People who believe that Nazism is leftist are simply deniers of history. Conservatives who fail to grapple with this fact, are deluding themselves. Anyone who has studied the Third Reich cannot deny there were leftist, collectivist elements in Nazism, aimed at the equality of all Germans. However, the essence of Nazism, described by the late traditionalist blogger Lawrence Auster, was “the glorification of Aryans over the rest of mankind, which could not by any stretch of the imagination be called leftist.”
In explaining where Nazism stood on the political spectrum, Auster wrote,
“Internally, with regard to the ordering of German society and the relations of the German people among themselves, Nazism was a form of leftism. But externally, in its relation with non-Germans, Nazism was an extreme form of rightism. And obviously the aspect of Nazism that is of most interest to the world is its relations with the rest of us, in the same way that the aspect of Islam that is of most interest to the rest of us is the jihad war and subjugation that Islam commands against non-Muslims, not the putatively egalitarian practices followed within the Muslim community by Muslims.”
Auster believed that on the Right,
“[T]raditional conservatives believe in ‘larger wholes’—the realities of nature, society, and God—of race, culture, and religion—that make us what we are. They (conservatives) believe in natural and spiritual hierarchies that are implied in these larger wholes. Inequality is built into existence.”
However, on the Left,
“Socialists and Communists, like traditional conservatives, believe in larger wholes, but the wholes they believe in are seen in terms of equality: the whole of society—equal; the whole of the human race—equal. They believe that man has the ability to engineer this larger, equal whole into existence, wiping out the unequal, inherited orders of class, sex, nation, race, religion, morality, and thus creating a New Humanity. Only the largest whole—humankind—is good, because only at the level of all humanity can there be true equality and fraternity uniting all people.”
Returning to the question of whether the Nazis were leftists, Auster wrote,
“Nazi race worship is thus not a form of leftism, aiming at the equality of all people, but an extreme, perverted form of racial rightism. It takes the biological reality of the German people and makes it into the source of all moral and spiritual values, a god elevated above the rest of mankind, which in turn is seen either as having no right to exist (Jews and Slavs), or as having the right to exist only as slaves or allies to the Germans. Yes, there is a leftist aspect in the Nazi attempt to engineer into existence a New Order for all mankind, rather than respecting and preserving the existing orders, as normal rightists do; but the Nazi construction of a New Order is secondary to the extreme racial particularism and supremacy which are the core of Nazism, and which the New Order is designed to serve.”
And before anyone knew of the Alternative Right and its offspring, White Identity, Auster wrote years ago:
“There is thus a continuum between traditional, moral racialism, consisting of the normal and legitimate desire of a people to preserve and carry on its existence, and the fascistic and demonic racialism of Nazism. Moral racialists (and traditional conservatives) need to acknowledge this reality and justify their position by explaining that Nazism is an extreme and perverted form of racialism, rather than trying to escape the problem by pronouncing the mantra, ‘Nazism is really leftism.'”
Read the whole thing.
124 comments
Dipping your pen in the inkwell of insanity are you, Mark.
Boy, this debate is sure going in circles. Oh, wait!
Please forgive me for disagreeing with Mark by pointing out the obvious; For those ‘Leftists’ singing praises for Bernie Sanders’ supposed socialism, they should research precisely what the term “Nazi” stands for. It’s origin
came from the abbreviation of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”, of which Hitler became its leader, then Chancelor of the Reich, then Führer and Chancellor. Regardless, the key word here is “Socialist”, and for Leftists who support socialism, well … Nazi is as Nazi does.
Most of what Nazi’s wanted was collectivist, but I’ll give people who want to associate Nazi’s with the right one point in that argument, and that is that Hitler used nationalism to come to power, and the nationalistic message was pretty similar to the “MAGA” rhetoric. He was basically fighting to “Make Germany Great Again”. Beyond that the parallel falls apart, because Hitler was also a racist, and that has nothing to do with conservatives
But that is PRECISELY what the Nazis were known for. MGGA. And at the expense of millions and millions of lives.
Again, I ask you: Does calling it the Democratic Republic of North Korea make it a democracy, Democratic or Republican? Of course not. You are playing a silly word game. Facts and actions define behavior, not labels.
“Again, I ask you”? When did you first ask me, as in never? As it seems, your head is in a dark and fetid orifice in the lower part of your anatomy, so you remain willfully ignorant. Socialism is socialism, which entails everyone expecting an equal share of everything without contributing equal efforts. That’s precisely what Sanders fed his throngs of lackeys, and it goes simply thus: Those who have more than others shouldn’t keep it, and I’m certain that the moral of this story escapes you; Whenever the movers and shakers who create wealth, jobs, and goods in America find that the more they work, the less they keep, there will be no incentive to continue the aforesaid effort. And that defines socialism precisely, whereas everyone always winds up with an equal share of less.
Best wishes for clearer expression of your future thoughts!
HAHAHA ROFL
I don’t know why, but one of the left’s talking points finally pushed me over from just thinking that the left’s position lately was perplexing to just flat out laughing my ass off at how inane and funny it is. I give up. I kept trying to understand what their position is at the moment, what their actual point is, and now suddenly all is revealed …they’ve just lost it and have gone insane with anger, and that’s all there is to it. They have no position, no plan, they are leaderless, sothe Democratic party has just fallen apart into groups that are full ofvitriol at anger and there isn’t a single person in the Democratic party who could bring reason to it. Even if the so-called leaders of the Democratic party wanted to put together a plan for the future, some positive message for how to proceed, the left is so angry and full of anarchy at the moment it wouldn’t matter, they are eating their own. Itis Maxine Waters party now, snide, delusional, irate, insane. The lefthas finally devolved and regressed into total solipsism and nihilism, it has given way to entropy and chaos and has been dissolved in its own post modern solvent. All that remains now is hysteria and crazy, they are truly lost. Their media is jumping from point to point without a point, a propaganda machine that is running without anyone at the controls, like a printer that is just printing page after page of random ascii characters …
Even they don’t understand what they are talking about anymore …
Lay off the nitrous oxide. Maxine Waters party now? Which of the Republican nut jobs will we take credit for? No monopoly on brains in either party, but your assignment of leadership is at odds with both the facts and reciprocity, which stings in your example, because the list on the Right has plenty of Maxine Waters and worse.
