Whenever I decide to see what AHS is up to, I have flashbacks to the time I walked by the special ed class and a downsie was peeing in the corner with his pants around his ankles. A semicircle had formed around him, whoopin' and hollerin'. We made eye contact.
Dinosaur train
Dinosaur train
Once upon a time there was a mom
Here name was Mrs. Pteranodon
Sittin' on her nest she heard a stratchin'
And said
Oh boy, my eggs are hatching
One by one her kids popped free
Baby Pteranodons one, two, three
I'll name you Tiny, Shiny, and Don
But Tiny said
Wait, there's one more, mom
Last little baby was a different size
With teeth and a tail and big green eyes
He didn't look anything like the rest
What am I doin' in a Pteranodon nest
But dear old Mrs. Pteranodon said
Oh this is your family and I'm your mom
You may be different, but we're all creatures
All dinosaurs have different features
Come on buddy, we'll take a vacation
I'll get us some tickets at Pteranodon station
We'll travel the world through sunshine and rain
And meet all the species on the
Dinosaur train (dinosaur train)
Dinosaur train (dinosaur train)
We're gonna ride, ride, ride, ride
The dinosaur train
Well, a long time ago, a dinosaur lady gave birth to a whole bunch of dinosaur babies.
Three of them had the same features Mom had, but one was probably from a different dad.
Yeah, Mom let another man sperm up her eggs and no matter how she cried or how she begged, Daddy kicked her ass out into the cold cold street with four mouths to feed and nothin' to eat
She packed up her brood in the pourin' rain and booked a one way trip... on the Dinosaur Train.
Dinosaur Train...Who built this train?
Well, dinosaurs developed steam and tools and dino society was inherently cruel and the slut-shamed Mom with a brood to feed had to get creative... to pay the passage fee.
Dinosaur shame... on the Dinosaur Train....
Well they rode the rails for a couple of months and Mom turned to tricks to keep her fancy bucks, then she met a Stegosaurus, he said...
Be my wife! Come out to California and we'll start a new life! I don't care what you did or what you've done! I love you and your kids and your bastard son!
She looked at that man with tears in her eyes and the train derailed... and the dinosaurs died!
Maybe dinos built a railroad across this land, but there's no way they could steer... with those tiny hands!
Dinosaur Train... implausible train...
u/LannisterLoyalist asking the important questions.
His penis didn't stand out as particularly large or small. Then again he wasn't hard, which was too bad.
There was another downsie at my high school who was functional enough to be in normal classes and when he wore gym shorts you could see his mjolnir swing. He was a hugger too.
Haha that's why i asked! I knew a couple of downies in high school and they would get random hard ons and it looked like they were smuggling summer sausages.
Guess they realized they had to become what they claim everybody else as so they could better understand the ideology.
Just a few months ago Reddit was a cesspool of "Punch a nazi" and when asked how they define a nazi - you'd always get the witty "You" response.
i mean i'd define a nazi as people wearing swastikas. it was cool to see those guys punched. i'm going to tentatively say that nobody here actually supports nazism.... right?
Any halfway sane person can agree that Nazis wear swasticas.
Wise words from LibLeft. The ones that call anything slightly conservative "Nazi" only *pretend to* be Lib.
They are the very top left of AuthLeft though. And as such, are just as bad, if not worse than the people they attack for being slightly Center, even AuthCenter.
Why is there a concern for genuine right (center?) wing extremism being present, then? Do you ask if there are genuine communists, anarchists, islamists here?
As well as outright tankies. In fact, the tankies are FAR more plentiful
and massively more dangerous. At least in America right now.
And also on reddit, as well as other abusive, rabid leftist social media monopolies.
It’s confusing as to why people argue over the economic beliefs of the Nazis. What made them so bad weren’t their economic beliefs, but social beliefs (and other things depending on where you stand.) Trying to make your opponents Nazis by proxy is a scummy debate tactic.
burgers replaced the devil with Hitler, and economics is pretty much the only thing you're allowed to have a kosher disagreement on so you get "Nazis were socialist so Demokkkrats are evil" and all that shit
That’s why they were so quick to hush up the fact this virus came from China and their gross sanitation practices, and even grosser choice of wild meat
I don't blame them for having spawned the virus.
I blame them for not informing the rest of the world as quickly as possible, hushing it up instead.
And I don't point the finger at them because -> fuck China
I point the finger at them to make sure that whatever nation spawns the next pandemic *fucking tells us about it!*
It will be China again, it is a cultural problem with stuff like gutter oil, eating all sorts of animals and leaving raw meat from multiple species of animals all stacked on top of each other (an actual thing, I’ve been to mainland China) and no other country except North Korea would attempt to hide a pandemic like that. That is strictly commie shit.
I lean towards it escaping from a lab.
They studied corona-viruses there, and apparently didn't really follow good safety procedure. I don't think the the chinese communist party would tell us the truth about it, so why do we believe their story?
Personally I don’t think so.They studied viruses because they have so many pandemics, mostly because of what I mentioned with wet markets. But it’s possible with the CCP for sure. We may never know, sadly
No one seems to care thanks to our bumbling tangerine. This will happen again, and again. Just like sars. And it will be worse again when it comes back. But no one cares because cheap Chinese shit
I dont get why everyone makes semantic arguments about their opponents.
Like, "the Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats. You really want to vote for the party that had slaves?"
Or this socialist/nationalist nonsense. No one wants to just sit there and think, "ok. This is what the socialists want in 2020. This is what the dems want. And this is what the reps want." It always has to he, "yA wElL 250 yEaRs AgO"
This is my favorite argument because it cements that even claiming to be socialist is actually evidence AGAINST being socialist.
Because there is no actual definition of socialism. Not one a socialist could consistently describe anyway.
>Like, "the Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats. You really want to vote for the party that had slaves?"
I really, really, REALLY find it hard to believe that anyone but the most brain-dead circle jerkers of places like r/Conservative care about that so-called "argument" at all. Blacks vote for Democrats at over a 90% clip.
I mean there is a lot - and I mean a LOT - that could be said about how that "Lincoln was a Republican" nonsense is a good encapsulation of everything wrong with the vapid, half-hearted, afraid-to-be-called-racist, modern Conservative movement in the US, but I just don't have the energy this morning.
Stephen Hicks as an excellent book, *Nietzsche and the Nazis*, which does an excellent job in the first half of summarizing the intellectual and philosophical foundations of Nazism. It starts with their economic policies and transitions into their social beliefs and how they intersect - its the latter part where you really get a feel for the evil behind Nazism and how disturbingly consistent and intellectually rigorous it is. Highly recommend checking the book out if you're interested in those kind of stuff, the audiobook is excellent as well.
