“Hitler was one of the few bad guys on the right.”
Joel Webbon
1.) Hitler was a National SOCIALIST. Socialism, by definition, belongs to the left since it systematically is structured by Marxism. To argue that Hitler was a man on the right would mean that Deng Xiaoping (of China) was also a man of the Right since he wanted to bring reforms into China that would give Socialism a Chinese face. However, socialism is still socialism whether it has a German face or a Chinese face and as socialism it is most definitely NOT on the right.
2.) Now, one may argue that Hitler occupied the right side of the left and that the row between Stalin and Hitler was a row between the left side of the left and the right side of the left (International Socialism vs. National Socialism) but both Stalin and Hitler remained men of the Left along with FDR and Winston Churchill, as well as Franco and Mussolini. Any movement towards a statist collectivization (and here we include Abraham Lincoln and the Black Republicans in our own history) is a movement occupied by the Left. Any movement that would find a society or culture dominated and controlled by the State is a movement from and of the Left. Any movement that collapses society or culture into the State so that they are no longer distinct is a movement of the left.
3.) Hitler’s world and life view was consistent with all the major political heads at that time. That world and life view was captured by Mussolini’s statement;
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”
Benito Mussolini
This is the religious confession of the Left. Nobody on the right would ever agree that “in the state we live and move and have our being,” and yet Webbon would have us believe that Hitler belonged to the Right. It’s just madness for a member of the clergy to be out there saying this kind of thing publicly.
4.) Hitler’s being on the left was also put on full display by his program of AktionT4 which found the State seeking to genocide the halt, the blind, and the disabled of all categories. Now, Hitler and the Germans learned this from the Americans (see Buck vs. Bell and Oliver Wendell Holmes’ idiotic statement that “Three generations of imbeciles is enough” thus justifying his vote to forcefully sterilize a woman) but how can anyone argue with a straight face in light of AktionT4 that Hitler was a “man of the Right?”
Read the reasoning of Oliver Wendell Holmes, and realize that this was the same reasoning that Hitler and the National Socialist would eventually use and keep in mind that the Germans managed to sterilize 400,000 women before their “Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring program” was halted;
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. […] Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Webbon and his crew are constantly complaining (and rightfully so) that American clergy have been suckered by the court historians of WW II and yet Webbon and his crew go right on mouthing this inanity that Hitler was a man on the right. They might as well argue that Robespierre was likewise a man of the right because he realized how important religion was to a culture and because Robespierre tried to bring a religion back to the French people.
It’s all so ludicrous and uniformed. It’s just like something Doug Wilson would say.
I believe that one of the historical phenomena that Nazism can be aptly compared to was the infamous “Fourth Crusade.” Where the crusaders, instead of fighting the Muslim threat, fell upon the decrepit Byzantine Empire.
The fact is that the pagan Nazis saw (as one can read in Mein Kampf) the huge tragedy of Bolshevism coming to power in the Christian land of Russia as a huge OPPORTUNITY for their own people to grab some serious “Lebensraum,” all the way to the Urals, and become a superpower like America at the expense of Christian Slavic peoples. So likewise the opportunistic Latin crusaders came to see the troubles of Orthodox Byzantine civilization as a golden opportunity to grab earthly glory for themselves (while buying the approval of the papacy by the pretext of putting down the Eastern schismatics).
The Operation Barbarossa should have been a genuine CRUSADE against Bolshevism. But pagan greed turned it into something entirely else. Just like the Fourth Crusade suddenly turned from the struggle against the crescent into one of the most miserable and honorless historical examples of Christian infighting.
I do not fault the Nazis for going after the Bolsheviks. I do not over-fault them for their enmity towards the Jews since Jews were consistently, though not universally, communist sympathizers. We all know the disproportionate presence of Jews in the Soviet Government.
It is interesting that in the 1920s and 1930s the National Socialist and the Communists worked in league to overthrow the Social Democrats in Germany. That is “the left” came together to overthrow a yet different expression of the left (Social Democrats).
“I do not fault the Nazis for going after the Bolsheviks.”
But like I said, thanks to their short-sighted greed, the Nazis came to associate, in public mind, the fight against Communism and Jewish power WITH their little project of stealing Slavic lands. Which was like handcuffing a highly righteous cause to a highly unrighteous cause! (Which is why uncritical Nazi apologists are like a person who tries to swim with a dead corpse tied to him.) A classic case of “unequal yoking” (see 2 Cor. 6:14) – it was like creating an intimate connection between the cause of fighting abortion and the cause of bank robberies. (Or connection between crusades and sacking Constantinople.)
This was disastrous PR development for both the Nazis and their latter-day sympathizers who are not careful to make proper caveats. Because thanks to the Lebensraum project, without caveats one cannot even say with good conscience, “I wish the Soviets had lost the war”, because it would mean essentially, “I wish the Russian people had been turned into despised serfs in their own country.” Russian nationalists are very aware of this.
Or to mention an example more familiar to Reformed Anglophone folks – with their actions in the late 1640s, the English revolutionaries created a strong connection, in the English mind, between Puritan piety and regicide. From that point on, anti-Calvinist, pro-Arminian forces within the Anglican church never forgot to mention the “royal martyr” who had killed by militant Calvinists. (Or that is what they said.) A great part of the English nation came to regard Puritanism with hatred because of this development, which more moderate-minded Puritans like Richard Baxter felt deep sorrow about.
