We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, August 9. 2018
Richard Jarecki, Doctor Who Conquered Roulette, Dies at 86
CAL POLY TO REQUIRE PROFS TO SUBMIT ‘DIVERSITY STATEMENT’ AMID CRACKDOWN ON WHITE STUDENTS
American Jews: oppressed minority or privileged ?
Rabbi Sacks: On not being a victim
Meet America's Elite Farm Subsidy Club
Hall of Famer Jim Brown says he'd never kneel during anthem
Why Chicago can’t get a handle on deadly shootings
Drug gangs killing eachother. Maybe Chicago doesn't care about that
"Heavily Armed" Muslim Extremists Arrested In NM; Trained 11 Children To Commit School Shootings
The Great White Culture War
Never will you hear the Progressive say “this is good enough, we can stop now.”
The Elite Freaks Out When Trump Puts Americans First
Trump May Lose Star on Walk of Fame, But Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey Won't
Americans Give Trump An 'A' For Economy
STEELE, SIMPSON, AND OHR LINKED WITH RUSSIAN OLIGARCH
Beijing demands Christians infuse faith with 'Chinese characteristics' amid crackdown on religion
Saudi Arabia crucified a man in Mecca while aggressively calling out Canada over human rights
China has had a strategy to supplant the United States as the dominant military and economic power since 1949.
How to Combat the Left’s ‘Alternative’ Israel Brainwashing - My time among the propagandists
Tracked: Aug 12, 09:26
Tracked: Aug 12, 09:33
Tracked: Aug 12, 10:12
Tracked: Aug 12, 10:31
Tracked: Aug 12, 10:31
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Drug gangs killing each other. Maybe Chicago doesn't care about that.
One would hope they'd care about innocents getting caught in the crossfire but, more likely, they just won't let a good crisis go to waste.
How about a little more poetry for the Left, via Frank Sinatra...
Never will you hear the Progressive say “this is good enough, we can stop now.”
Yeah. First reformers want to free the slaves. Then they want them to have equal rights. Then they want women to have the vote. When will they stop!?
Leftists often compare Rightists to Nazis.
Nazis are a subset of the Right. That doesn't mean that if you are on the Right that you are a Nazi. Rightism is a broad spectrum of beliefs, from timid conservative to reactionary, and they come in many flavors, ranging from anarchist to totalitarian.
Nazis obsessed over purity of race. Stalinists obsessed over purity of political beliefs. Jihadists obsess over purity of religious belief. But purity is always there.
Sure. However, to be an extremist, you have to believe in extreme methods, that the ends justify the means. Otherwise, you might just be a stickler for perfection.
Z: Yeah. First reformers want to free the slaves. Then they want them to have equal rights. Then they want women to have the vote. When will they stop!?
With the exception of women's suffrage, those reformers were not Progressives, they were Republicans and even then, the Suffrage Movement started long before the Progressive Era (and had much more support from Republicans than Democrats) which was notable for electing a racist for president - Woodrow Willson.
Z: Nazis are a subset of the Right. That doesn't mean that if you are on the Right that you are a Nazi. Rightism is a broad spectrum of beliefs, from timid conservative to reactionary, and they come in many flavors, ranging from anarchist to totalitarian.
So not all those on the Right are Nazis. How generous of you! Nazis were socialists (though not in the same vein as Communits). Their policies track the Democrat party pretty closely - they implemented high taxes on the wealthy and industry, require increased pensions, profit sharing in big businesses, nationalized trusts, communalization of large stores, ban unearned income. In addition to all that, they fashioned some of their racial laws after the Democrat's Jim Crow laws as well as borrowing Progressive's views on eugenics.
We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalist economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
- Adolf Hitler May 1, 1927
mudbug: With the exception of women's suffrage, those reformers were not Progressives
If you use Progressive as a proper noun, then the Progressive Party has been of negligible consequence for quite some time. If you use progressive as a term for someone who advocates social reform, especially someone who thinks government has a role in social reform, then the term would certainly apply to the abolitionists.
mudbug: they were Republicans
Huh? Republican Teddy Roosevelt founded the Progressive Party.
mudbug: the Suffrage Movement started long before the Progressive Era
The Progressive Era, proper noun, ended in the 1920s.
mudbug: So not all those on the Right are Nazis. How generous of you!
