It's impossible to really draw a thru-line from Nazi-era fascism to today's conservatism, even though it might be tempting to do so. The social norms of debate back then were radically different than today. Consider for one, that pretty much every major political European party back then did not question for a second the colonial empires and the human cost of that. Something that would be seen as completely abhorrent today.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
You're missing the forest for the trees if you can't see the links.
- scapegoating"others" (Jews vs. immigrants)
- "others" are kept in concentration camps and treated as less than human
- a lying leader who complains about 'the lying press'
- the leader lacks empathy and can't handle criticism
- a cult of personality around the dear leader and government officials selected who serve the leader; not the nation.
- A government that tosses out 'the law' to accommodate the dear leader
Scapegoating others - the rich vs. the poor. Targeting minorities - the rich vs. the poor.
Left vs. Right - the only difference is which minority is the target...
Well, the rich are the ones actually running the government yet no one is claiming there's an "INVASION" of rich people or that they are dirty and criminals. That's what I mean by scapegoating. Pointing out that the rich are rich on our expense is not really scapegoating because there's truth there. Rich lobbyists and super pacs and billionaires run the USA - Republican party especially but also most Democratic candidates. But again, no one is saying these are people that need to be locked up - they just need to pay their share and not get any more tax cuts that will be passed on to us.
How much is a 'fair share? Liberals are just as susceptible to fake news as conservatives...
One of the things @Balrog99's article mentions is that 34% of the government's revenue comes from payroll taxes instead of income taxes.
Could someone explain the logic behind payroll taxes for me? It seems like nothing more than a tax on companies for hiring people, and part of that cost is just going to be shifted onto the employee. It seems like that would just discourage companies from hiring, and penalize industries that employ lots of American citizens.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
"The good of the community before the good of the individual".[13] ("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ" [all caps in original])[14]
For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
One of the things @Balrog99's article mentions is that 34% of the government's revenue comes from payroll taxes instead of income taxes.
Could someone explain the logic behind payroll taxes for me? It seems like nothing more than a tax on companies for hiring people, and part of that cost is just going to be shifted onto the employee. It seems like that would just discourage companies from hiring, and penalize industries that employ lots of American citizens.
Payroll taxes are automatic deductions before a company cuts you a check. A lot of them are visible on your pay-statement. Social Security tax and Medicare tax are examples. Income tax withholding is also a payroll tax, but most low-income folks get that money back when they cash their rebate checks...
Edit: Checked Wikipedia and there are deductions you don't see on your pay stub that your employer has to pay. Disability and unemployment insurance taxes are examples of these...
In regards to this Epstein business, it's probably useful to consider this: What is the MOST likely reason?? The most likely reason is that a billionaire who owned his own island and multiple mansions all over the world knew for a certainty he was never again going to be free, and that the guards assigned to make sure he didn't kill himself were either negligent or lazy.
The second most likely scenario, which requires a big leap, is that guards were paid off by those in power with something to hide, and they either let Epstein kill himself or did it themselves. From there, you have to take a leap that would take you to the moon and beyond to believe Bill and Hillary Clinton sent in an assassination squad.
When looking at the actual policies of the nazis, I don't see how one can reasonably deny their socialist leanings. Are we all agreed on the definition that socialism is control of industry by the state? That's exactly what was going on. All private industry or property was allowed to exist insofar at it was obeying the commands of the state. This certainly isn't capitalism. The only reason they didn't go further was to not scare away the financiers.
The conspiracy fire is burning hot over the Epstein thing, even pretty normal people who never engage in that kind of stuff are deeply suspicious. And they should be. He tried to kill himself before, but apparently wasn't on suicide watch? Someone this well connected to so many incredibly rich and powerful people? It doesn't make sense.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
@WarChiefZeke: Tons of people kill themselves to avoid prison. Some of them are on suicide watch, and some of them are not, because not everyone does get put on suicide watch. This isn't the least bit new or unusual.
Conspiracy theorists love conspiracy theories because it gives them a reason to think they're smarter than other people--and because it lets them tell themselves a story they want to hear.
Personally, I'll take a conspiracy theory seriously when it's actually substantiated in some way. Until then, it's blind speculation based on nothing.
Again, Epstein killing himself to avoid prison makes perfect sense. This exact scenario has happened many times before, including the part about him not being on suicide watch.
