Google Listed 'Nazism' as the Ideology of the California Republican Party (gizmodo.com) 490
Less than a week ago, if you searched for the California Republican Party on Google, you might have read that the political party's ideologies included conservatism, market liberalism, and nazism. The latter listing has since been removed, and Google is blaming the results on Wikipedia "vandalism." From a report: Vice first reported the inclusion of "Nazism" under ideologies in Google's knowledge panel -- the box that shows up to the right of search results. It's unclear how long the term had been there, but the tech giant removed it after being notified by the publication. "We regret that vandalism on Wikipedia briefly appeared on our search results," Google tweeted on Thursday in response to California congressman and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. "This was not the the result of a manual change by Google. We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that happened here."
A slow death (Score:3, Interesting)
Clickbait Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Some jerk edited the Wikipedia page. Google served the information without knowing the content. Once discovered, the page and Google presentation were corrected.
In other extremely important breaking news, it was discovered that a Facebook billboard had "penis" spray painted across it. Users are outraged that the company would display such language in their marketing material.
Re: (Score:3)
They could still only allow content that has stayed up on the page for 3 days without changing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And this is the company that wants us to put our future in its algorithms/AI?
Sorry, either this is revealing Google at its most incompetent, or this is revealing Google's priorities (that is, preventing libel against the right is at the very bottom of its priorities, until something erupts). Either way, it doesn't cast Google in a favorable light.
Re: (Score:3)
If Google are to be believed, they don't do it blindly:
"We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that happened here."
If they did do it blindly I'm sure we would have seen much worse before now.
If you serve up petabytes of information everyday, occasionally something bad is going to slip through.
Very short lived vandalizm (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting that the vandalized version of the page only existed for about a minute, and Google somehow managed to run with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It could just be bad luck (or good luck if you're the vandal), you do it enough times, it's bound to happen at least once, or it could be someone having access to the logs and knowing when the Googlebot was actively indexing the site. The latter being the equivalent of following the Google street view car going around when it reached your town and going ahead of it to pose for it doing the "heil hitler" salute while wearing the Trump golfing outfit with a MAGA hat and a tiki torch in hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, who without access to Wikipedia's server logs or Google's internal information knows when Googlebot is actively indexing the site?
My first guess would have been the vandal used Google's webmaster tool [google.com], but I don't think those are meant to respond to an indexing request within seconds.
Re:Very short lived vandalizm (Score:5, Informative)
Not so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org] seems to be the edit that showed up on Google. It was up for a week before fixed.
Not known how long it was there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe vandalized by the Republican candidates? (Score:2, Interesting)
https://www.jta.org/2018/05/06/news-opinion/neo-nazi-california-senate-candidate-barred-state-republican-party-convention
Oh dear (Score:3)
No. Republicans are not Nazis - and vice versa (Score:3)
At least not all of them, and I hear there are some very fine people on both sides [theatlantic.com].
People, hear me out (Score:5, Interesting)
Synopsis: The division is not left/right; that is the wrong way of approaching the situation. Instead it is individualism versus tribalism.
Here is the story:
Stand and face (let’s say) North. Put your hands together and extend them pointing towards N. Now, open them 90 degrees each until they cut 180-degree arc. Your hands just described the spectrum of regular, let us call it sane (enough) politics. Quadrant I (looking top down) is the right wing, quadrant II is the left wing. You might color them if you like. Let’s say the left is red and the right is blue. Now, what about quadrant III and IV? Those are populated with people who have taken either side to the extreme.
And here is an interesting fact – since we have numerous examples throughout the 20th century of both left and right going crazy (cross culture and cross race mind you!), we have very clear record of the tactics they applied. And they are largely the same! Labor camps – check, both the Nazis and the Commies did it. Group identity – check (superior race against everyone else in one case, the proletariat against everyone else in the other). Overreach of governmental meddling in people’s lives – check. Emphasis on “morality”, “patriotism”, “national pride” – check. Cult of personality – check. Stricter control of the populous, massive secret services and surveillance programs, emphasis on “reporting the undesirables” and “catching the enemy within” – check. Vilifying all who do not belong to said groups and do not sing endlessly the party line – check. So, the color of quadrants III and IV is mostly purple. Those people come from different quadrants but they end up in the same place (while hating each other viciously of course and completely not aware that they are the two sides of the same coin).
