the Individual or the Collective??

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

Interesting stuff as usual, BrainGlutton.

That looks like the spreading of ideology to me.

Hitler would have called it the spreading of the race.

See also Greater Germanic Reich. (Note that it does not include Britain.)

Racial theories

Nazi racial ideology regarded the Germanic peoples of Europe as belonging to a racially superior Nordic subset of the larger Aryan race, who were regarded as the only true culture-bearers of civilized society.[12] These peoples were viewed as either “true Germanic peoples” that had “lost their sense of racial pride”, or as close racial relatives of the Germans.[13] German dictator Adolf Hitler also believed that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were the racial ancestors of the Germans, and the first torchbearers of “Nordic–Greek” art and culture.[14][15] He particularly expressed his admiration for Ancient Sparta, declaring it to have been the purest racial state[16]:

“The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans.” The Spartans had created “the first racialist state.”[17]

Furthermore, Hitler’s concept of “Germanic” did not simply refer to an ethnic, cultural, or linguistic group, but also to a distinctly biological one, the superior “Germanic blood” that he wanted to salvage from the control of the enemies of the Aryan race. He stated that Germany possessed more of these “Germanic elements” than any other country in the world, which he estimated as “four fifths of our people”.[18]

Wherever Germanic blood is to be found anywhere in the world, we will take what is good for ourselves. With what the others have left, they will be unable to oppose the Germanic empire.

—Adolf Hitler, [19]

According to the Nazis, in addition to the Germanic peoples, individuals of seemingly non-Germanic nationality such as French, Polish, Walloon, Czech and so on might actually possess valuable Germanic blood, especially if they were of aristocratic or peasant stock.[19] In order to “recover” these “missing” Germanic elements, they had to be made conscious of their Germanic ancestry through the process of Germanization (the term used by the Nazis for this process was Umvolkung, “restoration to the race”).[19] If the “recovery” was impossible, these individuals had to be destroyed to deny the enemy of using their superior blood against the Aryan race.[19] An example of this type of Nazi Germanization is the kidnapping of “racially valuable” Eastern European children.

On the very first page of Mein Kampf, Hitler openly declared his belief that “common blood belongs in a common Reich”, elucidating the notion that the innate quality of race (as the Nazi movement perceived it) should hold precedence over “artificial” concepts such as national identity (including regional German identities such as Prussian and Bavarian) as the deciding factor for which people were “worthy” of being assimilated into a Greater German racial state (Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer).[20] Part of the strategic methods which Hitler chose to ensure the present and future supremacy of the Aryan race (which was, according to Hitler, “gradually approaching extinction”[21]) was to do away with what he described as the “small state rubbish” (Kleinstaatengerümpel, compare Kleinstaaterei) in Europe in order to unite all these Nordic countries into one unified racial community.[22] From 1921 onward he advocated the creation of a “Germanic Reich of the German Nation”.[2]

It was the continent which brought civilization to Great Britain and in turn enabled her to colonize large areas in the rest of the world. America is unthinkable without Europe. Why would we not have the necessary power to become one of the world’s centres of attraction? A hundred-and-twenty million people of Germanic origin – if they have consolidated their position this will be a power against which no-one in the world could stand up to. The countries which form the Germanic world have only to gain from this. I can see that in my own case. My birth country is one of the most beautiful regions in the Reich, but what could it do if were left to its own devices? There is no possibility to develop one’s talents in countries like Austria or Saxony, Denmark or Switzerland. There is no foundation. That is why it is fortunate that potential new spaces are again opened for the Germanic peoples.