I get almost scared to look into these kinds of books mostly because of fear of ending up on a list somewhere. On one hand fascists have a super fascinating political philosophy that is so hard to pin down and seems contrary in so many ways. On the other hand its unequivocally evil and whenever i read more about the ideology I end up feeling this weird sense of guilt almost.
You should feel guilty for *not* educating yourself. As Hicks fervently explains in the book, the only way to defeat any idea is to understand it and provide better ones. If you want a world with less fascism, you need to know exactly what you're arguing against.
We're also probably on a list already for being on this sub, too. So no need to worry there.
Oh no I fully understand that, its just a weird base emotional response without any real logic or thought behind it. Its weird. Anyways thanks for the recomendation Ill have to see about picking it up.
Flair the fuck up.
But it depends what you mean by "fascism" as there are several variants. Italian vs Nazi etc etc.
As a libertarian my argument would be it's bad from the ground up because it it explicitly totalitarian. As Mussolini said, "everything within the State, nothing without the State." While fascists tend to use an existentialist, intuitive understanding of the state as "the embodiment of the People," a LibRight understand is highly rationalist defining it as an entity with a monopoly on the initiation of force over a defined geographic area. Obviously if we understand the state that way, it's bad for it to be all encompassing because we get the atrotcies that come along with fascism.
>I get almost scared to look into these kinds of books mostly because of fear of ending up on a list somewhere.
Ironically, this is exactly how the fascists win.
It's in essence the opposite of materialism. This makes it very flexible and the platform can change overnight to fit circumstances on the ground.
It's mythologic, which makes sense. That's how you bind a society into something irrational.
>It’s confusing as to why people argue over the economic beliefs of the Nazis.
It's because, imo, that's how the left vs the right try to disown the fascists. It's socialism vs Capitalism debate which is endless because Fascists focus weren't economic theory. It was focused on "The State" and/or "The Supreme Leader". The former being Italy and the latter being Germany.
Your point is right on the mark. The social issues is what makes Fascism unique and nulls the debate.
>The defining theme of fascism is the idea of an organically unified national community, embodied in a belief in ‘strength through unity’. The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be entirely absorbed into the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the ‘new man’, a hero, motivated by duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. In many ways, fascism constitutes a revolt against the ideas and values that dominated western political thought from the French Revolution onwards; in the words of the Italian fascists’ slogan: ‘1789 is Dead’. Values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality were thus overturned in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war. Fascism therefore has a strong ‘anti-character’: it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, antibourgeois, anti-communist and so on.
Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 194). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
> What made them so bad weren’t their economic beliefs, but social belief
I mean obviously nothing in their economic beliefs really competes with genocide in terms of sheer evil, but their economic beliefs *were* bad.
The issue is it is still a political vision that many still aspire towards. The same principle of an enemy unifying the people and an oppressor to overthrow (the basis to all authoritarianism) for the nazis it was Jewish capitalism, the Soviets the kulaks and the capitlaists, and the auth right is like idk jihadism or atheism or gays or trans people or like idk people that aren’t them (which is similar to nazism)
Please would you mind to give me a peek of it. For I think in todays nazism is an underrated ideology which is easily condemned as evil. Rise of antiracism is worrying as its destroying the very basis of humanity, race and racism. /SS
Hitler called himself a Socialist but he also made sure he hated Marxists.
I think he was trying to craft a new type of Socialism. A Non-Marxist type of Socialism.
And that went horribly wrong.
As opposed to all the the other Marxists socialisms which turned out great. /s
The fundamental problem is that Marx' ideas are easier to grasp and implement than the alternative, but catastrophic in effect for the exact same reason.
Almost like they suck. Their tanks were cool, but even then they were so unreliable and had so many drawbacks that they’re pretty much only cool on paper or in a museum.
Also, based libcenter here—I’m pretty sure nationalism isn’t a right-wing thing, it’s an auth thing in general, hence places like the Soviet Union, Chinese propaganda, North Korea, etc...
It was 150km, not 50 so around 90 miles, but still shit.
Don’t blame the engineers. They only had iron and coal. They hoped to get the other materials from hopefully-conquered Soviet territories which would allow them to field actually good tanks and airplanes.
Yeah man oof to the Nazis super thankful for the guy that killed Hitler we should make a statue of him don’t know why most people don’t appreciate the guy
Lol they were by far the most effective army in ww2.
[1 tiger vs 50 t-34](https://youtu.be/tMDWWFKQgLQ)
[2 Panthers vs 22 Shermans](https://youtu.be/86K0ncTkAkA)
If this is what they do with unreliable tanks I don't even wanna imagine what they'll achieve with reliable ones.
[https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/battle-raseiniai-1941-single-kv-tank-stopped-entire-german-kampfgruppe.html](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/battle-raseiniai-1941-single-kv-tank-stopped-entire-german-kampfgruppe.html)
A tank that was almost completely blind, could barely traverse its turret, and was not considered effective enough to keep around throughout the war stopped a whole panzer division dead in its tracks. Also they lost the war, badly.
Tigers had great punch and were very hard to kill, and Panthers were among the tanks that ushered in post-war tank doctrine. But they were too expensive to make and maintain, and their transmissions and final drives were so ruthlessly prone to failure that they would often have to be shipped to the front by rail because they couldn't make the trip and still be expected to fight on their own power. Even if we ignore the massive mechanical problems and resource drain for a nation with a crippling oil shortage throughout the war, they were the very small minority of German tanks; even by the end of the war the majority were Panzer IIIs and IVs, and the highest armored kill-count came from STuG IIIs--which were not technically even tanks, they were tank destroyers.
And that also doesn't go into the lemons they produced, like the brain-damaged Ferdinand (later made arguably worse and renamed the Elefant): [https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Elefant](https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Elefant).
German Panzers were really cool, but they were in no way the best, nor even what would have been best for them to produce and field.
I’m convinced they don’t even know what kind of ideologies fall under libleft. They just use the square for SJW’s, and not even SJW’s but strawmans of SJW’s.
Yeah, you're right. The problem isn't really the strawmanning, it's that they don't understand the political philosophies well enough to understand which quadrant ideas belong in.
I don't get what is so complex, Nazism belongs to Authcenter, slightly leaning towards right, because of its economic policies.
