Monday, November 26, 2007
Making a Right Turn
I had grown comfortable with a belief in the evils of the extreme edges in the political continuum were at equilibrium, in a yin yang pattern. If there was some rise of say, political murder, on one side, it was balanced by a later (or earlier) spike in political murder by the other side. For me (and most Americans) the excesses of the Left were balanced by the excesses on the Right. Specifically, the absolute horribleness of the Communists were balanced by the equally evil nature of the Nazis.
Then Diomedes pointed out to me that the Nazis were on the Left too.
"What?" I asked, as my whole world order collapsed. "No, they're not." (I was in the same sort of denial that many people I know now are in--the Nazis were extreme right wing, they believe, and the facts just don't matter; but I'm getting ahead of myself).
Then why were they called National Socialists?
...and slowly, very slowly, as I read the standard books, and then as much as Mein Kampf as I could stand, and then a lot of other things, it dawned on me that the Nazis were indeed lefties-- national socialists as opposed the international socialists we call the Communists.
I've had the same problem convincing others that Diomedes had with me. I usually rely on the name, National Socialists and German Workers' Party, and ask the doubting Thomases if they think the name was ironic or a fraud. Then I hit them with the speech Hitler gave in 1927 which he started with the words-- We' are Socialists. We are the enemies of [capitalism]... Then I'm pretty much out of ammunition.
To the rescue has ridden Bruce Walker at the American Thinker with more proof than you can shake a stick at that the Nazis were lefties, socialists as their name sort of implies (apparently secretly).
It is an important first step, knowing the truth of history and the very dangerous, and, lets face it, anti-human nature firmament which underlies the core of lefty beliefs, and this Truth, even if it cannot set you free, can certainly lead to having the rose colored scales fall from your eyes to be followed by an ever more accurate perception of current world events.
By a ratio of at least 100 to 1, almost all the political murder in the 20th Century was by the left. The Soviet Union collapsed catastrophically leaving a legacy of cold, grey misery. Most of what's wrong with America today traces itself back to socialist ideas. I could go on and on.
Knowing these things, how can any smart person be a lefty?
Labels: Nazi political beliefs
Propaganda, when delivered well, trumps intelligence at times. When combined with intellectual vanity it makes for a very strong spell. It really breaks my heart to see it happen.
Congrats on finding someone who could break the curse for you.
Why the comparisons are endless. Smart people would see this immediately. I knew I should have read Atlas Shrugged a long time ago.
Peter, the left is anti-Semitic. The right certainly supports Israel more. Hitler was not in support of free speech. Witness the White Rose. Liberals don't value individual liberty and they look to the government for more governmental power not less.
The government is the solution generally for lefties, it's a problem for us conservatives. I don't see the connection of the National Socialist program to the New Deal. Perhaps that's my limitation. I too should have read Atlas Shrugged but I couldn't stand it.
It is a misnomer that “liberals favor individual liberty and limitations on governmental power”. This may be true for liberalism in a more classic sense i.e. Locke et al. however one should never confuse the notions of Locke with the American form of liberalism, a form of “liberalism” that will do every thing in its power to; Not let you decide where and how your child is educated; Not afford you the means of self-defense; Not let you decide how best to invest monies earned for retirement. Add to this the fact that they are currently doing their best to make sure you wont be able to decide what health care options are best for you and it becomes clear who they are.
When we really look closely at whom the American liberal is, it becomes very clear that its lineage is in fact not related to Locke and in fact has a greater resemblance to others.
without tapping my telephone calls
or censoring what I do on the internet. One of the problems of arguing with you guys is its 90% semantics.
Oh, I don't support Israel as much as Roger. That makes me antisemitic. Case closed.
I figured when I saw some more bad news for the Republicans today (Lott quitting so he can join the Klan) Roger would run his "How can you be in favor of Social Security when Stalin Killed so many people" piece. It always happens when he gets bad news. Tomorrow he'll be pulling out the one about how the Republicans were the real champions of the Civil Rights movement.
Well I agree that things might be a lot more peaceful if every high school kid had the right to bring a .500 S&W Magnum into class, but hey you've got to draw the line somewhere. Oh that's right, you guys don't think you should draw the line anywhere. Have to defend that war on Christmas , you know.
Lott is quitting to join the Klan. Really? Or are you, without any basis, defaming Lott. That's not arguing in good faith, Pete. It's just name calling and mean, baseless name calling at that. I'm glad Lott is quitting politics. He has become very ineffective. His seat will remain Republican and will probably not be in play in 2012. I think the left did own the Civil Rights movement, to their credit, but it is about the last good thing they did. And it is just a fact that a higher precentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats. The legislation would not have passed without the Republican support it received. This truth may be inconvenient to your hateful opinion of Republicans but you ignore it at the peril of your ability to convince anyone, possibly including yourself. Thanks for getting back to me. Lysander's comments are well worth reading as well.
That Communists killed more people than anyone else is beating a very dead horse b/c except in North Korea, which is more of a totalitarian state than a Communist one, Communism is as dead as Kelsey's nuts. ( I think we need to find the origin of that expression.)
Another non starter is the "Look at the virtuous Republicans who freed the slaves; passed the Civil Rights Act. etc., etc"
What happened to the Dixiecrats? They changed parties. I know you think that Republican party tent is big enough for everyone: Log Cabin Republicans, etc., etc. If you were correct, I might even vote Republican, although I never say never.
I do not think, as my friend Walker does, that the Republican party is the party of Nelson Rockefeller any longer.
The GOP seems largely to have purged itself of moderates.
What do you think?
“Government can be used as a positive force”? What happened to; “liberals favor individual liberty and limitations on governmental power”? This may come to a surprise to you Peter, but words matter. Suggesting that the problem with arguing with conservatives lies in our use of semantics is much akin to saying that the problem with arguing with mathematicians is because of their use of arithmetic. Sound semantics require logic, as does conservatism.
This is an opportunity for you Peter. So let me ask: Have YOU been censored? Has YOUR phone been tapped? Who here has advocated for the arming of students but you?
Peter, please slow down and take it point by point with less emotion and I will do my best to reciprocate. OK?
I don't know, and I haven't been to the sun either but I know its hot. This is an imature way of arguing- personalize it. Also, thats like me saying I'm against invading Iran and you responding, has it happened yet? Of course I could also ask you, how have you been denied the "means of self defense"?
1. Publically stated that America would be better off if a candidate who based his campaign on a strict segregationist platform had been elected president. And stated that he had voted for this man.
2. Voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act.
3. Voted against continuation of the Civil Rights Act.
4. Voted against the Martin Luther King holiday.
5. Maintained an afffiliation with the Council Of Conservative Citizens, a group which favors white separatism, and which opposes racial integration.
Thus I may be guilty of namecalling, but its certainly not baseless.
If personalizing something is an immature way of arguing, then why did you choose to personalize it in the first place by suggesting that YOUR phones were being tapped and that YOU had been censored?
By the way, did you know that the Democrats have, right now, in the Senate a member who once actually belonged to the KKK?
Can you guess which one?
Never Suggested it.
"Can you guess which one?"
I was waiting to see how long before somebody brought him up. Typical defense: well they do it to. Well, I'll guarantee you that I'll criticize Byrd for being a lot more than just ineffective. Someday guys like him and Lott will have to pay their dues.
If you cant follow the thread and see that in fact YOU were the first to "personalize it", all I can say is; The best of luck to you. Perhaps your "right-turn" will come in the future, perhaps never.
So, how could anyone be a Democrat? (following your logic, Roger)
Peter b, I will gladly show you evidence of the left's anti-Semitism, stay tuned to this blog.
About Lott, his stupid praise of Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday betrayed I think a lack of thinking rather than a racist underpinning. Man was that controversy overblown, thanks for buying into it. Voting against a renewall of Voting Act is not necessarily a sign of racism, could he not sincerely think it was unnecessary? I have no idea what you are talking about with the 'continuation' of the Civil Rights Act. The 1964 one has no lapse date? Can you be more specific? I like Martin Luther King very much, but I did not think we needed a federal holiday. I must be a racist too, although if you checked my dating record, I don't think you would continue to think that. 'Maintained' is not accurate regarding the CCC. Lott accepted money and attended fundraisers for a relatively brief period, but is that a place you really want to go with Hillary's problems in this field. Is she a felon lover because she accepted money from (and never returned it all) from Hsu? It would be OK to say Lott has not not been a supporter of what the left calls black issues, but to go the extra mile and call him a racist, to assign as his reason for doing what he has done, an irrational hatred of blacks is absolutely unsupported by the facts (including the testimony of many of his black constituants in Alabama) and you should be ashamed of yourself. Fat chance of that.
