• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Carlson Is Joining the Right-Wing Parade to “Illiberal” Hungary

I can't speak for anyone else but I can make a guess as to how a lot of people are thinking right now:

I wasn't born in a country like Viktor Orban's Hungary, I didn't sign up for living IN a country like Viktor Orban's Hungary and I think patriotic Americans should be willing to fight to the death to prevent the USA from turning INTO a country like Viktor Orban's Hungary, because people like Viktor Orban, and Donald Trump, are seeking to USE democracy to DISMANTLE democracy.
Orban succeeded.
 
Do you plan to change your political affiliation in the profile block to accurately reflect your far-right Republican views or will you still claim to be a libertarian?
I took the political compass thread as my beliefs don't fit lockstep with any party. This was the result of that test:
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

You say I'm "far right". I'm against the death penalty, pro-choice, I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs. I feel that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples. So, not far right. I believe our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2a, low taxes and modest regulation, so, not far left. As you can see, as in my situation, most people don't fit into one box. Did you take the political compass test?
 
I took the political compass thread as my beliefs don't fit lockstep with any party. This was the result of that test:
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

You say I'm "far right". I'm against the death penalty, pro-choice, I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs. I feel that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples. So, not far right. I believe our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2a, low taxes and modest regulation, so, not far left. As you can see, as in my situation, most people don't fit into one box. Did you take the political compass test?
Yes, multiple times. I'm in the lower-left corner. 3 squares up from the bottom and 2 over from the left edge. The same as Noam Chomsky.

3wuzwm.jpg
 
If we learned anything over the last 5 years its that liberals havent got the slightest clue as to what fascism is.
No, what we've learned is that most rightists haven't got the slightest clue what liberal is.
 
If we learned anything over the last 5 years its that liberals havent got the slightest clue as to what fascism is.
Au Contraire,
One of the key questions facing both journalists and loyal oppositions these days is how do we stay honest as euphemisms and trivializations take over the discourse? Can we use words like “fascism,” for example, with fidelity to the meaning of that word in world history? The term, after all, devolved decades after World War II into the trite expression fascist pig, writes Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay “Ur-Fascism,” “used by American radicals thirty years later to refer to a cop who did not approve of their smoking habits.” In the forties, on the other hand, the fight against fascism was a “moral duty for every good American.” (And every good Englishman and French partisan, he might have added.)


Eco grew up under Mussolini’s fascist regime, which “was certainly a dictatorship, but it was not totally totalitarian, not because of its mildness but rather because of the philosophical weakness of its ideology. Contrary to common opinion, fascism in Italy had no special philosophy.” It did, however, have style, “a way of dressing—far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever be.” The dark humor of the comment indicates a critical consensus about fascism. As a form of extreme nationalism, it ultimately takes on the contours of whatever national culture produces it.
While Eco is firm in claiming “There was only one Nazism,” he says, “the fascist game can be played in many forms, and the name of the game does not change.” Eco reduces the qualities of what he calls “Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism” down to 14 “typical” features. “These features,” writes the novelist and semiotician, “cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”


  1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
  2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
  4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
  5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
  6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  7. The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
  8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
  9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
  10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
  11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
  12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
  13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”


 
No, what we've learned is that most rightists haven't got the slightest clue what liberal is.
Actually, what we've learned is that most righties are pretty clueless when it comes to political idealogy.
 
Au Contraire,

Excellent article. Don't expect these Trump lemmings to know who Umberto Eco was.

  1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
  2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
  3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
  4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
  5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
  6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
  7. The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
  8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
  9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
  10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
  11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
  12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
  13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
  14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
 
Why did we need to preserve *what* European character of the country through immigration laws up to 1965? Chinese came in the 1850s, Japanese a decade or so later. Rarely European, rarely white, rarely Christian, until Mexicans began coming in 1850 or so as well. Yes, the immigration laws addressed in the 1965 act had favored Europeans, Northern Europeans to be specific. JFK mentioned that in my Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn when I saw him there in 1960. And black people *literally* made America work for 250 years by laboring for free. You are speaking of some dreamy white-bread American world that never existed. Wake up and smell the falafel.
Whoa! Not so fast.
If you've attempted to to contradict my post you’ve presented a very poor unskillful attempt.

'Chinese came in the 1850s, Japanese a decade or so later.'
Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the United States (Total Numbers) 1860
European White 26,922,537
Black 4,441,830
Asian (includes Chinese, Japanese) 34,933
Hispanic (of any race) 155,000
Total Population 31,443,321

So as a matter of fact The Chinese & Japanese were .001 or 1/10th of 1% of US population
not even a blip on the radar screen. After you say they came aboard did they become more prominent
in the scheme of things. Let's investigate.

60 years afterwards about the time when the great restrictionist William Vaille of Colorado
championed the Immigration act of 1924
Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the United States (Total Numbers) 1920
European White 94,820,915
Black 10,463,131
Asian (includes Chinese, Japanese & Pacific Islanders) 182,137
Hispanic (of any race) 1,286,154
Total Population 105,710,620

So in 60 years did they become a more prominent race in the USA absolutely not.
again not even a blip on the screen .001 or 1/10th of 1% of US population

During this entire period the Population of the country remained the most homogenous
country in the western hemisphere with the possible exception of Canada with British & skimpy black numbers & French & Argentina with German, Italian & Spanish immigrants & skimpy if at all black population

The population of the USA exploded from 1860 to 1920 with the flood of newcomers from
Italy & peoples from eastern Europe which had not previously been substantially noticed before.
There in lies the roots of the Immigration of 1924 with Vaille and his allies intent to put a stop
to it. But they came and came legally perhaps guided by the founders edict that acceptance to the US
was open to 'White men of moral character, no others need apply' & they fit into that category.
That act was put into law in an attempt to limit these new ethnics. Asians & Africans were in the
do not apply category, there entrance here was muzzled.
###############################################

Now for your 2nd rather bombastic flourish 'Mexicans began coming in 1850 or so as well.'

After the Mexican War the US acquired Mexican lands which has limited populations so yes in a way
Mexicans became a blip on the radar screen as well. Here is an analysis of Mexican population here in 1850.
Hispanic Population in US States & states to be in 1850
N Mexico 69,000
Texas 19,000
California 12,000
Arizona 1,300

The movement of Mexicans to the United States was so sparse that it didn't spur
the Census Bureau to create a new racial category, Mexican, until 1930.
Population in 1930 and reveals that the U.S. Hispanic population was still overwhelmingly Mexican and Western.
Total 1,603,552
###########################################You
Your notion that these immigrants managed to gain a foothold in the USA untio the Immigration act of 1965
is laughable as revealed facts establish.

Tha fact of the matter is that 4 basic ethnic groups populated the USA at the time of the Immigration Act of 1965.
The overwhelming members of the founders were British that's why they are called the mother country, the Irish the Germans & the Italians who came later but inhuge numbers from 1890 to 1920.

It's my guess that in the US today there are more Americans tracing their roots to Ireland & Germany than
to Britain itself. The Founders were strongly British but Ireland has the 2nd most signers of the Founding
Document with 6. Three actually born in Ireland & three born here of Irish born parents.
Germans & the Irish who have been at the forefront nearly since the founding, & the Italians
############################################
The Immigration Act of 1965 ended Homogenous America 90% European ethnics that overtook Britain in 1920 (some say a little earlier)
as the greatest economic & military power far before the 'beautiful age of diversity'

Screen Shot 2021-08-08 at 4.47.51 PM.png
 
Well you don't have any credibility about anything at all. Plus all your posts read like they were written by a snotty, spoiled little brat. What the hell are you even doing here?
Says the angry guy as he types out an "I know you are but what am I?" reply
 
Au Contraire,

Great. Now apply that list to any modern conservative you like and tell me how many of those 14 apply. I count zero. And in fact, a couple better describe your side. The truth is, you cannot get to fascism without first embracing the concept of an all powerful state. People like me who embrace limited government and elevate individual liberty above all else are the antithesis of the fascist. The same cannot be said for the left. And you think fascism isnt part of the ideology of the left? Take a look out how seamlessly the Chinese made the transition from communism to fascism.
 
How has he ended democracy?
90.percent of the media is under Orbans control...

Almost all political opposition is silenced...

Almost all of the courts are assets of Orban...

If you call that a democracy
...

Fine...but it ain't
 
No offense meant. You just seem to miss the meaning of posts sometimes. Understandable if one is ESL.
My point is this: Orban captured almost all of hungarian media, silenced opposition parties, and made himself into the guy (who like Trump) said only he can fix it...


If that is not facism one 0 one


What is?
 
My point is this: Orban captured almost all of hungarian media, silenced opposition parties, and made himself into the guy (who like Trump) said only he can fix it...


If that is not facism one 0 one


What is?
And what sickens me is Tucker doing propaganda for Orban...

Idk if he should know better or if Tucker has gone to far right crap...

I rather lean to the latter

Do you get how I might be so sad about that thibg?
 
And what sickens me is Tucker doing propaganda for Orban...

Idk if he should know better or if Tucker has gone to far right crap...

I rather lean to the letter

Do you get how I might be so sad about that thibg?
I am sad...

Cos the right wing seems to now have gone clompletly off the charts...

Any Nation needs a left and right...


And both seemed to have lost the plains of reality
 
My point is this: Orban captured almost all of hungarian media, silenced opposition parties, and made himself into the guy (who like Trump) said only he can fix it...


If that is not facism one 0 one


What is?
So it was nothing to do with comprehending our language
..

But me being fired up about a subject...


And (admittedly) only saying what I wanna say regardless of others (gotta work on that) meaming say what I want, regardless of what others say...

(Yeah.. I need to work on that)
 
So as a matter of fact The Chinese & Japanese were .001 or 1/10th of 1% of US population
not even a blip on the radar screen. After you say they came aboard did they become more prominent
in the scheme of things. Let's investigate.

60 years afterwards about the time when the great restrictionist William Vaille of Colorado
championed the Immigration act of 1924
Racial and Ethnic Demographics of the United States (Total Numbers) 1920
European White 94,820,915
Black 10,463,131
Asian (includes Chinese, Japanese & Pacific Islanders) 182,137
Hispanic (of any race) 1,286,154
Total Population 105,710,620

So in 60 years did they become a more prominent race in the USA absolutely not.
again not even a blip on the screen .001 or 1/10th of 1% of US population

During this entire period the Population of the country remained the most homogenous
country in the western hemisphere with the possible exception of Canada with British & skimpy black numbers & French & Argentina with German, Italian & Spanish immigrants & skimpy if at all black population

The population of the USA exploded from 1860 to 1920 with the flood of newcomers from
Italy & peoples from eastern Europe which had not previously been substantially noticed before.
There in lies the roots of the Immigration of 1924 with Vaille and his allies intent to put a stop
to it. But they came and came legally perhaps guided by the founders edict that acceptance to the US
was open to 'White men of moral character, no others need apply' & they fit into that category.
That act was put into law in an attempt to limit these new ethnics. Asians & Africans were in the
do not apply category, there entrance here was muzzled.
###############################################

Now for your 2nd rather bombastic flourish 'Mexicans began coming in 1850 or so as well.'

After the Mexican War the US acquired Mexican lands which has limited populations so yes in a way
Mexicans became a blip on the radar screen as well. Here is an analysis of Mexican population here in 1850.
Hispanic Population in US States & states to be in 1850
N Mexico 69,000
Texas 19,000
California 12,000
Arizona 1,300

The movement of Mexicans to the United States was so sparse that it didn't spur
the Census Bureau to create a new racial category, Mexican, until 1930.
Population in 1930 and reveals that the U.S. Hispanic population was still overwhelmingly Mexican and Western.
Total

Fair enough. I assume that represents solid research. You made your point about our national ethnicity, though Ben Franklin himself complained about German immigrants, presumably a second, more Catholic wave from Bavaria. A NYC newspaper decried Germans and Irish immigrants, saying a cop’s job would be a sinecure without them. But what’s your bottom line? Why should I care? I recently looked up the Know Nothings and found an article in the Smithsonian. When I get back on my iPad will try to copy and post if you like, as I don’t know how on my phone. But reading the article, it’s hard to find much daylight between the Know Nothings anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic rhetoric and that of Trump, Carlson, and Orban. About 100 years ago, the Carlson’s of the day even subdivided the sacred Europeans, suggesting that the Irish, Sicilians like me, and Russian Jews were not quite right because they came from the northwestern, southern and eastern extremes of Europe, and perhaps shouldn’t be counted as “white.” I have a neighbor a few doors down who is Turkish. Cross the street is a Mexican-Asian guy. My doctors are Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese. How are we worse off having them here? Nothing new. In my first visit to Italy, I arrived by train from the southern France, way north. The Italian immigration guy looked at my passport, my name and my face, and said “Siciliano, eh?” He wasn’t smiling.
 
So, I asked you specifically to highlight where and when Hitler was motivated and inspired by the socialist school of thought. You basically just repeated your earlier claim with a few more words without actually doing anything like that.
Really this reveals the fundamental heart of this debate; you don’t know what Nazism is or where it came from. You seem to think it’s just what is says on the tin that it literally is just a nationalist form of socialism. It isn’t, which is why despite my asking you several times to explain the lineage between Nazism and socialism (any form of socialism), you fall short and leave it vague and without any detail; you just it was and do not elaborate further. On the other hand, I have repeatedly pointed out through which figures Nazism can trace its historical lineage, most prominently Bismarck and Spengler, which you have at best made only half-hearted mentioning to.

More telling is the fact that despite having brought it up several times, you have repeatedly made no commentary regarding the conservative revolutionary movement. Now, the conservative revolution was not simply a predecessor for Nazism nor were the Nazis directly a conservative revolutionary party, but they share the same intellectual legacy that can be traced back through the counter- Enlightenment; a rejection of liberalism and Enlightenment ideals.

As Hitler’s writings in Mien Kampf and elsewhere make clear, the foundation of his text and thinking was based on the Völkisch movement, itself derived from “blood and soil” (Blut und boden). The Völkisch was fundamentally a product of the counter-Enlightenment, so to suggest it was inspired by socialism, an Enlightenment philosophy, is ridiculous at the core. You’re right in the fact that it was a romantic philosophy, but it was not romantic in the sense it sought to create a utopia of class consciousness; it was for Germans, and Germans only. Or as Hitler called them, Aryans. The Völkisch ideal was not an industrial society the likes of which rose in the 19th Century, but a nation of independent farmers and homesteads (that of course needed living space, lbesensraum).

Which is why Nazism can be positioned against such a seeming wide variety of ideologies, from liberalism, socialism, to capitalism; all products of the industrial revolution and the Enlightenment that Hitler’s ideological origins lay in opposition to. Hitler added an additional layer; violent anti-Semitism. To be fair to German revolutionary conservatism, many German conservatives recoiled away from Hitler’s anti-Semitism, and that can serve as a very significant dividing line between the two. In the end though, it doesn’t change where the ideological core of Nazism comes from.

As an American I can understand why this concept may seem so alien; our country was founded on enlightenment ideals so an ideology that rejects them outright (even Marx insists on the egalitarianism of the proletariat) seems inconceivable. But it’s the root of where Hitler’s beliefs come from, and why comparison of his beliefs to any enlightenment derived ideology (classic liberalism, socialism) is foolish.

No, I am discussing National Socialism, which includes the German party in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. National Socialism absolutely did prefer the nation - Blood and Soil - as it's organizing principle, in contrast to International Socialism, which spent a long time appealing to an international class-based organizing principle. However, "left wing" is not defined as "appeals solely to an international class-based organizing principle".

Appealing to Spengler et. al., also isn't that convincing given that, er, well, Spenger was a socialist, and, IIRC, a fan of Benito Mussolini.

That puts him in the same camp as the 1930s Roosevelt Administration which was also not exactly "Conservative" or all that dead-set against Socialism's many branches and siblings.
 
No, I am discussing National Socialism, which includes the German party in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. National Socialism absolutely did prefer the nation - Blood and Soil - as it's organizing principle, in contrast to International Socialism, which spent a long time appealing to an international class-based organizing principle. However, "left wing" is not defined as "appeals solely to an international class-based organizing principle".

So, to recap, I asked you to explain how and through which specific socialist doctrine and ideological tangents did Hitler adhere to and draw his beliefs from. You didn't, instead offering a largely un-detailed statement claiming that he did, and then I explained why you can't; Hitler's ideals as expressed in his writings, speeches, and debates can be traced through the German counter-Enlightenment reactionary movement. To accept this of course would invalidate the whole backbone of the "Nationalism socialism" tactic (virtually all modern socialism being descended from the Enlightenment, and the German reactionary counter-Enlightenment was a direct refutation of that, along with liberalism) that you want to use to paint a wide variety of different groups you don't like under a similar banner, so the connection between Hitler and the Nazis and socialism has to be maintained.

Unfortunately that connection doesn't exist, which is why the best you can offer is just vague accusations of saying "No, he was a socialist! So were these guys! Trust me!" Like this post, which ultimately says nothing but just repeats the same talking points again as if it they hadn't already been dismissed.

Appealing to Spengler et. al., also isn't that convincing given that, er, well, Spenger was a socialist,

No, he wasn't. :) What Spengler was was a conservative revolutionary who wanted to appeal to people by using "socialism" as a justification of adoption of Prussian militarism and Prussian values.

That puts him in the same camp as the 1930s Roosevelt Administration which was also not exactly "Conservative" or all that dead-set against Socialism's many branches and siblings.

Because in the end, the whole point of this tactic is just to try to rework back to your critique of American politicians/movements you don't like like Progressives or the New Deal. This is understandable because you are primarily a student of American politics, but it demonstrates your inability to grasp German political history because it doesn't fit into the narrative you desire it to.
 
This is a cop out, a means to explain away the idiosyncrasies of Hitler’s belief system and the ways it doesn’t allow himself to be easily fitted into the mold you want to stuff him into.

No, it's a description of the Man. Hitler wasn't much of a high-browed theorist, he was a populist. That doesn't mean he was an idiot, and it doesn't mean he didn't have an ideology, it simply means that he didn't do much to develop his own way of thought (outside of importing a particularly rabid strain of anti-semitism); if you want the actual intellectual development of national socialism from someone who was also a national autocrat, Mussolini is ore your man 🤷‍♂️

Fascism and Nazism are not the same thing, philosophically. They carry a lot of topical similarities and the Nazis were directly inspired by fascism, but they are not one in the same. The Nazis never referred to themselves as fascists for a reason, despite their fascination with it they openly critiqued the lack of racial component of the fascist state. Fascism was very much a product of European society and the political situation in post-WWI and disappeared once those conditions ended.

Nazi leaders refered to themselves as National Socialists, as your own (correct) citation below demonstrates.

Fascism was born out a desire to put an end to the concept of the class struggle that communists had brought to the forefront with their post-WWI revolutions, and they did this by assigning everything under the power of the State, resolving class conflict with what they called class cooperation (something communists quickly rejected). Thus the fascists were at odds with liberals (who viewed the state as a necessary outgrowth and something to be maintained to ensure it did not overstep its boundaries), and socialists (who saw the state as best as a necessary evil and hopefully be eventually dissolved completely).

That is not what "socialists" believed. That is what some socialists believed - Bakunin more aggressively, Engels as well. Defining "Socialism" so narrowly as to expel everyone who has ever actually governed and many more that haven't may give you a definition that will keep the National Socialists out, but, it will not give you a good one.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, "libertarian marxism", and the rest =/= Socialism just as Squares =/= Rectangles. One is a subset of the other.

Fascism may have been a right wing ideology (“ "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."), but they rejected the stagnation and maintenance of what they saw in conservative parliamentary republics.

What Fascism was *not* was an ethno-nationalist agrarian romantic racial supremacy ideology. Race was always of secondary concern to fascism, despite its anti-egalitarianism most early Fascist writings couched this in terms of nations rather than races, which is why Italy hosted a militant Zionist training ground until Hitler pressured Mussolini into shutting it down. Fascism did not suggest the arrival of a man of providence (that Hitler wrote about) that would save the country, and it many ways was more collectivist than Nazism.

Indeed. Nationalism does not require a pyramid of racial supremacy (though it easily lends itself to one), and neither does national socialism.
 
Hitler never said this. This is a quote by George Strasser in his pamphlet “Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future”.

You are correct! :D That's what I get for arguing while sick. I got sloppy, cited the wrong leading Nazi, and that's no one's fault but my own :)


In fact later he goes on to write:

The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy if there is to be a third Reich at all! Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals, violating the deepest levels of our being!

We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!

Indeed. Stalin, also, was no racial egalitarian (or any other kind of egalitarian), and neither, for that matter, was Marx, or a dozen other Socialist leaders and nations of note. Put this one right next to "but National Socialists sometimes persecuted other Socialists".

This just confirms what I’ve stated prior. You don’t actually know much about this subject, the history of Germany or Italy, or how these ideologies formed. The fact that you spent most of this trying to tie it back to FDR and American progressives is because the core of your argument always rests on trying to form a connection between these things.

You are correct that American political history is my most well-developed frame of reference - however, that doesn't mean that the connections I keep pointing to didn't happen. The reason why leftists in America and abroad admired National Socialism in the early years is because it was an expression of principles they agreed with, put into action. There is a reason that National Socialists admired and said nice things about FDR and the New Deal: because it was an expression of principles they agreed with, put into action.

Now, you can claim that "oh, but in Germany National Socialism was conservative because socialism was conservative, but only in Germany, and only after Hitler took over the Nazi party". We can call it Conservative or Libertarian, or Unitarian, or Presbyterian, or any other name we please - but that does not change what the thing is, which is and was part of a broad explosion of ideas and ideologies on the that took place in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, centered around many different variations of Socialism, and the driving understanding of economics and human society that drove it.
 
Last edited:
So how about we just screw the paperwork up and Tucker Carlson can't come back?
 
So, to recap, I asked you to explain how and through which specific socialist doctrine and ideological tangents did Hitler adhere to and draw his beliefs from. You didn't,

That's correct, not least because I am not talking about Hitler, I am talking about National Socialism, which is not defined by Hitler, who wasn't much in the way of an original ideological thinker to begin with.

Hitler's ideals as expressed in his writings, speeches, and debates can be traced through the German counter-Enlightenment reactionary movement.

As you and I have both agreed, Socialism is indeed a Romantic movement....

To accept this of course would invalidate the whole backbone of the "Nationalism socialism" tactic (virtually all modern socialism being descended from the Enlightenment, and the German reactionary counter-Enlightenment was a direct refutation of that, along with liberalism)

Which was counter-Enlightnement. Socialism is not an expression of the Enlightenment, nor is it an expression of the Liberal ideals it fostered. Like other expressions of Socialism, National Socialism wasn't trying to conserve the Enlightenment ideals, nor was dedicated to the older conservatism of Throne and Altar - it was trying to create something new.


that you want to use to paint a wide variety of different groups you don't like under a similar banner, so the connection between Hitler and the Nazis and socialism has to be maintained.

Not at all. As I stated repeatedly above, there is no current political "ground" to win, here. All of the arguments that boil down to "Well You Know Who Else Believed In Speed Limits*? Hitler" are stupid. Godwin's Law is also a reference to a variant of the ad hominem fallacy.** That National Socialists believe(d) in a strong military does not morally impugn current proponents of a strong military. That Hitler was (mostly - IIR reading somewhere he would occasionally eat sausage) a vegetarian is not a mark against vegetarians. That Mussolini is said to have "made the trains run on time" is does not cast moral aspersions on people who believe in timeliness or orderliness. Marx being a socialist (and a jerk) and Mussolini being a socialist (and a jerk) does not make Bernie Sanders a jerk, and, in fact, it says nothing about Bernie Sander's moral character whatsoever. Queen Elizabeth II is not evil for being a monarch because other monarchs have been evil. All the yokels on the right who want to pretend that the Democratic Party having been the party of slavery and the KKK somehow makes it racist today are being fools.

I've repeatedly tried to move the topic OFF of Hitler and onto the broader topic of National Socialism. Respectfully, you are the one who has repeatedly tried to scope down to Hitler (and, I suppose, if you are projecting "the connections that you believe have to be maintained to paint groups you don't like under a similar banner").

*or whatever topic you prefer.
**which means we can reject its premise. There is no current political need to try to divorce National Socialism from it's German expression in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.


Unfortunately that connection doesn't exist, which is why the best you can offer is just vague accusations of saying "No, he was a socialist! So were these guys! Trust me!" Like this post, which ultimately says nothing but just repeats the same talking points again as if it they hadn't already been dismissed.

Yeah, see, though, you dismissing reference to things that actually happened and were said doesn't mean they didn't happen and weren't said :)

No, he wasn't. :) What Spengler was was a conservative revolutionary who wanted to appeal to people by using "socialism" as a justification of adoption of Prussian militarism and Prussian values.

Spengler was absolutely a socialist, arguing that German Socialism (built around the Nation) was superior to English Socialism (built around classes, which he considered artificial).
 
90.percent of the media is under Orbans control...

Almost all political opposition is silenced...

Almost all of the courts are assets of Orban...

If you call that a democracy
...

Fine...but it ain't
How is the media under his control? Or do they just have a right wing mainstream media the way we have a left wing mainstream media?
 
How is the media under his control? Or do they just have a right wing mainstream media the way we have a left wing mainstream media?
He and his wealthy supporters have bought all the newspapers and the state has bought most of the tv stations.
 
Back
Top Bottom