oh my god shut the fuck up
More deflection. 'It's okay because they do worse'. Followed by 'If they can do it everyone else can too'. What are you, a child?Dilbert_X wrote:
So basically the jews can do whatever they like but no-one else can?Larssen wrote:
I really don't get the 'they do it too / they do worse' defence. It's a form of deflection at best. What happened to holding ourselves to a higher standard, to ensure that the shocking realities elsewhere don't become a normal state of affairs here as well?
Its not really a recipe for peace and harmony.
In rural saudi arabia they still behead people using swords for imagined crimes such as sorcery. If the saudis do it, I guess so should we right Dilbert?
(edit because I can only post once every 30 minutes)
Is the jewish community in Belgium complicit to the Israeli occupation in Palestine?Dilbert_X wrote:
No of course not, but does it make sense to endlessly drone on about the holocaust when the jews continue to inflict the same thing on the Palestinians?
Is a festival like carnival the place and time to start a political row with the Jewish people over their treatment of the Palestinians?
Are palestinians being herded into gas chambers by the millions?
If there's a guy handing out stars of david and a group of people walking around in nazi uniforms including a float that depicts a very negative jewish stereotype I'd argue jewish people are allowed to lodge a complaint.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-02-25 14:21:28)
No of course not, but does it make sense to endlessly drone on about the holocaust when the jews continue to inflict the same thing on the Palestinians?
Fuck Israel
Of course not, but on the one hand the jews are free to gripe about a tasteless float, on the other no-one may dare criticise Israel's latest plan to steal more land, kill more Palestinians and create more instability in the ME - because that would be anti-semitic apparently.Larssen wrote:
[Is the jewish community in Belgium complicit to the Israeli occupation in Palestine?
Is a festival like carnival the place and time to start a political row with the Jewish people over their treatment of the Palestinians?
Are palestinians being herded into gas chambers by the millions?
If there's a guy handing out stars of david and a group of people walking around in nazi uniforms including a float that depicts a very negative jewish stereotype I'd argue jewish people are allowed to lodge a complaint.
I understand they need their lebensraum in the east but its getting annoying.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +642|3977
Were the Italian National Fascist Party actually Socialist?Jay wrote:
Nazi's are left wing. It's in the name. National Socialist. They're only called right wing because of Soviet propaganda.uziq wrote:
anyway, the town that hosts the festival in question is a known far-right hotspot, lots of organising and evident rising support in that area. anti-semitic graffiti, racist attacks, etc have been reported. this isn't some 'liberals getting soft and over-protective' thing like the dutch try to claim with their beloved annual black-pete shoe polish holiday which is supposedly an intrinsic part of the dutch national character, or whatever. it's literally the far-right gathering to dress up as 1940s-era jewish stereotypes and nazi ss guards.
whether or not you care enough about it, or whether it's just people being 'over-sensitive' in an area that was literally decimated and ethnically cleansed by the far-right within living memory, is up to you. but people like dilbert can please stop playing the world's smallest fiddle over the 'threatened' and 'defensive' white locals who are so evidently driven to commit mass shootings at shisha bars and to don nazi garb. these people are fascist faggots and should be called out for it; dilbert makes out that they're a peace-loving people nobly facing their own extermination.
Pretty much pure authoritarianism. They had more in common with the Soviets than they would with a 'right wing' government.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Were the Italian National Fascist Party actually Socialist?Jay wrote:
Nazi's are left wing. It's in the name. National Socialist. They're only called right wing because of Soviet propaganda.uziq wrote:
anyway, the town that hosts the festival in question is a known far-right hotspot, lots of organising and evident rising support in that area. anti-semitic graffiti, racist attacks, etc have been reported. this isn't some 'liberals getting soft and over-protective' thing like the dutch try to claim with their beloved annual black-pete shoe polish holiday which is supposedly an intrinsic part of the dutch national character, or whatever. it's literally the far-right gathering to dress up as 1940s-era jewish stereotypes and nazi ss guards.
whether or not you care enough about it, or whether it's just people being 'over-sensitive' in an area that was literally decimated and ethnically cleansed by the far-right within living memory, is up to you. but people like dilbert can please stop playing the world's smallest fiddle over the 'threatened' and 'defensive' white locals who are so evidently driven to commit mass shootings at shisha bars and to don nazi garb. these people are fascist faggots and should be called out for it; dilbert makes out that they're a peace-loving people nobly facing their own extermination.
Right wing is broadly defined as free market economics and social conservatism. Doesn't fit at all.
Last edited by Jay (2020-02-25 14:43:32)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +642|3977
So the far right wing are libertarians?Jay wrote:
Pretty much pure authoritarianism. They had more in common with the Soviets than they would with a 'right wing' government.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Were the Italian National Fascist Party actually Socialist?Jay wrote:
Nazi's are left wing. It's in the name. National Socialist. They're only called right wing because of Soviet propaganda.
