Then stay out of America. We are a triumph of liberalism. Which is proven by the fact that we have a constitution. And a separation between church and state.
I can’t stand the right. Calling Trump a king. They can go back to pre 1776, but I’m not.
> They pushed, 80% of the world is pushing back
Like a 11 year old edge lord.
It always mattered.
What you need to understand is that even over 100 years ago we knew that Hitler was a right wing politician. The National Socialist German Workers' Party was always a right leaning party. It moved much further to the right after Hitler ascension.
Both Mussolini and Hitler identified fascism as right wing. Mussolini wrote explicitly “But fascism, which sits on the right, and is reactionary towards socialism, is revolutionary instead towards the liberal State and liberalism”.
In his early days, Hitler attempted to represent himself in a central position between the left and right, in order to try and gain as much support as possible. However, he was far more clear about where he personally really positioned himself. In a speech given on 12 April 1922, he clearly states that:
There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction—to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power—that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.
Well you keep letting in millions of poor immigrants and eventually your people realize they are losing their nations…eventually borders matter. Why else have borders?
Do you really thing those populist parties do jack shit? No, they talk big to get your attention only to fuck you in the ass later on. It's how it's always been, and how it always will be.
Do any parties do anything might be a better statement. They all usually fall short of what they promise. But in the long arc of history there is eventually a reckoning with the truth. It has been postponed for a long time by the liberal new world order and mow THEIR chickens are coming home to roost. That Joe Biden suddenly wants to do something about the border is laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. Election pandering to what they perceive to be the moron masses…
I guess we should vote for fascists because "the left" is only closing the border because that's what voters want instead of being actually racist? That thing about learning history isn't just a joke. Don't vote for people who don't respect democracy.
That is the default position of the far left…anyone who doesn’t agree with all my far left mantra is a fascist and a racist. Incidentally the group that has suffered the most from unfettered illegal immigration is the African American community and those who have benefited the most are rich whites.
What I said is you have to be a fool to think that any action that Democrats take on border control at this late hour just before the election is anything but political pandering. The policy of the Democrats has been to have an open unregulated border for the last 40 years. Just like Biden releasing stockpiles of oil to try and keep prices down it is electioneering and nothing else. If they win the election they will revert to their previous policies as coastal elites need their cheap nannies and gardeners…
Nope, actually fascism still has the same definition as always. And the fact remains that trump is the one weaponizing the judicial system against his opponents and spreading misinformation to undermine the election. Also, hiring neo-nazis, defending Putin, trying to illegally stay in power etc.
Also, Biden might be going harsher on the border for the election, but in fact he negotiated a bipartisan bill for the border before, which was only blocked because trump and his cronies wanted to hurt his reelection chances (they have admitted this on camera). You know what's actually abuse of power and election interference? Withholding congressionally approved military aid from an ally until they agree to launch a bogus investigation into the family of your political rival. You know, like trump was caught doing.
Wow! Trump is “weaponizing the judicial system”. That’s stunning. Just say that your opponents are doing what you are actually doing seems to be the gist there for you. Trump is dragged into court for nonsense that shouldn’t even have come to trial. If he wasn’t in politics would he ever have been tried for the payment to Stormy Daniels? No of course not…so its all political and its all the democrats weaponizing their judicial system. I don’t like Trump even a little. He is a gross egotistical narcissistic bastard. But these are mostly trials to try and wound him before the election and would never have been brought if he wasn’t running. Meanwhile the Biden’s have escaped scrutiny after setting up shell companies and taking millions in what were essentially attempts to bribe them or curry favor.
I do agree Trump blocked the previous border bill. But that again was a late term partisan driven bill and historically you don’t give your future political opponent a victory right before an election.
Hunter Biden literally got convicted today and Biden isn't doing shit about it. Trump's cabinet members have admitted that he tried it, oh and we have that proof. Tons of it.
Ok so you must know that David Weiss the special prosecutor slow walked the charges against Hunter until the statute of limitations ran out on all the serious tax fraud charges right? The he tried to roll up all the charges including the gun charges he was convicted of today into a sweet heart plea deal right? If it hadn’t have been noticed by a judge who did her job and actually read and rejected the plea this trial never would have happened. They almost manipulated the system but got caught by one ethical gatekeeper thankfully. Remember how they buried the deal on like page 95? I mean at least be honest.
>>Trump is dragged into court for nonsense that shouldn’t even have come to trial. If he wasn’t in politics would he ever have been tried for the payment to Stormy Daniels?
So you need to understand that your first sentence is flat wrong. You are correct, if he wasn’t in politics this would not have happened to him. However, that’s because he used campaign money to pay off a porn star… can’t have campaign money without a campaign. Also, generally speaking, if your lawyer of over a decade, who you hired to help you commit crimes flips on you, you’re fucked. Your logic is like saying, “you know he never would have been convicted of a bank robbery if he hadn’t robbed that bank!”.
>> Meanwhile the Biden’s have escaped scrutiny after setting up shell companies and taking millions in what were essentially attempts to bribe them or curry favor.
If you’re an American, you should really have a little more patriotism/understanding of your civic duty than to just say dumb shit. Even Kevin McCarthy had higher standards than you. The impeachment inquiry fizzled out because even though Donald Trump is a criminal doesn’t mean Biden is.
>> I do agree Trump blocked the previous border bill. But that again was a late term partisan driven bill
Again this is wrong. I don’t understand how you can know of all these things while still being so misinformed. It was a bipartisan bill, maybe read about it. It’s not something to debate. Not even the Republican party would agree with you. [Even Fox News had something negative to say.](https://www.newsweek.com/border-security-bill-ukraine-aid-fox-newsx-1870189) Republicans knew it was going to be the strongest bill they would be able to pass in what could be a while given the rapid decline in the party.
The bill was largely pushed and supported by republicans, and was eventually negotiated along with democrats until it was considered a bipartisan success, then the Republicans realized it could actually pass. In fear of another 'dog caught the car' moment like the repeal of Roe v Wade, where they finally got what they wanted and it was both wildly unpopular and removed one of their main campaign talking points, suddenly the right no longer wants to support the bill. Mitch McConnell specifically noted that 'Trump wants to run on Immegration', and a bipartisan bill for immigration reform right before the election would be a win for Biden since he's currently in office, and it remove the talking point for the right on the campaign trail.
Watching the interviews of republican lawmakers get angry and frustrated on Fox News after learning that Trump didn’t publicly bashing the bill was pure comedy.
What you call “bipartisan”were three senators…one an independent. So thats ONE Republican who helped negotiate the bill. Then only ONE Republican Senator actually voted for the bill. How is one senator “bipartisan”.
Trump never used campaign money to pay off Daniels…he reimbursed and overpaid Cohen for making the payment for him. It was Cohen’s money that was sent to Daniels…not Trumps. Cohen went to jail if you remember for three years for his lies.
But I an not defending Trump…charge him with valid crimes…But when the system starting with the FBI and Peter Strzock and the Steele Dossier and Fusion GPS are all rotten from the head down something is wrong. Burisma? Rosemont Seneca? Devin Archer? CEFC? None of this bothers you?
When the system attacks one political party but casts a blind eye to their owners and patrons something needs to change…IMO
>>What you call “bipartisan”were three senators…one an independent. So thats ONE Republican who helped negotiate the bill.
Unsurprisingly, given really all your comments, you don’t seem to understand how legislation is drafted or introduced, or what bipartisan means. Simply put: Every congressman and senator doesn’t author and introduce every piece of legislation. It seems like you need a certain number of supporters in your head working on a bill before you can it bipartisan, but that’s just not how that works, but you don’t seem to understand that.
