The Harbinger of Ferocity

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Socialism, no matter its form or incarnation, is on the Left side of the spectrum by its nature. How it is accomplished does not change its Left vs Right axis, only its Authoritarian vs Liberty axis. Adolf Hitler is to national socialism what Bernie Sanders is to democratic socialism; their means and objectives are different, as are their paths, but they share many crux concepts of socialism. In the end, it is still socialism, just as the little discussed Mussolini was a staunch socialist who expanded into fascism.

Communism under Lenin or Stalin were anything but actual communism as envisioned by Karl Marx, yet they are still forms of communism, executed from the eyes of those in power. This does not mean they are any less communist, just another deviation there of.

As an addition for comparison, the United States is a constitutional republic. It is not any less a republic because it is a constitutional, federal, presidential republic.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Dynamo Frokane, the diagram that @Andreyich put forward by and large is mostly accurate. The special areas I intend to speak on about this is that the "Far Right", by its nature, is not socialist. It is almost exclusively a fascist and nationalist movement that does not readily advocate socialist doctrine; those really would vary by individual. Those are the real "Alt-Right", along with the Identitarian and Ethno-Nationalist wings. Part of the reason you see these sects called "Right Wing" and the Alt-Right is because of their heavily militant and authoritarian leanings, two identities strongly affiliated with the Right in the United States' politics. They are the origin of the "skinhead gun-toting Southern white supremacist" stereotype as well and are the "Nazis" people think of.

As always, some of these people are national socialists, but most are nationalists and fascists over all else. Many are even opposed to the Liberty axis, as one can imagine based on their often racial politics. As far as a fair number of them are concerned, people other than whites are not really people; second class beings at best. That said, few actually advocate or believe in what is "Leftist" philosophy such as communism or socialism for the same reason all those varying fringe groups are at one another's throats.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have "Republicans in Name Only". These vary from those who are effectively Democrats in Republican seats, having barely Right ideals and values, and more concerned with politics and votes. They really stand for nothing and only use the Republican name as leverage to gain votes; a recent example would be former presidential candidate John McCain who has abandoned his party's values to go on a personal vendetta against the President of the United States. He has some Republican qualities, but has shown he is mostly in it for the system and is willing to work with opposition to spite those he views as enemies. The "RINO" is generally considered to be a turncoat or mostly a gutless figure - Paul Ryan is usually accused of this.

Consider the Republican in Name Only the very center, right only of the Democrat in Name Only which is comparatively far more rare; the Democratic party knows what it wants to be, just is uncertain how to do it. By comparison, the Republican party knows nothing of what it wants to be currently, but is certain of how it will do things (such as having made Donald Trump the candidate, not out of desire for it mind you).

From here the media spins its tale. You can note this because you witness how they go through cycles of love and hate with the Right. One day our examples of Paul Ryan and John McCain are heroes for "standing up to a bully president" and the next they are railing against them for something such as healthcare in the former's or warhawk behavior in the latter's. This is why they view everyone else further to the right the "Alt-Right". Traditionally, anyone to the right of a Republican was just a Libertarian or "Right Wing'er" or some other minority; this ends roughly after the George W. Bush period and the rise of the strong Democrat party with Barrack Obama.

The first inklings of this transition socially that we really witnessed was how anyone that was not a tame Republican was being portrayed more and more by the media and how it was socially acceptable to harp on them because "Bush was stupid and ruined everything." They became a running joke and the whipping boy. Most Republicans were beat down not only politically by a far more relevant, appealing and charismatic foe, it was that it all had public support. This became even more evident when a turning point in what would become the "Alt-Right" happened with the Tea Party faction.

The media ran with the idea and ridiculed them as well, told them how they weren't being unfairly treated or their interests poorly represented and that no one was spying on them - all of which was untrue as we later learned with the IRS scandal. Either way, it ousted the traditional Republicans of the two Bush eras out and on a downfall to come. In many regards, the Obama administration's years of allowing marginalization of their political and social opponents drove them further and further right; a large number of Americans that would be the "Silent Majority" just looked on.

