I Think I'm Done With The Hill Rising

[noonereal]

Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Kyle Kulinski is... okay, but too much of an irrational purist at times. Jimmy Dore is even more of a purist, but also very cringey and obsessed with AOC's 'betrayal' because she doesn't like his strategy for M4A. And then there's Krystal Ball (and Saagar) on The Hill Rising. For a while now I've been getting increasingly annoyed with their 'both-sides-isms', the smugness, and their obsession with the media. But last month's On My Radar segment combined with the events of yesterday was the final straw.

This aged sooo well:

why would you watch such trash?

 

[Felis Leo]

Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Kyle Kulinski is... okay, but too much of an irrational purist at times. Jimmy Dore is even more of a purist, but also very cringey and obsessed with AOC's 'betrayal' because she doesn't like his strategy for M4A. And then there's Krystal Ball (and Saagar) on The Hill Rising. For a while now I've been getting increasingly annoyed with their 'both-sides-isms', the smugness, and their obsession with the media. But last month's On My Radar segment combined with the events of yesterday was the final straw.

This aged sooo well:

Same here, but I am coming at this from the right-wing perspective.

I do not see too much of a balance here. Krystal Ball is a Bernie Sanders-style progressive social democratic, and Saagar is center-left in most of his political statements. While I find their critiques reasonable overall, there is not much of a "balanced" perspective as they agree on pretty much everything.

 

[Jason Warfield]

I think it does. If you hold the same far left political views that a communist would hold, then it's not unreasonable to call you a communist.



She has said plenty of other stuff where she sounds just like Lenin.



Of course not - because fascism is left wing. Mussolini's political views line up perfectly with Bernie's, but are the complete opposite of Milton Friedman, who is on the far right.



You mean like screaming "racist!" constantly?

If you hold the same, far right political views that an authoritarian does, then it's not unreasonable to call you a fascist.

BTW, fascism can be either left or right. Quite often in history, you see it swing in a different direction, depending on who is in control, often going left to right. The Nazis were an example of this.

They started on the left while Hitler was in jail under the Strassner brothers' leadership. When Hitler got out, he then got support from nationalist groups and conservative industrialists, to whom he promised to purge communists, socialists and democrats. Upon being named Chancellor, he did just that with the Enabling Act. One of the Strassner brothers quit the party because it was no longer socialist, while Gregor stayed on to keep tabs on the leftists of the party.

Then Hitler purged all parties except the Nazis party and jailed all leftist parties and movements. In the Night of Long Knives, Gregor Strassner was murdered by Hitler's goons and the leftists in the Nazi party disappeared.

Another example is North Korea. Technically, it is called a Stalinist communist nation...but really, it's just a nation in the grip of a powerful, family dictatorship. The first Kim was certainly a Stalinist communist. But by the time we got to the current Kim, the government had done a hard swing to the fascist right.

Now, I am NOT saying that all on the right are bound to be fascists, much like saying that all on the left are bound to be communists....but more often than not, fascism falls into the providence of the right when it does happen.

 

[aociswundumho]

If you hold the same, far right political views that an authoritarian does, then it's not unreasonable to call you a fascist.

Except no one on the far right holds authoritarian views. The far right supports property rights, free markets, capitalism, and a weak, minimal government to no state at all.

BTW, fascism can be either left or right.

No, fascism is just socialism with a nationalist bent. Mussolini was a life long socialist, the only thing that changed when he started the fascist movement was that his socialism was national instead of international like Marxism.

Quite often in history, you see it swing in a different direction, depending on who is in control, often going left to right. The Nazis were an example of this.

They started on the left while Hitler was in jail under the Strassner brothers' leadership. When Hitler got out, he then got support from nationalist groups and conservative industrialists, to whom he promised to purge communists, socialists and democrats. Upon being named Chancellor, he did just that with the Enabling Act. One of the Strassner brothers quit the party because it was no longer socialist, while Gregor stayed on to keep tabs on the leftists of the party.

Then Hitler purged all parties except the Nazis party and jailed all leftist parties and movements.

Just like the Bolsheviks did. Just like the Khmer Rouge did. Just like Stalin did during the great purge.

Leftists are inherently deranged, violent people. They have no qualms about murdering each other over trivial differences.

Note also that both brothers were extreme nationalists and leftists - just like Mussolini.

In the Night of Long Knives, Gregor Strassner was murdered by Hitler's goons and the leftists in the Nazi party disappeared.

No, they didn't, because the whole party was full of leftists. Strassner was murdered because he was a long time rival of Hitler, not because of his political views.

The business men, who had been so enthusiastic over the smashing of the troublesome labor unions, now found that left-wing Nazis, who really believed in the party's socialism, were trying to take over the employers' associations, destroy the big department stores, and nationalize industry. Thousands of ragged Nazi Party officials descended on the business houses of those who had not supported Hitler, threatening to seize them in some cases, and in others demanding well-paying jobs in management. Dr. Gottfried Feder, the economic crank, now insisted that the party program be carried out -- nationalization of big business, profit sharing, and abolition of unearned income and "interest slavery". As if this were not enough to frighten the businessmen, Walther Darre, who had just been named Minister of Agriculture, threw the bankers into jitters by promising a big reduction in the capital debts of the farmers and a cut in the interest rate on what remained to 2%.
-- The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany[/B], William A. Shirer, Simon & Shuster (New York, 1960), Volume I, pp. 203-204.

Does that sound like something Milton Friedman would approve of? Or does it sound like something that would make Lenin smile?

Another example is North Korea. Technically, it is called a Stalinist communist nation...but really, it's just a nation in the grip of a powerful, family dictatorship. The first Kim was certainly a Stalinist communist. But by the time we got to the current Kim, the government had done a hard swing to the fascist right.

Now, I am NOT saying that all on the right are bound to be fascists, much like saying that all on the left are bound to be communists....but more often than not, fascism falls into the providence of the right when it does happen.

There is no "fascist right". Every fascist that has ever existed acts like a typical commie.

 

[skeptic llc]

Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Kyle Kulinski is... okay, but too much of an irrational purist at times. Jimmy Dore is even more of a purist, but also very cringey and obsessed with AOC's 'betrayal' because she doesn't like his strategy for M4A. And then there's Krystal Ball (and Saagar) on The Hill Rising. For a while now I've been getting increasingly annoyed with their 'both-sides-isms', the smugness, and their obsession with the media. But last month's On My Radar segment combined with the events of yesterday was the final straw.

This aged sooo well:

While I think the left consists mainly of nutball weirdos with no grounding in reality, I also think it would be impossible to be "balanced" between the left and the right until the right moves on from fantasyland authoritarianism. How could a media source honor both when one side wants to operate purely on made up facts and overthrow the government?

 

[skeptic llc]

Except no one on the far right holds authoritarian views. The far right supports property rights, free markets, capitalism, and a weak, minimal government to no state at all.



No, fascism is just socialism with a nationalist bent. Mussolini was a life long socialist, the only thing that changed when he started the fascist movement was that his socialism was national instead of international like Marxism.



Just like the Bolsheviks did. Just like the Khmer Rouge did. Just like Stalin did during the great purge.

Leftists are inherently deranged, violent people. They have no qualms about murdering each other over trivial differences.

Note also that both brothers were extreme nationalists and leftists - just like Mussolini.



No, they didn't, because the whole party was full of leftists. Strassner was murdered because he was a long time rival of Hitler, not because of his political views.



Does that sound like something Milton Friedman would approve of? Or does it sound like something that would make Lenin smile?



There is no "fascist right". Every fascist that has ever existed acts like a typical commie.

Heeheehee definitional games defeat reality. Well played. Want to live under the nazis and quote your carefully selected definitions to them?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Fascism is always right wing. It cannot be left wing. Communism is the opposite extreme from fascism. Neither are desirable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

italian fascism was not right wing. Nor was the German variety, many people attribute the term fascist to Francisco Franco’s Estado Español but that was a traditional conservative government that did not resemble Germany or Italy.

The Italian government under Mussolini was a left government in nearly every since except that they didn’t remove the King.

 

[Hatuey]

Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Kyle Kulinski is... okay, but too much of an irrational purist at times. Jimmy Dore is even more of a purist, but also very cringey and obsessed with AOC's 'betrayal' because she doesn't like his strategy for M4A. And then there's Krystal Ball (and Saagar) on The Hill Rising. For a while now I've been getting increasingly annoyed with their 'both-sides-isms', the smugness, and their obsession with the media. But last month's On My Radar segment combined with the events of yesterday was the final straw.

This aged sooo well:

... you shoulda known Krystal Ball was a troll's name.

 

[Felis Leo]

... you shoulda known Krystal Ball was a troll's name.

The parents were certainly trolling their daughter.

 

[Juks]

Of course not - because fascism is left wing. Mussolini's political views line up perfectly with Bernie's, but are the complete opposite of Milton Friedman, who is on the far right.

j

No, fascism is not right wing. You quoting a Wikipedia definition is not an argument.

So: What is far right then? Republicans?

 

[Hatuey]

The parents were certainly trolling their daughter.

Krystal Ball is white people's version of Shaniqua Tomkins. You hear it and immediately think "Someone wasn't right when they named her".

 

[Felis Leo]

Krystal Ball is white people's version of Shaniqua Tomkins. You hear it and immediately think "Someone wasn't right when they named her".

I would hope my wife and I never become so selfishly self-indulgent as to give any child of ours a pun name.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

j

So: What is far right then? Republicans?

Monarchy.

 

[aociswundumho]

So: What is far right then? Republicans?

Anarcho-capitalism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Grand Mal]

Except no one on the far right holds authoritarian views. The far right supports property rights, free markets, capitalism, and a weak, minimal government to no state at all.

Solid liberal values. Congratulations.

 

[aociswundumho]

Solid liberal values. Congratulations.

Classic liberals are certainly right wing, but they have nothing in common with American liberals.

 

[Grand Mal]

Classic liberals are certainly right wing, but they have nothing in common with American liberals.

Liberal means liberal and we're on the left.
Conservatives don't walk the talk. They say small government but they just love a big, strong Daddy state, the stronger the better. Conservatives increased the size of the US government by an entire department devoted to a big, muscular package of laws. When liberals get into power they spend half their time shit-canning bad laws and conservatives resist that effort all down the line.

 

[Tigerace117]

italian fascism was not right wing. Nor was the German variety, many people attribute the term fascist to Francisco Franco’s Estado Español but that was a traditional conservative government that did not resemble Germany or Italy.

The Italian government under Mussolini was a left government in nearly every since except that they didn’t remove the King.

Lol yes, it absolutely was. The Italian fascists attempted to exterminate every leftist they could catch. The same goes for the Nazis, who did so with the enthusiastic support of the Junker thugs.

 

[bomberfox]

I think it does. If you hold the same far left political views that a communist would hold, then it's not unreasonable to call you a communist.



She has said plenty of other stuff where she sounds just like Lenin.



Of course not - because fascism is left wing. Mussolini's political views line up perfectly with Bernie's, but are the complete opposite of Milton Friedman, who is on the far right.



You mean like screaming "racist!" constantly?

Pinochet’s economic views were shaped by Milton Friedman. You could not be more wrong. Fascism takes over economic systems and protects the existing hierarchy. Just read some history for once.

 

[bomberfox]

Lol yes, it absolutely was. The Italian fascists attempted to exterminate every leftist they could catch. The same goes for the Nazis, who did so with the enthusiastic support of the Junker thugs.

The role of private property owned by the preferred racial group remained unchanged and even cemented throughout the whole era.

 

[bomberfox]

More nonsense. The Soviets heavily repressed ethnic nationalism within their borders, and virtually all Communist states proclaimed and supported an internationalist approach to foreign affairs.



No, it isn't. It's an uneducated sentiment expressed by people who think they can apply socioeconomic theories to organizations that were not in mind when the theory was created or promoted.



lol

" The capitalists have worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection, which again only proves their higher race, they have a right to lead. Now you want an incapable government council or works council, which has no notion of anything, to have a say; no leader in economic life would tolerate it."

-Adolf Hitler, 1930



Which is why they didn't abolish it, right? You keep saying they both hated it, yet never did anything to actually curtail it. Tell me, what was Krupp charged with after WWII?

Oh, and what happened to the left-wing Nazis btw?



You don't even grasp what Mussolini's actions are, which is why you fail every time you try to make this argument and fall back on trying to repeat the same bullshit that someone else fed you, because you don't know enough about the topic to speak for yourself.

For example, you always fall back on claiming that Mussolini was socialist because he A)Spent a lot of public works and B) There was a high degree of state ownership. You keep repeating this because this is all you have.

In reality, neither prove Mussolini was a socialist; for starters spending on public works has never been the sole domain of socialists, and numerous right wing conservatives have done so. This is literally just you once again exposing how little you understand of political history.

Second, Italian State Ownership under Mussolini did not mean anywhere close to what you think it does. In reality what "state ownership" meant was the Italian government intervening in failing industries to prop them up by buying a majority ownership. This resulted in virtually no major changes to leadership, direction, or employment; businesses didn't stop producing what they did nor did they stop employing the people they waned; management was virtually unchanged.

In fact when you look at the history of economic intervention by the Italian Fascist Government you see nothing on par with the USSR's centrally planned economy. The Italians did not seize industries and converted them to state rule, they intervened when the banks failed to stop the spread of economic collapse and avoid mass unemployment. The Battle of Grain did not involve mass conscription of the workforce, re-appropriation of land, or redistribution of wealth (something the Soviets did), but consisted of government grants and advisors. There was nothing on par with the USSR's centrally planned economy or Stalin's industrialization efforts.

It basically meant certain keynesian principles put into action which is designed for capitalist countries. Interestingly enough Keynes sponsored Pierro Sraffa who was a refugee from Italian fascism because Sraffa had rather unflattering truths about Italian banks.

 

[aociswundumho]

Liberal means liberal and we're on the left.

Is Milton Friedman on the left?

Conservatives don't walk the talk.

I agree, they often don't.

They say small government but they just love a big, strong Daddy state, the stronger the better. Conservatives increased the size of the US government by an entire department devoted to a big, muscular package of laws. When liberals get into power they spend half their time shit-canning bad laws and conservatives resist that effort all down the line.

To make the case, you should provide some examples.

 

[bomberfox]

Every time I hear some honky dory moron talk about Krystal Ball and Dinesh Dezousa's mitosis efforts to both sides nazi supported Republicans, my eye roll emoji flinches.

They dont understand that their "moderate" views wont save them from guys wearing 6MWE shirts.

Thats why i have a much different view of centrists than most. I dont do teach the controversy nonsense. Krystal Ball and Saagar are the teach the controversy nutters of the political arena (teach the controversy is a creationist tactic).

 

[aociswundumho]

Lol yes, it absolutely was. The Italian fascists attempted to exterminate every leftist they could catch.

Oh please. Stalin murdered literally 1000x more leftists than Mussolini did. Does that make Stalin "right wing"?

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh please. Stalin murdered literally 1000x more leftists than Mussolini did. Does that make Stalin "right wing"?

Stalin didn’t recruit a bunch of “noblemen” to help carry out the massacres. Stalin didn’t send death squads to hunt down every “leftist” he could catch. I get that historical ignorance is kinda your thing, but you are grasping at straws.