It has nothing to do with generosity, but with how the terms are used. Think about why everyone says NeoNazis are on the extreme political right. Think about why no one says King Louis XVI was on the political left.
mudbug: Nazis were socialists
A right wing militaristic society can exhibit forms of socialism, such as everyone eating in the same mess and having free healthcare. It's still right wing because power is strictly hierarchical.
mudbug: Their policies track the Democrat party pretty closely
Oh gee whiz. The Nazis undertook a campaign to subjugate other nations, and to wipe out the Jews.
Nazis are socialists and share nearly every political desire with the communists other than collective ownership. Nazis as well as fascists allow corporatist owners that follow the mandates of the ruling elite. Communists, Nazis, fascists, and Islamists are ALL on the authoritarian, micromanaging, nanny state end of politics that kill anyone opposed to their rule...even each other. Left and right are nonsensical and were designed to be nonsensical so that progressives could dump political junk on the capitalists and Christians. Authoritarian progressive bots can not seem to accept their political mandates and heaven on earth philosophy are in direct opposition to freewill capitalism and Christianity.
indyjonesouthere: Nazis are socialists and share nearly every political desire with the communists other than collective ownership.
That is incorrect. The communist's political desire is absolute equality. The fascist's political desire is absolute inequality.
indyjonesouthere: Communists, Nazis, fascists, and Islamists are ALL on the authoritarian
That is correct. However, authoritarianism is orthogonal to the left-right spectrum. There are authoritarians on the left and there are authoritarians on the right. There are anarchists on the left, and there are anarchists on the right. And points in between.
indyjonesouthere: Left and right are nonsensical
No. It refers to the the goal, whether more equality on the left, or hierarchy on the right.
Wrong again...you are using the usual authoritarian progressive definitions. Those definitions are no more accurate than the current "liberal" definition. It is a trait of authoritarians to define the definition and if that is insufficient they will redefine according to their vocabulary. Simply look at how the progressives have been redefining the 2nd amendment since FDR's administration when the sawed off barrel on a shotgun suddenly became illegal. Left/right is a progressive/communist/fascist definition and nothing more. Political science is not science...it just sounds good to the progressive academics that took over the universities. Hierarchy is in every human institution on earth...it means nothing except to political scientists that can't do science and need to lay BS off on Christians and Capitalists. Their is nothing more unequal than the "equality" between elitists and peons in an authoritarian system. The mandated education system in this country and most of the west is a propaganda machine designed to keep the big government machine running well for the elitists and uniparty progressives and it wonders every closer to the totalitarians political and economic mandates. Totalitarian thugs inundate every fissure of education and government and it is why Wilson began the administrative state....a permanent body of so called experts that can't run anything without running it off the tracks but are good little mandate followers and the constitution be damned. The authoritarian Islamists, Marxists, fascist, Nazi, progressive and liberal bent kill, beat, and mutilate any dissention. The anarchist end opposite of the authoritarians want no government with everyone on their own...a brief view of a Constitution class at Hillsdale college will show that the founding fathers aimed for a small government that fell in between these two extremes. What we have now is thug government with an administrative and unaccountable administrative state that is never up for election. That administrative state and big government need to be dumped if we are to live in liberty. All the nanny staters must go and preferably back to Europe, Africa, or asia.
Let's keep it simple for you Zach...A communists political desire is for control, a fascists political desire is for control, a Nazis political desire is for control, a progressives political desire is for control. All the rest of the gibberish is political delusion by political scientists of the academic persuasion. Authoritarians are made up of the Communist, Nazi, Fascist, Islamist and progressive theorists who actually think there is a real difference between them when there is little difference between them...there is only competition between them for followers. There is absolutely NO equality in authoritarian political systems such as Communists, Nazis, fascists, islamists, progressives, etc....they each display radical inequality and always will and they will always rule in a chicken pecking order. That is reality...the rest is theoretical BS although they always demand they operated with good intentions. None of them belong here...they must go back to their dysfunctional homeland and make their political theories work there before they bring that trash here. It will be a long wait.
