the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

no dictator has a philosphy outside himself.

Let's suppose that's true...that Castro, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. were not genuinely Socialists. That they said they were, we will ignore. That people followed them as if they were, we'll also ignore. That they promoted Socialist policies and propaganda, we'll say was insincere.

Okay, that's our starting point. Still, they had one thing in common: they were all able to capitalizing on Socialism's vulnerabilities, and turn it into dictatorship. And we might regard that as a regrettable risk, except for the fact that it has happened every single time, and every single time with homicidal and economically suicidal results.

So Socialism is a wonderful opportunity for dictators. I don't disagree with that, if that's what we say. But it makes no nevermind to the question of whether or not Socialism is a good idea. Clearly, it's not: it is fertile ground for dictators.

[Belinda]

no dictator has a philosphy outside himself.

Let's suppose that's true...that Castro, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. were not genuinely Socialists. That they said they were, we will ignore. That people followed them as if they were, we'll also ignore. That they promoted Socialist policies and propaganda, we'll say was insincere.

Okay, that's our starting point. Still, they had one thing in common: they were all able to capitalizing on Socialism's vulnerabilities, and turn it into dictatorship. And we might regard that as a regrettable risk, except for the fact that it has happened every single time, and every single time with homicidal and economically suicidal results.

So Socialism is a wonderful opportunity for dictators. I don't disagree with that, if that's what we say. But it makes no nevermind to the question of whether or not Socialism is a good idea. Clearly, it's not: it is fertile ground for dictators.

Any ideology may be hijacked by a dictator.

[Immanuel Can]

Any ideology may be hijacked by a dictator.

Well, some forms of government are more resistant to them than others.

For example, any form of government that is tightly controlled by checks and balances on centralized power is going to be a problem for any dictator. One that includes (genuinely) free elections every four years or so is going to also be a problem. Any situation in which the military or law enforcement are not under the personal control of the putative head of state is going to be a problem to dictators. Any form with a division of powers between figurehead and legislators, or with walls of responsibility between legislators and the executive is going to be problematic to them...and so on. So there are many ways to inoculate a system against dictatorship.

Socialism, it would seem, attracts them 100% of the time. And in it, they find no significant resistance to what they want to do. That's why they like it so much.

[henry quirk]

Any ideology may be hijacked by a dictator.

Well, some forms of government are more resistant to them than others.

For example, any form of government that is tightly controlled by checks and balances on centralized power is going to be a problem for any dictator. One that includes (genuinely) free elections every four years or so is going to also be a problem. Any situation in which the military or law enforcement are not under the personal control of the putative head of state is going to be a problem to dictators. Any form with a division of powers between figurehead and legislators, or with walls of responsibility between legislators and the executive is going to be problematic to them...and so on. So there are many ways to inoculate a system against dictatorship.

Socialism, it would seem, attracts them 100% of the time. And in it, they find no significant resistance to what they want to do. That's why they like it so much.

another buffer is truly minimal governance, with absolutely no tolerance given to expansionists, revisionists, exempt-ists, or opaque-ists

[FrankGSterleJr]

I seriously doubt news commentators' claims that, collectively, Donald Trump’s ardent supporters deep-down truly believe his implausible (even by many other conservatives’ standards) assertions of mass voter fraud.

Long before election day, Trump was saying he may not respect a Biden win, as though preparing his voter base for his inevitable refusal to leave office.

Post-election, just the loss itself was/is touted as sufficient proof of the unverifiable claim Trump was cheated from a victory due to atypically massive electoral-ballot fraud.

Contrary to mainstream commentators’ assertions that the Capitol Hill rioters really believe that Trump had won the election, it is possible most of the latter maintain that ‘Trump was cheated’ as an excuse for their attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s (apparently quite) legitimate electoral win—or at least make it as unpleasant as possible, as we saw on Jan. 6.

The rioters (and Trump) may have been enraged enough at his defeat by the supposedly ‘socialist’ Biden, they were now going to raise hell.

Or perhaps those supporters consciously or subconsciously believe that he has to remain in office for some perceived greater good—perhaps to save the nation or even to do ‘God’s will’—regardless of his democratically-decided election loss.

It may be a case of that perhaps most dangerous of ideologies: the end justifies the means.

I’m not equating Trump or his base support to any of history’s genocidal maniacs, but the most frightful example of that philosophical justification is/was the pogrom, the primary implementers of which know they’re committing mass murder yet still genuinely perceive it all as part of an ultimately greater good.