<snip>

Role of the British Isles

The one country that was not included in the Pan-Germanic unification aim was the United Kingdom,[93] in spite of its near-universal acceptance by the Nazi government as being part of the Germanic world.[94] Leading Nordic ideologist Hans F. K. Günther theorized that the Anglo-Saxons had been more successful than the Germans in maintaining racial purity, thanks to Britain’s island nature, with interbreeding between the Germanic conquerors and the subjugated Celtic nations being only marginal in effect.[95] Furthermore, the coastal and island areas of Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and Wales had received additional Nordic blood through Norse raids and colonization during the Viking Age, and the Anglo-Saxons of Eastern and Northern England had been under Danish rule in the 9th and 10th centuries.[95] Günther referred to this historical process as Aufnordung (“additional nordification”), which finally culminated in the Norman conquest of England in 1066.[95] Britain was thus a nation created by struggle and the survival of the fittest among the various Aryan peoples of the isles, and was able to pursue global conquest and empire-building because of its superior racial heredity born through this development.[96]

Hitler professed an admiration for the imperial might of the British Empire in Zweites Buch as proof of the racial superiority of the Aryan race,[97] hoping that Germany would emulate British “ruthlessness” and “absence of moral scruples” in establishing its own colonial empire in Eastern Europe.[98] One of his primary foreign policy aims throughout the 1930s was to establish a military alliance with both the English (Hitler conflated England with Britain and the United Kingdom in his writings and speeches) as well as the Italians to neutralize France as a strategic threat to German security for eastward expansion. In this arrangement the two “kindred folks” were to divide the world between each other with Germany dominating continental Europe, while England would reign supreme over the world’s oceans.

When it became apparent to the Nazi leadership that the United Kingdom was not interested in a military alliance, anti-British policies were adopted to ensure the attainment of Germany’s war aims. Even during the war however, hope remained that Britain would in time yet become a reliable German ally.[99] Hitler preferred to see the British Empire preserved as a world power, because its break-up would benefit other countries far more than it would Germany, particularly the United States and Japan.[99] In fact, Hitler’s strategy during 1935-1937 for winning Britain over was based on a German guarantee of defence of the British Empire.[100] After the war, Ribbentrop testified that in 1935 Hitler had promised to deliver twelve German divisions to the disposal of Britain for maintaining the integrity of her colonial possessions.[101]

The continued military actions against Britain after the fall of France had the strategic goal of making Britain ‘see the light’ and conduct an armistice with the Axis powers, with July 1, 1940 being named by the Germans as the “probable date” for the cessation of hostilities.[102] On May 21, 1940, Franz Halder, the head of the Army General Staff, after a consultation with Hitler concerning the aims envisaged by the Führer during the present war, wrote in his diary: “We are seeking contact with Britain on the basis of partitioning the world”.[103]

One of Hitler’s sub-goals for the invasion of Russia was to win over Britain to the German side. He believed that after the military collapse of the USSR, “within a few weeks” Britain would be forced either into a surrender or else come to join Germany as a “junior partner” in the Axis.[104] Britain’s role in this alliance was reserved to support German naval and aerial military actions against the USA in a fight for world supremacy conducted from the Axis power bases of Europe, Africa and the Atlantic.[105] On August 8, 1941, Hitler stated that he looked forward to the eventual day when “England and Germany [march] together against America” and on January 7, 1942 he daydreamed that it was “not impossible” for Britain to quit the war and join the Axis side, leading to a situation where “it will be a German-British army that will chase the Americans from Iceland”.[106] Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg hoped that after the victorious conclusion of the war against the USSR, Englishmen, along with other Germanic nationalities, would join the German settlers in colonizing the conquered eastern territories.[19]

From a historical perspective Britain’s situation was likened to that which the Austrian Empire found itself in after it was defeated by the Kingdom of Prussia in the Battle of Königgratz in 1866.[99] As Austria was thereafter formally excluded from German affairs, so too would Britain be excluded from continental affairs in the event of a German victory. Yet afterwards, Austria-Hungary became a loyal ally of the German Empire in the pre-World War I power alignments in Europe, and it was hoped that Britain would come to fulfill this same role.[99]

[BrainGlutton]

The difference is, anyone can convert to an ideology; but you can’t change your blood/heredity/“race.”

[Human_Action]

@BrainGlutton

Hitler would have called it the spreading of the race.

Yes, because race was part of his ideology.

@BrainGlutton

The difference is, anyone can convert to an ideology; but you can’t change your blood/heredity/“race.”

