General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Historia, Magistra Vitae
Richard J Murphy
comments

Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "The far right is more popular than at any time since 1945. Why is that?" video.

@gerardpeterbrennan "Socialist is not central Government control. Socialist is power for the people, not Central Government." Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production. National Socialists had the latter.
3
@calzonelover3950 "Far right generally in this case based on ultra-nationalist and nativist tendencies ... A far right critique involves scapegoating migrants for economic problems they didn't cause, using racist stereotypes in this argument and the idea that there is a static national culture that must remain pure and can't exist without specific other cultures for some reason ... Far right leaders will convince you that you can improve living conditions by stopping immigration but not changing the way the economy operates." Nothing to with Right wing of any kind, as they do not subscribe to collectivism such as nationalism. In fact, people on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
3
@calzonelover3950 Well those people are either nationalists or ethnonationalists. They are collectivists as they think, that their in-group should be given priority over this other group and individuals in general.... reasons may vary.
2
@calzonelover3950 "This is how the far right is defined by most people. " And they are wrong as well.
2
@calzonelover3950 "it's literally the definition from Wikipedia. " And that is yet another word / term that they got wrong.
2
@Redf322 : They were Far-Left socialists.
2
@Incognito-jf1dr "the Nazis in 1933 promised industrialists that they would destroy socialism and trade Unions.if in power . " That they would destroy Marxism / Communism, not socialism. They had no problems with socialism. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. ... the basic principle of my Party's economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority... the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?... Today's bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil. .. I will tolerate no opposition. We recognize only subordination – authority downwards and responsibility upwards. You just tell the German bourgeoisie that I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with Marxism... When once the conservative forces in Germany realize that only I and my party can win the German proletariat over to the State and that no parliamentary games can be played with Marxist parties, then Germany will be saved for all time, then we can found a German Peoples State. .. Over the last forty years the German bourgeoisie has been a lamentable failure; it has not given the German people a single leader; it will have to bow without gainsaying to the totality of my ideology... The bourgeoisie rules by intrigue, but it can have no foothold in my movement because we accept no Jews or Jewish accomplices into our Party." - Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
2
@gerardpeterbrennan "Marx specifically called his sytem 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat,'" The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a phase in which the proletariat take control over the State apparatus, and later the State is supposed to wither away which creates the Communist society, without the State, class and money.
2
@gerardpeterbrennan "Lenin was not Socialist, Communism is not synonymous with Socialism." Lenin most certainly was a socialist and true, Communism is an ideology / theory and socialism is an economic system, so two different things.
2
Far-Right is Liberalism actually.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Once you support capitalism and massive wealth inequality you are right wing. Liberalism is centre right. It's free market with some social safety net." Nothing to do with Liberalism whatsoever, as Liberalism literally advocates for free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on property rights, individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Libertarianism is about freedom for the individual," That is Liberalism, as it was put forth by John Locke. There is no reason to use the word "libertarianism" at all.
1
@akastewart : Really depends how you define those words you mentioned. Essentially Liberalism was all about maximizing the freedom of the individual, where the sole purpose of the govenrment was to protect people's lives, liberty and property. That's about it. In practice it advocates for Minarchism / a Night-watchman State.
1
@akastewart "Liberalism on the far right? Nonsense. Utter nonsense." If socialism is on the Far-Left, then logic dictates that Liberalism is on the Far-Right.
1
@akastewart "all value that are incompatible with far-right ideology." Wrong. People on the Far-Right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
@akastewart "Do you know why the term ‘classical liberalism’ has become popular again? To distinguish it from modern Liberalism, which is the de facto Liberalism of our age." Because people are ignorant and do not read history. Classical Liberalism is a synonym actual Liberalism founded by John Locke, and the only reason there are words such as "classical liberalism" and "American Right Libertarianism" is because people on the Left are using words wrong. There is no "modern Liberalism", that is Neo-Liberalism i.e. not Liberalism at all essentially. This semantic confusion was started by Americans of course, as the term Liberalism after the New Deal and especially in the 1960s became widely used in the United States to refer to a centre-left politics that supports degrees of government intervention, which has nothing to do with Liberalism.
1
@akastewart "Go tell the far right then, bc they seem to think it’s about national and ethnic identity. " I'm from the Far-Right, and national and ethnic identity are forms of collectivism and not advocated by the Right in general.
1
@akastewart "Your assertion that they value civil liberties is somewhat incompatible with far right practices, such as Jim Crow, KKK." They have nothing to do with with Far-Right nor Right wing in general.
1
@akastewart "Where would you position Jim Crow and KKK on the left-right axis?" To the Left.
1
@akastewart "You think civil rights are antithetical to socialism?" Depends how you define civil rights but generally they are. For example socialism doesn't allow economic freedom as it goes against private property ownership. It also doesn't allow individual freedom either as you are supposed to work for the collective good.
1
@akastewart "I’ll ask again, where would you situate Jim Crow and KKK on the left-right axis? " Again, on the Left.
1
@akastewart "Additionally, if you believe Liberalism is far-right, where do you believe Fascism sits relative to that?" Fascism was adjacent to Marxism, on its right side, since it was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorelian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] Any work from Emilio Gentile
1
@akastewart "that it doesn’t provide clarity between the Economic components of a political ideology and its Social components." There is no need to. When you have individual freedom it also results in economic freedom as you are free to trade and generate wealth as you please. When you have collectivism it results in a controlled social and economic environment.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Do you understand why these ideas aren't compatible?" laissez-faire economics and civil rights most certainly are compatible.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Examples of civil rights the right to government services, the right to a public education, the right to gainful employment, the right to housing, the right to use public facilities." Technically they are not rights as nobody is obligated to provide you those things. You have no right to force people to educate you. You have no right to force people to employ you. You have no right to force people to build houses for you. They are services and commodities provided by people, which wouldn't be a problem if they wouldn't be funded with stolen money.
1
@akastewart "But as you point out elsewhere a completely free market in practice often comes into conflict with individual freedoms, such as civil rights. e.g. " It doesn't conflict with individual freedoms. However it can conflict with "civil rights" depending on what the government decides those "rights" to be.
1
@akastewart "Right wing Christian Conservatism is broadly in favour of economic free market liberty, but against certain civil rights, such as LGBT+ rights, women’s rights, etc. This demonstrates how economic freedom is not a good proxy for all freedom, and shows why a single axis is insufficient." Christian Conservatism is not a Right wing thing though. The single axis is sufficient when it is about individualism vs. collectivism which I have tried to convey. When you have individual freedom it also results in economic freedom.
1
@akastewart "Do you believe socialist figures like Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders are against private property? Do you think they would force people into collectivist structures and roles?" If they are socialists then yes, by definition they would be against property rights in general. If they also advocate for socialism on a nation / government level, then yes, it would logically follow that they would force people into collectivist structures and roles unless they make everything related to the government voluntary.
1
@akastewart "You’d place Jim Crow and KKK — i.e. Christian ultra-Conservatism and ethno-Nationalism — on the left? " Yes. For me there is no difference between "Christian ultra-Conservatism" and "modern Left wing progressivism" and nationalism. Both want to use the government as a tool to enforce their own subset of beliefs which they think are more moral and just than the other beliefs. All of them are collectivists who do not like individual rights, freedoms and civil liberties, unless its about their own in-group.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG "Far Right = Authoritarianism + Neoliberalism + Bigotry." Wrong. People on the Far-Right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized. The epitome of Far-Right is Liberalism.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG " In fact, it contradicts the conventional understanding of political ideologies. " Ah yes, the "conventional understanding" where both the Far-Left and the Far-Right advocate for a totalitarian and economically centralized society based on socialism.
1
There is no Fascism anywhere.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Libertarianism is not a socialist ideology. " The ideology and the word itself was coined by a French Communist known as Joseph Déjacque.
1
" Fascism exists to PRESERVE Neoliberalism by shifting its failures away from aristocrats and billionaires and onto outsider groups." You are not making any sense. Fascism and Neoliberalism are more or less the polar opposite of ideologies.
1
Neoliberalism and Fascism are more or less the complete opposites, as Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology.
1
"This is what brought the n@zis to power in 1933 and it is helping to bring a new generation of far-right into power in the 21st century." Except there was no Far-Right in Germany during that time, nor anywhere in Europe for that matter. Also National Socialists were on the Far-Left, and also socialists by definition.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "The National Socialists were Leftist in name only, not in actuality. " Wrong. They were by definition, on the Far-Left.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan " They called themselves Socialists because that was quite popular and they thought they could use that, but none of their policies were actually Socialist." Wrong. They called themselves socialists because by definition they were. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@rohanharridge5579 "If the Nazis were socialist they wouldn't have violently suppressed organised labour they did." Wrong. Every single socialist regime suppressed independent unions, including the Bolsheviks. In fact, Hitler was simply imitating Lenin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot. Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories. Although Hitler followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, his treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.
1
@rohanharridge5579 " The Nazis hated socialism in their own words." Wrong. They never hated socialism and you will never find a single quote from any of them hating on socialism. They hated Marxism and Communism specifically, as National Socialism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
1
@rohanharridge5579 "Maybe try reading a few books." Take your own advice, hun. You can start from these; [01] "Mein Kampf" by Hitler [02] "Hitler's National Socialism" by Rainer Zitelmann [03] "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann [04] "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War" by Ludwig Von Mises [05] "Hitler's True Believers" by Robert Gellately [06] "The Cause of Hitler's Germany" by Leonard Peikoff
1
@avs4365 "They also denied any opposition. Employed slave labour. Denied workers the right to strike (working hours increased dramatically under the regime) while the leaders hoarded wealth and property theft throughout their time in power," Just like the Bolsheviks essentially.
1
@Chris-wz5yd "No, it was a right wing dictator who pretended to be left wing, j" They were by definition, Left wing, Far-Left wing in fact. If you want to see a "right wing dictator" then I suggest you check out Augusto Pinochet.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "You realise there are different categories of liberalism?" And I'm talking about the original, i.e. just Liberalism or what people incorrectly call "classical liberalism".
1
@reallymakesyouthink : No. Libertarianism is a socialist movement.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Any system advocating cventral control is not Socialist." Wrong. It is by definition.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan " And Hitler's Government had nothing at all Socialist about it." Wrong. It had, by definition.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "State-owned is Communist, not Socialist. " Wrong. There is no state under Communism. State ownership of the means of production is a form of socialism.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "They are different systems although Capitalists like to equate the two. " Wrong. We do not.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Communism is a bad system, that leads to the sort of crap that the USSR descended into. " There was no Communism in the USSR. They had Marxist-Leninism and later Stalinism, which were spinoffs from Marxism. None of them achieved Communism.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Socialism is worker-owned, entirely different. " Wrong. Again, Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Nazis were a State-controlled system, they had nothing to do with Socialism. " Wrong. Again, State control over the means of production and economy in general is a form of socialism.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "They had nothing to do with Communism either." They were rival ideology, as both National Socialism and Fascism came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Fascism is a Company-controlled Economic system," Wrong. That is Corporatocracy. Nothing to do with Fascism, where the State controlled and directed the economy.
1
@gerardpeterbrennan "Actually not much different to what Capitalism has descended into now." Both Hitler and Mussolini were devout socialists and their ideologies were strictly anti-capitalist.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "libertarianism means no government and relying on the "invisible hand" of the market. " That is Anarcho-Capitalism actually, not "libertarianism".
1
@Incognito-jf1dr "One of the groups they murdered were Trade Union members, left wing groups, Communists etc. " All they did was mimic the Bolsheviks.
1
@Incognito-jf1dr "No they were most definitely NOT socialists or Left Wing. " Wrong. By definition, National Socialism was a totalitarian Far-Left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "Libertarianism relies on the free market for it's operation, not people helping others." Actually Libertarianism was a socialist ideology and had nothing to do with free market, as they advocated for cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property in the means of production as a barrier to freedom and liberty.
1
@Incognito-jf1dr "This attempt to link genuinely Socialism to the to Nazism is just a rewriting of history." Wrong. It is a historical fact. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@briskyoungploughboy : Wrong. It's a historical fact.
1
@timwoodger7896 "The best of communism And the best liberalism. " These two are mutually exclusive.
1
@WarrenPeaceOG : That is not how Fascism works. Those are 10 generic points of every totalitarian and dictatorial regime. None of them are unique to Fascism.
1
@Redf322 : Plenty of them were killed by their own comrades during the October Revolution and beyond also. Your point being?
1
@timonsolus : Wrong. They were a textbook example of socialists.
1
@timonsolus : Wrong. They were. Go read some history.
1
@timonsolus What made Strasser and Hitler have a falling out was as written in the text by Strasser titled "The socialists leave the NSDAP", that he did not approve of Hitlers imperial "Lebensraum" policies and considered National Socialism to be a non-expansionist movement. Also Strasser had sought in the winter of 1932 to reach an electoral agreement with then Chancellor von Schleicher that would have barred Hitler from rising to power.
1
There is no Far-Right in mainstream European politics.
1
@Redf322 : That is not how Far-Right works though. That is how modern governments work.
1
There is no Fascism anywhere in Europe. It hasn't been a thing since the WW2 era.
1
@charliemoore2551 "I suppose you can nit-pick and say it's specific to a certain era. There are quite a few historians who hide behind that one. I wonder why? " Because it is a historical fact. Nobody has tried to implement Mussolini's revolutionary syndicalism which idolized the Roman Empire. However many people were influenced by Fascism and had their own Neo-Fascist spin ... well, the UK people should know as they had Oswald Mosley.
1
@charliemoore2551 "Alternatively, you can live in the real world and recognise the fact that there's very little difference between the ideology of AfD and National Rally and that of Mussolini and Hitler." I highly doubt AfD is advocating for socialism i.e. nationalization and centralization of the economy under a one-party State... like National Socialists and Fascists did.
1
" Neoliberalism is fascism by any other name. " Wrong. They are more or less the polar opposite of ideologies.
1
"Liberals facilitate fascism, they always do. " Liberalism doesn't mean what you think it means. Also Liberalism and Fascism are philosophical and ideological enemies.
1
"Far right is associated with Fascism. " Except Fascism was a socialist Far-Left ideology.
1
"It was defined in Mussolini's books on fascism as the merger of Government and corporate interests under Socialist thinking people. . " No. Mussolini has never said such a thing. Common misquote. There was no merger, and there was only Government interest above everything else.
1
"Starmer is Far Right. " No. He is a left leaning centrist or just leftist.
1
@boptah7489 Mussolini advocated for Corporatism. It had nothing to do with businesses. However true, he was indeed a socialist.
1
@franko2886 : Nope. I'm citing historical facts. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from a French Marxist, known as Georges Sorel. It rejected individualism, capitalism, liberalism, democracy, and marxism. The means of production was organized by national worker syndicals (i.e. trade unions), and the guiding philosophy of the state was Actual Idealism. Fascism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Marxist socialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose was the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." As created by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, Fascism comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State. [01] "La Dottrina Del Fascismo / the Doctrine of Fascism", by Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile [02] "Che cosa è il Fascismo: Discorsi e polemiche / Origins and Doctrine of Fascism", by Giovanni Gentile [03] "the Philosophy of Fascism", by Mario Palmieri [04] "Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice", by Renzo De Felice [05] "Mussolini's Intellectuals", by A. James Gregor [06] "La Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni", by Rabaglietti Giuseppe & Sergio Panunzio [07] "Teoria generale dello Stato Fascista", by Sergio Panunzio [08] Any work from Emilio Gentile
1
There is only one Far-Right politician in mainstream politics in general, that is, the president of Argentina Javier Milei.
1
Nazis were from the (Far) Left
1
Hitler was a devout socialist and the Neo-Nazis are Far-Left socialists as well. Nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
1
@Redf322 : Hitler was a National Socialist, not a Fascist.
1
@Redf322 "The word socialism was adopted for popularity. " Wrong. It was used because by definition they were advocating for it.
1
@Redf322 "They were a fascist party, " Wrong. They were a National Socialist party. Nothing to do with Fascism.
1
@akastewart "Liberalism is definitionally tolerant, permissive and consequently moderately progressive. That’s moderate left." That has nothing to do with Liberalism whatsoever.
1
@fluxington "Classical liberals try to remain in the centre but are now branded as right wing because they're not left enough." Liberalism i.e. Classical Liberalism is on the Far-Right. There is nothing centrist about a Night-Watchman state i.e. Minarchism, which Liberalism advocates for.
1
@fluxington " Liberal always has been somewhere to the left. In recent years, liberals have embraced more and more left wing policies." They aren't Liberals.
1
@calzonelover3950 "What do you think is the better definition of far right?" If the Far-Left is characterized by socialist ideologies and collectivism in general, then logic dictates, that the Far-Right in return is characterized by capitalist ideologies and individualism in general. Therefore, the epitome of Far-Right is Liberalism as it was put forth by John Locke, i.e. free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on property rights, individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. From there, it is logical to conclude that the Extreme Right would be Anarcho-Capitalism.
1
@calzonelover3950 "If it was only about individualism then in theory you would have no border controls because anyone is free to move across borders as they like and no collective can tell them no." And that is true, as under Liberalism the sole purpose of the government is to protect people's lives, liberty and property and that's about it. Free movement and trade would be acceptable, as long as it doesn't conflict with the previously mentioned.
1
@calzonelover3950 "Right wing parties are know for various levels of nationalism and social conservatism." That is not how Right wing works though. First of all, nationalism is a form of collectivism which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. Secondly, "social conservatism" doesn't mean anything by itself as there is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time.
1
@calzonelover3950 "By your logic the GOP in America isn't a right wing party because of its social conservatism. " Depends on what they are trying to preserve and how. If they want to preserve the current left leaning status quo for example, then no, they are not on the Right.
1
@calzonelover3950 "Are you worried because you are right wing and fine with immigration and these far right types are giving the right a bad name?" They aren't Far-Right, that's the issue. I am Far-Right.
1
@calzonelover3950 : Immigration is a non-issue for people like me who do not advocate for a "welfare" nanny state and want to tear the current one down, as immigration would naturally sort itself out. There would be no incentive to migrate willy-nilly and it would be more or less worked-based unless there are voluntary organizations taking them in and helping them personally. It's not rocket science. Once the Government starts handing out "free money" then it shouldn't be a surprise that eventually people from poorer countries will flock in, where that same amount of money is someone's monthly wage. Take the stupid UK UBI experiment from last year for example... £1,600 is pretty much what my wife makes in a month, and a bit less what I make. If UK would be stupid enough to actually give that amount to absolutely everyone, me and my wife would literally just move to UK and retire.
1
@reallymakesyouthink "If you are to the right of liberal you are probably far right. Liberal is centre right really." No, just no. Liberalism is on the Far-Right.
1
@KM_Mountain : Argentinian president, Javier Milei.
1
@Redf322 : Every country already has that, and it is not working.
1
National Socialists were the less radical left wing. They were by definition, socialists.
1
"The 'Far Right' years ago was the likes of Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Mosley etc... " Actually they were Far-Left socialists. They had nothing to do with Right wing of any kind.
1
@heartofatum : Not really.
1