[gaffo]

no dictator has a philosphy outside himself.

Let's suppose that's true...that Castro, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. were not genuinely Socialists. That they said they were, we will ignore. That people followed them as if they were, we'll also ignore. That they promoted Socialist policies and propaganda, we'll say was insincere.

Okay, that's our starting point. Still, they had one thing in common: they were all able to capitalizing on Socialism's vulnerabilities, and turn it into dictatorship. And we might regard that as a regrettable risk, except for the fact that it has happened every single time, and every single time with homicidal and economically suicidal results.

So Socialism is a wonderful opportunity for dictators. I don't disagree with that, if that's what we say. But it makes no nevermind to the question of whether or not Socialism is a good idea. Clearly, it's not: it is fertile ground for dictators.

non sequitor, Hitler used gramanic tribes - good blood - and Wagner to promote his filith, no socialism - so same result.

and no none of those assholes had any "True" beleif - as in a philosphy bre it Socialism or Feudalism.............they were all about me and me - and use whatver will promte the me in whatever society they were in/.

sop ya Hitler was smart to use "german blood" as Stalin was for Communism. neither had any true belivf outisde of their ego.

thanks for reply.

fuck Pol Pot was a Buddist! if he really was - he was, just saying if he was a "real" buddist" - he would not even step on a bug, let alone murder 2 million cambdians!

all dictarors are full of shit - they beleive only in themselves and never have a beleive in any othyer thing - including your "scoialism"/,

[FrankGSterleJr]

Long before election day, Trump was saying he may not respect a Biden win, as though preparing his voter base for his inevitable refusal to leave office (at least not with dignity).

I find it plausible they maintained ‘Trump was cheated’ as an excuse for their attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s (apparently quite) legitimate electoral win—or at least make it as unpleasant as possible, as seen on January 6.

Might it be that those Trump supporters consciously or subconsciously believe that he MUST remain in office for some perceived greater good—notably to save America, make it great again and/or do ‘God’s will’—regardless of his democratically-decided election loss, and all of those in the (non-surprising) majority who voted against Trump MUST be overridden?

It may be a case of that perhaps most dangerous of ideologies: the end justifies the means.

I’m not equating Trump or his base support to any of history’s genocidal maniacs, but the most frightful example of that philosophical justification is the pogrom, the implementers of which know they’re committing mass murder yet still genuinely perceive it all as part of an ultimately greater good.

[henry quirk]

Long before election day, Trump was saying he may not respect a Biden win.

to hell with ORANGE MAN: I don't respect biden, his win, his admin, his family, his friends, his voters, his supporters, or his masters

he ain't my houseplant, er, president

DAD9DA86-AB03-4730-A12C-A64086BE4124.png

[Scott Mayers]

I was about to ask you the same thing. Nazism is National Socialism.

my point was that we both konw history and so more left fanatics murdered than right ones.

I'm having difficulty getting anybody even to locate these "right ones." Nobody can seem to tell me where they are now.

fantiatic are a fanatics do - they do not care if they are right or left - so why do you seem to care if they are left or not?

Like I say: I can't get anybody to tell me where these "right" fanatics are today.

But Leftists, boy, do we even know where to find them. They're all over. So it seems the primary threat to freedom today is from the Left, not any alleged "right".

But maybe I'll ask you: whom do you regard as "right wing"?

All the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and OTHER supporting supremists are just simple examples. Today Isreal and Arabia are two example states that are DEFINED by National Socialism given they

(A) Believe in a particular Nationality, not merely "Nation" as this inappropriately gets defined in context of people's minds as one's country. The proper meaning understood by "Nationalism" is that one KIND of people are accepted.

(B)The "Socialism" part, is just the term meaning that their government believes in IMBEDDING laws regarding social engineering, not merely 'social' services. That is, they believe in making LAWS regarding who is the MINIMAL citizen, like for Germany, it was the Aryan race. For Saudi Arabia, you require being literally related to the GENETIC class of the Saudi royalty and as citizens, you have to be at least Arabic; For Israel, it is specifically Jewish AND those who have literal GENETIC links of the Hebrew 'chosen' people. They also ONLY support social services FOR their ingroup/race usually.