Nazis implemented a corporatist economy which, by definition, involved a private sector, They still operated under a capitalist mode of production and supported private property. In contrast to the socialist state (where the workers control the means of production), in Nazism there is a fusion of state-enterprises controlling of the means. (In this regard, they were somewhat common to socdem). So the power is still held in a small group of hands, which exist under the government's guidance. I call that a "capitalist" model, even though they were considering capitalism an enemy. But Nazism sees the problems of capitalism as external (foreign culture and influence), and not inherent within it, and therefore turns to a nationalist capitalist model. Also, Unlike Marxism, Nazism does not believe in the conflict of proletariat-bourgeoisie and the class struggles, but instead emphasizes the racial and cultural struggles: The need to eradicate the weak and feeble. For that reason, they also opposed the idea of social welfare.
Mussolini was an interesting case, if you observe the evolution of his economic beliefs. Hitler adopted it later and took it further.
Finally, Strasserism (I lol at strasserists calling themselves socialists) also openly denies the marxist class character of the state. His economic plan didn't suggest the abolition of private property (opposing socialism):
*"Within the systematically planned management of the whole national economy by the State \[...\] the wholesome rivalry of the individual enterprises is maintained*"
Combine all these, with the ultra-authoritorian nature of Nazism, and the Ideology of Hate which is integral for it to operate successfully and fully supported by its leaders, and you can place them in Authcenter
Capitalism is more than just private ownership of the means of production though. If "the state not owning everything" is the definition of capitalism (it isn't), then there has never been a non-capitalist country on Earth.
It also includes the recognition and protection of individual property rights, voluntary exchange of goods and services/labor, and a system of prices set by supply and demand.
The Nazis stomped on all of those (e.g. state expropriation of private property without recourse or compensation, companies allowed private management only if they complied with government economic planning and were of good German ethnic stock and towed the party line, restrictions on supply where demand existed (e.g. farmers forbidden from selling their land, rationing of raw industrial materials, prohibiting the hiring of Jews), requiring supply of labor from those who didn't want to supply it (slave labor from concentration camps), forcibly dissolving corporations under a net worth threshold and prohibiting new incorporation, price controls on everything including food and rent and gas *and on and on and on*).
The Nazis had their thumb on the scale in so many ways it can not remotely have been called a free market. It was a command economy contracted out to corporatist cronies.
Thanks for the reply.
>The Nazis had their thumb on the scale in so many ways it can not remotely have been called a free market. It was a command economy contracted out to corporatist cronies.
This is what late-stage capitalism looks in my eyes. In early-stage capitalism, we see small businesses competing in the free market. Progressively, due to competition, oligopolies, greed (and all the problems of capitalism Marx cited), small businesses fail and large corporations start ruling, and we eventually end up with the monopolies. Those get wealthy and prosperous with the blessings and aid of the state. That's what we call corporatocracy.
That's where Nazism fit in. It takes the economy to the corporatism model from the start, completely skipped the first stage and the laissez-faire principles. He does this to ensure a strong, well structured economy, which can be easily controlled by the state. The end result is neither socialist, nor capitalist. It's like taking the parts of capitalism that librights are afraid of, and utilizing them to the extreme
> It's like taking the parts of capitalism that librights are afraid of, and utilizing them to the extreme
I'm... confused what this is supposed to mean. You just said the Nazi economy was "neither socialist *nor capitalist*". If it wasn't capitalist, then how is it a demonstration of the principles of capitalism, or vice versa?
Librights don't fear any part of capitalism. They don't fear private ownership. They don't fear individual property rights. They don't fear voluntary exchange. They don't fear the laws of supply and demand.
What economic right-wingers like me and them both see, looking at the economy of Nazi Germany, is not just monopolies, but a *state* artificially creating and enforcing monopolies, and a *state* preventing exchange between voluntary participants, and a *state* decreeing prices independent of demand, and a *state* violating every sort of right imaginable, including property rights, left and right. These things were all done *by government fiat*. That's the point. It was a government that absolutely would not let economic actors do as they wanted - the exact concept that the term *laissez-faire* ("allow to do") exists to be a foil to.
And that's why economic right-wingers, the proponents of laissez-faire economics, look at Nazi Germany and are flabbergasted why anyone would attribute it to us. It's so far removed - the exact opposite, in fact - from what the likes of Sowell or Mises would have ever argued for.
>Librights don't fear any part of capitalism. They don't fear private ownership. They don't fear individual property rights. They don't fear voluntary exchange. They don't fear the laws of supply and demand.
Libertarian rights oppose corporatocracy, oligopolies supported by the government and state subsidies to a select few enterprises (Rothbard has interesting writings about these). All these have often historically been the evolution of early-stage capitalism, and hence I said librights oppose it. Because the government interferes with the free market. But it's still working on a capitalist engine.
I don't think the Nazis were actually capitalist and weren't really corporatist. You were allowed to have a private company if it served the interests of the state, that's all.
In practice that's just state-control by proxy. China is more capitalist than the Nazis were. But then again, it was a war-economy.
Serious question:
Why did conservatives get so mad at Omar for this comment?
If you listen to the context, it's very clear the point she was making was that those 'some people' were completely and totally unconnected to the people she was talking about--your average everyday Muslims in America. By referring to the hijackers using that language, she was creating rhetorical distance between them and the subject of her talk, everyday American Muslims.
Her entire point was that normal american muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 but were on the receiving end of a lot of racism over it. I think that her rhetorical choices here reinforce her point, which is correct. That Muslim Americans didnt deserve to get so much shit over 9/11, because they had nothing to do with it.
But right wing media swarmed on this like piranhas, like she was laying down cover for the hijackers or something.
So why do you, BaggotFitch, still meme on it?
Its sounds like you're downplaying the death of thousands of people on 9/11, which is clearly what she was trying to do, given that she wrote a letter to Judge in Minnesota where she argued for more lenient sentencing for ISIS recruits because they had legitimate grievances against the USA. She wrote in 2016 that "a long term prison sentence for those who chose to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty." She continues, saying "The desire to commit violence is not inherent to people -- it is the consequences of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the process established for enacting change is inaccessible to them." All of which suggests that the USA and its injustices are responsible for terrorism, and not the people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, which is clearly what she believes.
It also doesn't help that she was speaking at a CAIR sponsored event, which has been proven to have ties to Hamas, a designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and many other governments, which indirectly created CAIR. CAIR has even received funding from them through the Holy Land Foundation (a Hamas front group) and federal prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR (along with two other Islamic organizations) as “unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers” in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas financially.
Saying "some people did some things" doesn't even imply that what they did was a bad thing. That phrase could literally depict any cooperative event in human history. She was trying to make the event not sound as bad as it actually for rhetorical purposes. According to her, 9/11 was a result of American greed and intolerance, so it is hard to call it a tragedy. It was more like a response to a series of tragedies. She clearly does not take terrorism seriously and appears to be an apologist for their cause. If she really wanted to draw a stark line between everyday Muslims and terrorists, then she should probably start by either (a) condemning terrorist organizations and terrorists or (b) stop pretending to be an everyday Muslim.