So, it seems to me that the actual division we must be aware of is not along the line North – South but East – West. At one end – North stands the sovereignty of the individual and the idea that all systems and ideologies are eventually oppressive so no ideology should be allowed to trump individual human rights and dignity. Equality in front of the law (or God if you will), maximum freedom for the individual to follow his/her ambitions, talents, capabilities, etc. and equality of opportunity are the hallmarks of that ideology. On the other side is the group identity and the toxic tribalism. The individual is but a cog in the great machine of the state. The party line is everything. Everyone else is an enemy. In the pursue of our goals anything goes (because we are right!). “The goals of the group and the greater ways are transcendent and (I am the one that defines them) to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment” – chairman Sheng-ij Yang.
And that is why, for instance, at the moment in the so-called intellectual dark web people as remote in their ideology as Richard Dawkins (fireproof atheist; top dog evolutionary biologists), Stephen Fry (gay; bleeding heart liberal and fireproof atheist who argues that the church is not a force for good; renaissance man), Ben Shapiro (conservative Jew who still thinks being gay is a sin) and Jordan Peterson (quite religious in his own way, fully aware of the dangers posed by people from quadrant III and IV) are allies and speak in one voice against the disappearance of freedom of speech, the cessation of a meaningful dialog between the left and right, the forceful and violent de-platform/shutting of/attacking stints by the extremists, the mainstream media fiasco and so on.I saw it with my own eyes and could hardly stop laughing – Shapiro for example was viciously attacked by both the alt-right and the commies who claimed he is one of the “others”. What can be more revealing than that?
Final note: we absolutely need both sides of the argument to go forward. Either extreme breeds destruction and suffering, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Nazism is the nationalization of businesses via nationalization of the owners. And if they can't nationalize the owner, they divest the owner and put a crony in charge.
That's redistribution of wealth. A hallmark of Leftist ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
Russians and Nazis are mortal enemies. If you are going to slander someone with that sort of crap, you need to choose one. Your partisan nonsense should at least make sense to anyone with some knowledge of the world.
There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as mandated (Score:4, Insightful)
There are real issues out there in the world. Distracting from them by name calling is not helpful
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't know your history. Let's see what an economist says about the matter.
Why not consult an astrologist or a haruspex?
I think most would agree that Thomas Sowell is smarter and better educated than most people who post on slashdot.
Nope. In fact, Thomas Sowell makes a case every week for being anti-intelligent and miseducated.
If he were actually intelligent, he'd probably realize that the whole left-right paradigm is a misconception, and he's only falling into the trap of self-deception by perpetuating it.
This was written back when 0bama was President.
https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist-n742098
Oh? This [telesurtv.net] was written back when Nixon was President:
This 14-page memo was written by Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Harry Shlaudeman, who had been following the reporting
Only half leftists. Replaced class with race (Score:3, Insightful)
The National Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party, aka Nazi party had some leftist ideology, a lot of leftist rhetoric, but can't be accurately classified on the left-right spectrum at all. It was primarily nationalist.
The name, "Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party" fairly accurately represents much of what they SAID; like all politicians what they said isn't what they did. There was a lot of anti-capitalism and especially anti-banker stuff, but Hitler directed that into very different actions. For
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The National Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party, aka Nazi party had some leftist ideology, a lot of leftist rhetoric, but can't be accurately classified on the left-right spectrum at all. It was primarily nationalist.
You'd have a better argument if you went for the left-right spectrum being wrong, but actually, such nationalism falls under the auspices of the right-wing, as originally it was considered part of the French dogma.
The name, "Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party" fairly accurately represents much of what they SAID; like all politicians what they said isn't what they did. There was a lot of anti-capitalism and especially anti-banker stuff, but Hitler directed that into very different actions.
Yep, he gave his preferred Capitalists priority treatment, while punishing the common laborers among the Jews.
For several hundred years, due to Christian religious teaching and kings using loopholes, most banking concerns were run by Jewish people. Hitler used the anti-banker (essentially anti Wall Street) rhetoric and sentiment to go after the Jews, as most bankers were Jewish.
Nope. Very few bankers were Jewish, and very few of the Jews rounded up in the Holocaust were actually bankers.
You're just falling victim to a myth [adl.org] perpetuated by anti-Semitic groups.
I'm
You know you can check facts, history, yourself? (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you know there are more or less objective sources where you can read about history, and look up actual facts, rather than believing whatever crap some activist
blogger spews at you?
Did you know that the United States in 2018 isn't historical Europe?
For a THOUSAND YEARS the Roman Catholic Church taught (and fought) that banking, loaning money at interest, was a sin, usury. Until the fourth century it was looked down upon by most Christians, by the fourth century the Church started making church l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Those on the left and those on the right argue about limited government. "
I agree with most of what you said, and it was well written, except that above line. It is unclear what you mean. You could mean that both argue FOR HAVING limited government, or you could mean that both just argue ABOUT [with each other, presumably] whether the government should be limited or not. Strictly speaking, I would think the latter, not the former.
