Progressive Heroes Of The 1930s : Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin And Roosevelt

24 Nov 1933, Page 1 – The Post-Register at Newspapers.com

22 Mar 1935, Page 18 – The Pittsburgh Press at Newspapers.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Progressive Heroes Of The 1930s : Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin And Roosevelt

  1. Johansen says:

    People have a strange fascination with the USSR and Communism. “There was a “golden era” of “pure communism”, you know, back before it was corrupted. It was pure and good” So the same lies keep getting told…

    • arn says:

      Communism is the most strange phenomenon in the galaxy.

      It is a ideology like many others.
      But unlike ALL others it seems to be physical+ extremly tiny and fragile according to its zealots.
      Because- no matter how much one corrupts an ideology/-ism etc
      one can always go back to the core/roots and start again because it is just a concept and nothing one can poison and kill forever.
      But communism,once it got corrupted(and the crazy zealots can not even when the betrayal started(Bolshewiks,Trotzky,Lenin,Stalin or Mao
      or another of the many forgotten communist msssmurderers as Gendrich Yagoda)
      it can not be restored as whenever one tries it(no matter how close he follows Marx) it turns into tyranny and mysery.

      One should think that after so many acts of terror a reasonable person should realise that the tyranny is at the very core of marxism
      as the ten planks of marxism completely eridicate the fairytale
      of “anarchic from people for people” but instead “from an elitist who had nothing in common with workers and never worked”
      for a tiny tiny minority to rule them all(the ring to fool and rule them all).
      When pol pot and friends studied in france they openly told what they wanna do in asia,and all french leftist intellectuals(=people who never had a real job in live and never lived in the real world) were cheering and supporting them because it was so marxist-
      so they started the killing fields.
      (but of course it then was no longer communism/marxism i guess).

      There never ever was a betrayel or corruption of marxism,
      as marxism turned exactly out as it was supposed to be as it can not exist when it is tolerant because people will try to leave it when they realise how dysfunctional and antihuman it really is-
      the perfect trojan horse for tyranny and genocide.

  2. CO2isLife says:

    Go see the new movie “The Death of a Nation.” It covers that era in extremely well-documented detail.

  3. GCsquared says:

    I’d like to see “progressive” defined to understand the argument.

    For example, in the street battles between Nazis and Communists in 1920’s Weimar Germany, the fights were between disgruntled army veterans from WWI and Antifa. If you called a “Socialist” Nazi a progressive in those days, you’d probably get clobberred on the head with a beer stein (they didn’t have bike locks back then, but the steins were huge.)

    Nazis used to be regarded as right wing, and now they’re being called left. I can’t tell anymore: there’s too much blood on my scorecard and propaganda in the news.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Nazis used to be regarded as right wing …

      Yes, the German National Socialists were and still are called the “extreme Right”. By “Progressives” who want to suppress the fact that the platform of the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was socialist.

      Das Parteiprogramm
      Wesen, Grundsätze und Ziele der NSDAP.

      https://www.scribd.com/document/229678820/Das-Programm-der-NSDAP-Alfred-Rosenberg-1943

      Platform of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party

      https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party

      If you want to put these self-anointed “Progressives” in extreme distress, ask them to define “Right wing”. You can force them to admit that they place conservative proponents of individual rights, civil liberties and constitutional limited government on the same side of the political spectrum as National Socialist proponents of collectivism, confiscation of private property and totalitarian government. It’s one of the greatest rhetorical tricks of our times.

      Don’t allow these “progressive” assholes to define the language we use. The “progress” you’ll get from them is right out of George Orwell’s 1984.

      • Gator says:

        Don’t allow these “progressive” assholes to define the language we use.

        I might have said “redefine”, but otherwise I could not ever agree more.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I’d like to see “progressive” defined to understand the argument.

      This is a good primer:

      https://jonahgoldberg.com/liberal-fascism

      For in-depth treatment of the fundamentals of the Western Civilization and the history of the Progressive Era in the United States I recommend free online courses offered by the Hillsdale College:

      https://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/free-online-courses

      • GCsquared says:

        Can’t you tell me in a few words how YOU are using it? I might choose to read the wrong book after all.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          ”I might choose to read the wrong book …”

          Now that’s a real conundrum. I don’t have a good answer and you should know that I’ve been denounced many times for reading the wrong books and having wrong thoughts.