Zteam: That is incorrect. The communist's political desire is absolute equality. The fascist's political desire is absolute inequality.
Rather simplistic, insofar that when in power both Nazis and Communists insisted on a party elite running things. Both Commies and Nazis ruled by the top-down method. Both expressed sympathy for those lower down- be they "masses" or be they "volk" - but both the Nazis and the Reds insisted the party elite would run things.
Hitler's Table Talk: 1941 - 1944 w preface by H.H Trevor-Roper is an invaluable source. Dixit Hitler:
There's nothing astonishing about the fact that Communism had its strongest bastion in Saxony, or that it took us time to win over the Saxon workers to our side. Nor is it astonishing that they are now counted amongst our most loyal supporters. The Saxon bourgeoisie was incredibly narrow-minded. These people insisted that we were mere Communists. Anyone who proclaims the right to social equality for the masses is a Bolshevik!The way in which they exploited the home worker was unimaginable. It's a real crime to have turned the Saxon workers into proletarians. ...The Z-Team's claim that Nazis were for "absolute inequality" is contradicted by Hitler himself, who stated that Nazi desire for "social equality for the masses" caused them to be mistaken for "mere Communists."
I don't blame the small man for turning Communist; but I blame the intellectual who did nothing but exploit other people's poverty for other ends. When one thinks of that riff-raff of a bourgeoisie,even to-day one sees red. (p25-26)
Hitler found more in common with the Reds than just "social equality for the masses."
Moreover, the Communists and ourselves were the only parties that had women in their ranks who shrank from nothing. It's with fine people like those that one can hold a State (p113)Both Hitler and the Reds scorned the bourgeois.
I understand why the bourgeois bristle at the prospect of being governed by people like us. Compared with us, the Social Democrats numbered in their ranks men with much better outward qualifications—from the point of view of the bourgeois, I mean. The bourgeois could only be terrified as they witnessed the coming of this new society. But / knew that the only man who could be really useful to us was the man capable of mounting on the barricades. (p 145)[quote]
In Hitler's opinion former Reds became the best supporters of the Nazis. [quote]Later on, the Reds we had beaten up became our best supporters, (p144)
In looking at the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, Hitler saw the possibility of the Falangists making common cause with the Reds. Hitler did not like the clerico-monarchial tendencies of Franco, and saw the possibility of the Reds and Falangists uniting to get rid of "the clerico-monarchical muck."
One sees only too clearly from this sort of thing how the Spanish State is rushing towards fresh disaster. The priests and the monarchists—the same mortal enemies who opposed the resurgence of our own people—have joined together to seize power in Spain. If a new civil war breaks out, I should not be surprised to see the Falangists compelled to make common cause with the Reds to rid themselves of the clerico-monarchical muck. (page 526)
Consider Hitler's view of Stalin.
Stalin is one of the most extraordinary figures in world history. (p 14)
It is very stupid to sneer at the Stakhanov system. The arms and equipment of the Russian armies are the best proof of its efficiency in the handling of industrial man-power. Stalin, too, must command our unconditional respect. In his own way he is a hell of a fellow ! He knows his models, Genghiz Khan and the others, very well, and the scope of his industrial planning is exceeded only by our own Four Year Plan. And there is no doubt that he is quite determined that there shall be in Russia no unemployment such as one finds in such capitalist States as the United States of America. (p 593)
Hitler saw much in common with the Reds. His enmity with the Reds came from their being a rival for power.
Correction: Both Hitler and the Reds scorned the bourgeois.
I understand why the bourgeois bristle at the prospect of being governed by people like us. Compared with us, the Social Democrats numbered in their ranks men with much better outward qualifications—from the point of view of the bourgeois, I mean. The bourgeois could only be terrified as they witnessed the coming of this new society. But / knew that the only man who could be really useful to us was the man capable of mounting on the barricades. (p 145)
In Hitler's opinion former Reds became the best supporters of the Nazis.
Later on, the Reds we had beaten up became our best supporters, (p144)
indyjonesouthere: you are using the usual authoritarian progressive definitions.
