August 18th, 2017

Jonah Goldberg on fascists vs. communists

Jonah Goldberg writes:

There’s a natural tendency to think that when people, or movements, hate each other, it must be because they’re opposites. This assumption overlooks the fact that many — indeed, most — of the great conflicts and hatreds in human history are derived from what Sigmund Freud called the “narcissism of minor differences.”…

…One of the only nice things about the alt-right is that its leaders are honest about the fact that they want nothing to do with traditional American conservatism. Like the original Nazis, they seek to replace the traditional right with their racial hogwash.

The antifa crowd has a very similar agenda with regard to American liberalism. These goons and thugs oppose free speech, celebrate violence, despise dissent and have little use for anything else in the American political tradition. But many liberals, particularly in the media, are victims of the same kind of confusion that vexed so much of American liberalism in the 20th century. Because antifa suddenly has the (alt-)right enemies, they must be the good guys.

That’s probably what most liberals think. But most leftists (and there are plenty of them in the media and the Democratic Party) are not the least bit confused about what antifa is and what their goals are.

By the way, I’m not sure whether the following history comes under the heading of “minor differences” or major ones. It feels pretty major to me. In Nazi Germany and in several other countries occupied by the Nazis during WWII, Communists formed a major part of the Resistance. In addition, they were numerous among those who developed an underground network to help Jews escape and/or hide, and this in particular strongly distinguished them from Nazis. In the Soviet USSR there was a great deal of anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews, of course, but this was not true of these particular Communists outside of Russia during World War II.

Communists were not the only rescuers and resisters; not at all. Among the ranks of rescuers were a great many religious people (this was certainly true in Germany) and even atheists who just felt that the Holocaust was wrong. But Communists were fairly well-represented among the rescuers and resisters, and they had the added advantage of already being well-organized and accustomed to launching clandestine operations.

This isn’t a defense of Communism in general; not at all. But it is a way in which Communists during WWII distinguished themselves from Nazis.

[NOTE: See this for a discussion of a fascinating part of Polish rescuer history: Zegota, a group compromised of Catholic rescuers with quite a few socialists and Communists mixed in.]

89 Responses to “Jonah Goldberg on fascists vs. communists”

  1. Mark30339 Says:

    The vague label “alt right” gets thrown so much that before long it will mean everyone who disagrees with Nancy Pelosi. The White Supremacists and Neo Nazis in no way do the bidding of conservatives, and are completely unwelcome. Liberals and Antifa, on the other hand, are more like China and North Korea. The reprehensible behavior of one conveniently serves the interests of the other.

  2. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Antifa and the BLM ‘activists’ are the Left’s “shock troops”. Intimidation that encourages ‘compromise’ is the game. They know that many will incrementally yield ground until they are right up against the cliff’s edge. Appeasement to obtain ‘peace at any price’ is the coin of the realm in the land of the moral coward.

  3. ConceptJunkie Says:

    “Alt-Right” is also going to be treated like a mainstream thing, and something most conservatives support. Everything in the service of the Great Lie.

    At first, the “Alt-Right” just seemed to be people on the right who were a more strident (i.e., too strident) and who were willing to adopt the Alinksyite tactics of the left, which have served them so well.

    Now the label appears to have been co-opted by the neonazis and white supremicists, although I suspect they are a small fringe of even those who consider themselves “Alt-Right”, and of course that’s exactly who the media wants us to believe they are, because everyone who is to the right of Bill Clinton is clearly just salivating to start rounding up darkies and Jews and unleash his inner reichsfuehrer.

  4. n.n Says:

    First, the left-right paradigm is contextual. The American center is conservative. The American right is libertarian (i.e. individualistic). The remainder are on the left.

    Both color diversity (i.e. progressive liberal’s concept of “diversity) and color supremacy deny individual dignity. Both gas chambers and abortion chambers deny lives deemed unworthy. Both Mengele clinicians and Planned Parenthood cannibals are degenerate forms of life. Redistributive change is a national socialist concept, because the “Jews” have too much.

  5. Sean Says:

    It’s amazing to me how blatantly the MSM is supporting Antifa. Read CNN’s explainer article on them and you’d think it was written by a member.

    I’ve seen this narcissism-of-small-differences argument making the rounds lately and it’s wrong.

    1) The neo-Nazis aren’t trying to get people fired for having the wrong opinion.
    2) The neo-Nazis haven’t invented this b.s. notion that “Their speech is violence so we’re justified in physically attacking them in the streets even when they’re acting peacefully.”
    3) The neo-Nazis aren’t trying to deny everyone else their free speech by calling all opposing opinions “hate speech.”
    4) The neo-Nazis don’t show up at other people’s rallies and attack them.
    5) The neo-Nazis never showed up at Dem presidential candidates’ rallies to attack their supporters.
    6) The neo-Nazis don’t have the MSM covering for them.
    7) The neo-Nazis don’t have George Soros’ backing (although the original Nazis did).

    There’s no moral equivalency here. Antifa are worse than the neo-Nazis.

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    ConceptJunkie:

    It’s similar to what was done to the Tea Party with much less cause.

    I agree that neo- Nazis and white supremacists are a relatively small part of the alt-right, but they are a party of it and a loud and awful part at that. In contrast, the Tea Party was about something else entirely.

  7. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    Antifa gets a pass because it’s anti-nazi.
    “How can that be wrong?” I’ve heard.
    The enemy of my enemy?
    The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy, nothing more or less.
    That the Nazi’s have a rich heritage of murder and destruction makes them no more evil than the group that opposes them, if they too are murderous and destructive (as antifa and BLM are).
    Antifa is as communist as they were in the past when they opposed Hitler and Mussolini.
    We’ve seen the result of communism.
    It’s just gang wars over turf.

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    Correction of my comment above: “they are a PART of it.”

  9. Dave Says:

    The Flash and the Reverse Flash are both Speedsters, just because Antifa is anti-nazi doesn’t mean they are the good guy, they are both totalitarian groups, unless you believe in the existence of good totalitarian, which i believe many liberals do.

  10. Sean Says:

    One of the things that’s really striking about this past week is how different the responses have been compared to, say, back in the late ’80s, when people thought skinheads posed a real problem. Anybody else remember the skinhead scare of the late ’80s? It was a real thing for about 18 months or so, then IIRC the SPLC sued the Metzgers out of existence and that was that. Everyone agreed that neo-Nazis were bad and stupid and skinheads were alienated losers with bad taste in music. And they were.

    Compare that to today:

    The liberal half of the nation is horrified by what happened at Charlottesville and Trump’s response to it. They see it as proof of a resurgence of the very Klan that voted Trump into office, even though there’s actually only 3,000 KKK members in the whole country and probably over half of those are FBI informants. As SlateStarCodex pointed out, there’s probably 50,000 white nationalists/supremacists in the US, which isn’t enough to get someone elected dog catcher, let alone president.
    If this had been the ’80s, all of us on the right would have gone along with that narrative because the MSM had complete control. The liberal half is appalled that conservatives are more diffident about it today, we’re not condemning the neo-Nazis as readily and forcefully as they are and their online behavior is increasingly shrill about it.

    Why, it’s as if the more they sense they’re losing control of the narrative, the more hysterical they become in their efforts to reinforce it. Republican politicians are showing just how much they’re controlled by the MSM’s narrative, which is laughable.

    So why aren’t conservatives condemning the KKK and neo-Nazis as forcibly as Seth Rogen would like? Maybe this is what happens when you spend the last two years calling tens of millions of people white supremacists and Nazis who were neither. Those labels lose their sting. “Huh, white supremacists in Charlottesville… but aren’t we all white supremacists, though, since the Left says we benefit from a white supremacist system? Maybe these ‘white supremacists’ are just normal joes getting a bad rap from the Left – you know, like all other white people.”

    At least, the attitude I’m seeing on Facebook from conservatives and most of the alt-righters in my feed is something like, “The KKK didn’t start the fight, your side did.” And the liberals are going, “What?! But it’s the KKK! Are you insane?” To which the conservatives are saying, “I don’t like the KKK any more than the next guy but your side sucks even more.”

