• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

My point is that even though there are many 'success stories' about the Vietnamese, there are also many stories that aren't so successful. Same goes for any of the others that you mentioned.

There are many 'success stories' among the black population as well.

All that is true but we don't have affirmative action for Vietnamese, a political party using them for political purposes, or mortgages based on the color of their skin rather than their ability to pay.

If the Vietnamese people were being told every day that they were and are victims, it wouldn't take long for them to start feeling and acting like victims and start rebelling and demanding as a result.
 
How are blacks doing in Canada, the enlightened land that didn't have all of the racial baggage that the US had and which had a miniscule black population until recently and which has socialized medical care for everyone?


This paper examines the importance of collecting and reporting data on race and ethnicity in public health and biomedical research in Canada. Literature and available statistics related to social determinants of health were reviewed and analyzed to illustrate that minority populations in Canada, especially Blacks, are likely to experience poorer health outcomes. Statistics Canada in its commitment to multiculturalism uses broad categories such as visible minorities and racialised groups as surrogates for race and ethnicity. These categories, when used in health literature may conceal underlying inequities in health between population groups. Blacks and minority groups in Canada have higher rates of unemployment, lower rates of educational attainment, and lower socioeconomic status. Whenever Canadian data based on race and ethnic categories are reported, disparities are observed. The lack of disaggregated data may hide health disparities.​



Impressive as Canada’s ranking may appear, it would be misleading to assume or think that the improved quality of life is uniformly shared or equally enjoyed by all. The reality and daily-lived experiences of African Canadians paint a very different portrait – a non-flattering one of extreme and disparate poverty, inequality, racism, and general socio-economic insecurity and deprivation. For the most part, African Canadians are outsiders to the Canadian success stories that are depicted in the UNDP’s Human Development Reports and in Canada’s fourth and fifth periodic reports to the Committee.3

The harsh reality is that most African Canadians exist at the lowest rung of Canada’s economic and social ladder.4 The lived experiences of African Canadians sharply contrast with the Canada the world knows – a First World paradise. In this First World there is a nonspatial Third World populated mostly by indigenous peoples, and African Canadians, who remain trapped in historical patterns of racialized poverty. The poverty rate for African Canadians is three times the average for White Canadians.


Now this is in a country that purposely opened itself up to black immigration and chose these black immigrants and invited them to become Canadians.

I'm Canadian, River Dad, and feel that this report leaves out some pretty significant details, though I have to admit to only reading your excerpts.

The first thing is that Somalian Blacks (as an example) are very different from American or Canadian Blacks. Most of the Black people who were in Canada while I was growing up were sports heroes, and they were local idols. That still holds true to a very large degree. When African and Caribbean Black people began arriving they were certainly made welcome and were looked on as being vert exciting and exotic, especially when compared to us drab Canadians.

But the exotic part has become less exciting over the years and the social problems are becoming more evident and pronounced, enough so that the government has made the immigration laws far more strict. To my mind, lumping Black people together in this survey is similar to lumping all white people together, Culture, customs, language and religions count as much or more than skin color. I know I'd have a great deal more in common with a Canadian Black man (and of course have had friendships with many) than I would a Russian White man.
 
I'll end the discussion here because the fact that you're twisting my argument to this level illustrates that you're not interested in actual discussion. It's actually pretty disgustingly dishonest and just makes your arguments easier to dismiss since you can't tackle people's posts without dramatically distorting them.


I'm not distorting your position, in fact, you're doubling down on that position below.

Facts:
1. Vietnamese immigrants had specialized attention which bolstered their success.


This is a stop light. This is a bank. You can trust banks in the US because the money is protected. You can trust police. Do not bribe police when they stop you. This is a punchclock for your job. This is how you use the punchclock. This is a parka. It gets very cold in Minnesota during the winter. This is a block heater. When it gets cold you plug the blockheater in so that the cold doesn't damage the engine on your car.