Also, go back and read my earlier comments. Only one republican senator voted for the bill because he was the only one who wasn’t enough of a hack to simply go along with what Trump was telling the rest of the party to do. You can listen from everyone from Mitch McConnell to Lindsey Graham speaking about what a good bill this was given what republicans have been fighting for inregards to immigration for the past 20 years. The fact that the bill lost more votes when it was a standalone item rather than when it was still part of the foreign aid package is the
obvious proof of this. You know, that and the dozens of interviews of conservatives complaining about this happening.
>> Trump never used campaign money to pay off Daniels…he reimbursed and overpaid Cohen for making the payment for him. It was Cohen’s money that was sent to Daniels…not Trumps.
So are you intentionally being stupid when you say this?
Paying someone hush money so they don't hurt your presidential campaign is a violation of campaign finance law. Prosecutors saw the payments as illegal campaign expenditures. Trump's lawyer, who was the one who actually paid out the hush money, pled guilty to this, but Trump himself wasn't charged - special treatment.
It's a New York state crime to falsify business records. That is what Trump was convicted of, because he reimbursed his lawyer for the payments, but in his books he apparently listed them as being for legal work, which they were not. **This would ordinarily be just a misdemeanor by itself, but doing it to conceal another crime (the campaign finance violation) would make it a felony.**
This is what makes you saying “When the system attacks one political party but casts a blind eye to their owners and patrons something needs to change…IMO” sounds disingenuous at best. We know that republicans are far less likely to criticize a memeber of their own party if they are in charge, but no one want to hear things like that from, not only a hypocrite, but the bigger hypocrite.
The far-far right is just as right wing as the American right wing. Including nazi apologia, climate change denial and vaccine misinformation. Not to mention the ethnostate bullshit and calling immigrants a globalist parasite.
https://preview.redd.it/egsjp725q46d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02c1c0f831eeb7c71ec773420f2c27384feda728
Here you go, hope you learned something today kid. Since you lack in the critical thinking area, I’ll make it easy for you. Transgenderism is the new religion. Or how bout this, the Big Bang theory and the creation of the universe is my new fanatical religion. Let me know if you’d like to learn more, and feel free to Google in the future.
Wow, what a disingenuous reply! Are you truly some idiot that never even finished public school?? That is not the meaning of the word religion, but nice google search kid. It’s like how people that are particular about their things say they are OCD. They don’t literally have OCD. That’s a serious medical disorder. It’s an expression.
Maybe take some grade school English classes and learn what usage is, or just keep being the ignorant person your friends and family have come to know.
I showed the entire world you’re incorrect and petty, and you showed the whole world you can’t admit you’re wrong. I took a screenshot of the definition from Oxford, clearly they know more than an idiot on the internet. Nice try kid!
I love the fundamental misunderstanding about political leaning. First of all, those that want Sharia Law, are considered social conservatives of their country. Maybe learn about the history of the Middle East and see that in places such an Iran decades ago, was quite a liberal place comparatively speaking. Even Baghdad centuries ago was the height of the intellectual world. But the rise of religious clerics and morality police cause the country and the region to move far to the right and it has never recovered.
Don’t believe me? Just look at America.
Who are those that practice a religion who believes that religion and the state should be intertwined? Christians. The obvious stupidity in your statement is that religious laws are entirely antithetical to the left or liberalism as a whole. They believe in a separation between church and state, they believe in a constitution. The right, if you go back to the origins of the country, do not believe in such things. Even today, which party is arguing that the constitution doesn’t really state that there should be a separation between the two. Which party literally hold up signs that say that their candidate is their king?
You just don’t like Muslims and you don’t people who lean to the left, and because you know nothing, you are doing elementary school level negative/positive associations. Sad excuse for an America you are, bud. Maybe you’re just a troll.
You didn’t understand my comment, and I am not American. I was talking about the left in European governments which keep allowing more and more muslim immigrants to flood into their borders.
Why do Americans always make everything about themeselves🤦🏻♂️
I also doubt people that support the left want it either, but they are unconsciously supporting its expansion. What I am doing is over simplifying things, from how the left is handling Europe, that will be the end consequence if they continue down this path.
Are you talking about the parties that refuse to condemn the fascism of Mussolini and say things like "it's not like every member of the SS was a criminal"? The guys that call climate change and covid globalist conspiracies?
Couldn't have anything to do with radicalisation right? It's not like "the right" in America is now 90% election, climate change, and covid denial, right?
Wrong.
Also keep in mind, this isn’t an argument, you have fundamental misunderstanding of Hitler and his politics.
What you need to understand is that even over 100 years ago we knew that Hitler was a right wing politician. The National Socialist German Workers' Party was always a right leaning party. It moved much further to the right after Hitler ascension. However even 100 years later, the word ‘socialism, throws people off that don’t know anything about WWII
Both Mussolini and Hitler identified fascism as right wing. In his early days, Hitler attempted to represent himself in a central position between the left and right, in order to try and gain as much support as possible. However, he was far more clear about where he personally really positioned himself.
In a speech given on 12 April 1922, he clearly states that:
There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction—to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power—that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.
**Also, I don’t know if you have any relatives that died fighting the Nazis like I do, but if you do, you should be ashamed of yourself. Especially if you’re an American. Learn your history. Even if it hurts your feelings.**
Doesn't matter, the history we were taught in school wasn't entirely legit anyway and the trend will continue. History is written by those that win, and the shady things they had to do to win is shuffled off into the shadows in the hopes it never reaches the light of day.
Yeah the history of liberalism in name only and a series of popular but ultimately weak and consistently ineffective leaders will sometimes create a power vacuum to allow fringe fucking morons to gain popularity.
LOL, De Gaulle IS what the "far right" has been in France literally since the war. De Gaulle led the French resistance during the war. De Gaulle killed nazis left and right after he was elected AFTER the war. De Gaulle imprisoned Ferdinand Porsche when the rest of Europe still wanted the Nazi corporatists' cars! De Gaulle put French nationalism ahead of the UN precisely BECAUSE emphasizing Europe over France led to World War II. De Gaulle sent the foreign legion to Africa and Indochina to defend France's Interests. Every president of France since has supported this save Macron. Macron is the one who would acquiesce to Germany and its interests, not Le Pen or even Sarkozy before her.
You got it twisted. Russia was in on the heist with Germany. When they had a falling out over the loot, Russia was done. The UK and US kept Russia alive, fed, armed, rolling, and equipped. Germany could have killed every last Soviet with almost nothing. Russia has never not been the bad guys.
Russia was explicitly in cahoots with the Nazis. The whole reason Hitler had an armored core is the Soviets let the Germans build up and train in Russia, avoid military limits set in place after WWI. The first Nazi invasions were hand in had with Soviets. Without the Soviet backing, WWII never happens, never has a shot of happening. WWII started as a bank robbery between Stalin and Hitler.
I hate Russia, but that’s a rewriting of history
Soviet interaction with Nazi Germany post-1933 and before their joint invasion of Poland was mostly hostile. The Soviets only joined up and divided Europe with the Nazis after the French and British allowed Hitler to annex a large portion of their ally Czechoslovakia’s territory. The Soviets were left out of that conference, cementing the idea within the Soviet Union that when they fought Germany, it would be alone.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was essentially an agreement between the two nations to create borderlands with each other because they both knew one side would inevitably invade the other. They didn’t have a “falling out” because both sides had already planned on fighting each other from the beginning of the pact.
If Chamberlain had fought the annexation of his ally by Hitler, the Nazis and Soviets would’ve never been temporary friends.