    Conservatives would never have said that back in the ’80s. They wouldn’t have even had a way to critique the MSM narrative. And who would have thought that there would be a group in America that large swaths of the country actually find more hate-able than neo-Nazis? How hilarious is that?

  11. chuck Says:

    I think I would need to see some numbers here. My recollection is that the Danes were pretty much the only group that really distinguished themselves under occupation. The communists, of course, were a major part of the resistance after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, but I don’t know how many Jews they managed to smuggle out. I suspect that was more a factor in Eastern Europe where the Soviet Union was a relatively safe destination for those who could reach it, but I am not very familiar with events there. In Western Europe, fascist Spain also did relatively well by Jewish refugees escaping from Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and France.

  12. Tatterdemalian Says:

    Fascists and Communists alike tried to make thei public’s socioeconomic decisions 100% predictable to avoid another Great Depression, just using different methods. Fascists tried using mind control and the liquidation of anyone that thought outside the bounds of their culture; communists used the more direct (and, not coincidentally, more successful) method of using the military to sieze all physical means of production, and liquidate anyone that dared deviate from the production orders of the Glorious Supreme Leader.

    They both had the same result in the end, but the fall of fascism was at least so quick and blatant that not even the most die-hard neo-Nazi tries to claim, “Well, REAL fascosm has never been tried!”

  13. Oldflyer Says:

    Just chiming in with what others have said.

    I am pretty sure that before the election the Alt Right was a big tent term, which included anyone who was an Evangelical Christian (another abused term) along with whoever else was to be marginalized.

    I was raised a Southern Baptist, about as Evangelical as it gets. My younger Grandson is a very spiritual, if non-denominational, Christian. I wish the rest of his family were, as well. I don’t consider us as Alt anything. We are mainstream, law abiding Americans; just like the overwhelming majority of people who voted Trump. I don’t even know anyone who meets the definition of White Supremacist, Neo-Nazi, Skin Head, or Racist (as racist applies to personal interactions or respect for any individual’s rights and dignity. Disgust for the Race based industry, and pressure groups who use race, gender, or orientation to gain advantage is a different matter.)

    We need to be very careful how we characterize people. I have said on numerous posts that pejorative labels are a weapon. Good faith Conservatives should not willingly, or unwittingly, ally with those who use slurs as weapons. Labels matter.

  14. Sean Says:

    Has anybody seen Assange’s comments about our current politics? It’s pretty interesting.

    Julian Assange 🔹‏ @JulianAssange Aug 6
    More
    1/ What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority
    2/ has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of
    3/ white identity politics. Whites are still over 60% of the voting population. As long as Democrats pander to identity politics the GOP
    4/ will be able to herd whites into supporting it. It seems too late for the Democrats to disengage with identity politics. So
    5/ GOP will continue to market itself (sotto voce) as the party of whites. Democrats will be out of most offices until whites
    6/ lose their majority. That won’t be for [decades]. Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized
    7/ electoral politics. For example Malaysia, where majority Malays correspond to whites in the US context
    8/ there is a risk for the Democrats that GOP will become like Barisan National in Malaysia and win the majority of offices for decades.
    9/ Other multi-racial societies solve this problem by removing first past the post voting and parliamentary or presidential majoritarianism.
    10/ Here’s Singapore’s long term prime minister Lee Kuan Yew:
    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese.”

    And finally:
    Julian Assange 🔹‏ @JulianAssange Aug 15
    More
    US inter-ethnic conflict is here to stay. Why?
    1) Internet increases group identity
    2) Demographic trends
    3) Increasing economic inequality

  15. Sean Says:

    OldFlyer,

    I am pretty sure that before the election the Alt Right was a big tent term, which included anyone who was an Evangelical Christian (another abused term) along with whoever else was to be marginalized.

    The alt-right is pretty diverse. They have their white nationalist types but there seem to be far more people in it who are skeptical of Richard Spencer than support him.

    My take on the alt-right is that it’s mostly conservatives (usually in their 20s-30s) who have an anarchic attitude towards liberal taboos. They get a kick out of dancing on those taboos and probably wouldn’t be able to tell you whether or not they were being ironic or serious in doing so. Milo’s a perfect example of that – half-Jewish gay guy who’s always slagging feminism and opposes gay marriage while going on about his black boyfriends. Your initial response is “wtf?” and that’s what he’s/they are going for. Of course, half the alt-right hates him too but that’s just emblematic of how chaotic a scene it is.

  16. Alan F Says:

    Geoffrey Britain has it right. These shock troops have lives of their own, but are encouraged by Democrat politicians and liberal media. That encouragement seems to enhance the standing of these craven politicians and pundits. Therefore, they are eager collaborators with these horrible movements. Antifa has a horrible influence on America’s youth and BLM has a similar influence, which is especially bad for African Americans.

  17. bof Says:

    In your note at the end, I think “compromised” was a typo for “comprised”.

  18. Alan F Says:

    I hope I am right in thinking that Nazi sympathy is tiny compared to Antifa and BLM sympathy in the US. Also, almost all conservatives make a big effort to distance themselves from racist and Nazi ideas.

  19. Sarah Rolph Says:

    Knowing that about Communism is helpful in understanding why some people consider it noble. Thanks, neo.

  20. Oldflyer Says:

    Well, Sean can you define the Alt Right? Again, to me it is a label without a definition.

    The Left uses it pejoratively to mean anyone who disagrees. There is, apparently, a cadre of dingbats who like to call themselves such;e.g., the notorious Milo. There may even be good-faith Conservatives who accept the label.

    It is a nebulous term that I prefer not to use.

  21. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Alan F,

    There is little to no sympathy for racism and Nazi ideas among white Americans.

    Whereas, the polling firm Rasmussen reports that, “Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist”… I would guess that perception is based on direct observation of frequent racist remarks made by other blacks.

    There is great distress on the right at the unrelenting attacks by the left on white males and now that whites in general are inherently racist and irredeemable.

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That applies in human affairs not just in the Newtonian physics.

    That is giving rise to white resistance not white supremacy.

    That resistance comes from the objective fact that white civilizations have contributed much that is right in the world.

    If anything, whites in America are the least racist of all. In the aggregate, whites have faced that demon more honestly than any other group.

  22. Ymar Sakar Says:

    The Alt Right are the anti Left coalition members, primarily composed of the various writers and content creators from the PUA, Art of Manhood, Alpha game, gaming internet world communities, and reddit like sub communities.

    The 3 primary Nexus events were Gamergate, Baen’s authors vs Tor authors at the Science Fiction writers and Hugo conflicts, and the whole War on (white) Men operation.

    When they decided to back Trum, (not the other way around), Trum achieved a decisive advantage over Cruz and Republican Es. Of course, anyone could join the movement, and many of them were former Democrats, Southern Confederate white people still talking about the War of Northern Aggression, blue collar miners that were betrayed by Democrat unions, etc. The Left miscalculated, and kept most of their vote fraud in cities, but that didn’t cover their previous territories that they thought were sacrosanct. It is similar to how the Demoncrats lost the South, although there are still plenty of Confed like Democrat Southerners.

    There’s a theory on the Dark Web, that both the fascists and anti fascists were created by forces loyal to Albert Pike, in order to instigate world wars sufficient enough to create a centralized League of Nations prototype for a totalitarian single world view.

  23. Ymar Sakar Says:

    There is little to no sympathy for racism and Nazi ideas among white Americans.

    That is, of course, incorrect. The very concept of the “white race” was created by Southern Democrats (and Northern Democrats were very sympathetic to the totalitarian philosophy espoused by Southerners in 1830 slave lord days), not by Europe. The Nazis had their Aryans, and the Americans had their “superior white race” theology. Southern Baptist split from the other Baptists precisely on the issue of slavery.

    While many Southerners have repudiated the concept of slavery, it was not because they lost the civil war. They continue in the Leftist, Sanger like, and Demoncrat propaganda, talking about the “War of Northern Aggression” and how Lincoln was a tyrant that deserved to be killed. They cheered the assassination of Lincoln and the caning of Sumer.