Yes, it should be obvious to all people that black people don't have this specialized knowledge which the good white church people shared with the Vietnamese refugees, you know, the secrets to successful living in the US.

What EXACT specialized knowledge do you think that the white Church ladies gave to the Vietnamese refugees that blacks in America are lacking?

2. Vietnamese immigrants had a history of emphasizing education and success.

If this is so then why were only the 1st wave of refugees the beneficiaries of this education and success while the subsequent waves were people who were poor and poorly educated in Vietnam.

If true, then the lack of these attitudes in the African-American community are not society's fault.

3. Vietnamese immigrants entered the United States with a drive they acquired by fighting for their lives.

You are really just spinning for your life, must making stuff up on the fly. Prove it. If this is so damn beneficial then every black man who has served time in prison, and who had to fight for his life in prison, should be a raging success once let out of prison.

4. Vietnamese immigrants had a strong community of support that most immigrants develop.

You don't believe that the black community is pretty tight? Even if so, then again the fault here doesn't lie with American society, it lies with the black community for not having "a strong community."

5. Vietnamese immigrants had an optimistic perception of the United States.

Unicorn farts again. I can just picture you, sitting before your computer, sweat forming on your brow, as you dream up these factors out of thin air and then write them down in the belief that anything that you can concoct in your brain has to be a factor at work. Nowhere did you present any evidence for your claims that these factors are even actually present. Your entire argument rests on the fact that you imagined these 5 factors to be significant, so therefore THEY ARE.
 
So ... what's your point, RD?
 
So ... what's your point, RD?

The immediate point is that theplaydrive's tactics of throwing out seat-of-the-pants rationalizations is easily shot down.

The larger point is that the two fundamental axioms of his world view have got to go.

The Axiom of Equality requires us to expect that equal outcomes are a natural state and if these do not arise, then it is because of . . . The Axiom of Discrimination, where outside forces are acting to prevent the expected equal outcomes from developing.

The reality is as simple as this - wherever you have diversity you will find differences. Put aside genetics and this still holds true. Put together liberal Democrats and religious conservatives and you will find differences on church attendance, rates of marriage, number of children born in and out of wedlock, levels of education, attitudes towards a range of topics.

Differences are the engine of diversity. You can't have diversity and uniformity coexisting. Differences in employment rates between racial groups are to be expected. When these differences are attributed to the Axiom of Discrimination this does two things - the attribution contradicts the reality of differences arising simply due to diversity of values, beliefs, social practices, education etc that work to define one group from another and secondly, there is a casting of blame onto innocent parties. Blaming society at large and white America for being discriminatory tends to get people's backs up when they know that they're not discriminating. They'll push back just as much as blacks would push back against the stereotype that they are all criminals.

When "concerned" people find an instance of discrimination in employment then they can report it to the government and allow established processes to take over. When "concerned" people suspect that there is discrimination they should shut up until they have proof to support their suspicion. Unless there is specific evidence then there is nothing to be done because diversity creates differences. The experience of the Vietnamese is a falsification of both Axioms.
 
What chaps my arse is that diversity in concept is supposed to help make everybody equal but diversity practices as they are now only hurt society in general. They recognize special treatment for one particular group, usually based on lawsuits, with varying results. Those groups that have not won any lawsuits aren't important at all. American Indian anyone? Some people like to respond with comments like, "Yeah but my people were subjugated by so and so for years now it's time they got it for a while." Come on! You dont make you equal by making someone else unequal. Diversity practices in this country, while a fine utopian idea, are a farse! Different groups get varying levels of equality depending on how successful and prolific their lawsuits are. The spoils go to the most litigious. Anyone who disagrees with diversity or who doesn't put on a big show of "honoring diversity" is seen as racist or opens themselves/their companies up to lawsuits. It's getting to be where you dont have to be right or talented anymore, you just have to be able to afford a lawyer.
 