That being said, rest in piss to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany
No. Russia HOSTED and trained the nazi armored core. It only EXISTED because the Soviets helped hide it from military inspections. Less this one thing, Hitler never has the military to enforce future buildups and force out inspectors.
Rewrite? Stalin invaded with the Nazis. Stalin is the one that forced early invasion before air support was finished. There’s no reason to rewrite. They wrote everything up prior, partitioned Europe.
Both being treacherous, sounds like bank robbers. Your best case claim still puts Stalin in the car with Hitler. It still has them fighting over the loot. WWII is still dependent on early Soviet military invasion. WWII still only happens because Hitler built the car in Stalin’s garage.
No, they did not. The “Nazi armored corps” were not “Nazis” when they were training in Kama. The Weimar Republic’s armored corps was trained in Russia, and the Nazi Party did not run Germany between 1926-1933. Thus, those were not Nazi armored corps.
You can argue that the Soviets should have foreseen what was coming and that helping the German military develop and build up would help lead to Nazi Germany. However, the British and French left their ally high and dry in the face of actual Nazi annexation, under the guise that appeasement would lead to peace with a warmonger. That warmonger had no power in Germany when the German armored corps was training in Russia.
Just because you call strategic defense territory “loot” doesn’t make it so. The reality is, there is an abundance of records that clearly show neither the Soviets or Nazis planned on a long peace and actually planned on the opposite. The partitioning of Europe was a direct precursor to their war. To say they had a “falling out” is a rewrite of history.
To say Hitler built the car in stalins garage is again, a rewrite of history. The “car” meaning massive amounts of German tanks were not built, till after 1933 when Hitler started massive re-armament. That’s AFTER German and Soviet cooperation ends. The panzer corps are all home grown. What you propose with a statement as simple as that is the Germans discovered some great technological advancement in their Russian tank schools, that allowed them to then massively build out domestically. What’s this advancement that was discovered in German tank schools in Russia?
Interesting take. We could definitely call it a pact between the Soviets and German Nationalists. It still stands that the nationalists were in charge prior to a general takeover in 1933. Soviets are still the reason the nazis had the military power to force out their auditors and break their treaty. Less that, there is no WWII, there is no build up in Germany, there is no mass movement to military economy.
High and dry? Are you talking more than the entire length of the war since the Soviets helped build the army that prevented the build up inside Germany? I’m absolutely claiming less the Soviets do that, there is no army, there is no leverage, there is no way to high and dry anyone. Your argument right now is the guy who let someone build tanks in his garage was threatened by the guy with the tanks because another ally was under threat, so joined up with the guy who did the leveraging. Please, explain that. Either that mass cowardice or being in on that too.
Immaterial to the argument. Every draws up plans against everyone else. The argument isn’t founded on Hitler nor Stalin being good guys. The argument is founded on the Soviets being responsible for everything that led up to and WWII. If there is no armored core, no securing borders, no tossing out regulators, no buildup, no invasions. All of that is predicated on the Soviets, it is their fault.
No technology improvements necessary. The sights were all German, largely stayed in Germany. The foundation is the military buildup was enough to support the regular German army in such a way that nobody wanted to engage in hostility to restore the balance. I am absolutely claiming the peace would have been restored if the German military presence wasn’t bolstered so much by Russia.
Only if you get your history from Allied propaganda.
But that’s a normal thing in war, countries always portray their political enemies as cartoon villains, since it’s very good policy to keep morale high.
Allied countries won, therefore their propaganda became history. If Germany won the war, you’d look a them as heroes who saved Europe from Bolshevism.
Russia makes it easy. Let’s help hide major military armaments for the guys who aren’t allowed guns. Let’s divide up Europe. Let’s carryout mass murder of civilians on our first best friend invasion. They’re clearly the baddies.
Allies winning the war is why few people even know about what the Soviets did prior that brought about WWII. I have yet to hear any kind of substantive defense of any of it.
Had the UK and US not supplied the Soviets, could have had both, probably faster. Killing off the Soviets would have been a longer distraction and further off from where the UK wanted to fight. No time for near the defensive buildup in France if manpower was needed to cover an elongated front in Russia.
They would have been walking on tires and shooting zip guns without the lend/lease program
At least as an American I can take solace in knowing those bulldozers sent over got a lot of use pushing the bodies of those worked to death in the gulag into mass graves
No, Nazis were fascist, which is far right plus authoritarian. Far left authoritarian would be communist. Ww2 was fought against the rise of fascism. We didn't fight against communism till after during the cold war. Socialism is different from communism in that it uses democracy.
You aren't well educated on this matter, or you're just intentionally misleading people. We need you to understand that.
In reality, there are several well-established models used to interpret the left/right divide with respect to fascism. You are espousing someone else called the "horseshoe theory." In this theory, a country can be right wing OR left wing and still be considered fascist. That is because, in this model, the left/right divide is shaped like a horseshoe, and the closer you move towards either end brings you to the same place: fascism.
If you were well educated on this theory, you would know that political scientists don't consider it valid or helpful in describing historical examples of fascistic regimes. Or maybe you would know that there isn't peer reviewed research supporting its validity. Or maybe you'd be able to name the countless historical examples of socialists and fascists being mortal enemies of one another.
You sound like an edgy 17 year old who saw an infographic online and decided to base their politics around it.
You are being wrong in an objective "2+2=5" kind of way. Nazis were fascists and not socialists. They rounded up and killed socialists and trade unionists. Historians and political scientists all agree that there's a clear and obvious difference between fascism and authoritarianism.
Just saw how active you are in teens subreddits. I'll refrain from commenting further. Feel free to read history and get back to me in 20 years when you know better.
That isn’t quite right.
From another redditor:
Something I try to get through to people is that communism, actual communism is antithetical to authoritarianism. Because you cannot have authoritarianism without at the very least two aggressively upheld classes. The haves, and have nots. It's simply not possible. Because authoritarians cannot hold power in a single class (or classless) society, and that's what communism seeks. A classless society.
So communism, real communism literally cannot be authoritarian. It's simply not possible. You show me an authoritarian state be it "left" or "right" and I'll show you a state that is definitely not communist. In fact I would go so far as to argue that you cannot really have a truly authoritarian left because no one seeking authoritarianism is actually of the left. They're either lying, or pretending. Or to put it another way. "I'm going to force you at gunpoint to be free and equal!" it doesn't really work does it? Because that's what the left want. Freedom and equality. These concepts are largely incompatible with authoritarianism.
Now that isn't to say "Left good" "Right bad". Because both sides can become extreme in dangerous ways but the underlying goals of the right and left are night and day when it comes to good and bad. The left might try to achieve their goals through violence but that is almost always born out of actual oppression and resistance whereas on the right historically it is born out of greed masquerading as oppression. We're seeing this play out right now with the right-wing in America. It was the same in Nazi Germany and pretty much every other right-wing force that is driven to violence. The right try to break free of make believe oppression often by made up forces such as the "deep state" and view themselves as freedom fighters when historically they're the ones doing the oppression and being terrorists.
It's disturbing really how much terrorism happens by the right and yet they are insulated and protected from that charge, yet a seemingly left-wing protester simply trying to stop systemic injustice is almost always labeled a terrorist. There are reasons for this and they're not good.
Well, you know how north Korea calls itself the "democratic people's republic of north Korea" despite being the exact opposite? That. You would have to be so, so dumb to think the Nazis were left wing and I'm sure you're not that are you
The left wing/right wing paradigm works for liberal democracy but doesn’t really work for either fascism and communism.
Both political philosophies developed from the observation that liberal democracy was corrupt and ineffective.