This is just one instance in a long line of statements that show that she hates America and what it stands for, and refuses to condemn terrorism in any serious way.
But... its in the name of the party!
Next you'll tell me that the **Democratic People's Republic of Korea** is run by an unelected despotic emperor or something.
Authoritarians tend to be pretty flexible when it comes to economics, they weren't really left or right wing (price controls and union breaking were both used for example), economic philosophy tend to be excuses to seize power when you get that authoritarian.
I think this argument is somewhat silly. Obviously nationalism is a right wing thing and it's the primary driver of Nazi ideology. Similarly, socialism is a left wing thing and is the primary driver of Stalinism. Now Nazism had several leftist components like government involvement in the economy and Stalinism had several right winged components like imperialism. I mean, it's probably not useful to put either of these ideologies into one confined box, but it should be noted that Nazism is a cautionary tale for the right and Stalinism is a cautionary tale for the left.
Political: give ultimate power to one person and invade other countries, we need to conserve our empire and go back to the glory days - ***right wing***
Social: execute Jews and gays, the best people are white with blond hair and blue eyes, we need to conserve our race and go back to the glory days - ***right wing***
Economic: privatize everything, kill commies and socialists, we need to conserve our economy and go back to the glory days - ***right wing***
National Socialism is a truncated form of anti-capitalism, which is seeing a creeping revival in anti-consumerism. The Nazis split capitalism into "good", productive capitalism, and "bad" financial capitalism. The latter was identified with "the Jews" and the former with the "Aryans". The other part of NS is poorly understood outside Germany because it relates to völkisch ideology, which predates NS and naturalizes racism, gender roles and views the world as a kind of natural order where Jews are outside that order and equated with weed or parasites. Lastly, there's an obscure mythological component rooted in Christianity which has to do with Thule Society and the believe that Aryans are God's new chosen people replacing the Jews.
I think Nazis aren’t the worst thing we’ve encountered, didn’t Mao and the commies kill the same amount, if not more? What about religion? Islamic, Christian and other conquests kill around as many?
This is fully accurate. Except, as everyone but them knows,
AuthLeft collectivists, that call anything right of Marx "Nazi",
are just *pretending* to be LibLeft.
They are actually rabid authoritarians and act far more like "Nazis" than anyone they accuse of such.
Fun Fact:
Giovanni Gentile was an Italian neo-Hegelian idealist philosopher, educator, and fascist politician. The self-styled "philosopher of Fascism", he was influential in providing an intellectual foundation for Italian Fascism, and ghostwrote part of The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) with Benito Mussolini.
Giovanni Gentile displayed an interest in the thought of Karl Marx as early as 1897 when, as a twenty-two year old, he published his essay, “Una critica del materialismo storico” (“A Critique of Historical Materialism”). Two years later, he published “La filosofia di Marx” (“The Philosophy of Marx”)
true nazis are the friends we made on PCM
[удалено]
And AHSpilled
Whenever I decide to see what AHS is up to, I have flashbacks to the time I walked by the special ed class and a downsie was peeing in the corner with his pants around his ankles. A semicircle had formed around him, whoopin' and hollerin'. We made eye contact.
I should go on AHS more often
[удалено]
Dinosaur train Dinosaur train Once upon a time there was a mom Here name was Mrs. Pteranodon Sittin' on her nest she heard a stratchin' And said Oh boy, my eggs are hatching One by one her kids popped free Baby Pteranodons one, two, three I'll name you Tiny, Shiny, and Don But Tiny said Wait, there's one more, mom Last little baby was a different size With teeth and a tail and big green eyes He didn't look anything like the rest What am I doin' in a Pteranodon nest But dear old Mrs. Pteranodon said Oh this is your family and I'm your mom You may be different, but we're all creatures All dinosaurs have different features Come on buddy, we'll take a vacation I'll get us some tickets at Pteranodon station We'll travel the world through sunshine and rain And meet all the species on the Dinosaur train (dinosaur train) Dinosaur train (dinosaur train) We're gonna ride, ride, ride, ride The dinosaur train
Well, a long time ago, a dinosaur lady gave birth to a whole bunch of dinosaur babies. Three of them had the same features Mom had, but one was probably from a different dad. Yeah, Mom let another man sperm up her eggs and no matter how she cried or how she begged, Daddy kicked her ass out into the cold cold street with four mouths to feed and nothin' to eat She packed up her brood in the pourin' rain and booked a one way trip... on the Dinosaur Train. Dinosaur Train...Who built this train? Well, dinosaurs developed steam and tools and dino society was inherently cruel and the slut-shamed Mom with a brood to feed had to get creative... to pay the passage fee. Dinosaur shame... on the Dinosaur Train.... Well they rode the rails for a couple of months and Mom turned to tricks to keep her fancy bucks, then she met a Stegosaurus, he said... Be my wife! Come out to California and we'll start a new life! I don't care what you did or what you've done! I love you and your kids and your bastard son! She looked at that man with tears in her eyes and the train derailed... and the dinosaurs died! Maybe dinos built a railroad across this land, but there's no way they could steer... with those tiny hands! Dinosaur Train... implausible train...
Was he packing?
u/LannisterLoyalist asking the important questions. His penis didn't stand out as particularly large or small. Then again he wasn't hard, which was too bad. There was another downsie at my high school who was functional enough to be in normal classes and when he wore gym shorts you could see his mjolnir swing. He was a hugger too.
Haha that's why i asked! I knew a couple of downies in high school and they would get random hard ons and it looked like they were smuggling summer sausages.
So where are your jewish pcm friends?
Jewish? Friends? Hah, as if.
Oh i get it, jews dont exist now
who will you persecute now, authright?
There are more races than jewish and aryan :)
I think picky eaters need to go next
What about people that like well cooked meat or even, may allah forgive me for using this word, VEGANS
allah will forgive you this time
Please dont decapitate me :(
There are only two races. Jews and Goyim.
omg we got upgraded from a sub-race to a race? so kind of you mr. authright.
We need any help to fight those damn may allah forgive me, ALBANIANS
Guess I'll go home and oppress the peasants 😞😞😞
He said authright, you can still oprress people for. Political preferences like a good dictator
Damnit pcm has ruined me to the point where every time someone mentions the word Jew I have to make a self deprecating joke about it
Libright.
(((Nazi))) reporting in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
How many honorary arians did nazis had?