LOL
Obviously our video poster is at odds with mainstream thinking:
http://wapo.st/2idEpqb
But that’s no surprise here at TBE, home of the Jesse Jacksons of the Republican fringe right.
HAHAHA ROFL
I don’t know why, but one of the left’s talking points finally pushed me over from just thinking that the left’s position lately was perplexing to just flat out laughing my ass off at how inane and funny it is. I give up. I kept trying to understand what their position is at the moment, what their actual point is, and now suddenly all is revealed … they’ve just lost it and have gone insane with anger, and that’s all there is to it. They have no position, no plan, they are leaderless, so the Democratic party has just fallen apart into groups that are full of vitriol at anger and there isn’t a single person in the Democratic party who could bring reason to it. Even if the so-called leaders of the Democratic party wanted to put together a plan for the future, some positive message for how to proceed, the left is so angry and full of anarchy at the moment it wouldn’t matter, they are eating their own. It is Maxine Waters party now, snide, delusional, irate, insane. The left has finally devolved and regressed into total solipsism and nihilism, it has given way entropy and chaos and has been dissolved in its own post modern solvent. All that remains now is hysteria and crazy, they are truly lost
You don’t have to be a fascist or Nazi to grow a big head. It’s been my experience that when enough people get Big Heads, a whole bunch of other people end up with no heads.
The street they traveled or the tool they used makes no difference to the headless.
What did Ben Franklin say? Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Republicanism is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
Even well armed sheep can get a big head. That’s how we end up with things like the unPatriot act, rubber stamping FISA courts, a groping TSA, and this state’s abuser fees.
Too true.
“Conservatives believe in freedom, self reliance, and a healthy dose of Christianity. ”
” Individual liberty is right wing. A small, limited government is right wing. A strong vibrant private life is right wing.”
I must have missed the memo but you are kidding, correct? Or, at the least you cannot be equating “conservative” to Republican.
Those things describe conservatives… they SHOULD also describe Republicans but all to frequently they don’t.
Nice, that religious test. Why did we leave England again?
Woah there. On this blog liberals have horns, scales, and eat babies every day for breakfast. Any views contrary to that will not be tolerated.
Actually, they don’t eat babies, the abort them.
Between us, Warmac: You are on the spectrum, yes?
Constitutional conservative. Nothing more important than the bill of rights and rule of law if you are going to be a freedom loving American citizen. But if you are antifa or neo-nazi, this is anathema to you.
Where is your evidence that antifa doesn’t respect the rule of law or the Bill of Rights? Why do you speak for them — is it because you need a straw man to knock down?
Good Republicans are clear and united against the fascists who marched. They do not blame those who opposed the fascists at every turn. You are an apologist for hate who draws false equivalences, forgetting half a million Americans who raised arms and gave all to stop Nazis. Shame on you.
I get the impression at this point that you are either antifa or an advocate for them. Apparently, video evidence is insufficient for you because it scares you – people will awaken to the fact that antifa and neo-Nazi are heads and tales of the same totalitarian coin.
I wonder, have you ever been to the WW2 or Vietnam memorials? You respond like someone who is too young to understand that totalitarians come in many stripes and clothe themselves in righteousness. It is not at all surprising that the antifa embed themselves inside peaceful assemblies and spread out to commit violence not only in Charlottesville but in virtually every riot situation around the country. The video is clear in DC, Berkeley and Boston just today where an antifa knocked down an elderly woman holding an American flag.
As far as the neo-nazis and kkk. Both are dead organizations with fools playing fools games. As far as antifa. They are the current version of fascists and their game is deadly serious. As a republican, I loathe both the neo-nazis and antifa. It is you who won’t.
I believe you would draw such a false impression, so weak is your reasoning. I’ve never met anyone who I know to be antifa, and I don’t think I know anyone who has met such a person.
Over the past week I have come to find I agree, like Mitt Romney, with their titular essence: They are anti-fascists. Me too. I am definitely anti-fascist. I can easily see why Soros, Ben & Jerry, Ford Foundation, etc., fund them: To stand in opposition to fascism.
Especially when fascists rail against Jews while carrying torches, spraying lighter fluid. People sprayed with lighter fluid in the presence of torches tend to react adversely to the treatment. Mayhem results.
Your last paragraph is exactly what antifa did in Charlottesville. As I said before, there is a picture of it.
Romney is a big government globalist just like every one else you mention. If you are in league with them then you are in favor of ending the USA as an independent nation. What do you think the EU is, or for that matter, much of the leadership of Western Europe. Why do you think the visagrad group is resisting EU dictates regarding refugees. You have become fascistic, yet call yourself antifascistic or antifa for short.
As far as never having met an antifa. You have met the enemy and you are he (to paraphrase pogo).
What a fringe nut case you are! Romney was the Republican Party standard-bearer, and no, being in league with Romney is not the equivalent of favoring the end of the USA as an independent nation. Good luck with that arc and path. Play that out to its end game and tell us where it takes you.
TK – do you then agree with the tactics of the BLMers and Antifas who try to squelch free speech on campuses and in the political sphere? You know what I am talking about – disrupting speeches by Ann Coulter and that dangerous neo-Nazi Ben Shapiro or beating up Trump supporters. Because that is what the Left is all about these days. Just take a look that this – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VbHUI1R3IA
I do not agree with any tactic with the effect of squelching speech. I agree with tactics that counter speech with speech, aka debate. More speech, better. Less speech, bad.
I do not concur “that is what the Left is all about these days.” I’m not even completely sure about the distinctions claimed — aside from the obvious. Trump could’ve, may have run as easily on the Democratic ticket, and it was those same voters who delivered for him in PA, MI, WI, OH. Both Trump and Sanders are change agents, which is a winning strategy.
Analysis makes more sense when we remove the fringe left and fringe right from the equation. Each discredits their center-based leaders, but one is mono-culture focused (white supremacy), the other diversity focused (antifa). No equivalence there — we should all be anti-fascists, none should be pro-white supremacy.
