moonbattery logo

Jan 09 2018

Fascistic Antifascists Cannot Define Fascism

Antifa types will tell you that despite their authoritarian tactics, they are not fascists but the very opposite — antifascists. Opposing fascism is the whole point of their movement. Yet some of them don’t even know what the word “fascism” means:

Last week, a number of these “anti-fascist” activists appeared at Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit in Palm Beach, Florida.

Protesting the speech of Fox News’ Jesse Watters, the demonstrators held signs labeling the attendees as “racists”, “Nazis,” and most noticeably, “fascists.”

Wanting to know if these so called “anti-fascists” actually knew what fascism was, Campus Reform headed to the protest to get an answer.

Behold the laughable results:

On a tip from Sterling B.



  • Anonymous

    Anyone who disagrees with them, comrade!
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIVJiq5VoAQwnqt.jpg

  • Richard Daniels

    Reminiscent of the antiwar protestors of the sixties.Nobody has a coherent idea of what they are supposed to be “protesting”.
    More of an outdoor party without music than a true political protest.

  • Never try to debate a leftist using logic. They don’t know exactly what they stand for, but they know they’re always right. And anyone who is not in their little clique is a right-wing Nazi who needs to shut up and die.

  • physicsnut

    it amazes me that the left has any audience

    ENUF IS ENUF !!!
    Melt the phone lines to congress.

    We do NOT consent to CHAIN MIGRATION
    We do NOT consent to ANCHOR BABIES
    We do NOT consent to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
    We do NOT consent to CULTURAL SUICIDE
    We do NOT consent to Balkanization
    We do NOT consent to OPEN BORDERS
    We do NOT consent to importing millions of democreeps
    We do NOT consent to AMNESTY – period.
    We do NOT consent to VISA LOTTERY nonsense.
    We do NOT consent to BEING INVADED.

    lyndon johnson LIED about 1965 immigration act.
    ted kennedy LIED about not innundating usa .
    remember what happened to CALIFORNIA
    Ann Coulter was RIGHT
    Mark Levin reports lots of relevant facts 1.9.18
    we have dreamers too
    and WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS DESTRUCTION ? WE DO.
    google PAT CONDELL and PAUL JOSEPH WATSON videos

  • ICEvictim

    here’s a very classic definition of trying to have a logical argument on any subject with a leftard
    ———–
    “Arguing with leftists is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious.” – from RealSciene

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a799b7d82af55581f7200b882f9d87ef356fc56a78cb6723a22136ee94b0174f.jpg

  • fas·cist [ˈfaSHəst] an advocate or follower of the political philosophy or system of fascism:

    Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce

    Dictatorial power – such as that exercised by Obama when he first admitted the Constitution did not allow him to do certain things, admitted it repeatedly… then proceeded to do them anyway. Also when he tried to influence the U.S. Supreme Court by repeatedly attacking them during his speeches, particularly during his State of the Union speeches – which is also “forcible suppression of opposition”, which he also did by using organs of government, the DOJ and the IRS (to name two), to attack and suppress political opponents. And he used the EPA, regulation, taxation and the DOJ to control industry and commerce, plus obamacare was an attempt to control industry and commerce as well.

    Forcible suppression of opposition – like when you demand that those who feel differently than you do should not be allowed to gather in public, to speak, to have access to students or to campuses… in other words, ANTIFA.

    Some definitions, incorrect ones, include terms like “right wing” and “capitalist”

    Italy and Germany were not “right wing” or “capitalist”.

    Germany was the National Socialist Worker’s Party – left wing.

    Mussolini’s first established political party was known as the Fascist Revolutionary Party (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario, PFR), which was founded in 1915 according to Mussolini. Revolutionary – left wing.

    After poor November 1919 election results, the PFR was eventually renamed the National Fascist Party during the Third Fascist Congress in Rome on 7–10 November 1921.

    Moonbats claim that nationalism is exclusively “right wing” but it isn’t. Both sides of that particular measure of the political spectrum can be “nationalist”. Italian fascism was opposed to Marxist socialism because of its typical opposition to nationalism – but even Marxist socialism can be nationalistic, as it was in Cuba, in Russia, is in Venezuela, etc.

    Fascists promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation’s economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy. This economic system intended to resolve class conflict through collaboration between the classes. This is NOT “capitalism”.

  • SLCain

    “Italy and Germany were not “right wing” or “capitalist”.”

    That is ridiculous, ahistorical nonsense. Of course they were right wing. They were viewed as such by themselves and by their enemies. And one can dispute what capitalism means. The syndacalism you describe can be pretty capitalist if it’s mostly a fig-leaf (which it was) and the capitalists mostly get their way. Nazi Germany was not socialist, despite the S in NSDAP.

    “Germany was the National Socialist Worker’s Party – left wing.”

    They were not. Is the Democratic Party “democratic”? Is it anything like the Democratic-Republican party created by its founders, Jefferson and Jackson? Hitler killed the leading socialists in the night of the long knives and cowed the rest into submission. Do you think the industrialists and the (still, largely) prussian army would have supported a bunch of socialists?

    This is fashionable nonsense that some people in America seem to believe. It is ahistorical and wrong. You should read some real history books, not those written by FOX News personalities.

  • SLCain

    There barely are any fascists in the U.S. A few of the alt-right crowd. Some neo-nazis perhaps, although most of them are retards, and the smart ones are FBI informants.

    They think Jesse Waters is a fascist? Those clowns have probably never
    even seen a real fascist. If they had, they’d know it because they’d be
    picking their teeth up off the ground.

  • Callawyn

    As a political ideology, it is (as Hitler explained in dozens of speeches) a modification of Marxist Socialism.

    Hitler’s modification, of which he was incredibly proud, was to change the Marxist demand for DIRECT control of the economy through Nationalizing the means of production, to INDIRECT control of the economy – through endless regulation by the bureaucracy.

    He realized that you could have a Totalitarian Centralized State, with complete control over the economy, while still allowing businesses to remain nominally independent. All you had to do was empower the government to be able to control all of the major decisions that businesses used to make for themselves.

    So, no need to collectivize the farms, like the Soviets did – or deal with the widespread resistance that resulted.

    People tend to focus on the Authoritarianism of Fascism, which of course is central to ALL Marxist States and antithetical to the Limited Government vision of American Conservatives. They seem to think that anyone that supports Law and Order is Authoritarian, but its generally just the opposite. Those that would be Dictators rise to that position through lawlessness – violent revolution and brutal thug tactics.

    They also tend to focus too much on the thuggish street tactics – its not an essential part of the ideology, just a convenient way to reach power quickly.

  • Callawyn

    That’s so incredibly ignorant.

    Both were entirely Marxist.

    Both leaders spoke often about this. Declaring openly, and unequivocally, that their new ideology was based on Marx.

    When they attained power, they implemented Marx’s ideology, with only one modification:

    Hitler’s innovation, of which he was incredibly proud, was to change the Marxist demand for DIRECT control of the economy through Nationalizing the means of production, to INDIRECT control of the economy – through endless regulation by the bureaucracy.

    He realized that you could have a Totalitarian Centralized State, with complete control over the economy, while still allowing businesses to remain nominally independent. All you had to do was empower the government to be able to control all of the major decisions that businesses used to make for themselves.

