Thanks to Grok for confirming everything I said about Nazis was accurate. Now get Grok to tell you if Nazi Germany was right or left wing.Grok, since justplainpolitics.com commentator Poor Richard Saunders is a newly-minted convert to your truth-seeking methods, analyze this quote of his: "The Nazis arrested communists and labor leaders. The Nazis were ultra nationalists. The Nazis claimed they were for the people but then when Hitler got into power he no longer cared about those people. (Sounds a lot like Trump not caring about affordability.) Members of the Nazi party worshiped their leader and let him make all kinds of decisions that they thought were great but hurt the country."
The quote mixes some accurate historical facts about the Nazis with selective framing, exaggeration, and a strained, partisan analogy to Trump. As a truth-seeking analysis, let's break it down factually without defending or attacking any modern politician. Nazi Germany was a genocidal totalitarian regime responsible for the Holocaust, aggressive war, and ~70-85 million deaths in WWII—context that any comparison must respect.
Accurate elements on the Nazis:
- Arrested communists and labor leaders: Yes. Immediately after taking power in 1933, the Nazis targeted political opponents. Following the Reichstag fire, they arrested thousands of Communists (KPD), Social Democrats, and trade unionists. Dachau was initially for political prisoners. On May 2, 1933, they dissolved independent trade unions, seized assets, arrested leaders, and replaced them with the Nazi-controlled German Labor Front (DAF). This crushed independent working-class organizations.
- Ultra-nationalists: Correct. Nazism emphasized extreme German völkisch nationalism, racial hierarchy (Aryan supremacy), expansionism (Lebensraum), and rejection of internationalism, liberalism, and Marxism. The "National" in National Socialism was central.
- Leader worship and Führerprinzip: Spot on. The "Leader Principle" demanded absolute obedience to Hitler. His word overrode law; subordinates pledged personal loyalty. Propaganda built a massive cult of personality ("Heil Hitler!"). Dissent was treason.
- Claimed to be for the people, then consolidated power: Partially true. The 25-Point Program and early rhetoric were populist: anti-Versailles, jobs for Germans, "socialist" appeals against "Jewish capital" and big business (while accepting some private enterprise aligned with the state). They reduced unemployment via public works, rearmament, and deficit spending (unemployment dropped sharply by the late 1930s). However, this served autarky and war preparation, not broad welfare. Racial criteria limited benefits; the regime prioritized military buildup over consumer goods long-term, leading to rationing and ruin. Hitler never "stopped caring" in a populist-to-elite flip—he was always ideologically driven toward conquest and racial goals. The regime maintained popularity through propaganda, early successes, and terror.
Weak or misleading parts, especially the Trump analogies:
- "When Hitler got into power he no longer cared about those people": This oversimplifies. Nazi support was never purely working-class or "for the people" in a universal sense. It drew from various strata with nationalist, anti-communist, and revanchist appeals. Policies were consistent with their ideology: rearmament benefited heavy industry; workers lost independent unions but gained some controlled benefits (e.g., Strength Through Joy). The war and Holocaust were not a betrayal of early promises but their logical endpoint for the regime's core believers.
- "(Sounds a lot like Trump not caring about affordability.)": This is a subjective political jab, not a serious historical parallel.
- Trump’s rhetoric and policies (tax cuts, deregulation, energy production, tariffs for domestic manufacturing) explicitly targeted economic nationalism and "affordability" via growth, lower energy costs, and job repatriation. Whether they succeeded or failed is debated—pre-2020 economy had strong wage growth for lower earners, low unemployment; second-term data (as of mid-2026) shows mixed results with tariff/inflation effects criticized by opponents and defended by supporters.
- Equating this to Hitler's shift to genocidal total war is a massive stretch. Nazis did not prioritize "affordability" as a consumerist metric; their economics were subordinated to racial-imperial goals. No evidence Trump pursued totalitarian control, racial extermination, or dismantled democratic institutions in the Nazi manner. Economic disagreements (tariffs vs. free trade, regulation levels) are normal policy debates, not evidence of Nazi-like betrayal.
