The Guardian: The Union Jack is 'ugly and divisive.'

You should want to burn it then...lol

No it's not, it's a fact. The racism is the cause behind the superior position of white people in society. Observing that this is the case isn't racism, any more than making the statement "There is financial inequality in society" is classism. You seem to be confused between cause and effect.

Clearly that's not what I'm saying.

Jonathan Jones writes ridiculous hyperbolic articles. That is obvious to most, but some, like yourself, take the bait.

It helps generate advertising revenue and helps pay his salary.

Yet it meets the dictionary definition of 'racism.' Funny that, eh?

Do you enjoy condoning racism?

I'm not going to continue this silly discussion but for the billionth time, no, it does not match the definition of racism. Repeating "It does!" doesn't make it true. The definition of racism, as you so kindly keep pointing out, is claiming that there is some kind of inherent difference in value between races. Saying "society is institutionally prejudiced against people of non-white ethnic origin" isn't making any kind of judgement about the inherent value of the different races, it is simply an observation of the situation in society as a result of others making that judgement.

You wouldn't call me classist for pointing out the fact that someone born into extreme wealth is more likely to have better life prospects than someone born into abject poverty, yet you think it's racist to point out the analogue with race?

No, it was called the National Socialist German Workers Party, and many of its top ranking officials, like Goebbels, were self-declared socialists. In fact, around 1932, H.G. Wells was calling for liberals to adopt the term 'liberal fascism.'

The only thing Stalin and Hitler were united on was their absolute unquestionable loathing for any notion of a free market economy (THE central tenet of right-wing politics).

The left does appease people who want to install Islamic caliphates. Well, at the very least they're sympathetic towards them (see the linked article in the OP). It's interesting, I wouldn't have thought an Islamic caliphate would be in a female's best interest. Perhaps I'm wrong. Is it the whole 'rugged, determined, barbaric male' thing?

Well, yeah, but they're generally called National Socialists by non-pedants.

Hitler and other influential Nazis defined themselves as socialists and liberals because socialism and liberalism at the time represented a wave of welcome political reform. Many self-proclaimed socialists didn't understand what it meant. He did use socialist economics, but only to pursue his own agenda - and then he didn't stick to Marxism, e.g. farms were never collectivised. George Bernard Shaw described Hitler as someone wearing 'the latest mask of capitalism'.

At the time the right-wingers preferred Nazism as it countered emerging communism, which threatened their capitalist societies.

Heck, Hitler regarded Bolshevism as a Jewish construct designed to help Jews 'achieve world domination'.

At what point did I say I was in favour of Islamic caliphates? Gender's completely irrelevant, thanks.

OK. So, just to clarify, as you've stated, Hitler and top ranking Nazi officials used 'socialist economics' (your words), the name of the party was The National Socialist German Workers Party and near every Nazi alive declared a loathing for genuine liberalism (liberal individualism) and right-wing free market capitalism (both of which are tenets of right-wing ideology, particularly capitalism).Yet, still, somehow, Nazism had nothing to do with socialism and was all the fault of evil, right-wing, capitalist politicians, right?

Again, putting words into my mouth. I am countering your point that socialism somehow spawned Nazism. Hitler's twisted mindset was the spawning point and the rest of Nazism was developed by his manipulation of both socialism and capitalism as a means to an end. The end in question being the success of his warped ideology, which doesn't even fall on the political spectrum of left-right. It just isn't that simple, hence why it is wrong to begin this debate in the first place with the assertion that 'the left' spawned Nazism.*

My point is that if the Hitler or his party is going to be placed on anywhere on this unsuitable political spectrum, he/it is on the right. He was not a socialist, he was not a capitalist, he was a fascist.

You cannot blame the left for the actions of a man who liked to pick and choose. I'm not lumping all of the blame on the right.

I refuse to break this down further or derail the thread's original topic. In short, I am criticising you.

*(I worded my initial response to your argument poorly - I intended to say 'If anything, Hitler was a right-wing fascist' and I'm not quite sure why I didn't.)

Fascism is still different from National socialism.

A name's a name. National socialism was not Hitler's real agenda.

The left hate their own country and own people. Any free thinking person should already see this and them for the rodents they are.

It's not just "our country". It's the UNION flag. The Guardian are claiming the UNION flag, which unites countries, is divisive. What_the_Hell were they thinking?

Why stop there? The European Union flag is divisive because it does not represent American tourists on European soil! It disparages all those poor Russians who feel triggered when they come here to do business. What do they want? One World Flag?

It's not just "our country". It's the UNION flag. The Guardian are claiming the UNION flag, which unites countries, is divisive. What_the_Hell were they thinking?

Why stop there? The European Union flag is divisive because it does not represent American tourists on European soil! It disparages all those poor Russians who feel triggered when they come here to do business. What do they want? One World Flag?

Loled at triggered. Cringe hard when I see that term.