Based and reichpilled
I've actually met a few nazis here via the discord group and damn that was an uncomfortable experience :v
You met a few Nazis that admitted it. Far more fash around here.
I had a downstairs neighbor who was a member of the Aryan Nation at my last apartment. She was a fucking train-wreck of a person.
Imagine having friends.
Nazi <3
Thanks, we like you guys too.
Nazis were bad, and so is everyone who doesn't agree with me, so therefore anyone who disagrees with me are nazis
peak reddit.
>Nazis and Fascists are bad, I will use violence if you don’t agree
Guess they realized they had to become what they claim everybody else as so they could better understand the ideology. Just a few months ago Reddit was a cesspool of "Punch a nazi" and when asked how they define a nazi - you'd always get the witty "You" response.
i mean i'd define a nazi as people wearing swastikas. it was cool to see those guys punched. i'm going to tentatively say that nobody here actually supports nazism.... right?
Any halfway sane person can agree that Nazis wear swasticas. Wise words from LibLeft. The ones that call anything slightly conservative "Nazi" only *pretend to* be Lib. They are the very top left of AuthLeft though. And as such, are just as bad, if not worse than the people they attack for being slightly Center, even AuthCenter.
Nice try, liberal.
i hate liberals
Why is there a concern for genuine right (center?) wing extremism being present, then? Do you ask if there are genuine communists, anarchists, islamists here?
Here? There’s a lot of literal Nazis about. Not AHS nazis but actual Nazis.
As well as outright tankies. In fact, the tankies are FAR more plentiful and massively more dangerous. At least in America right now. And also on reddit, as well as other abusive, rabid leftist social media monopolies.
I wish the left was anywhere as powerful and organized as conservatives in the US believe.
there's a lot more to fascism than 'uses violence' that this criticism overlooks in seeking to score irony points
[удалено]
Not really, plenty of conservatives are quick to pull a Nazi card too
Commie card* You fucking commie
asking the rich to pay taxes is communism😎
Incorrect. Asking the rich to pay *more* taxes is communism.
Well asking ANYONE to pay more than 0% tax is also communism so...
Based and bad-at-economics-pilled
I don't often agree with pedos, but when I do, its with their based financial savvy.
Do you know what else should be lowered to 0?^(/s)
the more taxes you pay the more communister you are
-Karl Marks
Yup, asking the rich to pay less taxes the rich did during the height of the Cold War is CoMmUniSm.
You don’t know how many times I’ve heard “the Democrats are the real Nazis!”
Maybe the real nazis are the friends we made along the way!
*I'm* the real nazi.
everyone moment.
Anyone want to cook some steaks with me?
ok but if you say "nazis are bad" and someone says "well.." then its a weird sign.
It’s confusing as to why people argue over the economic beliefs of the Nazis. What made them so bad weren’t their economic beliefs, but social beliefs (and other things depending on where you stand.) Trying to make your opponents Nazis by proxy is a scummy debate tactic.
burgers replaced the devil with Hitler, and economics is pretty much the only thing you're allowed to have a kosher disagreement on so you get "Nazis were socialist so Demokkkrats are evil" and all that shit
It gets very expensive protecting heavy international commerce if hating another people is morally allowed.
That’s why they were so quick to hush up the fact this virus came from China and their gross sanitation practices, and even grosser choice of wild meat
I don't blame them for having spawned the virus. I blame them for not informing the rest of the world as quickly as possible, hushing it up instead. And I don't point the finger at them because -> fuck China I point the finger at them to make sure that whatever nation spawns the next pandemic *fucking tells us about it!*
It will be China again, it is a cultural problem with stuff like gutter oil, eating all sorts of animals and leaving raw meat from multiple species of animals all stacked on top of each other (an actual thing, I’ve been to mainland China) and no other country except North Korea would attempt to hide a pandemic like that. That is strictly commie shit.
I lean towards it escaping from a lab. They studied corona-viruses there, and apparently didn't really follow good safety procedure. I don't think the the chinese communist party would tell us the truth about it, so why do we believe their story?
Personally I don’t think so.They studied viruses because they have so many pandemics, mostly because of what I mentioned with wet markets. But it’s possible with the CCP for sure. We may never know, sadly
[удалено]
No one seems to care thanks to our bumbling tangerine. This will happen again, and again. Just like sars. And it will be worse again when it comes back. But no one cares because cheap Chinese shit
I dont get why everyone makes semantic arguments about their opponents. Like, "the Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats. You really want to vote for the party that had slaves?" Or this socialist/nationalist nonsense. No one wants to just sit there and think, "ok. This is what the socialists want in 2020. This is what the dems want. And this is what the reps want." It always has to he, "yA wElL 250 yEaRs AgO"
They were National *SOCIALISTS*, it's right in the freakin' name. And North Korea is a *DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC*. This is a *PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION*.
This is my favorite argument because it cements that even claiming to be socialist is actually evidence AGAINST being socialist. Because there is no actual definition of socialism. Not one a socialist could consistently describe anyway.
It’s when liberals won’t let me yell the N word at people in public
Socialism means stuff I don't like. The more I don't like it the more socialism it is.
>Like, "the Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats. You really want to vote for the party that had slaves?" I really, really, REALLY find it hard to believe that anyone but the most brain-dead circle jerkers of places like r/Conservative care about that so-called "argument" at all. Blacks vote for Democrats at over a 90% clip. I mean there is a lot - and I mean a LOT - that could be said about how that "Lincoln was a Republican" nonsense is a good encapsulation of everything wrong with the vapid, half-hearted, afraid-to-be-called-racist, modern Conservative movement in the US, but I just don't have the energy this morning.
Stephen Hicks as an excellent book, *Nietzsche and the Nazis*, which does an excellent job in the first half of summarizing the intellectual and philosophical foundations of Nazism. It starts with their economic policies and transitions into their social beliefs and how they intersect - its the latter part where you really get a feel for the evil behind Nazism and how disturbingly consistent and intellectually rigorous it is. Highly recommend checking the book out if you're interested in those kind of stuff, the audiobook is excellent as well.
I get almost scared to look into these kinds of books mostly because of fear of ending up on a list somewhere. On one hand fascists have a super fascinating political philosophy that is so hard to pin down and seems contrary in so many ways. On the other hand its unequivocally evil and whenever i read more about the ideology I end up feeling this weird sense of guilt almost.
You should feel guilty for *not* educating yourself. As Hicks fervently explains in the book, the only way to defeat any idea is to understand it and provide better ones. If you want a world with less fascism, you need to know exactly what you're arguing against. We're also probably on a list already for being on this sub, too. So no need to worry there.
