First, a disclaimer: I'm not alt-right.
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, believes in big government and the domination of individuals by said government. Agree or disagree? Explain.
Disagree, an utterly stupid comment to suggest that I believe in being dominated by my government. In fact, I don't remember ever voting for a winning government let alone wanting to be dominated by them.
It's not about your personal beliefs. Socialism increases governmental control. Conservatism reduces governmental control. Read 1984 and tell me what kind of system they live under.
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, believes in the necessity of radical wealth redistribution. Agree or disagree? Explain.
Disagree, Hitler was into taking all resources to make the state stronger through military means so he could kill the people responsible for real socialism, as he saw it. Personally I think some wealth distribution is neccessary and to be honest most non-socialists feel the same way. You'd have to be insane to believe that one person working at a company was worth 300 times more than another or that most of the world's wealth is hoarded by a handful of people.
You're missing the connection. Men and whites (and Asians, increasingly) are expected, based on modern socialist-neo-Marxist standards, to give up some of their rightfully earned opportunities and wealth in order to satisfy the "oppressed." As well, the "rich," which has become synonymous among socialists with "white men," are invariably blamed for society's ills, much like Hitler blamed the Jews for all of society's ills. Bernie Sanders saying that white people don't know what it's like to be poor is really an early stage of Hitler's claim that Jews hoard the wealth and are vermin that need to be exterminated.
Don't you appreciate the implications of this type of system? It enforces inequality by necessity because if everyone were truly equal, socialism itself would not function!
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, is dominated by an obsession with identity politics. Agree or disagree? Explain.
Silly alt right buzzword peddled by f***wits. Hitler was into murdering Jews, Socialists, disabled people, gay people, modern day socialists believe in defending minorities against racists bastards. By identity politics I'm assuming you're really angry about the last point.
If you believe in equity, you are acquiescing to a discriminatory ideology. There's no way around that. You could argue that it is beneficial discrimination, but it's still discrimination, and it is apparent that equity, even as it can have short-term benefits to marginalized people, has long-term detrimental effects because it is unable to help people to rise in society based on their own empowerment and personal responsibility, and neither does it assert the ideal of equality.
Identity politics and equity assert that there must ALWAYS be an oppressed and an oppressor. Equality is UNATTAINABLE under a system that idealizes equity. The bottom line is, there is no ultimate justification for taking the wealth and standing of the Jews and giving it, unearned, to the Germans, and neither is there an ultimate justification for taking the wealth of "straight white males" and giving it, unearned, to any group that is deemed to be oppressed. Even worse, equity is totally subjective. Hitler, when applying neo-Marxist reasoning, was at first justified in standing up for the "oppressed," was he not? You can see how easily socialism can spiral out of control. We are seeing it begin to spiral out of control in many societies today.
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, is based on equity rather than equality. Agree or disagree? Explain.
Disagree as this is obviously horseshit. Studies show that societies that have less of a wealth gap have less problems with crime and other societal issues. Go read a f***ing book.
Do you not know what equity is?
As I mentioned above, socialism needs inequality to survive. It addresses inequalities by enforcing equity rather than aiming for equality. In other words, it addresses perceived inequalities that one group faces (the oppressed) by enforcing inequalities on the "privileged" group (the oppressor). It really doesn't matter whether the "oppressor" is Jews, whites, or Asians; you have the same discriminatory practices that equity enforces.
To be clear, EQUALITY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED SO LONG AS EQUITY IS ENFORCED.
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, scapegoats particular groups of people for the ills of society. Agree or disagree? Explain.
Disagree, this is you alt righters remember.
What?
To be clear, you do agree that Hitler scapegoated Jews, yes? Now, there was some truth that Jews dominated in society, but so what? Now whites (and increasingly Asians) are being scapegoated for the same reasons. Jews happen now to be untouchable despite their continued domination in terms of wealth and standing, but that's beside the point. Scapegoating is wrong and you should worry about tending your own lawn and use your personal responsibility to do so. Hitler's socialism and modern socialism, however, prefer to scapegoat people and, as a rule, remove them from their "illegitimate" places in society. Hardcore socialists hate white males just like hardcore Nazis hated Jews. It's the same exact thing in a different outfit.
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, asserts that particular groups of people are inherently flawed and/or malevolent and that these "flaws" and "malevolence" need to be eradicated from society. Agree or disagree? Explain.
You mean we think racists are flawed and we'd like to eradicate it? Sure. I'll run with that. Except once again, Hitler was a massive racist. f***wit.
How do you eradicate racism when you promote and accept racism against certain people while condemning it in regard to others? This is what equity does. Rather than eradicating racism, it enforces it endlessly against "the oppressors," just like Hitler's brand of socialism enforced an endless hate of Jews.
Hitler's socialism, like modern socialism, opposes capitalism. Agree or disagree? Explain.
Hitler was about getting all of the resources to create a strong state which neither opposes nor promotes capitalism. Personally I think mixed systems are necessary but some on the left are definitely staunchly opposed to capitalism.
Ultimately, Hitler believed in the government controlling the wealth because the people could not be trusted. This is the root of socialism. No right-winger advocates for this.
Terms such as "Jewish privilege," "white privilege," or "Asian privilege" are reprehensible. Agree or Disagree? Explain.
You forgot the Hitler comparison here. Hitler was into the belief of Jewish privilege without doubt. I don't fully run with the term white privilige personally because I find it divisive, institutional racism is certainly real though.
Exactly my point. Terms like "white privilege" and "Jewish privilege" are vile, racist terms that are based on identity politics. If you don't like the term identity politics, fine, let's call it identitarianism. Hitler was obsessed with identity just like socialist neo-Marxists are today. There are members of BLM who claim that whites are inferior and defective due to their lack of melanin. Such people want to eradicate whites, whom they believe to be inferior.
ALL of this divisive garbage is rooted in identitarianism. Identitarianism can, of course, infiltrate on both the left and right, and identity extends beyond politics, but there is only one type of identitarianism that is accepted by many people and by mainstream society as a whole today. Can you guess what kind of identitariansim that is? It's the socialist-neo-Marxist intersectional identitarianism that is propagated by neo-Marxists everywhere. from openly socialist politicians to gender studies "professors." Just because it is accepted doesn't make it OK; it's all horrid, disgusting stuff.
with all the jabbering.
It was likely AR or his amanuensis
drumming up interest.