Right wing is broadly defined as free market economics and social conservatism. Doesn't fit at all.
jay you should really take a first year history class at your local state college. jesus christ.
even in the early history of free-market capitalism, there were major aspects of the right that argued for monarchism, religious observance, if not outright fealty to the pope or a state religion, and political absolutism or the rule of elites. leading thinkers such as Burke outlined something between the two.
there is nothing in the history of the right-wing that says it has to be adam smith and hayek only. the term loses all sense when you insist on your national review-masthead definitions. by that definition half of all regimes in modern history commonly understood as such don't qualify as right-wing or totalitarian.
to say that the nazis were dubbed 'fascists' because of soviet propaganda is fucking hilarious. the nazi party was fighting a huge ideological war against socialism/communism that went back to the weimar republic. it's not the 'socialist' part of the name that is most germane, it's the 'nationalist' part, because socialism and communism were seen as internationalist (read: jewish or bolshevik) movements that threatened national sovereignty and identity. being obsessed with national self-protection, your race, your traditions, and 'social conservatism' is textbook right-wing (even adam smith him-fucking-self wrote at points about moderating the disruption of the markets in favour of national self-protection; read his writings on american exports and their initially hugely disruptive effects on the old world).
the nazis tried to rebrand socialism themselves and reinvent a nationalistic form, to carry the energy from the massive populist and worker-based uprisings that were taking place in germany and europe. every single definition of fascism or the right-wing begins with that: popular nationalism. as would seem fucking obvious to anyone who isn't a nincompoop.
honestly saying 'the nazis were left wing' is one of the dumber misnomers peddled by contemporary right-wing pundits. it is historically illiterate nonsense and a first-year history student wouldn't make this mistake. it is honestly dumb as FUCK. read a book.
even in the early history of free-market capitalism, there were major aspects of the right that argued for monarchism, religious observance, if not outright fealty to the pope or a state religion, and political absolutism or the rule of elites. leading thinkers such as Burke outlined something between the two.
there is nothing in the history of the right-wing that says it has to be adam smith and hayek only. the term loses all sense when you insist on your national review-masthead definitions. by that definition half of all regimes in modern history commonly understood as such don't qualify as right-wing or totalitarian.
to say that the nazis were dubbed 'fascists' because of soviet propaganda is fucking hilarious. the nazi party was fighting a huge ideological war against socialism/communism that went back to the weimar republic. it's not the 'socialist' part of the name that is most germane, it's the 'nationalist' part, because socialism and communism were seen as internationalist (read: jewish or bolshevik) movements that threatened national sovereignty and identity. being obsessed with national self-protection, your race, your traditions, and 'social conservatism' is textbook right-wing (even adam smith him-fucking-self wrote at points about moderating the disruption of the markets in favour of national self-protection; read his writings on american exports and their initially hugely disruptive effects on the old world).
the nazis tried to rebrand socialism themselves and reinvent a nationalistic form, to carry the energy from the massive populist and worker-based uprisings that were taking place in germany and europe. every single definition of fascism or the right-wing begins with that: popular nationalism. as would seem fucking obvious to anyone who isn't a nincompoop.
honestly saying 'the nazis were left wing' is one of the dumber misnomers peddled by contemporary right-wing pundits. it is historically illiterate nonsense and a first-year history student wouldn't make this mistake. it is honestly dumb as FUCK. read a book.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:01:44)
No, libertarians are social liberalsSuperJail Warden wrote:
So the far right wing are libertarians?Jay wrote:
Pretty much pure authoritarianism. They had more in common with the Soviets than they would with a 'right wing' government.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Were the Italian National Fascist Party actually Socialist?
Right wing is broadly defined as free market economics and social conservatism. Doesn't fit at all.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay wrote:
No, libertarians are social liberalsSuperJail Warden wrote:
So the far right wing are libertarians?Jay wrote:
Pretty much pure authoritarianism. They had more in common with the Soviets than they would with a 'right wing' government.
Right wing is broadly defined as free market economics and social conservatism. Doesn't fit at all.
honestly it's such a complete waste of time trying to engage in these debates with ill-educated retards like jay. they live in pundit la-la land where every term means something else, highly tailored to their own worldview and seemingly regenerated at whim. it's like getting lost in the fucking pine barrens of human thought.
now we have to redefine what it means to be a social liberal when the 'social' aspect of liberalism is commonly understood as economic foundations totally inimical to 'libertarianism'.
we'll have rewritten the entire political science dictionary in 24 hours and still won't be closer to making a meaningful point. the nazis are leftists, the soviets were crypto-christians, north is south.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:04:19)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +642|3977
Then what are the far right? Extreme social conservatives?Jay wrote:
No, libertarians are social liberalsSuperJail Warden wrote:
So the far right wing are libertarians?Jay wrote:
Pretty much pure authoritarianism. They had more in common with the Soviets than they would with a 'right wing' government.