This is true. It is a difference between Nazism and Soviet-style Communism (to a point, as the Soviets killed plenty of groups without worrying too much about conversion). But the similarities still outweigh the differences by a wide margin.

[Larry_Borgia]

@Human_Action

Isn’t the symbol of the Fabian Society a tortoise?

Yes that’s one thing that always gets me about conspiracy theorists. They always find clues about the CT in the evildoers symbols. But if you were a barely intelligent evil-doer, wouldn’t you use symbols that draw attention away from your long term goal? Specifically, if your goal was to infiltrate organizations under false pretenses, wouldn’t you use any symbol other than the classic metaphor for someone doing that: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? It would be like a thief dressing up in an eye mask, a striped shirt, and carrying a sack with a dollar sign on it.

[tomndebb]

@Human_Action

Not so, as I’ll claim it again: They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology. That doesn’t mean they have the same historical and intellectual roots, it means that their ideologies are similar.

Repeating it fails to make it true. You appear to have confused their tactics (totalitarian) with their goals.

Their goals were very different and the societies they created were very different. Lining up different groups who suffered under each and then declaring that they were the same really does not work. For the peoples who were not explicitly persecuted, daily life was quite different under each regime. The very fact that their historical and intellectual roots did differ, (as did their expressed intents), means that their ideologies were necessarily different.

[BrainGlutton]

@Larry_Borgia

Yes that’s one thing that always gets me about conspiracy theorists. They always find clues about the CT in the evildoers symbols. But if you were a barely intelligent evil-doer, wouldn’t you use symbols that draw attention away from your long term goal? Specifically, if your goal was to infiltrate organizations under false pretenses, wouldn’t you use any symbol other than the classic metaphor for someone doing that: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? It would be like a thief dressing up in an eye mask, a striped shirt, and carrying a sack with a dollar sign on it.

Why, that would be the perfect disguise for a thief! Nobody who sees you would suspect you! They’ll think you’re on your way to a costume party or something!

[straight_man]

I have three objections to the OP and his subsequent arguments, and a question for the Board at large.

Objection #1: In outcome, neither Nazi Germany nor the USSR were collective. They were the subversion of the weak for the benefit of the strong. Nazi Germany’s ideology wasn’t collective, either (you’re supposed to kill off the weak.)

Objection #1b: as other people have already pointed out, equating outcome and ideology is ridiculous — both terms exist for a reason.

Objection #2: By arguing that you should assess ideologies by their outcomes, you’re actually arguing against your original point. The so-called “collective” belief in America is that rich people should pay a bit more in taxes and society as a whole (through government or otherwise) should provide some more services. Those topics have jack shit with murdering people in death camps, and we both know it.

Objection #3: Your whole argument relies on equating liberty (and dignity) of the person with the sanctity of private property. This equation is particular to classical liberalism and the ideologies that followed it for one, kind of dumb for two, and not followed strictly by modern conservatives anyway for three. Even in the US, the government taxes everybody but very rarely kills anybody; the body is plainly special in a way government is not. The left-wing, both in the US and elsewhere, often cares more about the sanctity of the person than the right wing, e.g. in regard to criminal punishment.

Conclusion: this whole exercise is stupid. Totalitarianism and democratic socialism just don’t mean the same thing, no matter how hard you try to squish them together.

Finally, unrelated question: Excepting the cases of slave labour, how different was Nazi Germany’s economic management of the war effort from that of the UK or the US, anyway? They both centred around managing private business, did they not? I don’t know the details of either side’s war efforts.

[wildorchid]

well, i’ve got John Holdrens, (present white house science czar) book ‘Eco-Science’ here right in front of me. you can get it from your library.
it goes extensively in almost 1000 pages into depopulation, adding sterilants to water (783, 787); de-development of developed countries (926); UN involvement (942):establishing a Planetary regime, surrendering national sovereignties (939); downgrading of rights (828);
its pretty much an outline for new age eugenics on a planetary scale.

