Posted on 06/16/2003 12:46:18 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
During the 2000 elections, I was enrolled at the University Of Georgia. A large university campus is a fascinating place to be during a presidential election; it is a microcosm of political views ranging from the mainstream to the absurd. I was involved with both Republican and Libertarian club events, but the colorful activities of other political ideologies did not escape my attention. The daily panorama of politics ranged from the banality one would expect to be a reflection of the Gore/Lieberman ticket, to the playfully politically incorrect witticisms that have come to be expected from College Republicans. But the fun did not stop there. We were treated to Libertarian gun raffles which were hugely successful in numbers attracted, media attention and funds raised. There were parades of Greens with their usual macabre signs and costumes, decrying capitalism, environmental destruction and the military, with their ever present drums and threats of violence. The smaller organizations ranged from racial identity groups (who seemed very serious), hard core communists and hold-out supporters of Jell-O Biafra, Frank Zappa For President boosters (surely a boon for the running mate, as Zappa had recently expired), and even a loose-knit cadre of anarchists and Marxists who leafleted and graffitied the campus with "Pigasus For President" messages. I can only assume that this was not the same pig that the Yippies ran against President Nixon, but given that many in this group identified themselves as witches, I will not rule out reanimation. After all, the Democrats tried it in 2002, with former Senator Fritz Mondale and former Senator Frank Lautenburg.It was just before this bewildering time that I met a girl who would give me insight into the Left that I otherwise might not have. When I met her (she will remain unnamed), she was not committed to any political ideology. She was an unusually bright girl; attractive and well humored, with a scathing wit. We spent a good deal of time together. At some point, she began a strange transformation. Gradually, her mood darkened, her humor became far more negative and surfaced less frequently, and she began avoiding discussions of politics with me. Eventually, she admitted that she had become a Nazi (yes, an actual Hitler-quoting Nazi). Of course, I tried to talk her out of it. I tried my best to explain the failures of socialism to her, and to defend the Jewish people. I attempted both reason and emotion. I debunked the "Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion," as Czarist propaganda, and countered the conspiracy theories concerning the Rothchilds and Israel. I listed the great accomplishments of famous Jews, and even convinced her that science, philosophy, religion, art, economics and literature have been greatly furthered by Jewish accomplishments. It was all for naught. She had surrounded herself with charismatic Nazis, and had been completely taken in by their lies. It was the end of our friendship.
Time passed and as we were traveling in different circles, our paths did not cross. It was during the election that I next became aware of her. I spotted her among the Green Party mobs, agitating in support of Ralph Nader being allowed on the ballot. I will admit that I always hoped Nader would be a bit of a Ross Perot to Al Gore, so I approached her and offered to sign her petition. "Hey, ____," I said, "I thought you were a Nazi; what are you doing supporting Nader?" "I am a Nazi," she replied, "That's why I'm supporting Nader." I must have looked a bit puzzled, because she continued, "What do you think Nazism is? It's national socialism. Only we don't support any one nation. We want an end to all capitalist governments, and the environmental destruction they entail. Also, we're all against the Jews. The Jews run everything; they are responsible for capitalist exploitation and environmental destruction. They are responsible for poverty, war, and global warming. What they are doing to Palestine they will do to all of us if we let them." "So," I asked in disbelief, "the Green Party is anti-Semitic?" "Most of us are," she replied, "Some of us even call ourselves Nazi Greens, especially in Europe." "You are insane," I told her, as I walked away, feeling nauseous.
This exchange helped me understand what would otherwise be a puzzling phenomenon. An honest appraisal of the Left over the past few years will show that it is growing increasingly anti-Semitic. On its face, this just does not make sense. Jews are generally associated with liberal causes, but modern liberalism is growing less accepting of Jews. Perhaps Edward Said's continuous parroting of Palestinian condemnations of "Zionism" is at the root, but the tree has grown far beyond the Palestinian cause. What began with Israeli divestment campaigns on college campuses, that equated Israel to Apartheid South Africa, has grown to the point that the phrase "Zionist conspiracy" has become a virtual shibboleth (if you will pardon the metaphor) of not merely Timothy McVeighs, but of increasingly mainstream liberals.
The rise of anti-Semitism on the left seems to have come to a head following the September 11th terrorist attacks. With the appearance of books claiming to prove that Israel was behind the terrorist attacks, the Zionist conspiracy became common currency. Liberal websites and leaders spread this message, until blatant anti-Semitism became common place at every war protest. Filthy, French style, protesters held signs blaming the world's ills on Jews, while their French counterparts defaced synagogues and graves, and attacked Jews on the streets.