Right wing is broadly defined as free market economics and social conservatism. Doesn't fit at all.
they are socialists, obviously.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +642|3977
But aren't the socialist left wing? Are they the left wing and the far right wing at the same time?uziq wrote:
they are socialists, obviously.
You're an idiotuziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
No, libertarians are social liberalsSuperJail Warden wrote:
So the far right wing are libertarians?
honestly it's such a complete waste of time trying to engage in these debates with ill-educated retards like jay. they live in pundit la-la land where every term means something else, highly tailored to their own worldview and seemingly regenerated at whim. it's like getting lost in the fucking pine barrens of human thought.
now we have to redefine what it means to be a social liberal when the 'social' aspect of liberalism is commonly understood as economic foundations totally inimical to 'libertarianism'.
we'll have rewritten the entire political science dictionary in 24 hours and still won't be closer to making a meaningful point. the nazis are leftists, the soviets were crypto-christians, north is south.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
says the guy parroting a thesis literally straight out of fucking dinesh d'souza or something.
i'll have you know, that the nazis were called NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, so they are therefore left-wing all along! hiding in plain sight!!! never mind that the core tenets of the left are egalitarianism and collective ownership, and the nazis advocated extreme nativism and national ownership! no, they have the word in their name! you can't argue with that.
you literally seemingly know nothing about the basic context of modern politics, the formation of parties in european democracies, and even the point of the right/left spectrum itself. it's like arguing with a poorly educated child who has gleaned a few scrappy ideas but no big picture.
anyone with a history degree is going to dismiss what you're saying as utter twaddle.
i'll have you know, that the nazis were called NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, so they are therefore left-wing all along! hiding in plain sight!!! never mind that the core tenets of the left are egalitarianism and collective ownership, and the nazis advocated extreme nativism and national ownership! no, they have the word in their name! you can't argue with that.
you literally seemingly know nothing about the basic context of modern politics, the formation of parties in european democracies, and even the point of the right/left spectrum itself. it's like arguing with a poorly educated child who has gleaned a few scrappy ideas but no big picture.
anyone with a history degree is going to dismiss what you're saying as utter twaddle.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:14:17)
No uzi, you have a very narrow and shallow understanding of politics and your viewpoint is entirely from left wing sources. We don't speak the same language.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
richard j evans, pretty much one of the top historians active today.
by no means a left-wing thinker. to call him such is pretty laughable.
ian kershaw, another right-wing historian.
jay, i have two humanities degrees. 'only read left-wing sources' LMAO. clearly i have a basic idea about world history, you fucking ingrate. macbeth has two history degrees and needs basic clarification as to what you're even saying. you sound deranged to anyone outside of your own little commuter-train blogosphere. read a FUCKING BOOK.
by no means a left-wing thinker. to call him such is pretty laughable.
it's almost like ... exactly what i said ... and the nazis used socialist rhetoric and the name to harness the populist stirrings of the time.In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.
ian kershaw, another right-wing historian.
but no, right-wing can only be the sensible great old men of history that jay likes to self-identify with, 'being sensible' now he's got a mortgage.[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.
jay, i have two humanities degrees. 'only read left-wing sources' LMAO. clearly i have a basic idea about world history, you fucking ingrate. macbeth has two history degrees and needs basic clarification as to what you're even saying. you sound deranged to anyone outside of your own little commuter-train blogosphere. read a FUCKING BOOK.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:23:28)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +642|3977
The Nazi party did have a left wing in the early days. Hitler had them all killed in the Night of Long Knives. After that Hitler sided with the industrialist he needed to run his war machine.
I have explained this so many times that my phone suggest Long Knives after I type the word Night.
I have explained this so many times that my phone suggest Long Knives after I type the word Night.
if people were gathering in the streets of belgium dressed as brown shirts then maybe we could have a meaningful discussion of socialists.
the 'Nazis' as a totalitarian, war-making regime were never socialists. their ideology was as right-wing as it gets.
to say that both political ideologies end up creating miserable, tyrannical, authoritarian regimes is another observation altogether. to say the nazis were a left-wing party is to collapse the entire concept into meaningless mush. jay seems to think right-wingers can only be prudent capitalists and banker boys who want to keep a steady hand on the tiller of the economy. no big shocks, now! nothing too extreme! whoah there! he has a schoolchild's review of the right-wing of the world being the 'level headed' and all the scary authoritarians being left-wing loonies.
the 'Nazis' as a totalitarian, war-making regime were never socialists. their ideology was as right-wing as it gets.
to say that both political ideologies end up creating miserable, tyrannical, authoritarian regimes is another observation altogether. to say the nazis were a left-wing party is to collapse the entire concept into meaningless mush. jay seems to think right-wingers can only be prudent capitalists and banker boys who want to keep a steady hand on the tiller of the economy. no big shocks, now! nothing too extreme! whoah there! he has a schoolchild's review of the right-wing of the world being the 'level headed' and all the scary authoritarians being left-wing loonies.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:24:52)
there's plenty more from snopes, if you want. how about one of the leading german historians, joachim fest?