  • Professor Hale

    They have seen plenty of real fascists. They all attend the same meetings. Antifa= fascist

  • KirklesWorth

    Of course Italy and Germany were ultra-left-wing. The more power the government usurps, the more left-wing it is. Playing word games like “democratic” and ignoring “socialist” in Nazi means nothing. The “fashionable nonsense” is yours and you should take your own advice and read some real history books.

  • KirklesWorth
  • Franklyfrank

    Why they should be called Profas, not Antifa

  • BiffWellington

    “I don’t know what it is, but I’m definitely against it….”

  • BiffWellington

    potato!

  • apeiron

    Anything right of a collectivist totalitarian state is ‘right wing’ to Statists.

  • Frank

    The kool-aid libtards are steeped in shuts down everything in their skulls except their limbic systems. (The limbic system processes emotions, memories and arousal or stimulation)

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/127a049c99827f5188c4be04a87e70719f9202b8c0a33136dd8d171f9ea1537b.jpg

  • Frank

    Revolutionaries are not generally known for their patience.

  • Frank

    “Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,
    characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition
    and control of industry and commerce” is a definition of the obama regime.

  • Eddie_Valiant

    Realize that your clear and lucid explanation would have caused these moh-rons in the video to zone out with the deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes.

    You provided a far better education than these klowns are getting for the $50K or more mom and dad are paying for their education indoctrination.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    “And one can dispute what capitalism means.”

    Capitalism is a word invented by Karl Marx to describe what he opposed. Economic freedom is the appropriate term. It means that two parties are able to engage in an economic exchange without outside influence or coercion.

  • TheChaoticStorm

    That’s because they are violent lowlifes who feel every other viewpoint must be labeled with every “offensive” term (that most likely does not apply) in order to demonize the opposition. Of course you don’t want to be a Nazi.

    Unfortunately, their lack of knowledge of what they are protesting makes them unable to see that they are what they are protesting.

  • KirklesWorth

    Nice.

  • vera

    That debate has been long and unresolved. The folks who maintain they were a form of the authoritarian left have a point. But the Nazis supported private enterprise (particularly of the smaller kind), and so in that they were different, it seems to me. Anyways, what I want to say, you talk as though you got the Truth of it with the big T, and you don’t.

  • vera

    Seems like they are there for the thuggery…

  • We seem to have a growing number of lying trolls coming to this site.

    Tell me, what is it that brings you & your ilk here?

    Just because the National Socialists murdered some rival socialists doesn’t mean they weren’t socialists. Communists routinely butcher other communists. That’s another proof that the National Socialists were socialist. It’s what socialists/communists do. You should take your own advice – but I know, you probably can’t handle the long words and complex concepts found in books. You assume that I, like you, get my facts from TV. NEWSFLASH: I haven’t watched Fox in over a decade. And I’ve read NONE of the books by FOX personalities.

  • KirklesWorth

    Don’t get too upset with @SLCain:disqus, as indications of the 40+ previous posts seem to show that he/she hasn’t been troll-ish previously…but maybe just got on the wrong side of this argument.

  • KirklesWorth

    I started compiling a list of characteristics in common with Nazis / Socialists / leftist…what do you think? I need to call out to @Bodhisattva:disqus and @Mr_FreeMarket:disqus specifically.

    ● miscellaneous
    ▬ referred to themselves as socialist, denied being right-wing
    ▬ preoccupation with race (hostilities, demonization, scapegoating, superiority)
    ▬ use of propaganda
    ▬ pro-abortion
    ▬ pro-animal rights
    ● economics
    ▬ anti-capitalistic
    ▬ corporate and industry nationalization
    ▬ cut of profits from heavy industries
    ▬ confiscation of profits from war
    ▬ deficit spending / tax and spend
    ▬ price controls
    ▬ public works projects
    ▬ standard of living decreases and rationing (war time)
    ▬ corporate tax reaching 98%
    ● oppression and authoritarianism
    ▬ the state above the individual
    ▬ anti-free speech
    ▬ pro-gun control / confiscation
    ▬ demands of conformity to strict “moral codes”
    ▬ dissent is not tolerated and/or acknowledged
    ▬ anti-Semitism
    ▬ contempt for families and family values
    ▬ espionage and targeting of political opponents
    ▬ (tacitly?) approve of violence to achieve their ends
    ● governmental social programs
    ▬ free government-run education
    ▬ free housing
    ▬ free health care
    ▬ welfare expansion
    ▬ subsidies
    ▬ national labor group
    ▬ wage control

  • Mr. Freemarket

    “I need to call out to Bodhisattva and Mr. Freemarket specifically.”

    I have to confess….I don’t have any idea what you are talking about here. Mind explaining?

  • KirklesWorth

    If you were to list the characteristics of Nazis in two columns – the column above would be how right-wingers would claim Nazis are left-wingers and the list below would be what left-wingers would claim how Nazis would be right-wingers.

    ● Nazis persecuted communists (implying Nazis were anti-communists like right-wingers)
    ● Nazis fought a war with the communists in Russia (implying Nazis were anti-USSR like right-wingers)
    ● Nazis are nationalistic (like right-wingers)
    ● “Nazis were fascists and fascists are right-wing”
    ● Nazis wanted illegal immigrants deported
    ● “Hitler spoke out against Marxism”

    These are the few arguments I have found in an attempt for lefties to prove that the Nazis were right-wingers.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    Similarities between communists and national socialists:
    1. Both opposed capitalism.
    2. Both imposed socialist programs.
    3. Both jailed and killed enemies of the state.
    4. Both embraced red flags (red is the historic color of socialism)
    5. Both are totalitarian philosophies.

    Just because Nazis and communists fought with each other doesn’t mean that their conflict was based upon fundamental philosophical differences. National Socialists and International Socialists have far more in common than they have differences.

    BTW….FWIW….The pledge of allegiance, along with the salute of the flag was invented by “Christian” socialists. The history of both Francis and Edward Bellamy is quite enlightening…along with the “Nationalist” clubs that they founded.

  • vladdy

    The fascists are the left-leaners. Alt-right gets bad-mouthed, but when you look up people like Steve Sailor or sites like V-Dare — surprise — just common sense and Americanism.

  • vladdy

    Good one. I made a list like that comparing islam and the left. Lots of the same things.

  • vladdy

    wait — I thought the left was the big, anti-Russia segment of the population now.

  • vladdy

    Ballamy made it all sound so nice, didn’t he? Seriously — one of my favorite utopian novels, although we all know the truth is Venezuela.

  • vladdy

    You can always tell the trolls because they think: 1. conservatives watch Fox News, 2. Fox News is conservative, and 3. Fox news is the devil. Many of us don’t have a TV in the house and definitely would never get “The News” on TV.

  • vladdy

    Tried to tell my then-teaching assist. about how his friend from Ireland cannot just apply and immigrate here ‘cos of Kennedy in ’65. Though I taught soc. studies in HS, he accused me of being misinformed. Should have known then a lefty teaching assist. assigned to you without your permission at work is something to sue over. (So, dude in rural MO, hope you got some smarts in the last 10 years.)