It is pretty well known that the "left" rarely argues in favor of limi
Re: (Score:3)
It is pretty well known that the "left" rarely argues in favor of limited government, they tend to want more and more government. More laws, more regulations, more taxes, more government spending, more government ownership of infrastructure, services, land, resources, etc, more forced "redistribution of wealth", more Federal instead of State control.
Maybe there are some people on the left who think that way, but that's largely a straw man from Republican propagandists. There are a lot of people that you'd probably call "Liberals" who certainly want limits placed on government, it's just that they want different limits placed in different places. They're less concerned about the government providing you with healthcare, and more concerned about the NSA reading your emails. It's not completely unreasonable.
Just to say it: I'm not a Democrat. I'm act
Re:Only half leftists. Replaced class with race (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Just to say it: I'm not a Democrat. I'm actually pretty conservative, but I increasingly have to argue in defense of "liberals" because Republicans have lost their goddamn minds. At this point, the Democratic party is the conservative party, and the Republican party has embraced radical and reckless policies. They seem content to burn the house down with themselves in it, just so long as Democrats get burned too"
I will say it too: I don't consider myself Democrat nor Republican, perhaps more semi-Libertarian than anything. I think both major parties are crazy and both want to burn down everything. The partisanship and polarization is just insane these days. Both parties seem content to Federalize everything, strip liberty and privacy, spew out endless legislation, and spend until the debt is uncountable. To me, both seem corrupt to the core.... far more concerned about their party and themselves than the country or the citizens.
We desperately need a new voting system in primaries and all elections that will allow for other parties to compete, thrive, and threaten the two major ones who have lost their way. For many of us, neither "main" party aligns well. We end up holding our noses and voting for what we think is the least bad or we are forced into single-issue voting which brings a lot of unwanted baggage with it.
http://fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
Re: (Score:3)
We desperately need a new voting system in primaries and all elections that will allow for other parties to compete...
I don't disagree. The problem is, any change to fix things will require changing laws, which has to be passed by Congress, which is filled with the two parties in power. So basically the political parties need to choose to make themselves less powerful, which they're not going to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty well known that the "left" rarely argues in favor of limited government, they tend to want more and more government. More laws, more regulations, more taxes, more government spending, more government ownership of infrastructure, services, land, resources, etc, more forced "redistribution of wealth", more Federal instead of State control.
the REASON why the left is arguing for 'more government' (which is a sloppy phrase that means almost nothing anymore, but lets use it since you seem to like it)
Re: (Score:2)
but can't be accurately classified on the left-right spectrum at all
Arguably nothing can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Leftists are socialist / communist
Tell that to those who identify as "leftwing anarchists."
Re: (Score:2)
You might be overstating the collectivism here. I know they are the only government I have ever heard of which reduced regulations on firearm ownership. Which does not seem to play into overbearing totalitarian government.
And Hitler and the party hated things like cigarettes, and yet allowed people to choose to smoke if they wanted to.
Killing half the populace isn't individual rights (Score:2)
> You might be overstating the collectivism here.
They reasoned that it was perfectly fine to kill half the individual people, if doing so improved things for the nation as a whole. Their respect for individual rights was literally non-existent - torturing individual people was fine, for the benefit of the whole.
It was collectivism, putting the group over the individual, in by far the most extreme which has ever happened in all of human history.
They used the Jews too (Score:2)
> If the Nazis HATED Capitalists so much then why did they use so many of them to build their Military?
They used the Jews to produce a significant portion of their war materiel too. So Nazis didn't hate Jews?
Internally, Hitler was primarily about power for himself. Externally, his sales pitch was a blend of KKK and Occupy Wall Street.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, because it, again, fails to understand that "left" and "right" do not mean the same thing to different people.
In Europe, "right-wing" means patriotic and nationalist, while "left-wing" means internationalist.
In the United States, "right-wing" means small government and individual freedoms/responsibilities, while "left-wing" means statism and collectivism.
FFS, a French socialist - Le Pen - is referred to a "far right-wing" when every single social and economic policy she has is to the far left of Bernie
le pen is NOT socialist (Score:4, Informative)
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Insightful)
California’s 2018 U.S. Senate election attracted nationwide attention in April 2018, not long after the publication of a poll showing that little-known Republican and committed neo-Nazi Patrick Little had 18 percent of support among likely primary election voters, second to incumbent Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein with 39 percent.
In the SurveyUSA poll, Little — who describes himself as a “white nationalist” — had greater support than four other candidates in the state’s open primary, which candidates of any party (or none) can enter. These included outgoing California Senate President Kevin de Léon, a Democrat, and businessman Rocky de la Fuente, a Republican.