I'm not distorting your position, in fact, you're doubling down on that position below.
1. Show me where I said, "[African Americans] can't succeed in America unless some good white, church going, people reach out to them and teach them how to live in America" or admit that you are a liar.
2. Explain to me how the mere listing of a benefit that Group A has and Group B doesn't implies that Group B can't succeed without the benefit or admit that you are a liar.

This is a stop light.
More like "this is an apartment, this is job training, this is a job and this is the transportation we'll provide for you." Lower class black Americans aren't handed apartments, jobs, job training or transportation. Like I said, poor comparison.

If this is so then why were only the 1st wave of refugees the beneficiaries of this education and success while the subsequent waves were people who were poor and poorly educated in Vietnam.
Emphasis on education =/= opportunity to be educated. But for more information on the history I've been referencing, study the influence of Confucianism on Vietnamese society and the attitudes of Vietnamese Americans towards education. Here are some starter links:
Life in America: identity and ... - Google Books
http://www.nhhistory.org/edu/support/nhimmigration/nhimmvietnamese.pdf

You are really just spinning for your life, must making stuff up on the fly.
Nope.

Contrary to the initial prediction by some American scholars that Vietnamese refugees were psychologically unprepared to start life anew, the refugees’ experiences of traumas from war and escape have in many ways instilled a sense of invulnerability and the attitude of “nowhere to go but up,” which encourages Vietnamese refugees to take risks and become innovators in their respective occupations.

An empirical study by Paul Starr and Alden Roberts in 1982 found that many Vietnamese refugees saw past personal difficulties as having inoculated them against the negative, and instilled the attitude “that which does kill me, strengthens me.”

Narrating the Vietnamese American Experience | The Global Viet Diaspora


You don't believe that the black community is pretty tight?
Not in the same way and intensity as the Vietnamese community which you clearly know so little about. For more information, visit some of the other links I've already provided in addition to most of the information about the Vietnamese American community ever recorded and also the influence of Confucianism on Vietnamese society.

anything that you can concoct in your brain has to be a factor at work.
It's only a factor if it's a factor and it's a factor.

An empirical study by Paul Starr and Alden Roberts in 1982 found that many Vietnamese refugees saw past personal difficulties as having inoculated them against the negative, and instilled the attitude “that which does kill me, strengthens me.” Other studies found that many Vietnamese refugees possessed a great degree of optimism, expecting their lives to improve markedly within five years, including occupational advancement, income, and overall quality of life.

Narrating the Vietnamese American Experience | The Global Viet Diaspora
 
Last edited:
The immediate point is that theplaydrive's tactics of throwing out seat-of-the-pants rationalizations is easily shot down.

The larger point is that the two fundamental axioms of his world view have got to go.

The Axiom of Equality requires us to expect that equal outcomes are a natural state and if these do not arise, then it is because of . . . The Axiom of Discrimination, where outside forces are acting to prevent the expected equal outcomes from developing.

The reality is as simple as this - wherever you have diversity you will find differences. Put aside genetics and this still holds true. Put together liberal Democrats and religious conservatives and you will find differences on church attendance, rates of marriage, number of children born in and out of wedlock, levels of education, attitudes towards a range of topics.

Differences are the engine of diversity. You can't have diversity and uniformity coexisting. Differences in employment rates between racial groups are to be expected. When these differences are attributed to the Axiom of Discrimination this does two things - the attribution contradicts the reality of differences arising simply due to diversity of values, beliefs, social practices, education etc that work to define one group from another and secondly, there is a casting of blame onto innocent parties. Blaming society at large and white America for being discriminatory tends to get people's backs up when they know that they're not discriminating. They'll push back just as much as blacks would push back against the stereotype that they are all criminals.

When "concerned" people find an instance of discrimination in employment then they can report it to the government and allow established processes to take over. When "concerned" people suspect that there is discrimination they should shut up until they have proof to support their suspicion. Unless there is specific evidence then there is nothing to be done because diversity creates differences. The experience of the Vietnamese is a falsification of both Axioms.

