Examinations of writings by Jared Lee Loughner, the 22 year-old military reject who used a gun to murder a large number of people in Tucson, Arizona yesterday, make it clear that he wasn’t recently able to maintain a rational thought in his mind for even the length of a paragraph. Nonetheless, the Right Wing has quickly made the claim that Loughner was a “LIBERAL nut-job”.
To back up this claim, the Right has seized upon two sources:
1. A comment on Loughner’s YouTube profile saying that the Communist Manifesto is one of his favorite books
2. Comments by Caitie Parker, a classmate of Loughner, that when Loughner was in high school, he was “left wing”
It looks like a slam dunk, doesn’t it? Loughner was liberal for sure…. except for some facts that are left out of these descriptions that don’t fit with being a liberal at all.
First, Loughner’s YouTube profile cites not just the Communist Manifesto, but also 19 other books as “favorite”. The selection of books was heavily loaded with fantasy worlds: Peter Pan, Through the Looking Glass, and Gulliver’s Travels, for instance.
Also included in this list of Loughner’s books was Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf is not a “left wing” book. It’s about as far to the right as it’s possible to get. Hitler was a rabid anti-Communist. Loughner’s combination of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf demonstrates that he isn’t a clear political thinker, but can be captivated by any political ideology that justifies extremist action.
Another book in Loughner’s favorite list was We The Living, a book by Ayn Rand, a libertarian hero and anti-Communist. The protagonists of the book fight against Communism, not for it.
Second, a look at Caitie Parker’s Twitter account shows that Parker isn’t really so clear about Loughner’s political leanings as selective quotations of her would suggest. In discussions on Twitter, Parker describes Loughner as “probably more libertarian”. Libertarians and liberals are not at all the same thing.
Besides, the grounds for Parker’s characterization of Loughner’s political ideology are rather dated. Caitie Parker only knew Loughner during high school. She admits, “I hadn’t seen him in 3 years.”
Third, other people’s observations of Jared Lee Loughner show some particularly non-liberal ideology. For example, Loughner was observed as being against abortion, equating abortion with terrorism.
Loughner was clearly attracted to unorthodox political ideologies. He was not able however, to reasonably sustain any of them. He couldn’t manage to be coherently Left Wing, Right Wing, or libertarian. It’s politically convenient for advocates on the Right to try to paint Loughner as a liberal, but on examination, that characterization quickly unravels.
The right’s so called attempts to paint Jared as a leftest or more left leaning than right are natural because the very first comments about Jared is he had to be a Tea Party guy. What is the right supposed to do just let the media run all over the truth? The facts are the folks that know him paint the picture of left leaning views. The main stream media guys who don’t know him frankly only want this tragedy to push their agenda. To describe Hitler as right wing by our American definition is like descibing Castro as right wing..Their goals were to push whatever message fit the times and region for total government control of every aspect of human life…the “right” as we know them today want as little government in their lives as possible…would you describe the Taliban as right wing? There are many variations of total government control but the end result is tryanny over the masses and extermination of the undesirables. Jared is insane, the fact that he opposed abortion only means he was capable of some rational thought. Hitler was an artist,a vegetarian, and an author. He loved dogs and small children (of the “correct” gene pool), all admiralble attributes under normal circumstances but he was clearly an insane mad man that thought he had all the answers. The right believes in a very limited governmental role with power from the people up not from the government down. Jared is insane, Jared leans left. Some times the violence comes from the insane that lean right, just not the case this time.
On a traditional political spectrum the extreme of the “right” is typically nationalist fascism and the extreme of the “left” is typically communism. Both are totalitarian. A more accurate description of politics describes liberal and conservative along with libertarian and statist. Liberal and Conservative form the X axis and Libertarian and statist form the Y axis. Laughner would probably be in the libertarian area, and it’s hard to say whether he’d be to the right of it or the left of it. Modern tea partiers would probably fall somewhere along the border of the libertarian and conservative area. However, institutional Republicans would actually fall much closer to the statist side (judging from their actions) than they would to the libertarian side of the conservative part. They want less government regulation of economic issues, but MORE of social issues and security issues. And they are more nationalistic. Modern liberals vary pretty widely, but a good generalization is wanting less government control of social issues and more government regulation of economic issues.
Thank you for being seemingly the only person on the internet able to intelligently and accurately speak about Loughner’s potential ideology(s).