I suggest not literally removing them, simply for the purpose of analysis. When we do, there is a good group of people working for solutions, but they need to work together across the aisle and the right fringe undercuts this at every turn. Demonstrably, nothing happens, and now the agenda is forgotten in a whirl about Nazis that frankly should’ve been dispatched with their complete dismissal ala Romney and other leading Republicans.
The funny thing is, you expect the GOP to condemn the rightist extremists, but the Democrats are silent as midnight canaries when leftist students riot and rampage and squelch free speech. But you are a smart guy, so let’s see if you and I are breathing the same air. Do the mainstream news networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC – lean left in their political coverage? Simple question. Yes or No. No obfuscation please. I asked a direct question, begging for a direct answer.
No, not based on ideology. They lean toward their sponsors, whomever pays them most at that time. Basic economics. They act out of self-interest — basic conservative free market motives — but agreed it’s not about truth or justice or any moral virtue, however considered. And that goes for all the news networks, whatever you call mainstream, or not. Sometimes they do lean left, when they perceive it is where the money is, so yes, but other times they change their bidding to match the cash.
Regardless of what he says, he agrees with the tactics. All over the country, the left is shutting down any speech they disagree with and assaulting not only citizens they disagree with but the police. In Boston, there were some 30 plus arrests, virtually all for basic assaults on the police.
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/01/rioters-beat/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/04/protesters-at-middlebury-college-shout-down-speaker-attack-him-and-a-professor/?utm_term=.a7b82fab8f3a
I could go on but three example seem sufficient.
I watched them. I have no idea who these people are nor their organization (if any).
I am pleased whenever someone stands up to fascists. We fought wars for this reason so violence is no surprise when confronting hate.
Thank you for showing you true colors… “Punch a Nazi” indeed.
Ghandi turning the other cheek proved less effective. I do not commit violence but I know it is inevitable in the face of evil. We arm police and military for good reason. My true colors: I oppose fascism.
We can presume yours from your defense of the Nazis, even your abhorrent suggestion their right to free speech was greater than the properly-permitted counter-protestors. Did you admit you were wrong about that, AmyH? Or are you ignoring the falsehood and lies you spread in defense of fascism and Nazis?
Do you oppose communism with equal fervor and fury?
I detest communism. I reserve a special place for Nazis due to the nature of populism and its potential — no, history — for exponential growth — along with the monocultural element behind fascism. For example, we can agree Cuba is a failed state, but it is more difficult to argue they are racist than it is to declare the horrors of Nazism and the pure master race it pursues.
There is another one today of antifa attacking a woman holding an American flag.
I saw that… disgusting.
Warmac… more violence from yesterday’s Boston free speech event.
http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/08/20/stupid-black-btch-supposed-to-be-on-our-side-antifa-attacks-black-officer-during-boston-protest-video/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget
BTW, the violence against the police was because they were trying to stop rioting but also because the ANTIFA thugs were trying to find and attack the free speech speakers who the police had been trying to get out of the area for several hours.
Eventually, the truth of the Charlottesville situation will come out. While folks like Kane try to shift the subject, more and more folks are realizing that antifa is the problem. The neo-nazis and kkk have marched around for decades, largely ignored. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, violence occurs. You have to be pretty stupid not to see that something has changed and not for the better.
antifa is not the only problem, but it is currently the most significant problem. My guess is the RICO statutes or even more serious things like sedition and treason are down the line for them. The government doesn’t like to be played with even though the Democrat Party and the leftist media is providing cover for them. Payback is always rather unkind.
He seems pretty sane, just looooooves false equivalencies.
I detest false equivalence so I point it out, just like Mitt Romney and countless other Republicans and conservatives. As usual, you simply will not get with the program, dividing conservative/Republican strength, leaving congress without clear direction.
The original marching group was 100% in the wrong. Time to admit it and move on — knowing you will not, that you will double down, that you will cling and never let go.
Romney… Conservative… SNORT
You deny he was the Republican standard-bearer? You charge this Mormon with being a non-conservative? Fine! (Well, actually, the record shows you snorted like a pig … but nevermind.) Divide, but you won’t conquer. How’s this division of yours working out for the agenda, AmyH? You don’t want their votes, correct? And they don’t get yours. And you wonder why the agenda is lost, Congress adrift …. take a look in the mirror.
Romney was never conservative and marginally Republican. We all knew it at the time but he was the only choice to defeat Obama at the time. I am sure you and I knew that Romneycare was claimed to be the model for Obamacare.
Romney is a good man. He just doesn’t represent anything other than the GOPe which is increasingly discredited. We have tried it his way with the Bushes and the result has been failure. Bush 1 had a single term. Bush 2 had two terms but only because he was seen as an effective leader against the 9/11 terrorists. In the end, he led us to Obama the American disaster.
The original marching groups was legally exercising the Constitutional rights. The “protesters”? Not so much.
Not so much, eh?
Fair weather friend of free speech, apparently. Speaks for itself. You are dissembling like a fool in the face in inquiry. Admit they had a permit and that you were wrong, that you claim facts easily refuted and proven false. Two groups had a permit that day. Fact: Only the first group killed and maimed. The original first group stands for facism. The original first group was armed with firearms on open display, many carried torches and sprayed onlookers with lighter fluid. Fact.
I stand resolutely against the first group, which must be confronted wherever they roam. I am anti-fascist. Way too many lives lost to fascism to countenance its return without resistance.
The neo-NAZIs were 100% in the wrong so antifa has a perfect right to ignore the law and commit violence. That is the proposition T Kane is advocating. A young woman is dead because of this type of thinking.
I love facts and logic.
And I love your sense of humor, that’s pretty good.
He’s funny, I’ll give him that. It is side-splittingly funny at times. The best today: Citing Death Wish and praising Bernie Goetz. You cannot make this stuff up! This place is howlingly funny and ample evidence of why Congress gets nothing done, so divisive are fringe Republicans and fringe Conservatives. The rest of us cringe wishing there could be progress on taxes, health care, North Korea … anything but this agenda of hate.
That’s the spirit!
MAGA baby. And to think I was a Cruz supporter. Well, we are all entitled to a mistake. The point is to admit the mistake, take the blame for it, apologize and move on.
It’s possible that contrarian opinions will elicit responses arguing against it. Is that what you mean by “won’t be tolerated”? Try going to a leftist site like Media Matters and posting a conservative opinion. Not only will that elicit responses questioning your intelligence, but your comment will soon be deleted. They engage in true censorship. . Those sites LITERALLY will not tolerate a contrary point of view. There is no censorship here, although any opinion is subject to a robust debate. Isn’t that a plus rather than a minus?
The thought police are Orwellian.
I don’t see what any of this has to do with actual reality.
It’s like those people who argue that the Left is for civil rights and the right isn’t, what does that even mean ? You can’t even say that Democrats are for civil rights and Republicans aren’t, Republicans fought HARD for civil rights, before Democrats ever would, Republicans were responsible for passing most of the major civil rights legislation in this country.
Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Progressive, Fascist, Nazi, I mean it just doesn’t mean as much in a modern context as people like to make it out to mean. We have so many splintered groups of special interests in this country that you can’t paint them all with a brush like “Left” or “Right”, because even the platforms of Republicans and Democrats is a mixture of traditionally “Left” and “Right”. Even the word Liberal means basically nothing now, it’s either used as an insult by conservatives or as an insult by conservatives, or as something else entirely.
Trump, usually quite an idiot, has been making a LOT of sense lately, like when he asked a reporter to define what she meant by “Nazi”.
You can see all this at play right now in Boston. There they are having a “free speech rally”, and I’ve watched a lot of the coverage in that area leading up to the event. You’ve got the city leaders calling everyone associated with the event “haters”, in public at their own press conference they are saying this, reporters even asked how the city could have a position on the group, what evidence they had and the guy basically answered back that the press should read what other people in the press have written. //EYE ROLL//. But the one interview I’ve seen with the actual person who set the event up is a kid about the age of 20 years old or so who is basically just an Internet troll, he’s definitely not a white nationalists, or a “hater” in as much as I could see, he self-identifies as a “*sh*tlord”, or someone who “sh*t posts” on the Internet.
Labels are what people use to dehumanize other people so that they can attribute to them all kinds of nonsense.
Where Nazi’s “Leftists” or a part of the “Right” ? Well they were all kinds of things. They were racists. They were inventive. They were reactionary. They were manipulative. They were populists. They were very good marketers. They were cult-like. They were aggressive. They were many, many things.
The real question is, is it fair to say they were a part of the “Right” as a means of smearing the party of Lincoln ? And the answer to that is HELL NO.
Communists, fascists, nazis, et al., are different names for the same thing, a police state. Left/Right had to do with where they sat in European Parliaments.
Corey Stewart in 18′!
You are wrong from the getgo, Mark. You seem to be concluding that Nazi-ism is not left wing because it is nationalist and racist. And if it is not left-wing, it must be right wing, Quite frankly, that is just nutty and speak more to your apparent contempt for the right than it does about reality.
Nazis were and are just as left wing and collectivist as the communists… they just collectivized around a “race” instead of the proletariat.
First of all, AmyH, I co-led the Tea Party for six years in Stafford County. My wife and I brought Rush Limbaugh to the Armed Forces Network in 1993. I was part of Americans For Prosperity’s successful attempt to stymie Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in Virginia in 2014. “Contempt for the right?” Me? That’s a new one.
Second, perhaps you should read the Lawrence Auster article again. The Left wants equality for everyone. The Nazis wanted their racial superiority over everyone else, and that is the essence of Nazism – not socialized medicine.
Third, the Nazis allowed for private property. Communists do not.
I wrote this article because people on the Right use this “Nazis are leftist” argument in vain. Just as they use the line that “Democrats were the Party of Jim Crow” also in vain. Sure, southern Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. But, things changed and so did the Democratic Party. To the average liberal, the southern Democrats eventually morphed into the modern GOP, and in certain regards they are right. Nonetheless, it is an argument that will not persuade anyone on the Left.
The left does not want equality for everyone… the left want control over everyone. As for private property, it was just as controlled and directed as the people were under Nazi-ism as it was under Communism. That it remained in private hands (unless you were a Jew or otherwise disfavored) does not mean it wasn’t controlled.
And yes contempt… what the hell is with the right== racism, dude? That is totally nonsensical as well as ahistorical. Neither racism nor Jim Crow are conservative and It doesn’t matter that Democrats insist they are. They are the the enemy and a bunch of liars to boot. Why would you in anyway allow them to define what the right is?
As I told Mick yesterday, no matter what you do or say, they will still call you whatever names they think will stick to beat you down and make you acquiesce to their wishes. You internalizing that is stupid.
I Have to agree? I think Churchill said something like this: The problem with capitalism (the individual freedom cherished by the right) is an unequal sharing of the blessings. The problem with socialism (the statist control cherished by the left) is the equal sharing of the misery.
Read the article again, PLEASE. Auster maintains that Nazism is “an extreme, perverted form of racial rightism. It takes the biological reality of the German people and makes it into the source of all moral and spiritual values, a god elevated above the rest of mankind, which in turn is seen either.” I agree with him. Honest rIght-wingers (and in part, I am one of them) believe that ethnicity and geography matter. For example, there is a reason why Britons, resident to an island nation, developed a whole different political system than the Russians, a continental people who were subject to one invasion after the other from east, west, and south. What many of today’s conservatives spout is individualism – and that, Auster contends (and I agree with him) lies in the middle.
Mark: Read elsewhere on this site. AmyH and Warmac are nuts and out of their heads, at odds with demonstrable facts and citing fiction as if it were fact. Amy is sure the counter-demonstrators had no permit — after all, Trump said it! — and now admits the second permit she previously denied but falsely claims the second permit didn’t cover the group gathered and that they had less free speech rights than the first group. She doesn’t know me but swears I’ve never touched a gun (I shoot at least a brick a month). She’s crazy, she just talks big without a fact or reason in her head.
