Depends how you define right wing.
Were the nazis totalitarian? Yes, but so was the CCCP.
Were they socialists. Definetely yes.
Were they catholic, or even christian. Not at all.
If you say that the republicans are right wing, then it's hard to put nazis on the same plate.
The meaning of the term right-wing changed a lot in the last 100 years.
If you trace back to Spain during the Franco reign, then you will quickly realize, that a lot of the people fighting for republic were in fact far left (including notably some anarchists). Basically the whole republic concept was considered to be a lef-wing thing (and it was for the time).
Were nazis right-wing? At that time yes.
Are nazis right-wing in the modern meaning of right-wing? Definitely not, those two have nothing in common.
"right-wing politics represents the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition."
If you define yourself as master race ... hmmm ... natural hierarchies pretty much.
Also why do they have such a big following under the right extremists and white supremacists in the US?
Edit: I would recommend Hitler's Mein Kampf and Marx and Engels "A Manifest of a Communist Party" for you.
Compare it to Fascism and you will hopefully figure out that it's the opposite. Antifa is an Anti-fascist movement ... Anarchist. Putting Fascism and Anarchy under the same label (left wing) is just being ignorant.
Do you agree that USA is not the world? You can come up with any type of definition of left and right ...
Read less blogs and more books :) The common agreement between historians and normal people as also shown in the wikipedia articles is that fascism is right wing and anarchism is left wing (as they treat hierarchies differently). You might have an other opinion, that's ok. I mean there are people who think the earth is flat, so your opinion is not the worst. Yet, just don't claim something is based on logic when it isn't.
The problem with far left (or far right) formations, is that their biggest oponent is not the far right. It's the moderate left. Almost no one from far left starts outright supporting far right, but a lot of people "seep in" to more certer oriented views as they age. Also the only way to get into places of power in a "attention economy" is to be more radical than all the rest. Most people do not have any political views at all. The "silent majority" is a myth. Those are people that will just bend to anything that is mainstream, while complaining about this at home. The reason for that is that they do not have an integrated political view that is sufficienty important. It's just a third rate thing, while for the radicals it's the most important thing in the world. Political environment is developing based on movement. If there is no shift, there is no place for people to make careers, that's why no one who is seriuous about being a politician will stick to defending the center. An attack position will always yield better result than a defensive one. You do not have to have answers to all the possible problems, in reality you do not have any answers at all, just prove that your oponent does not have answers to SOME problems. It's a game that we cannot avoid playing and a game that makes everyone lose in the end.
Yes, Evola. The first few chapters about nihilism are probably the most relevant. Keep in mind that if you want to strawman this on, it's very easy. Filter out the Kali Yuga, etc. stuff if this is not to your liking and the rest is still pretty informative.
TIL that's at least a paraphrase, possibly even a direct quote. To be charitable, even to someone who loved hierarchy and hated raves, I'm guessing he probably meant "superfascist" not as in "supercomputer" but as in "supersonic."
There is nothing more than one can say about Evola that wasn't said before. You can pretty much go to his page on Wikipedia and the first few paragraphs sound like a hit piece. I will say that everything is true, even the things that I know for sure are not. It does not matter, in the end there he is, popular as never before. "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
inb4 > Churchill was a fascist, let's tear down his statues.
Evola's program (insofar as I, only 8 chapters in, have had any of it yet disclosed) reminds me somewhat of Dreher's. What did you take away as the more important positive parts of his program?
Would Toole's Ignatius J. Reilly count as one of his positive nihilists?
Maybe it was not such a good idea to demolish the warriors caste after all? It seems that the 3rd state has merged with, or rather became, the aristocracy. Taking into account that the peasants defended them against the neo-warrior-caste in the last Great War, and that their lavish lifestyle comes greatly from taxation of the peasants, the long noses should hang for a long time now.
Breaking companies at a moment in history at which most of the worlds largest player are tightly coupled with their respective goverments agenda? It seems to me that someone here is still convinced that US can play by "free market" rules. Wrong. It could do it when it was effectively the only player in the world. I do not believe that innovation and flexibility can overcome sheer power in a world when everything can be freely emulated or bought out. Don't get me wrong - I would laugh to tears if Google would be broken up. Still I would wonder what will take this space.
You know what else is dangerous? An inner circle kabal that can destroy anyone with an allegation that will get retracted 6 months later. A group of people beyond any control and that suffers no consequences. Maybe also a group of people that understands only doublespeak at this point. I have not love for EM, but at least he is in a position in which he can stand against their attacks.
Can you make a point that is related to why not having some official person respond to a press question is a great idea ?
My only idea why you would do that is if you anticipate a lot of bad press so then your strategy is to label it as "fake news" or "shorting" and label critics as puppets and videos that show problems as deep fakes.
Let me know why do you think this is a good idea though.
P.S. I can enumerate random stuff some journalists did wrong, and bad/evil things companies did wrong, and horrible things marketing/PR done ... is not a proof to find some unrelated example, there needs to be some logic to it.
You're right, it doesn't really matter how known the incident was. However, I don't think it should have happened at all and if someone were to sue, I would have assumed they would only be entertained if it was a widespread case or they were famous (not something I agree with, just how the world works).