UN agenda 21 is absolutely no conspiracy theory, and to suggest the same is beyond ridiculous.
it’s a historical document, drafted in Rio 1992 by the UN. it’s being implemented everywhere on a local level using NGOs, or non governmental orginizations to promote it seemingly on a grass roots level. (this is actually in the UNs own document). If agenda 21 by definition cannot be a conspiracy theory, because conspiracy means, among other things, that its done in secret. This is out in the open. It’s just that Americans are too dumbed downed to read anything, so unless corporate media tells them about something,for them, it must not exist, and can’t exist.

also, in 1991, when Gorbachev resigned, he started the ‘State of the World Forum’ in San Francisco, which promotes a sustainable planetary regime, and eco-socialism.

http://www.worldforum.org/

what goes along with these technocratic plans for the next 100 years, which are very real, and which resemble the world described by Orwell in 1984, is the collective mind-set. (ie. the individual counts for nothing, the state is everything) It’s essential that people adopt the collectivist mind-set to the technocratic world planners… because without that in place, the people would of course resist this ‘brave new world’ and keep thier values, traditions, and way of life intact.
I want to underline that
THAT is what i’m taling about. the mind-set; the collectivist mind-set that is the common denominator of all these totalitarian systems that you all are nit-picking about labels over, while still missing the main point. thats what the thread is about. its not to distiguish between brands of black boots. what i’m saying is they are all the same as far as the dignity and rights of the individual is concerned. You can say that this brand of socialism is cuddly and warm and fuzzy, not like the others, bit ignoring that the mind-set is starting to look the same as the bad ones is downright dangerous.
arguing which flavor of totalitarianism is which, and how they are different is a derail.
who cares anyways? nit- picking does nothing to dismiss the real points, and evidence i’m producing… and the silly ad hominem attacks on myself using tired euphemisms in order to fallaciously poison the well; I take that as a compliment, because they indicate that i’ve struck a nerve, and am on the right track, when people have to resort to such weakness.

str8 man? how do you know that ‘democratic socialism’ will be any different in the long run than totalitarian socialism? they are after all, just words… and producing a promise from world leaders is a joke w/ their track record of honesty… The german people thought that nazism was all good, and a step in the right direction at the time; it too was an idealistic movement, with promises of hope for a new age of humanity, remember? it too sought a planetary regime, remember?? Hitlers idea of the 3rd reich ultimately was that it would be a post industrial, agrarian
world dictatorship. How is this different than what Holdren is talking about in Eco-Science, or what the objectives of the UN are? that there will be ‘good guys’ at the helm this time?

the german people for the most part remained oblivious to what an evil system they had become a part of til it was much too late to do anything about it. They werent allowed to speak out anyways, or express their own views, (getting back to what im saying about how collectivism is a mind-set. there is the example of the White Rose, where Sophia Scholl, and her brother, and a friend were executed because they clandestinely circulated anti-war leaflets, and right near the end of the war.
the point is, that virtually everyone went along with evil in nazi germany, whether unwittingly or not; and if they did have thoughts of resisting it, they never acted on it, and kept it to themselves and people very close to them (collectivists love using informers)… and when they didn’t, as was the case with the students of the White Rose, their heads were chopped off.

I’m not saying that things are this extreme; but you would have to be concerned when you see *peoples thinking * heading in this direction… the direction of collectivist group-think, and intolerance of hearing an individuals view on something, when its not the party line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

[wildorchid]

@Larry_Borgia

Yes that’s one thing that always gets me about conspiracy theorists. They always find clues about the CT in the evildoers symbols. But if you were a barely intelligent evil-doer, wouldn’t you use symbols that draw attention away from your long term goal? Specifically, if your goal was to infiltrate organizations under false pretenses, wouldn’t you use any symbol other than the classic metaphor for someone doing that: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? It would be like a thief dressing up in an eye mask, a striped shirt, and carrying a sack with a dollar sign on it.

there is a stained glass window in the London school of economics that was personally commissioned by George Bernard Shaw depicting himself hammering the earth on an anvil, and there is a wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms on it.

the symbol of the Fabians is the tortoise, because they use incrementalism, not violence, and its slow…

i had said coat of arms. the symbol being a tortoise doesnt preclude the coat of arms being anything. logic fail

.askmarion.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/fabians-history-and-what-is-going-on-now/

if only it was this easy to explain away.

and if you are referring tio me as a conspiracy theorist i think that is inappropriate, because i am not referring to any conspiracies.
the Rio conference was public, not secret.

