When did Nazis become left-wingers?

WOW!  You just got in a gut shot!

I do agree with you, but the problem is that your 3 friends cant see their bigotry and hatred!

And that is sad.  May I link to it in another article?

I don't think it's fair to link liberalism and intolerance and hatred. Just because there are a few bad apples (like your friends there), doesn't mean the left-wing is rife with bigotry.

I don't think it's fair to link liberalism and intolerance and hatred. Just because there are a few bad apples (like your friends there), doesn't mean the left-wing is rife with bigotry

Very true, but perhaps experience is showing us that intolerance is a subset of liberalism.  As in not all liberals are intolerant, but all intolerants (overtly) are liberals.

I know that is not the case either, but in the arena of political discussion, it is rapidly becoming defacto.

Dr. Guy, link away! Although I don't think my article is good enough; I should have invested more time in writing it. I expect to write a longer, more sophisticated article on the subject later.

NJever, there are intolerant right-wingers and intolerant left-wingers. But my point is that they seem to have joined forces.

Perhaps "left" and "right" are no longer or never were usable descriptions of political movements. I am, in the words of the three advocates and my own, a right-winger. Yet I do not believe in the inherent superiority of any nation or race (although I do believe in the superiority of some cultures over others, culture being what man *does* rather than what man *is*), I am very very pro immigration (I am an immigrant), and I reject fascism and laws that dictate how one has to live or behave in one's own home.

Being pro-Israel used to be a left-wing position. The founders of Israel were socialists. The struggle is not between the left and the right; it is between two other sides, both having their own left and right.

It's too bad you had to come across that intolerant nazi-style delivery those particular war-protesters were employing. But I have to wonder if they were even serious at all. It's too screwed for me to think of. Some guys who want to make a point about some perceived injustice so they use hostility and political schoolyard tripe to spread their message? Strange. Probably kids with not too much to do with their time. Really though, if you want people to listen you don't act with anger or hostility. You try talk or debate or verbally argue with them over their views. Who's going to change anyone's opinion with hostility? Those guys should be in the Guiness Book of World Records for dropping the ball over such an easy argument to win. How can you protest such an illegal action such as events in Iraq and not win anyone over with logic and reasonable arguments? It's like failing to stop a deep-freezer salesman from making a killing off of an Eskimo community up North.

Dr Guy, I have posted the longer article.

Reiki-House, exactly.

Yet I do not believe in the inherent superiority of any nation or race (although I do believe in the superiority of some cultures over others, culture being what man *does* rather than what man *is*),

There has been 3 articles written on that theme recently! You should join in the discussion on them. one was By Champas Socialist (he started it), Another by Little Whip and the other by me (shameless plug). I am going to watch for more of your blogging.

Dr Guy, I have posted the longer article.

I will read it tomorrow. Today, the wife wants to do the garden! She went to get more supplies, so I snuck on the computer.

Spend a little time on an American campus these days and it's pretty clera which side more closely resembles the fascists of the 30s.

The only thing many young liberals are missing are brown shirts. It's very unfortunate.

Heck of an article! Why is this the first article of yours I have seen?

Greywar: my other articles have not become featured articles. They were also not politicial.

The only thing many young liberals are missing are brown shirts. It's very unfortunate.

--I'm suprised that some of the lib's are not calling them members of the "bush neocon deathcult" [bunch 'o' crap if i say,but hey...whatcha gonna do]

il faur retudier l'apres guerre ou sont passer les naziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii??

It's about common enemies. Today's "left" and today's Neo-Nazis have the same enemy: the USA and George Bush.

Both groups protested the war, and for the same reason: because it was the allies vs a fascist dictator. And neither group seem to be very interested in protesting some of the worse wars in the world, like the civil war in Sudan. Where was the left when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

Whether or not agreeing with the Nazis about foreign policy is sustainable for a long time, I don't know. But at the moment it's certainly the case that George Bush is most hated by the extreme left and the extreme right.

neo-conservatism and American imperialism, the further away you get from racism, vandalism, and intolerance.


I think you're opinion is good, but somewhat skewed. I quote this part from your blog specifically because when you look at the large cities in the U.S. they tend to be the true melting pots of this country. People are exposed to different varieties of ethnicities, lifestyles, religions on a day to day basis. People from large cities usually don't know everyone around or really care to know everyone around and large cities as we all know tend to vote Democratic. There isn't much variety of ethnicity in places like Montana, Utah, or Oklahoma in small towns where everyone knows each other and they aren't exposed to cultural differences as often as city dwellers. I think it even boils down psychologically into learning tolerance of other cultures by constantly being in contact with other cultures. I've seen more racism in Biloxi, Mississippi then I have in New York City and that is frankly speaking. These small towns such as towns in the midwest tend to vote Republican and specifically this election helped George Bush win who I think is a neo-con himself. I'm sorry to disagree with you but I don't see what you see.

Enigmagnetic: my observation was not about whether a given region was a melting pot or not but about whether there is intolerance or not. I do not know whether rural areas are now more or less rascist than big cities in America. There is possibly a trend which makes cities more tolerant in general. But this doesn't have anything to do with my comparison between Europe, the UK and Ireland, and the US.

Enigmagnetic: my observation was not about whether a given region was a melting pot or not but about whether there is intolerance or not. I do not know whether rural areas are now more or less rascist than big cities in America. There is possibly a trend which makes cities more tolerant in general. But this doesn't have anything to do with my comparison between Europe, the UK and Ireland, and the US.

I see, but what I simply tried to point out is that neo-conservatism and American imperialism doesn't decrease or increase tolerance everywhere. It may be true of what you've seen and that's why i said you had a good point because I could see that happening overseas but I don't think it applies everywhere.

I believe what Enigmagnetic is saying is fairly straightforward.

The rural areas that are less diverse and possibly less tolerant with rich histories of racism (such as the southern states) voted for the man currently in office. The highly - urban, more diverse, and possibly less intolerant regions ( think: the majority of the west coast and nearly all the northeastern coast ) voted for the Democratic counterpart. This suggests your theory of the neo-conservativism and American imperialism being the high road taking one further away from racism, vandalism, and intolerance incorrect if one believes the constituents voted for an individual who is truly representative of their ideology...but hey, that's what happens when you leave common sense at the wayside while traveling the supposed divine road of neo-conservativism.

I am curious - in what area did this incident with the protestors occur? I don't know if this McDonalds you visited was in Germany or the states.

You state: "I find it odd and very disturbing that in Germany left-wingers and Neo-Nazis have found their common enemy", where do you support your claim with evidence? How are the left wingers and Neo-Nazi's connected by a common enemy? I don't see it in the text - feel free to expound upon this.

Some parting words from our flagship neo-con:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." — George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

You state: "I find it odd and very disturbing that in Germany left-wingers and Neo-Nazis have found their common enemy", where do you support your claim with evidence? How are the left wingers and Neo-Nazi's connected by a common enemy? I don't see it in the text - feel free to expound upon this.

the reason you prolly missed it was cuz it didnt ooze forth til comment #14:

Both groups protested the war, and for the same reason: because it was the allies vs a fascist dictator.

to which my first response was: how is it that crackheads in ireland can afford mcdonalds. then i remembered he said he hadda free coupon.

anyone who truly believes the protests against the administration's foolish refusal to stabilize afghanistan in order to indulge itself in iraq (with the same kinda immediate gratification one would expect from a three-year-old), really needs to get off the pipe.

"I am curious - in what area did this incident with the protestors occur? I don't know if this McDonalds you visited was in Germany or the states."

According to my article it was Dublin, Ireland.

It's the McDonald's in Swan Centre, Rathmines, Dublin 6. I live just up the road.

"How are the left wingers and Neo-Nazi's connected by a common enemy?"

Look up some Neo-Nazi Web sites and see what they have to say about the President. There were also very frequent news reports about demonstrations in Europe where (specific) pacifists (those pacifists who let their voices be heard only when the US fight a dictatorship) and Neo-Nazis demonstrated side-by-side.

Look up some Neo-Nazi Web sites and see what they have to say about the President. There were also very frequent news reports about demonstrations in Europe where (specific) pacifists (those pacifists who let their voices be heard only when the US fight a dictatorship) and Neo-Nazis demonstrated side-by-side.

extend this specious reasoning (specific pacifist??? like whom?) and anyone who doesn't support the bush administration wholeheartedly is a neo-nazi? people from all across the spectrum have been and remain appalled by bush's rush to war in iraq.

you shoulda titled this: when did nazis become the pope? (since war opponent john paul ll's departure, it would be confusing tho.)

or, maybe, when did trotskyites become republicans?

personally i can think of a lot worse things for nazis to become than left-wingers.

i think what you really meant to ask was 'when did left-wingers become nazis?'

have another rock and a happy meal.

