According to some people, any decent human being is “far right”. But, who cares? ‘Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you’ is unknown these days, and people even have breakdowns over names,

I'm glad to see that someone else other than me gets it correct about the Nazis!

And the silliest thing about Australia, is that it is the only place in the world where Liberals are called ‘conservatives’, some of them even ‘far right’.

If I feel the need to put a name to most people these days, it's wa.ker.

This article is textbook historical revisionism. The fantasy that Nazism and fascism weren’t far-right because they borrowed socialist language or Mussolini once edited a socialist paper is kindergarten-level history.

Historians classify fascism and Nazism as far-right not because of economic tinkering, but because of their defining traits: ultranationalism, racial hierarchy, militant traditionalism, violent anti-egalitarianism, and contempt for democracy.

Yes, the Nazis called themselves “National Socialists.” North Korea calls itself a “Democratic People’s Republic.” Names aren’t definitions. In reality, the Nazis banned unions, murdered socialists, crushed class solidarity, and built a racial state.

That’s not “left” - it’s the very blueprint of the far-right.

Mussolini’s early socialist ties are equally irrelevant. Fascism was not socialism’s cousin but its executioner, propped up by monarchists, industrialists, and ultranationalists terrified of the left.

Leyonhjelm’s “far-right means nothing” is mere special pleading. If history’s most infamous far-right regimes were indeed far-right, then the label clearly means something.

Try calling a skinhead neo-Nazi a "lefty" and see how many teeth you have left afterwards.

WTF?

ttbn is at it again I see: "but names will never hurt you’ is unknown these days, and people even have breakdowns over names".

All this from the person who calls others on OLO "liars" when confronted by facts that hurt his feelings, abuses others and calls them names rather than address their comments.

I am right in believing that ttbn once said "ttbn" stands for "try to be nice"?

You can't make this stuff up.

WTF?

The author says: "(Far right)... is a word used by the left, primarily intended to be derogatory."

Labels of this type are often used as a way to end an argument/discussion when facts, evidence and logic are eroding an unsupported belief.

It gets to the absurd level when we get a poster on OLO saying that the woke left needs to wake up. Could there be anything more meaningless?

Gawd ! We're staring the annihilation of this Nation in the eye yet some Woke are more concerned about Left, Right & extremes for both. Does the Left or rather Woke Left ever think how far Right the silent invaders are ? The ones that are in the process of outbreeding us & our authorities are silly enough to pay them to do so. No-one even mentions the this ultra extreme Right moment building up here as it is in England.

Hitler said that “the whole of National Socialism was based on Marx."

Hitler said that the only difference between National Socialism and Communism was that the former was nationalist and the later internationalist.

But what would Hitler know about Nazism!!?

mhaze,

So suddenly we’re happy to take dictators at their word? You’ve obviously never read Mein Kampf. Hundreds of pages - more devoted to spewing vitriol at Marxists and Marxism than even at Jews.

Hitler never hid his contempt for Marxism. He called it “Jewish poison,” blamed it for Germany’s collapse, and promised to eradicate it root and branch.

And that’s exactly what he did.

Within months of taking power, the Nazis smashed unions, outlawed socialist and communist parties, jailed their members, and murdered Marxists in droves. Whatever throwaway line you want to cherry-pick, the reality is that Nazism defined itself by destroying the Left.

That’s why historians don’t rely on “what Hitler said” in some dubious snippet. They judge by doctrine and deeds. And on both counts Nazism sits firmly on the far-right: ultranationalist, authoritarian, violently anti-egalitarian, and obsessed with hierarchy and race.

This is yet more historical revisionism from you.

You confusing Marxism with Bolshevism.

Pretty funny that you start of saying we shouldn't take Hitler at his word and then try to claim we should take Hitler at his word. Again no substance...just assertion.

mhaze,

Nice try, but Hitler didn’t distinguish Marxism from Bolshevism in the way you’re pretending.

In Mein Kampf he denounced “the Marxist poison” over and over again, lumping socialism and communism together as enemies. And his policies followed suit: unions banned, socialist/communist parties outlawed, and Marxists jailed or murdered.

As for your “taking Hitler at his word” line, the difference is simple. I’m not cherry-picking one stray quote and treating it as gospel. I’m pointing to Hitler’s sustained anti-Marxist rants across his writings and the Nazis’ actual record in power.

Words and deeds matched. That’s substance.

Which is more than can be said for leaning on a single out-of-context line while ignoring everything Hitler wrote and everything the Nazis did.

How the terms "Left" and "Right" came to mean completely different things in different countries can make an interesting academic research study, but the fact is, somehow they did and it is thus nonsensical to translate "Left"/"Right" from one country to the next!

In Israel's example, political views range from "socialist" (or even "communist") to "revisionist" on the socio-economical axis and from "orthodox" to "secular" (with "religious" and "traditional" in between) on the Torah-observance axis, and as immigration and similar issues which dominate Australian politics are practically undisputed there, the terms "Left" and "Right" were reserved solely for describing the attitude towards the neighbouring non-Jewish people, "Left" meaning "accept them as equals and respect their land" and "Right" meaning "take their land and get them the hell out of our sight, live or dead".

You claim to have read Mein Kampf. Perhaps you need to read it again.

"In Mein Kampf he denounced “the Marxist poison” over and over again,"

He never uses the phrase "Marxist poison" in Mein Kampf. Just making it up again.