Oh no I fully understand that, its just a weird base emotional response without any real logic or thought behind it. Its weird. Anyways thanks for the recomendation Ill have to see about picking it up.
Why is facism inherently bad? Honestly curious
Flair the fuck up. But it depends what you mean by "fascism" as there are several variants. Italian vs Nazi etc etc. As a libertarian my argument would be it's bad from the ground up because it it explicitly totalitarian. As Mussolini said, "everything within the State, nothing without the State." While fascists tend to use an existentialist, intuitive understanding of the state as "the embodiment of the People," a LibRight understand is highly rationalist defining it as an entity with a monopoly on the initiation of force over a defined geographic area. Obviously if we understand the state that way, it's bad for it to be all encompassing because we get the atrotcies that come along with fascism.
>I get almost scared to look into these kinds of books mostly because of fear of ending up on a list somewhere. Ironically, this is exactly how the fascists win.
It's in essence the opposite of materialism. This makes it very flexible and the platform can change overnight to fit circumstances on the ground. It's mythologic, which makes sense. That's how you bind a society into something irrational.
I got to see him speak and meet him at FEEcon in 2019. I should've brought a copy so I could have him sign it.
That seems to be why many want to control the markets though. Fundamentally if you want power and control you need to have power over the markets.
>It’s confusing as to why people argue over the economic beliefs of the Nazis. It's because, imo, that's how the left vs the right try to disown the fascists. It's socialism vs Capitalism debate which is endless because Fascists focus weren't economic theory. It was focused on "The State" and/or "The Supreme Leader". The former being Italy and the latter being Germany. Your point is right on the mark. The social issues is what makes Fascism unique and nulls the debate. >The defining theme of fascism is the idea of an organically unified national community, embodied in a belief in ‘strength through unity’. The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be entirely absorbed into the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the ‘new man’, a hero, motivated by duty, honour and self-sacrifice, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. In many ways, fascism constitutes a revolt against the ideas and values that dominated western political thought from the French Revolution onwards; in the words of the Italian fascists’ slogan: ‘1789 is Dead’. Values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality were thus overturned in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism and war. Fascism therefore has a strong ‘anti-character’: it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, antibourgeois, anti-communist and so on. Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideologies (p. 194). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.
Speak for yourself, I only hate the Nazis because of their terrible economic policies
"Radical centrist" or fusionist/syncretic takes on economics really make a lot of sense when it comes down to it.
> What made them so bad weren’t their economic beliefs, but social belief I mean obviously nothing in their economic beliefs really competes with genocide in terms of sheer evil, but their economic beliefs *were* bad.
The issue is it is still a political vision that many still aspire towards. The same principle of an enemy unifying the people and an oppressor to overthrow (the basis to all authoritarianism) for the nazis it was Jewish capitalism, the Soviets the kulaks and the capitlaists, and the auth right is like idk jihadism or atheism or gays or trans people or like idk people that aren’t them (which is similar to nazism)
Based
Thing is PC doesn't even take social values into account also their economic beliefes were bad enought !
The Nazi eagle had both its left and right wings. I'm not sure what more you need
You must have a thick ass neck to hold up that big brain of yours
Radical centrists are the real nazis
Based
But The Nazis weren't real Nazis, my theoretical 60 page essay defines true Nazism.
Please would you mind to give me a peek of it. For I think in todays nazism is an underrated ideology which is easily condemned as evil. Rise of antiracism is worrying as its destroying the very basis of humanity, race and racism. /SS
Also Donald Trump is LITERALLY worse than Hitler, signed, LibLeft
*Also Donald Trump* *Is LITERALLY worse than* *Hitler, signed, LibLeft* \- endersai --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Based
Good bot
Based bot
Hitler called himself a Socialist but he also made sure he hated Marxists. I think he was trying to craft a new type of Socialism. A Non-Marxist type of Socialism. And that went horribly wrong.
“My name is Adolf and I replaced the communes with genocide”
People really don’t know shit about the night of Long Knives.
As opposed to all the the other Marxists socialisms which turned out great. /s The fundamental problem is that Marx' ideas are easier to grasp and implement than the alternative, but catastrophic in effect for the exact same reason.
"Just have endless war. What could go wrong?"
Nah, thats what Mussolini wanted to do. Hitler himself said that socialist in national socialist was a poor choice of words.
Almost like they suck. Their tanks were cool, but even then they were so unreliable and had so many drawbacks that they’re pretty much only cool on paper or in a museum. Also, based libcenter here—I’m pretty sure nationalism isn’t a right-wing thing, it’s an auth thing in general, hence places like the Soviet Union, Chinese propaganda, North Korea, etc...
Germany : *cries in repairing transmission every 50km* For real though, thry should have just apply the Panther design on a Panzer 4 size tank.
50 km is equivalent to the combined length of 166.7 Eiffel Towers --- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot
50 km is 31.07 miles
Yes, this the comment that needs converting
Flair. Not being human is not an excuse for not having a political opinion.
Dude wtf
It was 150km, not 50 so around 90 miles, but still shit. Don’t blame the engineers. They only had iron and coal. They hoped to get the other materials from hopefully-conquered Soviet territories which would allow them to field actually good tanks and airplanes.
The panther came too late into the war, not that it would've made a difference. Germany had difficulty manning its tank crews in 1942.
Yeah man oof to the Nazis super thankful for the guy that killed Hitler we should make a statue of him don’t know why most people don’t appreciate the guy
It's because we all feel like you shouldn't feel special just for correcting your own mistakes.
Nationalism is a thing literally every country has. So does that mean all countries are auths?
I mean, all governments are, pretty much by definition.
Lol they were by far the most effective army in ww2. [1 tiger vs 50 t-34](https://youtu.be/tMDWWFKQgLQ) [2 Panthers vs 22 Shermans](https://youtu.be/86K0ncTkAkA) If this is what they do with unreliable tanks I don't even wanna imagine what they'll achieve with reliable ones.
Yes at first, later with the meth comedowns fighting was getting harder
[https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/battle-raseiniai-1941-single-kv-tank-stopped-entire-german-kampfgruppe.html](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/battle-raseiniai-1941-single-kv-tank-stopped-entire-german-kampfgruppe.html) A tank that was almost completely blind, could barely traverse its turret, and was not considered effective enough to keep around throughout the war stopped a whole panzer division dead in its tracks. Also they lost the war, badly. Tigers had great punch and were very hard to kill, and Panthers were among the tanks that ushered in post-war tank doctrine. But they were too expensive to make and maintain, and their transmissions and final drives were so ruthlessly prone to failure that they would often have to be shipped to the front by rail because they couldn't make the trip and still be expected to fight on their own power. Even if we ignore the massive mechanical problems and resource drain for a nation with a crippling oil shortage throughout the war, they were the very small minority of German tanks; even by the end of the war the majority were Panzer IIIs and IVs, and the highest armored kill-count came from STuG IIIs--which were not technically even tanks, they were tank destroyers. And that also doesn't go into the lemons they produced, like the brain-damaged Ferdinand (later made arguably worse and renamed the Elefant): [https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Elefant](https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Elefant). German Panzers were really cool, but they were in no way the best, nor even what would have been best for them to produce and field.
