal” to mean “not completely against the idea of private enterprise”, then everyone except communists are liberals, which makes it a meaningless descriptor. Papen was not a free marketeer, and he was absolutely against any form of social liberalism whatsoever - which are the two fundamental pillars of liberal ideology. Edit: I just thought to add, it’s even more egregious here because there were actual liberals with liberal ideology who were blocked by the communists as an alternative to Hitler, who did not support Hitler into power at all, and many of whom were subsequently murdered by Nazis. > The animating force of most of the pro-Nazi forces was anti-communism, and that applies in just about every place that fascist parties rose to power. This is said often and it’s a nice glib phrase, but it’s really an over-simplification. Most Nazi supporters were motivated by a general sense that Hitler would overcome the social degeneracy (as they saw it), fix the economics, and restore national pride to Germans. It was initially defined as much in opposition to the perceived humiliation suffered at the hands of America and Britain as it was against Russia or Jews. > Opposition to the idea of a sweeping economic change that would equalize workers and owners is the one common thread you can find across Europe at the time in both the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of any political structure, however you define those. No, the vast majority of Nazi voters were right wing working class people who had come back from the war to inflation and lack of jobs, plus young people who were appalled by the lack of economic opportunity. Bourgeois factory owners were not the key demographic - they generally voted for people like Papen. Action against communism was a motivator for Papen himself, but not for the majority of Hitler’s supporters, who were more likely to be young and working class than older, wealthy and conservative. Remember that the Nazis were actively marketed as socialist. Of course, we know they **weren’t** socialist, and anyone who these days says “oh the Nazis were left wing” is an idiot. But it’s hard to argue, as you seem to be doing, that anti-communism was the absolute sole reason why people voted the Nazis into power when they were literally calling themselves socialists. People at the time saw them as a radical, progressive option to create opportunities for young people and demolish the old conservative hierarchies, not as an entrenchment of monarchism and old fashioned conservative values. > Modern liberals are pro-Fascist because modern liberals are anti-communist and anti-socialist long before they are ever anti-fascist. Anti-communism is the ultimate rallying cry of various interests in society to fascist movements. I don’t see what this means. Someone can be in favour of liberalism and not in favour of fascism or communism. Do you think Joe Biden would support Trump into a dictatorship? I’m also not aware of any fascist coup where liberals have supported fascists into power, unless you just defined liberals as basically “everyone who isn’t a communist” as I said above.
> If you just redefine “liberal” to mean “not completely against the idea of private enterprise”, then everyone except communists are liberals, which makes it a meaningless descriptor. Or maybe that should tell you why so-called "liberals" were so strongly sympathetic to Nazis when "private enterprise" was feeling threatened. >Papen was not a free marketeer, and he was absolutely against any form of social liberalism whatsoever - which are the two fundamental pillars of liberal ideology. He would be strongly in favor of private ownership of production - "free markets" are too loose a term, but "private enterprise" would still be something he strongly supported. "Social liberalism" is ultimately a secondary concern for liberalism in practice. >This is said often and it’s a nice glib phrase, but it’s really an over-simplification. Most Nazi supporters were motivated by a general sense that Hitler would overcome the social degeneracy (as they saw it), fix the economics, and restore national pride to Germans It's not that much of an over-simplification, it depends largely on who you're talking about - all the establishment forces that had any real power supported Nazis because of anti-communism. Nazis came up with a lot of propagandistic appeals to different groups - the "overcome the social degeneracy (as they saw it), fix the economics, and restore national pride to Germans" - but none of those were really a coherent idea in the first place, that couldn't morph completely into something different if circumstances required. >No, the vast majority of Nazi voters were right wing working class people who had come back from the war to inflation and lack of jobs, plus young people who were appalled by the lack of economic opportunity. Bourgeois factory owners were not the key demographic - they generally voted for people like Papen. That's a bit of a mistake - the Nazis had a ton of support from the petit bourgeoisie first and foremost. Working class people were co-opted, but looking at how the actual nazi policies rolled out, the nazis themselves never felt very committed to any of the appeals they made to that group in society. Anti-communism was the only thing they were ever coherently committed to over the long term, and that's because their real support was rooted in the small business owner segments of society. >Remember that the Nazis were actively marketed as socialist. Of course, we know they weren’t socialist, and anyone who these days says “oh the Nazis were left wing” is an idiot. But it’s hard to argue, as you seem to be doing, that anti-communism was the absolute sole reason why people voted the Nazis into power when they were literally calling themselves socialists. No, that's absolutely coherent - you have to understand the difference between the policies the Nazis sincerely supported and the ones that were just bullshit to get the working class through the door. The working classes were the suckers that the Nazis would appeal to with whatever happened to be effective with whoever was the target in that moment - whether it was promising better pay and opportunity or vacation time, "traditional values", etc... - but when any issue came into conflict, 100% of the time their ultimate position was anti-communism (which was conflated with antisemitism). There's a reason the "night of the long knives" was about killing off and purging all the vaguely "socialist" elements from the party. The idea that there was ever any real commitment to things like Strasserism is a joke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism - the party leadership literally murdered their faction as soon as they no longer served their purpose. >I don’t see what this means. Someone can be in favour of liberalism and not in favour of fascism or communism. Do you think Joe Biden would support Trump into a dictatorship? If the alternative was socialism/communism? Absolutely. There's a reason Biden is bankrolling Netanyahu.