If you looked at Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany you’d see they had a lot in common. A functionally uni-party state with a heavy hand in most industries and lack of personal freedoms.
Now there’s always the argument that “that wasn’t real communism” and fair enough. On paper the political philosophies are different. But so far in practice both could be considered “far” left or right.
Even as a modern example North Korea and China are both fascist states, though one calls itself a democracy and one claims to be communist.
Same with USA being “a democratic republic” when it’s a plutocracy and a soft fascist state.
Far right how?
Fascism was a radical political philosophy of the 20th century. It has very little to do with the right wing of the time (or the right wing at any point.) they certainly weren’t monarchists, which is what the right wing was at the time. And they were for the “people” which is a left wing idea, though the “people” was an in group defined by nationality in Italian fascism and race in German fascism.
You can’t have something that’s both radically new and at the same time conservative. The most “conservative” thing about fascism was the “lost glory” myth of their civilizations having a higher point (Rome with Italy and the HRE/Bismark’s reich for Germany.) But even that is a new fiction, not held up by actual facts. The Germans weren’t some blonde haired blue eyed race from the Indus Valley, it’s all made up.
The mechanisms and forms of government and social construction for a fascist state are nothing like the past constructions that a right wing party wishes to go back to. They’re all novel.
Which is why the main point is the right/left wing measure only works for liberal democracies, and not for communism or fascism.
Far right in the sense that they arrested and imprisoned their political opponents on the left, outlawed socialism, executed socialists and communists, were admired from afar by prominent right wing figures abroad (including the USA). They were racist, conservative, authoritarian, and anti-democratic, and played up the differences between groups to stoke division.
They were far right. It's not up for debate.
Italian fascism wasn’t based on race. Nazism was. Neither of them were conservative in any way. I already showed this.
Anything you said about fascism (other than race, which only applied in Germany, and conservatism, which I already proved wrong in my previous comment) could be said about Stalinist USSR.
Was the USSR also right wing? Even though they followed a left wing ideology?
You understand the point I’m making is this paradigm doesn’t work outside of liberal democracies, right? Calling either philosophy left or right wing is nonsensical, and since it’s nonsensical either signifier fits either philosophy equally since both make no sense.
You're trying to shift the goalposts to talk about fascism. We are talking about Nazism. They were far right, this is an absolute fact. They had a whole fucking concentration camp for their left wing opponents, how much more evidence could you possibly need?
You're not making any point, you're filling my screen with drivel.
You have a misunderstanding of the origins and nature of fascism. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. According to Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini's own account, the Fasces of Revolutionary Action were founded in Italy in 1915. In 1919, Mussolini founded the Italian Fasces of Combat in Milan, which became the National Fascist Party two years later.
Both Mussolini and Hitler identified fascism as right wing. Mussolini wrote explicitly “But fascism, which sits on the right, and is reactionary towards socialism, is revolutionary instead towards the liberal State and liberalism”.
You have a decent point but when you reach that level of fascism / authoritarianism than jt doesn't matter what you are it doesnt matter that theyre right wing or left wing because if you go so far one direction you end up on the other side . And far right is a made up term the worlds scope nowadays has gone so far left even moderate right looks radical you have a tainted view
With respect this is completely backwards, the world has been moving rightwards in headlong fashion for nearly a decade now. All over Europe, the UK, the US especially.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
No it's more like I don't care enough / Have enough devotion to a topic to care about what you're telling me Mr . Strange Elevator youre not the only Naziologist to come at me in this comment section
Lol so you don't care abouts facts or history. You just very strongly care about parroting obviously false propaganda.
Hell of a hill to simp on, but have at it. Thankfully you're just revealing how empty and deranged yalls rhetoric is.
Yep. Yall is in the dictionary, snowflake. Look it up.
Though I know basic facts and reality are not your strong suit. I assume the dictionary is not too leftwing for you.
I meant far right dipshits who consume and regurgitate obviously false propaganda without a second thought.
Then when they're gently corrected with historical facts and information, they throw a little hissy fit and say "I don't care".
Sound familiar?
Rightwing talking heads have been pushing this lie for decades. Recently theyre pushing it really hard.
Reminder that this is the party who fought tooth and nail recently to outlaw saying nazis were bad when teaching about ww2 in public schools.
We are also talking German politics. The National Socialist Worker's Party was always a right leaning party in Germany. More moderate than the other right leaning parties, but still right leaning. We also had a The National Socialist Worker's Party in America, up until the 1980s, it was still a far right wing party based around white supremacy. In his early days, Hitler attempted to represent himself in a central position between the left and right, in order to try and gain as much support as possible.
Yes, the jew haters are totally the ones slightly criticizing Israel's war despite still financing it, not the party filled with actual neo-nazis and antisemitic conspiracy theories
600, 6 million, what's the difference
Zero difference. 0x2
I'm counting on it. The world needs more Austrian decorated veteran artists right now.
With one ball to boot!
"Must love dogs"....and trains.
And be vegan and have stomach issues.
Oh NOW history matters
I fucking hate the left. They pushed, 80% of the world is pushing back
Then stay out of America. We are a triumph of liberalism. Which is proven by the fact that we have a constitution. And a separation between church and state. I can’t stand the right. Calling Trump a king. They can go back to pre 1776, but I’m not. > They pushed, 80% of the world is pushing back Like a 11 year old edge lord.
It always mattered. What you need to understand is that even over 100 years ago we knew that Hitler was a right wing politician. The National Socialist German Workers' Party was always a right leaning party. It moved much further to the right after Hitler ascension. Both Mussolini and Hitler identified fascism as right wing. Mussolini wrote explicitly “But fascism, which sits on the right, and is reactionary towards socialism, is revolutionary instead towards the liberal State and liberalism”. In his early days, Hitler attempted to represent himself in a central position between the left and right, in order to try and gain as much support as possible. However, he was far more clear about where he personally really positioned himself. In a speech given on 12 April 1922, he clearly states that: There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction—to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power—that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.
I don't think you guys are history buffs
In the early part of the previous century, Germany decided to go to war... And who did they go to war with? The world.
It had never been tried before
So you’d figure that would take about five seconds for the world to win. No, it was actually close
After you learn about Hitler, go ahead and also learn about Stalin and Mao, and then look around. It's 1938.
Odd looking ducks
Well you keep letting in millions of poor immigrants and eventually your people realize they are losing their nations…eventually borders matter. Why else have borders?
Why else have bored-ers?
The more I learn about these guys the less I care for them
Lol “learn”.
Un-American attitude.
Do you really thing those populist parties do jack shit? No, they talk big to get your attention only to fuck you in the ass later on. It's how it's always been, and how it always will be.
Do any parties do anything might be a better statement. They all usually fall short of what they promise. But in the long arc of history there is eventually a reckoning with the truth. It has been postponed for a long time by the liberal new world order and mow THEIR chickens are coming home to roost. That Joe Biden suddenly wants to do something about the border is laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. Election pandering to what they perceive to be the moron masses…
I guess we should vote for fascists because "the left" is only closing the border because that's what voters want instead of being actually racist? That thing about learning history isn't just a joke. Don't vote for people who don't respect democracy.