"I’m pointing to Hitler’s sustained anti-Marxist rants across his writings and the Nazis’ actual record in power."

No. You're asserting these rants. But Hitler was opposed to Bolshevism which he saw as Jewish and a threat to Germany. AAgain you're confusing two similar but not identical terms. Easily done if you're research involves a 5 minute Google search.

Yes, Hitler attacked the Bolsheviks and Russia since it was the home of Bolshevism. But the nuance there was that he wasn't attacking Marxism. Nuance....now there's a concept that is entirely alien to you.

I see we’ve started on the semantic nitpicking, mhaze.

//He never uses the phrase ‘Marxist poison’ in Mein Kampf. Just making it up again.//

Hitler’s own words:

“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature … this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man.” (Mein Kampf, Vol. I, Ch. 11).

In the German text he refers to Marxism in terms of Gift (poison). English editions word it as “pestilence” or “plague.” Nitpicking vocabulary doesn’t erase the point: he ranted against Marxism as a poison.

//Hitler was opposed to Bolshevism … but he wasn’t attacking Marxism//

Wrong.

Hitler saw Bolshevism as simply Marxism in Russian form. He called Marxism “the spiritual father of Bolshevism” and blamed it for the collapse of Germany. And he didn’t just attack Bolsheviks in Russia, he denounced Marxism in German trade unions, in the press, in education, and vowed to eradicate it everywhere.

//Nuance … now there’s a concept that is entirely alien to you.//

The only “nuance” here is Hitler’s propaganda convenience. Sometimes he blurred the terms, sometimes he separated them, but in every case he treated both as mortal enemies. And his actions left no room for ambiguity: unions banned, SPD and KPD outlawed, communists and socialists jailed or killed.

That’s annihilation, not nuance.

So yes, I’ve read Mein Kampf. The seething hatred of Marxism runs through it. You don’t do that to your ideological cousins. You do that to the enemies you’re determined to wipe out.

Try downloading a PDF of an English translation and run through it with Ctrl+F if you don’t believe me.

I dare you.

I remember watching Stephen Fry, where he interviewed Bolsanaro when he was in Congress, before he was elected President. The thing that struck me most and which I remember vividly was Fry talking candidily to the camera after the interview out in the street, where Fry said of Bolsanaeo "I think that is the most evil person I have ever met"

"In Mein Kampf he denounced “the Marxist poison” over and over again,"

“the Marxist poison”...in quotes and all...you know like it was a quote. "Over and over again".

Now? Oh well, he never actually said that, just things that are somewhat similar if you squint and put on your (communist) red glasses.

This constant willingness to distort the facts in the search for what you consider to be a victory. You should be constantly accompanied by a fact checker but I have neither the time nor the inclination.

"Try downloading a PDF of an English translation and run through it with Ctrl+F if you don’t believe me."

I have a hard copy version, a digital version (on my Kindle) and an original German version given to me by a dear Russian friend back in the 1990s when, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, such things were being sold on the streets of east Germany for pennies.

Its my opinion the terms far right and far left are outdated and belong back in 18th century. I agree with the 'Horseshoe Principle' where extremists with one set of values tend to find commonality with those they claim to oppose, with their set of values Fascism and Communism are examples of radical extremism having a common goal of total totalitarian control. I don't believe that Hitler and Stalin were all that different in their aims of domination of society by the state. Extremism cannot gain traction unless there is radical social disorder, the Russian Revolution, like the French Revolution before it, didn't happen by chance, there was a ground swell of mass discontent in society against the established order, and the radical element was able to articulate and exploit that discontent. The social conditions have to be right for extremist to gain the ascendancy. There is no danger of radical revolution in Australia as the reasonably well off egalitarian society wont allow for extreme ideologies to gain traction.

mhaze,

I take it you've given up on trying to prove that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of lefties, and are now simply trying to attack my credibility.

//“the Marxist poison”…in quotes and all…you know like it was a quote.//

Right. Because plagues and pestilence are so much better than poison.

The point isn’t which synonym you prefer - Hitler repeatedly depicted Marxism as a mortal toxin or epidemic, not a legitimate doctrine.

//Now? Oh well, he never actually said that, just things that are somewhat similar if you squint and put on your (communist) red glasses.//

You know you’re moving up in the world when you’ve been promoted from “poison” to “a fatal epidemic disease.”

//This constant willingness to distort the facts…//

What’s distorted?

I quoted Hitler directly and even flagged the translation variants. You, on the other hand, haven’t produced a single passage to back your claim that he wasn’t obsessed with Marxism itself. Instead you’ve shifted from “he meant only Bolshevism” to “he didn’t use those exact two words” to “you’re a distorter.”

That’s not fact-checking, that’s dodging.

//I have a hard copy, a Kindle, and an original German version…//

Perfect.

Then you can confirm firsthand that Hitler targets Marxismus by name all through Mein Kampf. And we know it wasn’t just talk - once in power, the Nazis dissolved free trade unions (2 May 1933) and outlawed other parties (14 July 1933), annihilating the Left at home, not just “Russian Bolshevism.”

Owning multiple editions doesn’t strengthen your case if you never quote from them.

By the way, you still haven’t offered a shred of evidence that Nazism was left-wing. All you’ve done is quibble over wording while ignoring the fact that Hitler and the Nazis defined themselves by crushing Marxists, communists, and socialists.

That silence speaks louder than your nitpicking.