Actually your statement was "the left is anti-Semitic" and "The left is more anti-Semitic than the right", so lets stick to the issue for once. Define "anti-semitism" and then give us evidnce of how those on the left meet your definition.
"his stupid praise of Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday betrayed I think a lack of thinking rather than a racist underpinning"
He admits that he voted for the guy. That, added to all of his other votes and actions leads to only one conclusion. You can whine that "that controversy was overblown" but Lott's words speak for themselves.
"I have no idea what you are talking about with the 'continuation' of the Civil Rights Act."
Lott voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1990, which reversed five Supreme Court rulings that had limited the ability of minorities to win job discrimination lawsuits and damages.
"although if you checked my dating record, I don't think you would continue to think that"
From what I hear Lott likes to "date" boys of color, but that hardly negates the fact that he has been consistently opposed to civil rights and has advocated segregation. And, if you've participated in interacial dating, I must assume you did not attend Bob Jones' U which prohibits that act. In 1981, Lott filed a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit seeking to overturn an IRS decision to deny a tax exemption to Bob Jones University because of the school's ban on interracial dating.
"is that a place you really want to go with Hillary's problems in this field."
What does Hillary have to do with this discussion, and what makes you think I support Hillary? Has Hilary ever accepted money from a racvist organization? Can you guys ever defend a republican without whining about the Clintons? Lott was quoted in a CCC newsletter as telling the group in 1992 that "the people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."
William Lord, a former regional director for the White Citizens' Council who had served as a county chairman in one of Lott's political campaigns. How can you possibly defend this crap?
"to assign as his reason for doing what he has done, an irrational hatred of blacks is absolutely unsupported by the facts (including the testimony of many of his black constituants in Alabama)
First, who defines racism as "an irrational hatred of blacks"?
I define it as believing that one race is superior to members of annother race and advocating that the races should be segregated.
Do you not agree that George wallace was a racist? Yet I have personally met several of his black constituants who supported him. Such a fact has little bearing on the fact that Wallace was a racist.
"and you should be ashamed of yourself. Fat chance of that."
Hey Rog, do you think just once we could disagree on something without you turning it into an
Ad hominem attack? I know you can do it buddy.
There is no Civil Rights Act of 1990. There is the race neutral one in 1990 which we call the ADA. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a stupid one with plenty of reasons to be voted against and none of them because it in part helps people of a certain race and a certain color.
I wouldn't attend Bob Jones U, but I don't think its stupid (since overturned) ban on interracial dating should have stripped it of its tax status. I guess I'm a racist too.
Your point on racism is well taken, if you feel superior without reason to anyone in the race, but don't actually hate them, you're a racist and Wallace probably died one according to that definition. Your point on episodes of anti-Semitism versus being more anti-Semitic is pointless nit picking.
Do you really think that candidates for office get to pick the party's county chairmans? And voting for the Dixiecrats in 1948 is different from advocating segregation after 1964, which I don't believe Lott ever did. In fact, because he was born in 1941, I don't believe Lott ever voted for Strom Thurmond, at least not for him for President. Rather than have that annoying fact destroy your arguments based on your ignorance and willingness to believe the worst of him, you'll probably just think, Lott's a liar too.
Even Wallace did an about face on segregation when he saw that the political winds were changing and it was in his interest to do so. as did most pre 1964segregationists.
But Lott said:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either."
That statement was made in 2002. In 2002 he said that this country would have been better off if an avowed segregationist had been elected president, and that he would have voted for him.
I realize that the right has set the bar pretty low when it comes to defining intolerence, but what does a guy have to do before you condemn him, burn a cross in somebody's front yard?
I think I have set forth a decent set of facts to show why Lott should be challenged for significantly contributing to the racial oppression that has gripped this country. Your attempt to counter my position by trying to distinguish these facts individually ignores the point that taken as a whole, its pretty obvious where Lott stands .