    These are all facts that people cannot refute.

    It is very easy for a supernatural faction to stoke the traditional rage of white Americans, because it was Americans that created that totalitarian sin to begin with.

  24. Ymar Sakar Says:

    A real Nazi, btw, believes not in any kind of economic or political theory that common sense educated most here with in public education. A real Nazi believes in witches, divine Aryan hybrid races, and blood sacrifice pain rituals.

    It is Hollywood. How then can people dare say that Americans have no sympathy for Nazis? They practice the same rituals, almost exactly.

  25. chuck Says:

    > A real Nazi believes in witches, divine Aryan hybrid races, and blood sacrifice pain rituals.

    I met real Nazis in Germany, AFAICT, they believed in none of those things.

  26. Ymar Sakar Says:

    I don’t consider us as Alt anything. We are mainstream, law abiding Americans;

    The moment Americans voted Trum in, they became allies of the Alt Right. That term was not fabricated by Hillary Clinton, it was actually something the Ctrl Left had picked up from the ALt Right’s own leadership cadre.

    The Southern Baptists are guilty for leading much of the Irish and Scottish tribes into a war against the principles and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. That is why they still sympathetic or beholden to the “Lincoln Tyrant” and “War of Northern Aggression” propaganda that was utilized to manipulate their ancestors into fighting a war for slavery, when the slave lords were IMMUNE TO MILITARY SERVICE. The cannonfodder were the whites that didn’t own slaves. That was very convenient.

  27. Ymar Sakar Says:

    I met real Nazis in Germany, AFAICT, they believed in none of those things.

    The cannonfodder aren’t told what is really going on at the upper echelons.

    The idea that an average American during the Manhattan Project would have been able to tell you what it was for, wasn’t true. It was designed that even if people found out about the project’s various parts, they would think it was a normal industrial operation.

    It’s how a nation can be led into a war, when they think they are fighting for the Fatherland and nationalism and patriotism.

    Most of the people that joined the Nazi movement, were regular Germans, after a certain point, but that wasn’t true for the central cadre.

    And if they had still lived to this day, they would either be in Latin America, on the run, or in Antarctica.

    They wouldn’t be living in Germany. Because “real Nazis” still have a bounty on them to this day.

  28. Ymar Sakar Says:

    The idea “that real Nazis” are living in Germany after WWII, doesn’t even make sense. It is part of the world wide propaganda people told you. Also why they keep calling you all Nazis.

    Skin heads are not Nazis, although they like to be the Neo Nazis. Right wingers aren’t Nazis either, although all the Leftist anti American factions in Europe like to call them that. And because of the translation issues, other language speakers just buy it up.

    Just like they bought up Hussein’s CNN propaganda about you bitter clingers.

  29. pst314 Says:

    “But Communists were fairly well-represented among the rescuers and resisters…”
    The Communists were not resisting the Nazis because they believed in freedom for all; they were resisting because they preferred their brand of tyranny and mass murder.

  30. chuck Says:

    > The idea “that real Nazis” are living in Germany after WWII, doesn’t even make sense.

    Right, on May 7, 1945, Eisenhower waved his magic wand, and pffft, no more Nazis. Too bad he didn’t think of doing that earlier.

  31. Sean Says:

    OldFlyer,

    “Alt-right” is a catch-all term and refers to:

    -The younger generation of conservatives, who don’t identify with the Republican Party.

    -People like me, who used to be Christian and kept our conservatism when we lost our religion, which almost always means tribalism. (I’m a firm believer that Obama’s marginalizing Christianity as a political force in this country was the most important single act in making white people view politics more tribally – certainly true in my case).

    -Anti-globalists/anti-immigration types for whom lower corporate taxes is not the big priority that it’s been for Republicans.

    -Milo and his fans.
    -People who hate Milo.

    -Trannies like Blair White, with thousands of followers from among the anti-gay marriage/anti-tranny in bathrooms crowd.

    -Twentysomething virgins creating hilarious memes for 4chan.

    -Rednecks who are smarter than the Left gives them credit for, and bearded hipsters with horn rimmed glasses who are the only conservative in their circle of friends.

    -Some racists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, etc. too.

    -The average Breitbart reader.

    -Conservative intellectuals who nodded along as they read ‘The Flight 93 Election’ and as a result voted for Trump.

    -People who like to laugh at liberal victim politics.

    But as far as I can tell, it’s mostly white people who reject all the claims from the Left that whites are morally inferior to anyone else.

    tl;dr
    It’s a cluster-fuq. Welcome to The Current Year.

  32. Sean Says:

    edit:

    There’s a fair number of Christians in the alt-right as well. And most of the ex-Christians, like myself, tend to be pro-Christian as we consider Christians to be cultural, political and spiritual fellow travelers.

  33. AesopFan Says:

    Mark30339 Says:
    August 18th, 2017 at 4:03 pm
    The vague label “alt right” gets thrown so much that before long it will mean everyone who disagrees with Nancy Pelosi. The White Supremacists and Neo Nazis in no way do the bidding of conservatives, and are completely unwelcome.
    * * *
    And vice versa.

    If you really mean “before long” you’re late to the party.
    😉

  34. Ariel Says:

    Neo, I think this “There’s a natural tendency to think that when people, or movements, hate each other, it must be because they’re opposites.” is true, and Goldberg is right, even if Freud is now a backwater in psychology/psychoanalysis, that it is the ‘narcissism of minor differences’ in a way. That way being that the narcissism of the Nazis and the Communists kept them from seeing how much alike they were. If you did a side-by-side by categories they each get a check in each category. And they used the same techniques to make those checks real. That’s really a segue…

    The Antifa are the brown-shirts of the Left. They are what they fight. They should be viewed as no different because they use the same tactics. They are as dangerous to a democratic society as any other totalitarian movement.

    There is an issue in this dichotomous-thinking society, a dichotomy too endorsed within groups, that if you speak out against one group you must be for the group they oppose. Individuals fear the labeling. It’s where the Antifa lay successfully. If you are against them…

    WWII was an interesting time. In 1939 you had a pact made between Nazi and Soviet, in June, 1941, you had a very complete abrogation of that pact. From my reading of history, Communists in the countries occupied by Nazis in the years of the pact were not major players in the Resistance. After June, 1941, they were. As for anti-Jew, the European condition, why would Communists in a resistance movement fighting the ultimate anti-Jews make it a sticking point? Jew or non-Jew, beat the Fascists and the Nazis. Then later, we can deal with you as bourgeoisie. That was what Jews were to the Communists. That the Communists helped Jews out of Europe, just as did some Nazis, is only because they had not yet been told not to by the Soviets. Had the Soviets said no, then… With a gentler hand, maybe it was their humanity being expressed, just like those Nazis that didn’t want Jews killed just gone from Europe

    Finally, I don’t subscribe to what you mean by liberal or leftist, or conservative and rightist, mostly because I don’t think you’ve truly defined them passed this ‘I know art when I see it’. Just too amorphous.

  35. Ariel Says:

    @ConceptJunkie August 18th, 2017 at 4:54 pm:

    Maybe to you the Alt-Right was just people being too strident, but to me they have always been the people so extreme that Alinksyite tactics just fit once they discovered them. IOW, they are Alinksyites. The Alt-Right by adopting Alinsky tactics can not make a democratic society.

    That Neo-Nazis and White supremacists have co-opted ‘Alt-right’ is probably a good thing in exposing what the ‘Alt-Right’ truly is. The Alinksyites hide what they are. It’s their very basis.

    “Now the label appears to have been co-opted by the neonazis and white supremicists, although I suspect they are a small fringe of even those who consider themselves “Alt-Right”, and of course that’s exactly who the media wants us to believe they are, because everyone who is to the right of Bill Clinton is clearly just salivating to start rounding up darkies and Jews and unleash his inner reichsfuehrer.” If the Alt-Right has adopted Alinskyite tactics, how would you know what they truly are? Is there a a footnote in Alinsky tactics that reads ‘if the Right uses our tactics then they will be more honest than we are’? An Alinskyite is dishonest, if you adopt the tactics then so are you.