If those poll numbers were to hold, Feinstein and Little would advance from the primary as the two top candidates and contest the general election in November. The Republican party would be represented in a national race by a candidate who advocates a future United States “free from Jews” and has repeatedly and unreservedly expressed anti-semitic and white nationalist views during his campaign.
But this is not limited to California:
Little is the third Republican candidate for national office during the 2018 electoral cycle to have expressed openly anti-semitic and racist views.
In March, former American Nazi Party leader Arthur Jones ran unopposed in the GOP primary for Illinois’ Third U.S. Congressional District, and will represent the party in November’s general election.
In Wisconsin’s First U.S. Congressional District, one of the Republicans seeking to replace retiring House leader Paul Ryan in November is Paul Nehlen, who has described himself as “pro-white” and frequently expresses virulently anti-semitic sentiments on social media.
In February 2018, Nehlen was permanently banned from Twitter after posting a racist cartoon in reference to the actor Meghan Markle — whose mother is black — after her engagement to Prince Harry was announced.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you create a two party system. Dianne Feinstein seems to have quite a bit of support. Anyone who wanted to win in California would declare as Republican. Why do you think that the Democrat Trump ran as a Republican candidate? Because he would have lost the DNC.
Re:There are real issues (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The head of the Republican party says that there are "good people" among the Nazis. And his policies have emboldened the Nazis and similar extremist groups. Not all Republicans are Nazis, but certainly Nazis can now feel comfortable in the Republican party.
Re: (Score:3)
If political ideology were a street the Nazis, Communists, and the Liberals/Progressive would all live a few doors down from one another on the left side of town. He Democrats and the Republicans would be on opposite sides of main street within a block of each other. The Conservatives a bit farther out the right side of town and the Libertarians would be l
Re: (Score:2)
No, Nazis were not leftists, but nevertheless, it is not accurate nor useful to call Republicans Nazis. There are real issues out there in the world. Distracting from them by name calling is not helpful
Republicans are not Nazis, but there is reason for concern.
There are still some conservative Republicans, but true conservatives are becoming rare. The Republican party is becoming dominated by radicals. The party has become increasingly nationalistic and authoritarian. It has become increasingly tolerant of public support of white supremacy.
We haven't hit the point of invading neighboring countries or committing genocide, but Trump has been clear: He wants to overturn the rule of law. He wants to rou
Re: (Score:2)
He wants to round up ethnic minorities and get rid of them. He's advocated murdering religious minorities. He's talked about wanting to do away with elections and be President for life.
You need to take a cold shower. I don't like Trump either but you've been reading too much propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
unless my history teachers from the 80s were wrong, and this predates all this polarized politcal correctness, fascims is the polar opposite of communism/socialism. It came as a knee-jerk reaction of communism taking hold among the self appointed 'eleets' who felt it trendy to call themselves communists. They looked down on the common person with disdain, noses in the air, basking in their sense of superiority. The commoners really resented this, so when the nazi party came about and talked about issues th
Nazis WERE Leftists (Score:3, Interesting)
In denial much? Here [hitler.org]:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
false, nazis were corporate fascists. hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists, if you believe their label you're as dumb as a typical american consumer.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just the "no true Socialism" thing again. Of course the Socialists acted as authoritarian fascists, they have to get the money from SOMEWHERE. If you're going to tell me "oh, they can just print it" then I'll invite you to Brazil or Zimbabwe.
Anyhow, the Nazis were all about taking the wealth of the 1%ers, they just happened to identify those as Jews as there were a lot of Jewish bankers, given that most gentiles didn't want anything to do with usury for a very long time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It's just the natural expansion of the observation that countries with "Democratic" in their name aren't any such thing.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to think that sticking the term "corporate" something means that it is right wing; that is false. Both state corporatism and state capitalism are left wing ideologies; that is, the "corporation" is very much a tool of left wing ideologies, used to control free markets. Right wing ideologies are free market ideologies.
What the Nazis actually did is what leftists in general do: they tightly regulated businesses, highly taxed unearned income, controlled prices and wages, engaged in massive redistribution, massively expanded government welfare systems, provided free education, oppressed and controlled the churches, regulated news media to promote what they considered truth, categorized people into desirable/undesirable, implemented free healthcare and mandated fitness, stimulated the economy through government spending, promoted environmentalism an a return to nature, promoted sustainability, and oppressed their critics. That is, in most policies, European fascists were just like leftists. And until the horrific crimes of European fascists in the 20th century came to light, American leftists were quite laudatory of European fascists.