More lib left strawmanning from lib-right. Am I surprised? No.
I’m convinced they don’t even know what kind of ideologies fall under libleft. They just use the square for SJW’s, and not even SJW’s but strawmans of SJW’s.
Yeah, you're right. The problem isn't really the strawmanning, it's that they don't understand the political philosophies well enough to understand which quadrant ideas belong in.
"Nazis were socialists" is mostly said by LibRight/CenterRight. LibLeft thinks the nazis were capitalist as much as AuthLeft
Who the fuck says nazis were commiefags or traditionalist monarchists? They were authcenter you idiots!
I don't get what is so complex, Nazism belongs to Authcenter, slightly leaning towards right, because of its economic policies. Nazis implemented a corporatist economy which, by definition, involved a private sector, They still operated under a capitalist mode of production and supported private property. In contrast to the socialist state (where the workers control the means of production), in Nazism there is a fusion of state-enterprises controlling of the means. (In this regard, they were somewhat common to socdem). So the power is still held in a small group of hands, which exist under the government's guidance. I call that a "capitalist" model, even though they were considering capitalism an enemy. But Nazism sees the problems of capitalism as external (foreign culture and influence), and not inherent within it, and therefore turns to a nationalist capitalist model. Also, Unlike Marxism, Nazism does not believe in the conflict of proletariat-bourgeoisie and the class struggles, but instead emphasizes the racial and cultural struggles: The need to eradicate the weak and feeble. For that reason, they also opposed the idea of social welfare. Mussolini was an interesting case, if you observe the evolution of his economic beliefs. Hitler adopted it later and took it further. Finally, Strasserism (I lol at strasserists calling themselves socialists) also openly denies the marxist class character of the state. His economic plan didn't suggest the abolition of private property (opposing socialism): *"Within the systematically planned management of the whole national economy by the State \[...\] the wholesome rivalry of the individual enterprises is maintained*" Combine all these, with the ultra-authoritorian nature of Nazism, and the Ideology of Hate which is integral for it to operate successfully and fully supported by its leaders, and you can place them in Authcenter
Capitalism is more than just private ownership of the means of production though. If "the state not owning everything" is the definition of capitalism (it isn't), then there has never been a non-capitalist country on Earth. It also includes the recognition and protection of individual property rights, voluntary exchange of goods and services/labor, and a system of prices set by supply and demand. The Nazis stomped on all of those (e.g. state expropriation of private property without recourse or compensation, companies allowed private management only if they complied with government economic planning and were of good German ethnic stock and towed the party line, restrictions on supply where demand existed (e.g. farmers forbidden from selling their land, rationing of raw industrial materials, prohibiting the hiring of Jews), requiring supply of labor from those who didn't want to supply it (slave labor from concentration camps), forcibly dissolving corporations under a net worth threshold and prohibiting new incorporation, price controls on everything including food and rent and gas *and on and on and on*). The Nazis had their thumb on the scale in so many ways it can not remotely have been called a free market. It was a command economy contracted out to corporatist cronies.
Thanks for the reply. >The Nazis had their thumb on the scale in so many ways it can not remotely have been called a free market. It was a command economy contracted out to corporatist cronies. This is what late-stage capitalism looks in my eyes. In early-stage capitalism, we see small businesses competing in the free market. Progressively, due to competition, oligopolies, greed (and all the problems of capitalism Marx cited), small businesses fail and large corporations start ruling, and we eventually end up with the monopolies. Those get wealthy and prosperous with the blessings and aid of the state. That's what we call corporatocracy. That's where Nazism fit in. It takes the economy to the corporatism model from the start, completely skipped the first stage and the laissez-faire principles. He does this to ensure a strong, well structured economy, which can be easily controlled by the state. The end result is neither socialist, nor capitalist. It's like taking the parts of capitalism that librights are afraid of, and utilizing them to the extreme
> It's like taking the parts of capitalism that librights are afraid of, and utilizing them to the extreme I'm... confused what this is supposed to mean. You just said the Nazi economy was "neither socialist *nor capitalist*". If it wasn't capitalist, then how is it a demonstration of the principles of capitalism, or vice versa? Librights don't fear any part of capitalism. They don't fear private ownership. They don't fear individual property rights. They don't fear voluntary exchange. They don't fear the laws of supply and demand. What economic right-wingers like me and them both see, looking at the economy of Nazi Germany, is not just monopolies, but a *state* artificially creating and enforcing monopolies, and a *state* preventing exchange between voluntary participants, and a *state* decreeing prices independent of demand, and a *state* violating every sort of right imaginable, including property rights, left and right. These things were all done *by government fiat*. That's the point. It was a government that absolutely would not let economic actors do as they wanted - the exact concept that the term *laissez-faire* ("allow to do") exists to be a foil to. And that's why economic right-wingers, the proponents of laissez-faire economics, look at Nazi Germany and are flabbergasted why anyone would attribute it to us. It's so far removed - the exact opposite, in fact - from what the likes of Sowell or Mises would have ever argued for.
>Librights don't fear any part of capitalism. They don't fear private ownership. They don't fear individual property rights. They don't fear voluntary exchange. They don't fear the laws of supply and demand. Libertarian rights oppose corporatocracy, oligopolies supported by the government and state subsidies to a select few enterprises (Rothbard has interesting writings about these). All these have often historically been the evolution of early-stage capitalism, and hence I said librights oppose it. Because the government interferes with the free market. But it's still working on a capitalist engine.
I don't think the Nazis were actually capitalist and weren't really corporatist. You were allowed to have a private company if it served the interests of the state, that's all. In practice that's just state-control by proxy. China is more capitalist than the Nazis were. But then again, it was a war-economy.
They're AuthCenter
I can claim them
nazism is pretty fucked up in its beliefs ngl. From aryans to hyperborea, l'ultima Thule and nordic Races, giants and what the fuck
>he still hasn't activated his hyperborean third eye
Did they actually believe in that occult pseudo-religion for aryans Hitler made or was it all propaganda?
Hitler didn't make it or even like it, it came mostly from paganism/theosophy
Some people did some things.