R E A D SOME B O O K S
but hey i guess i haven't read the history. i could link any one of about 15 books from the frankfurt school on the same subject, but that really would be going over his poor little head.The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.
This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.
R E A D SOME B O O K S
Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to “racially worthy” (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”
Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:34:01)
You don't understand the vocabulary, concepts or history, you just parrot other people's nutty opinions.Jay wrote:
No uzi, you have a very narrow and shallow understanding of politics and your viewpoint is entirely from left wing sources. We don't speak the same language.
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +642|3977
If you really want to get a win over the Democrats and American left, claiming Hitler was left wing is the dummy way of going about it.
The Nazis did get their idea of central economic planning from the Soviet Union. Roosevelt followed the Germans and Italians when he advocated for the New Deal. It's not his fault the communist and fascist both came to the conclusion that free market capitalism won't solve economic crisis.
A better argument is: Roosevelt and the Democrats took the worst ideas of Fascism and Communism.
The Nazis did get their idea of central economic planning from the Soviet Union. Roosevelt followed the Germans and Italians when he advocated for the New Deal. It's not his fault the communist and fascist both came to the conclusion that free market capitalism won't solve economic crisis.
A better argument is: Roosevelt and the Democrats took the worst ideas of Fascism and Communism.
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-t … socialists
honestly i'm not surprised when jay says stuff that is so mind-bendingly stupid and thinks it's somehow 'insight' or 'wisdom'. we never could hope for much from him.
'the nazis were actually left wing' is the political science equivalent of a 'that table you're sitting at isn't even real' of philosophy.
the tiniest modicum of understanding, a grain of long-lost truth, distorted beyond any legibility.
i've said it here before about jay, many times passim, but i'll say it again: he is one of the best demonstrations going that a little reading, but not a lot, is a dangerous thing. he is the very advert for a well-structured, elite college education. it's dangerous to let lug nuts like him at the books in an unstructured, unguided way. he comes out literally thinking hitler was left-wing and the right-wing has no ideological root or affinity with populist, nationalist, ethno-centric movements such as we're seeing the rise of again in europe today.
honestly i'm not surprised when jay says stuff that is so mind-bendingly stupid and thinks it's somehow 'insight' or 'wisdom'. we never could hope for much from him.
'the nazis were actually left wing' is the political science equivalent of a 'that table you're sitting at isn't even real' of philosophy.
the tiniest modicum of understanding, a grain of long-lost truth, distorted beyond any legibility.
i've said it here before about jay, many times passim, but i'll say it again: he is one of the best demonstrations going that a little reading, but not a lot, is a dangerous thing. he is the very advert for a well-structured, elite college education. it's dangerous to let lug nuts like him at the books in an unstructured, unguided way. he comes out literally thinking hitler was left-wing and the right-wing has no ideological root or affinity with populist, nationalist, ethno-centric movements such as we're seeing the rise of again in europe today.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-25 15:46:26)
& yes, well, central economic planning came about out of necessity along with several other unignorable political realities, like mass suffrage and workers' trade unions. what we are discussing is the origins of mainstream/major party politics itself. the most important thing is that the right and left seized these new forms of mass organisation/mobilisation (not to mention new communications technology, bureaucratic apparatuses, and national identities) towards VASTLY different ends. if you don't carry the analysis that far, you end up accusing everyone of being a Nazi, or hitler a left-wing revolutionary. it's meaningless drivel.SuperJail Warden wrote:
If you really want to get a win over the Democrats and American left, claiming Hitler was left wing is the dummy way of going about it.
The Nazis did get their idea of central economic planning from the Soviet Union. Roosevelt followed the Germans and Italians when he advocated for the New Deal. It's not his fault the communist and fascist both came to the conclusion that free market capitalism won't solve economic crisis.
A better argument is: Roosevelt and the Democrats took the worst ideas of Fascism and Communism.
https://www.indy100.com/article/nazi-so … ry-7900001Dilbert_X wrote:
You don't understand the vocabulary, concepts or history, you just parrot other people's nutty opinions.Jay wrote:
No uzi, you have a very narrow and shallow understanding of politics and your viewpoint is entirely from left wing sources. We don't speak the same language.
lmao