Nazis were indeed "not socialists", but they were most certainly leftists and ideologically very close to socialism and progressivism.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Interesting)
The Wikipedia entry states "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics" [wikipedia.org]
Hitler claimed to be neither left, nor right wing and criticised both, while using elements that were, at the time, both left and right.
Yes, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but that quote has a couple of attestations. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a similar (or better) standard of evidence to support your claim. Your argument and list of traits you consider left is a mix of traints common with some politically left organisations and some authoritarian organisations (some of which are left). It ignores traditionally right elements of the Nazis (like nationalism and anti-liberalism). It's unbalanced and superficial.
The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is authoritarian.
That authoritarian governments arise from politically left parties is obvious (just as it is obvious that they also arise from politically right parties). That authoritarian governments share common traits should be obvious. Identifying authoritarian traits in politically left governments and comparing those to authoritarian traits in the nazis and declaring the nazis politically left is lazy, dishonest or ignorant.
Politically left fascism kind of exists, mostly as a criticism of the extreme left, but it's a new term and not well defined - mostly it seems to be used as an epithet.
Frankly, both ends of the political spectrum tend to look pretty similar when they get extreme enough and it would be charitable to think that this is where most people are getting confused.
TL:DR
Nazis are usually considered 'far right'. They claimed to be syncretism of left and right and criticised both while taking elements from both. They were fascist and authoratarian (redundant). Observing that the authoritarian 'far left' and nazis have something in common is obvious. Arguing that this makes nazis left is shallow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't "accuse others", I gave a long list of Nazi policies that coincide with leftist policies and the historical close connections between fascists and leftists. You are welcome to try to try to refute my points with facts. You will find that I am correct: fascism and socialism are both leftist ideologies and closely connected.
You do make an impor
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't "accuse others", I gave a long list of Nazi policies that coincide with leftist policies and the historical close connections between fascists and leftists.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him. They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology, differing only that by either the state owning factories, railways, etc outright, or under fascism, the entities already in charge were simply placed under government control.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles you'd like. If you are being intellectually honest in the slightest one would have to recognize the obvious and glaring similarities in the majority of principles declared if one simply puts them all into contemporary terms, but yet people insist otherwise.
http://www.historyplace.com/wo... [historyplace.com]
Strat
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Informative)
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
Except that he avoids traditionally 'right' elements of the Nazis, irgnores that the Nazis claimed to be neither left, nor right but a syncretism of both (and hence have elements that are both traditionally left and traditionally right), listed elements that are authoritarian and by the association with authoritarian-left claims the Nazis were left.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him.
And Hitler both criticised and praised Stalin. Because, you know, Nazis are hard to define on a single axis of left and right.
They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology
Sure, if you ignore what that means, ignore Hitler's criticism of same and the elements of Nazism that are traditionally right.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles
*sigh*. OK. I'll reference by number for brevity. [wikipedia.org]
1. is right (nationalism)
2. is neither (world recognition, lifting of sanctions)
3. is neither or right (demand for land)
4-6. is far-right (citizenship tied to race)
7. is left-ish (state provided opportunity for livlihood - note this is a weaker left than traditional communist/socialist left where the state provides the livlihood, not just the opportunity.)
8. right-ish (limitations on immigration. Traditionally right, and linked to the far-right racism, above, but given the period and the context may not have been as right as it now looks. Certainly not traditionally left)
9. neither or weakly left (equality of citizens. Weakly left because of statement about obligations. Better seen as authoritarian IMHO)
10. far-left (citizens must be productive and have an obligation to the state)
11. left (breaking of unearned income and abolition of debt slavery. Again, I'm moderating this from 'far-left' because of the historical situation. Definately not right)
12. unknown/arguable (abolition of war profiteering. Left if you consider any interference in a free market left. Neither if you consider production through war is frequently nationalised even by capitalist/free-market countries, right if you consider the merging of state and corporation esp. in war production)
13-14. far-left and far-right (nationalisation of industry. Corporatism or communism arrive at the merging of state and corporation from different directions but the same outcome)
15. left (age welfare)
16. unique-right-ish (creation of middle class (right), seizing of assets (left) for loan to small business (right-ish))
17. left-ish (removing land speculation, and allowing for expropriation)
18. extremist (death to certain classes of criminal)
19. neither (rule of law)
20. left-ish (education)
21. left-ish (abolition of child labour, provision of health and sporting facilities)
22. right or neither (national army)
23. neither or far-right (citizenship and the press)
24. neither or far-right (freedom of religion and/or promotion of Christianity)
25. authoritarian (centralised power)
I make about 9-10 right, anything from weakly right through far right. I make about 11 left with similar caveats. Then there's a few that don't fit even within those fairly broad catch-alls. We can argue specifics and there are some I'll accept could go either way, but that's my point.
