Why I think the term "Far Right" should be redefined

[Thafoo]

Jeez, how original.

"FDR was a big nasty statist Just Like Hitler, so we should really be putting fascists in the centre left alongside liberals. This is totally not because I just want to accuse liberals of being Just Like Hitler, really, there's an ideological reason for it, I swear. I can't think of any actual reasons other than to foam at the mouth a little bit, go cross-eyed and shout 'KEYNESIANISM', but trust me, there is."

Relax, Hitler isn't one of theirs, they hate blacks and poors, not Jews.

Because it would be bigoted to hate Jews.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

A fun Christian lie.
Of course you do.

Not a Christian, neither a lie, sorry

No, the whole "Nazi atheists" idea is a lie perpetuated by people who didn't want that kind of shit on their religion.

[Colbert Super PAC]

It's pretty simple. I'm a right-winger who hates the left. Therefore I'll put everything I don't like on the left and everything I do like on the right. This is not based on any facts but simply because I want to associate all of them with people like Hitler and Stalin in order to defame their positions.

[Thafoo]

It's pretty simple. I'm a right-winger who hates the left. Therefore I'll put everything I don't like on the left and everything I do like on the right. This is not based on any facts but simply because I want to associate all of them with people like Hitler and Stalin in order to defame their positions.

Well, at least you're honest about it.

[Britcan]

Trying to define everyone's political views along a single line is obviously not a perfect system. Hell, even a two-axis system such as the political compass test isn't perfect.

[Vissegaard]

Not a Christian, neither a lie, sorry

No, the whole "Nazi atheists" idea is a lie perpetuated by people who didn't want that kind of shit on their religion.

Ah, interesting. Where´d you get that?
I mean, we did have a clerofascist theocracy here during the WWII, and it was allied with Germany, but didn´t hear anything like that about Germany itself. Should do some research.

[Divair2]

The left/right spectrum isn't about economics. Fascism is far-right and it always will be.

[The USOT]

First of all, who applies the term "far right" to Genghis Kahn? He existed prior to the term having any relevance, nevermind his not having any coherant position/ruling many territories in many different ways.
TBH though the terms "right" or "left" are meaningless beyond a vague common use.
As you have rightly pointed out, putting Objectivists who are free market, atheist, "libertarian" free speech and anti-coercion with Nazis who are anti-free market, were anti-atheist, totalitarian, against free speech and pro-coercion is absurd.
Likewise on the left it is extremely weird to put the likes of Stalin who was extremely centralist, top down totalitarian with people like Emma Goldman who were decentralist, bottom up and an anarchist. Everything from policy to theory seperates the two to the greatest extreme.

Nazis were atheist/nihilist.

The original definition of both left and right comes from the first post-revolutionary parliament of France, where jacobines sat in the left, republicans in the middle and the "black party", eg. monarchists and aristocrats in the right part of the stage. I consider myself far right in this meaning of the word.

This AGAIN?

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2 "

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1 "

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941 "

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11 "

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922 "

"The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism...

- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican "

"By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...

- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed. "

Now of course those were all public/published. What did he say in private?

You can look here if you want in the table talks https://archive.org/details/HitlersTableTalk but some of the quotes include earlier "When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians ... the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry ... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul ... Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely."

And later

"But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery"

So we can draw a few conclusions from Hitlers religious views.
He was at the very least a Deist. In both private and public life he expressed a belief in a deity.
At the most, he was an eccentric Christian, being seemingly pro-jesus but viewing Paul as the heretic, Jesus as actually Aryan and would later turn away from the term "Christianity" at least in the catholic sense of the term (there are references to Transubstantiation as being an absurdity.

Now we have Hitler out the way, lets look at the Nazi movement. Its propoganda was aimed very much as opposed to the atheistic bolshevik jews and held religious iconography everywhere. Whils't Hitlers religious views may be uncertain, the majority of Germans who participated in the acts performed by the Third Reich were almost overwhelmingly Christian.

So can we stop this strange "HITLER WAS AN EVIL ATHEIST?!?!?" thing and recognise that Hitler was just crazy?

[Republic of Coldwater]

Jeez, how original.

"FDR was a big nasty statist Just Like Hitler, so we should really be putting fascists in the centre left alongside liberals. This is totally not because I just want to accuse liberals of being Just Like Hitler, really, there's an ideological reason for it, I swear. I can't think of any actual reasons at the moment other than to foam at the mouth a little bit, go cross-eyed and shout 'KEYNESIANISM', but trust me, there is."