No. We are using the standard definition. We provided scholarly examples above. Consider also that Neo-Nazis are nearly always said to be on the extreme political right.
indyjonesouthere: A communists political desire is for control, a fascists political desire is for control, a Nazis political desire is for control.
You are confusing means and ends. Hitler used tanks. Eisenhower used tanks. That doesn't mean they are the same ideologically.
indyjonesouthere: Authoritarians are made up of the Communist, Nazi, Fascist, Islamist and progressive theorists who actually think there is a real difference between them when there is little difference between them
The similarity is that they are extremists, so believe the ends justify the means. But ideologically they are very different, and that's why they manifest themselves differently.
Gringo: Rather simplistic, insofar that when in power both Nazis and Communists insisted on a party elite running things.
Sure. Marxist theory is that there is a transitional state, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This again confuses means and ends. Fascists and Marxists both use authoritarian means, but to very different ideological ends.
Gringo: Both expressed sympathy for those lower down- be they "masses" or be they "volk"
The Nazis only included Aryans in the populism. Everyone else was of an inferior race, and subject to subordination or subjugation. Communists divided on class lines, which could be redrawn or eliminated.
Gringo: The arms and equipment of the Russian armies are the best proof of its efficiency in the handling of industrial man-power.
Again, confusing means and ends. Hitler used authoritarian means, but was on the right (the proposed end being a strictly hierarchical society). Stalin used authoritarian means, but was on the left (the proposed end being strict egalitarianism). The left-right spectrum is the egalitarian-hierarchy spectrum, which is orthogonal to the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum.
You are using the standard progressive academic definition and calling it the norm much the same way the academic progressives are defining homosexuality and trannies as normal and are now pushing pedophilia as "normal" and all by redefining the concept as the "standard definition". That is just so academically "cute". The authoritarians are the same ideologically whether its Auschwitz, the Holodomor, the red guards 4 olds, or the killing fields. The means and the ends do not differ. If you resist you die and it is ALWAYS about control...the rest is simply progressive delusion. Ideologically they are all authoritarian extremists and differ only in the smallest degree on how centralized the economy will become...shall we have corporatists or a party member assigned to the task. Central planning and central control...the only equality is in death.
indyjonesouthere: You are using the standard progressive academic definition and calling it the norm much the same way the academic progressives are defining homosexuality and trannies as normal
That's an obvious category error. The definition of homosexual hasn't changed.
Homosexuality hasn't changed but considering it normal has changed...that is typical authoritarian "redefinition". And why leave out pedophilia...progressive authoritarians are working very hard to "normalize" it as the "standard definition". You are simply redefining a perversion. The perversion has not changed...only how you want it viewed.
indyjonesouthere: Homosexuality hasn't changed but considering it normal has changed...that is typical authoritarian "redefinition".
We note your correct use of scare quotes. We were discussing the definitions of political left and right. That's why it was a category error.
The terms left and right with regards to political philosophy originated at the time of the French Revolution. The royalists, those who wanted to maintain the traditional hierarchical society, sat on the right; while those who advocated for more equality sat on the left. Modern usage tracks with the historical meaning.
Using a French definition is hilarious. Is that the Vichy French or the Mitterrand French or perhaps the Islamic french? They are the same dysfunctional authoritarians. Keep the left/right definitions in france or at least Europe where authoritarianism reigns. The EU government is a perfect example of a Europe that is coming apart at the seams. Neither they nor there definitions belong here. So said the American revolutionaries.
indyjonesouthere: Using a French definition is hilarious.
Handwaving. Where did you think the terms came from? The history shows the deep roots of the political terminology.
As a side-note, a large portion of words in the English language comes from Latin sources, primarily French. While meanings do change, in the case of the left-right political distinction, the meanings have been relatively stable, albeit while the center has moved.
Again, confusing means and ends. Hitler used authoritarian means, but was on the right (the proposed end being a strictly hierarchical society). Stalin used authoritarian means, but was on the left (the proposed end being strict egalitarian
Would you agree with the following?
Real communism has never been tried.
Would you agree with the following?
Real Fascism has never been tried.
Gringo: Would you agree with the following? Real communism has never been tried.