    A funny P.S. He told me he knew all about the AFA cos they were “reading it in class at college.” There were about 5 versions out at the time, each running in the thousands of pages.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    Bellamy’s novel “Looking Backwards” was the third most influential book of the 19th Century. Bellamy Clubs (renamed Nationalist Clubs) were organized in 150 cities by those promoting his ideas.

    His dream of a socialist Utopia lives on.

  • SLCain

    Where did you get your history from then, because it is wrong.

    Calling communists (which is what anti-fa are) fascists or calling fascists leftists does not make it so. It isn’t so. It is historically ignorant.

  • SLCain

    I’m not on the wrong side of the argument. None-the-less, thanks for putting in a good word for me.

  • SLCain

    Moreover, nazis were attached to the actual historical nation of germany and traditional german culture (well most of it anyway – some of them weren’t too crazy about the Christian part). The same can be said of the Fascists in Italy, and the Francoists in Spain. The communists wanted to uproot traditional society and burn it to the ground and supplant it with an entirely new and synthetic socialist society.

    Favoring the traditions of your own country and people is pretty right wing.

    I am hardly a lefty. But the fact remains that fascism and related movements were right wing. I don’t believe that everybody on my side of the political aisle is necessarily a good guy. In fact, I consider that to be a foolish and naive view. I also don’t believe that one should try to win arguments by changing the definitions of established words. Fascism is a word; it has a meaning. A well established meaning that was understood by its proponents as well as its opponents.

    The term “fascist” is not synonomous with “everybody I don’t like”. If it were, why not just use the word “poopy-head”?

  • SLCain

    “Similarities between communists and national socialists:
    1. Both opposed capitalism.”

    The Nazis did not oppose capitalism. If they did, that was certainly news to Blom&Voss, I.G. Farben, Thyssen, Krupp, Mercedes-Benz, and any number of other large capitalist enterprises that backed the Nazis and worked with them.

    “2. Both imposed socialist programs.”

    So did Otto von Bismarck. Was Bismarck a socialist? Was Kasier Wilhelm?

    “3. Both jailed and killed enemies of the state.”

    Every state jails and kills enemies of the state. Henry VIII jailed and killed enemies of the state (i.e., enemies of him, which was the same thing). Was Henry VIII a socialist?

    “4. Both embraced red flags (red is the historic color of socialism)”

    So does the Royal Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Are they socialist? So does Switzerland. Is Switzerland socialist?

    There are some other similiarities you forgot to mention:

    Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia:
    1.) Had postal systems.
    2.) Had campaigns to stamp-out diseases.
    3.) supported universities

    You might as well argue that both the U.S. Army and the Wehrmach used tanks therefore – Nazis!

    You are historically ignorant. You should stop lecturing people.

  • SLCain

    His pledge of allegiance, which plenty of conservatives consider a touch-stone of patriotism, lives on too. Minus the stiff-arm roman salute (i.e. Nazi salute).

  • SLCain

    “The fascists are the left-leaners.”

    No, they aren’t. See my comment below.

  • SLCain

    “You assume that I, like you, get my facts from TV. ”

    You assume I do. I don’t.

    Where do you get your news then?

    “It’s what socialists/communists do. You should take your own advice – but I know, you probably can’t handle the long words and complex concepts found in books.

    I’m not the one who learned history from a comic book, or who mistakes Jonah Goldberg for a historian.

  • SLCain

    And was National Socialist Germany generally opposed to free economic exchange? Did they nationalize industry? Did they collectivize agriculture? Did they privatize every last cafe and store?

  • SLCain

    “The more power the government usurps, the more left-wing it is. Playing
    word games like “democratic” and ignoring “socialist” in Nazi means
    nothing. The “fashionable nonsense” is yours and you should take your
    own advice and read some real history books.”

    So the Tsar was left-wing? Ghengis Khan? The Pharoes?

    You guys are the ones playing word games.

    I’ve read lots of history books – evidently more and better ones than most people here.

  • SLCain

    “Both were entirely Marxist.

    Both leaders spoke often about this. Declaring openly, and unequivocally, that their new ideology was based on Marx.”

    Care to provide a quote for that? Because I don’t believe you can. And, frankly, your claim is ridiculous. The Nazis were never “marxist”. Marx was a Jew. There were other strains of socialism, besides marxism, that arose out of 19th century Europe.

    It is your statement that is ignorant.

  • SLCain

    Callawyn offers no proof for his contention.

  • SLCain

    “That debate has been long and unresolved.”

    If by “long” you mean in the last fifteen years, sure. If by “long” you mean dating back to the time when fascism was a going concern, then – no, it was not really unresolved.

  • Callawyn

    In less time than it took you to type in that idiotic challenge, I found a few hundred.

    Seriously, its impossible to find a Hitler quote where he’s talking about his economic plan for Germany that does NOT prove he was Socialist.

    Here’s a few:
    From Hitler’s Aug 15, 1920 speech:
    “Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.”

    and:
    “The common good before the individual good.”

    and:
    “Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!”

    and:
    “Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.”

    From a Hitler speech April 12, 1922:
    “At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it “National Socialist.’ We said to ourselves that to be ‘national’ means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be ‘social’ means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.”

    From a Hitler interview in 1931, pudlished in “First Interview with Hitler, 4 may 1931”:
    “To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.”

    Here is the essential definition of Fascism from Hitler himself, this is really the whole point of it. (Hitler in 1931, as quoted in NAZI ECONOMICS):
    ” I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: ‍’‍Benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual.‍’‍ But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.”

    “There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” Hitler, Oct 5, 1937

    I could go on, ad nauseum. He gave a LOT of speeches. His themes, in virtually all of them, were 1) He would become all powerful – a Socialist Dictator, 2) Socialism was the goal, but he had modified Marx’s program, and it was to be different from that implemented by the hated Bolsheviks, 3) Jews are the cause of everything bad and will be exterminated.

    Hitler hated the Bolsheviks for 1) Their Internationalism. He was a Nationalist, and 2) For their belief that you needed to confiscate property. Hitler’s innovation, of which he was incredibly proud, was that you could enact ALL of Marx’s ideals by empowering the central state to completely control the economy WITHOUT having to nationalize industry. You just create a totalitarian regime and rule the business owners with endless regulation.

    Also – just look at what Hitler actually did when he attained power: Precisely as I just described. That’s exactly the system that he implemented. His Party became all-powerful, with himself as Dictator, he had all the authority, and he made all the major decisions that businesses used to make for themselves. But, they remained nominally in private ownership.

  • Callawyn

    Oh, and Marx himself, a Jew, was an anti-semite.

    Here’s a sample:
    “”Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.

    That’s from Karl Marx. Not Hitler. He wanted to emancipate mankind from Jewry.

    I’ve also heard imbeciles claim that Hitler “abolished” unions. In fact, what he actually did, was unite all Germany’s unions into one big union, and that became, quite literally, the State. Not only was Hitler’s SA, the street-thugs that brought him to power, comprised almost entirely of labor-union thugs, but those are the very people that he put into power throughout his regime once he came to power. The old nobility were his enemy, and he was never able to complete get them out of their positions in the Army, but the SS was entirely Socialist.

    Here’s a taste:
    “As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence”.

    Is that a quote from FDR? Stalin?? Some English Labor Party leader??? No. Hitler, from Mein Kampf, chapter 12.

  • KirklesWorth

    Yes, they were left-wing. Concentrations of authoritarian power.