Actually most libs want control of both, in the case of social issues they like freedom of speech when it is their particular brand.
And you know this for a fact because you ARE a liberal?
I didn’t think so. Try to not be quite so fact-free in your opinions next time. They give you away as a biased-against-liberals right winger, just like the Palin fanatics who start out their comments with “I’m not a Palin fan, but…” or “I’m a Democrat and voted for Obama, but…”
Oh, yes….and anybody that voted for Obama couldn’t POSSIBLY say anything negative about him, could they? Incase you haven’t noticed, his approval ratings are down around 37% and dropping. Unless he won the Presidency with 37% of the vote, there quite a few people that voted for Obama that are not happy with how he is governing. But you are free to believe what you will, Karen. But you might look up one day soon and find yourself a very lonely person in the Obama camp.
I’m troubled that the word Liberal is almost always used as an epithet for well over 10 years now, tantamount to the n-word, and used with the same disdain & disgust toward the ‘guilty’ parties.It is pushing way too close to hatred, if not already there I’ll believe that the conservatives are for less government when they stop trying to legislate their interpretations of biblical right & wrong into law at all levels. Whatever happened to separation of church & state? I’ve lived in AZ for 30 years and I see the attack hatred in every campaign cycle. He who belives different from you is your enemy! Could this be due to the overemphasis on sports in schools, at the expense of other activities, to be sure you slaughter your opponent? The emphasis on sports in school s shows the kids that jocks rule, musicians and artists are throwaways. On another blog I was called ugly names, of looking like a criminal & told the right to free speech did not belong to me, all because I had a differing opinion. That sound like hate to me.
To the papers editor,
Nice try, but Jared was a liberal and so was Hitler, or at least they both had more in common with liberal thinking than not. I really do not think the socialist ideas of Adolf Hitler fit in any conservative way of thinking, nor do the writings of Marx,on the other hand, they do line up nicely with one form of liberalism or another. The fact is that Marx, Spencer, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, have more in common with one another than with any conservative thinker….But still nice try! (we know better).
No. You don’t. And who’s this “we”, kemo sabe?
Are you talking about the statistically minute number of like thinkers who are clueless about fascism (Hitler, right wing thought), totalitarianism (Stalin, Hitler, also very right wing), violent revolution (Mao) and the facile switch from liberalism in youth to rigid conservatism later in life (Spencer)?
Nice try! You had most of that completely “backasswards” as Sarah Palin likes to say in her inarticulate malapropic way…
Yes, Hitler was a liberal, what with his trying to force health care and equal rights on everyone. Just like our Jared, advancing liberalism by killing Democrats. Thanks for the insights, 007.
Just curious beejeez, do words have any meaning to you, or can you just assign any meaning you like?
JEEPERS – you’re against equal rights for your fellow human beings? Ughhhhhhh ! ! ! What elitist group are YOU part of, what do you stand to lose if everyone else is treated fairly?
Actually, this article is wrong. Saying he equates abortion to terrorism stems from an incident that happened in college. A girl in his class wrote an essay about abortion, and she began to cry. He laughed at her and suggested maybe she should have strapped a bomb to the baby and turned it into a Baby Terrorist. Not at all similar to what the article suggests. He was anything BUT against abortion. Seems to me, that this article is trying to white wash a few “facts” into saying what the author wants them to say. No agenda here.
Saying that Jared is “leftist” or “right-leaning” is a moot point, I believe. After some research on the suspect, it is apparent that he has a rather ADHD approach to all things political. His videos, his writings, even his disruptive behavior at school – all incoherent. It would appear that Jared’s distrust of leadership-in-general led him to this horrible outcome. Left wing? Right wing? Who knows. Insane psychopath? Without a doubt.
Jared’s incoherency is a characteristic of his liberal leanings!
randerson007,you are a stupid fool if you believe that he is a left leaning person…a left wing person is not against abortion like this clown was. And for your little brain, your dumb Bush friend was not making the government any smaller during his presidency.
Are you seven?
…to blame the left for his actions is as ignorant as blaming the right for it as well….the Schultz, Obermann progressive leftists did not push him to the edge, nor did the Beck, Palin rightist…he went there on his own…to point fingers in any direction on this is distructive posturing for gain….