When you start the name calling, you lose credibility. I am with Mark but also with AmyH. I can walk and chew gum. You now throw the permit thing up knowing full well that the permits separated the groups and neither permit was given for anything other than peaceable assembly.
OK, now you’ve lost me completely: First you claimed there was one permit only, and then you conceded there were two, but now you claim that on account of “other than peaceable assembly” there were no valid permits at all?
Were the first group of permitted marchers — the Nazis who initiated this event — peaceable in the first place? Screaming “blood & soil” and “Jews will not replace us,” carrying torches and spraying lighter fluid?
Did you read the Politifacts piece? Apparently not. But you will contradict it and argue with it, apparently, out of ignorance.
Stand against fascism, hate and Nazis. Full stop. Blame them exclusively and then get back to the agenda: Taxes, health care, Russian interference, and so on.
Which is my point about you and your buddies: You disgrace the conservative agenda, distract from the message. All along your extreme demands have deprived us of legislative solutions. Now your extreme views distract all good people from the issues. All with the result of weakening the party and virtually assuring that voters will sweep Republicans out and dump Trump ASAP.
When you look in the mirror, it must feel funny to see Jesse Jackson staring back at you.
Never claimed anything other than I didn’t know about the permits. Second, yelling and screaming isn’t violence nor is carrying a torch. Don’t know about the lighter fluid but did see an antifa guy creating a flame thrower if that is what you man. I do stand fully against fascism, hate and nazis. You excuse hate groups that you like. You aren’t conservative so you do not speak to or for conservatives. If Jesse Jackson is staring back at me, then he broke into my house and is a criminal.
You asserted there was no second permit, just as did AmyH. You were both wrong, likely because you believed Trump. Yelling and screaming isn’t violence, but neither is it what was permitted: Peaceful assembly. Who are you to decide if I am conservative? You cannot so much as read an article and fully comprehend its contents — after reading the article and permit, you still thought the city was providing medics, water, etc. And all this after concluding there was no second permit.
I make no attempt to convince you of anything, your lack of judgment completely irrelevant to me. I could not possibly care less if you acknowledge my conservatism. In facts, defending Nazis is not conservatism. It is at odds with conservatism.
My only only goal here is to learn more about the extremists crippling the Virginia Republican party, and by extension, those outside Virginia. Mission accomplished! In you and AmyH, I found what I was looking for and I thank you for that.
In the Armenian genocide, the Muslim Turks slaughtered Christians to excuse the failure of a favored son during a military campaign. That genocide has never been acknowledged by the Turks but involved the systematic slaughter of anywhere between I and 2 million Armenians. It is likely that hitler’s nazis got their filthy death camp ideas from this extermination. (Hitler often met with Islamic leaders and he is pictured with the grand mufti of Jerusalem. Genocide isn’t just a Nazi thing.)
Here is your argument (we’ve heard it a thousand times): Nazi and fascist regimes are right-wing because fascism is right wing. Fascist states and the Nazis are right wing because, well, just everyone who is popular believes it.
WRONG. Individual liberty is right wing. A small, limited government is right wing. A strong vibrant private life is right wing.
Nazis — national socialists — and fascists are LEFT wing.
Any totalitarian ideology is left wing. By definition, totalitarians believe in dictatorial government. As you point out, individual liberty is right wing (as is the true anarchist). Antifas, by the way, are not anarchist even though they use similar tactics.
Antifa members are anarchists? What are they?
They are not anarchists although they use the same tactics. Antifa is for totalitarian big government. Anarchists are for minimal to no government
You two are a caricature of so-called conservatism. You are emblematic of the destruction of the Republican Party and conservative thought, debating whether antifa — about which you know only what you read or hear — is pro-big-govt or anti-govt. What goofs!
You offer criticism without trying to deal with facts. Each comment becomes ever more emotional as if you fear discovery of your motivations.
I disagree, and frankly you are plainly wrong. For example, someone claims there was no permit other than the main permit and I offer a non-partisan publication with a photo of the permit. You make unsubstantiated claims about intent, goals and organization of people neither of us have every met. Pure supposition.
Meanwhile, taxes, health care and more go unaddressed. You discredit conservatives and Republicans with your doctrinaire fringe thinking. No wonder the congress sends little to POTUS for signature — never enough for you, who will be drawn into the bait of hate and racism, and then punt the opportunity for progress and unity.
Truly, you cannot lead and you will not follow. Now you reap what you sow.
So, you believe that an idle conversation on one subject renders one incapable of discussing other topics such as healthcare and taxes? If you cannot hold more than one thought in your head at a time, I can see why you might think that way. However, I’m capable of multitasking and suspect that warmac is too.
“Doctrinaire fringe thinking” better describes someone incapable of holding two thoughts in his head simultaneously.
Word.
You do realize the permit you referenced was for a different part of Charlottesville. Somehow, even though the neo-Nazis and antifa were separated they did not remain separated. So, you might ask, where were the police.
One report has the police absent by dictate. another has the police absent because it was too dangerous. Another has the police funneling the neo-Nazis through the antifa. Another has both sides leaving their designated locations and marching on each other. Fortunately, there is lots of videotape from above to confirm who did what to whom.
That is why I believe in the importance of evidence. And, by the way, that evidence will end up in both the criminal and civil courts. The only question is whether there will be OJ type jury nullifications – highly likely in this emotion charged situation.
The problem I have with you is that while you were likely born an American you do think about things like your freedom being guaranteed by the rule of law or your rights by the Bill of Rights. You are quite quick to take those things from American citizens you disagree with or find hateful.
I suggest you read the 5000 year leap. Relatively short but it will show you just how difficult it is to get and maintain individual freedom. Contrary to your thinking, history is not kind to individuals. Slavery, tyranny and dictatorship tend to rule and individual freedom is always but a generation away from loss. Your generation better figure this out quick as the global socialists in world government, the media, academe and even much of the major corporations are allied against you. Either you are an American citizen or a “citizen of the world”. Me, I am an American citizen and I fight to save America from the likes of the Neo-Nazis, the KKK, antifa, BLM, LaRaza and any group that wants to tear down the Constitution.
I was born here. I am American. I am like all good Americans opposed to facism in every way.
You wrote that as regards rights I am “quite quick to take those things from American citizens you disagree with or find hateful.” Did you not see that I wrote I would give them the permit they sought? At the same time, I would confront Nazis at every turn — how does that take away anyone’s rights? Where did I write that anyone should have less rights?
Indeed, I wrote not a word suggesting the marchers shouldn’t be able to exercise Second Amendment rights, for example, although others now want to limit this (which I do not favor).
But I ask you: What about a war on Nazism and facism aren’t you subscribed to?
As regards the permit, again, you are plainly wrong, so very wrong that Politifact calls it “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” Their words, not mine. More:
“Given this experience, he said, the initial purpose for the Aug. 12 permits in McGuffey and Justice parks “was to assure that there would be two spaces for lawful assembly” by counter-protesters. “What we did was provide food and water, and medics were stationed there. We allowed for that space to be used for peaceful and nonviolent demonstrations, and for protesters at Emancipation Park to have respite from a lawless melee,” he said.”
“In addition, Dickler of the city of Charlottesville said that counter-protesters would have been permitted even outside of the two park locations specified in the permit. “A permit does not bar other individuals from entry to a public park (such as Emancipation Park), nor does it restrict who can be on streets or sidewalks outside of and/or adjacent to the park.”
Reading the fact check is instructive: http://bit.ly/2uVwYpJ
So, logically, there was no real purpose for any permit. If people can go where they want and do what they want, then there is no purpose to it. Seeing as how I have rented spaces in public parks for things like birthday parties, it is nice to know that the money I paid and permit I got were really just a bribe to the state who intended to do little or nothing to protect my usage of the public space. I wonder if you can follow the logical implications of what Dickler said – it is clearly nonsensical and clearly an attempt to excuse city failures in policing.
Also, why food, water and medics for one group and not the other. Sounds like bias to me if that is the case. And why is the city providing food, water and medics at all. Shouldn’t that be done by the users of the permit – see birthday part above. So, do the protestors get nothing, but the counter-protestors get public benefits? Even more interesting is the provisioning of medics. Sounds like the city was expecting violence but did not adequately prepare for it. As an attorney, I am loving my civil lawsuit against the city even more.
I would love you on the witness stand. I would have you contradicting yourself with your answers. It is quite humorous to see it but not very comfortable for the witness as it destroys their credibility.
Seriously? Go for it, Warmac. Now you are arguing not with me but with the fact checkers and the city representative. They are stating facts. You apparently know better, assert they are non-sensical, but you are simply wrong. Indeed, the Nazis left their planned route and were not arrested, so the facts as presented in the article match the behavior on the scene.
Apparently you did not read carefully at all — the article indicates the food, water, medics were provided not by the city but by the permit requestor (Heinecke). This is but one example of your failure to read and comprehend what you see.
As for your last paragraph, I would never be testifying about an article I did not write, nor would anyone ask me to do so, and no judge would allow it.
First, a good debate is always beneficial, and all parties can potentially learn from one another. What matters most is that the debate is respectful on all sides. The subject matter is of less importance.
Second, your assertion is without merit. Name any topic at all in which 99.9% of the people know more than “only what they read or hear” about any topic. A doctor knows “only what he read and heard” about medicine, for example, but he read and heard it in med school.
What matters is WHAT is read, and FROM WHOM one hears it. You naively made the assumption that I read and heard only rumor or lies, despite the fact that you don’t know me, my resources, my education or my contacts.
What a foolish, foolish assumption.
If you believe your own knowledge is superior, feel free to correct any errors you think I’ve made.
I engage in discourse as a humble exercise that sharpens my knife, improves my knowledge, adds to my perspective. If I thought simply that I knew better, I would have no need for discourse.
At the same time, I know BS when I hear it and research with an open mind, save for this: I have no quarter for fascism. This I know to be wrong and a false path. We’ve given way too many lives to think otherwise. Yes, we are constantly at war with fascism and should never underestimate the enemy.
Good to know that you recognize BS when you see it. Unfortunately, you also have a tendency to see BS where there is only information of which you were not aware. New facts should not immediately be dismissed as bull. If in doubt, ask for clarification and/or research the issue yourself.
Paragraph one is spot on. However, T Kane is not here for a good debate but as a berserker.
Antifa members call themselves anarchists. Anarchists use violence to destroy a government, but become totalitarian themselves if they can wrest control from the functioning government.
Can you give me any examples of a country where anarchists actually control a country with minimal government?
It’s one of those instances where they must be careful what they wish for. If anarchists manage to destroy a government, suddenly no one is picking up the trash, no teachers are in the schools, and there are no police to stop the criminals. Exactly what the anarchists want… until the garbage piles high in the street and reeks horribly. Dead bodies lay where they died and flies infest them. Businesses have shut down, so there are no paychecks. You couldn’t buy anything anyway because the stores are stripped bare and won’t be restocked. Sooner or later, people begin to starve.
The country is ripe for a takeover. Citizens will accept anyone, as long as they will restore some order to people’s lives. Whether it’s the anarchists or someone else, the new regime is almost always totalitarian. It’s what people think they want – only until order is restored and then they realize what they have.
Interestingly enough, the articles of confederation were quite minimalist when it came to federal government. They proved unworkable – to my knowledge the anarchist movement did not begin until the mid 1800s.
Your description in paragraph two is modern Venezuela. It, however, is violently totalitarian socialism and chaos is used to excuse the dictatorial government actions.
Exactly. Venezuela and many other “socialist” countries in the past. I use quotation marks because so many people (younger ones, especially) differentiate between socialism and communism.
You evidently did not read my article or that of Lawrence Auster. And according to him:
“On the right, traditional conservatives believe in “larger wholes”—the realities of nature, society, and God—of race, culture, and religion—that make us what we are. They believe in natural and spiritual hierarchies that are implied in these larger wholes. Inequality is built into existence.