    Now the crap meme that so goes around in both right and left circles, THE MEDIA. Newspapers and TV news, however liberal, do actually adhere to some journalistic standards. The sites you read on the Internet do not. Breitbart doesn’t. PINAC doesn’t. Daily Kos doesn’t. What you are saying, as a disaffected rightest, is that THE MEDIA doesn’t say what you want them to say. Me, I was taught to read the newspaper, taught to read to make the distinction of the words used, taught to know that any news report was imperfect.

    Now teenagers and very young adults believe that things have to be perfect or they’re just horrible things that must be made perfect. Real adults do understand the complexity of our existence and that nothing can be made perfect. So MEDIA…

  36. Sean Says:

    Now the crap meme that so goes around in both right and left circles, THE MEDIA. Newspapers and TV news, however liberal, do actually adhere to some journalistic standards. The sites you read on the Internet do not. Breitbart doesn’t. PINAC doesn’t. Daily Kos doesn’t. What you are saying, as a disaffected rightest, is that THE MEDIA doesn’t say what you want them to say. Me, I was taught to read the newspaper, taught to read to make the distinction of the words used, taught to know that any news report was imperfect.

    You have got to be kidding me. Nobody slags the media for not saying what we want them to say. We slag the media for being so blatantly dishonest in its presentation. Anyone who’s taken a Communications 101 class or read a little Chomsky knows how carefully they calibrate for intended political effect.

  37. Ariel Says:

    Ymar Sakar Says: August 18th, 2017 at 8:19 pm:

    I’m was really curious as to how many non sequiturs you could possibly weave into one comment. Okay, I’ve seen you do it, so my curiosity is satisfied.

    Yes, Nazis in modern Germany aren’t likely, It isn’t because of some bounty on people that are now 88 to a 100 years old, it’s because modern Germany has made it a crime to be a Nazi. You cannot buy ‘Mein Kampf’ in Germany. You cannot pass Nazi tracts in Germany.

  38. Ariel Says:

    Sean Says @ August 18th, 2017 at 6:00 pm:

    Sean, the problem with the SPLC is that what they call a ‘hate group’ is too often what they don’t agree with rather than what is an actual, with the strictest of standards, hate group. So if you disagree with the SPLC ideology, you too can be a hate group.

    Really, we shouldn’t give one group with so obvious an ideological bent the right to label any other group. In fact, the SPLC may be the archetypal hate group by making anything they disagree with as ‘hate’.

  39. Ariel Says:

    “You have got to be kidding me. Nobody slags the media for not saying what we want them to say. We slag the media for being so blatantly dishonest in its presentation. Anyone who’s taken a Communications 101 class or read a little Chomsky knows how carefully they calibrate for intended political effect.”

    You do realize the irony? You slag the Media because it’s so blatantly dishonest, but all that is based on is your claim that it is. Moreover, where do do you get the correct facts? The Com 101, or Chomsky, is just fluff. Really, the world isn’t out to get you just because it doesn’t write what you want to read.

    As I wrote, I was taught to read for the semantics.

  40. neo-neocon Says:

    chuck:

    The Danes were not the only group, and what’s more they had a much easier occupying force and therefore risked a lot less to help the Jews than did people in, say, Poland.

    I’ve written several posts about it; see this, for example.

    I’ve read about the leftist involvement in resistance movements and among rescuers in quite a few books about the Holocaust. But if you want to look at the composition of the resistance in Poland, for example, see this. Communists were not the majority, but they were numerous within the movement.

  41. ErisGuy Says:

    they want nothing to do with traditional American conservatism.

    Good for them. Even a blind hog can find an acorn once-in-a-while. I’d feel differently about “traditional conservatism” if it had actually conserved anything.

  42. ErisGuy Says:

    Amusing that he brings up the narcissism of small differences without mentioning the vanishing differences between Republicans and Democrats, or between National Review and The Nation.

  43. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Right, on May 7, 1945, Eisenhower waved his magic wand, and pffft, no more Nazis. Too bad he didn’t think of doing that earlier.

    Pretty weak argument. Are you really claiming that because you talked to some Germans in 1946, that they were real Nazis because Nazis were still in Germany at the time you talked to them?

    Too bad, you cannot address the other issues and flaws in your non argument. The cannonfodder issue is something you haven’t been able to deal with, after all.

    Yes, Nazis in modern Germany aren’t likely, It isn’t because of some bounty on people that are now 88 to a 100 years old, it’s because modern Germany has made it a crime to be a Nazi.

    Pretty sure having a bounty on your and something being illegal, is related. Speaking of non sequiturs… that’s a good example, thanks.

    non se·qui·tur (nŏn sĕk′wĭ-tər, -to͝or′)
    n.
    1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
    2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

    The problem with using NOR/OR logic in this case is that the logic of AND works just as well, if not better.

    Sean Says:
    August 18th, 2017 at 10:06 pm
    edit:

    There’s a fair number of Christians in the alt-right as well. And most of the ex-Christians, like myself, tend to be pro-Christian as we consider Christians to be cultural, political and spiritual fellow travelers.

    There’s a fair bit of pagan viking norse god worshippers as well. The white skin thing comes into play there, especially vs the dark skinned Muslim savages in Norway/Sweden.

    It’s funny watching them argue about a monotheistic god at VoxDay’s blog. The pro Christians are okay with churches, the pagans are talking about being Vikings again and Ragnarok… which isn’t all that different compared to the Rapture or the End Times of Revelation. But the norse neo vikings think it is different, since it is so fresh compared to what the European churches gave them.

  44. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “There is little to no sympathy for racism and Nazi ideas among white Americans.” GB

    “That is, of course, incorrect.” Ymar

    Well. If you say so, it must be true. After all, your towering intellect has identified the Illuminati (Albert Pike?) as Lucifer’s puppet masters. Thanks for pointing it out to us dullards.

  45. chuck Says:

    > it’s because modern Germany has made it a crime to be a Nazi. You cannot buy ‘Mein Kampf’ in Germany. You cannot pass Nazi tracts in Germany.

    I was talking about 60’s Germany. There was the National Zeitung — NZ, a dog whistle pointed out to me by one of its readers — and “Hitler’s Table Talk”. The majority of the Germans I met were not Nazis, or even lapsed Nazis, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t any. After all, a significant fraction of the population had been Nazi not that far in the past.

  46. Dave Says:

    When you keep thinking that whites are racism you are racist against white people because you have prejudice against them based on their skin colour and what their ancestors had done in the past, you are just as bad as the white racists who think all black people are bad because of the skin colour. when you judge someone’s sentiment toward minorities based on their skin colour you are engaging in discrimination. Try to discuss anything with anyone with a fixed mind like a liberal makes me want to die.

  47. Dave Says:

    Liberals only see the racism in other people but never the racism in themselves, and justify their racism with the excuse that minorities can’t discriminate because they are outnumbered by whites. First a coalition of all minorities outnumbers whites, second white people were the minority in South Africa but that didn’t stop liberals from calling white people racist there so proportion of popular has no meaning in the discussion on who is discriminating whom.

  48. Dave Says:

    Black people have the capacity to discriminate because they have the backing of the government which has laws that specifically give black people an advantage over everyone else and the liberal billionaires who control most of Fortune 500 companies and Silicon Valley giants who can fire anyone or cut anyone off the grid whoever is branded as racist, without any due process.

  49. Dave Says:

    America is controlled by liberals while liberals are in control by blacks because they have the absolute morality authority in the nation due to their victim hood in history to brand anyone racist, therefore black controls America and perfectly capable to discriminate.

  50. Brian E Says:

    I think the defining characteristic of the alt-___ is nationalism and an acknowledgment that our founding principles are European in nature.
    And some have tried to distinguish by coining the term alt-white and alt-west to separate themselves from the white supremacists.

    Of course, the left will lump the too groups together. But so have the right, at this point.

    The alt-right and cuckservative labels are a reaction to the effect of free trade globalism that has morphed into a neo-conservatism.

    Most of the alt-right would reject the principle of America as the world’s police. Looking at our adventure in Afghanistan, it’s hard to see how it’s advanced western values. The idea that the native culture was going to morph into something recognizable regarding individual rights/liberty is laughable.

    The GOP is walking a thin line. If they reject the nationalists who believe that strong borders, traditional culture must be maintained to retain our national character, they will find themselves a minority party for some time to come, since their globalism is barely distinguishable from the Democrats, and their economic policy has been shown recently to also be so marginally different than the left to be effectively meaningless.

  51. neo-neocon Says:

    ErisGuy:

    I don’t think you’ve been reading National Review and The Nation recently if you think the differences are small.

    I am so tired of that sort of thing. It reminds me of the people who wouldn’t vote Romney in 2012 because he was Just Like Obama.

  52. huxley Says:

    Looking at our adventure in Afghanistan, it’s hard to see how it’s advanced western values. The idea that the native culture was going to morph into something recognizable regarding individual rights/liberty is laughable.

    Brian E: Not to me. After 9-11 I considered it possible, if not likely, the West was headed into a conflict with jihadist Islam which would result in the Middle East being turned to glass. A huge horror.

    Consequently I thought it would be worth a try to rebuild countries like Afghanistan and Iraq along more Western lines. It worked in Japan. Of course, that was more than a half-hearted effort.

    I’ll concede having the US as the world’s policeman isn’t an ideal situation. However, it worked splendidly for the second-half of the 20th century to everyone’s advantage except the communists.

    However, this is all pretty advanced stuff for the people who brought us the marvelous term, cuckservative, and Donald Trump.

  53. huxley Says:

    It reminds me of the people who wouldn’t vote Romney in 2012 because he was Just Like Obama. –neo

    Back then my brother was saying the same thing about Democrats and Republicans. But he still voted for Obama.

  54. chuck Says:

    > The idea that the native culture was going to morph into something recognizable regarding individual rights/liberty is laughable.

    What’s interesting is that it was headed somewhat in that direction back in the 60’s and 70’s. Same in Iran and parts of the arab world. Back in the day, both the Soviet Union and the US had cultural influence. That ended in Afghanistan with the Russian invasion, in Iran with the revolution (thanks Jimmy), and elsewhere as we have seemed to falter. The pathetic surrender of Western Europe isn’t helping in that regard. However, I don’t think we are done as cultural influence quite yet, much will depend on the next several decades.

  55. Irv Says:

    The lesson that we should learn from the failed wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is not that we shouldn’t engage in nation building, it’s that when we win a war we should not turn it over to the Democrats to change victory into defeat.

    It’s really important that we analyze the lessons we take from past efforts. When a cat jumps on a hot stove, he won’t ever jump on a hot stove again. He also won’t jump on a cold stove. I would hope we are smarter than that cat.

  56. huxley Says:

    The lesson that we should learn from the failed wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is not that we shouldn’t engage in nation building, it’s that when we win a war we should not turn it over to the Democrats to change victory into defeat.

    Irv: That’s my thought.

    Nation-building still might not have worked in those countries, but it would have been properly tried rather than tossed aside the minute the Democrats were tired of it and had the power to throw in the towel.

  57. Sean Says:

    You do realize the irony? You slag the Media because it’s so blatantly dishonest, but all that is based on is your claim that it is.

    No, it’s not. It’s based on reading about the media and learning how journalists tailor their stories.

    Moreover, where do do you get the correct facts?

    Depends on which facts, doesn’t it?

    Really, the world isn’t out to get you just because it doesn’t write what you want to read.

    It’s pretty obvious from this statement that you haven’t read a single article printed in the last five years.

  58. AesopFan Says:

    huxley Says:
    August 19th, 2017 at 3:48 pm
    … After 9-11 I considered it possible, if not likely, the West was headed into a conflict with jihadist Islam which would result in the Middle East being turned to glass. A huge horror.

    Consequently I thought it would be worth a try to rebuild countries like Afghanistan and Iraq along more Western lines. It worked in Japan. Of course, that was more than a half-hearted effort.

    Irv Says:
    August 19th, 2017 at 5:01 pm
    The lesson that we should learn from the failed wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is not that we shouldn’t engage in nation building, it’s that when we win a war we should not turn it over to the Democrats to change victory into defeat.

    huxley Says:
    August 19th, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    Irv: That’s my thought.

    Nation-building still might not have worked in those countries, but it would have been properly tried rather than tossed aside the minute the Democrats were tired of it and had the power to throw in the towel.
    * * *
    We had some advantages with Japan in that we convinced them we were the strong horse before going in.
    The really, really strong horse.

    The Middle East was on a more modern, moderate course for many years, and might have served as a model for other countries, but the Iranian revolution and now the fall of Turkey are closing off that route.

  59. Frog Says:

    Neo: I should like to see some documentation of your claim that “In Nazi Germany and in several other countries occupied by the Nazis during WWII, Communists formed a major part of the Resistance.” Especially as regards Germany.
    The Resistance, more glorified than substantive in France, was certainly peopled by commies in France. That tag is now the semi-official name of the US Democratic Party.
    The other countries did not matter much.

  60. neo-neocon Says:

    Frog:

    I’ve read a lot of sources in the past that document the role of Communists in the Resistance—which varied from country to country of course, but they were consistently a significant (not necessarily majority) part of it. For this post I didn’t go back and assemble all my reading, as it occurred over a period of decades, but to the best of my knowledge one book I recall (I read it many years ago, however) that focused on saving Jews in Poland and certainly mentions the role of Communists was called When Light Pierced the Darkness.

    As far as Nazi Germany goes, you may be aware that the army was a big locus of the Resistance, and that a lot of those people were religious. However, if you’re interested in the role of Communists in the German Resistance, see this:

    One strand [of the German Resistance] was the underground networks of the banned Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD), such as the SPD activist Julius Leber, who was an active resistance figure. There was also resistance from the anarcho-syndicalist union, the Freie Arbeiter Union (FAUD) that distributed anti-Nazi propaganda and assisted people in fleeing the country. Another group, the Red Orchestra (Rote Kapelle), consisted of anti-fascists, communists, and an American woman. The individuals in this group began to assist their Jewish friends as early as 1933.

    See also this. And see this:

    After decades of bitter debate, however, the German resistance’s tangled history is coming into sharper focus. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war in 1989, newly released K.G.B. and C.I.A. files and long-ignored documents in the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, N.Y., reveal that the once-scorned Communist and socialist resistance deserves more credit…

  61. Conscience Says:

    What I love the most about this thread is this:

    An alt-Right commenter posting on a right wing blog run by a right winger who claims she hates Nazis more than most, posting a defense of Nazis and none of the right wingers who populate this blog even bat an eye.

    And I thought the Nazis were a left wing movement!

    Sean wrote “The neo-Nazis aren’t trying to get people fired for having the wrong opinion.”

    Except when they do things like threaten to hunt down the children of journalists who say mean things about them.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/neo-nazi-vows-to-hunt-down-children-of-cnn-staffers-over-reporting-on-pro-trump-reddit-troll/

    You get the idea. Neo-Nazis are pretty terrible and they do a lot of terrible things. They’re responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in this country. But when Sean writes a stirring defense of them, no one bats an eye.

    Dramatic irony!

  62. om Says:

    Conscience:

    “They’re responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in this country.” That was satire? A broad brush is your tool of choice it seems. Thanks for sharing.

  63. Irv Says:

    As I mentioned earlier it’s really easy to accuse people who defend an unpopular person’s right to free speech of agreeing with what that person had to say. It’s easy and it’s truly wrong. Twisting someone’s words to say they mean something you know they don’t mean is a loser’s way to debate.

    Life is not as simplistic as everything is either right or wrong. The racists in Charlottesville demonstrated peacefully. That doesn’t mean their views are right, it means they professed those views in a lawful manner.

    The fact that one person went crazy and killed a woman doesn’t mean the whole group approved of it.

