Well, I'd just like to say that my horrible rants are entirely my own.
I haven't even properly looked into AI, as in ChatGPT or anything.
I've made a few pictures with Grok for my own curiosity and amusement maybe 2 or 3 times.
Beyond that if I ask google a question and get an AI result, I share that info as an AI result.

I'm not sure I'm ready to pass off AI as my own and pretend I'm smarter than I am, when I'm not.

Just how I"m going to roll with it for now, everyone has their own way.
Maybe one day I'll have a more serious look at it.

ttbn,

I'll have to drudge my way through many threads with Ctrl+F to find the pizza comment because you're full history returns a server error, and Google hasn't indexed it so a "site" search returns nothing. You may not like pizza, but you don't need to given it's a very well known AI slip-up. I'll let you know if I find anything.

Anyway, you accused me of being "robotic" and, then spent three paragraphs on personal insults. None of that addresses the claim under discussion.

The issue was simple: the idea that Nazism was left wing; presumably of the word "socialist", given your sudden referring to them using the unnecessarily-long label of "National Socialists". But the word "socialist" was there to attract working-class voters in the 1920s, not to describe the ideology - which is why the Nazis immediately crushed actual socialists once in power.

Your claim doesn't survive even basic historical scrutiny. The Nazis defined themselves by their anti-Marxism stance, destroyed socialist and communist organisations, and sat firmly in the authoritarian, nationalist, anti-egalitarian tradition. That's why the argument keeps collapsing back into tone and abuse instead of substance.

If you want to argue otherwise, do it on the history. If not, there's nothing left to resolve here.

A slightly side issue, which I am sure others have said with greater clarity and emphasis.
However....
Laws need to be generic.
Not written especially for one particular group or section of our society.
So the leader of the 'opposition' is way off the mark when she discusses amendments to 'hate' laws.
The principles on which she bases her thinking are not as they should be.
Time for her to re-think her leadership.
Or time for the party to rethink it.

Hi John,

I think Nazism and Stalinist ideology are examples where two seemingly diametrically opposing political systems were in fact linked in many ways, with commonality in the ways they operated. I don't believe in the left/right political principle as a linear expression where those on the extreme left are totally opposite to those on the extreme right. I'm more the believer in the "Horseshoe Political Principle" with moderates at the top centre and the "left" and "right" at the tips, bring both the left and right closer together, more in common with each other, than they have with moderates. I'm saying at another time Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin could have been the best of mates, having long conversation about who to murder next!
Same with radicalism, take Germany for example, in the 1920's Nazism was part of the political extreme and therefore radical. by the mid 1930's Nazism had become the accepted as the new normal, and people such as liberal democrats, once viewed as moderates, were then the outliers, and therefore the extreme. Do I make any sense to you on this.

Hi Paul,

Yes, that makes sense - and I largely agree with you on how authoritarian systems behave once they reach power. Where I think the confusion creeps in is between how regimes operate and where their ideologies come from.

The horseshoe model is useful as a visual representation of the fact that extremes end up using similar tools (repression, violence, enforced conformity). But that convergence doesn't make them ideologically interchangeable or place Nazism on the left, as you would know, and the horseshoe model risks blurring the distinction here.

So I'm not defending a simplistic left-right line where everything is neat and symmetrical. I'm just pushing back on the specific claim that Nazism was "left wing" in origin or intent, as opposed to authoritarian in outcome.

Regarding radicalism becoming normalised once it captures the state, I completely agree. That's one of the most dangerous dynamics in politics, and it's why liberal democracy gets squeezed from both sides when extremes take over.

Thanks John,

There is a belief that Hitler dabbled in Communism early on, some grainy footage of him at a Communist rally. Hitler at that time, being highly dissatisfied with the political and social status quo in Germany, was probably looking at radical alternatives as a way to avenge the wrongs of the past, as he seen them. Hitler joined the German Workers Party in 1919, fortunately for Hitler the GWP suffered from leadership problem (vacuum), Hitler was able to fill that position, and then mould the GWP into what he believed it should be, and it worked. BTW When Hitler was cementing himself into the GWP, the German Communist Party (KPD) was much bigger, and had strong leadership in Ernst Thalmann, who led the KPD from 1925 until his execution by the Nazi regime in 1944. The KPD was never complete annihilated by the Nazis, and in 1946 it came back to power in East Germany with the likes of Walter Ulbricht assuming control as a Satanist puppet. East Germany = German DEMOCRATIC Republic, Fortunately for us the GDR was DEMOCRATIC, it was in their name!