Who is blaming the left? Yup, the guy was a lib, but no one is blaming the left for what one lib did that is nuttier than the others.
I belive you may be right, but I just sat through five months of the ugliest, most misleading attack ads here in Arizona, by conservatives out to recapure seats in the house, etc. The word liberal was repeatedly used as an epithet in exactly the same manner balcks were called unrepeatable names in the past. It’s the same mindset of hatred against someone who is different from you. I can’t help that five months of that conservative rhetoric, those attack ads, pushed Loughner over the edge. We believe in ads to sell soap & beer, don’t we? Those conservative ads are not JUST selling ‘chanage’, they’re selling the idea that your opponent is to be despised, that the opponent is less hiuman than you & not entitled to the same rights.
Mein Kampf is about as left as you can get. National Socialist.
This guy said in his myspace page said that he wanted to kill some police and be on National TV. So if people want to blame someone other than the shooter it is the media that makes these nuts famous. The real Dark side of all of this is it is a false flag operation Reichstage fire kind of thing to control internet and media. The real target may just be the first and second amendment.
Wait a minute, Hobby. Think about what you’re saying.
You’re saying that there’s a secret conspiracy powerful enough to orchestrate an assassination attempt against a member of Congress, and to control the Internet, but they’re not powerful enough to just go out and grab your precious guns.
Do you really think that makes sense, Hobby?
What are you going to do, start a movement saying that Jared Lee Loughner was just a patsy?
The Nazis were socialists the way North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic, which is to say they weren’t. Hitler’s regime was a corporate fascism. If what you say is true, then why were so many Republicans fans of Hitler before December 7th, 1941, arguing for an alliance with him right up until December 11th, when Hitler declared war on the US?
By the way, I can name two regimes in history that tried to fight global wars without putting their economies on a war footing, i.e. higher taxes and some central planning. One was the Nazis; the other was the Bushies. What does that tell you?
Hitler did have a wartime tax to finance his war machine. It took me years to realize it. The tax was on Jews & it was a true 100% tax. 6 million people were forced to surrender every personal posession they owned including their lives. It was that wealth that helped finance the war. 10s of thousands who escaped with their lives in time still surrendered nearly everything they owned to the Nazis.
Yeah, that Hitler and his health care and social security and equal rights and executing communists. What a socialist.
Hitler and Gerbils said on more than one occasion, the only difference between Stalin’s communism and the national socialist was that National socialist were focused on Germany and the Arian people and Stalin’s communists were focused on socialists all over the world.
Nazism, Fascism, National Socialism; call it whatever you want but Hitler and the Nazi’s were leftists.
Benito Mussolini, father of Fascism, was an avowed socialist his entire life before he came up with the “3rd way”. For years he was active in socialist circles and wrote for a few socialist newsletters.
Fascism, of any kind, advocates for strong centralized government controlling every fabric of life from social issues and behavior to economics and business, with a small veneer of private property ownership. However, that private ownership was mainly for businesses far down the resource and industry chains. They acted more as managers than owners of companies because the state owned and controlled all primary resources and industries (i.e. steel, energy, agriculture, etc.) and controlled and regulated what businesses could do.
Everything was done or sacrificed in the name of the state, or in Nazi Germany’s case, for the state and their race. Nationalism is NOT a fundamental tenet of the right, which is why people claim Fascism is right wing.
And they hated communists because they hated the Russians, as Hitler said, because they betrayed Germany during WWI. Their hatred was merely propaganda over a thinly veiled reason. The only difference is the Communists in the USSR were proponents of world socialism without borders or countries, a world of proletarians. Whereas, Germany’s National Socialism advocated everything through the prism of Germany and the Aryan race.
If you go by militarism as a stamp of being right wing, then that is false to. Because the majority of wars and military skirmishes have been waged and fought by left wing ideologues, and alas, governments.
However people want to spin it, Fascism, Nazism, or National Socialism IS a product of left wing ideology. Now for those that find the left-right paradigm to simplistic. Then we can categorize Fascism as Authoritarian (i.e. limited social and economic freedom and thus more state control). In opposition to libertarianism which advocated more social and economic freedom from state intervention; liberalism advocating less economic and more social freedom; and conservatism advocating more economic and less social freedom.
Fascism is NOT right wing in any case if you look at extreme left as full government control and extreme right being anarchy. Fascism is clearly on the left then.