  • KirklesWorth

    And what proof do you offer?

    You stated “Of course they were right wing. They were viewed as such by themselves and by their enemies.” which is incorrect.

    You stated “Hitler killed the leading socialists in the night of the long knives and cowed the rest into submission” which means nothing as Hitler killed many competitors and enemies – it was a turf war.

    So you have stated two (debunked) “right-wing characteristics” while I made a list above of some of the left-wing characteristics:

    referred to themselves as socialist, denied being right-wing; preoccupation with race (hostilities, demonization, scapegoating, superiority); pro-abortion; pro-animal rights; anti-capitalistic; deficit spending / tax and spend; price controls; public works projects; corporate tax reaching 98%; the state above the individual; anti-free speech; pro-gun control / confiscation; dissent is not tolerated and/or acknowledged; antisemitism; contempt for families and family values; espionage and targeting of political opponents; approve of violence to achieve their ends; free government-run education; free housing; free health care; welfare expansion; subsidies; national labor group; wage control

  • KirklesWorth

    As is calling Nazis “right-wing” because of a few (debunked) characteristics that pale in comparison to the characteristics shared with fascists, leftists, etc..

  • KirklesWorth

    Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser:

    “We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”

  • KirklesWorth

    Please refer to the National Socialist Program (the 25-Point Plan):

    7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
    10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all
    12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
    13. We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries.
    14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
    15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
    16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
    17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
    18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
    20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
    21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
    23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. [edited for brevity]
    24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
    25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

  • vera

    Fascism has never stopped being a going concern. Why do you claim otherwise?

  • KirklesWorth

    To claim “Nazis were not 100% left-wing therefore they are right-wing” is as absurd as it is disingenuous. I don’t know why you drink the left’s Kool-Aid on this, but you seem to base your claim on that fascism equals “right-wing”, which is a left-wing fabrication. Let’s review the so-called “right-wing characteristics” shared with fascism:

    ● nationalistic / traditional
    ● disenchantment with government

    Now let’s review the left-wing characteristics shared with fascism:

    ● authoritarian, totalitarian, and/or anti-capitalistic
    ● extreme support of a “natural” leader (savior)
    ● anti-free-speech / civil rights oppression
    ● racism / Darwinism / eugenicist
    ● violence and propaganda acceptable “for the cause”
    ● group rights (brotherhood) over individual rights / group victimization

    The tepid right-wing characteristics pale in comparison to the many more serious left-wing characteristics, showing that fascism is almost completely left-wing. Let’s review what others have said about fascism:

    “socialism with a capitalist veneer” – Library of Economics and Liberty (left-wing)
    ● Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies: “fascist dictatorships suppressed individual liberties, imprisoned opponents, forbade strikes, authorized unlimited police power in the name of national unity and revival, and committed military aggression”.
    ● Lachlan Montague, a Melbourne, Australia-based writer and researcher of fascism, economic history and the interwar years: “Hitler was heavily backed by the wealthy elite from very early on. Big business (BMW, Bayer, etc.) received slave labor, government contracts and so on”.
    ● Robert Paxton: “Conservatives are basically people of order who want to use things like the church and property to maintain an existing social order, whereas fascists are revolutionists who will break up social institutions if they think it will bring national power or grandeur or expansion. In Nazi Germany, the businessmen were not enthusiastic about Hitler, because he had anti-capitalist ideas in the beginning. But then they discovered that they had a great deal in common. They made an alliance, but they often stepped on each other’s toes … and on July 20, 1944, the conservatives tried to assassinate Hitler. There is always tension between the two movements”.
    ● George Orwell in “What is Fascism?”: “It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests”. He also stated: “It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.”

  • Mr. Freemarket

    National Socialists did not believe in nationalizing industry. They believed in controlling industry; rewarding those who played along and punishing those who wouldn’t. That was the difference between fascism and communism. “Everything within the state; nothing outside the state.” It was their “third way.” And thus, we have the symbol of fascism; a bundle of sticks. If you aren’t part of the bundle, tightly bound together, well, you are part of the problem.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Fascist_symbol.svg/500px-Fascist_symbol.svg.png

    Similarly the National Socialists believed is the ties of a strong nationalism, as opposed to workers across borders “uniting.”

  • Mr. Freemarket

    “The Nazis did not oppose capitalism. ”
    I refer you to: https://mises.org/library/myth-nazi-capitalism
    Mises, in fact, answered this question in 1951 in his essay “Planned Chaos.”

    “German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.

    “In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production.”

    Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (1881 – 1973) understood far more about economics, socialism, and fascism than you or I ever will. Your argument is with him.

    “”2. Both imposed socialist programs.”
    So did Otto von Bismarck. Was Bismarck a socialist? Was Kasier Wilhelm?”
    From Wikipedia:
    State Socialism (German: Staatssozialismus) was a term introduced to describe Otto von Bismarck’s social welfare policies. The term was actually coined by Bismarck’s liberal opposition but later accepted by Bismarck.”
    The answer to your question is “yes.”

    “”3. Both jailed and killed enemies of the state.”

    Every state jails and kills enemies of the state.”
    I refer you to https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
    Professor Rummel of the University of Hawaii Political Science department studied the characteristics of government that make they kill their own people. Socialism and Communism are both totalitarian government systems. King Henry VIII, of course, was the head of a totalitarian government. Totalitarian governments kill far more that governments dedicated to protecting the freedom of their citizens.

    On the topic of political colors, historically blue has been associated with conservative political movements. Red has been the color associated with socialism. You bring up the issue of the Royal Navy and the US Marine Corps. Neither is a political party, or a political movement. So there isn’t a direct comparison there. Switzerland…are they socialist? You will have to be the judge on that. They have mandatory military service. The Swiss Constitution guarantees a basic living to anyone.
    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/welfare-and-dependency-in-switzerland “The Swiss have established a far-ranging and expanding program of compulsory social insurance that imposes on each worker and his employer a compulsory shared-risk program to provide for both the expected and unexpected financial needs of most other workers. …All this has been done primarily through administrative policy.”
    Hummmm…..through administrative policy….that seems to ring a familiar bell.

    “You are historically ignorant. You should stop lecturing people.”
    In many respects this is true. However the sources I have cited indicate that I am not quite as ignorant on the topics of socialism and fascism as you might think. But thank you for your opinion and correction.

  • SLCain

    Please refer to your own link. That was the party platform of 1920, when the Strasser brothers still dominated the NSDAP, 13 years before Hitler ascended to the Chancellory and ultimately dictatorship.

    Did the Nazis in fact nationalize industry? No.

    Refer to the writings of one of the first Democrats, Thomas Jefferson. Does the DNC adhere to anything he wrote or believed?

    You seem to believe that labels always confer reality. They don’t.

  • SLCain

    Who cares what Gregor Strasser wrote? Did Gregor Strasser gain the backing of Paul von Hindenburg, the (still largely aristocratic) german army, and the wealthy capitalist industrialists, and become dictator?

    No.

  • SLCain

    Yeah, nazis shared characteristics with fascists. Hitler modeled nazism on fascism. And they were, both of them, right wing.

  • KirklesWorth

    Darth Vader: “Your lack of proof is disturbing”. I have more thoroughly covered this here below.