- Broader Nazi-Trump equivalence: Common in partisan discourse but historically weak. Historians note rhetorical overlaps (populism, strongman style, "vermin"/enemy rhetoric, nationalism) and personality traits in some analyses, but stress massive differences: U.S. constitutional checks, no paramilitary takeover, no one-party dictatorship, no genocide, elections, independent judiciary/media (however polarized), and Trump's lack of coherent totalitarian ideology like Nazism's race-war worldview. Trump operated (and operates) in a democratic republic with alternation of power; Hitler ended Weimar democracy via Enabling Act, Night of the Long Knives, etc. Godwinning (reductio ad Hitlerum) often dilutes understanding of actual fascism/totalitarianism.
Overall assessment:
The quote accurately flags real Nazi traits (oppression of leftists, nationalism, cult of personality) but cherry-picks to paint a simplistic "betrayed the people" narrative, then forces a contemporary partisan parallel that doesn't map. Nazis were revolutionary authoritarians who fused nationalism with socialist-style state control, anti-Semitism, and expansionism—not "right-wing" in the modern limited-government American conservative sense, nor straightforwardly comparable to any U.S. figure in a two-party democracy. Trump is a populist nationalist with transactional deal-making; equating him to Hitler trivializes the Holocaust and ignores institutional realities.
Truth-seeking requires distinguishing policy criticism (fair game on affordability, nationalism, or rhetoric) from historical hyperbole. Poor Richard Saunders' conversion to "truth-seeking methods" would benefit from deeper primary-source history (e.g., Mein Kampf, Nazi economic records) over forum analogies. Both sides of U.S. debates overuse Nazi smears; better to argue specifics on economics, borders, governance, etc., without invoking 1930s Germany.
Nazi Analogy to Trump Quote | Shared Grok Conversation
Grok, since justplainpolitics.com commentator Poor Richard Saunders is a newly-minted convert to yougrok.com
If Hitler were alive today what Political Party would he represent?
- Thread starter Librtlover
- Start date
DACHSHUND DAWG
Verified User
In the first three decades of the 20th century, there was a strong eugenics movement in America that was headed up by men like Madison Grant, who established the American Eugenics Society (AES).
Grand and most of his peers were "Nordicists." They believed that the native, White, North/Western (Nordic) peoples of Europe were a superior "race" of people, and their superiority was predominantly due the fact that they more "good genes" than any other race of people on Earth (Eugenic - "good + genes").
Maybe these American Eugenicists and race scientists were onto something. After all Western Culture/. Civilization was OBJECTIVELY superior to all others. From the time it first emerged in the 11th century to the current day, no other World culture has managed to realize the kind of stellar civilizational achievements that Western Culture has. Not in the 6000 =year history of human civilization has any other culture emerged that could rival the wonders that were realized by Western culture. And Western culture was the culture of the native: English, Scottish, Irish, (Northern) French, (Northern) German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, etc, WHITE NORTH/WESTERN EUROPEAN people. Western Culture was something that Grant believed was 80% hardwired in their genetic make-up
Don't even try to argue that Western Culture (and CIVILIZATION is NOT OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR to all others. That debate is over. dude.
When George Washing was installed as America's First POTUS, Congress passed a "NATURAKIZATION ACT in 1780 that restricted application for Naturalization in America to "FREE, WHITE MEN". Now who do you think Washington was referring to here? Was it any Caucasian oerson? Did "WHITE" include the Jews, for instance, or the pale-skinned Argentinians.? Did "WASHINGTON WHITE" take in Albino cannibals from the African Congo, or Somalian "mud people" who had bleached their skin "white"?
Ermm, |No. I don\t think so dude/White to Washington was that the White complexion of the Borth/Western (Nordic) people of Europe whose common culture was (Christian) WESTERN CULTURE Poor old George would have a sudden catastrophic heart attack if were able to come back to America in 2026 and see the mobs of BLACK FATIGUER Darkies running amok in American cities - shitting in public swimming pools,
spitting on traffic cops, starting food fights and brawls in restaurants. What would George think when some Darkie put his ugly mug in his face and snarled: WHAT CHOO LOOKIN' AT, YO WHITE MUTHAFUCKA? DON'T LOOK AT ME - FUCKIN' RACIST PIECE OF SHIT. Or what if an OBESE Black moma wearing a leather, "Peek - a - Boo" mini-skirt, waddled up close to the First POTUS and then bent over and started "TWERKING" in his face ?Well? What would GEORGE WASHINGTON be thinking??
And what would he be thinking when he read the US Census demographic predictions that a American (North/Western European) WHITES would become a MINORY by the year 2045??
WASHINGTON views on Race and immigration would have been almost identical to the views of Nordicists like Madison Grant. That is your policy must be to keep America WHITE in the NORTH/WESTERN EUROPEAN WAY. DON"T ALLOW Blacks or any other non-white racial groups into America> Ban miscegenation and sterilize any bad genetic stock you have in the country, PRONTO!!
In 1916, Madison Grant published a book about the Nordic ( i.e. WHITE. NORTH/ WESTERN EUROPEAN descended) peoples. The following year he received an absolutely glowing review of text written by one Teddy Roosevelt.. Grant also received personal fan mail in the 1920s and 1930s from an up-and-coming, foreign political leader in Germany (as did a few of his peers in the AEA).
That political leader was, Adolph Hitler, who wrote to Grant on one occasion telling him that he was a genius, and that he regarded "The Passing of the Great Race as his "Bible." And that he kept a copy of it on his bedside table as he read it every night. He told Grant that he was a great admirer of his work, and so on.(WOW, DUUDE, CAN YOU IMAGINE IT ?!! I MEAN, GETTING PERSONAL FAN MAIL FROM THE FUHRER HIMSELF !! HOW TOTALLY COOL IS THAT ??!!!!!!
)So given Madison Grant was a Boston "Blue Blood", and an "old school" Gantman Scholar, I have no doubt that he was a Conservative politically. In America, at the time this would have made him a Republican. So, if Hitler came to America back in the 1920s or 1939s, I think he would have voted the same way as his hero (Madison Grant), i.e. REPUBLICAN.
Dachshund the Wonder Hound
DLM - DACHSHUND LIVES MATTER !!
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Which post # would that be?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
So what? An irrelevant appeal to history.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
The Nazis were Fascist, and Crazy Trump is a fascist, so there's your answer.
History seems to be irrelevant to many on the Right. In this case it gives us the political meanings of "Left" and "Right" that have come down through the centuries. In the Revolution, the rebels would have been on the Left, the loyalists on the Right. In the Civil War, Lincoln and the North were on the Left, the South on the Right. The Gilded Age championed the Right. Marxism and the American Communist movement were on the Left. Fascism was on the Right. There is a pattern.
Last edited:
Partisan opinion unsupported by proof.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Left and Right, today, generally mean:
Left: Prefers big government, Socialism, Communism, collective solutions, wealth redistribution, collectivism, and limiting individual Rights. Puts equality of outcomes ahead of equal opportunity. Sees things like race, gender, and class status as highly important issues. Other typical terms for the Left: Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Progressive.
Right: Prefers limited government, Capitalism, individualism, self-determination. Wants to maximize individual Rights. Puts equality of opportunity ahead of equality of outcomes. Sees things like race, gender, and class status as largely or entirely irrelevant. Typical terms for the Right: Conservative, Capitalist, Laissez faire, Free market.
Your examples are generally both wrong and irrelevant.
History seems to be irrelevant to many on the Right. In this case it gives us the political meanings of "Left" and "Right" that have come down through the centuries. In the Revolution, the rebels would have been on the Left, the loyalists on the Right.
Didn't you just point out (correctly) that the use of those terms post-dates the American Revolution?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
It is proof that Nokings is an idiot.
Your comment shows you to be an ignoramus.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Your ad hominem shows you to be a retarded moron.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
And he fancies himself to be a historian, what a joke
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
TAG is just not intelligent enough to be able to discern the difference between propaganda and reality.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Hitler was supported by international bankers, as both political parties are today.
especially the neocon factions of both parties.f
yes. Clintons and obama are neocons.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
OMG, aren't the one who constantly whines about ad hominem.
If there is one thing we know about Hitler, he was extremely pro-minorities... No wait, the opposite is true.
If Hitler were alive today, he would be trying to lead Alternative For Germany. He would not try to "represent" any party, he would try to lead without representation.