These arguments trying to claim that Adolf Hitler was a liberal are extremely entertaining.
I’m particularly enjoying the weird logic of your last sentence, Dudeman: “Fascism is NOT right wing in any case if you look at extreme left as full government control and extreme right being anarchy. Fascism is clearly on the left then.”
Fascism is NOT right wing in any case if you look at extreme left as nasty Italian dictators and extreme right being cuddly teddy bears. Fascism is clearly on the left then.
Yes, if we simply accept your absurd premises, then clearly your arguments are correct!
Soooo…. why don’t you illustrate that, or are we supposed to take on face value. All socialism is left wing,Hitler was socialist, what follows logically from these two premesis?
Hitler was not “liberal” in any sense. I said he was a leftist. You erroneously confuse the terms leftist/left winger and liberal. Liberal is poorly used when talking about today’s modern left leaning ideology and members/supporters of the Democratic Party in the US. Since to be liberal, you have to support liberty, and liberal democrats in the US do not believe in economic freedoms, only a myriad of social freedoms. Liberal in Europe still holds its more natural definition of being the party of less government intervention into social and economic matters. If anyone in the US is liberal in the traditional sense -i.e. Classical Liberalism- it’s the Libertarian Party.
Regardless of modern American liberalism’s short comings on economic freedom, they are still compassionate people and do, for the most part, advocate social and civil liberties. Thus, one can be a leftist and be liberal, but one can also be a leftist and be an opponent of liberty of any kind -aka a supporter of tyranny or authoritarianism- like Mao or Stalin, or even Hitler.
Do you understand the difference between liberal and leftist now? Or do you need further clarification?
randerson007 is just a stupid jerk who thinks he knows more than anyone else on here….I think you are more like Hitler himself since you think only your ideology is important!
Yes, I understand, since I have been both liberal and leftist since Harry Truman was president, and unless some one changed the definition of hundreds of words while I wasn’t looking you explanations are chock full of fecal matter and don’t come anywhere near describing what I’m all about . why don’t you leave the job of describing leftists to leftists.
I suppose that Markos Molitsas (Daily Kos) saying shortly after this tragedy ” Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin” was trying to paint Loughner as a ???? When in fact he(Kos) himself targeted Gabby Giffords in one of his own political rants for being a bluedog. Some postings of commenters on the Kos were that being that Giffords was “dead to them” for voting against minority leader Pelosi. That has since been scrubbed from his site, but can be found on the net. The left immediately tried to make political hay out of this. I watched it unfold on twitter firsthand. So, your article is merely a response to what the left perpetuated. A speedy recovery to Giffords, and the others that if they had a (D) or an (R) by their name we would know all about. But in our political enviroment they just get in the way.
You use the term ‘the left’ to tar half the people in this country all with the same brush. That’s hateful, to judge that ‘They’re all alike’, just as was/is done to black people. The term liberal is used as hate speech, not as a party delineation. I’m an economic conservative and a social liberal. God doesn’t give us all the same skill set, we’re not all capable of earning lots of money. The ‘less thans’ are not throwaways, they need & deserve healthcare & higher education. For greedy people to vote for leaders based on who lets them keep the most goodies is sad. It proves they have no faith while spouting off that they do. Faith means it doesn’;t matter WHAT your taxes are, that God will see you through and provide, no matter what. So, I resent that the party of ‘faith’ really isn’t. And that faith issue is intertwined with the lower tax mentality now so popular. There’s got to be a middle ground. It won’t happen as long as the haves show so much disdain for the have-nots. People can mock ‘socialist’ Europe, but that disdain for the have-not’s is so much less over there….
Hmmmm,
Arizona appears to be a place that encourages right wing extremism and perhaps even CIA terrorist cells.I say say that in part because the Americans connected to pre Mumbai terrorism(‘India’s 9/11),were from Doors Ministries and The Potter’s House Christian Fellowship who used to prorest on the streets of Tempe, Arizona in favor of no gun control.They also appear to have been involved in a number of penny stock scams that I posted about at the time of bombings they are suspected of in India when they operated in India as Campbell White corporation..