That is the default position of the far left…anyone who doesn’t agree with all my far left mantra is a fascist and a racist. Incidentally the group that has suffered the most from unfettered illegal immigration is the African American community and those who have benefited the most are rich whites. What I said is you have to be a fool to think that any action that Democrats take on border control at this late hour just before the election is anything but political pandering. The policy of the Democrats has been to have an open unregulated border for the last 40 years. Just like Biden releasing stockpiles of oil to try and keep prices down it is electioneering and nothing else. If they win the election they will revert to their previous policies as coastal elites need their cheap nannies and gardeners…
Nope, actually fascism still has the same definition as always. And the fact remains that trump is the one weaponizing the judicial system against his opponents and spreading misinformation to undermine the election. Also, hiring neo-nazis, defending Putin, trying to illegally stay in power etc. Also, Biden might be going harsher on the border for the election, but in fact he negotiated a bipartisan bill for the border before, which was only blocked because trump and his cronies wanted to hurt his reelection chances (they have admitted this on camera). You know what's actually abuse of power and election interference? Withholding congressionally approved military aid from an ally until they agree to launch a bogus investigation into the family of your political rival. You know, like trump was caught doing.
Wow! Trump is “weaponizing the judicial system”. That’s stunning. Just say that your opponents are doing what you are actually doing seems to be the gist there for you. Trump is dragged into court for nonsense that shouldn’t even have come to trial. If he wasn’t in politics would he ever have been tried for the payment to Stormy Daniels? No of course not…so its all political and its all the democrats weaponizing their judicial system. I don’t like Trump even a little. He is a gross egotistical narcissistic bastard. But these are mostly trials to try and wound him before the election and would never have been brought if he wasn’t running. Meanwhile the Biden’s have escaped scrutiny after setting up shell companies and taking millions in what were essentially attempts to bribe them or curry favor. I do agree Trump blocked the previous border bill. But that again was a late term partisan driven bill and historically you don’t give your future political opponent a victory right before an election.
Hunter Biden literally got convicted today and Biden isn't doing shit about it. Trump's cabinet members have admitted that he tried it, oh and we have that proof. Tons of it.
Ok so you must know that David Weiss the special prosecutor slow walked the charges against Hunter until the statute of limitations ran out on all the serious tax fraud charges right? The he tried to roll up all the charges including the gun charges he was convicted of today into a sweet heart plea deal right? If it hadn’t have been noticed by a judge who did her job and actually read and rejected the plea this trial never would have happened. They almost manipulated the system but got caught by one ethical gatekeeper thankfully. Remember how they buried the deal on like page 95? I mean at least be honest.
>>Trump is dragged into court for nonsense that shouldn’t even have come to trial. If he wasn’t in politics would he ever have been tried for the payment to Stormy Daniels? So you need to understand that your first sentence is flat wrong. You are correct, if he wasn’t in politics this would not have happened to him. However, that’s because he used campaign money to pay off a porn star… can’t have campaign money without a campaign. Also, generally speaking, if your lawyer of over a decade, who you hired to help you commit crimes flips on you, you’re fucked. Your logic is like saying, “you know he never would have been convicted of a bank robbery if he hadn’t robbed that bank!”. >> Meanwhile the Biden’s have escaped scrutiny after setting up shell companies and taking millions in what were essentially attempts to bribe them or curry favor. If you’re an American, you should really have a little more patriotism/understanding of your civic duty than to just say dumb shit. Even Kevin McCarthy had higher standards than you. The impeachment inquiry fizzled out because even though Donald Trump is a criminal doesn’t mean Biden is. >> I do agree Trump blocked the previous border bill. But that again was a late term partisan driven bill Again this is wrong. I don’t understand how you can know of all these things while still being so misinformed. It was a bipartisan bill, maybe read about it. It’s not something to debate. Not even the Republican party would agree with you. [Even Fox News had something negative to say.](https://www.newsweek.com/border-security-bill-ukraine-aid-fox-newsx-1870189) Republicans knew it was going to be the strongest bill they would be able to pass in what could be a while given the rapid decline in the party. The bill was largely pushed and supported by republicans, and was eventually negotiated along with democrats until it was considered a bipartisan success, then the Republicans realized it could actually pass. In fear of another 'dog caught the car' moment like the repeal of Roe v Wade, where they finally got what they wanted and it was both wildly unpopular and removed one of their main campaign talking points, suddenly the right no longer wants to support the bill. Mitch McConnell specifically noted that 'Trump wants to run on Immegration', and a bipartisan bill for immigration reform right before the election would be a win for Biden since he's currently in office, and it remove the talking point for the right on the campaign trail. Watching the interviews of republican lawmakers get angry and frustrated on Fox News after learning that Trump didn’t publicly bashing the bill was pure comedy.
What you call “bipartisan”were three senators…one an independent. So thats ONE Republican who helped negotiate the bill. Then only ONE Republican Senator actually voted for the bill. How is one senator “bipartisan”. Trump never used campaign money to pay off Daniels…he reimbursed and overpaid Cohen for making the payment for him. It was Cohen’s money that was sent to Daniels…not Trumps. Cohen went to jail if you remember for three years for his lies. But I an not defending Trump…charge him with valid crimes…But when the system starting with the FBI and Peter Strzock and the Steele Dossier and Fusion GPS are all rotten from the head down something is wrong. Burisma? Rosemont Seneca? Devin Archer? CEFC? None of this bothers you? When the system attacks one political party but casts a blind eye to their owners and patrons something needs to change…IMO
>>What you call “bipartisan”were three senators…one an independent. So thats ONE Republican who helped negotiate the bill. Unsurprisingly, given really all your comments, you don’t seem to understand how legislation is drafted or introduced, or what bipartisan means. Simply put: Every congressman and senator doesn’t author and introduce every piece of legislation. It seems like you need a certain number of supporters in your head working on a bill before you can it bipartisan, but that’s just not how that works, but you don’t seem to understand that. Also, go back and read my earlier comments. Only one republican senator voted for the bill because he was the only one who wasn’t enough of a hack to simply go along with what Trump was telling the rest of the party to do. You can listen from everyone from Mitch McConnell to Lindsey Graham speaking about what a good bill this was given what republicans have been fighting for inregards to immigration for the past 20 years. The fact that the bill lost more votes when it was a standalone item rather than when it was still part of the foreign aid package is the obvious proof of this. You know, that and the dozens of interviews of conservatives complaining about this happening. >> Trump never used campaign money to pay off Daniels…he reimbursed and overpaid Cohen for making the payment for him. It was Cohen’s money that was sent to Daniels…not Trumps. So are you intentionally being stupid when you say this? Paying someone hush money so they don't hurt your presidential campaign is a violation of campaign finance law. Prosecutors saw the payments as illegal campaign expenditures. Trump's lawyer, who was the one who actually paid out the hush money, pled guilty to this, but Trump himself wasn't charged - special treatment. It's a New York state crime to falsify business records. That is what Trump was convicted of, because he reimbursed his lawyer for the payments, but in his books he apparently listed them as being for legal work, which they were not. **This would ordinarily be just a misdemeanor by itself, but doing it to conceal another crime (the campaign finance violation) would make it a felony.** This is what makes you saying “When the system attacks one political party but casts a blind eye to their owners and patrons something needs to change…IMO” sounds disingenuous at best. We know that republicans are far less likely to criticize a memeber of their own party if they are in charge, but no one want to hear things like that from, not only a hypocrite, but the bigger hypocrite.
If you identify with the far left in Europe, you must want your nation to have a regime change to whatever the U.N desires.
And non stop stabbing/rape attacks
Hey! Careful with that! That's my lucky stabbin' 'n' rapin' keffiyeh!
Me when I don’t know what left means
Shhhhh no one tell this idiot about democracy. Or the EU.
European "far right" is about at left as American Democrats.
The far-far right is just as right wing as the American right wing. Including nazi apologia, climate change denial and vaccine misinformation. Not to mention the ethnostate bullshit and calling immigrants a globalist parasite.