This tide of sentiment is not limited to the dirty and the youthful. Indeed, a veritable cottage industry has been formed of lawyers, led by the ACLU, who make a living defending those who seek to, or who actively encourage killing Jews in Israel and abroad. More and more, the Left makes it clear that the only religion they approve of is the one that preaches the killing of Jews (and Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) - Islam. Even among mainstream democrats, anti-Semitism is not condemned. When Jesse Jackson used the slur, "hymie town," he was not denounced by a single liberal, nor was Al Sharpton rebuked when he said he would not tolerate a Hadassah (Lieberman's wife) in the White House. Even Hillary Clinton is forgiven for reportedly calling Dick Morris a "Jew bastard." The "Zionist conspiracy" is even being leveled against the Bush administration as the term "neoconservative" has resurfaced as synonymous with Jewish conservative. From the radical fringe to the democratic party proper, the Left claims that the Bush administration is merely a pawn of Israel.
I do not pretend that my experience with a Nazi turned Green is evidence that all Greens are Nazis; I am sure many are not. I also do not believe that all liberals are anti-Semitic, nor that all liberals are tolerant of such. However, evidence proves that anti-Semitism is increasingly common on the left. What was formerly agreed upon as the greatest evil of the twentieth century is being embraced and tolerated by many of the most influential leaders and constituencies of the Left. As an active Republican, and committed conservative, I can attest that neither this kind of rhetoric, nor ideology, is tolerated on the Right. Any Republican who espoused such racist nonsense would be roundly condemned, and forced out of any leadership position.
This is what makes so much of the Left's rhetoric so maddening. After all, the Left frequently likens Republicans to Nazis, from the protesters carrying signs depicting President Bush with a Hitler mustache, to Janet Reno's Nazi reference at a group of Jewish voters in Florida just last week. The Left simply can't have it both ways. If a leader were to arise-a man who was a vegetarian, a radical environmentalist, a tea-drinking, nature worshipping, anti-smoking fanatic, a socialist, a proponent of abortion and of medical research utilizing fetal tissue, who would outlaw speech and ideas that he didn't approve of, an animal rights activist, a controversial artist and writer, a pagan who's harshest rhetoric was directed against Jews and Christians - he could rise quickly to the leadership of the Green Party. Indeed, such a man would find few critics among democrats, and would be welcomed by the faculty of most colleges. Such a man did once exist, and did become the leader of a modern nation only a few decades ago. That man was Adolph Hitler.
You pretty much blew your credibility here with this statement. Fact of the matter is that Hitler WAS a vegetarian, nature worshipping, something of an environmentalist (oddly one of his first acts of office was some legislation for the protection of cave bats), anti-smoking fanatic (I once even wrote up a funny scenario about a sign that said, "ACHTUNG! No Smoking In The Fuhrerbunker!"), animal rights activist (vegetarian and loved dogs), and anti-Christian (no chaplains allowed in SS units).
Better go back to square one and do some research before you display your ignorance to everybody here.
I didn't say they were good for the environment.
I said they were fanatical environmentalists, which they were.
But if they were good for the environment, took care of social stuff, and had an economy and military which kicked the crap out of Europe, why would you think that "wasn't possible"?
According to whom?
I would like to believe that totalitarian systems don't work at least in the long run. I'll wait till the jurry is in, but judging from how poorly communism worked, I'll stick with this hunch for now. Anytime you concentrate all power with a in a party (or any wierd group), that group will try cling to power and become decadent. These systems fail to work as meritocracies, failing to allow new people and ideas to chalenge preconcieved beliefs and the whims of powers that be.
Nazis still had captialism. There were still companies making big bucks off doing evil things. They had no respect for human dignity and no democracy. Hmmm, kind of like modern China (scary). I sometimes wonder if that system would have collapsed of its own faults like the USSR.
Since when does "what you would like to believe" have to do with historical events?
The NSDAP did not work, in the long run (although it is interesting that it is still banned in Germany and Austria).
In the short run, however, they supported what the supported and did what they did.
This is called reality.
The NSDAP did not work, in the long run (although it is interesting that it is still banned in Germany and Austria).
It didn't work because they got their butts kicked!!! My question is just would such a system "work" (as in not fall apart) if left alone. Once you go down this dark road is there a way back?
Yeah, I can speak for Germany. Nazis and Commis are both outlawed. That said neo-Nazis hang out in our "republican party" and the SED, east German commi party is now the PDS. Neither made the 5% needed for proportional representation in the last election. Our constitution bans any party whose platform is against the fundaments of democracy or human dignity. So they water thier rhetoric down, or risk getting banned.
As an American this bugs me a bit because I would like to think we could let even these freaks have democratic representation, because nobody would vote for them anyway.
We are seeing control of our property here in America under the misapplication of environmental laws. And yes, this practice is fascism. It's efficient in that the owner of the property is given the illusion of ownership while under the de facto control of the state.
Yes, I aggree 100% that is how facism works. One thing that's bugging me: you don't think that all enviromental legislation is facism do you? Is any regualtion of industry facism?
Calling Nazis "right wing" is nothing more than a ploy by the communists to divorce themselves from their ideological Marxist twin brother - Adolph Hitler.
I agree these people have something in common. Funny how they enjoy beating each other up when ever they have the chance. I doubt that "right wing" tag on Nazis is part of some commi conspiracy. Nazis were the result of the German Right loosing faith in democracy and buying into a bunch of bull crap. I understand it may be insulting to be associated with them. I doubt there are any people on this site that call themsleves "right" and have lost faith in democracy and would want some kind of one party dictatorship. There are probably still left wing nuts who might.
Pandering, as in ‘Panda Bear’, as in Paul Tsongas about Clinton. I associate pandering with the left.
“ In Germany at this time
As opposed to when, like before and even today? Very sloppy start
there were communists on the one side, the nationalists on the other, and in between a couple parties that were failing to deal with the people's needs.
From each his ability…bla, bla, The Socialist mantra. That doesn't help you paint Germany as capitalist
Hitler picked the name national socialist, to buy support from both sides. As he was complaining about capitalism then, he was being funded by banks and rich buisnessmen.
I am not aware of any, save Pol Pot, socialist, even Communist system, that doesn’t have rich, powerful and internal organizations for funding political factions. So, what does that prove? Germany was a socialist country at the time. Your statement proves only the usual maneuverings that are found anywhere. Very poor fact mining. ?
He formed a coallition government in the begining
Wrong, he tried to overthrow the government and was put in the klink were he wrote, class.....?
.. with other parties being considered good for buisness. Private industry fueled the Nazi German economy. Constrast this to the USSR or Socialist China.( Ah, yeah, they came to power in armed revolts. As tried Hitler, and failed, so your point is?)
Stalin and Hitler probably
Probably? Probably? Ah, ever hear of Poland? .
... could have agreed on things like subservience of the individual to the state
Yeah, people were sure free under Hitler
, but their echonomic views were far apart.
Stalin had periods of privatization. Actually both their economic views were unsystematic, with the only constant , as you said, subservience to the state.
Today neonazis in Germany are still "rechsextremisten" -- "right extreamist".
That would give you an idea of how left Germany is and has always been. It is a relativist descriptions existing within the leftist philosophys and German culture. If we are both at the South Pole, and I am two feet north of you, it is true you are more “southern” than me, but in truth we are both radical southernist. This is the fundamental argument you are trying to ignore.
Definately at the time he was considered to be right wing (that's where he sat in the Reichstag).
A lot of people thought he was a dream boat. Mass popular delusions, like the Academe love affair with Stalin, Mao, and Uncle Ho, doesn’t mean anything to me. Others are more impressed, you for instance.
I can understand people from the modern right not wanting to be identified in any way with Nazis, but don't try to rewrite history as a conflict between the "right" and all that is evil. There were things that grew out of the so called "right" movements of their times that were horible too.
Example? None? How easy!
Sorry this is the first time I've heard of people tring to paint the Nazis as leftists. I always thought Stalin and Mao made better examples of that. Once you start giving everything up to totalitarianism, I guess what ever extrem crap you have all looks alike.
Vague babblefest.
You are really drinking the Kool-Aid. Like in leftist Germany there was any, at all, American/Reagan/Hyack free market capitalist party? Which there wasn’t Were, like, those seats at the Reichstag reserved for "Free Market Capitalist?" and what, Hitler clicked his heels and said, "That's the place for us, boys!" So in essence, when Hitler said he was a socialist, acted socalist for decades….That was a lie, and when his party sat down in a room, that was the defining movement? Very novel political observation. You must be the world leader in “sit-ology” Every gathering of people has a right side and a left side. It, in and of itself, means nothing. Furthermore your description of the then, and now, German economy as "private" if fairly false. Germany, and especially then, has always had a fascist tie between Government power and large industries, best told in Barbara Tuchmans "The Arms of Krup."
Armed revolt was occurring to Hitler by '37 in usually the most conservative of Roman Catholics area, Bavaria. The SS and other internal organs practiced a lot of their anti-partisan techniques first, and quiet successfully on the Bavarians. The first, true violent anti-Hitler/Nazis were these rural conservative Catholics and they became an early, albeit small number of those killed in the camps.
Contrary to vegetarian propoganda, Hitler most certainly was a vegetarian (for health reasons). Many leading European elitists were vegetarian at the time. The diet was promoted as the pathway to enlightenment, good health, and a long life, all things with which Hitler was obsessed. He was an avid admirer of the composer Wagner, also a vegetarian. He was also a committed pagan, and a follower of spiritualism, "new age" ideas, and the occult. He disdained Christianity as a religion of weaklings (love you enemies, instead of destroying them) that was directly responsible for restraining the power of the German people, and ordered many anti-Nazi Christian clerics executed. Why do you think he chose the swastika for the symbol of his movement? It is an old Norse pagan rune symbol from ancient Odinism that symbolizes unrestrained masculine power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.