Milo/UC Berkley protestors stop 'hate speech' by using violence and hate...

VincentHanna said:
Thought this was an interesting article relating to this topic

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-47147778
Click to expand...

You have to be invited in the first place before this can be revoked.

Monkeymatt said:
As for the whole "The left is anti-Semitic" nonsense, it doesn't take a genius to work out that this rhetoric is being peddled out so people ignore the right's Islamophobia.
Click to expand...

So called islamophobia and anti semitism are rather different things. Anti semitism can and frequently does target openly non religious people with Jewish heritage. The canards repeatedly trotted out by anti semites often fail to address any points of Judaism itself as an ideology but rather seek to paint the Jews collectively as being an inherently nefarious force.

Conversely it would not make any sense to be Islamophobic to somone who was not an adherent of the religion and some of the strongest critics are themselves ex adherents. Islamophobia is a simplified tool for idiots. Some use it to prevent criticism or critique of the ideology and some people who oppose it may use their opposition as cover for actual racial animus. Regardless 'Muslims' are not a 'race' and adherents vary from the darkest skinned African to pale skinned whites with rather varied cultures between them. If someone is being racist they can be criticised on that basis we don't need to use a redundant, misleading and easily abused term.

neckbeardthethird said:
Then you have people like Richard Spencer who are on camera admitting that the alt right don’t care one bit about free speech and use faux outrage over it to advance their agenda.
Click to expand...

Spencer is a Socialist.




Just one that beleives the socialism he advocates for should only be for one racial group in its own nation. If said nation existed he could correctly be described as 'National socialist'.... Anyone remember any other groups who used such a term?

To use Spencer as an example typical of the '(alt) right' (especially the American [alt] 'right') is an exercise in quite acute ignorance or disengeniouity and shows the huge issues with trying to characterise people along a supposed left/right political scale.

Monkeymatt said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...hreat-trump-johnson-hunt-yougov-a8992821.html


56% of polled Tory Members believed that Islam was a threat to the British way of life. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Its amazing what you can get away with if only you are willing to call your ideology a religion.

If Islam had never been invented and I told you about a new political movement whoose founder (who is viewed by adherents as a moral exemplar) was a person who had ordered the murder of the males of a surrendering group (for the 'crime' of seeking terms with a joint enemy who had besieged them) before distributing the woman and children as sex slaves and who was otherwise a warlord I suspect you might have some considerable reservations about people who associated themsleves with said ideology.
 
Last edited:
The left vs the right crap is one of the reasons why politics is complete trash these days, instead of debating each issue under it's own merits they get all lumped into either left or right issues. If your a 'leftie' you must support this and this. If your a 'right winger' you must support this and this. Instead of straw-manning a side perhaps if people discussed the actual issue at hand and not which side you support, politics might be a bit less toxic.
 
Caracus2k said:
Spencer is a Socialist.
[...]
Just one that beleives the socialism he advocates for should only be for one racial group in its own nation. If said nation existed he could correctly be described as 'National socialist'.... Anyone remember any other groups who used such a term?
Click to expand...

The BNP are/were (national) socialists too. People seem to forget that there was a whole segment of the Nazi party that were rather keen socialists and that the party wanted to win over from the communists, it wasn't just in the name for marketing purposes initially and some of that ideology, Strasserism, still influences "far right" groups today.

Authoritarian and liberal would perhaps be more useful descriptors than left/right in this context as far right seems to indicate these people have heightened versions of the beliefs of conservatives when they're basically the polar opposite of the likes of say Boris or Cameron and have more in common with the likes of Corbyn's socialist and marxist buddies - albeit he's seemingly not fond of nationalism (unless it is Irish nationalism) and racism (unless it is antisemitism).
 
Caracus2k said:
To use Spencer as an example typical of the '(alt) right' (especially the American [alt] 'right') is an exercise in quite acute ignorance or disengeniouity and shows the huge issues with trying to characterise people along a supposed left/right political scale..
Click to expand...