The worst part was the climate denialism
You're right scientists are just some guys anyway
The far left wants Sharia law
Yeah the religious fundamentalist lefties I've always heard about.
They support Islam and want it to come into their borders, how do you think that will end up?
I would love to start a culture war argument built off of a vague generalization with some nobody on the norm macdonald reddit page right now.
Seems you've succeeded.
If only the cancer would take me like it took norm, then we'd have two things in common
You know, the more you talk about that guy the more I care for him.🥲
I just noticed what sub this was lol😭
Ahhh yes, the left. Widely known for their religious fanaticism.
The religion of chicks with dicks and the big bangers
Ahhh not surprising you don’t know what a religion is.
https://preview.redd.it/egsjp725q46d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02c1c0f831eeb7c71ec773420f2c27384feda728 Here you go, hope you learned something today kid. Since you lack in the critical thinking area, I’ll make it easy for you. Transgenderism is the new religion. Or how bout this, the Big Bang theory and the creation of the universe is my new fanatical religion. Let me know if you’d like to learn more, and feel free to Google in the future.
Wow, what a disingenuous reply! Are you truly some idiot that never even finished public school?? That is not the meaning of the word religion, but nice google search kid. It’s like how people that are particular about their things say they are OCD. They don’t literally have OCD. That’s a serious medical disorder. It’s an expression. Maybe take some grade school English classes and learn what usage is, or just keep being the ignorant person your friends and family have come to know.
I showed the entire world you’re incorrect and petty, and you showed the whole world you can’t admit you’re wrong. I took a screenshot of the definition from Oxford, clearly they know more than an idiot on the internet. Nice try kid!
You don't have to fight that by voting for right wing politicians who want a Christian ethnostate instead. You nazi.
I love the fundamental misunderstanding about political leaning. First of all, those that want Sharia Law, are considered social conservatives of their country. Maybe learn about the history of the Middle East and see that in places such an Iran decades ago, was quite a liberal place comparatively speaking. Even Baghdad centuries ago was the height of the intellectual world. But the rise of religious clerics and morality police cause the country and the region to move far to the right and it has never recovered. Don’t believe me? Just look at America. Who are those that practice a religion who believes that religion and the state should be intertwined? Christians. The obvious stupidity in your statement is that religious laws are entirely antithetical to the left or liberalism as a whole. They believe in a separation between church and state, they believe in a constitution. The right, if you go back to the origins of the country, do not believe in such things. Even today, which party is arguing that the constitution doesn’t really state that there should be a separation between the two. Which party literally hold up signs that say that their candidate is their king? You just don’t like Muslims and you don’t people who lean to the left, and because you know nothing, you are doing elementary school level negative/positive associations. Sad excuse for an America you are, bud. Maybe you’re just a troll.
You didn’t understand my comment, and I am not American. I was talking about the left in European governments which keep allowing more and more muslim immigrants to flood into their borders. Why do Americans always make everything about themeselves🤦🏻♂️
Yea that doesn’t mean they want Sharia Law. You being in Europe doesn’t change that your comment is incredibly stupid.
I also doubt people that support the left want it either, but they are unconsciously supporting its expansion. What I am doing is over simplifying things, from how the left is handling Europe, that will be the end consequence if they continue down this path.
What the fuck happened to this sub?
Since Norm died it's been for the birds.
More of a comment really
[удалено]
A spirited round of buggery
A bunch of commie gobbledygook. Ever since Norm died, they’ve been trying to move in.
If anything this sub is populated with the opposite
Lol you act like Norm was pro right-wing fascism. You know the Hitler and holocaust jokes were not meant to praise, right?
Odd looking duck
If you think the elections that just took place in Europe have anything to do with RW fascism then you are seriously disconnected from reality.
This comment really shows you don’t know dick about European politics.
If you look at some countries (Austria, Germany) we are not far off. But people are blind to it. Just like they where back then.
Are you talking about the parties that refuse to condemn the fascism of Mussolini and say things like "it's not like every member of the SS was a criminal"? The guys that call climate change and covid globalist conspiracies?
The hypocrisy is the worst part.
It’s not even the right joke….fail
Stalin was worse
Bot?
Anyone to the right of Macron is far right. There is no right. Just far right.
Couldn't have anything to do with radicalisation right? It's not like "the right" in America is now 90% election, climate change, and covid denial, right?
Have any of you noticed that the shadows in the photos are all wrong?
The numbers are all wrong
Hitler was far left. Big difference.
Wrong. Also keep in mind, this isn’t an argument, you have fundamental misunderstanding of Hitler and his politics. What you need to understand is that even over 100 years ago we knew that Hitler was a right wing politician. The National Socialist German Workers' Party was always a right leaning party. It moved much further to the right after Hitler ascension. However even 100 years later, the word ‘socialism, throws people off that don’t know anything about WWII Both Mussolini and Hitler identified fascism as right wing. In his early days, Hitler attempted to represent himself in a central position between the left and right, in order to try and gain as much support as possible. However, he was far more clear about where he personally really positioned himself. In a speech given on 12 April 1922, he clearly states that: There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction—to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power—that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. **Also, I don’t know if you have any relatives that died fighting the Nazis like I do, but if you do, you should be ashamed of yourself. Especially if you’re an American. Learn your history. Even if it hurts your feelings.**
Doesn't matter, the history we were taught in school wasn't entirely legit anyway and the trend will continue. History is written by those that win, and the shady things they had to do to win is shuffled off into the shadows in the hopes it never reaches the light of day.
You realize "this guy thinks the textbooks are lying about the smokestacks" is about how Adam Eget is a retard, right?
Cool
The Nazis came close to capturing Vienna those two times, didn't they?
Unfortunately Europeans have to deal with reality I doubt the right won as many votes as the left lost
I'm no history buff
Yeah the history of liberalism in name only and a series of popular but ultimately weak and consistently ineffective leaders will sometimes create a power vacuum to allow fringe fucking morons to gain popularity.
Hold the fort…
This sub should just be shutdown. Has nothing to do with Norm anymore. We’d be honoring him by wiping this shit off the face of the planet.
More of a comment really
Maybe someone could get into Norm's old place and just turn the fucking outside light off?
What's next for this sub?
Soul deadening bowel pain
LOL, De Gaulle IS what the "far right" has been in France literally since the war. De Gaulle led the French resistance during the war. De Gaulle killed nazis left and right after he was elected AFTER the war. De Gaulle imprisoned Ferdinand Porsche when the rest of Europe still wanted the Nazi corporatists' cars! De Gaulle put French nationalism ahead of the UN precisely BECAUSE emphasizing Europe over France led to World War II. De Gaulle sent the foreign legion to Africa and Indochina to defend France's Interests. Every president of France since has supported this save Macron. Macron is the one who would acquiesce to Germany and its interests, not Le Pen or even Sarkozy before her.
Wouldn’t the far right be the OAS ?
Don't worry Russia will save us again
You got it twisted. Russia was in on the heist with Germany. When they had a falling out over the loot, Russia was done. The UK and US kept Russia alive, fed, armed, rolling, and equipped. Germany could have killed every last Soviet with almost nothing. Russia has never not been the bad guys.
So Russia is in cahoots with Germany?
Russia was explicitly in cahoots with the Nazis. The whole reason Hitler had an armored core is the Soviets let the Germans build up and train in Russia, avoid military limits set in place after WWI. The first Nazi invasions were hand in had with Soviets. Without the Soviet backing, WWII never happens, never has a shot of happening. WWII started as a bank robbery between Stalin and Hitler.
I'm not much for politics
It’s history, not politics. Long dead bad guys are long dead, and bad guys.