A stock fraudster named Bud Burrell who operates Christian Financial Radio Network or CFRN that promoted a number of worthless penny stocks used to defraud the public is even connected to a Rothschild attorney in the UK who was recently convicted there of stock fraud and who supported Libertarian Steven Stolz.He has also lied about and threatened my life on thesanitycheck.com that is funded by Geico insurance billionaire’s son Partick Byrne.
Most people who oppose Israeli influence and domination and control of corrupt U.S.politicians are NOT right wing nuts or fascists such as the groups that this scumbucket Jared Lee Loughner is associated with either.In fact another group called Veterans Today or veteranstoday.com has also played at being anti Jewish or Israeli and now it appears that its editor Gordon Duff is connected to not only ex CIA Director George Tenet(by his own admission to me by email) but also to Arizona’s Libertarian Bud Burrell by way of Lila Rajiva of Agora Inc whose stock promoter Porter Stansberry is suspect by his own admission,in the death of en ex Agora employee named Rey Rivera in Baltimore in 2006.
http://pottershousefreedom.org/index.php?p=1_28_The-Door
A look at The Potter’s House Christian Fellowship churches.
The Door is part of an organization known as Christian Fellowship Ministries (CFM). The organization was founded in Prescott, Arizona in 1970 by Wayman Mitchell……
http://indymedia.us/en/2008/08/32702.shtml
India Bombing,Ken Haywood,Campbell White,Door Ministries,Christian Fellowship Ministries
by Tony Ryals Friday, Aug. 01, 2008 at 7:00 PM
wolfblitzzer0@gmail.com
”The only problem is, Campbell White, the firm that Haywood works for, is not a multinational company at all. Or, if it is, it’s certainly a very strange one. What I’ve managed to find out is that Campbell White is effectively a front for a far right Christian cult, and is far from the image being spun by Haywood and the media. This will take a little explaining, but it’s well worth it.” – gnn
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/71712
W Bush Religion:India Bombing,Campbell White’s Jonathan Heimberg:Judeo Christian Fascism?
View Translation
by Tony Ryals | 08.10.2008
It appears that at least one member of the campbellwhite.net of India,Jonathan Heimberg,who prosyletizes in Bangalore,India for christian converts there in his spare time may well be a closet Judeo Fascist rather than just an Arizona,etc., based Door Ministries or Christian Fellowship Ministries or The Potter’s House,etc., Fascist !
Arizona based international Stock fraudster and U.S.goverment protected money launderer who uses Christianity for fraud as well stirs up anti-Mexican immigrant hate in the article below.:
Back On Station After An Absence, Some First Ruminations On The Topics Of Our Times
May
22 Written by: bburrell
5/22/2010 8:03 PM
From “Front and Center”, by Bud Burrell
I had to take a break involving several pressing matters involving long term professional investments I have made of my time in some spaces ranging from 15 to 18 years, all of which have seem to have hit critical mass at the same time. I had guests come to my city at the same time on several matters, while I explored getting involved in a potential black swan in an unexpected space with people I like personally. At the same time, I began to support a reunion of some military friends from many years ago in a first ever association convention in my City of this group…..
AG Holder has stepped on another figurative landmine in my State, Arizona, with baseless charges made against the State for its new laws to assist Federal officials in enforcing illegal immigration laws here. The AZ law was passed right after a rancher living on the AZ-Mexico border was assassinated by a professional sent to kill him by the Mexican drug cartels, Bob Krenker, shot through the lungs and left to die. The law we passed is more liberal than the Federal law it is designed to aid, after numerous insults made to the State by the Federal Government, which has refused to enforce the laws intended to protect our border and our society. In a State with a population of just 2.8 Million, we had 90,000 serious crimes last year, some 95% of which were committed by illegal alien criminals. Over the past 10 years, 80% of violent crimes against law enforcement officials have been committed by the same illegal alien criminals. …..
Send Save Now Discard
Visit settings to save time with keyboard shortcuts!You are currently using 131 MB (1%) of your 7539 MB.
You Wrote
“Also included in this list of Loughner’s books was Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf is not a “left wing” book. It’s about as far to the right as it’s possible”
———————————————————————————————–
Are you really this stupid or deliberately lying?
Hitler & the Nazis were socialists.
NAZI means National Socialists.
The socialism Hitler advocated is much closer to that of Soviet communism than liberals are willing to admit, or than many people realize, especially those who think in terms of “right wing” and “left wing” politics.