Spencer literally ran a podcast up until late 2018 called 'the alt right podcast' with Gregory Conte and they are both on camera on said podcast admitting the alt right don't care about free speech.

Even if you forget about Richard Spencer it doesn't change what anyone with two eyes should be able to see, the alt right don't really care about free speech, hence why they love mass flagging youtube and twitter accounts which criticise them.
 
neckbeardthethird said:
Spencer literally ran a podcast up until late 2018 called 'the alt right podcast' with Gregory Conte and they are both on camera on said podcast admitting the alt right don't care about free speech.
Click to expand...

Spencer is very atypical of people who self associate as being on the 'right' when it comes to politicians and reasonably high profile poltical commentators (especially in the USA)

Regardless of what he says about the 'alt' right if you look and what he believes he's closer to the antifa international socialists on the supposed 'left' then the overwhelming majority of politicians and commentators in the rest of the American (alt) right.

Antifa socialists and Spencer just disagree about who the recipients for socialism should be and who the authoritarian large state required for said socialism should persecute.
 
dowie said:
The BNP are/were (national) socialists too. People seem to forget that there was a whole segment of the Nazi party that were rather keen socialists and that the party wanted to win over from the communists.
Click to expand...

Some of the usual forum socialism fanboys/girls will probably be along soon all indignant that socialism has been tarnished by being associated with Fascism (because socialism is so untarnished devoid of association with facism.......? )

Still they likely have a tenuous grip on the history either ignorant of it of choosing to forget the relevant (inconvenient) bits.

The nazi's had such a strong socialist elmenent that after they gained political power in Germany the party had a purge to get rid of the more socialist elements in the night of the long knives.

The Eagle eyes amongst you will note the emphasis on the words 'after they gained power' . Hence like a lot of socialist organisations the end product, in power, turns out to not be ('real' /'true') socialism.

Socialists then proclaim socialism isn't the problem whilst ignoring the fact that the promises of socialism were at least a significant reason for the dictator/ authoritarian party gaining control in the first place.

It really comes as no surprise therfore that there is such a strong link between more vanilla socialists/Marxists and people who turn out to br facists like Mussolini who was congratulated by Lenin when he was rising to power.
 
If the Nazi's were such marxists why were there private companies in Germany?

**** sakes man, this has been discussed before and the reality is that it's always come around that they're at best centrist authoritarians, why else would Hitler have such a hard on for killing the USSR so much so that he wouldn't listen to his military?

This gaslighting is childish levels of ********, they literally proved this in 1932 that it was a ruse to fool the workers into voting for them over the rising communist powers, why did a communist shoot a Nazi (which super-powered their propaganda) if they were the same?

This is ultimately the problem with populists regardless of where they stand as they will quite literally do and say anything to achieve their goals, in this case it was the destruction of communism and safeguarding the "superiority" of German genes, in the end logically they must be centrist to achieve an all-things-to-all-people set of policies, in reality everyone loses, but the party elite.

The whole Rohm "putsch" would actually imply that if it was about the socialist elements and not simply about the power of the SA, then you must agree that the other parts of the Nazi party were abusing the image of socialism to appear more palatable vs communists, once it became a problem for them, they eviscerated it and moved on. A case of only telling one group they wanted to hear for long enough that it didn't matter anymore, then lying profusely to kill its leader and suddenly take a very anti-lgbt edge to their policies, allowing the middle-class orientated SS to take over, planting the Nazi's squarely away from some socialist paradise that some in the SA might have envisioned in the 1920s when they fooled themselves into their populism laden falsehoods.

Why did the Nazi's have such a strong connection to the Church if they were supposedly in support of marxism?

Quite frankly this whole discussion is irrelevant until you connect it to modern times, as far as i'm aware there aren't 3 million SA walking about beating people up nor are there Communists shooting people on doorsteps, so i'd like to know what this is about at this point other than trying to create a narrative.

I mean if we're talking about Sanders or Corbyn, I can't see the comparison of what went on in the Wiemar republic, it was a rather unique circumstance and we're too well provisioned against such a stupid chain of events to occur again, the danger is in a distinctly third party fooling people with nationalist glory to achieve selfish goals and to keep a lid on that would require exactly what the Nazi's did.
 