(C) NON-National type Socialism in general is what I told you before: it is the system's inclusion and respect for the government to be run FOR the people, where the 'people' are the society. Those countries that literally have this in their name can also have 'nationalist' of the "patriotic" kind but do not bias themselves against other races. In contrast, the National Socialist also believes in OWNERSHIP BY INDIVIDUALS, not the COLLECTIVE. As such, National Socialists distributed (a socialist concept) the wealth but by taking away particular non-Aryan raced people's right to 'own' (or own absolutely).

(D) The two main areas of interest in National Socialism, is to require the system to be set up to PRIORITIZE military and policing that defaults to CONSERVE ownership interests. Left-wing socialism does NOT believe in prioritizing military nor police by governments but demand a separation of power to the present leader to some degree. The 'socialist' part is to distribute wealth by forcing the 'them' to give up ownership for ONLY 'us'.

As to the 'bad' forms of Communist Socialism, their reason for significant flaws were always due to the fact that such societies BECAME 'communist' WHEN the vast majority of people were starving and in need. As such, they BEGIN with being divided groups who extorted the masses by OWNERSHIP abuses or extravagence, like what most Feudal systems have done.

National Socialism also arises similarly but comes from those who are alienated AS some genetic class. This problem has, in today's terms, defined the INFILTRATION of sub-National-Socialist groups who ONLY capitalize on the LEFT when they cannot BE on the RIGHT due to a competing Nationalism. See how the meaning of "Nationalism" is about "nationality" of one's genetic roots and NOT about a area-defined class of people (unless that area has dominance of the genetic class and interprets both.)

The Right-wing ideologies are based on a belief in OWNERSHIP that permits even ONE person from leading. Left-wing ideologies are based on a belief in NO OWNERSHIP. The 'leaders' in Communist labeled countries are 'chairmen' that act as the VOICE (original meaning of 'dictator' versus the modern meaning.) However ALL politics go through infiltration schemes that FLIP the way the prior parties had normally prioritized. As such, you get North Korean style dictators. There is a harder differentiation between that style of so-called, "Communism" versus "National Socialism" because the PARTY systems can get abused. They begin with the same thing that divides control to 'special skill'. But if the Military, for instance, gets run by dictatorial type of people as a 'social class', they CAN and HAVE become the means of which ANY system turns from one ideal to a strict dictatorship (modern meaning).

The Trumplicans (Trump's Republicans) ARE defining of National Socialistic because the subcults of the GENETIC BIASED subgroups within that advocate for literal 'supremacist' (versus equality) on the right ARE both believers in THEIR right to private ownership AND their Nationalities of present majority there. As such, they'll be 'white' for the most part.

The Left-wing examples of the more recent (although now toned down lately) are those who within the subclasses of 'minorities' who believe in STRICT overthrow of ANY others that are not them genetically. This has been a serious issue due to the technology of the cell phone and the isolation that occurs due to it. The examples there would be like the "Black Panthers"; the opposite, also on the Left that actually more represent the Left in principle were those like Martin Luther King. The reason why the Left CAN hold some National Socialists is due to the fact that MOST people the world over are religiously biased, irrational believers IN some genetic-association. But the reason they are there is ONLY because their cults are less empowered. As such, the loosely collect the other similar cults that are relatively weak and ACT with the belief that they are Collective Nationalist, not Socialists.

For instance, a block of interest on the Left might be the Muslims who might be supportive of right-wing ideals but are clearly without actual ownership power of the host country. Note that I know some right-wingers OF such countries too that voice lacking some particular concern about being 'weak' Nationalistically because they are unusually wealthier and while their normal country of originers suffer, they are nevertheless favored regardless.

To claim that NO ONE has given you examples is bullshit though. Nor is it necessary if you accepted the proper definitions. So you are again being deceptive to yourself or others here. Titles of those who ARE National Socialist will also not use "National Socialism" nor "Fascism" in their names. But the names are no different than titles of books that do not require matching directly to the meaning. It is the MEANING of the groups that are relevant.

The "fascists" believe in "taking back their genetic-and-cultural class power by "making their Nation 'great' again". They believe in using literal deception if need be because they embrace ANY MEANS NECESSARY in the style of corporations. Corporations do this because the ONLY priority most significant is to favor the shareholders (owners); the National Socialists also believe this mentality but serve 'owners' of a SPECIAL subset of the whole ONLY. The con also lies in how they attempt to appear to favor the disenfrancized OF their racial class but are only doing so because it alleviates the leaders' responsibility when the mobs are riled up.