          They only way to be 100% safe is to not read anything at all or to read things in secret. Otherwise, I’d refer you to progressive publications that list reactionary, bigoted and racist books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Little House on the Prairie or To Kill a Mockingbird. Just be aware that the lists are being constantly updated and you must stay current.

          Good luck.

          • GCsquared says:

            If I understand you correctly, you developed your definition of progressivism over time through your probably extensive readings. That’s commendable, and I have to say that I’ve developed an understanding similarly. But unlike yourself, I find that progressivism means different things to different people over history and circumstance. All I’m asking you to do is to tell me your specific use of the word so we can have a clear basis for discussion. Otherwise the word winds up being used as a vague pejorative, propagandistically, in the same way that the MSM throws “climate denier” around without having to account for what it means.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “If I understand you correctly, you developed your definition of progressivism over time through your probably extensive readings. That’s commendable, and I have to say that I’ve developed an understanding similarly.”

            Well, of course I try to do as much reading as possible but I wouldn’t say “my definition” and use of the word is primarily driven by what I’ve learned that way. Instead, I’ve formed it by living among people who call themselves “Progressives” and observing what they say about themselves as opposed to what they actually do. I assume that any intelligent person does the same thing and I believe so do you even when you didn’t say it.

            On the other hand, I am willing to contradict what I just wrote and ask “Who cares what today’s Progressives say?”

            They lie, cheat and deceive. There was something refreshingly honest about Communists of old who told people like me that we belong to the old order, our lives don’t have any value and we must die for the sake of progress. Maybe some of that clarity is making a comeback. If so, it will not be pretty but it will sure make things easier to discuss.

            But unlike yourself, I find that progressivism means different things to different people over history and circumstance.” [emphasis mine]

            Huh?

            How did you come to that conclusion? Of course I know that people use the term differently. How could you have read my comment above and still believe I don’t know that “progressivism means different things to different people”?

            Readers of this blog who are familiar with my writing know that I consider the rhetorical tricks of the Left and their deliberate language corruption a fundamental problem of our times. One of my favorite headlines from a 1990s Denver newspaper announced:

            Senate Liberals Oppose Liberalized Gun Bill

            Some of the most illiberal people I know call themseves liberal. You must be aware that gator regularly protests this corrupted usage of the word. Why do you think I frequently put the words “liberal” and “progressive” in parentheses? If you are familiar with the usage of “liberal” in non-English-speaking Europe you must know that the word still has a different meaning there, much closer to classical liberalism. Why did Orwell write “1984”?

            And while we are at it, I would like to know how you define “left” and “right”. You made a vague ironic allusion to it in your earlier comment and it would be useful to know what you think. It would give more clarity to this discussion, don’t you think?

            “All I’m asking you to do is to tell me your specific use of the word so we can have a clear basis for discussion. Otherwise the word winds up being used as a vague pejorative, propagandistically, in the same way that the MSM throws “climate denier” around without having to account for what it means.”

            No problem. I am fine with the way self-defined “Progressives” define it themselves. I have no need to dance on the tip of a needle and muse about my “specific use of the word”. We have already established that “Progressives” say these high-minded things about freedom, opportunity, responsibility and cooperation while their actions left behind hundreds of millions corpses and other unspeakable suffering.

            Why should I worry that anyone thinks I used the term as a “vague pejorative”? I didn’t. It is not “vague” to me.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Errata: themselves

    • GCsquared says:

      An impressive outpouring of emotion! But could you get to the definition part?

      I have this odd preference for wanting to know what I’m arguing about before I pile on. Apologies in advance for not having been educated properly.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        The fundamental principles of the Progressive Era have been sufficiently defined and described. The only argument left is between those who like them and those who don’t.

        And for goodness sake, G, don’t pile on! I’m not sure I could take it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.