The real insight here is that people actually use conservapedia.

There's a post on the socialism sub about this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1hu91h/discussion_topic_the_fascist_manifesto_of_1919/

It's also on Wikipedia which is the top Google result for me.

I don't think anyone is trying to hide it.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

True but I don't think Wikipedia ever has the actual primary document. They do link to it in Italian under references though.

The ideological lines have massively shifted. Today's democrats are more like racists of back then. Many often point out Europe is as a whole shifted left. However they have remained the same while the US had its shift.

The shift is still happening. For instance the Affordable Care Act took many of its policies from old Republican health cares. The individual mandate, marketplace and many others were in the past firefly objected to by Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans abonded thier old plans and are seeking new ones that align better with today's ideology.

I'm not debating the merits of The ACA. I'm pointing out the shift in ideology using the ACA as an example. It's an easy example since the ACA is a copy of decades old Republican health plan ideas. It shows both Democrat and Republican ideology shift.

And the Nazis where National Socialist. Hmm...

Here's the NAZI platform. Socialist, too.

I know they were, hence why I said what I said. Socialists hate the fact that the Nazis were also Socialist 😂

Its because fascism is a leftist, collectivist ideology.

Traditional fascism like that of Mussolini and Pinochet are far right and extreme authoritarian. However, there can be ideologies that are fascist(ic) in nature. E.g. state capitalist dictatorship, far right libertarianism (freedom for corps to be tyrannical towards the people at the maximum extent with zero regulations and laws against such oppression, and NEOlibs/NEOcons are fairly close to fascism already).

https://i.imgur.com/bNz2DHP.jpg

You might think fascism is leftist (when it's actually an extreme right wing ideology that can leak into other parts of the spectrum using extreme authoritarianism as a gateway) but I'm guessing you're forming this opinion due to "SJWs" who are authoritarian with their views

e.g. "you're sexist if you're not a feminist, therefore no free speech for you!" but this doesn't have any relation to leftism. It's manufactured identity politics. SJW stuff like biased feminism are just social justice stuff twisted and then put on steroids. The corporate media (which is anything but left wing, it's NEOlib/NEOcon/corporate) pushes these things for divide and conquer and to smear all leftism with stereotypes THEY push onto the audience.

Here's an example: a normal left wing humanist might say: "we need to ensure no one is discriminated unfairly just because of their race, orientation, class, etc. oh and Hillary sucks because she's a corporate wallstreet pro-TPP whore!"

An SJW might say: "we need to ensure white males don't discriminate against women, etc. oh and we need Hillary because we need a female president, you white patriarchy sexist!"

It's social engineering garbage. And about the wage difference between men and women....I don't actually know if it's a myth or a statistical screwup (like not taking certain things into account) but either way, Bernie for example only ran with it because the media would screw at him and call him sexist. Remember the "sexist Bernie Bros" bullshit meme that correct the record shills were pushing? I don't think Bernie wanted to reinforce that stupid meme. And anyway, even if the wage thing was real, it's insignificant if Bernie had won because his policies would have improved economics across the board, he'd be saving the entire middle class and working class, not just women who may or may not have been short changed. We're ALL getting short changed by the establishment with its rigged economics.

Americans are so annoying with their grasp of left and right. Fascism is extreme right but you wouldn't understand because your only reference is the GOP. Anything that isn't what the GOP supports is communism to the American republican. It is just annoying in the way loud and ignorant people are.

And National Socialism is also more like socialism than conservatism!

Economically Socialism, National Socialism and Fascism is cousins.

(Nationalism, Ethnicity and the importance of ancestry) has nothing to do with economically socialism.

No im not a socialist

Socialism is fascism for rubes.

If your starting point is democratic socialism and social democracy (neither are full socialism nor dictatorships, but mixed economics democracy)

but if you take a right, and then move up (authoritarian) you will eventually lead to fascistic politics. Authoritarianism does not describe all of socialism. All authoritarian politics risk becoming fascistic. Unless of course, you have a benevolant dictator or something.

France's Hamon was similar to Bernie, social democracy policies (between center left democratic socialism and centrist) and Le Pen had similar economics except she was astronomically more authoritarian and zionist. Who is the one that is closer to fascistic policies? Le Pen. Who is more moderate economically and socially? Hamon.

Hitler was politically similar to Le Pen (socially and economically) and whether you believe "national socialism" is just one type of socialism or even a false label, comparing national socialism with democratic socialism is like comparing dictator socialism and democratic socialism, massive difference especially socially.