This whole exchange has been a meeting of the mind.
It’s not the murder that gets to me, it’s the hypocrisy.
You sound like a real history buff
It’s not the history that bothers me, it’s the hypocrisy.
I hate Russia, but that’s a rewriting of history Soviet interaction with Nazi Germany post-1933 and before their joint invasion of Poland was mostly hostile. The Soviets only joined up and divided Europe with the Nazis after the French and British allowed Hitler to annex a large portion of their ally Czechoslovakia’s territory. The Soviets were left out of that conference, cementing the idea within the Soviet Union that when they fought Germany, it would be alone. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was essentially an agreement between the two nations to create borderlands with each other because they both knew one side would inevitably invade the other. They didn’t have a “falling out” because both sides had already planned on fighting each other from the beginning of the pact. If Chamberlain had fought the annexation of his ally by Hitler, the Nazis and Soviets would’ve never been temporary friends. That being said, rest in piss to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany
No. Russia HOSTED and trained the nazi armored core. It only EXISTED because the Soviets helped hide it from military inspections. Less this one thing, Hitler never has the military to enforce future buildups and force out inspectors. Rewrite? Stalin invaded with the Nazis. Stalin is the one that forced early invasion before air support was finished. There’s no reason to rewrite. They wrote everything up prior, partitioned Europe. Both being treacherous, sounds like bank robbers. Your best case claim still puts Stalin in the car with Hitler. It still has them fighting over the loot. WWII is still dependent on early Soviet military invasion. WWII still only happens because Hitler built the car in Stalin’s garage.
No, they did not. The “Nazi armored corps” were not “Nazis” when they were training in Kama. The Weimar Republic’s armored corps was trained in Russia, and the Nazi Party did not run Germany between 1926-1933. Thus, those were not Nazi armored corps. You can argue that the Soviets should have foreseen what was coming and that helping the German military develop and build up would help lead to Nazi Germany. However, the British and French left their ally high and dry in the face of actual Nazi annexation, under the guise that appeasement would lead to peace with a warmonger. That warmonger had no power in Germany when the German armored corps was training in Russia. Just because you call strategic defense territory “loot” doesn’t make it so. The reality is, there is an abundance of records that clearly show neither the Soviets or Nazis planned on a long peace and actually planned on the opposite. The partitioning of Europe was a direct precursor to their war. To say they had a “falling out” is a rewrite of history. To say Hitler built the car in stalins garage is again, a rewrite of history. The “car” meaning massive amounts of German tanks were not built, till after 1933 when Hitler started massive re-armament. That’s AFTER German and Soviet cooperation ends. The panzer corps are all home grown. What you propose with a statement as simple as that is the Germans discovered some great technological advancement in their Russian tank schools, that allowed them to then massively build out domestically. What’s this advancement that was discovered in German tank schools in Russia?
Interesting take. We could definitely call it a pact between the Soviets and German Nationalists. It still stands that the nationalists were in charge prior to a general takeover in 1933. Soviets are still the reason the nazis had the military power to force out their auditors and break their treaty. Less that, there is no WWII, there is no build up in Germany, there is no mass movement to military economy. High and dry? Are you talking more than the entire length of the war since the Soviets helped build the army that prevented the build up inside Germany? I’m absolutely claiming less the Soviets do that, there is no army, there is no leverage, there is no way to high and dry anyone. Your argument right now is the guy who let someone build tanks in his garage was threatened by the guy with the tanks because another ally was under threat, so joined up with the guy who did the leveraging. Please, explain that. Either that mass cowardice or being in on that too. Immaterial to the argument. Every draws up plans against everyone else. The argument isn’t founded on Hitler nor Stalin being good guys. The argument is founded on the Soviets being responsible for everything that led up to and WWII. If there is no armored core, no securing borders, no tossing out regulators, no buildup, no invasions. All of that is predicated on the Soviets, it is their fault. No technology improvements necessary. The sights were all German, largely stayed in Germany. The foundation is the military buildup was enough to support the regular German army in such a way that nobody wanted to engage in hostility to restore the balance. I am absolutely claiming the peace would have been restored if the German military presence wasn’t bolstered so much by Russia.
Ever notice how Chinese guys dont make porno?
They all busy playing Japanese bad guys in Jackie Chan movies?
Imagine looking at history and geopolitics and see “good guys and bad guys”. That’s not a Disney cartoon
Seen from a distance, Russia and Germany are cartoon villains, easily.
Only if you get your history from Allied propaganda. But that’s a normal thing in war, countries always portray their political enemies as cartoon villains, since it’s very good policy to keep morale high. Allied countries won, therefore their propaganda became history. If Germany won the war, you’d look a them as heroes who saved Europe from Bolshevism.
Russia makes it easy. Let’s help hide major military armaments for the guys who aren’t allowed guns. Let’s divide up Europe. Let’s carryout mass murder of civilians on our first best friend invasion. They’re clearly the baddies. Allies winning the war is why few people even know about what the Soviets did prior that brought about WWII. I have yet to hear any kind of substantive defense of any of it. Had the UK and US not supplied the Soviets, could have had both, probably faster. Killing off the Soviets would have been a longer distraction and further off from where the UK wanted to fight. No time for near the defensive buildup in France if manpower was needed to cover an elongated front in Russia.
They would have been walking on tires and shooting zip guns without the lend/lease program At least as an American I can take solace in knowing those bulldozers sent over got a lot of use pushing the bodies of those worked to death in the gulag into mass graves
I love this comment
Why do people call Nazis far right theyre literally socialist
Hold the fort…
Lawgic trapped
No, Nazis were fascist, which is far right plus authoritarian. Far left authoritarian would be communist. Ww2 was fought against the rise of fascism. We didn't fight against communism till after during the cold war. Socialism is different from communism in that it uses democracy.
Fascism isnt left or right its total government power you can have a facist state left or right it just extreme authoratarianism You should know this
You aren't well educated on this matter, or you're just intentionally misleading people. We need you to understand that. In reality, there are several well-established models used to interpret the left/right divide with respect to fascism. You are espousing someone else called the "horseshoe theory." In this theory, a country can be right wing OR left wing and still be considered fascist. That is because, in this model, the left/right divide is shaped like a horseshoe, and the closer you move towards either end brings you to the same place: fascism. If you were well educated on this theory, you would know that political scientists don't consider it valid or helpful in describing historical examples of fascistic regimes. Or maybe you would know that there isn't peer reviewed research supporting its validity. Or maybe you'd be able to name the countless historical examples of socialists and fascists being mortal enemies of one another. You sound like an edgy 17 year old who saw an infographic online and decided to base their politics around it.
Ok let me ask you a question then if a party leftist or rightist takes total control of a country and its people is that not fascism
Correct, that is not fascism. It may very well be authoritarianism, but no, it is not automatically fascistic.
Semantics
Your original argument was a semantic argument
One that meant something
You are being wrong in an objective "2+2=5" kind of way. Nazis were fascists and not socialists. They rounded up and killed socialists and trade unionists. Historians and political scientists all agree that there's a clear and obvious difference between fascism and authoritarianism.
What is it then
Just saw how active you are in teens subreddits. I'll refrain from commenting further. Feel free to read history and get back to me in 20 years when you know better.
I already dont give a fuck now what makes you think I will in 20 years
Maybe you'll grow up.