Nazis borrowed from both left and right, criticised both, were fascist and hence authoritarian. Calling them 'left' is true, but only partly so and is just as true to call them 'right, more true to call them 'far right' and better to add an extra axis and start adding an authoritarian adjective.
If you are being intellectually honest
About that ...
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Insightful)
And thank you for a civil discussion on an often heated topic.
Fascism is authoritarian, and both the far right and far left end up as authoritarian, which makes them all share a lot of characteristics. Nazism was fascist, and had some traits that were more closely far right than far left (don't take my word for it, read the wikipedia article and follow the references). To that end, the elements I consider to be typical of the far right in the Nazis are also likely to be elements that are fascist. Elements that are far left are less likely to be classically fascist although they are just as authoritarian. I've tried to distinguish between authoritarian and things that are more definately right/left.
I don't think I've used a nazi=fascist=far-right=nazi loop, but that's the problem with unconscious bias; it's hard to see.
specifically;
4-6 are citizenship and race. The right is usually focused on its own citizens, uses nationalism and in the far right can become xenophobic. I think this is a pretty clear case for being classically 'right' and then exaggerated by the far right.
13-14 I acknowledge as being both far right and far left. It's a failure mode both can reach, although from different paths.
23 and 24 I acknowledge can be argued to be either neither or possibly far right. I think this is a case where traits that are present in the moderate right (citizens first, and the sort of conservatism that values national culture/religion) become exaggerated by the far right but I can see an argument that sees these points as being so far removed from the concerns of the moderate right that they are qualitatively different. ... and that's all I identified as 'far right'. One that's an exaggeration the nationalism to the point of xenophobia. One that's as much far right as far left and one that's arguable.
I'm genuinely curious, can you provide an example where you think I've used a circular definition?
---
You list a number of things that the right have endorsed, but you've omitted a number as well. The right is usually nationalistic, the left usually internationalisation. The right is usually (in the modern era) conservative culturally and socially as well as fiscally, the left is usually progressive and/or liberal. Personally, I'd add that the right advocates individual rights and responsibilities, the left focusses on collective rights and responsibilities.
Specifically the nationalism - which when distorted by extremism becomes the racism/xenophobia of the far-right and can give rise to militarism. I don't know. Maybe that's where I'm arguing circularly. The far left can be just as bloodthirsty, but it's usually classist, not racist, so I do think that racism is usually a far-right phenomenon.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling NASA a "social program" is assinine.
Although it might perhaps be spun as a "government monopoly" on spaceflight. Even that falls down since there was an entire privately owned aerospace industry that grew to support the space program.
You're trying to conflate "pork" with socialism. This tired nonsense started during the election. All it does is make Democrats look stupid.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't list policies that were exclusive to the left, I listed policies that the left and fascism shared.
Yes, that was a policy of the progressive movement. In the US, this was the policy primarily of the Democratic party.
So? Catholics and protestants killed each other by the millions over minor differences in religion, yet both are Christians. Closely related ideologies often hate each other fiercely, for the simple reason that they are competing for the same pool of followers. Fascists and Marxists clearly hated each other, but at their core, they are very similar ideologies.
The evidence is crystal clear: fascism is a modification of socialism that replaces "class" by "nation" and adopts some ideas from the progressive movement. This is true both if you look at the history of the parties and at their political programs. Both fascism and socialism are totalitarian, anti-capitalist ideologies, and both in in practice lead to mass killings and economic ruin.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do wealthy industrialists in the US support the Democrats and even self-proclaimed socialists [foxnews.com]? Why did Patty Hearst join the
Symbionese Liberation Army? For the same reasons: the sex is good, or they actually believe in the i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists
The important thing is not whether or not the policies they implemented were actually socialist (which inevitably draws the not-true-socialism argument). The important thing is that they espoused socialism. It reinforces the trend, that political parties that espouse socialism tend to institute totalitarian dictatorships.
Re: (Score:2)
corporate fascists
What is that even supposed to mean? Do you mean that Nazi germany was controlled by corporations? Which ones?
Or were they fascist towards corporations? Do you mean like they exerted totalitarian control over the market?
Re: (Score:2)
When a party is that far to the left or right, does it matter which?
They both have an overriding attribute which is that they're bat shit crazy!
That being said yes I think calling the Nazis leftists is inaccurate, they governed a system of corporate fiefdoms that served the state and reduced humanity to being nothing more than resources to be utilised however it was needed and tossed into ovens when it was not.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Informative)
See, it's stupid bullshit repeated by crossburners like this that causes so many problems.