A lot of that is tautological (you can't have diversity and uniformity). Certainly when you have some people who are religious and others who aren't, it's to be expected that some will attend church more than others. Church attendance is broadly a feature of being religious. Pretty obvious stuff. But the analogy doesn't hold true with respect to race and employment. There is nothing inherent in blacks that makes them less likely to be employed by whites. Discrimination is real, whether you want to admit it or not. There are many studies showing that equally qualified blacks are less likely to be hired than whites. The problem is that on a case-by-case basis it's almost impossible to prove.
 
But the analogy doesn't hold true with respect to race and employment. There is nothing inherent in blacks that makes them less likely to be employed by whites.

It doesn't have to be an inherent quality. It just has to exist. You can call it culture, you can call it happenstance, it doesn't matter. Differences between groups will arise on a number of metrics because there are different factors in play within each group. Look at the angle that theplaydrive is pushing - cultural attitudes towards education and success. These are not inherent to Asian cultures. These can be adopted by any culture. The point is that differences exist. That's the whole point about diversity. Diversity is not just race. It's the whole ball of wax.

Discrimination is real, whether you want to admit it or not. There are many studies showing that equally qualified blacks are less likely to be hired than whites. The problem is that on a case-by-case basis it's almost impossible to prove.

My beef is not that discrimination doesn't occur, it's that discrimination should not be the null hypothesis, that is, the presumption that discrimination is the reason for differing outcomes is to be assumed unless otherwise shown not to be the case. If you want to argue discrimination, then be sure to account for every other variable that is in play before you throw out that charge.

As for it being impossible to prove, yeah, well that poses a bit of a problem for you, for we have the presumption of innocence with respect to being accused of "crimes." Secondly, not every problem under the sun can have a solution devised to address the problem. I don't have a philosophical problem with people discriminating because discrimination is simply a manifestation of freedom of association and I can't, on balance, argue that forcing people to associate with someone they don't want to associate with is a more just outcome than simply allowing them to choose who they want to associate with.

The disparity we see has many causes, only one of which is discrimination. You think that this is a bad outcome, I don't. You should do your best to convince others of the merit of your position and the more people you convince the fewer instances of unprovable discrimination will occur. I don't actually see a way to solving this problem anymore than I see a way to solving the problem that single men want to have sex with single women more often than single women want to have sex with single men. Do you have a solution? If you do, then lay it out and let's talk about it.
 
It doesn't have to be an inherent quality. It just has to exist. You can call it culture, you can call it happenstance, it doesn't matter. Differences between groups will arise on a number of metrics because there are different factors in play within each group. Look at the angle that theplaydrive is pushing - cultural attitudes towards education and success. These are not inherent to Asian cultures. These can be adopted by any culture. The point is that differences exist. That's the whole point about diversity. Diversity is not just race. It's the whole ball of wax.

I'm with you so far, though in my opinion much of the difference in this case is attributable to the long history of slavery and then discrimination against blacks. Unfortunately that goes to cause and doesn't necessarily suggest a solution.

My beef is not that discrimination doesn't occur, it's that discrimination should not be the null hypothesis, that is, the presumption that discrimination is the reason for differing outcomes is to be assumed unless otherwise shown not to be the case. If you want to argue discrimination, then be sure to account for every other variable that is in play before you throw out that charge.

I think the null hypothesis is that we are created equal. That blacks have been treated poorly for the majority of our history is an obvious distinction.

As for it being impossible to prove, yeah, well that poses a bit of a problem for you, for we have the presumption of innocence with respect to being accused of "crimes."

Hence the law's adoption of pattern discrimination as a means of proof. What can't necessarily be proven in an individual case can sometimes be proven statistically.