Last edited:
MikeTheNative said:
The left vs the right crap is one of the reasons why politics is complete trash these days, instead of debating each issue under it's own merits they get all lumped into either left or right issues. If your a 'leftie' you must support this and this. If your a 'right winger' you must support this and this. Instead of straw-manning a side perhaps if people discussed the actual issue at hand and not which side you support, politics might be a bit less toxic.
Click to expand...

As there’s no like button... LIKE!

People on both sides trying to shut down the debate by throwing insults at people on the other “side”.
 
MikeTheNative said:
The left vs the right crap is one of the reasons why politics is complete trash these days, instead of debating each issue under it's own merits they get all lumped into either left or right issues. If your a 'leftie' you must support this and this. If your a 'right winger' you must support this and this. Instead of straw-manning a side perhaps if people discussed the actual issue at hand and not which side you support, politics might be a bit less toxic.
Click to expand...

Social media, in particular Twitter, has had a huge part to play. The idea that you can choose to follow only those who agree with your opinion just bands people into their 'tribes' and makes it an echo chamber for extremism and hate on both the left and right.

The other huge problem I believe in modern politics/society is how the definition of 'winning' a debate seems to have changed. Where once you would win a debate by informing the other party so they would take on your point of view, now the focus of debating is all about trying to make the other side look stupid. Ben Shapiro is a classic example of this toxic debating. As part of this new toxic debating both sides are now encouraged to listen to pick up mistakes & counter arguments, rather than listening to understand each other's opinion.
 
StriderX said:
If the Nazi's were such marxists why were there private companies in Germany?
Click to expand...

The people you're replying to did not say that the Nazis were Marxists at all, let alone "such Marxists". They described the Nazis as socialist. Which they were. They described the Nazis as trying to win over communists. Which they did try to do and had a fair bit of success in doing because there was enough common ground between the two ideologies.

**** sakes man, this has been discussed before and the reality is that it's always come around that they're at best centrist authoritarians, why else would Hitler have such a hard on for killing the USSR so much so that he wouldn't listen to his military?
Click to expand...

1) Because he needed lots of oil if Germany was to wage a war and win it. At that time, there were major oil producing regions in only 3 countries in the world: USA, Venezuela and USSR. USA and Venezuela were out of his reach and the British Royal Navy was running an effective blockade that would have prevented any significant amount of oil reaching Germany from there even if they were willing to sell to him. He'd ordered the stockpiling of oil before the war and the seizure of all oil from conquered countries and the development of all available sources of oil, but that wasn't anywhere near enough for a sustained war. So he had to take the oil producing region of the USSR, which of course required conquering the USSR.

2) Communism in practice was the most similar ideology to Nazism and thus its biggest competitor in some ways.

But mostly oil. Oil was of paramount importance in WW2 and oddly overlooked as a factor nowadays. The failure of Germany to take, hold and exploit the oil producing part of the USSR was a big part of why they lost. The military commanders you refer to were thinking tactically and were wrong as a result. They weren't thinking strategically and they weren't thinking of things crucial to the military but not part of direct conflict, e.g. manufacturing of war machines, moving stuff around and having an economy that could support those things. Hitler's orders about war in the USSR were utterly wrong in a short-term tactical sense, but they were correct and essential overall. He wasn't as incompetent as he's often made out to be. Drug-addled, evil and possibly insane, yes, but not as incompetent as he's often made out to be.

[..]This is ultimately the problem with populists regardless of where they stand as they will quite literally do and say anything to achieve their goals, in this case it was the destruction of communism and safeguarding the "superiority" of German genes, in the end logically they must be centrist to achieve an all-things-to-all-people set of policies, in reality everyone loses, but the party elite.
Click to expand...

Same result as with communism in practice. In both cases, the foundation of the ideology is authoritarianism. The rest is just decoration and excuses.