“In the middle, traditional liberals (right-liberals) believe in individualism: all individuals have equal rights, the individual is free to create himself, he is not determined by the larger wholes into which he was born. We should just see people, all members of the human race, as individuals deserving of equal dignity.
“On the left, socialists and Communists, like traditional conservatives, believe in larger wholes, but the wholes they believe in are seen in terms of equality: the whole of society—equal; the whole of the human race—equal. They believe that man has the ability to engineer this larger, equal whole into existence, wiping out the unequal, inherited orders of class, sex, nation, race, religion, morality, and thus creating a New Humanity.”
Therefore, what many of you are calling “right wing,” Auster calls “middle.” I agree with him.
Auster sets the parameters of groups according to his own prejudices that have no bearing on actual reality. In particular, his view of Christianity as hierarchical and unequal is pretty much the exact opposite the truth.
.
Mark, did you even read Goldberg’s book? Given that you used the image, you did a poor job refuting his claim.
Yes, I read Liberal Fascism. A lot of it made sense. But I think Auster makes a stronger point about the essence of Nazism.
Seriously?
I think I understand where he is coming from but it is no longer relevant to today’s world. The NAZIs are dead and the neo-Nazis little more than a nuisance if left to trot around. The media, looking for something to use to damage Trump and the American citizenry, have found in the neo-Nazis a very convenient tool.
He has no point to come from. The original Nazis were just as “everything for the state, nothing separate from the state” as the Communists were and are.
Yes, I agree. The Nazis are dead, which is why I wish conservatives would leave them be, instead of engaging in revisionism. I bring this up because I think conservatives make themselves look like fools when they argue this point that the Nazis were left-wingers.
Since the nazis are dead, let’s focus today’s version of them – antifa.
Well, love ‘ya Mark, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one…a rose by any other name applies here.
I’ve been reading the apologists for years, including your reference, and the argument is circular. The fascist is not a little left in economics and social policy – but radically left. They are totalitarians who enforce command and control economics regardless of who runs the industry. .Commies will claim that the fascist mindset is different because it is nationalistic and race based and they are non-nationalist and global. Hogwash. The Soviets, Cubans, Chinese, Cambodians, and others, were, and remain, the most class obsessed people on the planet. Their history of “cleansing” the populations (over a hundred million dead would agree with me) is no more meritorious than the #@%@@# Nazi’s. They are ALL murderous, horrendous, racists who are anti-God and anti-freedom.
Count me as one conservative right-winger who says I will never – not today, not tomorrow, never – accept the statement that these crazy loons are anything but kissing cousins. Scratch a commie, you got a fascist. Peel a fascist you got a commie. They are both on the political left because they both are totalitarian squeegees on the human windshield. They deserve each other too. That’s why they always kill each other with glee when they can.
If you bother to check the numbers of people killed in the name of these totalitarian ideologies you get Mao (communist) over 70 million, Stalin (international socialist) over 60million, Hitler (fascist/national socialist) over 20 million. The genocidal leadership, however, belongs to Islam at 300 million and counting.
Agreed.
If you take the full name of the Nazi party, it is the National Socialist German Labor Party. Anything that identifies as “socialist” and “labor” is clearly on the left side of the spectrum.
The term “national socialist” was banned in the USSR, and texts had to refer to them as “fascists”, because the Kremlin didn’t like the taint on the word “socialist” that had come about as a result of that party’s use of the word in their name.
I build homes , I hire , I train , I fire and I labor every day that I can. I care about my employees and their families.
I am an entrepreneur/employer who is considerate of of the many effects of my job.
I am not on the left side of the spectrum. I believe you have to earn it. Success should not come by noncompliance of the law and darn sure not at the expense of illegal , exploitated labor , politically or for profit.
Labor is not left, Republicans left hard workers.
Spot on. That is one of the reasons why I get so riled up at attempts to pin the Nazis to Conservatism and the Republican party. Conservatives believe in freedom, self reliance, and a healthy dose of Christianity. Nazis and Communists are both Godless, totalitarian regimes that want to dominate from a centralized power structure.
The only difference between Nazis and Commies is the ethnic makeup of who gets to rule and who gets slaughtered.
Read Auster’s article.
Why? You’ve copied the only part I need to know which displays why he is wrong. His premise is built on an entirely false platform of the definition of left and right.
He says, “[T]raditional conservatives believe in ‘larger wholes’—the realities of nature, society, and God—of race, culture, and religion—that make us what we are.”
Then he says, “Nazi race worship is thus not a form of leftism, aiming at the equality of all people, but an extreme, perverted form of racial rightism.”
At what point has the right ever used race as a determining factor of value? A key element of the right is a judeo-christian centered belief system that holds that all of us are created in the image of God, and we are all equal before his eyes. It is the actions of a man that define his value to society, not what he looks like.
The bedrock of the modern right in America was a rejection of racial determinations of value, as the advocates of abolishing slavery formed the Republican party. It was the right in this country that pushed and fought for the 1964 civil rights act.
The misguided and false idea that the right uses race as a determination is the key pillar of Auster’s argument. Remove it and the whole thing collapses.
Mick. You are talking about the “modern right,” which is the PC-ized right. Auster is talking about the traditional right wing, the contemporaires of the Nazis in the West and their children who walked the earth up until 1970. They believed in the superiority of Western culture and those who built it. They knew that had Chinese traders landed on the shores of Virginia in 1609 and stayed, the continent would be a whole lot different than it is today. And that goes for Ottoman Turks and czarist Russians. The fact is TRADITIONALIST rightwingers used to believe that the English people of an island nation were blessed with the climate, the seas, the Christianity, and the Anglo-Saxon virtues that allowed them to develop unique democratic institutions. That is what I believe Lawrence Auster is talking about. The fact that people are different – and they are not all cut of the same cloth. The Nazis took that prevailing thought of the Right and sunk it to extreme depths of depravity.
Last time I checked, the 1850s were a little bit before the 1970s. For that matter, the 1770s saw a little anti-traditionalist behavior as well. White colonists fighting to throw off the control of their white brethren in England for a more democratic form of government doesn’t exactly fit into the whole “racial standard of value” scheme of Auster does it?
You are missing the whole point by nitpicking. But no hard feelings. I am not a leftist, but I am merely trying to prevent conservatives from making fools of themselves by arguing ridiculous points.
I don’t believe challenging the veracity of Austere’s flawed logic when he tries to apply racial standards of value to the right as nitpicking. Like I said before, his whole argument hinges on that misrepresentation. He provides no evidence to back up his claim. He just lays it out there and you have accepted it. I don’t.
I never said you were a liberal, and I don’t think you are one. I think you are falling into the trap that both the left and the Nazis want you to fall in.
The left wants you to believe that Nazis are right wing because they don’t want to accept the idea that their ideals of centralized power in a ruling class is representative of all totalotarian regimes, including the Nazis. They don’t want to have to claim ALL the murderous regimes of the last 100 years.
The Nazis wants you to think they are right wing because they think they can find common cause with people that may have sympathies with southern heritage or oppose illegal immigration, or even large amounts of legal immigration. They want respectability and a larger platform for their ideas. “See, we’re just like you, except maybe a little more extreme,” they say.
Don’t fall for it. The Nazis are not right wing. I will go so far as to say that they may not even be left wing. They may be a strange, evil category all to their own, but they are not right wing.
You are a smart guy and I do appreciate this debate. But for the umpteenth time, Auster called Nazis an extremely perverted form of traditionalist right wing thought.
I understand that he calls it a perverted form of thought. My point is that he doesn’t ever provide evidence of the right ever using race as a determining factor of value, while I think I have provided ample evidence where the right has summarily rejected that viewpoint.
Just because he wrote it, doesn’t make it true.
Now if you really want to go down the rabbit hole, you could debate whether Hitler even believed the crap he was selling, or did he just use the Jews as a convenient scape goat to gain supporters and seize power.
When have those with whom conservatives argue, ever been concerned with historical facts? With them, “truth” doesn’t matter. Only “the struggle” matters. Today, good conservative Republicans are being tarred as “racists”, “nazis” and other such nonsense. One incident that spiraled out of control, because two opposing ideologies showed up at the same spot, and the local authorities, at the behest of the governor, “stood down”, and a fringe loon decided to run down a bunch of other fringe loons. But point to the fact that AntiFa is nothing more than the same commie anarchists responsible for “the battle in Seattle” in 1999, the Occupy Wall St. movement, and BLM (all which occurred during Democrat Presidential administrations, and with their tacit approval), and this is ignored. Point out that the KKK, Jim Crow, and “Massive Resistance” where all products of the Democrat party, and this is ignored. Point out the fact that Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama both have clear ties to communists, and this is ignored. The Left isn’t interested in historical debate, or historical truths. The Left is only interested in destroying “America” and rebuilding the society in the image of Marx. Let conservatives point out the historical facts ’till the Second Coming. It won’t matter. The other side doesn’t care. Their fellow travelers in the media, don’t care. Their allies in the government don’t care. Clausewitz stated “War, is the continuation of politics by other means”. Fools need to realize that the fringe Left has been at war with America since the 1930’s. Just as “radical Islam” has been at war with the US/West since the 1970’s, and we only caught a clue in 2001, and still haven’t completely accepted this, in spite of plenty of “historical fact”, Communists have been at war with the American capitalist system since the 1930’s, and this continues today. The names change, but the players remain the same. Just as ISIS is the latest iteration of the same radical islamist ideology, Antifa is just the latest iteration of the Communist Party of the US.
I believe in freedom , self reliance and Christianity but I also believe in the rule of law!
I am not a Republican because I think if you don’t like a law then overturn it DON’T deregulate or not enforce laws as Cuccinelli and McDonnell and allow illegal immigrants to not abide by the law (santurary , asylum) just because you gestapo Republicans desire a free labor market.
The question about conservatism is why the gestapo Republicans are cramming Delegate Minchews Bill HB253 down Va’s throat ?
So DPOR must regulate insurance purchase? Why?
Are Republicans conservative by the passage of this bill?
Hell freaking NO!
I think the reason the right gets stuck with Nazi’s (in the sense of association) is because Communists are very obviously Leftists, if those words mean anything, and since Nazi’s were their mortal enemy people just assume they must not be Leftists.
The other thing to consider is history. The German Nazis were vanquished in WW2 and today’s neo-nazis will never get a toe-nail hold in American politics. All they do is march around like a bunch of fool confirming that they are fools. If left alone, they are about as much trouble as the Westboro Baptist Church.
The real question is who are the successors to the German Nazis? It is pretty obvious that Islam hates infidels and jews in particular. The recent attack in Barcelona was in a jewish neighborhood and the Rabbi of Barcelona has suggested to his flock that they leave Spain. Having said that, the islamic terrorist are an equal opportunity murderous group with many nasty tentacles.
How about the grievance groups like BLM or La Raza. The police have been targeted by the former and the State of California by the latter. As we saw in San Jose, La Raza was supported by the police and the mayor who allowed them to assault and injure Trump supporters going to a rally.
To me the worst of these anti-Americans are the antifa who have an ideology very similar to that of the German Nazis. They aren’t called the black bloc for nothing.
Who are their successors ?
Well I don’t know, maybe people who ban books, refuse to allow people to speak, beat people up in the streets, have a dogma that its adherents follow without question, who control the press to manipulate popular opinion, who want to control people’s lives, who worship the state and state control, …
See “Hitler and the socialist dream” review at http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html.
I would like to know which supremacy group we ought to excuse. With identity politics, there are a bunch of them that have exactly the same intentions as the NAZIs. You rightfully point out both nazi and muslim ideologies, but doesn’t the same apply to elements of BLM and La Raza?
To me, whenever totalitarian fascist, socialist, communist ideologies come to the fore, there is always an outgroup to be singled out for punishment and elimination as well as a ingroup to be exaulted and promoted. Today, we have Cuba, North Korea and Iran as supremacist nations with Venezuela close behind. All are totalitarian and all have bogeymen to attack – some external and some internal.
I do not find racism to be a white only phenomena. Charlottesville had easily defined neo-nazis and the kkk but identity politics was in full flower with the riots.