LSE Tories: "We'll only campaign against far left fascists"

[butchersapron]

Bollocks, it's an attempt to say that your idealised never existing ideal conservsatism is the ultimater arbiter of what consititues true right-wing politics and that existinmg fascism has no traits in common with the far right Sorry. History went right by you.

The argument that nazism isn't just 'economic' (what is ) is so crude that i'm left breathless (through laughter). What is this nonsense about economics?

 

[Azrael]

History went right by you.

History goes right by everyone.

I've never claimed my "idealised conservatism" (you think Edmund Burke is "idealised"?) speaks for the whole of "the Right". Of course it doesn't, which is why I dislike the left/right split. Just as many Leftists aren't too keen on being lumped into a continum featuring Pol Pot and Koba the Dread. I'll assume this is a misunderstanding and not a straw man.

Neither have I said Nazism, or any creed, is "just" economic, to the exclusion of everything else. I said it economics aren't its priority, which is a different thing.

 

[rekil]

And Hitler's word is to be trusted?

Of course he told industrialists he wasn't a threat in 1932: he wanted their support. I've not claimed he was a threat; I claimed that Nazism isn't inherently right-wing. Provided the industrialists served the needs of the state, they were OK. Key point: served the needs of the state. That isn't laissez faire capitalism.

Have you read anything on this subject yet? What did nazi philosophy boil down to in theory and in practice.

The only reason I'm even asking is because I've seen a hitler was a socialist thread on another board from this month where the arguments are even more ahistorical and politically illiterate than yours.

 

[Azrael]

Oh God, this one's ressurected itself!

Have you read anything on this subject yet? What did nazi philosophy boil down to in theory and in practice.

The only reason I'm even asking is because I've seen a hitler was a socialist thread on another board from this month where the arguments are even more ahistorical and politically illiterate than yours.

Please point out where my argument is "politically illiterate". I've not claimed Hitler was a "socialist", I've claimed he wasn't right-wing, which is very different. You've not shown he was "right-wing" with the latest post, or even disputed that the Nazi Party were politicl opportunists, so I don't see what your purpose is in reviving the thread.

As for my reading on the Nazis, been busy with John Locke and the later Roman Empire of late.

 

[rekil]

Please point out where my argument is "politically illiterate".

I've claimed he wasn't right-wing,

^^ There.

You've not shown he was "right-wing" with the latest post, or even disputed that the Nazi Party were politicl opportunists, so I don't see what your purpose is in reviving the thread.

So you've simply ignored everything BA and VP have posted then and refuse to allow any reading of orthodox studies on the subject to impinge upon the slightly mad alternative reality you apparently prefer to inhabit. This sort of despicable revisionism and the rubbish employed to support it is interesting in its own way, but by my "reviving" of a week old thread you might actually learn something and avoid making an eejit of yourself in the future.

You're not going to answer my question I take it.

 

[Azrael]

^^ There.

So you've simply ignored everything BA and VP have posted then and refuse to allow any reading of orthodox studies on the subject to impinge upon the slightly mad alternative reality you apparently prefer to inhabit. This sort of despicable revisionism and the rubbish employed to support it is interesting in its own way, but by my "reviving" of a week old thread you might actually learn something and avoid making an eejit of yourself in the future.

You're not going to answer my question I take it.

Which question?

As for this alleged making an eejit of myself, if someone had shown up with a smoking gun of the Nazi Party hierarchy agreeing, "Yeah, advancing laissez faire capitalism is at the heart of our endeavour", then I'd be wrong. Which evidence am I supposed to have ignored?

Oh, and as for your comment on "despicable revisionism", you do know that revisionism is a mainstream and perfectly respectable movement is historiography, don't you?