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."
Some jerk edited the Wikipedia page. Google served the information without knowing the content. Once discovered, the page and Google presentation were corrected.
In other extremely important breaking news, it was discovered that a Facebook billboard had "penis" spray painted across it. Users are outraged that the company would display such language in their marketing material.
This is just the "no true Socialism" thing again. Of course the Socialists acted as authoritarian fascists, they have to get the money from SOMEWHERE. If you're going to tell me "oh, they can just print it" then I'll invite you to Brazil or Zimbabwe.
Anyhow, the Nazis were all about taking the wealth of the 1%ers, they just happened to identify those as Jews as there were a lot of Jewish bankers, given that most gentiles didn't want anything to do with usury for a very long time.
If only Wikipedia had some kind of freely available edit history log, you could find out.
California’s 2018 U.S. Senate election attracted nationwide attention in April 2018, not long after the publication of a poll showing that little-known Republican and committed neo-Nazi Patrick Little had 18 percent of support among likely primary election voters, second to incumbent Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein with 39 percent.
In the SurveyUSA poll, Little — who describes himself as a “white nationalist” — had greater support than four other candidates in the state’s open primary, which candidates of any party (or none) can enter. These included outgoing California Senate President Kevin de Léon, a Democrat, and businessman Rocky de la Fuente, a Republican.
If those poll numbers were to hold, Feinstein and Little would advance from the primary as the two top candidates and contest the general election in November. The Republican party would be represented in a national race by a candidate who advocates a future United States “free from Jews” and has repeatedly and unreservedly expressed anti-semitic and white nationalist views during his campaign.
But this is not limited to California:
Little is the third Republican candidate for national office during the 2018 electoral cycle to have expressed openly anti-semitic and racist views.
In March, former American Nazi Party leader Arthur Jones ran unopposed in the GOP primary for Illinois’ Third U.S. Congressional District, and will represent the party in November’s general election.
In Wisconsin’s First U.S. Congressional District, one of the Republicans seeking to replace retiring House leader Paul Ryan in November is Paul Nehlen, who has described himself as “pro-white” and frequently expresses virulently anti-semitic sentiments on social media.
In February 2018, Nehlen was permanently banned from Twitter after posting a racist cartoon in reference to the actor Meghan Markle — whose mother is black — after her engagement to Prince Harry was announced.
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
See, it's stupid bullshit repeated by crossburners like this that causes so many problems.
The word is not "national socialists". German language commonly merges words for new concepts. The word they used was "nationalsozialistische". All one word, which dumbasses who don't speak German well try to split apart in order to translate poorly. The word itself accurately translated would come closest to "national social order" or "national social control". The party rhetoric focused around ideas of racial purity ("völkische bewegung" and "volksgemeinschaft", e.g. "race movement" and "race community" from the german word "volk" referring to a specific ethnic group).
What they MEANT is the same thing that Repugnant Klan radio hosts and politicians like Michael Savage and Donald Trump mean when they shout "blood and soil", "borders language culture", and other racial supremacist jargon. They're a bunch of fucking nazis.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
Except that he avoids traditionally 'right' elements of the Nazis, irgnores that the Nazis claimed to be neither left, nor right but a syncretism of both (and hence have elements that are both traditionally left and traditionally right), listed elements that are authoritarian and by the association with authoritarian-left claims the Nazis were left.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him.
And Hitler both criticised and praised Stalin. Because, you know, Nazis are hard to define on a single axis of left and right.
They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology
Sure, if you ignore what that means, ignore Hitler's criticism of same and the elements of Nazism that are traditionally right.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles
*sigh*. OK. I'll reference by number for brevity.
1. is right (nationalism)
2. is neither (world recognition, lifting of sanctions)
3. is neither or right (demand for land)
4-6. is far-right (citizenship tied to race)
7. is left-ish (state provided opportunity for livlihood - note this is a weaker left than traditional communist/socialist left where the state provides the livlihood, not just the opportunity.)
8. right-ish (limitations on immigration. Traditionally right, and linked to the far-right racism, above, but given the period and the context may not have been as right as it now looks. Certainly not traditionally left)
9. neither or weakly left (equality of citizens. Weakly left because of statement about obligations. Better seen as authoritarian IMHO)
10. far-left (citizens must be productive and have an obligation to the state)
11. left (breaking of unearned income and abolition of debt slavery. Again, I'm moderating this from 'far-left' because of the historical situation. Definately not right)
12. unknown/arguable (abolition of war profiteering. Left if you consider any interference in a free market left. Neither if you consider production through war is frequently nationalised even by capitalist/free-market countries, right if you consider the merging of state and corporation esp. in war production)
13-14. far-left and far-right (nationalisation of industry. Corporatism or communism arrive at the merging of state and corporation from different directions but the same outcome)
15. left (age welfare)
16. unique-right-ish (creation of middle class (right), seizing of assets (left) for loan to small business (right-ish))
17. left-ish (removing land speculation, and allowing for expropriation)
18. extremist (death to certain classes of criminal)
19. neither (rule of law)
20. left-ish (education)
21. left-ish (abolition of child labour, provision of health and sporting facilities)
22. right or neither (national army)
23. neither or far-right (citizenship and the press)
24. neither or far-right (freedom of religion and/or promotion of Christianity)
25. authoritarian (centralised power)
I make about 9-10 right, anything from weakly right through far right. I make about 11 left with similar caveats. Then there's a few that don't fit even within those fairly broad catch-alls. We can argue specifics and there are some I'll accept could go either way, but that's my point.
Nazis borrowed from both left and right, criticised both, were fascist and hence authoritarian. Calling them 'left' is true, but only partly so and is just as true to call them 'right, more true to call them 'far right' and better to add an extra axis and start adding an authoritarian adjective.
If you are being intellectually honest
About that ...