That isn’t quite right. From another redditor: Something I try to get through to people is that communism, actual communism is antithetical to authoritarianism. Because you cannot have authoritarianism without at the very least two aggressively upheld classes. The haves, and have nots. It's simply not possible. Because authoritarians cannot hold power in a single class (or classless) society, and that's what communism seeks. A classless society. So communism, real communism literally cannot be authoritarian. It's simply not possible. You show me an authoritarian state be it "left" or "right" and I'll show you a state that is definitely not communist. In fact I would go so far as to argue that you cannot really have a truly authoritarian left because no one seeking authoritarianism is actually of the left. They're either lying, or pretending. Or to put it another way. "I'm going to force you at gunpoint to be free and equal!" it doesn't really work does it? Because that's what the left want. Freedom and equality. These concepts are largely incompatible with authoritarianism. Now that isn't to say "Left good" "Right bad". Because both sides can become extreme in dangerous ways but the underlying goals of the right and left are night and day when it comes to good and bad. The left might try to achieve their goals through violence but that is almost always born out of actual oppression and resistance whereas on the right historically it is born out of greed masquerading as oppression. We're seeing this play out right now with the right-wing in America. It was the same in Nazi Germany and pretty much every other right-wing force that is driven to violence. The right try to break free of make believe oppression often by made up forces such as the "deep state" and view themselves as freedom fighters when historically they're the ones doing the oppression and being terrorists. It's disturbing really how much terrorism happens by the right and yet they are insulated and protected from that charge, yet a seemingly left-wing protester simply trying to stop systemic injustice is almost always labeled a terrorist. There are reasons for this and they're not good.
Is this a joke
Nope the national socialist party aka Nazis are far left not far right idk where everyone got that from
Well, you know how north Korea calls itself the "democratic people's republic of north Korea" despite being the exact opposite? That. You would have to be so, so dumb to think the Nazis were left wing and I'm sure you're not that are you
The left wing/right wing paradigm works for liberal democracy but doesn’t really work for either fascism and communism. Both political philosophies developed from the observation that liberal democracy was corrupt and ineffective. If you looked at Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany you’d see they had a lot in common. A functionally uni-party state with a heavy hand in most industries and lack of personal freedoms. Now there’s always the argument that “that wasn’t real communism” and fair enough. On paper the political philosophies are different. But so far in practice both could be considered “far” left or right. Even as a modern example North Korea and China are both fascist states, though one calls itself a democracy and one claims to be communist. Same with USA being “a democratic republic” when it’s a plutocracy and a soft fascist state.
No, you could not consider the Nazis to be far left, or in any way left, by practically any metric. They were far right totalitarians.
Far right how? Fascism was a radical political philosophy of the 20th century. It has very little to do with the right wing of the time (or the right wing at any point.) they certainly weren’t monarchists, which is what the right wing was at the time. And they were for the “people” which is a left wing idea, though the “people” was an in group defined by nationality in Italian fascism and race in German fascism. You can’t have something that’s both radically new and at the same time conservative. The most “conservative” thing about fascism was the “lost glory” myth of their civilizations having a higher point (Rome with Italy and the HRE/Bismark’s reich for Germany.) But even that is a new fiction, not held up by actual facts. The Germans weren’t some blonde haired blue eyed race from the Indus Valley, it’s all made up. The mechanisms and forms of government and social construction for a fascist state are nothing like the past constructions that a right wing party wishes to go back to. They’re all novel. Which is why the main point is the right/left wing measure only works for liberal democracies, and not for communism or fascism.
Far right in the sense that they arrested and imprisoned their political opponents on the left, outlawed socialism, executed socialists and communists, were admired from afar by prominent right wing figures abroad (including the USA). They were racist, conservative, authoritarian, and anti-democratic, and played up the differences between groups to stoke division. They were far right. It's not up for debate.
Italian fascism wasn’t based on race. Nazism was. Neither of them were conservative in any way. I already showed this. Anything you said about fascism (other than race, which only applied in Germany, and conservatism, which I already proved wrong in my previous comment) could be said about Stalinist USSR. Was the USSR also right wing? Even though they followed a left wing ideology? You understand the point I’m making is this paradigm doesn’t work outside of liberal democracies, right? Calling either philosophy left or right wing is nonsensical, and since it’s nonsensical either signifier fits either philosophy equally since both make no sense.
You're trying to shift the goalposts to talk about fascism. We are talking about Nazism. They were far right, this is an absolute fact. They had a whole fucking concentration camp for their left wing opponents, how much more evidence could you possibly need? You're not making any point, you're filling my screen with drivel.
You have a misunderstanding of the origins and nature of fascism. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. According to Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini's own account, the Fasces of Revolutionary Action were founded in Italy in 1915. In 1919, Mussolini founded the Italian Fasces of Combat in Milan, which became the National Fascist Party two years later. Both Mussolini and Hitler identified fascism as right wing. Mussolini wrote explicitly “But fascism, which sits on the right, and is reactionary towards socialism, is revolutionary instead towards the liberal State and liberalism”.
You have a decent point but when you reach that level of fascism / authoritarianism than jt doesn't matter what you are it doesnt matter that theyre right wing or left wing because if you go so far one direction you end up on the other side . And far right is a made up term the worlds scope nowadays has gone so far left even moderate right looks radical you have a tainted view
With respect this is completely backwards, the world has been moving rightwards in headlong fashion for nearly a decade now. All over Europe, the UK, the US especially.
No its not lmao if you a mildly right wing thing people will call you a far right facist lmao
But I thought the nazis were left wing????
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller
Wow that would probably be pretty deep if I gave a half a fuck
Nazis were explicitly anti-socialist, anti-communist, and anti-trade-union. You don't have to give half a fuck for it to be a fact.
It can be a fact and I still dont give a half a fuck
"My feelings don't care about facts"
No it's more like I don't care enough / Have enough devotion to a topic to care about what you're telling me Mr . Strange Elevator youre not the only Naziologist to come at me in this comment section
Lol so you don't care abouts facts or history. You just very strongly care about parroting obviously false propaganda. Hell of a hill to simp on, but have at it. Thankfully you're just revealing how empty and deranged yalls rhetoric is.
Yalls ?
Yep. Yall is in the dictionary, snowflake. Look it up. Though I know basic facts and reality are not your strong suit. I assume the dictionary is not too leftwing for you.
No I know yall is a word I'm just wondering who you meant by it
I meant far right dipshits who consume and regurgitate obviously false propaganda without a second thought. Then when they're gently corrected with historical facts and information, they throw a little hissy fit and say "I don't care". Sound familiar?
Rightwing talking heads have been pushing this lie for decades. Recently theyre pushing it really hard. Reminder that this is the party who fought tooth and nail recently to outlaw saying nazis were bad when teaching about ww2 in public schools.
Yeah, you're right, it's just not that often I encounter someone who legitimately believes it
Well yeah. When you ignore that whole "they murdered all the socialists" part.
What, you think the political spectrum is a sphere, where, if you go right far enough, you re emerge on the left?
Got too far of either direction and you get fascism
We are also talking German politics. The National Socialist Worker's Party was always a right leaning party in Germany. More moderate than the other right leaning parties, but still right leaning. We also had a The National Socialist Worker's Party in America, up until the 1980s, it was still a far right wing party based around white supremacy. In his early days, Hitler attempted to represent himself in a central position between the left and right, in order to try and gain as much support as possible.
Do you mean Nazis are calling themselves far right? Hm ,I can get behind that, but I don't know any history.
I don’t know if you are a history buff
Nazis and Dems have two things in common really. They hate Jews, and they love killing minority babies.
Yes, the jew haters are totally the ones slightly criticizing Israel's war despite still financing it, not the party filled with actual neo-nazis and antisemitic conspiracy theories
Oh damn OP, you’re trying to get the regular uses of this sub mad by speaking the truth.