Slashdot Mirror
Google Listed 'Nazism' as the Ideology of the California Republican Party (gizmodo.com)
Less than a week ago, if you searched for the California Republican Party on Google, you might have read that the political party's ideologies included conservatism, market liberalism, and nazism. The latter listing has since been removed, and Google is blaming the results on Wikipedia "vandalism." From a report: Vice first reported the inclusion of "Nazism" under ideologies in Google's knowledge panel -- the box that shows up to the right of search results. It's unclear how long the term had been there, but the tech giant removed it after being notified by the publication. "We regret that vandalism on Wikipedia briefly appeared on our search results," Google tweeted on Thursday in response to California congressman and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. "This was not the the result of a manual change by Google. We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that happened here."
Google is making a lot of mistakes. They are slowly killing themselves. As is Facebook and a few others. I see regulation coming on them. they will continue down this path and slowly loose. You tube is another easy example to point to as a sequence of mistakes. They must remove themselves and just be an open and honest information provider. The moment they start "we know better then you" people will resist.
Interesting that the vandalized version of the page only existed for about a minute, and Google somehow managed to run with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
https://www.jta.org/2018/05/06/news-opinion/neo-nazi-california-senate-candidate-barred-state-republican-party-convention
hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists
The important thing is not whether or not the policies they implemented were actually socialist (which inevitably draws the not-true-socialism argument). The important thing is that they espoused socialism. It reinforces the trend, that political parties that espouse socialism tend to institute totalitarian dictatorships.
The National Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party, aka Nazi party had some leftist ideology, a lot of leftist rhetoric, but can't be accurately classified on the left-right spectrum at all. It was primarily nationalist.
You'd have a better argument if you went for the left-right spectrum being wrong, but actually, such nationalism falls under the auspices of the right-wing, as originally it was considered part of the French dogma.
The name, "Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party" fairly accurately represents much of what they SAID; like all politicians what they said isn't what they did. There was a lot of anti-capitalism and especially anti-banker stuff, but Hitler directed that into very different actions.
Yep, he gave his preferred Capitalists priority treatment, while punishing the common laborers among the Jews.
For several hundred years, due to Christian religious teaching and kings using loopholes, most banking concerns were run by Jewish people. Hitler used the anti-banker (essentially anti Wall Street) rhetoric and sentiment to go after the Jews, as most bankers were Jewish.
Nope. Very few bankers were Jewish, and very few of the Jews rounded up in the Holocaust were actually bankers.
You're just falling victim to a myth perpetuated by anti-Semitic groups.
I'm saying victim, since you don't even know but are ignorant of it.
Leftists are known for identity politics - rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc. The Nazis very much focused on race. Leftists generally talk about race a lot, but not to the extent the Nazis did.
Nope. It's the Right-wing that focuses on identity politics, hard-working noble rich vs lazy criminal poor, rightful God-worshiping straight vs atheist immoral gay, moral and rational whites versus animalistic and primitive blacks, browns, red and yellows. Not to mention the Irish. The Nazis talked a lot about race, but they could have borrowed almost all of it from the hardcore Conservative Southern ideologues who were the epitome of the right, and were quite ascendant at the time, to the point of even co-opting science for their goals.
Leftists are socialist / communist, saying the factories and such should be owned by the people, and unlike the conservatives believe people should not be given a CHOICE buy stock in companies they choose, but instead must own all or most of the big companies, whether they want to be owners of an oil company or not. Because a million people can't individually vote or otherwise have a hand in running a company, the government must do that for them, the leftists say
Wrong again, it's actually the right-wingers that say "Because a million people can't individually vote" that they have to represent the people, and sell all public assets to individuals whose private ownership will lead to profit, which, of course, goes solely and exclusively to the owners, and the laborers deserve the proper scorn that their sweat and callused hands merit.
Well, not really, the right-wingers claim that the owner will somehow know to respect their workers, after all, if respected workers work harder, that'll be the more efficient thing, and the enlightened owner who has the blessings of God according to the prosperity gospel will do the proper thing.
The Right-wing goes on and on about making the nation strong, but it ends up always being focused on the proper sort, the ones who deserve it, according to their wisdom, and individuals who claim oppression and mistreatment are just resentful and shiftless layabouts who don't want to work hard.
Conservatives and US Republicans tend toward individualism,
Nope. Conservatives and US Republicans tend towards tribalism and group-think, the
It depends on what "wealth transfers" you choose to count.
For example, if you counted the Federal state-tax income credit, then California jumps to the #1 beneficiary of Federal transfers, with New York #2 right behind them.
But nah, you choose to count only those tax credits and payments that produce the outcome you like.
In denial much? Here:
Ringing any bells? American "Progressives" adored Hitler in the 30-ies...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seriously bringing up that bullshit about Hillary and Byrd? Give us a break... he clearly repudiated the entire philosophy of the KKK back in the early 50's, when Hillary was still in Kindergarten. Read your own link, troll.
I do not have a signature
The Wikipedia entry states "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics"
Hitler claimed to be neither left, nor right wing and criticised both, while using elements that were, at the time, both left and right.
Yes, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but that quote has a couple of attestations. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a similar (or better) standard of evidence to support your claim. Your argument and list of traits you consider left is a mix of traints common with some politically left organisations and some authoritarian organisations (some of which are left). It ignores traditionally right elements of the Nazis (like nationalism and anti-liberalism). It's unbalanced and superficial.
The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is authoritarian.
That authoritarian governments arise from politically left parties is obvious (just as it is obvious that they also arise from politically right parties). That authoritarian governments share common traits should be obvious. Identifying authoritarian traits in politically left governments and comparing those to authoritarian traits in the nazis and declaring the nazis politically left is lazy, dishonest or ignorant.
Politically left fascism kind of exists, mostly as a criticism of the extreme left, but it's a new term and not well defined - mostly it seems to be used as an epithet.
Frankly, both ends of the political spectrum tend to look pretty similar when they get extreme enough and it would be charitable to think that this is where most people are getting confused.
TL:DR
Nazis are usually considered 'far right'. They claimed to be syncretism of left and right and criticised both while taking elements from both. They were fascist and authoratarian (redundant). Observing that the authoritarian 'far left' and nazis have something in common is obvious. Arguing that this makes nazis left is shallow.
And this is the company that wants us to put our future in its algorithms/AI?
Sorry, either this is revealing Google at its most incompetent, or this is revealing Google's priorities (that is, preventing libel against the right is at the very bottom of its priorities, until something erupts). Either way, it doesn't cast Google in a favorable light.
Synopsis: The division is not left/right; that is the wrong way of approaching the situation. Instead it is individualism versus tribalism.
Here is the story:
Stand and face (let’s say) North. Put your hands together and extend them pointing towards N. Now, open them 90 degrees each until they cut 180-degree arc. Your hands just described the spectrum of regular, let us call it sane (enough) politics. Quadrant I (looking top down) is the right wing, quadrant II is the left wing. You might color them if you like. Let’s say the left is red and the right is blue. Now, what about quadrant III and IV? Those are populated with people who have taken either side to the extreme.
And here is an interesting fact – since we have numerous examples throughout the 20th century of both left and right going crazy (cross culture and cross race mind you!), we have very clear record of the tactics they applied. And they are largely the same! Labor camps – check, both the Nazis and the Commies did it. Group identity – check (superior race against everyone else in one case, the proletariat against everyone else in the other). Overreach of governmental meddling in people’s lives – check. Emphasis on “morality”, “patriotism”, “national pride” – check. Cult of personality – check. Stricter control of the populous, massive secret services and surveillance programs, emphasis on “reporting the undesirables” and “catching the enemy within” – check. Vilifying all who do not belong to said groups and do not sing endlessly the party line – check. So, the color of quadrants III and IV is mostly purple. Those people come from different quadrants but they end up in the same place (while hating each other viciously of course and completely not aware that they are the two sides of the same coin).
So, it seems to me that the actual division we must be aware of is not along the line North – South but East – West. At one end – North stands the sovereignty of the individual and the idea that all systems and ideologies are eventually oppressive so no ideology should be allowed to trump individual human rights and dignity. Equality in front of the law (or God if you will), maximum freedom for the individual to follow his/her ambitions, talents, capabilities, etc. and equality of opportunity are the hallmarks of that ideology. On the other side is the group identity and the toxic tribalism. The individual is but a cog in the great machine of the state. The party line is everything. Everyone else is an enemy. In the pursue of our goals anything goes (because we are right!). “The goals of the group and the greater ways are transcendent and (I am the one that defines them) to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment” – chairman Sheng-ij Yang.
And that is why, for instance, at the moment in the so-called intellectual dark web people as remote in their ideology as Richard Dawkins (fireproof atheist; top dog evolutionary biologists), Stephen Fry (gay; bleeding heart liberal and fireproof atheist who argues that the church is not a force for good; renaissance man), Ben Shapiro (conservative Jew who still thinks being gay is a sin) and Jordan Peterson (quite religious in his own way, fully aware of the dangers posed by people from quadrant III and IV) are allies and speak in one voice against the disappearance of freedom of speech, the cessation of a meaningful dialog between the left and right, the forceful and violent de-platform/shutting of/attacking stints by the extremists, the mainstream media fiasco and so on.I saw it with my own eyes and could hardly stop laughing – Shapiro for example was viciously attacked by both the alt-right and the commies who claimed he is one of the “others”. What can be more revealing than that?
Final note: we absolutely need both sides of the argument to go forward. Either extreme breeds destruction and suffering, but the
I didn't list policies that were exclusive to the left, I listed policies that the left and fascism shared.
Yes, that was a policy of the progressive movement. In the US, this was the policy primarily of the Democratic party.
So? Catholics and protestants killed each other by the millions over minor differences in religion, yet both are Christians. Closely related ideologies often hate each other fiercely, for the simple reason that they are competing for the same pool of followers. Fascists and Marxists clearly hated each other, but at their core, they are very similar ideologies.
The evidence is crystal clear: fascism is a modification of socialism that replaces "class" by "nation" and adopts some ideas from the progressive movement. This is true both if you look at the history of the parties and at their political programs. Both fascism and socialism are totalitarian, anti-capitalist ideologies, and both in in practice lead to mass killings and economic ruin.