Pink Floyd's "The Wall" compared how blind FAN-WORSHIP acts as crowds who PROP up their leader, as those who prop up Trump. They favor EMOTIONAL and RELIGIOUS causes on the bases of shallow interests like HOW one appears to be like them (populism) versus other non-Nationalists. I recommend you go through Pink Floyd's early works to see how they demonstrated the weakesses of both extremes. "Animals" was the prior album that related people to George Orwell's story that demonized Communism; "The Wall" did the same but for "National Socialism". These are entertaining means that might both allow you to sympathize at points and to understand the fallacies of the extremes.

[Immanuel Can]

But maybe I'll ask you: whom do you regard as "right wing"?

All the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and OTHER supporting supremists are just simple examples.

Great. Where are they? Can you point one out? What are the media sources that are supporting them? What's the name of their political party? Where to they march and riot? What politicians speak for them? Who is funding them now?

I can answer all these questions about the Left. Anybody can. But where is this "right wing" movement located?

And given that they are so hard to locate, what are the odds they have any leverage at all in the present political climate?

Now, concerning National Socialism, it is Leftist. It's "Socialism." It's not "right wing" at all. It's never been. Mussolini himself was a leader in the Communists before he switched to Fascism. Both parties suited his politics. And Hitler was a firm believer in all the Socialist policies: collectivism, big government, centralized power, a planned economy, government-run social services, public ownership of industries, as well as militarization and nationalism. Of those, only nationalism itself distinguishes him from Stalin and the Communists, really....although in practice, they were somewhat nationalistic too.

Interestingly, the tactics of Antifa are exactly the same tactics as Hitler's "Brownshirts" used. And Antifa declares itself squarely for the Left. That's really no surprise at all, once one understands that Nazism was "Socialism."

The other important thing about Nazism is this: that effectively, it was gone with WW2. To go looking for or blaming "Nazis" today makes no more sense than to go looking for Napoleonic infantrymen or barbarian Germanic warriors.

...the Left that actually more represent the Left in principle were those like Martin Luther King.

Actually, the Left has disavowed Martin Luther King's key principle of a man "being judged by the quality of his character, not by the colour of his skin," as King himself declared.

In point of fact, the modern Left are actually racists, by the pure definition of the term; because they affirm skin-colour identity as the hallmark of self-identity, and as an inextinguishable feature. If they supported King, they'd want us to be colour-blind: but as it is, they want us all to be categorized permanently by colour. Nothing could really make this more clear than the rage and hatred BLM supporters express whenever anybody says, "All lives matter." The modern Left is all about privilege for the "oppressed," not about all people being accepted equally.

[Belinda]

But maybe I'll ask you: whom do you regard as "right wing"?

All the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and OTHER supporting supremists are just simple examples.

Great. Where are they? Can you point one out? What are the media sources that are supporting them? What's the name of their political party? Where to they march and riot? What politicians speak for them? Who is funding them now?

I can answer all these questions about the Left. Anybody can. But where is this "right wing" movement located?

And given that they are so hard to locate, what are the odds they have any leverage at all in the present political climate?

Now, concerning National Socialism, it is Leftist. It's "Socialism." It's not "right wing" at all. It's never been. Mussolini himself was a leader in the Communists before he switched to Fascism. Both parties suited his politics. And Hitler was a firm believer in all the Socialist policies: collectivism, big government, centralized power, a planned economy, government-run social services, public ownership of industries, as well as militarization and nationalism. Of those, only nationalism itself distinguishes him from Stalin and the Communists, really....although in practice, they were somewhat nationalistic too.

Interestingly, the tactics of Antifa are exactly the same tactics as Hitler's "Brownshirts" used. And Antifa declares itself squarely for the Left. That's really no surprise at all, once one understands that Nazism was "Socialism."

The other important thing about Nazism is this: that effectively, it was gone with WW2. To go looking for or blaming "Nazis" today makes no more sense than to go looking for Napoleonic infantrymen or barbarian Germanic warriors.

...the Left that actually more represent the Left in principle were those like Martin Luther King.

Actually, the Left has disavowed Martin Luther King's key principle of a man "being judged by the quality of his character, not by the colour of his skin," as King himself declared.