  • SLCain

    “Now let’s review the left-wing characteristics shared with fascism:”

    Those are not or not necessarily “left-wing” characteristics.

    “● authoritarian, totalitarian, and/or anti-capitalistic”

    Augusto Pinochet, Tsar Alexander, Kasier Willhelm

    All of them authoritarian. Were they left-wing?

    ● extreme support of a “natural” leader (savior)

    See above list. Also Ronald Reagan, in the eyes of many conservatives. Was Ronnie left-wing?

    ● anti-free-speech / civil rights oppression

    See above list.

    ● racism / Darwinism / eugenicist

    You do realize that virtually EVERY american politician and jurist prior to about 1960 (and probably a few afterwords) would be considered a racist and eugenicist by today’s standards, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

    Were Abraham LIncolna and Thomas Jefferson left-wing?

    ● violence and propaganda acceptable “for the cause”

    Propaganda? You mean like our government made during every war it ever fought?

    “● group rights (brotherhood) over individual rights / group victimization”

    So, you are against brotherhood? Against any kind of collective action. Do you not belong to any single group or ogranization? Do you believe it is possible to live as an isolated, atomized individual?

    That is all libertarian nonsense.

  • SLCain

    Not well, though. See my reply.

  • KirklesWorth

    “Who cares what Gregor Strasser wrote?” Thanks for putting your position in perspective. Why believe that “socialist” is part of the Nazi name or that Gregor Strasser was a prominent Nazi official, right? I am addressing your rebuttals here in one spot.

  • SLCain

    Where? Burma, maybe. It’s not very popular nowadays. You all confuse bolshevism with fascism, so you think every antifa rally is fascist. It isn’t.

  • SLCain

    Yeah, I know what a fasci is. Their emblazoned on the walls in the chambers of the US Senate.

    Nothing you said proves that fascism is left-wing. Everything you said about it also applies to the monarchial governments of pre 20th century Europe. Again – I ask – was Emperor Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary “left-wing”?

  • SLCain

    So you think that the Tsars of Russia were left-wing?

    Really?

    Well, I guess we’re done. I can’t argue with someone who lives in a fantasy world.

  • KirklesWorth

    This is the third thing you want to ignore:

    1. Ignore the “socialist” in Nazi.
    2. “Who cares what Gregor Strasser wrote?”
    3. The Nazis didn’t accomplish what they demanded.

    Once again, I am consolidating my responses here from now on.

  • SLCain

    1920. Was he ruling Germany in 1920? Did he have the backing of the Army in 1920 (I mean, as anything other than a spy)? Did he have the backing of capitalists in 1920?

    Your arguments are ridiculous and wrong.

  • SLCain

    It’s impossible to argue with people who are willfully ignorant.

    Have fun with your fantasy libertarian history.

    But it’s all bullshit.

  • SLCain

    “Oh, and Marx himself, a Jew, was an anti-semite.”

    So? Debatable, and in any event, irrelevant to my point.

  • SLCain

    You keep bringing up what the loser in an interal party power-struggle said in 1920. Or what the winner did. It is irrelevant.

    I would also point out, that I am replying to all of your points, and you are not replying to many of mine, which is not entirely arguing in good faith.

    Whatever. You said that 19th century autocrats are left-wing, so I don’t deem your opinions to be worth much. History didn’t begin with the Austrian School and Ayn Rand.

  • KirklesWorth

    Looks like I may have defended you too soon, as several of your things have come out of the leftists’ playbook. I’ll call out to @Bodhisattva:disqus and @Mr_FreeMarket:disqus to review and enjoy what you’ve written. Your lame attempts to saddle fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and Naziism on right-wingers as compared to how you’d be hard-pressed to differentiate them with current liberals is quite telling. The best you have come up with is “everybody does it”. Let’s review:

    Augusto Pinochet, Tsar Alexander, Kasier Willhelm. All of them authoritarian. Were they left-wing?

    #1 we are talking about Nazis; #2 authoritarianism (totalitarianism, fascism, etc.) is governmental control over virtually every aspect of peoples’ lives, therefore left-wing. You have to go to anarchist to go beyond right-wing.

    See above list. Also Ronald Reagan, in the eyes of many conservatives. Was Ronnie left-wing?

    “See above list”? Why? The “above list” means nothing. That statement about Reagan is ridiculous.

    You do realize that virtually EVERY american politician and jurist prior to about 1960 (and probably a few afterwords) would be considered a racist and eugenicist by today’s standards, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Were Abraham LIncolna and Thomas Jefferson left-wing?

    How about sticking to the subject within the last 100 years – the Nazis. Lincoln seemed to have played a part in the freeing of slaves against the democrats of the time.

    See above list. [racism / Darwinism / eugenicist]

    These are left-wing traits, not right-wing. Again, the “above list” means nothing.

    Propaganda? You mean like our government made during every war it ever fought?

    “Everybody does it”, right? Wrong. Why did you skip the part about violence?

    So, you are against brotherhood? Against any kind of collective action. Do you not belong to any single group or ogranization? Do you believe it is possible to live as an isolated, atomized individual?

    Irrelevant and non-responsive. This is not about me, this is about characteristics of the left that compare to the Nazis.

    That is all libertarian nonsense.

    Odd, the “nonsense” is yours. Since you lamely attempted to argue what you could, the rest of the points stand.

  • KirklesWorth

    #1 My rebuttals condensed to this link and this link.

  • KirklesWorth

    #2 My rebuttals condensed to http://moonbattery.com/?p=91409#comment-3704347742“>this link and this link.

  • KirklesWorth

    #3 My rebuttals condensed to this link and this link.

  • SLCain

    You have already beclowned yourself, in claiming that Ghengis Khan, the Tsars, etc. are “left-wingers”. You are not a serious person. There is no point in seriously arguing with you. You are historically ignorant.

  • KirklesWorth

    Sorry you are unable to grasp the obvious. Left-wing encompasses more government and more government control, right-wing means less…and beyond that is anarchy. Right-wing = more freedom, left-wing = more subjugation to so-called “authority”. The old-English association of what they called “conservatives” at the time meant “royalist” who would support the monarchy. We are not in England and welcome to the 21st century.

    Ghengis Khan is not a government – the Mongol Empire was a monarchy, therefore left-wing (there was no “right-wing” during that period in history). The Tsars were monarchs as well. The one “beclowned” is yourself.

  • vera

    How then do you define a fascist?

  • KirklesWorth

    @Bodhisattva:disqus @Callawyn:disqus @disqus_7gbfqk8W5T:disqus @Mr_FreeMarket:disqus @disqus_P9yjAkJs5s:disqus @vladdyMAGA:disqus

    @SLCain:disqus , you’ve made some claims about me, so it’s time for me to make some claims about you. You whined:

    SLCain►KirklesWorth: I would also point out, that I am replying to all of your points, and you are not replying to many of mine, which is not entirely arguing in good faith.

    Bull you have. Your sporadic citation-less opinions are addressed at my discretion, but lucky for you I intend to address a lot of them right now.

    You don’t argue the facts – you try to use leftist tactics to attempt to change focus to things that are irrelevant, out-of-date, guilt-by-association, or just plain wrong. But first, let’s hear your “patriotic” likening of the pledge of allegiance (written by Francis Bellamy) to the Nazis, except for one thing:

    His pledge of allegiance, which plenty of conservatives consider a touch-stone of patriotism, lives on too. Minus the stiff-arm roman salute (i.e. Nazi salute).