Dont take my word for it, See for yourself.
http://conservapedia.com/Nazi
Don’t take your word for it, take the word of Conservapedia? Conservapedia?!?
Seriously, this is dangerous, “Thomas”. If you make people laugh this hard very often, permanent lung damage could result.
You get a kick out of yourself don’t you J. Clifford? Thomas references a source and you knock it with self- righteous disdain? Try lsiting your own sources then and we can all jsut as easily laugh. Own this J. Clifford, Hitler was no where near what we today consider a “conservative”. Smaller, weaker central government and limited regulation of business are core princepals of conservative thought. Hitler was NOT a coneservative. You may argue he was not a leftist, but given the left’s love of centralized control of power, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that Hitler doesn’t more resemble a Leftist that a conservative.
Cliff:
“Smaller, weaker central government and limited regulation of business are core princepals of conservative thought.”
Actually most conservatives, of the Bush-Cheney mold, are militaristic nationalists. They pay lip service to the idea of smaller government because they don’t want to pay taxes. But they have not taken any concrete steps to rein in the bloated military budget.
Sorry, your attempt to rebrand conservatives as libetarians is ahistorical nonsense.
Yours is the wisest comment I have read thus far. Most comments are he said she said with no substance or ideas to be discussed at all. I bolted from the conservative camp when they left the core ideals you mention and legislating their interpretation of the bible became their core goal. Thanks for hitting the militaristic national nail squarely on the head!
Clearly, Mr. Paines political and philosophical savvy do not equal his namesakes.
You are correct except about Jared but Adolf was a Leftist.
speculation. not facts.
Hitler believed religion had no place in his 1,000-year Reich, so he replaced the Christian figure of Saint Nicholas with the Norse god Odin and urged Germans to celebrate the season as a holiday of the ‘winter solstice’, rather than Christmas.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341272/Hitlers-Christmas-party-Rare-photographs-capture-leading-Nazis-celebrating-1941.html#ixzz1Aao8x22R
Your statement is self- contradictory.
One of Jared’s favorite bands.http://www.anti-flag.com/index.php
You be the judge,left or right?
All of this bull about Hitler being a “Leftist” is disproven by a simple single reading of Mein Kampf.
1. Hitler was a conservative Christian Catholic who accepted that Jesus was his savior.
2. Hitler was a creationist, who believed God had made man in his image, and all lesser races were animals akin to apes.
3. Hitler viewed Jews as the “Killers of Christ”, a long held Catholic view, and was a huge admirer of the Antisemitism of Martin Luther, citing the book “On the Jews and their Lies” by Martin Luther.
4. Hitler gave newspaper interviews in 1929 in which he stated he regretted taking the name “Socialist” for his party, due to the opposition he held for Marxist Socialism. He was quoted as saying that all workers should keep what they have earned, and he reviled the anti property leanings of Marxist thought.
5. Hitler viewed homosexuals in a derogatory light as abominations, due to his view of a Creator god.
Hitler was a fascist (Right wing authoritarian), as any student of Poli Sci in the last 40 years, who had ever studied a political compass, Nolan chart, or left right axis could attest to. It is the polar opposite of Communism (authoritarian left).
Regardless of what Loughner is, trying to paint Hitler as a “leftist” is like trying to portray Mao as a “right wing”. Nice delusional try to all you right wingers.
Myth: Hitler was a leftist.
Fact: Nearly all of Hitler’s beliefs placed him on the far right.
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word “National” evokes the state, and the word “Socialist” openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s “Liberal Democrat” party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party “socialist,” but whether or not it actually was.
In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.
Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.
The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers — that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn’t matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a “socialist” or a “democrat.” If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.
And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi “Charter of Labor” gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the “leader of the enterprise,” and read: “The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.” (1)
The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)
Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi’s dual strategy:
“The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly ‘socialists’ and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it.” (2)
Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the “Labor Front” replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, “Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work.” Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.
There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let’s take a closer look:
The politics of Nazism
The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people’s political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it’s worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.
Let’s review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his own words. Ultimately, Hitler’s views are not monolithically conservative — on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:
Individualism over collectivism.
Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.
The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.
The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group — say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause — then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently “liberal” or “conservative,” and to claim that you are an “evil socialist” because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.
Political scientists therefore do not label people “liberal” or “conservative” on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.
And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.
Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms “Aryan race,” “German culture” and “folkish state.” To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler’s state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler’s political philosophy was not really based on “statism” as we know it today. It was actually based on racism — again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.
As Hitler himself wrote:
“The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.” (4)
“The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…” (5)
“The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position.” (6)
And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:
“In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it.” (7)
“This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.” (8)
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
“All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan.” (9)
“Aryan races — often absurdly small numerically — subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them.” (10)
“If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan’s present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture.” (11)
“Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…” (12)
“It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization.” (13)
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…” (14)
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction
“The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…” (15)
“The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one’s own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…” (16)
Merit over equality.
“The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…” (17)
“It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor.” (p. 512.)
Competition over cooperation.
“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” (18)
“It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions.” (19)
“The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won.” (20)
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
Allan Bullock, probably the world’s greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler’s political method in one sentence:
“Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler’s ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force.” (21)
The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:
“If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture.” (22)
“We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms.” (23)
“In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism.” (24)
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
“The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people’s wills and opinion.” (25)
“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” (26)
“By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…” (27)
“For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards.” (28)
“There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.” (29)
“When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes.” (30)
“The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…” (31)
“Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy.” (32)
Capitalism over Marxism.
Bullock writes of Hitler’s views on Marxism:
“While Hitler’s attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested — mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism.” (33)
As Hitler himself would write:
“The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism.” (34)
“In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism.” (35)
“In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere.” (36)
“The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction.” (37)
“Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews.” (38)
“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.” (39)
Realism over idealism.
Hitler was hardly an “idealist” in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:
“We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…” (40)
“The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist ‘idealist’ is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality.” (41)
Nationalism over internationalism.
“The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated.” (42)
“The severest obstacle to the present-day worker’s approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland.” (43)
“Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…” (44)
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
“Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth.” (45)
“The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.” (46)
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler’s politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler’s vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.
Hitler’s vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:
“Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat.” (47)
Hitler’s vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece’s death.
Gun ownership over gun control
Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby’s favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:
“1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.” – Adolf Hitler
However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.
The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:
“The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence.”
On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 — five years after Hitler came to power — that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.
Common sense over theory or science.
Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:
“The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field.” (48)
“Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life.” (49)
“The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling.” (50)
“A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth.” (51)
Pragmatism over principle.
“The question of the movement’s inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle.” (52)
Religion over secularism.
Hitler’s views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:
“We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever.” (53)
Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:
“The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals.” (54)
Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:
“For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…” (55)
“Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties.” (56)
“Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends.” (57)
“Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other.” (58)
Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker’s Party meeting:
“‘Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…’ As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody.” (59)
Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.
In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler’s Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:
“On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him.” (60)
As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler’s anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler’s attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: “It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII’s closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler’s armoured divisions as the right hand of God.” (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: “Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism” — Russia. (62)
Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany’s armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)
The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops’ conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler’s case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: “With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul.” (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, “Heil Hitler!” (66)
Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it — for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich’s best disseminators of propaganda.
Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler’s birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops’ allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.
But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, “Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?” (70) As perhaps the world’s greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.
The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.
Beautifully done!
Your research is based on gathering facts and making an informed decision based on being able to think critically and process information. As our nation’s schools have been dumbing down students for years, many people can now only learn by route memorization and are unable to think in the terms of data based observations while using critical thought processes. If people don’t read and find out what Mein Kampf said then it is just about reacting to sound bites put out by the propaganda media sources they agree with and trust.
“One day [Loughner] started making comments about terrorism and laughing about killing the baby,” classmate Don Coorough told ABC News, referring to a discussion about abortions. “The rest of us were looking at him in shock … I thought this young man was troubled.”
Another classmate, Lydian Ali, recalled the incident as well.
“A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,” Ali said.
So he was laughing about killing a baby? Not only that but he actually used the term ‘fetus’ which is just like you leftwing dumbfucks who refuse to use the word ‘baby’
NAZI translates to National Socialist Party.
Hitler preached anti smoking, vegetarianism, big government work projects over private industry, created the first social security and nationalized healthcare system. That was the agenda he pushed, that is what the people voted for and if it doesn’t sound socialist then you are lying to yourself.
I’m thinking smoked salmon”s reading comprehension is fubar.