The word is not "national socialists". German language commonly merges words for new concepts. The word they used was "nationalsozialistische". All one word, which dumbasses who don't speak German well try to split apart in order to translate poorly. The word itself accurately translated would come closest to "national social order" or "national social control". The party rhetoric focused around ideas of racial purity ("völkische bewegung" and "volksgemeinschaft", e.g. "race movement" and "race community" from the german word "volk" referring to a specific ethnic group).
What they MEANT is the same thing that Repugnant Klan radio hosts and politicians like Michael Savage and Donald Trump mean when they shout "blood and soil", "borders language culture", and other racial supremacist jargon. They're a bunch of fucking nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You got your parties mixed up: the party of the KKK is the Democrats. Hillary was best buddies with a former KKK member. [snopes.com]
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:4, Informative)
you do realize the history of the KKK was drenched deeply in the Democrat party right? It was founded by southern democrats to prevent black people from voting. Its amazing how often the Republican party gets blamed for racism. The republicans have their list of flaws.. but KKK is definitely not one of them.
the civil war, a bunch of southern democrats, angry at the election of a republican president, seceded from the union to form a new nation, one were slavery was to remain legal.
Jim Crow laws, enacted by white-Democratic dominated state legeslatures in the 19th century to mandate racial segregation
civil rights act of 1964 - Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats
maybe you should stop drinking the coolaid and realized that everything you've been told is a lie. There isnt one party worth this loyalty from you. They are all undeserving, they just have manipulated you into thinking all the world problems lay squarely on their competition. Its simply not mathematically possible for one side to do no right, and the other to do no wrong.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile back in reality:
"Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump administration, has expressed his enthusiasm for the alt right, a loose network of individuals and groups that promote white identity and reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Alt right adherents oppose multiculturalism, immigration and often claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to advocate for “white genocide.” These messages are often delivered via social media, using “ironic” memes and/or slogans.
Bannon “proudly” told a Mother Jones reporter at the 2016 Republican National Convention “we’re the platform for the alt right,” referring to Breitbart News, which he headed at the time. ...
When President Trump named Bannon as his chief strategist, numerous well-known white supremacists celebrated the appointment. David Duke called the selection of Bannon “excellent,” adding that Bannon was “basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going.” Peter Brimelow, who runs the racist site VDare, said that the Bannon hire was “amazing.”
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, and Rocky Suhayda of the American Nazi Party predicted that Bannon would help hold Trump to his campaign promises on immigration. ...
While still at the helm of Breitbart, Bannon made a number of comments about the West being at war with Islam. At a speech at the Vatican in 2014, he said, “We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism.” During 2015 and 2016 broadcasts of the Breitbart News Daily radio show, he called Islam “the most radical religion in the world” and alleged that “Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated the U.S. government and news media,” according to an article in USA Today."
https://www.adl.org/resources/... [adl.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also this:
"On Thursday, BuzzFeed News’ Joseph Bernstein published the results of a massive investigation into the strategic and ideological inner workings of Breitbart News, and particularly the actions and opinions of former Trump adviser and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon and former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
Based on internal emails and documents from the company, the expose reveals how Bannon, Yiannopoulos, and a large cast of other Breitbart players and employees worked to develop and a
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See also: Southern Strategy. You cross burners always like to pretend the last century of history doesn't exist. Back to the trailer park with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The ADL is a racist (anti-white) and ideologically motivated organization with very little credibility.
At the time, the people who chose to use the label alt-right were mostly a bunch of young men who were tired of the hypocrisy of politicians, as well as tired of the identity politics game that leftists are playing (which is nothing but racism and sexism). If anything, the majority of the alt-right were true anti-racist. When in 2017 the alt-right radicalized itself, most of the people using the label alt-
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives were the cross burners; in the 1800s and early 1900s that was the Democrats. Today, the Repugnant Klan Party hangs its banner on shouting "conservatism" over and over again, and has since Nixon's KKK Southern Strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should try not being an anonymous coward. But then... we saw what you did in Charlottesville - Nazi.
Re:There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as manda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for that whole socialized medicine thing. Some Nazi policies were actually very socialist. They very much resemble things being done by "Nordic socialist utopias" right now.
The real problem here is a bogus one dimensional approach to describing political parties that allows people like you to pretend that Fascists, Communist, and Socialists are on opposite sides of the spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on the problem. And the very concepts of left and right economics totally breaks down when power starts to be concentrated. I think the authoritarian-anarchist spectrum tends to be the most important.