Gringo: Would you agree with the following? Real Fascism has never been tried.
So, returning to the point that you and others are confusing ends with means. Communists desire a classless and stateless society with peace and prosperity. They believe that a dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary intermediate step. Their position is hopeless, though, as it is based on a flawed understanding of humanity and human society. Because they are extremists, that is, believe the ends justify the means, this has led to horrible abuses. Yet, because the goal is absolute (and unattainable) equality, they are on the political left. Fascists believe in a hierarchical state defined by conflict and war. Dictatorship is intrinsic to this vision. Hence, they are on the political right. The means is authoritarianism, but the ends are different.
Authoritarianism is orthogonal to the left-right egalitarian-hierarchical spectrum. There are authoritarians on the left and on the right. There are anarchists on the left and on the right.
ZTeam: Nazis are a subset of the Right.
Not according to Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propagandist and probably the most intellectual of the Nazis. Dr. Goebbels once expressed a strong admiration for Lenin. Wikiquote: Joseph Goebbels.
Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.
• As quoted in The New York Times, “Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,” November 28, 1925 (Goebbels' speech Nov. 27, 1925)
"From the Vaults: New York Times, 1925" provides more information on the NYT article.
HITLERITE RIOT IN BERLINAt "an article" in "From the Vaults", there is a link to a PDF copy of the NYT article.
Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin
New York Times, November 28, 1925, p.4.
BERLIN. Nov. 27. – The National Socialist-Labor Party, of which Adolf Hitler is a patron and father, persists in believing Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted in a party meeting. Two weeks ago an attempted discussion of this subject led to one death, sixty injuries and $5,000 damages to beer glasses, tables, chairs, windows and chandeliers in Chemnitz. Last night, Dr. Göbells tried the experiment in Berlin and only police intervention prevented a repetition of the Chemnitz affair.
On the speaker’s assertion that Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses. When this sort of ammunition was exhausted a free fight in which fists and knives played important roles was indulged in. Later a gang marched to the offices of the socialist paper Vorwärts and smashed plate-glass windows. Police made nineteen arrests.
Gringo: Not according to Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Fascism wasn't well-defined until the 1930s, when it shifted to the far right. Mussolini's essay The Doctrine of Fascism discusses the evolution to the belief in a single totalitarian leader, and wars of conquest to give meaning to the nation and its people.
So Mussolini was the big authority when it came to Fascism? If, according to Z-Team, Mussolini was the big authority when it came to Fascism, then Hitler did whatever Mussolini did. Then explain why Hitler did genocide big time and Mussolini did not.
History of the Jews in Italy
However, at least until the promulgation of the 1938 racial laws, a number of Italian Jews were sympathetic to the regime and occupied significant offices and positions in politics and economy.
It is estimated that 230 Italian Jews participated in the October 1922 March on Rome that brought about Mussolini's ascent to power....
The Italian colonial authorities in Ethiopia after the conquest of this African state came into contact with the Beta Israel community and greatly favoured them, enacting special laws to protect them from offences and violences routinely committed against them by Christian and Muslim Ethiopians. The regime also encouraged cultural exchanges between the Italian Jewish community and the Ethiopian Jews. Incidentally, the first scholar to describe using a modern, scientific approach this ethnic group had been Filosseno Luzzatto, an Italki Jew. Starting in 1843, he collected and selected data about the Falasha....
The deportations of Italian Jews to Nazi death camps began after September 1943, when Italy capitulated to the Allies and, in response, the German troops invaded Italy from the North. However, by the time they got to the Campagna concentration camp, all the inmates had already fled to the mountains with the help of the local inhabitants. Rev. Aldo Brunacci of Assisi, under the direction of his bishop, Giuseppe Nicolini, saved all the Jews who sought refuge in Assisi. This effort became the basis for the novel The Assisi Underground. In October 1943, Nazis raided the Jewish ghetto in Rome.
History of the Jews during World War II.
Country Percent KilledMussolini didn't have the raving Jew-hatred that Hitler did. Mussolini was small potatoes. Citing him as an authority , as opposed to what Hitler said or did, is absurd.
Russian SFSR 33.30%
Gringo: So Mussolini was the big authority when it came to Fascism?