    This puts in perspective the following quote of yours, and is one of the few things you have said that is correct:

    Favoring the traditions of your own country and people is pretty right wing.

    Aside from that, you ignore the preponderance of evidence with trivial or incorrect nitpicks. So, as I have stated that you haven’t disproven – totalitarians, authoritarians, fascists, Nazis, leftists, etc. have in common:.

    ● high levels of government involvement
    ● extreme support of a “natural” leader (savior)
    ● anti-free-speech / civil rights oppression
    ● racism / Darwinism / eugenicist
    ● violence and propaganda acceptable “for the cause”
    ● group rights (brotherhood) over individual rights / group victimization

    Look at all the people you try and pass-off as right-wingers: Otto von Bismarck, Ghengis Kahn, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Kasier Wilhelm, Augusto Pinochet, Henry VII, Francis Bellamy, Tsar Alexander

    Here are the right-wingers you tried to use as examples of right-wing Naziism / fascism: (1) Ronald Reagan was a “savior” to some conservatives; (2) Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, etc. “would be considered a racist and eugenicist by today’s standards”.

    You even try to trivialize the National Socialist Program (the 25-Point Plan) by claiming That was the party platform of 1920, when the Strasser brothers still dominated the NSDAP, 13 years before Hitler ascended to the Chancellory and ultimately dictatorship. You didn’t cite the platform that Hitler took later, so it means nothing.

    Let’s review your laughable questions, often pertaining to hundreds of years past and/or completely irrelevant:

    Is the Democratic Party “democratic”? Is it anything like the Democratic-Republican party created by its founders, Jefferson and Jackson?
    ● (About embracing red flags) So does the Royal Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Are they socialist? So does Switzerland. Is Switzerland socialist?
    Who cares what Gregor Strasser wrote? Did Gregor Strasser gain the backing of Paul von Hindenburg, the (still largely aristocratic) german army, and the wealthy capitalist industrialists, and become dictator?

    Let’s review your incorrect statements:

    That is ridiculous, ahistorical nonsense. Of course they were right wing. They were viewed as such by themselves and by their enemies. Completely wrong. Not only do they have predominantly more left-wing characteristics, they proudly declared themselves the Socialist Workers’ party.
    Yeah, nazis shared characteristics with fascists. Hitler modeled nazism on fascism. And they were, both of them, right wing. We arrive at the lack of foundation upon which you try to build – fascism is not “right-wing” contrary to whatever progressive propaganda you may have read. Futhermore, you seem to equate old-English “conservative” to “right-wing” which is not the case in 21st century America.
    Nazi Germany was not socialist, despite the S in NSDAP. Nazi = “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” – both Socialist and Workers in their name claim otherwise (proletariat in communist lingo).

    Look at all of the irrelevant questions you posed to avoid addressing the evidence:

    Refer to the writings of one of the first Democrats, Thomas Jefferson. Does the DNC adhere to anything he wrote or believed? That was 200 years ago – a thing or two has changed in America.
    The Nazis did not oppose capitalism. If they did, that was certainly news to Blom&Voss, I.G. Farben, Thyssen, Krupp, Mercedes-Benz, and any number of other large capitalist enterprises that backed the Nazis and worked with them. That was addressed with a quote from the Library of Economics and Liberty that stated: As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.
    So, you are against brotherhood? Against any kind of collective action. Do you not belong to any single group or ogranization? Do you believe it is possible to live as an isolated, atomized individual?

    Here are the “reasons” you gave why the Nazis weren’t left-wing:

    Hitler killed the leading socialists in the night of the long knives and cowed the rest into submission. So? He killed lots of people who were in the way of his ambitions.
    Do you think the industrialists and the (still, largely) prussian army would have supported a bunch of socialists? What I think isn’t the issue – it is obvious that they did.
    Did the Nazis in fact nationalize industry? No. It was their intent (as it is for left-wingers) as I cited from the National Socialist Program (the 25-Point Plan): 13. We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries, Maybe they didn’t get around to it, what with the war and all.

    And finally, the hypocrisies and desperations:

    Where did you get your history from then, because it is wrong. Calling communists (which is what anti-fa are) fascists or calling fascists leftists does not make it so. It isn’t so. It is historically ignorant. Antifa is fascist, communist, and leftist based on the shared characteristics of the three.
    This is fashionable nonsense that some people in America seem to believe. No, the leftist rewriting of history is the the “fashionable nonsense” that you believe.
    You should read some real history books, not those written by FOX News personalities. (1) Assuming facts not in evidence, (2) typical leftist response, and (3) typical leftist Fox demonization.
    You seem to believe that labels always confer reality. They don’t. Hypocritisy at its finest. Accuse the opponent of exactly what you do. I am the one trying to get you not to believe the leftist teachings as you cling to your labels.
    There are some other similiarities you forgot to mention: Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia:
    1.) Had postal systems. 2.) Had campaigns to stamp-out diseases. 3.) supported universities
    Useless and lame.
    You might as well argue that both the U.S. Army and the Wehrmach used tanks therefore – Nazis! Red herring.
    You are historically ignorant. You should stop lecturing people. LOL!
    Whatever. You said that 19th century autocrats are left-wing, so I don’t deem your opinions to be worth much. History didn’t begin with the Austrian School and Ayn Rand. Since autocrats are persons having unlimited power, they are left-wing contrary to your outdated definitions. The “opinions” here are yours and are in indeed not worth much, but thanks for proving my point.
    Fascism is a word; it has a meaning. A well established meaning that was understood by its proponents as well as its opponents. So did “marriage”, “gay”, “gender”, etc.. – welcome to the 21st century and the realities of your “well established meanings” (in your case, words defined by history-rewriting leftists).
    The term “fascist” is not synonomous with “everybody I don’t like”. If it were, why not just use the word “poopy-head”? Yet you have no problem associating all tyranical governments and psudo-governments as “right-wing”.
    That is all libertarian nonsense. No, yours is all left-wing nonsense.
    I’m not the one who learned history from a comic book, or who mistakes Jonah Goldberg for a historian.

    Everything above puts into question your denial that you are a leftist:

    I am hardly a lefty. But the fact remains that fascism and related movements were right wing.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    I was pointing out the similarities of socialism and fascism. The symbol of fascism embraces the idea of the collective. Therefore the ties between socialism and fascism seem rather obvious.

    An emperor is not necessarily politically “left wing” or “right wing.” He is, however, the head of a totalitarian government, ruling over his subjects.

  • It is plain that you are the one who is confused about history – which is not what I am using here, despite your constant attempts to lie and claim otherwise.

    The defintion of the word fascism:

    Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

    You will note that the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are absent from the definition, because they are basically meaningless in this context. You clearly don’t know what they mean yourself, but that’s a completely different and irrelevant issue since they are not relevant to this discussion.

    Socialism, the Democrats and the left wing are the groups which propose radical ideas, authoritarian policies, attempt to create more and more dictatorial power, Obama actually did cross that line at times and acted like one. They also attempt forcible suppression of opposition through fear and violence (antifa) and by abusing their power (Obama) in ways that are clearly prohibited by law.

