I know I shouldn't try to engage in intelligent discussion in this thread considering who populates it

Yeah none of that please, I told Sleeping Silence the same thing, you can make a point without shitting on the members in the thread.

Bit ironic

@Dynamo Frokane, the diagram that @Andreyich put forward by and large is mostly accurate. The special areas I intend to speak on about this is that the "Far Right", by its nature, is not socialist. It is almost exclusively a fascist and nationalist movement that does not readily advocate socialist doctrine; those really would vary by individual. Those are the real "Alt-Right", along with the Identitarian and Ethno-Nationalist wings. Part of the reason you see these sects called "Right Wing" and the Alt-Right is because of their heavily militant and authoritarian leanings, two identities strongly affiliated with the Right in the United States' politics. They are the origin of the "skinhead gun-toting Southern white supremacist" stereotype as well and are the "Nazis" people think of.

As always, some of these people are national socialists, but most are nationalists and fascists over all else. Many are even opposed to the Liberty axis, as one can imagine based on their often racial politics. As far as a fair number of them are concerned, people other than whites are not really people; second class beings at best. That said, few actually advocate or believe in what is "Leftist" philosophy such as communism or socialism for the same reason all those varying fringe groups are at one another's throats.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have "Republicans in Name Only". These vary from those who are effectively Democrats in Republican seats, having barely Right ideals and values, and more concerned with politics and votes. They really stand for nothing and only use the Republican name as leverage to gain votes; a recent example would be former presidential candidate John McCain who has abandoned his party's values to go on a personal vendetta against the President of the United States. He has some Republican qualities, but has shown he is mostly in it for the system and is willing to work with opposition to spite those he views as enemies. The "RINO" is generally considered to be a turncoat or mostly a gutless figure - Paul Ryan is usually accused of this.

Consider the Republican in Name Only the very center, right only of the Democrat in Name Only which is comparatively far more rare; the Democratic party knows what it wants to be, just is uncertain how to do it. By comparison, the Republican party knows nothing of what it wants to be currently, but is certain of how it will do things (such as having made Donald Trump the candidate, not out of desire for it mind you).

From here the media spins its tale. You can note this because you witness how they go through cycles of love and hate with the Right. One day our examples of Paul Ryan and John McCain are heroes for "standing up to a bully president" and the next they are railing against them for something such as healthcare in the former's or warhawk behavior in the latter's. This is why they view everyone else further to the right the "Alt-Right". Traditionally, anyone to the right of a Republican was just a Libertarian or "Right Wing'er" or some other minority; this ends roughly after the George W. Bush period and the rise of the strong Democrat party with Barrack Obama.

The first inklings of this transition socially that we really witnessed was how anyone that was not a tame Republican was being portrayed more and more by the media and how it was socially acceptable to harp on them because "Bush was stupid and ruined everything." They became a running joke and the whipping boy. Most Republicans were beat down not only politically by a far more relevant, appealing and charismatic foe, it was that it all had public support. This became even more evident when a turning point in what would become the "Alt-Right" happened with the Tea Party faction.

The media ran with the idea and ridiculed them as well, told them how they weren't being unfairly treated or their interests poorly represented and that no one was spying on them - all of which was untrue as we later learned with the IRS scandal. Either way, it ousted the traditional Republicans of the two Bush eras out and on a downfall to come. In many regards, the Obama administration's years of allowing marginalization of their political and social opponents drove them further and further right; a large number of Americans that would be the "Silent Majority" just looked on.

Many of them no less had voted for Barrack Obama, believing in the "Hope and Change" slogan that was so effective against the traditional Republican babbling. Most thought the world would be on the up and up for them, especially in the now infamous swing states. This became all the more clear with the 2016 election where the Democrats were being swept in popularity in these areas, culminating in a massive electoral defeat (and a popular vote one as well as we are learning from the voter fraud investigations).

In essence, as I said before, they changed the standard they were measuring with, not where people really stood. People wanted a direct, uncompromising, and even memeable president, as strange as that sounds. They did not want anymore Romneys, Bushes, McCains or the like; they wanted an outsider, to which Donald Trump was the answer. The man had repeatedly posed himself to run as an independent, but there would be no way to win.

When you take conservative values and fuse them with the qualities of many independent candidates and platforms, a large number of disenfranchised Americans, give them a former administration like that of Obama's and run them against Hillary Clinton, you end up with Trump and the "Alt-Right", not the Alt-Right.

As much as I hate to declare Smash is right about... anything is that national socialists are not socialists in the regular meaning. Hitler redefined socialism for himself, his brand of "socialism" was more akin to the corporatism and/or right-syndicalism found in fascism. NatSoc is on the same side as fascism.

The Strasser brothers, and their followers or "Strasserists" really were living up to the name of socialism but Hitler purged them. They combined the cancers of communism and Hitlerite Nationalism.

Socialism, no matter its form or incarnation, is on the Left side of the spectrum by its nature. How it is accomplished does not change its Left vs Right axis, only its Authoritarian vs Liberty axis. Adolf Hitler is to national socialism what Bernie Sanders is to democratic socialism; their means and objectives are different, as are their paths, but they share many crux concepts of socialism. In the end, it is still socialism, just as the little discussed Mussolini was a staunch socialist who expanded into fascism.

Communism under Lenin or Stalin were anything but actual communism as envisioned by Karl Marx, yet they are still forms of communism, executed from the eyes of those in power. This does not mean they are any less communist, just another deviation there of.

As an addition for comparison, the United States is a constitutional republic. It is not any less a republic because it is a constitutional, federal, presidential republic.

Just because it shares the same name that does not mean it is the same thing, I can't see why this is so hard to comprehend.

It's like saying to row a boat is the same thing as a series of horizontal of items in a row because they hold the same name.

In DemSoc, SocDem, and other iterations of classical socialism things are based on a derivative of Marxist socialism where ownership of the means of production, and an attempt at abolition of classes.

National Socialism is a derivative of Fascism which contrary to your misconception is not to do with socialism as a derivative, only a means to counter it. Fascism and NatSoc were derived from Sorelianism which developed in tandem but with different aims and we're results of enlightenment thinking as an alternative to reactionary thinking when considering a response to socialism, and capitalism of an ultra-libertarian kind. NatSoc's economic and other ideals were in many ways based on corporatism where instead of abolishing government and/or class, there would be inter-group and in-group collaboration between state, classes and hierarchies both new and traditional.

To review: Left-Socialism seeks to abolish most hierarchies and has ultra-collectivist economics and has an attempt at removal of capital/currency or at least limiting it's significance, as well as removing the extraction of excess value.

In NatSoc, corporations exist and have an important role. Capital still exists, and there is no collectivism, even if there are typically rather large taxes typically found in national socialist systems.

Trying to say national socialism is socialist is only a result of either stubbornness in the face of the obvious or lack of education on the matter, you seeming to suffer a bit of both, despite general reasonableness and being generally knowledgeable.

*graph snip*

Because (Smash, I think?) was wondering, I'm somewhere between Ben Shapiro and Trump on this graph. Between the two of them, Thug Life Shapiro is my easy preference. Had some unrelated musings but they don't really mean anything to the thread, just thought I'd take this convenient opportunity to self-identify (my preferred pronoun is Emperor)

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Penny you are going to lose credibility as a 'liberal' when you are playing pillowhands with Smash just because he appears to be left wing.

If you are against the bigotry of the Alt-Right (which you should be) you shouldn't be softly supporting someone making disabled jokes.

Firstly I don't especially care if anyone in this thread thinks I have credibility as a liberal (I'll refrain from using the quotes). I know what I stand for and I'm not super concerned about what some randoms on the internet think about it.

Secondly I wasn't aware that Smash had made any jokes about the disabled. If that is the case then I condemn it categorically.

Secondly I wasn't aware that Smash had made any jokes about the disabled. If that is the case then I condemn it categorically.

He said that because of my missing leg, I wobbled during sex.

Implying that I get sex

(it's jokes, folks, sheesh. No harm no foul.)

Sex is good for you, I highly recommend it!

The Alt-Right is a great meme. I'm so glad a nobody white supremacist Nazi came out of nowhere and started calling himself Alt-Right so that it would be easy to publicize everyone who is right-wing to be Nazis. The association game is fun.

I do kind of agree with that. It's hard to be a Monarchist when you get lumped with Richard Spencer and pals.

Also now that its the 21st century I imagine.

There are many Kings in Asia though, not to mention Poland officially has a King. And of course there are many throne claimants elsewhere in Europe.

If that is the case then I condemn it categorically.

?

Why? Offense is always taken, never given. That's not an excuse to be an asshole, but in any other circumstance I think the joke would've been funny.

The offense here isn't a joke about disabled people, it was the intent to hurt someone with it instead of for it to be funny.

There are many Kings in Asia though, not to mention Poland officially has a King. And of course there are many throne claimants elsewhere in Europe.

The Netherlands has a king too, although his functions are largely defunct and diplomatic at best.

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

The Netherlands has a king too, although his functions are largely defunct and diplomatic at best.

Yeah constitutional monarchy is pretty shit, the monarch is naught but a figurehead.

Autocracy is what I have in mind, the only "Constitutional Monarchy" I like is Poland that has recently by the President and other powers crowned Jesus Christ as a King.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

Yeah constitutional monarchy is pretty shit, the monarch is naught but a figurehead.

It's OK if you actually give the monarch an official purpose i.e. because the waterworks are so important here all monarchs are traditionally getting a degree in something with the waterworks, but then the problem arises that we pay that dumbass millions per year just to kinda exist and do nothing. The waterworks stuff is more symbolic than anything.

I like monarchies too, but that's only because I can acknowledge that literally all forms of governance are power grabs. Monarchies are just the most straight forward about it imho, lol.

That's always kind of been the allure of autocracies/monarchy. Nepotism is more or less unavoidable so why not streamline it, while at the same time creating an inherently direct and swift deciding government.

Of course, there are semi-absolute monarchies like the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the Holy Roman Empire, the Late German Empire, or even Rome where there were two autocrats, one elected and one hereditary. These semi-avsolute monarchs had much power but not all.

Dynastic power is one of the key points of monarchy, without dynasty you get... lite-fascism I guess. There is also the "mandate," typically of heaven. In my two favorite examples, the Russian Tsar and the combined position of Grand-Duke of Lithuania/King of Poland, there was the mandate of God, particularly for the Tsar Autocrat who was also of the highest religious role. Plus, mandate of the peoples came as Neo-Slavism came to popularity and Catholics as well as Protestants in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and other lands looked to him as a leader to be.