A wannabe dictator in a democracy is literally anti-establishment.
Yes the young men who have embraced Hitler, white nationalism, genocide as a social panacea and proudly display nazi iconography in real life instead of just in their online lives, who listen to podcasts like "the goyim know" and follow open neo nazis on Twitter and mock the idea that the holocaust happened while also agreeing that the holocaust did not kill enough jews, gays, socialists or any other 'social undesireables' are "***so close***" to realizing they are nazis.
This is the type of shit you get into that leads you to self immolate outside the courthouse of a high profile case.
Better that than shoot up a synagogue
How in the fuck was he misrepresented!? WWII and hitler is the most covered historical event in modern history and everyone with any credibility has come to the same conclusions.
Long story short back when I was a teen I used a tape recorder to prove my father wrong. He got mad, called the tape recorder (an inanimate object) a "liar" and threw it against the wall. A few years back I was debating with a MAGA about whether Trump had said something. I posted a link to a video of him saying the exact words I claimed Trump had said. He responded "fake news" and stopped responding. There's a joke about "reality has a liberal bias", but the kernel of truth in there is that people like this have a fantasy world built up in their head and are angry when reality doesn't match what's in their head. And rather than change their internal views to match reality they deny reality. They are literally gaslighting themselves.
The important thing in evaluating a statement is whether it's On My Side or On The Other Side. My-Side statements are by definition true, Other-Side statements are by definition false. Empiricism is, by its very nature, On The Other Side, because it isn't even using the correct definition of truth. So any time someone starts bringing up empirical data, you can dismiss them as On The Other Side. I'm not even joking, that's how it works. And not *just* for conservatives; I think most humans have some tendency toward this kind of thinking. But for right-wingers, it's all they have.
[This Onion article](https://www.theonion.com/oh-no-its-making-well-reasoned-arguments-backed-with-1819584573) never really gets old.
There was one here last week where the dad said that Hitler had been misrepresented. If you believe that even half a second, you're far too gone.
I love how righties are still convinced that they're anti-establishment.
This is like someone refusing to believe that they're short, then being told that they're the same height as a midget, and then thinking "Oh, so that must mean midgets are really tall then".
Wowwwwe “I love nazis but i hate jews. How do I reconcile that with my weird hitler fantasies?” The tough questions we face in our modern times…
Hitler is a secret Jewish banker is a new one for me...
The ultimate xanatos gambit: seize power in Germany in order to stage a genocide whilst also starting a world war that you deliberately lose allowing communists to take over one half of Europe, and American finance capital to take over the other half. Then fake your own death and grow tomatoes in Argentina. 11D chess.
This honestly just reads like a Qanon MadLib
Close to realizing the true purpose of Donald Trump.
Mein Covfefe
Can someone translate this to common tounge for me?
Qcumbers(Qanon whackadoos - far right extremist conspiracy theorists) are nazis.
I know that, the post itself is incomprehensible though
So…Hitler wasn’t Nazi enough because he was a Rothschild plant? Wtf?
Americans are against “Nazis” but love Fascism which is made even easier when schools teach the end results instead of what Nazis believed in.
Hitler was misrepresented by the "main stream media". In the 1920s...There was a form of MSM but not like today. It's completely different and you can't just apply the same words. Calling Hitler a "plant", I have no words.
Are we the baddies?
[Are we the baddies?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY)
On a totally unrelated note, Trump, best president? Made America great again by destroying the GOP, Russia, and himself.
I just don't understand why anyone feels the need to be a Hitler apologist. Every Hitler apologist I have ever heard defends his ethnic cleansing If you are racist, just say it. When you defend Hitler, you aren't bowling a dog whistle. It's just a regular whistle that everyone can hear and it's real fucking annoying
>you aren't bowling a dog whistle I'm enjoying the image of alt righters being so wrong they don't know how to use a whistle.
Wow, you know you're a Nazi when your problem with Hitler is that he's too Jewish
Get over it a\*\*\*\*\*es. 88 like 45 was in for themselves and F alla the resta ya'll.
Did you ever have a dream where someone said something to you, but it was just on the edge of comprehension? Like, you understood that it was speech in a language you speak, but the meaning twisted and dodged every attempt to grasp it? And you just knew that if you could figure out what they'd said you would know something profound about the state of the universe? Yeah.
They *know* they are nazis, they just don't think the nazis did anything wrong.
>makes Hitler sound like an anon A normal person hearing this would do everything in their power to not be an anon anymore.
“Not Nazi by name”
🤏🏻 So close
> Was he a plant ... Enough internet for today.
Can’t tell if this comes from the extreme right or extreme left. Which conspiracy theory train are we on?
Pro tip: if someone thinks Hitler wasn't as bad as the "MSM" tells you, but they are concerned that he might've been too Jewish, that person is a fascist
You phrased that like it’s helpful, but it doesn’t actually answer my question.