There are tiresome inaccuracies here. I’d suggest you do more reading on the subject.
Hitler was not a Marxist socialist and did not collectivize the economy nor did he have any intention of doing so.
For the NSDAP, the volk superseded the state; the state was subordinate to the needs of the volk, as indeed was the economy. No sector of the economy could exploit the volk, nor was any sector of the economy to be exploited by any other.
You are aware that we have spent our lives in a Jewish narrative, and that certainly includes anything you think you know about the Reich that you have not researched personally.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah …
Hitler and Marxist Socilaism;
“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, Hitler interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt
Did not Collectivize the economy
The Nazi government substituted conscious, over-all direction of the economy for the autonomy of the market mechanism and subordinated the economic system to a predetermined objective, the creation of a war machine. A vast network of organizations was erected to embrace individuals, corporations, manufacturers, farmers, dealers, small business and large business – in short, every factor of production, distribution, and consumption. By dominating this organizational structure through which orders could be issued to every businessman, and by insisting upon strict obedience from all, the government obtained complete control over the economy. Commodity prices, interest rates, and wages were not only fixed by the government, but they lost completely their traditional significance as regulators of economic activities. The government decided and ordered what and how much should be invested, produced, distributed, consumed, or stored. A system of “direct” controls was substituted for the mechanism of prices which regulates economic activities “indirectly” in traditional capitalism. No institution in the economy remained unaffected by the fundamental change that German Fascism brought about.
The State was subordinate to the need of the volk;
As determined by the State.
Look … As you can see, I’ve researched this enough to know that having lived my life in a Jewish narrative it doesn’t make sense to live in another narrative that can’t look at itself and see it for what it is.
I have no use for the Jewish narrative, which I’ve made clear abundantly on this blog, but neither do I have use for a Marxist narrative…. which National Socialism was just one more variant.
Don’t tell me that I haven’t done the reading. My problem is that I have done the reading… on various sides … and have arrived at the conclusion that German National Socialism was a variant of Marxism (there were countless variants) and belonged to the left.
But I realize that Hitler, like Cromwell, like Calvin, like Augustine and others is one of those chaps that becomes a real dividing line between people.
“But I realize that Hitler, like Cromwell, like Calvin, like Augustine and others is one of those chaps that becomes a real dividing line between people.”
Asking Polish or Russian nationalists (even broadminded types, who are not just kneejerk chauvinists) to like or appreciate Hitler is like asking an Irish nationalist to praise Cromwell.
Save your breath Maple Curtain.
It’s interesting that Pastor Bret insists on maintaining the tireless inaccuracies to which you allude, but it may be related his Kingdom on Earth eschatology which he seems to share in common with Rabbi Harry Waton, who also maintained that National Socialism was ‘nothing but an imitation and perversion of Marxism’.
On the subject of Fascism, it also had many nationalist variants — none of which were for export.
https://identitydixie.com/2025/03/01/free-speech-fascism/
Maple Curtain, gushing over how wonderful Nazism was to the Germans (theoretically), while not saying anything about its attitudes towards non-Germans, is like praising Sparta while forgetting the existence of the Helots.
Nothing ‘theoretical’ about it. Even Sefton Delmer (no fan of the NSDAP) admitted it:
“Never mind what they say today; Germany in 1936 was thriving and happy. On its face was the bloom of a woman in love. And the Germans were in love—in love with Hitler. And to be sure there was much to be grateful for. Hitler had banished unemployment and brought them a new prosperity. He had given his Germans a new sense of national strength and national mission. p. 282.
Sefton Delmer, ‘Trail Sinister—An Autobiography’, Secker and Warburg 1961
He was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1938 … until he touched a raw nerve with international finance by abolishing usury.
Ken O’Keefe on Usury
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Phl8cemPqA4X
To which attitudes and people do you allude, exactly, and why?
The Poles who were slaughtering Germans in occupied East Prussia?
The degenerate racial supremacist Jews who were ruling over and destroying Germany?
The English people who they admired and did not seek to quarrel with?
The rest of the planet whose peoples and territories they respected and wished well within those territories?
“The Poles who were slaughtering Germans in occupied East Prussia?”
I can tell you are just repeating the pro-Nazi talking points you read somewhere. For Germany never lost control of East Prussia in the interwar era. You clearly admire the Third Reich with semi-religious fervour, not wanting to face its less appealing downsides. (Which is what you do with those people and those entities you are not uncritically idolizing.)
Still in late 1938 Germany valued Poland enough to allow it to take part in the partition of Czechoslovakia.
And Hitler wanted good relations with England precisely in order the conquer the Slavs in peace, wishing to avoid two-front warfare. England told him not to attack Poland, and Hitler did not respect England so much that he would have actually honored its wishes, and attacked anyways.
“The rest of the planet whose peoples and territories they respected and wished well within those territories?”
The huge deportations of German civilians at the end of WW II were a great crime. But if nothing else, they showed what kind of hatred they had aroused in their neighbors, ordinary Poles and Czechs and other peoples eagerly partaking in driving them away.
Also, Hitler did not promote the interests of White race very well when he allied himself with Japan, which never did anything very useful for its German ally. But Hitler basically “white-knighted” for Japan when he declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor – he might have delayed the entry of American forces to the European scene of war with many months, if not years, if he had let the Japs to fight on their own, like they had done to Germany.