Now, you are correct that they had a lot of policies that were for the masses. However, that's something that predates socialism, and even applies to criminal organizations, businesses, and other power structures. Bread and circuses, church mandated holidays, and all of that. The only re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Economically they were squarely in the center. They believed in the efficiency of free markets, yet also believed that it was possible to do bad in such a space and that it was the duty of the state to fetter the market if it was not working in best interests of the people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, socialists have a problem remembering the past and force everyone else to repeat it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this trait isn't just limited to socialists. See: BUT BUT BUT THE REPUBLICANS FREED THE SLAVES!
Cognitive fail.
When Republicans freed the slaves, they were on the progressive side of the spectrum and the Democrats were not. They switched places in the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Maybe I'm the one with the cognitive fail. Perhaps you were saying exactly what I said. If so, sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
And those who cannot let go of the past are doomed to be defined by it.
The past is a lesson. Not a definition.
Re: (Score:2)
If the past is doomed to repeat itself then I want a dinosaur as a pet.
Go ahead and get one at a pet store. Lots of dinosaurs survived the mass extinction event. Just not the big ones.
Re: There are real issues [Re:Heil Hillary as man (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Have you seen the leader of the Republican Party?
>
> Sorry, Nazis took children from their parents, at least...
This is true of law enforcement anywhere. Otherwise you end up with something that really does look like a concentration camp. The Republican didn't invent this stuff. He's not pushing things any farther than his predecessors.
Partisans were just willing to ignore this stuff before.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the people who really hate America are stirring up and attempting to radicalise you, rather than letting you see that you can accomplish more by finding common ground and realising that while you have some differences, talking about them civilly and rationally and working together in areas of agreement is likely to be far more useful than name calling, finger pointing or tribalism. Gun rights and gun restrictions - they support and promote both in ever more extreme fashions.
I'm not American. I really ha
Re: (Score:2)
I had several relatives that were there, some died.
Nazis were totalitarians, they wanted industry/Germany to prosper, not individuals, they did not have social welfare.
The holocaust was real.
Nazis came to power because Hitler's party ignored the rule of law and used fake newspaper articles to fabricate stories about political rivals and groups.
The Russians taking over East Germany were worse than the Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bernie is far and away the most popular politician in the country. Clinton, by contrast, is basically the only person that could have managed to lose a general election to Trump.
Also, the demographics of the general election and the Dem primaries are very different. Plus, Clinton cheated.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the demographics of the general election and the Dem primaries are very different.
Wouldn't you say that Bernie is more likely to win in the Dem primaries than in a general election?
Re: (Score:2)
> Yeah, sure.. you republicans now call legitimate news "fake news" but it's the democrats who are in a total information blackout.
MS-13
The media gets caught in a lie and then doubles down on that lie. Liberal politicians see that and declare "Hold My Beer" and go on to defend MS-13 and object to how they were characterized by Trump.
Charlottesville is NOTHING compared to that.
That's just one easy example that doesn't require alternate sources and fact checking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny because Republicans are nearly all infrastructure socialists [forbes.com]. In fact they're even trying to increase [ballotpedia.org] the road subsidy [uspirg.org]!
Remember, the opposite of socialism is anarchy. Capitalism is somewhere between the two extremes.
Re:We're not socialists! (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Re: (Score:2)
through taxes and regulation
What? No, in real socialism the government owns all property, so it would be pretty silly to tax or regulate themselves....
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you would. You want to dox them and make them unemployable. Liberals engage in Nazi style virtual lynch mobs trying to harm people they disagree with.
Liberal publications complain about the very existence of people that disagree with them regardless of whether or not any actual action is carried out.
The left has even given up on free speech neglecting the fact that real Nazis actually beat people up. The real problem was that they took action. They didn't just say "mean things". You don't have to make
Re: (Score:2)
They actually removed that phrase a while ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It depends on what "wealth transfers" you choose to count.
For example, if you counted the Federal state-tax income credit, then California jumps to the #1 beneficiary of Federal transfers, with New York #2 right behind them.
But nah, you choose to count only those tax credits and payments that produce the outcome you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically they are fascists and the name of the party was nicknamed by the Poms as being Nazi's. So not even a political ideology, just branding and for example the word socialism just thrown in there for marketing purposes and not because they were socialists, they were fascists, which is a combinant of private companies and government, acting as one ie the US government is a fascist government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], still little 'f' though and not yet capital 'F' but it looks to be going the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time a liberal *genuinely* attempts to compare the republican party (or infact, anyone, including other liberals they don't agree with) as a nazi, they lose favour.
They look stupid, they look ridiculous, they look crazy. It's not a good look. The endless name calling and branding is mind boggling, how people can be just that dense.
Worst part is for the ex-lefties who are now centrists or perhaps still somewhat left. They don't want to vote right but they feel compelled to, because they can't bring