Many of them no less had voted for Barrack Obama, believing in the "Hope and Change" slogan that was so effective against the traditional Republican babbling. Most thought the world would be on the up and up for them, especially in the now infamous swing states. This became all the more clear with the 2016 election where the Democrats were being swept in popularity in these areas, culminating in a massive electoral defeat (and a popular vote one as well as we are learning from the voter fraud investigations).

In essence, as I said before, they changed the standard they were measuring with, not where people really stood. People wanted a direct, uncompromising, and even memeable president, as strange as that sounds. They did not want anymore Romneys, Bushes, McCains or the like; they wanted an outsider, to which Donald Trump was the answer. The man had repeatedly posed himself to run as an independent, but there would be no way to win.

When you take conservative values and fuse them with the qualities of many independent candidates and platforms, a large number of disenfranchised Americans, give them a former administration like that of Obama's and run them against Hillary Clinton, you end up with Trump and the "Alt-Right", not the Alt-Right.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I personally put little value in broad labels of that sort, @Andreyich. Especially when they are applied by the Left to the point of the parody that the term "Alt-Left" has arisen. They have become meaningless in the face of what little they meant to begin with. Then of course there is the reality that they have been both adopted ironically and un-ironically.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Jesus Christ Tony the Tiger, "Thrashings?" You realize I'm not actually being physically harmed by loosely skimming your posts?

Also I'm not really interested in un-moderated debate, if you're incapable of debating properly, we should probably just drop it.

I also think we should stop because I'm getting under your skin, your spell check is slipping.

@Smash

If we held a vote, I believe with fair confidence most would agree the rebuttals you received for anything you said or had to say greatly exceeded the responses you put out in content and pace. Not just by me but the audience and other members as a whole. This is not some proclamation of how we are "winning" or you "losing", rather that you made a fool of yourself and people leapt at it for right or wrong.

If you are not interested in an un-moderated debate, why do you keep inviting and inciting them here and on the Discord? Is that truly our problem or your own? Why should we all need to conform to your standard when you come into our topic? We owe you nothing other than common courtesy and the Guild's rules as written.

As for you getting "under my skin" consider it more that I wanted to make an example out of you. Because of your attacks on people rather than their opinions and your "style" of "debate" consisting of belittling everyone who thinks different from you and fleeing opposition rather than fight for a point, I do not like you, and I feel no shame in saying that, but that isn't what governs my decisions.

I care more about accuracy and history, as well as their preservation, than little else in this topic of what a Nazi is or is not.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Good to see you are still ever so content to chime in with "humor" than have an actual discussion, @Penny. And no, I do intend to do far worse if I am going to be continually disrespected by the same person who made fun of a disabled Guild member repeatedly and attempted to do the same to me because they thought I was an "otherkin". I have no tolerance for that behavior and neither should anyone else on this forum.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Smash, I will not ask you again to call me by my username or just "Harbinger". No less, do not make idle threats about a "controlled debate" which I explicitly declined. I have no interest in letting you control the narrative to something I did not agree to in the first place. You are doing so in all bad faith out of desperation to not make yourself endure the thrashings you have had over the past few pages. To which I will add, yes, I am calling you out for the above with an expressed purpose before responding. I am doing so as proof there is no question of situation.

First, until you have evidence - the burden of proof is on the accusing party, not the defending - there is nothing to say the man is a hack. Stop attacking the characters of people and actually debate their point; you are making yourself out to be a coward in repeatedly doing this.

Second, the organization approved the presentation and reasonably made the same or similar conclusion to publish it; that is significantly more proof than your one cited article (from a news source no less, not a university, institute, think-tank or the like) and some random book.

Third, you know I use links provided to me from aggregates as a rapid means of making my points. I freely admitted this. I leave them as I find them, though I admit that addition they made might be true as well. No less, look at the year it is dated to as an article. It is not subject to the matter of "recency", even predating the year 2000. I doubt our understanding of history has changed that drastically in over seventeen years.

Fourth, Google has notoriously begun editing search results. As with above, I use captures from other sources. No less, the argument of "lolz Bing" isn't an argument. If anything it shows you are none too familiar with how search engines function and how they choose to display information. Again, point being that Google has skewed its results and the surprisingly less biased and less useful Bing can get it right. I, for the record, use neither of those search engines.

Fifth was to prove citing a book with no reviews, as with yours on that very page you linked, means absolutely nothing. Instead I found a book that has actual reviews and regular sales on a trusted site that people regularly use.

Sixth, you would not jump ship from communism and socialism to an ideology that did not favor you. They were opportunistic socialists and communists who, instead of getting beat or murdered by the national socialists, joined them. No less, the rise of historical Antifa is related to this time period because the Communist Party was outright banned, but that is an argument for another time.

And the last are quotes from the Twenty-Five Points as proof of socialist values in their own words.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

I could post more of these distinctly socialist ideals shared by the Nazis, but I assumed their playbook was really all we needed. Yet it seems you only fixated on the fourth point, something that hasn't anything to do with socialism or why Nazis somehow wouldn't be Left wing.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

These articles by the Mises Institute, the Independent Institute, the Independent, a Bing search, and even a Wikipedia page, as well as this book completely debunk that attempt to say, "Well, it wasn't real socialism." If your ideology has the word "socialism" in it, it is socialism. It being "democratic" or "nationalist" doesn't change the fact that they are all equally related Left wing ideologies. These people thought themselves and their organizations to be socialists. The same logic is the reason Trotskyism, Maoism, Leninism, Castroism, and Stalinism are all communist.

The Nazis were historically socialist, just beyond their name of der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei. This is a fact. It is even part of "Twenty-Five Points", which you can read preserved here from Yale Law School, an offshoot of Yale University. The best part of this is, a number of these examples predate the past few years or so, meaning they are likely untainted by the rewriting of history.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Why is it whenever we have a debate, I have to explain things to you?

Crypto-fascism is a pejorative term for the secret support for, or admiration of, fascism. The common usage is "crypto-fascist" or "crypto-fasc", one who practices this support. The term is used to imply that an individual or group keeps this support or admiration hidden to avoid political persecution or political suicide.

Also I think you need to learn more about the Nationalist-Socialists party history with socialism.

@Smash

Because your lexicon of newspeak and invented Leftist terminology is nothing but cover for the reality that you cannot argue your point. And can you point me to where Nazis are not nationalists, socialists and fascists?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

They literally called themselves Alt-Right, it's a Crypto-fasc term they came up with themselves.

Like if we can't even agree the Alt-right called themselves the alt-right you guys are so separated from reality to the point where it's kind of baffling.

No I said you didn't have a leg to stand on which was a bit of a non sequitur to the statement as a whole. My point is your not looking at American news for American politics.

@Smash

The "deplorables" also call themselves Deplorables, a term invented and executed by the Left wing but adopted by the Right. The "Alt-Right" label is also a product of the Left wing. The conventional "Right" or Conservative story would not work, because you would alienate and mechanize more people against your message by branding half the country the "bad guys" - as we saw with the "basket of deplorables" turning a huge number of people away, the now infamous "Silent Majority". Calling them the "alternative right" was something they then embraced because they wanted to distance themselves from those they saw as failing, even now you can see people sling the "RINO" or "Republican in Name Only" acronym. You can further witness this with groups such as the Alt-Knights who are not only a parody of the phrase, given they were born form the internet, but an actual Right faction.

The real Alt-Right are not right wing at all; Nazism certainly is not a politically right ideology given its deeply socialist roots and fascism as a concept is on the authoritarian side of the Authoritarianism vs Liberty axis, having nothing to do with Conservatism. The same can be said for the Ku Klux Klan which had David Duke and Robert Byrd to name a few, both of whom are notable Democrats and have a strong Left wing history.

Also, throwing the term of "crypto-fasc" around is not going to get you far. Can you define this word or its use?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Also, before it becomes buried under the stormy conversations here, the President of the United States has a higher approval rating than President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Theresa May, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and the Democratic Party of the United States. Yes, that President of the United States. The one who people scream, shout and rage against almost daily. There's plenty more proof beyond that, but it is worthy of mentioning here and now while the opportunity is fresh.