FDR wasn't a liberal. He racially discriminated the Japanese, he controlled speech, and he spied on the mail of the people, yup, a hard-core liberal we got there.

The Left-Right Spectrum as far as I observed, largely made from the fiscal views. Why are the Far-Lefties Communists while the Far-Righties are Fascists? If it was a social and an economic scale, than Stalin would be balanced out into a centrist, as he has far-left fiscal views and far-right social views, but we still call him a far-leftie. Hitler and FDR were similar on a fiscal viewpoint, and centre-left is usually used to refer to Keynesianism, and both FDR and Hitler were Keynesians.

[Republic of Coldwater]

First of all, who applies the term "far right" to Genghis Kahn? He existed prior to the term having any relevance, nevermind his not having any coherant position/ruling many territories in many different

If I used the definition that most stick to, than Khan would be a Far-Right Fascist. He was an imperialist, and ruled like a dictator, given that everything was left up to him, or his sons to decide.

Its funny how we call some totalitarians "Far Left", and others "Far Right"

[Meridiani Planum]

The "Right" has never had a consistent definition. It seems to mean anyone who isn't obviously on the "Left".

[Pilotto]

Jeez, how original.

"FDR was a big nasty statist Just Like Hitler, so we should really be putting fascists in the centre left alongside liberals. This is totally not because I just want to accuse liberals of being Just Like Hitler, really, there's an ideological reason for it, I swear. I can't think of any actual reasons other than to foam at the mouth a little bit, go cross-eyed and shout 'KEYNESIANISM', but trust me, there is."

Relax, Hitler isn't one of theirs, they hate blacks and poors, not Jews.

Wow.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[Divair2]

Relax, Hitler isn't one of theirs, they hate blacks and poors, not Jews.

Wow.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

No, that's not an ad-hom. An ad-hom would be "His argument is nonsense. He's black. How could his argument ever be correct if he's black?"

It's a fallacy, yes, but not ad-hom. Let's not abuse terms.

[Threlizdun]

It's an ideology that represents rigid class structures, domination of the state, and an extreme reaction to societal change. If it isn't far right I don't know what is.

[Pilotto]

Wow.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

No, that's not an ad-hom. An ad-hom would be "His argument is nonsense. He's black. How could his argument ever be correct if he's black?"

It's a fallacy, yes, but not ad-hom. Let's not abuse terms.

It's a personal attack with the intent of discrediting a person's argument, not by addressing or responding to their argument, but by attacking that person's charachter and intentions. How is that not ad-hominem?

[Divair2]

No, that's not an ad-hom. An ad-hom would be "His argument is nonsense. He's black. How could his argument ever be correct if he's black?"

It's a fallacy, yes, but not ad-hom. Let's not abuse terms.

It's a personal attack with the intent of discrediting a person's argument not by addressing their argument, but by attacking that person's charachter and intentions. How is that not ad-hominem?

It's a strawman, if anything. Ad-homs are about personal traits. The actual character of the person in question.

[The USOT]

First of all, who applies the term "far right" to Genghis Kahn? He existed prior to the term having any relevance, nevermind his not having any coherant position/ruling many territories in many different

If I used the definition that most stick to, than Khan would be a Far-Right Fascist. He was an imperialist, and ruled like a dictator, given that everything was left up to him, or his sons to decide.

Its funny how we call some totalitarians "Far Left", and others "Far Right"

That doesn't really well describe mongol rule at all though.

I mean the mongol "empire" was largely a collection of tribute states rather than a homogenous whole, with entire civilisations coming from the mongol empire that were rules in various ways, having autonomy as long as they payed their tribute.
In terms of religious freedom, they were incredibly liberal for their time allowing their subjects to believe whatever they wanted and established great trading networks that anyone could use.

So the mongol empire as A label is like looking at WW2 era europe and declaring the whole thing as fascist, declaring the whole thing as monarchist, declaring the whole thing as republican or declaring all of europe to be communist. It wouldn't make much sense considering how diverse the systems were.

[Kelinfort]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

I honestly don't understand why are we putting Hitler further to the right of the Tea Party and the GOP, when he was a Keynesian, as he nationalized the industries, and used the government's money on welfare and infrastructure, something that is done by the Private Sector in Fiscal Conservatism. As the Right-Left Spectrum mainly deals with fiscal issues based on the definition that most use, the placement of Hitler further to the right of Fiscal Conservatives makes no sense. He should be placed on the Centre-Left, along with FDR and other world leaders during that period for their Keynesianism.

The Far-Right should be the opposite of Communism. Communism is when the idea of private ownership of everything is removed, and handed to everyone equally, or to the government (depends if you are a Statist or Anarchist Communist). The opposite would be Anarcho-Capitalism, when everything is privately owned.

Yup, it's official. The US has a centre right party and a Right wing party.

[Juggalo world]

Far-right makes right

[MERIZoC]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

I honestly don't understand why are we putting Hitler further to the right of the Tea Party and the GOP, when he was a Keynesian, as he nationalized the industries, and used the government's money on welfare and infrastructure, something that is done by the Private Sector in Fiscal Conservatism. As the Right-Left Spectrum mainly deals with fiscal issues based on the definition that most use, the placement of Hitler further to the right of Fiscal Conservatives makes no sense. He should be placed on the Centre-Left, along with FDR and other world leaders during that period for their Keynesianism.

The Far-Right should be the opposite of Communism. Communism is when the idea of private ownership of everything is removed, and handed to everyone equally, or to the government (depends if you are a Statist or Anarchist Communist). The opposite would be Anarcho-Capitalism, when everything is privately owned.

Yup, it's official. The US has a centre right party and a Right wing party.

We knew this already. This is how US politics work. It's pretty screwed up.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

I honestly don't understand why are we putting Hitler further to the right of the Tea Party and the GOP, when he was a Keynesian, as he nationalized the industries, and used the government's money on welfare and infrastructure, something that is done by the Private Sector in Fiscal Conservatism. As the Right-Left Spectrum mainly deals with fiscal issues based on the definition that most use, the placement of Hitler further to the right of Fiscal Conservatives makes no sense. He should be placed on the Centre-Left, along with FDR and other world leaders during that period for their Keynesianism.

The Far-Right should be the opposite of Communism. Communism is when the idea of private ownership of everything is removed, and handed to everyone equally, or to the government (depends if you are a Statist or Anarchist Communist). The opposite would be Anarcho-Capitalism, when everything is privately owned.

Yup, it's official. The US has a centre right party and a Right wing party.

Are you being sarcastic, I can't tell.

[MERIZoC]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you describing Neo-Liberals there, not Neo-Conservatives?

[Divair2]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

I honestly don't understand why are we putting Hitler further to the right of the Tea Party and the GOP, when he was a Keynesian, as he nationalized the industries, and used the government's money on welfare and infrastructure, something that is done by the Private Sector in Fiscal Conservatism. As the Right-Left Spectrum mainly deals with fiscal issues based on the definition that most use, the placement of Hitler further to the right of Fiscal Conservatives makes no sense. He should be placed on the Centre-Left, along with FDR and other world leaders during that period for their Keynesianism.

The Far-Right should be the opposite of Communism. Communism is when the idea of private ownership of everything is removed, and handed to everyone equally, or to the government (depends if you are a Statist or Anarchist Communist). The opposite would be Anarcho-Capitalism, when everything is privately owned.

Yup, it's official. The US has a centre right party and a Right wing party.

That's obvious.

[Greater-London]

At Fascism's inception it was broadly accepted that it was a progressive ideology and had connections with Socialism; its worth noting that many prominent Fascists where originally Socialists or Syndicalists.

This is not a cheap dig at those on the political of left, I don't think Hitler was a socialist or that left wingers should somehow be "responsible" for Fascism but it is a Bastardized ideology which is a progressive one.

Its only really in the post-war world that we start to talk about Fascism as an ideology of the Far Right. In actuality it is neither right nor left it does transcend the left/right divide in entirety.

The truth of the matter is that Fascism is socially authoritarianism with corporatism. It's on the political right but its not 'Conservative' nor is it free market. Its on the left because its progressive; its a planned perfect society which included some social democratic elements (see Strasserism) but its not socialist.

[Norstal]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

I honestly don't understand why are we putting Hitler further to the right of the Tea Party and the GOP, when he was a Keynesian, as he nationalized the industries, and used the government's money on welfare and infrastructure, something that is done by the Private Sector in Fiscal Conservatism. As the Right-Left Spectrum mainly deals with fiscal issues based on the definition that most use, the placement of Hitler further to the right of Fiscal Conservatives makes no sense. He should be placed on the Centre-Left, along with FDR and other world leaders during that period for their Keynesianism.

The Far-Right should be the opposite of Communism. Communism is when the idea of private ownership of everything is removed, and handed to everyone equally, or to the government (depends if you are a Statist or Anarchist Communist). The opposite would be Anarcho-Capitalism, when everything is privately owned.

Lol. Classifying political figures solely based on economics. Stay classy NSG.