Mussolini's essay certainly laid the groundwork for doctrinal fascism.
Gringo: Mussolini was the big authority when it came to Fascism, then Hitler did whatever Mussolini did.
An obviously fallacious statement. Mussolini smoked, Hitler did not.
Nazism is a variant of fascism, so there are certainly some important distinctions. However, most of Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism applies to Nazism, including the rejection of democracy and liberalism, and the fervent belief that conflict and war gives meaning to man and nation. This is directly contrary to Marxist thought that war is a scourge due to class struggle, and that it could and should be ended.
Nor in your long post did you bother to address the point that fascism evolved over time.
Nor in your long post did you bother to address the point that fascism evolved over time.
I previously quoted Hitler from 1941-444, which most would consider much more authoritative than anything small potatoes Mussolini wrote circa 1939. In addition to being more recent than 1939- thus more appropriate than Mussolini to see how "fascism evolved over time." I quoted with links, which YOU DID NOT.
I would also point that much of what Hitler stated 1941-44 about an affinity between Nazis and Reds supports what Goebbels stated circa 1925 about Lenin- a point that you totally ignore.
Your give two-liners about the alleged evolution of Fascism, with no links/documentation. I quote extensively- with links. Well documented.
Perhaps you should learn to do some actual work in original sources instead of coming up with two-line summaries most likely cribbed from somewhere else.
Gringo: I quoted with links, which YOU DID NOT.
The question is whether Nazism, a form of fascism, is on the political left or the political right. We cited standard texts and histories indicating that Nazism is an manifestation of the political right.
You provided some quotes from Hitler, to which we responded above — but none of them support the position that fascism is not on the political right. That Hitler thought Stalin's industrial policies were effective, or that they found common ground, is not remarkable. None of that puts Hitler on the political left. He was anti-egalitarian.
Gee, Zach said "That doesn't mean that if you are on the Right that you are a Nazi. ". Feel the love, I may cry
It's called the association fallacy. You'll find it in the article:
Progressives are perfectionists.
Nazis are perfectionists who "rationalize the most hateful and destructive things."
Therefore, progressives "rationalize the most hateful and destructive things".
Progressives are not necessarily perfectionists, and perfectionists don't all "rationalize the most hateful and destructive things".
I'm surprised the kiddiez didn't post their little Venn diagram.
It would e interesting to track down the zakbot troll farm, to find out their origin and funding (I know, "opinions freely given...")
would we find soros, clinton foundation, Tom Steyer's NextGen America, MoveOn, DNC, some global worming group...?
Aren't there some groups like 4chan or 8chan that track down these "sources"?
Sure. Because, according to Socrates, doxing is the best form of argument.
Eh, the gentle commenters of Maggie's Farm are not the equivalent of CNN.
I suspect it operates on a shoestring out of some associate prof's basement office in the lib arts building, one of those who could parrot lib diatribe well enough to get tenure, but will never have the original thought needed to make full prof.
Nazis are a subset of the Right.
Who knew? The Nazis, Communists and Fascists were all socialists with a few doctrinal differences. It's like the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians are all Protestants. They aren't a subset of Catholics.
Ray: Who knew?
Virtually everyone, scholar and layperson, at the time of the Nazis, and virtually everyone, scholar and layperson, since then has as well, until the very recent attempt at redefinition by the American right. The Nazi naturally aligned with others on the political right, and vehemently rejected liberal values. Today, Neo-Nazi groups are regularly placed on the far right.
The political left is defined as advocacy of greater equality. The political right is characterized as advocacy for hierarchy. Fascism advocates a strictly hierarchical society. Nearly all historians treat fascism as a movement of the far right. This is a non-controversial position:
• Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen 2007.
• The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies 2002.
• The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan 2003.
• Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al. 2007.
• France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins 2005.
• Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner 2004.
Benito Mussolini: Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.
WHAT???? Communists DON'T have a hierarchy? See Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Fidel...
So, mostly because I'm going to be too lazy to look up the context of the quote - was this drawn from a speech, a letter, official document? The reason I ask if I do not see a corresponding reference to the left. Right?
