Listen now | I sat down with historian, sociologist, and author Dr. Rainer Zitelmann to learn about the misunderstood economic philosophy of Adolf Hitler and the true meaning of national socialism.
The reality is that Hitler got his eugenics ideas from progressivism, not "social Darwinism". Hitler had read "The Passing of the Great Race" by Madison Grant. Social Darwinism never existed as a school of thought. Progressivism did. Think Margaret Sanger et. al.
Thomas Sowell on the topic of where Hitler got the idea to weed out the weak and inferior.
Gotta straighten that crooked arrow of man... and eradicate all the "imbeciles" as they called them. Sanger and her eugencists were the original "trust the science" crowd. I don't know if I can ever forgive that movement for stealing both "progress" and "liberal" to be used for the exact opposite agenda.
This started so promising but half-way descended into a mere sales-pitch for a book.
He starts with talk of the test-tube of empiric observation, that states that 100% of either Capitalism or Socialism is 'bad'...which is hard to argue against.
Then he changes his tack, comparing apples with oranges and saying we all have a 100% chance in life's game of Monolopy.
Tough shit if your opponents have 2 dice to reach 'GO'....and yours only had 5 sides when you need to throw a six.
Sorry Prof....its what I heard.Capitalism is Better.....agreed.
Untrammeled post Thatcher/Reagan 'greed is good'?
GET OUTTA HERE, ...I hear your contradictions. Dogma left and right, Meet the new Boss....same as the Old Boss.
Thank you for introducing Dr. Rainer Zitelmann to me. I’m excited to read some of his books, especially The Power of Capitalism. All college students should listen to your conversation.
Great conversation. Ignorance us bliss lol. One contrasting example I would have loved for y'all to dive into, is the Scandinavian countries and what makes them successful vs the Latin versions including Spain.
The Scandavian countries do have very socialist financial public policy in a regulated 'capitalistic' economy; with governments that flucuate between liberalism (self determinism) and mandated soft tyranny ... (Similar to what we saw in a patchwork in the US in regards to lockdowns and mandates which varied greatly, if at all, from city to city and state to state.)
How can one combine Socialism with the non-existent ideology of "Social Darwinism"? No one called themselves Social Darwinist and there was no Social Darwinist literature, ideology, societies or political organizations. Social Darwinism is an invention of socialists used to smear non-socialists like Herbert Spencer, the supposed "Father of Social Darwinism". It is very much similar to the smear campaign against Ronald Reagan accusing him of believing in "Trickle Down Economics", another school of thought that never existed, and which Reagan did not adhere to.
Roderick T. Long has a great article on how Herbert Spencer has been maligned with ideas he never held. When in fact he held to quite the opposite ideas in his published works.
The reality is that Hitler got his eugenics ideas from progressivism, not "social Darwinism". Hitler had read "The Passing of the Great Race" by Madison Grant. Social Darwinism never existed as a school of thought. Progressivism did. Think Margaret Sanger et. al.
Thomas Sowell on the topic of where Hitler got the idea to weed out the weak and inferior.
https://youtu.be/c68o4MU4bNw
Gotta straighten that crooked arrow of man... and eradicate all the "imbeciles" as they called them. Sanger and her eugencists were the original "trust the science" crowd. I don't know if I can ever forgive that movement for stealing both "progress" and "liberal" to be used for the exact opposite agenda.
This started so promising but half-way descended into a mere sales-pitch for a book.
He starts with talk of the test-tube of empiric observation, that states that 100% of either Capitalism or Socialism is 'bad'...which is hard to argue against.
Then he changes his tack, comparing apples with oranges and saying we all have a 100% chance in life's game of Monolopy.
Tough shit if your opponents have 2 dice to reach 'GO'....and yours only had 5 sides when you need to throw a six.
Sorry Prof....its what I heard.Capitalism is Better.....agreed.
Untrammeled post Thatcher/Reagan 'greed is good'?
GET OUTTA HERE, ...I hear your contradictions. Dogma left and right, Meet the new Boss....same as the Old Boss.
Thank you for introducing Dr. Rainer Zitelmann to me. I’m excited to read some of his books, especially The Power of Capitalism. All college students should listen to your conversation.
Great conversation. Ignorance us bliss lol. One contrasting example I would have loved for y'all to dive into, is the Scandinavian countries and what makes them successful vs the Latin versions including Spain.
The Scandavian countries do have very socialist financial public policy in a regulated 'capitalistic' economy; with governments that flucuate between liberalism (self determinism) and mandated soft tyranny ... (Similar to what we saw in a patchwork in the US in regards to lockdowns and mandates which varied greatly, if at all, from city to city and state to state.)
Scandinavian countries have mixed economies, as does the US. The South American countries go whole hog for totalitarianism.
It was the Socialists and Progressives who were the eugenicists.
George Bernard Shaw (Fabian Socialist):
https://youtu.be/t3lBdyFvPps
Fabian Society:
https://youtu.be/azDg7L-dFdw
Thomas Sowell speaking on Progressivism
https://youtu.be/Tx6TkC45y-A
How can one combine Socialism with the non-existent ideology of "Social Darwinism"? No one called themselves Social Darwinist and there was no Social Darwinist literature, ideology, societies or political organizations. Social Darwinism is an invention of socialists used to smear non-socialists like Herbert Spencer, the supposed "Father of Social Darwinism". It is very much similar to the smear campaign against Ronald Reagan accusing him of believing in "Trickle Down Economics", another school of thought that never existed, and which Reagan did not adhere to.
Roderick T. Long has a great article on how Herbert Spencer has been maligned with ideas he never held. When in fact he held to quite the opposite ideas in his published works.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/08/roderick-t-long/herbert-spencer/