Oh, come on. You really think it's not unusual for an extremely high profile figure, accused of an extremely heinous crime, that may implicate other powerful people, and who has already attempted suicide once before, to not be on suicide watch? No matter how much you want to resist conspiracy theories, and that's perfectly fine, it's more than a bit unreasonable to not see him as the absolute perfect example for someone who needs to be on suicide watch constantly. What more could possibly need to be done to meet that criteria?
I'd say there is more reason to suspect something suspicious in this case than most, but even with that being said, I'd still put the odds at 75/25 that it was what it is on the surface. A 25% is a alot of wiggle room. I believe it deserves an investigation.
Actually, according to NBC, he was on suicide watch and then was later taken off, which makes more sense, I guess. I first read that he wasn't on it, at all.
When looking at the actual policies of the nazis, I don't see how one can reasonably deny their socialist leanings. Are we all agreed on the definition that socialism is control of industry by the state? That's exactly what was going on. All private industry or property was allowed to exist insofar at it was obeying the commands of the state. This certainly isn't capitalism. The only reason they didn't go further was to not scare away the financiers.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Conservatives need to adapt. Their philosophy has to be somewhat reworked to a platform that's friendlier to a society that is getting more educated and less white with every generation. They're also losing the suburbs after having lost urban centers. As the population is moving into the areas, it's also causing issues for the GOP.
I also reject the idea that it's 100% due to immigration. There are a bunch of socioeconomic reasons why the GOP is in trouble. Bigger than immigration is the fact that Millennials are becoming a larger share of the electorate, and Conservatives havent made as many inroads in that group as they need.
Also, it wont be 1 party. The senate is fundamentally skewed to be conservative. The GOP is likely to hold the senate more often than not.
So I guess just nobody at all believes this was an accident, from any side of the fence.
As for myself, I don't know what to think. I want to believe it's some accident, but I would be lying if I said I believed our institutions or elites were above any sort of foul play.
Well, if there is anyone we can trust to get to the bottom of this, it's absolutely Bill Barr *rolls eyes*. His involvement alone is enough to change my previous percentages by 20%.
I also reject the idea that it's 100% due to immigration.
Well, then you're wrong, and aren't looking at the actual voting patterns. Thus, most of what you say here is simply off the mark.
I don't think you can really mean to argue that the only factor affecting voting is immigration. There are many other issues we've discussed in this thread that are significant. For a number of those - like healthcare and climate change for instance - the GOP seems to be out of step with the majority of people in the country. If that continues to be the case that is likely to have an impact on their chances of future electoral success.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Well not really. GOP just needs to stop leaning completely right and come back towards the centre for a two party system to still be effective. It’s not the voters fault that a political party does not represent them when they go to the polls.
If they can’t do that, a third central party could emerge pushing the GOP out of the picture. This is could include policy makers from both parties that straddle the former line and sell their political party brand as bipartisan.
Not when they're well-connected billionaires who had been not above indulging in illegal activities. It just doesn't work like that, and I'll bet money US is no exception to the rule.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Well not really. GOP just needs to stop leaning completely right and come back towards the centre for a two party system to still be effective. It’s not the voters fault that a political party does not represent them when they go to the polls.
If they can’t do that, a third central party could emerge pushing the GOP out of the picture. This is could include policy makers from both parties that straddle the former line and sell their political party brand as bipartisan.
All this idealistic stuff ignores how hard it is to get a third party up and running in America, and assumes that the one party state will willingly allow a competitor to grow in their midst, instead of stamping down on it with the full force of the cultural/media apparatus that they will be in full control of. It goes against their most basic incentives, and to me expecting any institution to do that is equivalent to magical thinking.
I also don't see any distinction whatsoever between a one party state and a two party system that is forced to adopt the policies and messages of the one party state. In function, it's the same thing, and there is no reason to assume the millions of disenfranchised citizens will actually go for it, rather than simply wanting to govern themselves, which is the far more realistic option in my view.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Well not really. GOP just needs to stop leaning completely right and come back towards the centre for a two party system to still be effective. It’s not the voters fault that a political party does not represent them when they go to the polls.
If they can’t do that, a third central party could emerge pushing the GOP out of the picture. This is could include policy makers from both parties that straddle the former line and sell their political party brand as bipartisan.
All this idealistic stuff ignores how hard it is to get a third party up and running in America, and assumes that the one party state will willingly allow a competitor to grow in their midst, instead of stamping down on it with the full force of the cultural/media apparatus that they will be in full control of. It goes against their most basic incentives, and to me expecting any institution to do that is equivalent to magical thinking.
I also don't see any distinction whatsoever between a one party state and a two party system that is forced to adopt the policies and messages of the one party state. In function, it's the same thing, and there is no reason to assume the millions of disenfranchised citizens will actually go for it, rather than simply wanting to govern themselves, which is the far more realistic option in my view.
And this is why constructs that artificially boost the GOP are so dangerous. They help make us a one party state that most people don't want. Combine that with a lawless President who places himself above the law and cowardly elected Republicans who won't stand up to him and you have a recipe for trouble.
Gerrymandering, voter purges, and other forms of Republican dirty tricks have led to mass disenfranchisement. It is working because, for now, people are going along with it. More people voted for his opponent but he's the President. Democratic Senators represent like 20 million more people than Republican senators buy are the minority. CA alone should have like 10 more Representatives if the House wasn't capped but gerrymandering helped the GOP lose fewer seats than they should have - without gerrymandering Dems would have picked up another 20 seats in the House.
Your damn right there's mass disenfranchisement going on right now. How long will the peasants eat cake while establishment Republicans keep funnelling money out of blue states and towards Republican billionaires?
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Well not really. GOP just needs to stop leaning completely right and come back towards the centre for a two party system to still be effective. It’s not the voters fault that a political party does not represent them when they go to the polls.
If they can’t do that, a third central party could emerge pushing the GOP out of the picture. This is could include policy makers from both parties that straddle the former line and sell their political party brand as bipartisan.
All this idealistic stuff ignores how hard it is to get a third party up and running in America, and assumes that the one party state will willingly allow a competitor to grow in their midst, instead of stamping down on it with the full force of the cultural/media apparatus that they will be in full control of. It goes against their most basic incentives, and to me expecting any institution to do that is equivalent to magical thinking.
I also don't see any distinction whatsoever between a one party state and a two party system that is forced to adopt the policies and messages of the one party state. In function, it's the same thing, and there is no reason to assume the millions of disenfranchised citizens will actually go for it, rather than simply wanting to govern themselves, which is the far more realistic option in my view.
Yep. Can’t wait for middle of America where Republican support is at its highest attempt to separate from the rest of US with zero economy to work with. If you think what’s happening with Brexit is bad wait for this scenario plays out.
Tons of people kill themselves to avoid prison. Some of them are on suicide watch, and some of them are not, because not everyone does get put on suicide watch.
If prison is a horrible place that a lot of people rather lose their lives instead of going to prison(myself included), why a lot of people here is in favor of spending tax money to take out productive members of society to put people who committed victimeless crimes into this horrible place?
Tons of people kill themselves to avoid prison. Some of them are on suicide watch, and some of them are not, because not everyone does get put on suicide watch.
If prison is a horrible place that a lot of people rather lose their lives instead of going to prison(myself included), why a lot of people here is in favor of spending tax money to take out productive members of society to put people who committed victimeless crimes into this horrible place?
I actually don't remember seeing anyone here express support for the current prison system in the U.S., or even expressing skepticism about prison reform. I'm one of several people that has condemned it as cruel, pointless, counterproductive, and expensive.
Tons of people kill themselves to avoid prison. Some of them are on suicide watch, and some of them are not, because not everyone does get put on suicide watch.
If prison is a horrible place that a lot of people rather lose their lives instead of going to prison(myself included), why a lot of people here is in favor of spending tax money to take out productive members of society to put people who committed victimeless crimes into this horrible place?
Epstein crimes were the opposite of victimless as well. He’s the type of person you would want rotting in prison.
It's okay, you can say "Nazi" and admit that Nazis weren't socialist at all.
They were, the basic definition of socialism was part of their platform, but so what? It's just silly to paint an entire economic train of thought as somehow inherently genocidal based on one subsection of it led by one fanatical leader. Those guilt by association tactics are almost always nonsense.
Above all, the Nazis were authoritarian German white nationalists.
That is more closely assigned with the position of conservatives.
Also they imprisoned unionists, communists and socialists.
Throw in jail someone by """hate speech""", by owning unregistered firearms, by not celebrating an gay weeding etc is authoritarian too. Just like the failed war on drugs who throw in jail someone from owning "drugs" and amazing idea of spending the tax payer money into bombing countries across the globe
Right and Left is a matter of deffinition. National socialism is third way from certain writers like Dugin, is right wing for some and left wing for some(Hoppe for eg), same with socialism. Some people doen't consider non maxist socialism as "true socialism". Just like Anarcho capitalism is anarchy in the sense of no state but is completely different than Bakunin's Anarchism.
Anyway, no mainstream conservative wanna race based citizenship, concentration camps or other "NS stuff"
Anarcho-Capitalism is different from anarchism because it's not anarchist. It's literally the opposite of anarchist, and it is impossible to be a true anarchist and support unjust hierarchies - such as corporations.
Fascism is a far right ideology, not left, and attempts to meld it with socialism (Strasser, Dugin, etc) aren't socialism., but somehow always turn out to be socialism.
Plus the Nazis killed all the Strasserites they could, alongside the actual socialists/communists and others they deemed undesirable.
If you want to insist these aren't human rights, you need to actually make a case for it, as what you described as reasonable is in fact multiple human rights violations.
Also, the right to seek asylum is recognized internationally and in the US. This idea that seeking asylum should result in punitive outcomes is actually not consistent with existing law.
So? Nothing I do or value is contrary to those articles.
And if you really want to go down that hole, I recall neither this declaration being legally binding nor my country ratifying it.
And your country is known for committing human rights violations, assassinating journalists for being too critical of the state, suppressing LGBT people simply for being LGBT, and not having a true democracy ever since Putin came into power.
Everything you said is contrary to those articles, and I have to seriously question whether you read them if you think otherwise.
It's okay, you can say "Nazi" and admit that Nazis weren't socialist at all.
Much as I'd like, I can't. Socialism isn't one monolithic thing. USSR was a very socialist, if tyrannical, state. Third reich was also socialist, if racist, state. Nowadays we have Scandinavian countries. There're plenty of subcategories of it.
All of these things aren't socialist, and while socialism has a lot of flavors to it, none of them are German Nazis. Also, socialism isn't "when the government does stuff."
The right is to SEEK asylum, not to receive it automatically.
Which means people are well within their rights to seek asylum. And that it's not illegal to do so. And that indefinitely detaining people for doing it is actually bad.
Comments
How much is a 'fair share? Liberals are just as susceptible to fake news as conservatives...
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/middle-class-tax-relief-is-a-hoax/
Could someone explain the logic behind payroll taxes for me? It seems like nothing more than a tax on companies for hiring people, and part of that cost is just going to be shifted onto the employee. It seems like that would just discourage companies from hiring, and penalize industries that employ lots of American citizens.
Anyway, The 25-point Program of the NSDAP :
source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
Only few 'ALT-Righters' would agree with all points. And this points that i mentioned goes completely against what mainstream right wing advocates.
Payroll taxes are automatic deductions before a company cuts you a check. A lot of them are visible on your pay-statement. Social Security tax and Medicare tax are examples. Income tax withholding is also a payroll tax, but most low-income folks get that money back when they cash their rebate checks...
Edit: Checked Wikipedia and there are deductions you don't see on your pay stub that your employer has to pay. Disability and unemployment insurance taxes are examples of these...
The second most likely scenario, which requires a big leap, is that guards were paid off by those in power with something to hide, and they either let Epstein kill himself or did it themselves. From there, you have to take a leap that would take you to the moon and beyond to believe Bill and Hillary Clinton sent in an assassination squad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan
Even the mainstream media folks aren't having it.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Conspiracy theorists love conspiracy theories because it gives them a reason to think they're smarter than other people--and because it lets them tell themselves a story they want to hear.
Personally, I'll take a conspiracy theory seriously when it's actually substantiated in some way. Until then, it's blind speculation based on nothing.
Again, Epstein killing himself to avoid prison makes perfect sense. This exact scenario has happened many times before, including the part about him not being on suicide watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
They were not socialists. They were collectivists. There's an important distinction.
Conservatives need to adapt. Their philosophy has to be somewhat reworked to a platform that's friendlier to a society that is getting more educated and less white with every generation. They're also losing the suburbs after having lost urban centers. As the population is moving into the areas, it's also causing issues for the GOP.
I also reject the idea that it's 100% due to immigration. There are a bunch of socioeconomic reasons why the GOP is in trouble. Bigger than immigration is the fact that Millennials are becoming a larger share of the electorate, and Conservatives havent made as many inroads in that group as they need.
Also, it wont be 1 party. The senate is fundamentally skewed to be conservative. The GOP is likely to hold the senate more often than not.
As for myself, I don't know what to think. I want to believe it's some accident, but I would be lying if I said I believed our institutions or elites were above any sort of foul play.
Well, then you're wrong, and aren't looking at the actual voting patterns. Thus, most of what you say here is simply off the mark.
I don't think you can really mean to argue that the only factor affecting voting is immigration. There are many other issues we've discussed in this thread that are significant. For a number of those - like healthcare and climate change for instance - the GOP seems to be out of step with the majority of people in the country. If that continues to be the case that is likely to have an impact on their chances of future electoral success.
Well not really. GOP just needs to stop leaning completely right and come back towards the centre for a two party system to still be effective. It’s not the voters fault that a political party does not represent them when they go to the polls.
If they can’t do that, a third central party could emerge pushing the GOP out of the picture. This is could include policy makers from both parties that straddle the former line and sell their political party brand as bipartisan.
Class based Collectivism = An totalitarian genocidal regime
Race based Collectivism = An totalitarian genocidal regime
Same thing...
All this idealistic stuff ignores how hard it is to get a third party up and running in America, and assumes that the one party state will willingly allow a competitor to grow in their midst, instead of stamping down on it with the full force of the cultural/media apparatus that they will be in full control of. It goes against their most basic incentives, and to me expecting any institution to do that is equivalent to magical thinking.
I also don't see any distinction whatsoever between a one party state and a two party system that is forced to adopt the policies and messages of the one party state. In function, it's the same thing, and there is no reason to assume the millions of disenfranchised citizens will actually go for it, rather than simply wanting to govern themselves, which is the far more realistic option in my view.
And this is why constructs that artificially boost the GOP are so dangerous. They help make us a one party state that most people don't want. Combine that with a lawless President who places himself above the law and cowardly elected Republicans who won't stand up to him and you have a recipe for trouble.
Gerrymandering, voter purges, and other forms of Republican dirty tricks have led to mass disenfranchisement. It is working because, for now, people are going along with it. More people voted for his opponent but he's the President. Democratic Senators represent like 20 million more people than Republican senators buy are the minority. CA alone should have like 10 more Representatives if the House wasn't capped but gerrymandering helped the GOP lose fewer seats than they should have - without gerrymandering Dems would have picked up another 20 seats in the House.
Your damn right there's mass disenfranchisement going on right now. How long will the peasants eat cake while establishment Republicans keep funnelling money out of blue states and towards Republican billionaires?
Yep. Can’t wait for middle of America where Republican support is at its highest attempt to separate from the rest of US with zero economy to work with. If you think what’s happening with Brexit is bad wait for this scenario plays out.
If prison is a horrible place that a lot of people rather lose their lives instead of going to prison(myself included), why a lot of people here is in favor of spending tax money to take out productive members of society to put people who committed victimeless crimes into this horrible place?
Epstein crimes were the opposite of victimless as well. He’s the type of person you would want rotting in prison.
So you're saying that Nazis wanted the people to own the means of production? Because that list says they wanted to nationalize everything.
That's not socialist.
No, socialism is the people owning the means of production.
Anarcho-Capitalism is different from anarchism because it's not anarchist. It's literally the opposite of anarchist, and it is impossible to be a true anarchist and support unjust hierarchies - such as corporations.
Fascism is a far right ideology, not left, and attempts to meld it with socialism (Strasser, Dugin, etc) aren't socialism., but somehow always turn out to be socialism.
Plus the Nazis killed all the Strasserites they could, alongside the actual socialists/communists and others they deemed undesirable.
And your country is known for committing human rights violations, assassinating journalists for being too critical of the state, suppressing LGBT people simply for being LGBT, and not having a true democracy ever since Putin came into power.
Everything you said is contrary to those articles, and I have to seriously question whether you read them if you think otherwise.
All of these things aren't socialist, and while socialism has a lot of flavors to it, none of them are German Nazis. Also, socialism isn't "when the government does stuff."
Which means people are well within their rights to seek asylum. And that it's not illegal to do so. And that indefinitely detaining people for doing it is actually bad.