BS...So say the political scientists who have no association with science and near total association with the academic totalitarians that have infested the Universities since FDR's administration. You get the same confusion when thinking economic theory and finance theory are one and the same. Small wonder the political hacks in government institutions can never predict chaos in the economic/finance sectors before it all blows up.
Sam L: Communists DON'T have a hierarchy?
According to Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat is an interim state before true communism. That the goal is unachievable doesn't change that it is the goal.
BornSouthern: So, mostly because I'm going to be too lazy to look up the context of the quote - was this drawn from a speech, a letter, official document?
The quote is from a 1932 article written by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile for the Italian Encyclopedia called The Doctrine of Fascism. Fascism rejects socialism, democracy, egalitarianism, and liberalism, in favor of a "fascist totalitarian vision of the future".
indyjonesouthere: So say the political scientists
It's also how the term is used colloquially, and is consistent with historical usage.
The "historical" use is by the Gramsci class Marxists that couldn't create revolution in the US by way of class warfare. They have spread out to gender and race warfare to keep the "victims" marching and demolishing the old functional institutions and charitable organizations. Replacing the functional with the administrative state that can't run anything and will be filled with race, gender, womens, and pervert studies grads that are clueless is the wave of the authoritarian elites. Better for the authoritarian state to keep the administrative state between them and the people. If you are not a citizen of this country I rather doubt that you could have much of an understanding of what people here have vested in this country over a few centuries. It is best that you not inhabit a country in which you have little understanding of its citizenry or revolutionary history. You are best suited to European socialism or perhaps the Asian variety of socialism or perhaps a new South African utopia. America is not for you.
indyjonesouthere: They have spread out to gender and race warfare to keep the "victims" marching and demolishing the old functional institutions and charitable organizations.
There are certainly some on the left who would grant government too much power. The problem is your inaccurate use of terminology, and your gross overgeneralization from extreme examples to the overall group. For instance, there are some on the political left who are very suspicious of government power, think it aggravates inequality, and consequently tend towards libertarianism or even anarchism.
You certainly don't like my definitions as they run counter to the usual academic drivel that has run rampant in the universities for several decades. The authoritarian progressives have defined and redefined what is "normal" and what is a "standard definition" to suit their needs and all the while having virtually no footing in the real world outside of the university. The authoritarians spend far too much time tripping over each others definitions in the proposed utopia they are sure they could build if just given the chance. The Christian and Capitalist know that utopia does not and can not exist in this world.
indyjonesouthere: You certainly don't like my definitions as they run counter to the usual academic drive
We reject your use of terminology that is contrary to how the terms are actually used.
Consider: Why do people say Neo-Nazis are on the right? Why do people say that hippies living on a commune making decisions by consensus are on the left? Why do people say that white nationalists are on the right?
The government education system says the neo-nazis are on the right. That is the definition that the academics have laid upon the Nazis and neo-Nazis. Nazis, old or new, are as ideologically authoritarian as the communists, fascists, islamists, or generic progressive. All of them operate by force and no free will is allowed. Hippie communes are a joke...they are the original basement dwellers. White nationalists, black nationalist, and Hispanic nationalists all dwell in the authoritarian left whether they choose to be called Nazis, fascists, communists, islamists or the usual variety progressive environmentalist, feminist, or gender dysfunctional.
indyjonesouthere: The government education system says the neo-nazis are on the right.[/i
Definitions are determined by established usage, not by your handwaving.
indyjonesouthere: [i]Nazis, old or new, are as ideologically authoritarian as the communists, fascists, islamists ...
That's right. However, you are equating authoritarianism with the political left. But authoritarianism isn't confined to the left; for instance, an authoritarian military dictatorship is on the political right.
indyjonesouthere: Hippie communes are a joke
Similarly, libertarianism isn't confined to the right; for instance, the hippie commune is on the anarchist left.
Ray, this will probably get lost in the deluge, but just so you know, Baptists are not Protestants. I get your point, tho. It may be only older Baptists who were once taught Baptist history.
Gosh Uncle Zak, the National Socialists did some strange things considering they were rightists
-Persecuted the Jews (Considered God's chosen people by all Christianity)
-Worked to abolish Christianity and replace it with old Germanic paganism.
-Encouraged out of wedlock births.
-Nationalized German heavy industry
DALE: -Persecuted the Jews (Considered God's chosen people by all Christianity)
The Jews were persecuted by Christians for centuries. Luther's "The Jews and their Lies" cited the Bible throughout. His basic contention was that the Jews were in league with the devil.
DALE: -Worked to abolish Christianity and replace it with old Germanic paganism.
Nazis were extreme reactionaries. They wanted to return Germany to what they perceived as its glorious past.
My point being, the national Socialists were in a class by their own. If you read the SPLC etc, we are awash in NAZIs and Hitlers, all accusations false, ignorant of history, and very demeaning to those who suffered under the Nazis
When you can jump ahead and see where the ball lands, it makes the game a LOT easier...
Hmmmm . . . Youtube is apparently branching out into a self-appointed "Ministry of Truth."
YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change, BuzzFeed News has confirmed, as a part of its ongoing effort to combat the rampant misinformation and conspiratorial fodder on its platform.
On July 9, the company added a blurb of text underneath some videos about climate change, which provided a scientifically accurate explainer. The text comes from the Wikipedia entry for global warming and states that "multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming."
Way I see it, Nazis were tribalist fascists/socialists. I see nothing about them that fits an idea of "right"
The labels are confusing.
NATO and Bundeswehr: Training with Broomsticks. We did that here...back in the '30s. One might think the Germans are no longer fearing, or even have vague concerns, the Russian army.
Dirty Harry on feminism and women's quotas - YouTube
The rot had already set in 40 years ago. 4 min. 33secs.
I doubt that Nazis favored constitutional, representative government that is limited, with separation of powers, and with checks and balances. Next, we'll be hearing that they supported free markets, equality before the law, and all that jazz that is featured in the American Bill of Rights. The European right doesn't seem to translate to America, except perhaps, for a tiny fringy subculture, so to bring it up seems kinda pointless.
It is sneaky and deceitful to conflate the European Right with the American Right.
Exasperated: It is sneaky and deceitful to conflate the European Right with the American Right.
We didn't equate anything. Rather, we pointed out that the term political left refers to those who advocate for greater equality, while the term political right refers to those who advocate for a hierarchical society.
The left-right distinction is a spectrum. The current center of gravity in Europe and the U.S. doesn't change the definition, but it does change how we might apply to terms to particular groups. When comparing groups within a region, we compare them to the center. Similarly with historical comparisons, whereby the center has been shifting left since the Renaissance. What was once a moderate right position, such as support of a strong monarchy, is now reactionary.
On that New Mexico nutcase compound raid --
One AR15 rifle, five loaded 30-round magazines, and four loaded pistols hardly qualifies as "heavily armed."
"The quote is from a 1932 article written by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile for the Italian Encyclopedia called The Doctrine of Fascism. Fascism rejects socialism, democracy, egalitarianism, and liberalism, in favor of a "fascist totalitarian vision of the future". "
Benito Mussolini was an Italian socialist and communist. He developed Fascism because he had differences with the socialists and communists. He still believed in the supremacy of the state.
Ray: Benito Mussolini was an Italian socialist and communist. He developed Fascism because he had differences with the socialists and communists.
Mussolini specifically rejected Marxism and socialism. He didn't see material welfare or the class struggle as the motivating force of humanity, "which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten", rather he believed people aspired to struggle and heroism, saying, "War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it."
Ray: He still believed in the supremacy of the state.
While communists believed in a stateless society that would form after the dictatorship of the proletariat had destroyed the class structure.
"While communists believed in a stateless society that would form after the dictatorship of the proletariat had destroyed the class structure."
So what? You just agreed with me.
Ray: You just agreed with me.
No. Fascists and communists have very different goals. Fascists want a strong hierarchical state, while communists want a stateless society.
The kiddiez fall all over themselves when commenting here and contradict their earlier comments just to argue and provoke a response.
They never should be taken seriously.
They should be mocked unmercifully.
Sam L: The Gang of Z musta eaten 30 boxes of Wheaties!
We subsist strictly on a diet of quintessence.