Secondly, not every problem under the sun can have a solution devised to address the problem. I don't have a philosophical problem with people discriminating because discrimination is simply a manifestation of freedom of association and I can't, on balance, argue that forcing people to associate with someone they don't want to associate with is a more just outcome than simply allowing them to choose who they want to associate with.

I suspect you would have an entirely different view if you were the minority and employers and banks and restaurants and hotels decided that they didn't want to associate with you. Of course you would be free to associate with your kind in the back of the bus, or in the barn, mucking out the stalls.

The disparity we see has many causes, only one of which is discrimination. You think that this is a bad outcome, I don't. You should do your best to convince others of the merit of your position and the more people you convince the fewer instances of unprovable discrimination will occur. I don't actually see a way to solving this problem anymore than I see a way to solving the problem that single men want to have sex with single women more often than single women want to have sex with single men. Do you have a solution? If you do, then lay it out and let's talk about it.

The problem will eventually be solved by integration and intermingling of the races. We undoubtedly have a long way to go, but we've come a long way in 45 years. Promoting racism and segregation -- as truly repugnant as it is -- can only forestall the inevitable.
 
Last edited:
I'm with you so far, though in my opinion much of the difference in this case is attributable to the long history of slavery and then discrimination against blacks. Unfortunately that goes to cause and doesn't necessarily suggest a solution.

The viewpoint of discrimination against blacks is falsified by the success of African and Caribbean immigrants and their children. Why are nearly 3/4 of black students at Harvard from this subcategory of blacks?

I think the null hypothesis is that we are created equal. That blacks have been treated poorly for the majority of our history is an obvious distinction.

There is a difference between how we conceptualize equality under the law (we are all equal under the law) and how reality deals the cards (we are not all created equal.)

Hence the law's adoption of pattern discrimination as a means of proof. What can't necessarily be proven in an individual case can sometimes be proven statistically.

This argument just resorts to the fallacy of the law is always correct. We used to sterilize people under the Progressive inspired Eugenics laws, did the fact that there was a legal basis for sterilizing people against their will make the administration of the sterilization correct and moral. Convicting someone of discrimination based on statistical inference is wrong. You wouldn't stand for it if this was the standard applied to you with respect to a criminal act - you've been seen in the downtown area every single time that there was a convenience store robbery and so based on your pattern of movement you are deemed guilty of robbery despite the fact that there is no circumstantial nor direct evidence of your participation in these robberies.

The problem will eventually be solved by integration and intermingling of the races. We undoubtedly have a long way to go, but we've come a long way in 45 years. Promoting racism and segregation -- as truly repugnant as it is -- can only forestall the inevitable.

This is such a leftist trope. The future "coffee-colored race."

pic30672.jpg
 
Eugenics and socialism were tied together and not just in Germany. It was actually very strong in the US and gave some people the supposed scientific excuse for racism. The eugenics movement espoused the idea that genetics created a racial predisposition to intelligence, abilities, proclivities, criminal behavior, etc. It was used to justify abortion, discrimination against Blacks, Jews, etc because they were inferior to the white race. The fact that white Europeans and white North America dominated science, wealth, etc. supposedly proved racial superiority.

Part and parcel with eugenics was socialism, the belief that genetic superiors had the duty and the right to control their genetic inferiors...for their own good of course.
 
So when is Riverdad going to admit that he blatantly lied about my post?
 
This just in, in an election year, Republicans care about black unemployment. Once the election year passes, they'll go back to calling minorities societal leeches and welfare recipients on internet forums. Stay tuned for more on this developing story.
 
Last edited:
This just in, in an election year, Republicans care about black unemployment. Once the election year passes, they'll go back to calling minorities societal leeches and welfare recipients on internet forums. Stay tuned for more on this developing story.
Well looky who showed up at the party. Is this your first post here? You representing the leeches of society? The Apostles said those don't work, will also not eat. Maybe you should concentrate on getting your people to have an attitude adjustment, instead of screwing over their own people. Blacks have harmed their own more in the last 30 years more than any white man. The pimps, hookers, drug dealers and lazy do-nothings that you seem to want to protect have no place in an economy that needs honest people with a real work ethic.
 