    Democrats/leftists/socialists in the U.S. also demand that we exert more and more control of industry and commerce.

    You may note that I’m attempting to demonstrate things at a basic, rudimentary level for you to see if you’re capable of following at this level before moving to a more complex level.

    I hope you succeed but so far it seems unlikely.

  • You seem to think that if you repeat a lie often enough either it will become true or at least people who know it’s a lie will start believing it.

    Save your effort, it won’t work with anyone but those as gullible as you.

    The defintion of the word fascism:

    Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

    You will note that the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are absent from the definition, because they are basically meaningless in this context. You clearly don’t know what they mean yourself, but that’s a completely different and irrelevant issue since they are not relevant to this discussion.

    Socialism, the Democrats and the left wing are the groups which propose radical ideas, authoritarian policies, attempt to create more and more dictatorial power, Obama actually did cross that line at times and acted like one. They also attempt forcible suppression of opposition through fear and violence (antifa) and by abusing their power (Obama) in ways that are clearly prohibited by law.

    Democrats/leftists/socialists in the U.S. also demand that we exert more and more control of industry and commerce.

    The only way “right wing” and “left wing” are introduced into this discussion, without first defining several terms, is by looking at what Hitler and his minions called themselves – which was, as noted, according to the HISTORY channel,

    http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nazi-party

    was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).

    It is true that it is far more common to believe that the NAZI movement represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

    De facto government ownership of the means of production was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

    But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

    The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

    This is a hallmark of socialism – can you name a truly socialist system which has not had exactly this outcome?

    Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

    In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

    As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

    To cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

    This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis – socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which was socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

    Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

    I have put forward a very detailed proof that Germany was in fact SOCIALIST, just as the NAZIs stated in their chosen name, despite the fact that, like other SOCIALISTS, one of the first things they did upon taking power was to eliminate other flavors of socialism including communism, where possible. Anyone who might be a potential critic or rival.

    So enough with your nonsense about “left wing” or “right wing”, which you haven’t defined and probably can’t give a coherent definition of anyway.

  • I get my news from a variety of sources. How about you?

    And, of course, you go straight to ad hominem. I would say I’m surprised you ran out of valid arguments so quickly, except for the fact you have yet to provide any.

    I’m not the one who learned history from a comic book, or who mistakes Jonah Goldberg for a historian.

    Perhaps not, but you ARE the ONLY ONE who claims one might learn history from a “comic book”… and you ARE the ONLY ONE who refers to Jonah Goldberg as a historian, if only to deny it – which, by the way, is a blatant straw man argument.

  • With this post you reveal your clear ignorance of history.

    Minus the stiff-arm roman salute (i.e. Nazi salute).

    You seem to be attempting to claim the salute was adopted by NAZIs first then later by Bellamy and his nationalists.

    The opposite is the case. They were the first to adopt the Roman salute – which, once the Italian fascists and NAZIs also adopted it, they dropped.

    Also note, the Bellamy version, performed properly, was NOT the same as the fascist version:

    The Bellamy salute was first demonstrated on October 12, 1892 according to Bellamy’s published instructions for the “National School Celebration of Columbus Day”:

    At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute — right hand lifted, palm downward, to align with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.

    In the fascist version, the palm is downward – unfortunately, since the “palm up” part was difficult to pull off, many did use the “palm down” gesture of the fascists – but generally BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED USING IT.

    And by the way, Bellamy was… a socialist, who was behind he creation of nationalist groups – just in case you try to claim only right wingers exhibit nationalism or that nationalism proves the NAZIs and the Italians weren’t left wing or socialists, as you have consistently before.

    There was initially some resistance to dropping the Bellamy/Roman salute, for example from the Daughters of the American Revolution, but with the onset of the war that quickly faded away.

    This is yet another example of how you attempt to say something that’s not true. Now watch you try to deny it, if you don’t simply ignore it outright.

    NOTE: I haven’t been using the “official” name of the Italian fascists, but for reference, it was the “Fascist Revolutionary Party”.

  • OH I will admit there was a time, over a decade ago, that I watched Fox… and CNN, and, though I cringe when I think about it and hate admitting it, MSNBC.

    Now I’ve grown up and have left all that nonsense behind.

  • It is a valid point that it does not matter what members of a group call themselves – example: Democrats are neither liberal nor progressive in any true sense of the words. They adopted these labels because they think they’re hip and trendy doing so. Likewise it is meaningless that the NAZIs called themselves socialists, until you see they really were, based on many of the other aspects you listed – and it’s quite a nice list overall, though might need a little revision. I’m still looking.

    Interesting to note the Democrats are preoccupied with race, claim they’re not the racists, are always making arguments based on race (white privilege, for instance) to justify their deliberate maltreatment of one race compared to another, etc.

    People like SLCain will argue, against all existing evidence, that NAZIs were capitalist, not socialist, that industries were owned privately, not publicly, because… well I can only guess why and will probably guess wrong so I’ll just stick to the facts:

    NAZI Germany featured businesses with nominal private owners but every aspect of business and the economy was micro managed by government as it is in socialist/communist systems and as it is not in capitalist systems. Apparently this is an easy way to fool people like SLCain and liberal moonbats as well. While they did not necessarily outright “nationalize” businesses, they essentially did because the outcome was the same.

    I would not include “antisemitism” as a particular aspect of a particular system – though yes, it clearly was present in NAZI Germany.

    There was nothing remotely “tacit” about NAZI violence all too often, but I suppose yes, at the beginning, their violence was sometimes implied rather than overt and openly practiced. But it very quickly became open and obvious to all, which made it even more effective.

    Quite an impressive list – though you left out some interesting aspects such as taking the children away to be indoctrinated, something Democrats are always trying to do as well, and the way they would encourage promiscuity, sometimes forced.

  • Now make a similar list for the Italian Fascists.

  • NO, he wanted our input. He wasn’t “calling us out” – that was a poor choice of words on his part. He wants us to critique his work, that’s all. He respects you, I believe.

  • Nazis attacked communists, and other socialists – only in a way similar to how Hillary and the DNC attacked anyone who dared run against their chosen candidate, Hillary. To clear the field and eliminate any possible choice for the people who might otherwise like some other left wing system, not theirs.

    Nazis fought Russia because they foolishly thought they could take over Russia with hardly any resistance and thus secure vast land and the resources it contained. Had nothing to do with opposing ideologies.

    Nationalism does not define right or left wing, despite the left’s claim it does, as the socialist Bellamy was obviously left wing yet was a major fan of nationalism. Nationalism is present in both extreme left and extreme right ideologies.

    Likewise fascism is not defined as right wing or left wing, since it can be present as an aspect of either – this is another lazy, uninformed argument of those who really are clueless.

    Expecting your borders and immigration laws to be respected is neither left nor right wing. Both can expect those things.

    Hitler spoke out against those who opposed him and some of them happened to be hardcore Marxists. As your list pointed out, assuming the claim he spoke out against Marxists is valid – other than to speak out against those Marxists who might take votes he wanted, that is – doesn’t mean he’s left wing or right wing. Hillary Clinton spoke out against some plans of Bernie “B.S.” Sanders and Sanders spoke out against some aspects of Clinton’s stated goals. They were both still pretty solidly left wing, socialist.