Kingbee,

I clearly have not communicated well enough. I specifically mentioned left-wingers and Neo-Nazis as two groups who at the moment share a common enemy. Why does this make them the same? It does not, necessarily. My point is only that the worst of the Neo-Nazis is the same that is the worst about left-wingers.

Had I titled this differently, I would have made a different point. Since the point I wanted to make was already in my mind, I obviously didn't title it differently. Did this come to your mind at any stage?

And had I asked the other way around, I would have implied that all left-wingers are Nazis. They are not. What I discovered was not that all left-wingers agree with Neo-Nazis, but that all Neo-Nazis agree with the left-wingers on this issue.

In my next article I specifically mentioned how it was not communism but pan-nationalism what made the Soviet-Union evil. The reason is simply that I do not think of left-wingers per se as the opponents, rather the specific pacifists among them. (I did specify what the "specific" refers to).

It isn't true that people from all across the spectrum have been appalled by the 12-year "rush" to war. It is in fact impossible. Neo-cons are, by definition, not appalled. You will in fact find that opposition to Bush's policies come from two camps: the left and Neo-Nazis. I am currently investigating and trying to explain what exactly these groups have in common.

I have so far found that they unfortunatelty share quite a bit, but it isn't "socialism" or "statism" or anything like that. It's a deeper philosophical difference.

Reply #22 By: Citizen Andrew J. Brehm - 4/28/2005 7:23:43 AM

--Don't bother, there are those on this site who occasionally do not read the entire reply or article before they burst into rage,etc...

I specificallt mentioned left-wingers and Neo-Nazis as two groups who at the moment share a common enemy

yeah and republicans and neo-nazis share a common attraction towards the planet's massive body of matter. gravity isn't what one normally considers an interest or an agenda. i'm sure most republicans dislike al sharpton as much as neo-nazis but that doesnt mean they share a common enemy.

your field survey of three people atta mcdonalds hardly forms the basis for any type of reasonable specific conclusion, much less a sweeping generality of the type youre proclaiming.

I did specify what the "specific" refers to

i'm not aware of any group of pacificists who only speak out when the us attacks dictators. names, please and some sorta evidence you didnt just pull that outta your ass.

will in fact find that opposition to Bush's policies come from two camps: the left and Neo-Nazis. I am currently investigating and trying to explain what exactly these groups have in common

it's all part of a plot...i'd back off if i were you before it's too late. better hide the crack in your freezer too.

Kingbe,

you are becoming more impolite, which leads me to believe that your motivation is not to clarify misunderstandings but to provoke.

But let me try to clarify a few things anyway:

1. I did not only "survey" three people in front of a McDonald's. If you have somehow missed the major demonstrations against the Iraq war over the last few years, then I am sorry for assuming that it was widely known, but the problem of Neo-Nazis joining forces with the so-called pacifists is a rather real one. And in fact some left-wing organisations have tried to distance themselves from the Neo-Nazi component. What they haven't realised is not that association with Nazis is bad, but that they do, in fact, agree with the Nazis on this.

2. Point me to a series of large scale demonstrations against any current war that doesn't involve the USA or Israel and I will admitt that these pacifists are indeed objective pacifists and not specific to certain kinds of wars. For myself I have neither seen nor heard of any major demonstrations against the Sudanese government (the slaughtering in Sudan arguably kills more people then the invasion of Iraq did) or indeed any other current war. Has the world suddenly become peaceful apart from the US and Israel?

3. I don't know about a plot. But I remember that 25 years ago the so-called pacifists did not demonstrate against Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, but they did demonstrate against the US liberating it. If that is not selective pacifism, then I don't know what us. And I'm afraid I was one of the "no blood for oil" types then. But I was 14 years old then, and as I have said in the article, I was drawn toward neo-conservatism by advocates more tolerant than the left-wingers at the McDonald's. I don't think it's a plot, but I do think that it is a certain philosophy that makes people oppose using force to remove dictators but not the dictators. (I don't consider quiet disagreement an actual opposition. In my experience quiet opponents is all the support a fascist dictator needs.)