Holdrens Eco-Science you can get from your library. its not secret.

sorry, youre proven wrong on your weak name calling.

you display exactly the collectivist group think mind set im talking about with these attacks, which amount to scape-goating

[wildorchid]

larry, is having to use shaming language, such as inaccurately labeling someone a ‘conspiracy theorist’
a real way to make any point, or argument? do you believe that gives you any traction??
doesnt stooping to sophistry like this only dis-credit yourself??
it does in my eyes, FYI

[jayjay]

@wildorchid

larry, is having to use shaming language, such as inaccurately labeling someone a ‘conspiracy theorist’
a real way to make any point, or argument? do you believe that gives you any traction??
doesnt stooping to sophistry like this only dis-credit yourself??
it does in my eyes, FYI

Well, sure, but your eyes are seeing some vast world takeover by the Fabian Society (THE FREAK1NG FAB1AN SOC1ETY!) and the UN over environmental initiatives. Forgive me for thinking that being discredited in your eyes is actually a commendation…

ETA: fnord

[wildorchid]

you are putting words in my mouth…

the fabian society is more of a symptom than a cause probably. i never suggested by merely mentioning its existence that they were at the absolute center of power on the new world order. the point is that it indicates something.
but to deny that that is what they are working for, and thats what their purpose is, to help in establishing a socialist new world order is myopic, and if these facts that ive presented (fabian society, agenda 21, Holdrens 'Eco-Science) have no significance to you, then fine, i dont have a problem with that. youre entitled to whatever opinions you want to have, and so am i, right??
or not??

i think it would behove us to not put our conclusions before our research, and logic, which is what i see going on here.
people make emotional decisions, and cherry pick what supports that, and they ridicule whatever doesnt fit in without considering it out of fear of having a fragile world view not being left intact.

[jayjay]

Sure, you can have whatever opinions you want to have. That doesn’t mean that every opinion deserves to be respected or that the simple fact of having an opinion means that you’re correct. If your opinions are absolutely loony, people are going to tell you that. If your opinions are counterfactual, people are going to tell you that. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts and if your opinion has absolutely no relationship with reality, it doesn’t become worthy of being held equally with a fact-based opinion just by virtue of being an opinion.

[wildorchid]

@jayjay

Forgive me for thinking that being discredited in your eyes is actually a commendation…

ETA: fnord

no, it means i stop listening to someone.

have you read ‘Eco-Science’?
the UN agenda 21 documents?

so easily you dismiss an idea without looking into it.
you cant prove a negative logically, but this is essentially the argumant i keep hearing here:

X is not happening, because 1] i say so, and i’m am authority 2] it disturbs my wishful thinking.

well, it’s a ridiculous to say that X is not happening/ doesnt exist.
it can never be proven.
you cant prove a negative, yet you all keep trying with placid denials and ridicule, and ad hominem/ blaming the messenger fallacies…

If i have no credit in your eyes, why are you even reading this?

[wildorchid]

@jayjay

Sure, you can have whatever opinions you want to have. That doesn’t mean that every opinion deserves to be respected or that the simple fact of having an opinion means that you’re correct. If your opinions are absolutely loony, people are going to tell you that. If your opinions are counterfactual, people are going to tell you that. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts and if your opinion has absolutely no relationship with reality, it doesn’t become worthy of being held equally with a fact-based opinion just by virtue of being an opinion.

agenda 21, the UN agenda for the 21st century is REAL.
hello??

what is looney about referring to it?

try looking into the facts yourself before you deny their existence. you cant explain away hard evidence. documents/ books in black and white.

try reading the UN document, and ‘Eco-Science’ and get back to me, hows that?
then tell me that what i’m saying is ‘looney’

whats ‘looney’ is ignoring it, and putting your head in the sand, imo.
or jumping to ignorant conclusions out of emotion, and going along to get along.
or more accurately, it’s the un-natural lose of ones instinct for survival.