I think the argument about whether the Nazis were left or right does more to expose the shortcomings of the whole idea of left and right than it does to nail down which side to put the Nazis on.
 
Angilion said:
The people you're replying to did not say that the Nazis were Marxists at all, let alone "such Marxists". They described the Nazis as socialist. Which they were. They described the Nazis as trying to win over communists. Which they did try to do and had a fair bit of success in doing because there was enough common ground between the two ideologies.



1) Because he needed lots of oil if Germany was to wage a war and win it. At that time, there were major oil producing regions in only 3 countries in the world: USA, Venezuela and USSR. USA and Venezuela were out of his reach and the British Royal Navy was running an effective blockade that would have prevented any significant amount of oil reaching Germany from there even if they were willing to sell to him. He'd ordered the stockpiling of oil before the war and the seizure of all oil from conquered countries and the development of all available sources of oil, but that wasn't anywhere near enough for a sustained war. So he had to take the oil producing region of the USSR, which of course required conquering the USSR.

2) Communism in practice was the most similar ideology to Nazism and thus its biggest competitor in some ways.

But mostly oil. Oil was of paramount importance in WW2 and oddly overlooked as a factor nowadays. The failure of Germany to take, hold and exploit the oil producing part of the USSR was a big part of why they lost. The military commanders you refer to were thinking tactically and were wrong as a result. They weren't thinking strategically and they weren't thinking of things crucial to the military but not part of direct conflict, e.g. manufacturing of war machines, moving stuff around and having an economy that could support those things. Hitler's orders about war in the USSR were utterly wrong in a short-term tactical sense, but they were correct and essential overall. He wasn't as incompetent as he's often made out to be. Drug-addled, evil and possibly insane, yes, but not as incompetent as he's often made out to be.



Same result as with communism in practice. In both cases, the foundation of the ideology is authoritarianism. The rest is just decoration and excuses.

I think the argument about whether the Nazis were left or right does more to expose the shortcomings of the whole idea of left and right than it does to nail down which side to put the Nazis on.
Click to expand...

Just because there's a neat reasoning for his need for the USSR's Oil production, you can't just discount his hatred of communists as an artifact of his idealogy with the need for a strategic resource, they were very vocal about this (though i suppose this was perhaps purposeful). Regardless with what occurred a century ago, the biggest reason populists gain power is the failure of rational and objective governance, chasing things populists push for and never delivering/failing to admit things with sincerity and integrity is a sure fire way to make the likes of Corbyn palatable enough to vote for, certainly in times of economic pain.

I'm just tired of this discussion coming up when the only relevant thing is that it was just an ultra-authoritarian set of policies hiding behind an irrelevant economic axis, there were plenty of policies for which socialism doesn't apply in Mr. Hitler's vision of a superior German empire.

The greater things to take away are unnecessary/brutish calls to nationalism, pandering to the less well off by promising them work, pandering to the more well off by lying about improving their business potential (Hitler made a few speeches to get support from industrial magnates and to downplay his parties part in the violence), quasi-violent rhetoric (actual violence by the likes of the SA/communist groups aren't currently a thing?) and a highly hypocritical stance between what they say and what they do.

The exaggeration is tiresome, you'd have a better future if Corbyn was just allowed to fail his comrades rather than play hopscotch with more insipid populists, the latter seems to be what people want so oh well. (It'd obviously be far better to not have to play this game at all if a certain establishment wasn't draining this country dry of potential, but hey ho)
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
And that is what we call a straw man argument...

Or perhaps you just need to read a little more carefully.
Click to expand...

I've read enough, it's a common trope for a "right winger" to go from socialist to communist with but a single breath, so i wont waste time thinking they don't think that.
 
Yeah why bother discussing what has actually been posted when you can instead come up with an argument against a "common trope"....
 
dowie said:
Yeah why bother discussing what has actually been posted when you can instead come up with an argument against a "common trope"....
Click to expand...

Because it matters? Because it's the very reason this thread exists. It's the primary line of attack in America on any sensible set of policies that anyone left of Ayn Rand proposes, so it should be included as a discussion limitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom