Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters

a reply to: daskakik

I said fascists are on the right because of everything they stand for

I would consider myself right leaning but I wouldn't at all consider myself a fascist. Nothing I stand for has anything to do with fascism. I'm for small decentralized government. I'm for personal freedom and liberty without excessive government interference in our lives, I'm for free market capitalism, not because I'm some rich white old dude (I'm not), but because I believe the highest standard of living and rate of technical progress is achieved under capitalistic free market systems. Sure it also encourages inequality but the average income will be higher than any heavily socialist nation, which inevitably always fail. At the end of the day my logic is based on morality and ethics and everything I believe is aimed at empowering the individual.

Fascism is not a left or right thing, it's a state of government that has gotten out of control and have abused their power over the people.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Thats exactly the truth as King OBama defined it.

Never was a confuser person wrought.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So are you saying that since I am left leaning you'd consider me a fascist or an authoritarian? The correct term would be far right or far left where both tend to go to the extreme and more authoritarian.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

So are you saying that since I am left leaning you'd consider me a fascist or an authoritarian?

No I'm not at all saying that, I'm saying the left is certainly susceptible to those things just like the right. Obviously people who lean to the left tend to have good reasons to believe the things they believe, in fact before I moved over the right I was more of a left wing person and my intentions weren't sinister. Just like my beliefs are based on morality, I imagine the vast majority of people form their beliefs in the same way. In reality I'm not really a left or right wing person, because I do not agree with many of the conservative positions held by the right, especially the religious sector of the right. Only a few months ago I created a thread promoting the creation of a new party which takes the best ideas from the left and the right to create a more balanced perspective.

However the point of this thread is Google trying to label fascism as strictly a right wing thing, which is what I'm not agreeing with. It seems like a a very biased move.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: daskakik

I said fascists are on the right because of everything they stand for

One more point with regards to this statement. There is no debating that heavily socialist systems and communist systems have a high degree of centralization, there is simply no way around it because the government cannot control many aspects of the economy without centralizing production. This can be readily seen in proposals such as the Venus Project, which propose highly centralized manufacturers controlled by the government to create everything we need. Of course the idea was created with perfectly good intentions, to make sure everyone gets what they need in life and to maximize the level of equality. However there is a little saying that I think the left choose to ignore all too often, and that is: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

History shows us, time and time again, that heavily socialist/communist nations nearly always fail either because the government abused the massive power they were given and it became a dictatorship, causing people to revolt, or because the economy simply failed due to poor management. I'm not going to say socialist policies are always bad and always fail, but when taken to extremes they usually do. The point I'm making; socialist policies are the bread and butter of the left, and to ignore how socialist policies can lead into fascism is a very dangerous thing imo. In the same way that an overprotective parent can cause the child to feel like they're living in a fascist dictatorship, even though it comes from a place of love for the child, an overprotective government can lead to the same thing.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

It sounds like we had similar educations there.

I don't know about clever, but it's definitely Orwellian.

True enough. It's hard to be sure what's going on because the momentum to redefine terms is hard to source. An Orwellian context could mean it's State-sponsored and has the full apparatus behind it. On the other hand, I don't think it's a State-thing and that's what makes it so 'clever.' Genius even?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Why are you not agreeing with that fascism is entirely on the right? In fact Mussolini stated that it's on the right himself.
You might be thinking about this: en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You might be thinking about this: en.m.wikipedia.org...

Considering the page is titled Left-wing Fascism, yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. Fascism is still fascism whether under the guise of left or right leaders, why is that so hard to understand. When power is abused to create an authoritarian dictatorship you have fascism. It doesn't need to be based on nationalism to be fascism.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

It's not hard to understand. We don't call it fascism when it's on the left. Sometimes when it goes so far to the left the distinction gets blurry. It would be more apt to call it communism which is the opposite and yet "similiar" to fascism.

a reply to: infolurker

Google is also intensifying it's efforts to keep Pro-Trump related material from showing on the first page of search results. They're becoming the Search-Engine equivalent of the domestic terrorist organization, CNN.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm sure you have examples?

This might help.
www.diffen.com...

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

We don't call it fascism when it's on the left.

I can see that.

It would be more apt to call it communism which is the opposite and yet "similiar" to fascism.

I don't think this is quite a valid comparison but I can see the point you are trying to get at. But like I said socialist systems aren't automatically doomed to fail, I think with enough effort a communist society could work without the government abusing their power and turning into a dictatorship, but I still think capitalistic systems are better. So I don't necessarily think communism can be equated to being the opposite of fascism, it's it's a step before that, but I agree it's very easy to go from communism to full blown "left wing fascism".

However I would also argue that there really isn't as large a difference as you think between right wing fascism and left wing fascism when you look at the bare bones of both systems. The article you cite in your last post starts off by saying the following:

While communism is a system based around a theory of economic equality and advocates for a classless society, fascism is a nationalistic, top-down system with rigid class roles that is ruled by an all-powerful dictator.

I have yet to see any classless communist society, if anything I think communistic societies promote more of a hierarchy of power because they require a very high degree of centralization and the government has to be able to manage those systems, which is typically achieved with a highly centralized government with a few people wielding a huge amount of power. The underlying structure is still the same in both cases, a dictatorship formed on the back of a hierarchical power pyramid. I like how the article makes the following statement:

A communist society is stateless, classless and is governed directly by the people. This however has never been practised.

Something which can never practically exist is not worth talking about practically. I'm talking about reality here, what we have seen happening in the past and even what we see happening in highly socialist governments today. The difference is nothing but some abstract political beliefs that can often change on a whim. So far it seems like the only real reason fascism is so tightly associated with right-wing ideals is because of the link to nationalism. But the way I see it, there's no reason a primarily leftist politician could not be in favor of strong borders and against illegal immigration. Nationalism isn't always a bad thing, it's ok to have pride in your heritage and want to protect your culture, but when that is taken to the extreme things can get racist very quickly, I'm not going to deny that. But to think we can all live in one big happy utopia with no borders at all is naive and indicates to me a lack of true understanding of how the world works.

Here's another golden quote from that article:

Communists distrust Nationalistic nations and leaders.
-
Fascists are ultra-nationalists who identify strongly with other Nationalistic nations and leaders.

Ok lets look at reality shall we... the article also mentions there are only about half a dozen communist nations on Earth right now, and it lists North Korea and Russia as two of them. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but it seems to me that NK and Russia are two of the most nationalistic nations on Earth. They adore and worship their leaders, in NK they have pictures of their all glorious supreme leader everywhere, these nations have military displays of power to bolster national pride and see who's is the biggest, the leaders are very heavy handed and crack down hard on any dissent what so ever, etc, etc, etc. All the qualities that are typically ascribed to right-wing fascist nations can be readily found in communist nations.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I bet the terms Left and Right arose from a meaningless and trivial thing, like which side of the ballot the parties appeared on.

The term arose from the French Parliment/Congress where the traditionalists sat on the right side of the hall and the socialists sat on the left.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: FlyingFox

Interesting that it's only American conservatives who are trying to argue this, nobody else.

Because the typical reference of right wing doesn't accurately apply to American conservatives, not that it stops non-conservatives from pushing the false narrative.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

LOL safe spaces. I have no idea why people buy into that narrative.

Anyway they considered the Founding Fathers to be on the left and revolutionary. They thought they were anarchists.

True enough back then they would have been considered to the left, the idea that government served the people was unheard of.

These days the left has veered toward larger government and modern definitions of left/right don't apply very well at all. That's why people use the term 'classical liberal' to separate the American Founders from the 'modern liberals' who advocate for government as the supervisor instead of the servant, more regulation, more socialism, etc.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Why are you not agreeing with that fascism is entirely on the right? In fact Mussolini stated that it's on the right himself.
You might be thinking about this: en.m.wikipedia.org...

Mussolini was one man and usually it takes more than one man to define a word correctly. Also Hitler was a better source than him. as stated by others though you can have Facist on EITHER SIDE. So in truth it does not have a side it has a action that defines it.

As far as racism, and supposed Nazi race-based politics....is Jewish a race?

Muslim extremists hate other religions, so they can't be Fascist?

Nazi's were right wing, authoritarians, building the master race-- they weren't preaching togetherness and embracing diversity... LOL... American Republicans would have you believe right wing has no history of dictators. Meanwhile they just elected an authoritarian who wants a wall, pushes for Muslim bans, hardcore nationalism, and gets screaming cheers for torture-- and had the full support of Alt-Right, White Nationalists, and American Nazis.

The republican motto seems to be "those who don't learn from history can be swayed to repeat it." Seems to be their hope and their effort.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Nazi's were right wing, authoritarians, building the master race-- they weren't preaching togetherness and embracing diversity... LOL... American Republicans would have you believe right wing has no history of dictators. Meanwhile they just elected an authoritarian who wants a wall, pushes for Muslim bans, hardcore nationalism, and gets screaming cheers for torture-- and had the full support of Alt-Right, White Nationalists, and American Nazis.

The republican motto seems to be "those who don't learn from history can be swayed to repeat it." Seems to be their hope and their effort.

And communist were left wing. your point? BOTH SIDES HAVE FACIST PEOPLE IN THEM.