[wildorchid]

does anyone think that the environmental initiative (and that does sound rather benign, i will admit) of agenda 21 that single family homes must become a thing of the past will effect the quality of our lives, and above all, our rights? everyone is willing to accept living in high rise gulags along side train tracks??

this isnt about the environment at all… its about controlling every aspect of everyones life, and warehousing you like inventory in a kind of ‘reduction’ (ie. 1600s paraguay).
the environmental BS is a ploy to get people to accept it, and even root for their own enslavement.

that a mans home is his castle is a tradition in the english speaking world going back 1000 years, since long before Edward Coke penned it.
its also the castle of his family! it means that his family is protected… that has been the law, that the protection of the home was extended to family, but not guests…
with agenda 21 fully implemented, there are no homes anymore… only group living situations, and the family as we know it really ceases to exist. the government raises the kids anyways.
this is analogous to being reduced exactly to slave status for everyone except the super-elite technocrats.
slaves arent allowed to not have their families not split up; they have no right to protect/ keep thier family together, and the slave masters prefer to have slave families split up, because it demoralizes them. and makes them less likely to resist their slavery. this has been a practice of slave traders since ancient babylon…

[BrainGlutton]

@straight_man

Finally, unrelated question: Excepting the cases of slave labour, how different was Nazi Germany’s economic management of the war effort from that of the UK or the US, anyway? They both centred around managing private business, did they not? I don’t know the details of either side’s war efforts.

The Nazis’ political economy differed from the Communists’ in that they had no ideological commitment to nationalizing all productive property in every single sector of the economy, and differed from the Brits’ and Americans’ in that they felt no obligation even to pay lip-service to the principles of laissez-faire capitalism or economic liberty as such; consequently, they simply took over some sectors and managed them, and interfered in the economy, to whatever degree seemed expedient to them at the time. For more, see the Wikipedia article on the Economy of Nazi Germany. See also the German Labour Front, the national state-sponsored labor union into which all pre-Nazi unions were merged. As a union, it secured its members very good job security but very poor wages.

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

well, i’ve got John Holdrens, (present white house science czar) book ‘Eco-Science’ here right in front of me. you can get it from your library.
it goes extensively in almost 1000 pages into depopulation, adding sterilants to water (783, 787); de-development of developed countries (926); UN involvement (942):establishing a Planetary regime, surrendering national sovereignties (939); downgrading of rights (828);
its pretty much an outline for new age eugenics on a planetary scale.

That book (co-authored with Paul Ehrlich) was published in 1978. I think Holdren has changed some of his views since then (even if Ehrlich has not).

Holdren was involved in the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager in 1980. He, along with two other scientists helped Paul R. Ehrlich establish the bet with Julian Simon, in which they bet that the price of five key metals would be higher in 1990. The bet was centred around a disagreement concerning the future scarcity of resources in an increasingly polluted and heavily populated world. Ehrlich and Holdren lost the bet, when the price of metals had decreased by 1990.[5]

Holdren was chair of the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs from 1987 until 1997 and delivered the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of Pugwash Conferences in December 1995. From 1993 until 2003, he was chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences, and Co-Chairman of the bipartisan National Committee on Energy Policy form 2002 until 2007. Holdren was elected President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2006–2007), and served as board Chairman (2007–2008).[2] He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of global warming.

Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton’s science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[1] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[6][7][8][9] He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size[10] and that he never endorsed forced sterilization.[11][12][13]

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

UN agenda 21 [is] being implemented everywhere on a local level using NGOs, or non governmental orginizations to promote it seemingly on a grass roots level.

1. Cite?

2. So what?

[BrainGlutton]

@wildorchid

also, in 1991, when Gorbachev resigned, he started the ‘State of the World Forum’ in San Francisco, which promotes a sustainable planetary regime, and eco-socialism.

http://www.worldforum.org/

Now, where exactly are you finding “eco-socialism” on that website?