Pardon me for not seeing this post sooner. The difficulty I have with this one as a thesis is its great ambiguity. Most of Hitler's public statements were political and thus used "right" buzzwords, just like any American politician today wants to say things agreeably. So to say Hitler was right that Christianity is good or that Marxism is bad doesn't do much.
Maybe what you mean is that it's right for us to judge some members of Homo sapiens as guilty solely by association. But no mere human can do this without judging himself first by the same standard. So if you'd like to make that the thesis I would be prepared to engage debate on it. The theory of "good racism" falls apart on scrutiny and definition.
Well, then you decline the formal debate process. I call on the Arete to agree on one distinction: that between declaring all members of a group guilty without competent judgment, and between proper discrimination against a group based on a preponderance of evidence from representative members. If the Arete remain on the side of "innocent until proven guilty" all is well and our interaction will remain fruitful. If they fail to see this distinction or to put themselves on the side of the American principle of justice, they will be self-destructive.
If you wish to have a formal debate we should agree on what debate is. For me, debate requires a clearly defined binary, which you have not provided. It is not ad hominem for me to explain that statements are too ambiguous to refute. (Nor have you tried to give me a timestamp where your link gets any better or more to the point.)
Example of debate: On 16 Sep 1919 Hitler wrote that our purpose "must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether". I can join a binary on this by saying that Hitler was wrong because there was no formal judgment by which every Jewish man, woman and child was found guilty and subject to "removal", and because the later acts by which this removal was attempted did not constitute such a judgment. Today Germany has one of the top ten Jewish populations by country, so it appears Germans at large also disagreed with Hitler. Now you could join this debate by showing what evils the Jews did before 1919 and what competent body heard these charges and merited his judgment. If Hitler was right in 1919, the 100k+ German Jews today, without exception, still call unshakably for removal for the crimes 100 years ago. Maybe one of us can convince the other Hitler was right or wrong on this point, or maybe we will agree to disagree having refined what we know about him and about racism in general. But any of those would be preferable to declining to debate, such as by calling it a "prove it loop" (an exercise I have always found stimulating no matter how concretized the interlocutor).
Maybe what you mean is that it's right for us to judge some members of Homo sapiens as guilty solely by association. But no mere human can do this without judging himself first by the same standard. So if you'd like to make that the thesis I would be prepared to engage debate on it. The theory of "good racism" falls apart on scrutiny and definition.
Example of debate: On 16 Sep 1919 Hitler wrote that our purpose "must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether". I can join a binary on this by saying that Hitler was wrong because there was no formal judgment by which every Jewish man, woman and child was found guilty and subject to "removal", and because the later acts by which this removal was attempted did not constitute such a judgment. Today Germany has one of the top ten Jewish populations by country, so it appears Germans at large also disagreed with Hitler. Now you could join this debate by showing what evils the Jews did before 1919 and what competent body heard these charges and merited his judgment. If Hitler was right in 1919, the 100k+ German Jews today, without exception, still call unshakably for removal for the crimes 100 years ago. Maybe one of us can convince the other Hitler was right or wrong on this point, or maybe we will agree to disagree having refined what we know about him and about racism in general. But any of those would be preferable to declining to debate, such as by calling it a "prove it loop" (an exercise I have always found stimulating no matter how concretized the interlocutor).