  • Favoring the traditions of your own country and people is pretty right wing.

    Only in your closed mind.

    Bellamy, a great example of a socialist, who was also strongly nationalist, which is “favoring the traditions of your own country and people”. Nationalism is present in both right and left wing systems and is not useful in differentiating between them.

    the fact remains that fascism and related movements were right wing.

    That’s your opinion, still unsupported by any factual, valid, real evidence.

    Perhaps you need to define Right and Left wing for us so we can show you how your arguments about them turn out to be circular. EXAMPLE: Right wingers tend to be nationalist… nationalism tends to be a right wing characteristic. Seriously – that is what you are arguing so far.

    Fascism is a word; it has a meaning.

    Yes, and Obama and the Democrats, who are undeniably left wing these days, exhibited many traits of fascism.

    Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce – and fascism is what Obama was all about just as it was what the SOCIALISTS of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER’S PARTY were all about – as pretty much explained by the list provided by our friend KirklesWorth.

  • I am trying to figure out your reference to “a cartoon” and perhaps it is this video that you’re referring to?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDS1OHk7Lf8&t=156s

    I did not get my ideas from this video, which is not a cartoon – but it does explain things a lot better than you seem to be able to, since so far you have not seemed to provide anything but straw man or circular or ad hominem arguments to support your claims.

    I did not get my ideas from this video – but it does express some of my ideas in a simpler and better organized way than I probably would and so is much better suited for you and others who I might try to reach with these ideas.

  • Agreed. Everyone makes mistakes. But what’s frustrating is that, in this narrow set of subjects, he acts and sounds just like a lunatic liberal moonbat. I’ve seen other posts where he made some sense, which is the only reason I haven’t blocked him.

  • Keep telling me the sky is green and I’ll keep telling you that either you’re lying or there’s something wrong with your definition of green.

    Why don’t you define what you think “left” and “right” wing are for us. And what aspects of Hitler’s flavor of fascism you believe make it “right wing”.

  • Naturally everyone thinks they are correct. However, it is unnatural and definitely moonbatish to have so much evidence presented that you’re wrong without seeing some slight glimmer of understanding at some point. Also moonbattish is you engage in a lot of circular, straw man and ad hominem arguments. And making nebulous references to “history” when actual history proves you dead wrong.

  • Samantha L. Cain is a worker at a Jersey City Target.

    She is relatively new to TWITTER (Joined April 2015), at least the account she’s currently using there, it seems.

    She seems to post over at altright.com – here is an example, in which she clearly is calling for someone to be banned while claiming she’s not calling for him to be banned – and she also thinks it’s OK to villify people for having opinions that differ from hers:

    https://altright.com/2017/04/13/the-curious-case-of-ebba-akerlund/

    To the editors: okay, you want to maintain a sense of decorum. I understand. That’s quite proper. But you do realize what Ed Edgerton is saying here. That post of his essentially claims that this whole topic, which you saw fit to post here – and for good reason – is just……………nothing – an illusion, a phantom He is saying that that little dead Swedish girl was never murdered, and likely never existed. It is deeply insulting to her memory, and deeply insulting to our cause. He is also claiming, if you think about it. that you – all of you – are part of the lie. That is the logic of his false-flag ravings. I’m not calling for him to be banned. That isn’t my call, and I wouldn’t advocate it even if it were. But I believe I am right to villify him for what he says.

    I do happen to agree with her that “Ed Edgerton” adds nothing of value to the conversations and while I would not go as far as she does I will suggest that if he were banned it would definitely NOT be a loss and might even be a slight gain, but only because I won’t have to scroll past his ridiculous posts.

    In her favor, she’s got the Jewish – everyone else thing more or less right, from what I’ve seen so far.

    https://altright.com/2017/07/03/apparently-the-alt-right-is-isis-now/

    Her knowledge of geography could use some work…

    one must remember that the term “asian” covers a lot of ground – everything from Pakistan to Samoa.

    https://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/white-people-are-less-likely-to-be-gay-poll-reveals-african-american-community-has-highest-percentage-of-lgbt-adults-in-u-s/

    But she seems to be more or less correct on some aspects of homosexuality – in relationship to the whole population – half or less than what moonbats typically claim.

    I’m amazed at the open sexism and bigotry in the posts by those conversing with her there. It’s pretty overt and they probably don’t even realize it.

    Given the fact that many Asian men are largely meek and effeminine

    “effeninine?”

    They also aren’t very well traveled, or informed…

    I think it’s more likely that there are more homosexuals in the Chinese, India(n), Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, etc. communities than is commonly believed.”

    My take is that some cultures not only embraced but encouraged same sex intimacy but this does not necessarily make them homosexual, just as prison same sex events may not always be considered an act between two homosexuals. But having some older man start to have intimate relations with you when you’re pre-pubescent no doubt does tend to increase chances you were “born gay” (sarc).

  • Didn’t you mean “extreme right wing”?

  • I don’t mean to discourage you but…

    Your arguments are so facile.

    Consider:

    Hitler’s grandfather was Jewish. Hitler’s father, Alois, was registered as an illegitimate child with no father when born in 1837 and to this day Hitler’s paternal grandfather is unknown. Alois’ mother, Maria Schicklgruber, is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew, so there is some chance that some Jewish member of that family got Hitler’s grandmother pregnant. That makes Alois potentially half Jewish and Hitler potentially 1/4 Jewish.

    DNA analysis tends to support this theory:

    A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in [the Hitler] samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found … among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

    Marx being Jewish would not stop – and clearly did not stop – the Nazis from adopting some Marxist ideas nor did it stop Hitler from speaking out in favor of some of them.

    The fact Einstein and others responsible for atomic theory were Jewish did not stop Hitler from pursuing the atomic bomb.

    Erhard Milch, documented as at least half Jewish, at the beginning of the war, with the rank of general, commanded Luftflotte 5 during the Norwegian campaign. Following the defeat of France, Milch was promoted to field-marshal (Generalfeldmarschall) and given the title Air Inspector General. Milch was put in charge of the production of planes during this time. In 1935, Milch’s ethnicity came into question because his father, Anton Milch, was a Jew. This prompted an investigation by the Gestapo that Göring squelched by producing an affidavit signed by Milch’s mother stating that Anton was not really the father of Erhard and his siblings, and naming their true father as Karl Brauer, her uncle. These events and his being issued a German Blood Certificate prompted Hermann Göring to say famously “Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich” (“I decide who is a Jew”)

    This was not the only time the “Jewishness” of a faithful Nazi was overlooked, hidden or denied completely.

    It is your statement that is ignorant.

    Statements like that not only do not help your arguments, they tend to discredit you generally. Your posts would be more respected if you would find your way clear to stop inserting unnecessary and even self-depreciating ad hominem.

    http://www.history.com/news/study-suggests-adolf-hitler-had-jewish-and-african-ancestors

  • The exact same point I made in more than one post I’ve made recently.

    Great minds often reach the same – in this case rather obvious – conclusions.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    You are correct….except for the respect part.

  • Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think he meant “call us out” in that way.

  • KirklesWorth

    Oh come on…you know I respect you even if we clash on one subject.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    I stand corrected. Thank you.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    Maybe he meant “call for reinforcements.”

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy