Jake previously remarked that Wikipediocracy is non-partisan, but I think that exchange pretty strongly indicates this is not the case. Whatever one calls them, there is an undeniable contingent on the left that is becoming increasingly radical, is obsessed with identity, and also has a propensity for violent suppression of opposition. I would argue Stalin and Hitler were to some extent ideological kin and that would apply as well to this left-wing movement and the "alt-right" the media is so hysterical about, whose respective views can each be seen as rough analogues for the latter men's beliefs. However, Jake falls into the typical partisan line where such comparisons are unacceptable for those with whom he sympathizes, but are encouraged
when it concerns his ideological antagonists.
Cla68 is right to suggest there is cause to be concerned, though I don't share the same deranged terror some have about these movements. No American political figure, in my estimation, can be seen as genuinely on the same scale as either of those foreign leaders and these movements are much more tempered in their activities. To my knowledge only one death can be attributed to the conflicts between these movements. Neither are at immediate risk of rising to political power. However, each provides a convenient enemy for the more moderate ruling factions and can be pointed to as a way to cement factional loyalty from the masses. Some of their ideas are also quite useful and of interest to these parties. For the mainstream left, stifling "bigotry" is a convenient way to stifle their right-wing opponents online and offline as you can cast pretty much anything as bigotry these days. On the right, politics focused on "blood and soil" rallies their base behind immigration restrictions that prevent a long-term increase in the size of the left's voting base.
By suggesting Cla68's criticism is not permitted and even potentially racist he is doing a good job of illustrating how WO is politically compromised.