In point of fact, the modern Left are actually racists, by the pure definition of the term; because they affirm skin-colour identity as the hallmark of self-identity, and as an inextinguishable feature. If they supported King, they'd want us to be colour-blind: but as it is, they want us all to be categorized permanently by colour. Nothing could really make this more clear than the rage and hatred BLM supporters express whenever anybody says, "All lives matter." The modern Left is all about privilege for the "oppressed," not about all people being accepted equally.

Whatever names they give themselves or are known by, those people who try to get all the good stuff for themselves and their associates, and who make an ideology for their rationale are bad men.

[Immanuel Can]

Whatever names they give themselves or are known by, those people who try to get all the good stuff for themselves and their associates, and who make an ideology for their rationale are bad men.

I agree. But I think this is not a description of, say, Libertarians or Free Market advocates, because they just want to be left free and leave others free as well. It's not a descriptions of Individualists or Anarchists either, because they also are focused on maximizing individual freedom. Nor is it even a description of a great many Capitalists and millionaires, if they have earned their position by innovation, personal economic risk-taking and principled business practices. I have found many of them are actually overwhelmingly charitable and willing to give.

It is, however, a great description of the media oligarchs and the petty politicians who are attempting to foist things like "Green New Deals," media monopolies and Globalist dreams on us. They are, indeed, the real danger here, and are behaving very immorally....even while declaiming that they are for "equality" and "fairness." What they really want to do is rule, using Socialism as their tool.

I don't know if that makes them absolutely "bad men" (and women), but it makes them men and women who definitely do "bad." In their present frame of mind, they're definitely not to be trusted with anything.

[Immanuel Can]

he ain't my houseplant, er, president

For Biden, the tools of office are an early bedtime, a hot cup of milk and a warm diaper.

[Scott Mayers]

But maybe I'll ask you: whom do you regard as "right wing"?

All the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and OTHER supporting supremists are just simple examples.

Great. Where are they? Can you point one out? What are the media sources that are supporting them? What's the name of their political party? Where to they march and riot? What politicians speak for them? Who is funding them now?

You are attempting to GASLIGHT me or other readers here when you just PRETEND that one pointing out the evidence has YET to even try. You also INTENTIONALLY left out the context of my quote as referring to supporters of Trump and the RIGHT-WING Republicans. Note that YOU are not responding to HIS association and pretending that I never raised it. WHY?

I can answer all these questions about the Left. Anybody can. But where is this "right wing" movement located?

Okay, wise guy, am I not 'anybody'? If I said that I am left of center, are you not insinuating that somehow I am a liar or deluded for thinking that the LEFT stands for liberalism and democratic views? Liberalism means one has the freedom to BE who they are as long as they do not affect the freedom of others to BE who they are by the same freedom; Democrats believe that EACH person is 'equal' and counts as ONE vote regardless of whether they are poor or wealthy. Are you denying these? Am I the dumb-dumb for saying that the 'right' believes in SPECIAL PRIVILEGED 'owners' to have rights with their power of vote to be MORE than many who are without ownership?

And given that they are so hard to locate, what are the odds they have any leverage at all in the present political climate?

They are not hard to locate. You are acting as one by using DECEPTION by intentionally NOT answering why you do not recognize that Trump (a Right-wing politician) has the ACTUAL White Supremacists and the Q-Anon believers supporting him. If you dare attempt to distance yourself from Trump by asserting he 'was' a Democrat before, then PROVE that those same groups at ANY time have supported the LEFT!

Now, concerning National Socialism, it is Leftist. It's "Socialism." It's not "right wing" at all. It's never been. Mussolini himself was a leader in the Communists before he switched to Fascism. Both parties suited his politics. And Hitler was a firm believer in all the Socialist policies: collectivism, big government, centralized power, a planned economy, government-run social services, public ownership of industries, as well as militarization and nationalism. Of those, only nationalism itself distinguishes him from Stalin and the Communists, really....although in practice, they were somewhat nationalistic too.

Hmmm....

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2] of the means of production[3][4][5][6] and democratic control[7] or workers' self-management of enterprises.[8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15]

Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[16]

It appears to me that the significant defining factors of this is variable and dependent on PARTICULAR priorities. What is it that you disagree with here BY DEFINITION? Are you against the right of all individuals to have rights or just the rich? Given the signifying definition of this term, it only describes they believe PEOPLE have equal right to CONTROL their country and NOT just the measure of those who have wealth and power! If you are against this, you are against democracy (of ALL people), have some arrogant superiority belief about SPECIAL people as MORE worthy over others (owner-class/royalty), and think that WE THE PEOPLE should not have 'freedom' to demand that UNIVERSAL NECESSITIES be unowned but rather owned by PRIVATE individuals who get to act like little dictators.

Do you think that the roads should be private so that when anyone crosses a street, the 'owner' can TROLL the person to pay or shoot him for tresspass? Do you think that no LIMITS should be set of 'ownership' YET not notice that such privilege is also what permits DICTATORS? "Dictator" is ONE person controlling the system, not ALL. If some individual happens to have found a means to 'own' everything, are the people NOT subject to OBEY the demands of these people by the meaning of 'OWN' in "ownership"?

Interestingly, the tactics of Antifa are exactly the same tactics as Hitler's "Brownshirts" used. And Antifa declares itself squarely for the Left. That's really no surprise at all, once one understands that Nazism was "Socialism."

I don't support Antifa because while they may have intended to fight against fascism, they opted to USE the very tactics OF them. But note that many such groups have felt that this is necessary due to the fact THAT the right-wing fascists USE worse cruelty, including lies and deception, to harm against THEM! Their intended position was in defiance of how TRUMP, your right-wing representative TYPE, FAVORS the Nazis and other 'Supremacists'. Antifa by their definition is "Anti-fascists". While they may protest in anger, do you think they are somehow Facist equivalent? Do you have proof that they believe in hating 'non-hating' innocent people like the White Supremacists who side ONLY with right-wing parties ANYWHERE in the world?

While one may not like their belief in COUNTER-ACTING in ways similar to the right-wing DURING protests, do you REALLY think they are lying when they say they are antifacists? And you still conveniently mention them but NOT the very right-wing Fascists Antifa was protesting. WHY? You seem to be PROTECTING the LITERAL fascists yet are complaining to those protesting against them as though the Facists were NOT there first. WHY?

You are acting as though the Jews in Concentration camps should be ashamed of themselves if they dared to 'protest' in whichever kind of violence they might use as though they were 'equal' in the fascists evil for resisting their torture! They were certainly Antifa in principle. What the fuck?


The concept of 'right' versus 'left' based itself on how the traditional conservative ownerclass side in parliaments placed them on the 'right' in most Western systems and this was also likely related to the fact that religious Christians interpret the FAVOR of God as the one sitting to his 'right'. The Feudal systems had the royalty's favored sit on the right too. As such, the 'right' is generally favorable to the very AUTHORITARIANISM you are attempting to try to HIDE or trivialize.

In contrast, the 'left' represented those supporting the 'commoners', the "losers", in derogatory terms by those on the 'right' who are deluded that something supernatural favors them uniquely.


IF YOU DISAGREE, then tell me do you believe in prioritizing the rights of each person or do you favor power to those who have money?

I'll stop because there are a few more than one question and I'd like you to try to answer them all, if you dare. If you continue to FAKE that you cannot see 'evidence' of the Fascist as a right-wing ideology, look at "Nazism" from Wikipedia and note that it defines this as 'right-wing'. Note too that there is a section on the "Position within the political spectrum" that discusses this and come back here to deny you have 'evidence' of anything.

[Immanuel Can]

All the Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and OTHER supporting supremists are just simple examples.

Great. Where are they? Can you point one out? What are the media sources that are supporting them? What's the name of their political party? Where to they march and riot? What politicians speak for them? Who is funding them now?

You are attempting to GASLIGHT me...

Heh. Nothing of the kind. It isn't "gaslighting" if you ask somebody for the evidence of what they claim. That's just good sense.

Democrats believe that EACH person is 'equal'

No they don't. They believe half of their own country is "deplorable."

And given that they are so hard to locate, what are the odds they have any leverage at all in the present political climate?

They are not hard to locate.

Then you should have no problem at all pointing them out.

... do you REALLY think they [Antifa} are lying when they say they are antifacists?

Absolutely. Just like BLM are lying when they say they're "anti-racist," and then say that only "black lives matter," and nobody can say "all lives matter," and when they claim to be representing MLK, the pacifist who believed people should not be judged by their skin.

Pretty much all the Left does is lie. But they don't even think it's wrong, because they think the allegedly "good" end of them getting their way justifies the temporary means of lying.