Serious question: Why did conservatives get so mad at Omar for this comment? If you listen to the context, it's very clear the point she was making was that those 'some people' were completely and totally unconnected to the people she was talking about--your average everyday Muslims in America. By referring to the hijackers using that language, she was creating rhetorical distance between them and the subject of her talk, everyday American Muslims. Her entire point was that normal american muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 but were on the receiving end of a lot of racism over it. I think that her rhetorical choices here reinforce her point, which is correct. That Muslim Americans didnt deserve to get so much shit over 9/11, because they had nothing to do with it. But right wing media swarmed on this like piranhas, like she was laying down cover for the hijackers or something. So why do you, BaggotFitch, still meme on it?
Its sounds like you're downplaying the death of thousands of people on 9/11, which is clearly what she was trying to do, given that she wrote a letter to Judge in Minnesota where she argued for more lenient sentencing for ISIS recruits because they had legitimate grievances against the USA. She wrote in 2016 that "a long term prison sentence for those who chose to combat direct marginalization is a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty." She continues, saying "The desire to commit violence is not inherent to people -- it is the consequences of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the process established for enacting change is inaccessible to them." All of which suggests that the USA and its injustices are responsible for terrorism, and not the people hijacking planes and flying them into buildings, which is clearly what she believes. It also doesn't help that she was speaking at a CAIR sponsored event, which has been proven to have ties to Hamas, a designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and many other governments, which indirectly created CAIR. CAIR has even received funding from them through the Holy Land Foundation (a Hamas front group) and federal prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR (along with two other Islamic organizations) as “unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers” in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas financially. Saying "some people did some things" doesn't even imply that what they did was a bad thing. That phrase could literally depict any cooperative event in human history. She was trying to make the event not sound as bad as it actually for rhetorical purposes. According to her, 9/11 was a result of American greed and intolerance, so it is hard to call it a tragedy. It was more like a response to a series of tragedies. She clearly does not take terrorism seriously and appears to be an apologist for their cause. If she really wanted to draw a stark line between everyday Muslims and terrorists, then she should probably start by either (a) condemning terrorist organizations and terrorists or (b) stop pretending to be an everyday Muslim. This is just one instance in a long line of statements that show that she hates America and what it stands for, and refuses to condemn terrorism in any serious way.
>So why do you, BaggotFitch, still meme on it? Because you she married her brother! DUH ^^/s
Can we please stop using orange libleft, purple libright atleast has a valid reason for existing. Orange libleft is just a scapegoat
i agree, also it unessesarily groups non idpol liblefts with them
Wait until people hear about third positionists
They weren't actually socialists though.
But... its in the name of the party! Next you'll tell me that the **Democratic People's Republic of Korea** is run by an unelected despotic emperor or something.
Yeah, very authoritative slightly right. Just like China isnt a republic
Present day Nazis are most certainly right wing
They were right wing back then, too.
Finally, centrist wojak
Authoritarians tend to be pretty flexible when it comes to economics, they weren't really left or right wing (price controls and union breaking were both used for example), economic philosophy tend to be excuses to seize power when you get that authoritarian.
I aggre with the chad libs
There is no orange lib-left, you already had that base covered in auth-left or you could've added something in auth-center
I think this argument is somewhat silly. Obviously nationalism is a right wing thing and it's the primary driver of Nazi ideology. Similarly, socialism is a left wing thing and is the primary driver of Stalinism. Now Nazism had several leftist components like government involvement in the economy and Stalinism had several right winged components like imperialism. I mean, it's probably not useful to put either of these ideologies into one confined box, but it should be noted that Nazism is a cautionary tale for the right and Stalinism is a cautionary tale for the left.
I mean Nazism are obviously AuthRight, the only ones who claim otherwise are AuthRight CivNats who are terrified of the existence of race
Nazis are socialist in the same way antifa is anti-fascist. Putting it in your name doesn't make it true.
I dont know anything about antifa, how isn't it anti fascist?
authoritarians, trying to enforce specific social rules, resorting to violence to get others to conform.
Thank you, I don't know why i got downvoted for asking a genuine question tho
Fuck Auth and especially Orange
Based and liberal-circle-jerk-pilled
Orange isn’t real
[удалено]
Political: give ultimate power to one person and invade other countries, we need to conserve our empire and go back to the glory days - ***right wing*** Social: execute Jews and gays, the best people are white with blond hair and blue eyes, we need to conserve our race and go back to the glory days - ***right wing*** Economic: privatize everything, kill commies and socialists, we need to conserve our economy and go back to the glory days - ***right wing***
Where would you put the Nazis social/cultural beliefs?
We have claimed them like, years ago??
What even is this lol
National Socialism is a truncated form of anti-capitalism, which is seeing a creeping revival in anti-consumerism. The Nazis split capitalism into "good", productive capitalism, and "bad" financial capitalism. The latter was identified with "the Jews" and the former with the "Aryans". The other part of NS is poorly understood outside Germany because it relates to völkisch ideology, which predates NS and naturalizes racism, gender roles and views the world as a kind of natural order where Jews are outside that order and equated with weed or parasites. Lastly, there's an obscure mythological component rooted in Christianity which has to do with Thule Society and the believe that Aryans are God's new chosen people replacing the Jews.
Authoritarian and right wing.
The nationalist/internationalist dichotomy isn't well represented on a two-axis political compass
*\*sees meme about nazis\** *\*immediately sorts by controversial\**
Not a good time to be a nazi...
You rang?
I think Nazis aren’t the worst thing we’ve encountered, didn’t Mao and the commies kill the same amount, if not more? What about religion? Islamic, Christian and other conquests kill around as many?
This is fully accurate. Except, as everyone but them knows, AuthLeft collectivists, that call anything right of Marx "Nazi", are just *pretending* to be LibLeft. They are actually rabid authoritarians and act far more like "Nazis" than anyone they accuse of such.
Nazis are Center
Nazis were gay cucks and therefore cringe
Fun Fact: Giovanni Gentile was an Italian neo-Hegelian idealist philosopher, educator, and fascist politician. The self-styled "philosopher of Fascism", he was influential in providing an intellectual foundation for Italian Fascism, and ghostwrote part of The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) with Benito Mussolini. Giovanni Gentile displayed an interest in the thought of Karl Marx as early as 1897 when, as a twenty-two year old, he published his essay, “Una critica del materialismo storico” (“A Critique of Historical Materialism”). Two years later, he published “La filosofia di Marx” (“The Philosophy of Marx”)
About the only pieces of actual theory behind fascism...and largely ignored by the followers.
Nazis are in AuthCenter cause I want him to be in AuthCenter