The viewpoint of discrimination against blacks is falsified by the success of African and Caribbean immigrants and their children. Why are nearly 3/4 of black students at Harvard from this subcategory of blacks?

Oh look -- a strawman argument. As I mentioned, the success of the African American population, or lack thereof, has been affected by a long history of institutional discrimination including slave times and post-slave times -- not just present discrimination.

There is a difference between how we conceptualize equality under the law (we are all equal under the law) and how reality deals the cards (we are not all created equal.)

Another strawman. We were talking about the null proposition -- not reality.

This argument just resorts to the fallacy of the law is always correct.

It was just an illustration.

We used to sterilize people under the Progressive inspired Eugenics laws

Progressive inspired? Do tell. :roll: Of course the most infamous proponent of eugenics was the far-right lunatic, Adolph Hitler.

Convicting someone of discrimination based on statistical inference is wrong.

Perhaps that's why pattern discrimination is only employed in the civil context? Which is not to say that I think it shouldn't be used in the criminal context; it's just circumstantial evidence, like a lot of other circumstancial evidence.

You wouldn't stand for it if this was the standard applied to you with respect to a criminal act - you've been seen in the downtown area every single time that there was a convenience store robbery and so based on your pattern of movement you are deemed guilty of robbery despite the fact that there is no circumstantial nor direct evidence of your participation in these robberies.

That would certainly be admissible as circumstantial evidence that goes to opportunity.

This is such a leftist trope. The future "coffee-colored race."

pic30672.jpg
[/QUOTE]

I'll bet that turns your stomach. :roll:
 
Eugenics and socialism were tied together and not just in Germany. It was actually very strong in the US and gave some people the supposed scientific excuse for racism. The eugenics movement espoused the idea that genetics created a racial predisposition to intelligence, abilities, proclivities, criminal behavior, etc. It was used to justify abortion, discrimination against Blacks, Jews, etc because they were inferior to the white race. The fact that white Europeans and white North America dominated science, wealth, etc. supposedly proved racial superiority.

Part and parcel with eugenics was socialism, the belief that genetic superiors had the duty and the right to control their genetic inferiors...for their own good of course.

Ridiculous statement. Eugenics had nothing to do with socialism. Hitler was not a socialist any more than the East Germans were democrats.
 
Ridiculous statement. Eugenics had nothing to do with socialism. Hitler was not a socialist any more than the East Germans were democrats.

Don't let the snappy uniforms fool you. Those Nazi bastards were 100% dirtbag hippies, ..strikingly similar to our modern dirtbag hippies. The NAZIs got much of their start in the US. The Swastika symbol predates Hitler and was in use by the American Socialist party well before 1933. It was one S laid atop another, standing for two socialists working together.

Margaret Sanger was a leader in the American Eugenics movement. Hitler was also a believer in eugenics and sought to purify the "Aryan" race by eliminating all that he considered to be defective. Sanger created Planned Parenthood with a stated goal of eliminating undesirable minorities by abortion and sterilization.
 
Don't let the snappy uniforms fool you. Those Nazi bastards were 100% dirtbag hippies, ..strikingly similar to our modern dirtbag hippies. The NAZIs got much of their start in the US. The Swastika symbol predates Hitler and was in use by the American Socialist party well before 1933. It was one S laid atop another, standing for two socialists working together.
.
The Nazis were right wing extremists.
 
The Nazis were right wing extremists.

lol...You're out of your lane and you will get hammered here, dude.


The political left has been very successful in associating the political right with NAZIism and fascism. If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it. Take out the uniforms, the German language and the genocide (for now) and you get the American left. Control of industry, schools, indoctrination of the youth, class warfare, confiscation of the property of the targeted class, etc. And do it all for the people.

Both Dem Socialism and Social Democracies have their origins firmly rooted in Nazi economic policy. If you pick at them a little, most of our modern liberals will admit their long term goal is to reform America into a "Social Democracy".

Nazism came from the left, not the right.

Nazis, socialists, communists, Marxists, etc. are all on the left. The reason liberals refuse to admit that is because it too uncomfortable to face the fact that liberalism (American style) is just another version of leftist thought. Liberals are the ones who want to micro-manage and control every aspect of daily life, not conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialists


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy
 
lol...You're out of your lane and you will get hammered here, dude.
I'm scared.

The political left has been very successful in associating the political right with NAZIism and fascism. If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it. Take out the uniforms, the German language and the genocide (for now) and you get the American left. Control of industry, schools, indoctrination of the youth, class warfare, confiscation of the property of the targeted class, etc. And do it all for the people.
Or your perception of the American left.

Both Dem Socialism and Social Democracies have their origins firmly rooted in Nazi economic policy.
Socialist ideas came before Nazism. So the idea that their origins are in Nazism is nonsensical.

If you pick at them a little, most of our modern liberals will admit their long term goal is to reform America into a "Social Democracy".
No.

Nazism came from the left, not the right.
No.

Nazis, socialists, communists, Marxists, etc. are all on the left. The reason liberals refuse to admit that is because it too uncomfortable to face the fact that liberalism (American style) is just another version of leftist thought. Liberals are the ones who want to micro-manage and control every aspect of daily life, not conservatives.
Most liberals aren't afraid to say they are on the left - in fact, liberals always say they are on the left because...they are on the left. Most liberals also aren't reluctant to admit that there are left-wing extremist ideologies like Maoism. What liberals are reluctant to do is pretend that right-wing extremist is a left-wing extremist and the Nazis were right-wing extremists.

Nazism had both right-wing AND left-wing aspects to it, but it was overwhelmingly right wing particularly with regards to its nationalist sentiments. Moreover, Nazis were vehemently against liberalism, Marxism and communism. Although it was also anti-capitalism, it promoted a certain type of right-wing socialism.
 
Last edited:
Socialist ideas came before Nazism. So the idea that their origins are in Nazism is nonsensical.

Of course they did, it was not claimed otherwise. but the National Socialists adopted the theories.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

[/FONT]


Hitler was a Leftist
 
Of course they did, it was not claimed otherwise.
Actually, ric7 explicitly said that Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy have their origins in Nazism which is beyond false. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse to even read a single sentence?

Also, Hitler was a right wing extremist who supported a particular form of right-wing socialism. No amount of revisionism will change this.
 
Actually, ric7 explicitly said that Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy have their origins in Nazism which is beyond false. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse to even read a single sentence?

If he made the statement then you should quote it in order to justify your response.
Also, Hitler was a right wing extremist who supported a particular form of right-wing socialism. No amount of revisionism will change this.

Right wing socialism, huh?

You should be very suspicious of anything called "National Socialism" and then assume that it is 'right wing'. Chances are you're being suckered again, just as the Left have always been suckers for the "S" word. Put Socialism or Socialist in the title of the party and they'll overlook or ignore any horror in order to justify their political and economic fantasies.
 
Actually, ric7 explicitly said that Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy have their origins in Nazism which is beyond false. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse to even read a single sentence?

Also, Hitler was a right wing extremist who supported a particular form of right-wing socialism. No amount of revisionism will change this.

The first thing the Nazi's did was to nationalize all the German industry and everything else they could get their hands on. That's totally counter to "right wing" conservative thinking. I think you are confusing "right wing" with "anti communist" or "nationalist", which the Nazi's certainly were. Read up on it and you will find that Nazi ideology is startlingly similar to the American left wing hippie ideology of today, ...minus the nationalism.

The nationalism part is what makes it confusing for most folks *like YOU* these days.
 
Back
Top Bottom