Le Pen still didn't need to go THAT authoritarian. Why pick extreme authoritarian Le Pen when you can have Hamon who is way more libertarian?

http://i.imgur.com/aUmHCGX.png

http://i.imgur.com/y2hN9io.png

Traditional fascism is a far right, extreme authoritarian ideology which is what the establishment is trying to push us into (NWO one world government dictatorship) but obviously you can have ideologies that are fascist(ic) in nature especially if you have corrupt leaders.

https://i.imgur.com/bNz2DHP.jpg

American "Liberal" "Conservative" "Democrat party" "Republican party" biased websites can't be trusted because they'll spin everyone into the lib/con deception or they're just ignorant and politically religious. This website is likely framing it a certain way as a smear job. Continuing the red scare bullshit.

Lib/con is just corporate marketting, using identity politics (stereotypes like SJW/conservative "moral" values/etc.) to get people to pick a tribe (divide and conquer) and to make them loyal to either the DNC or GOP. Both of which, are NEOliberal/NEOconservative economically far right socially extremely authoritarian corporate parties that are mostly controlled by the elite bankers, wallstreet and corporations.

http://i.imgur.com/jLNnO7O.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/hdh0EEf.jpg

If you start at center left-ish and go more authoritarian without evening taking a right, you will just end up either in authoritarian socialism, dictatorship socialism or state capitalism, depending on how you do it (it's a spectrum obviously).

Big gov vs small gov is oversimplistic type thinking just like left vs right, tax vs no tax, rich vs poor. The answer usually lies in between or neither at all. Just like you don't HAVE to be a racist OR an SJW. But a reasonable person, is usually in between those two extremes.

The puppets/preachers (who know what they're doing) who push for far right libertarianism, use the term "business" deceptively and as an umbrella term. Similarly to how they use the term "freedom". Business can refer to small/medium businesses (which I'm in favor of helping as long as they remain ethical) or it can refer to massive transnational corporations with blood on their hands, dodging taxes through legal and illegal loopholes, oppressing workers needlessly, controlling the government/congress/media/etc.

Some people think that dropping all or most regulations will somehow allow the small businesses to succeed and workers to get fair pay but it won't, rather, the corporations with power will do everything it takes to maintain their monopolies, intimidate small/medium businesses, etc.

You're right that on the surface it's not authoritarian but it becomes a paradox. The far right libertarians are extremely right wing economically and socially just about libertarian.

Far right libertarianism is a TYPE of NEOliberalism. The two main types are authoritarian crony capitalism (the NEOlibs/NEOcons of the DNC/GOP) who rig the market to favor their crony corporations, stifle competition, use unethical contracts that enforce monopolies (e.g. Obamacare: big pharma and insurance companies play by their own rules, hiking up prices as they see fit, we aren't even allowed to import cheap Canadian medicine, we're getting ripped off) free subsidies (our tax money) going to corporations (aka "socialism for the super rich, and rough capitalism for everyone else").

Then there's the far right libertarianism laissez-faire free market/zero or little regulation branch of the NEOliberalism ideology.

Liberal is not an ideology but a vague adjective, meaning causing liberty. But liberty for who? The people or corporations? NEOliberalism is liberty for the corporations aka "economic freedom". While left libertarian is more alligned with "personal freedom". Do you really think small/medium business/people (the good guys) are going to kick the asses of the corporations?? We WILL lose. I'm all for helping small/medium businesses but corporations are going to win the whole monopoly game blindfolded.

To scrap all or most regulations is a dangerous scam. Not all regulations are bad (like biased crony capitalist regulations) some we actually need, like the GOOD regulations that protect worker rights, pay, working conditions, product quality and safety, environmental regulations, regulations against unethical business practices, intellectual property theft, dodging tax, etc. Crony capitalism = a lot of bad regulations, they favor their cronies. Far right libertarianism = zero/few regulations.

Far right libertarian establishment preachers correctly say that crony capitalism is biased towards the corporations and yet they pretend there's nothing wrong with a completely free market (in which corporations dominate).

Those corporations bribe/blackmail/control our government, congress, corporate media, the courts, some legislation, etc.

So the corporations control the government....therefore, what happens if you take away the government or their regulations? CORPORATE TYRANNY / FREE FOR ALL. I.e. they can do whatever the hell they like.

It's a wolf in sheeps' clothing ideology. It's not about freedom for the people, it's about economic freedom for the elites.

If you are a moderate right libertarian (slightly right wing) or centrist libertarian, then that's far more reasonable. But the Libertarian party is not moderate. Ron Paul is extreme right wing and so is Gary Johnson but the funny thing is, Gary Johnson is a pro-TPP Koch brothers shill and yet he's almost in the same spot on the spectrum as Ron Paul (apparently anti-TPP) which just goes to show they have other ways of implementing full corporate takeover of the United States.

The U.S. spectrum is a little shifted to compensate for the corporate-military extremism (U.S. NEOlibs/NEOcons being even more extreme than European NEOlibs/NEOcons). So France's Macron is extremely right wing libertarian (because the European spectrum is slightly shifted, he's slightly to the left of Ron Paul/Gary Jonson but still immensely extreme right wing).

And that guy (Macron) is literally a Rothschild banker. Going even more right wing than a Rothschild banker? We are screwed.

Look at this overly simplistic diagram: http://i.imgur.com/nfbOJ7D.png

Do you agree with most of the center left and center right type libertarianism stuff? I do. However, you can have a robust defence, respect property rights, protect gun rights (in case of a tyrannical gov), give generously to charity, as well as allowing ambition in the market, without actually going significantly right libertarian. All of that is still present in center left and centrist moderate libertarianism. The graphic comes from the Libertarian party which is corrupt, you don't have to go significantly right libertarian to get those benefits let alone the Libertarian party always pushing far right libertarian shills. Extreme ideologies are extreme because they benefit a small number of people. Moderate (true moderate, not that bullshit claim that the media says "between Dem and Repub is moderate", it's not, it's still far right corporate crap)

I myself am a center left moderate libertarian. Bernie was just on the border between libertarian and authoritarian (while the DNC/GOP are all high up in the authoritarian area to the extreme with NSA bullshit, death penalty, rigging the economy, etc.) and Bernie was almost centrist economically.

I'm in favor of improving the socialism-capitalism ratio of the mixed economics system. Swapping "corporate welfare/free subsidies for corps" with people welfare and safety nets for small/medium businesses and people. Also, funding social programs (without corporate interference) for the essentials like healthcare, education, etc. would massively improve the economy as it did in the great depression where FDR pretty much created the middle class. Unions protect workers from unreasonable exploitation. Without them, we'd have no minimum wage, no weekends, have to work more than 8 hours a day, children in Victorian times went up chimneys! (carcinogenic and dangerous, but they had to help their family financially), etc. At the moment our rigged economy's ratio is too far to the capitalism side (and crony capitalism at that) while also not having enough socialism. I'm in favor of having the ratio more balanced, protecting the people while also providing ambition for small/medium businesses (within ethical parameters).

If you want more information on this type of stuff, see this presentation: (Press F11 for browser full screen view)

https://imgur.com/a/NrO4Y

That was... amazing. I'm speechless.

If you're not being sarcastic, thank you! :D You talking about the post or the presentation?

That post was amazing. You have a way with words for explaining each ideology. You cleanly sold me on central/moderate rather then the extremes.

The presentation didn't speak to me as much, but I might just not be a slideshow guy.

Oh I see. That's cool though, I never considered that angle. I really appreciate it.

Feedback like that helps me to improve how I spread the message and is also encouraging. Thanks man. :)

Wasn't sure if that presentation was made by you. I can't quite point to why I didn't enjoy it, possibly too much going on each slide. However one thing that really stood out and was annoying was when the white text had a low contrast background. Some of the text was almost on white and I had to zoom in carefully to read and even the light blue/pink backgrounds had too little contrast. Later in the show when you had transparent blue behind the text it helped immensely.

Ah yes, it does help, thanks very much. I was new to Prezi (the website I made it on and exported it as a JPG album, YouTube video and Prezi flash page) at the time and didn't realize how noobish I was on it compared to using graphics software and just pasting my own graphics with full control (something I've learnt for next time).

I didn't notice the reading issue that much on my monitor (might be because I use F.lux to reduce the blue-glow effect) but I'll definitely take this advice on board next time. You're absolutely right that the transparent black squares provide better reading clarity. Thanks again, buddy. :)

The way I think about this is that the problems of the post-industrial revolution societies were common to most every country and the immediate solutions were obvious to basically everyone. There's not too much difference between this, the New Deal, most socialist platforms in Europe. Although I gotta say the second to last one about seizing religious congregation property is pretty unique.

You claimed yesterday that this subreddit is becoming shitty, and yet here you are trying to smear anything left of centre in every single one of your posts with shitty history. Be the change you want to see in the world, my dude.