    The fact that 2 policemen were killed in a helicopter crash had nothing to do with the people demonstrating unless one of them shot it down, and there’s no allegation of that. If it was a mechanical problem then it could have happened on any flight and the same goes for pilot error.

    There are a lot of people who’s views rise to the despicable level in my opinion (think ANTIFA, BLM, CAIR, SPLC, KKK, CNN, among many others) but they are just as entitled to their views and the peaceful presentation of them as we all are.

    If we don’t stand together to protect them then there will be no one to stand to protect us. Demagoguing them for standing for freedom of speech is a loser’s way of debating.

    I will stand as strongly for their right to speak as I will against what they have to say.

  64. Big Maq Says:

    “The lesson that we should learn from the failed wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is not that we shouldn’t engage in nation building, it’s that when we win a war we should not turn it over to the Democrats to change victory into defeat.” – Irv

    Seems to me that Vietnam is not like the others in this statement, given its timeline of dem leadership – from the Start!

    Anyway, perhaps the bigger point is how politics influences the execution of a war, and would agree with that.

    Militaristically, weren’t Iraq and Afghanistan “won”? Unless one wants to put a different definition of “winning”, which includes political “wins” (what would those be? convert government to a democracy? this is where things get rather messy)?
    .

    RE: US Role as dominant western power ensuring western interests – IOW Policing

    IDK all the ins and outs of strategy and theory in this arena, but it seems to me that absent the US in a hard and soft power “policing” role internationally (i.e. closer to a pure isolationist role), risk (and, thus costs) for international trade / commerce increase exponentially – as just one consequence.

    But, if we do agree that the US needs to fulfill such a role, AND, it is determined that regime change through military intervention is required, the question may be what is optimal?

    Rather than nation building, perhaps we ought to adopt a model where we apply the full force to quickly topple the government, but when done, secure the borders from foreign foes, but otherwise stand down and let the locals sort out their own mess.

    In the meantime, we acquire a 100 year “Guantanamo Bay” lease to maintain a sizable force ready for another such strike, if required again.

    Not every country can be like Germany or Japan and be rebuilt – institutions and infrastructure – which may have been part of the inspiration behind our action in Iraq, for instance.
    .

    The other question is what constitutes the rationale for supporting and initiating regime change?

    Vietnam seems more of a proxy war vs Chinese communists. Maybe it was needed to impose a “cost” on expansion?

    Iraq was the WMD threat, based on, what we now know to be limited intelligence reports, against a backdrop of saddam’s suspicious behavior, and of the recent 9/11 attack. Fear of the potential for those weapons getting into the wrong hands after being freshly blindsided, probably was the greatest motivator.

    Afghanistan was harboring the leaders who perpetrated 9/11. Seems rather clearest of these three, imho.

  65. Big Maq Says:

    “By the way, I’m not sure whether the following history comes under the heading of “minor differences” or major ones.” – Neo

    There are the ideas and their logical endpoints, which leads to, in practical terms – totalitarianism.

    There is little difference to see when the rubber meets the road.

    The leaders advocating these positions would have us focused on the theoretical differences, to lull us away from their potential threat to us.

    In the end, they accomplish their goals in much the same way.

    Being oppressed by one regime is not going to seem to the average joe as being somehow “better” than the other regime.
    .

    Of course, when examining specific groups who fall under the labels of communism or fascism, we can find many variations in how far they do and can carry out their designs.

    Sometimes circumstances cause them to compromise along the way.

    Local communists collaborating with the resistance to rescue nazi’s victims may well be one such compromise the times called for.

    If it was an inherent part of their beliefs as different from the stalinist version, impossible to tell from this distance.

    May have been true for some actors, but doubtful of its leaders.

  66. Big Maq Says:

    “Antifa and the BLM ‘activists’ are the Left’s “shock troops”. Intimidation that encourages ‘compromise’ is the game. They know that many will incrementally yield ground until they are right up against the cliff’s edge. Appeasement to obtain ‘peace at any price’ is the coin of the realm in the land of the moral coward.” – GB

    Lost track of the article, but recently came across one where a commenter with a leftist bent had remarkably the same message – about the right.

    They think they’ve compromised too much and given the right what they want down this imaginary incremental path.

    Seems to go hand in hand with lumping everyone into one of two monolithic camps with no hope that the lines can be crossed, as their conclusion is it is useless to bother to try to persuade the other.

    If everyone were to succumb to this bifurcated view of the world, not sure what would happen.

    I know it won’t be good, and it highly likely won’t be what either side wants.

  67. Big Maq Says:

    Forgot to mention they thought these alt-r marchers were some kind of “shock troops”, or similar term, for the right.

  68. AesopFan Says:

    Big Maq Says:
    August 20th, 2017 at 7:06 pm..
    Seems to go hand in hand with lumping everyone into one of two monolithic camps with no hope that the lines can be crossed, as their conclusion is it is useless to bother to try to persuade the other.

    If everyone were to succumb to this bifurcated view of the world, not sure what would happen.

    I know it won’t be good, and it highly likely won’t be what either side wants.
    * * *
    Trying to force everyone in a normal-distribution of ideology A onto a single point, and also insisting that the normal-distribution of anti-A be reduced to a single point, is the ultimate goal of all extremists, regardless of the ideology.

    We actually can be sure what will happen, because it has happened over and over again throughout history, in small wars as well as world-wide conflagrations (which are aggregates of lots and lots of small wars).

    It isn’t what either distribution of believers wants (the normal people), but it is what the extremists are after.

    No fighting = no power for the “leaders” of either side.
    It really is that simple.

  69. Ymar Sakar Says:

    I know it won’t be good, and it highly likely won’t be what either side wants.

    Which is fine. It is long past time mortals were taught a lesson by the supernatural gods.

  70. Ymar Sakar Says:

    We actually can be sure what will happen, because it has happened over and over again throughout history, in small wars as well as world-wide conflagrations (which are aggregates of lots and lots of small wars).

    You once stated, Aesop, that the differences between Nephites and Lamanites were of no consequence. Yet those differences, which included skin color, resulted in the total destruction of their high end civilization.

    Not exactly irrelevant to the current modern day falling of empires and civilization.

  71. Ymar Sakar Says:

    You get the idea. Neo-Nazis are pretty terrible and they do a lot of terrible things. They’re responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in this country. But when Sean writes a stirring defense of them, no one bats an eye.

    Whatever, shrugs.

    I’m not the thought police, so I feel no threat nor need to back talk Sean or other Alt Right boyos about Neo Nazis or White Supremacist eugenics and epigenetics. I’ll make fun of them when they deserve it, and they’ll counter by calling me a cuck, and that way we’re all happy.

    The moment they start firing shots at me, is when the blood will flow, but that won’t be my fault. If they want to be allies or neutral cease fire adherents, first they should stop shooting at me, that’s about it. Talking about Neo Nazis is so low a “threat’, that it is the same as Leftists dipping a cross in a piss jar and saying “look at this, christians”. When they throw the jar at me or my people, then they’ll be terminated, but not before then.

    When people start being serious about executions, then I’ll pay attention to their neo nazi complaining. First, they’ll have to start accepting the existence of all the other executions in the US.

    They can start with the executions in DC by the capital police, SS, and also Waco 1/Ruby Ridge/Waco 2.

  72. Ymar Sakar Says:

    As for American interventions in Iraq and Japan… that is pretty complicated.

    Some backstory is necessary. Japan industrialized and began to expand, creating their Asian Co Prosperity sphere, because they believed in Western culture, traditions, and institutions. It was the influence of the West that allowed them to expand, using a military junta. Of course, historically, they had another conqueror which was infamously named as the Demon of the 7 hells, Nobunaga.

    Japanese citizens were not interested in Western foreign religions, like the various christian lineages.

    It wasn’t until they lost the war, lost their faith in the military junta, but not the Imperial family, that they began being open and accepting of new, non Japanese ideas.

    Iraq did go down the same path. Kurdistan certainly was on our side. The Shia were split. And the Sunnis were also split in loyalties. Some wanted to fight on, others wanted a compromise.

    The Japanese military junta mostly killed themselves to atone for their dishonorable disgrace in accepting a surrender. The Emperor was going to be accept being killed too, but MacArthur and Truman blocked the French/British desire for blood crim trials. After all, it would be the Americans that would pay in blood if Japan rebelled again because of heavy handed GHQ executions and trials. The US also pardoned many Japanese scientists involved in inhumane experiments concerning bio warfare, in order to provide UStroops with vaccines and counter agents.

    Afghanistan was always a bit more difficult. It can only be resolved by allying with India or China, and basically running a railroad through the area and forcing them to modernize. So long as they live tribal lives, something like the Taliban will always be desired for stability.

    Also the Afghans were once part of the West, the Greeks Westernized them under Alexander. Paganized them might be more accurate.

    The fatal mistake Americans made was that in Japan, it was the christian holy ghost that converted the people, not just military economic power threats.

    In Afghanistan and Iraq, people have seen for themselves just how little American military power matters in the long term.

    Unless you capture the hearts of the people, using Faith and religion, they are not going to stick with you. Just as you did not stick with them, but abandoned them to AQ, ISIL, and Hussein Obola.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, bibles were burned and missionaries banned. How could you win the hearts of the pagans by destroying the christians? In japan, it was the other way around, the pagans were obliterated, and christians were invited in to convert the hearts of the nation. And it worked, but only because MacArthur and GHQ were actual christians.

  73. Big Maq Says:

    “No fighting = no power for the “leaders” of either side.” – Aesopfan

    Astute.

    Yes, incentives have a way of driving these leaders to that bifurcated approach.

    Similar to how media makes mountains over mole hills – it drives emotions and thus attention / following.

    This is why a major reduction in the size and scope of government is needed = There is less power for these types of leaders to work with, if / when they get elected.

  74. BrianE Says:

    “Militaristically, weren’t Iraq and Afghanistan “won”? Unless one wants to put a different definition of “winning”,,,” – Big Maq

    “After nearly a decade at war in Afghanistan, the United States still has not defined the terms of the conflict. Seven months after President Barack Obama’s administration released its wide-ranging strategic review of the war, basic questions remain. Who is the enemy? What are the objectives? Is counterinsurgency meant to achieve the goal of counterterrorism (beating al Qaeda), state-building (bringing stability and democracy to Afghanistan), or both? What would “victory” in Afghanistan even look like? And how will the war stay won, after the United States leaves?”

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/06/defining-victory-to-win-a-war/

    This article was written in 2009, but has anything changed since then?

    We can’t seem to decide what “winning” is. Our strategy now is to work with the Taliban, hoping to establish some sort of balance between regional tribal leaders and the central government, and hopefully modernize the society to the extent they quit throwing acid on young girls faces when they want to go to school.

    And for that my son is supposed to risk his life and Americans are supposed to be fine with spending large sums of money we are borrowing along the way.

    At some point we needed to recognize the limits of global power against an insurgent war with an almost unrecognizable enemy.

    Why was WWII the last war “won”? Because we were willing to wage total war. We firebombed cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties, we leveled cities with single bombs. Once total war produced total surrender, and the threat of a new catastrophe of mass starvation did our compassion become evident.

    The compassion came after the total victory. Weary from war, Truman was unwilling to continue waging a war of total victory against the communists on either front, and it appears that everything since became political wars.

    This is far afield from the topic of communists vs. fascists. I only brought up the point that the alt-right isn’t monolithic, and while Goldberg is right that it is a movement opposed to “traditional” conservatism of globalism, some/many/most? don’t want to trade “the traditional right with their racial hogwash” unless you mean recognizing that there are real differences between ethnic groups/races and ignoring that has real consequences.

    We can bury our heads and fail to recognize that our culture/civilization comes from a European tradition. Let’s put Charles Taylor or Samuel Doe in charge for a while and see how things work out (or any other third world tin horn despot).

    Of course we talk about how the corruption by Washington politicians is resembling third-world status, and think that’s hyperbole, but, at times it does loosely resemble the crony corruption of some of the worst places in the world.

    Why? Because the philosophical framework of government from that European tradition is not being taught, is being reviled, and is quickly not just being forgotten, but being stomped on, ground into dust.

  75. Sean Says:

    You get the idea. Neo-Nazis are pretty terrible and they do a lot of terrible things. They’re responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in this country. But when Sean writes a stirring defense of them, no one bats an eye.

    lol I didn’t write a stirring defense of them. I wrote a stirring attack on their enemies.

  76. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Why was WWII the last war “won”?

    A Demoncrat war monger was running the show and Republicans were the loyal opposition. Pretty easy to win when your own palace troops aren’t staging coups.

  77. Big Maq Says:

    “Because the philosophical framework of government from that European tradition is not being taught” – Brian E

    Say something at a high enough level and we can all agree.

    Dig down a bit and a question arises: Which ones?

    I think you are conflating a number of things in your comment.

    Just on this point, nazism relied heavily on the notion of a traditional arian way of life, the communists claimed their own alignment.

    I think we agree that our schooling is poor at preparing children for citizenship and valuing some of the core ideas that this country was founded upon.

    But, that may still be a long way from agreeing on what role our government should have and what kinds of policies it ought to enact / enforce.
    .

    WRT Afghanistan – your question about your son echos very much the questions I posed.

    And, yes, we seem to have this mission creep that goes beyond just taking out the enemy, to one of nation building.

    As I said, it seems we’d be better off that once we decided to change the regime, we do so quickly and pull back, letting the locals essentially sort out their mess themselves.

    This would probably become a much better deterrence to rogue nations than wading into a quagmire that drains our will and resources we have to push back against the next one, if/when needed.

  78. BrianE Says:

    “Dig down a bit and a question arises: Which ones?

    I think you are conflating a number of things in your comment.

    Just on this point, nazism relied heavily on the notion of a traditional arian way of life, the communists claimed their own alignment.”- Big Maq

    Well, how about if we teach about the philosophers and events that influenced the founders. That did not include the “arian way of life” or communists.

    That would be Locke, Blackstone, the Protestant Reformation, the Magna Carta, Hume, Smith, etc.

    By the way, interesting article on the roots of what is now seen as neo-conservatism in foreign policy.

    “The world must be made safe for democracy.”[1] Thus did President Woodrow Wilson, addressing Congress in 1917, summarize America’s high purpose in entering the First World War….Wilson’s foreign policy demanded action for the sake of a principle—the spread of freedom and democracy—that he was unshakably certain was right in and of itself.

    http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/remaking-the-world-progressivism-and-american-foreign-policy

  79. Ymar Sakar Says:

    And, yes, we seem to have this mission creep that goes beyond just taking out the enemy, to one of nation building.

    As I said, it seems we’d be better off that once we decided to change the regime, we do so quickly and pull back, letting the locals essentially sort out their mess themselves.

    The US in 2008 era, was still in SK, Okinawa, Kosovo, Germany…

    Before Americans get on their high horse and criticize nation building in Afghanistan and Baghdad, they should have done their homework.

  80. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Wilson’s freedom and democracy included enslaving blacks and putting people in their place by using his government bully boys to break up Veteran protests. As well as dishonorably breaking his promise and using the Lusitania to bring the US into a European war.

    The Demoncrats write the propaganda script and Americans swallow it. Case closed.

  81. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Also Brian, it’s nice to see that people are buying into the ALt Right propaganda about neo cons being connected to the secret societies. Since, after all, it was the Left’s original move to connect the Alt Right to Nazis and the occult secret societies behind the Nazis.

  82. Ariel Says:

    First, I have to give a big apology regarding timely replies. In the years since I’ve commented here I’ve grown used to threaded comment sections. In them, a reply generates an email. I respond to the emails. I commented here forgetting that a linear comment section doesn’t do that. That’s my bad.

    Sean Says:
    August 19th, 2017 at 10:24 pm

    “No, it’s not. It’s based on reading about the media and learning how journalists tailor their stories.” So when you read a website that isn’t by a journalist, or one that claims jounalism but is either acknowledged as right or left, or makes claims of neutrality, what assumption do you make? Which one is unbiased? Further, which is least biased? The CPUSA website has the exact same problem you do with the media in the USA. Maybe lust learn to filter the words so that you understand when you’re reading a news report or an editorial, or something weighted one way or the other. This ‘the media lies’ is exactly what the extremes of both sides claim.

    ‘Depends on which facts, doesn’t it?’ I think you’re confusing truths for facts. First, you can’t have your own facts. Second, you can’t claim the weight you give to some facts somehow makes the other facts of different worth. Facts are facts. Now this comes from not only that great D. P. Moynihan quote, but also from finishing Oliver Stone’s ‘The Untold History of the United States’ where all he did is weigh facts differently. In doing so, he did imply some facts were less factual than other facts. But this is what people do when pursuing their truth. The Right does it, the Left does it. The facts stay the same.

    “It’s pretty obvious from this statement that you haven’t read a single article printed in the last five years.” From where? I read the Arizona Republic ever day. I also surf the Internet. I also read a number of Australian newspapers weekly (their take on us is something to read). I also check the Nelson Mail every couple of days, granted that’s a local news source over the Nelson region. Oh, wait, I also read a number of ‘conservative blawgs’ daily. It’s obvious you were trying to do a slam as a last resort or would that be a last retort? Don’t be so silly as to think that someone that disagrees with you is ignorant. Really, don’t.

  83. Ariel Says:

    Ymar Sakar Says:
    August 22nd, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    “The Demoncrats write the propaganda script and Americans swallow it. Case closed.” Well, it would be if you wrote that both parties do it and it just depends on the decade.

    I do agree with you about Wilson, he was a proto-fascist, but using him for not only a sweeping indictment that Democrats are doing today what he did then but also as a party schtick that Republicans don’t. Ever heard of Nixon? I voted for him. You were too young to have the regrets I do.

  84. Ariel Says:

    ““The lesson that we should learn from the failed wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is not that we shouldn’t engage in nation building, it’s that when we win a war we should not turn it over to the Democrats to change victory into defeat.” – Irv

    Seems to me that Vietnam is not like the others in this statement, given its timeline of dem leadership – from the Start!”

    I had no idea Eisenhower was a Democrat. In fact, Eisenhower the Democrat coined the phrase ‘Domino effect’ specifically about Vietnam. He also warned about the ‘Industrial-Military’ complex as a threat to democracy around 1961. Damn, friggin’ bleeding-heart liberal Democrat.

    We weren’t in Vietnam until that friggin’ Democrat tried to make up for a French failure to recognize an opportunity.

  85. Ariel Says:

    Ymar Sakar Says:
    August 20th, 2017 at 10:20 pm

    This is just cretinous because it’s bad history: “Some backstory is necessary. Japan industrialized and began to expand, creating their Asian Co Prosperity sphere, because they believed in Western culture, traditions, and institutions. It was the influence of the West that allowed them to expand, using a military junta. Of course, historically, they had another conqueror which was infamously named as the Demon of the 7 hells, Nobunaga.”

    The Greater Asian Co-prosperity sphere was a creation of the Japanese militarists in around 1930. It justified the creation of Manchukou In ’31. Japanese adoption of some aspects of Western culture and industrialization started in the Meiji Restoration, long before the Japanese Militarists gained power. You know, in the 1870s or 1880s.

    They didn’t believe in “Western culture, traditions, and institutions.” They modified Western culture to fit their framework, they adapted Western to fit their culture. An easily identifying marker of the difference is that Europeans could see surrender as a viable option (‘Fight another day’) but the Japanese couldn’t see it as anything but life-ending shame.

  86. Ariel Says:

    “Japanese citizens were not interested in Western foreign religions, like the various christian lineages.” What does that have to do with anything other than…

    In 1930, Americans were interested In Shinto and Buddhism? Hardly. So what does that mean in regard to Japanese citizens were not interested in Western foreign religions? That you can’t see your bias.

    Hate to point it out, but Christians spent a lot of time killing other Christians and non-Christians until the early to mid-20th Century.

    It really sucks for the adherents of any religion that all the religions really say the same thing. I know, I know, it’s in the particulars. Thus Catholics can kill Protestant heretics, and the Protestants and post-Protestants in the USA in 1960 can claim that a Catholic President is just a papist mouthpiece.

    So a Shintoist or a Buddhist just doesn’t have the moral fiber that a Christian does…Okay.

  87. Ariel Says:

    “Why was WWII the last war “won”?

    A Demoncrat war monger was running the show and Republicans were the loyal opposition. Pretty easy to win when your own palace troops aren’t staging coups.”

    Oh, damn, I thought it had something to do with the Eastern Front and D-Day. Glad to know that WWII was easily won because the Republicans were the loyal opposition to the Demoncrat war monger that kept us out of war for three years until Pearl Harbor, after which those Republicans were for war.

    Now we have that Lend-Lease policy of supporting the UK, obviously a Demoncrat policy to get us into war. Never mind it was to support the last bastion in Europe against the Nazis.

    I just have to ask where you get your history? Some site claiming it has the ‘true history’ of WWII?

  88. Ariel Says:

    Sean Says:
    August 18th, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    “It’s amazing to me how blatantly the MSM is supporting Antifa. Read CNN’s explainer article on them and you’d think it was written by a member.” It would really help if you provided a link. I do think that the Antifa are brown-shirts by their very words of violence is justified against X (I can only to when they turn their attentions elsewhere).

    But then you followed with your apologia for the Neo-nazis as if they were different than the Antifa, If the Neo-nazis had the same moral weight as the Antifa (the Antifa only have moral weight because feelz about Nazis) then they would do the same as the Antifa, Do you think that the Neo-nazis would actually support free speech if they had power? Do you really think that they wouldn’t do eveyrthing you’ve said they don’t if they had they power?

    The Antifa and the Neo-nazis have the same underpinnings. They both believe that violence is a way of making a political statement. They are Antifa, they are Nazis, they are Fascists. they are Communists, and they are Radical Islamists. They just know they do a good cause and the ends justify the means.

    Fuck em. Don’t give any of them anything but ridicule. Point out that the Antifa use fascist methods to fight fascists. Point out that the Antifa is an anti-democratic movement just like Fascism. Make the fuckers look at themselves. Okay, like the Fascists they emulate, they’ll ignore anything that isn’t applause.

  89. Ariel Says:

    Ymar Sakar Says:
    August 22nd, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    “Wilson’s freedom and democracy included enslaving blacks and putting people in their place by using his government bully boys to break up Veteran protests. As well as dishonorably breaking his promise and using the Lusitania to bring the US into a European war.”

    Just to get you straight, Wilson’s democracy didn’t include enslaving blacks even if Wilson was a racsist. I hate that fucking rhetoric of making slavery and JIm Crow equal, Jim Crow was worse because it took away a promise…

    What Wilson did, like the Presidents before him and the Presidents after him until Truman and Eisenhower, is ignore the injustice of Plessy v. Ferguson by a court infatuated with the South and its lost cause. Wilson was a racist, but making the charge of “enslaving blacks” is ahistorical. Okay, you do the same the ‘leftists’ do. No real surprise in that, you guys are just different sides of the same coin.

    Wilson was a real bastard regarding free speech. He believed, and SCOTUS did until they didn’t (you really have to understand that quote about “fire in a crowded theater” and how it was repudiated later) that to criticize a war is sedition. He just couldn’t grasp that protesting a war was one of the best expressions of our 1st.

    I just have to ask you, Ymar, is there a war you didn’t like that you couldn’t blame on the Democrats? Or is there war that you do like that wasn’t started by a Republican?

    I realize that America is your adoptive country, but frankly, you have no real understanding of this country. You’ve latched onto an ideology like a baby latches to any nipple. All you are is a child from Serbia or Croatia, I forget which, trying to a make America fit your childhood. America is so much more complex than your claims that everything you disagree with is ‘propaganda’.

    Trump is native born but has your same problem.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge