"Hitler" or "Nazis" have to be the most overused label in all political discussions. I hear so many people who represent both left wing and right wing groups calling each other Nazis. Apparently, Madonna insinuated that John McCain is analogous to Adolf Hitler during her concert. I couldn't believe it. Then, there is the running joke that feminist women are "Feminazis". Hillary Clinton is a Nazi, GW Bush is a Nazi, Isreal is now acting like Nazis, everyone is a Nazi. Nazi this, Nazi that. So many books, movies, television shows, propaganda, pulp magazines, and anything media related has been influenced by Hitler and his Nazis. America's fascination with that theme has been everywhere since WW2. The words and images are constantly being blasted upon our psyche to the point where no one even knows what it really means anymore. You can argue against each other for days, and both of you could be right when accusing the other of being "Nazi". It never goes away.
Next time you think about calling someone a Nazi, go read about what it means to be one. It might change your mind. http://www.americannaziparty.com/ For the record, I do not approve of their message.
Interesting subject, ROTR. In the study of Rhetoric, the use of the term Nazi is generally considered weak and overused as you say. But as pegs points out, it's also been bastardized with a weaker meaning and is part of the lexicon. Personally, I think the Nazis were ultra left-wing national socialists though there's some agenda out there to paint them as right-wing. If you think about it just a little, you will realize that our left wing is much closer to the ultra left-wing than our right wing is close to the ultra right-wing, in terms of philosophy. Hitler and the Nazis were so evil, the left-wing doesn't want to be associated with them - who blames them? The distinction the left makes to arrive at the Nazis being right-wing is government ties to big business. Yet I find that the similarities end there and the similarities with other left-wing philosophies are much stronger. The commonality is a populist pitch! Marx appealed to the lower classes with populist rhetoric, which works good in underdeveloped nations. The fascists appealed to the middle classes with populist rhetoric, which works good in developed nations with a mature middle class. The fascists' founding and fundamental principles are in socialism (Mussolini was a prominent member of Italy's Socialist Party, NAZI literally means National Socialist Party). Rather than looking at how these leaders rose to power, look at how they ruled once they were in power. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Saddam were militant - they wore military garb to enhance their authoritarian stature. They all used military power to invade and conquer their neighbors (Castro/Cuba on an island, had a heavy military presence in places like Angola and Nicaragua). They all committed mass murder of their own populations and forced migrations of their people. They all enforced a rigid control over industry, through govt. ownership or regulations. They all used a Republican Guard type of police force to terrorize the population into submission (SS, KGB, et al). Perhaps most importantly, they sought to engineer society in their own image through social programs and the like. Heck, the Nazis even had their own version of the "President's Physical Fitness Program." Another commonality is the concept of "godlessness" or anti-religion. I would argue that the true far right is anarchy. It lacks the compassion that social programs promise. It favors Social Darwinism. It would use military for defense purposes only. No regulation of industry at all. Etc. On a left/right scale where left is totalitarian and right is anarchy, the US and most of the free world would be considerably left of center, though the US would be to the right of most Social Democracies (Japan would be, too).
Yeah the term is both over and misused. Ann Coulter called Obama a Nazi (I'm too lazy to post the clip, look on youtube). It's almost disrespectful to use the term so out of context and incorrectly.
Can we blame O'Reilly for this? lol. I know he frequently likes to disparage people who disagree with him or use poorly constructed analogies using this particular philosophy. I talked about what I believe one to be... See post #5
I once worked with a change control manage that was very strict. He was nicknamed the Change Control Nazi. I still find it funny
I know that you lean to the far right, anarchist side of things. Your response leaves me feeling like anything that deviates to the left of the rightmost point can and will be viewed as "fascist". That is a very extreme point of view, that I can somewhat understand, but tends to oversimplify things. "Fascism has been seen by some as a reactionary force against the rising power of liberalism that was ignited by the French Revolution, and was allied with and aided conservatives in regaining power." Denny, other than the anti-economic-liberalism, that is about as Right Wing as it gets! Left wingers and liberals are on the opposite side of that spectrum, period. The paragraph above is the one that really resembles what I read on the American Nazi Party page. First of all, they are white supremicists, just as the Nazis were. Second, they found some socio-economic reason to shun all people of brown skin because they are coming to our country illegally and stealing jobs from white people, etc, etc. This, again, is on the right wing side of the spectrum. Actually, the distincitions do not end there. The far right wing of this country is where the American Nazi Party votes on a consistant basis. They are very interested in the elements of Hitler's platform. They hate the liberal left wing in this country, and they claim to be the true citizens, everyone else is second class or scum. I found the correct label for your above examples... Your "far right" concept is that of the US Libertarian Party. The "far right" in our country, in our media, and in all loud bar conversations that I have ever been in has always asked for more government and more regulation, but for completely different issues. Anarchy implies that anything goes. The extreme right will not tolerate "anything goes" Quite the opposite actually. They want more laws based on their personal reigious beliefs, drugs to stay illegal, gays to have absolutely zero rights, and to cut and paste their own religious dogma into the Constitution. I have read "Why Government Doesn't Work" in 1996 before voting for Harry Browne. Left can lead to totalitarian, but so can the far right. In fact, I offer the following new dimension to a traditionally 2 dimensional static viewpoint - there is a left wing, a right wing, and an anarchist wing. The Libertarian party in the US is neither left or right.
I agree with Denny on post #5 and his quote labeled "as Right wing as it gets" by ROTR post #10. But, then, I'm one of those silly classical liberals... I mean Libertarian. Yet, there are different types of Libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Libertarian_viewpoints The difference between Fascism & Communism is who the populist rhetoric appeals to as Denny pointed out. Violent overthrow is common among both but seems more likely to install a communist regime. Listening to Hillary or Barack seems more Fascist than Communist IMO. HRC more than Barack. Can I still call Hillary a socialist shrew? Obama is a progressive no doubt. I'm really mixed whether Hugo Chavez is a communist or fascist. Iraq's Ba'ath party under S Hussein was a brand of Arab socialism. It has enough militarism & racism to be a strain of Naziism. The Pan-arabism Saddam hoped install in the region reminds me of the pan-Germanism of Hitler. Further research on my part is need to determine where I feel Mao, Ho Chi Minh, & Pol Pot are in comparison to those above.
^ It's worth noting that Saddam's Ba'ath bore little real commonality to the Aflac concept of what Ba'ath was all about...
Did anyone here actually read that American Nazi Party site besides me? I took a look around and found the following. Henry Ford, the American Capitalist, Anti-Union guy, is also Anti-Semetic apparently. Here is a huge document authored by him trashing Jews....Anti-Union Capitalists are considered to vote for right wing candidates nowadays, don't they? "The International Jew: The Worlds Biggest Problem" http://americannaziparty.com/about/InternationalJew.pdf
If I understand Aflaq's version, it was more of a social democracy w/ strains of communism (a politburo like ruling body) & more commonwealth (not socialist) like approach for day to day life. Saddam primarily just used the name to placate the people. He did want to unify the Arab people i.e Qadafi in Libya but like Crazy Moammar he was a despot...plain and simple
I didn't. I do recall alot of the "capitalists" in the 30's were were sympathetic to the Nazis. Like Ford, Hitler wanted to create a vehicle for the common folk.... You know Volkswagen. I'll reference back to Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. He does talk about a Third way of governing. I still haven't determined whether he means a hybrid of Republican & Democratic philosophies or Capitalist/Socialist.
I'll have to walk across the street to Barnes and Noble and look for it (or order it online). Might be cheap and just walk over there and read it in the store.
I consider myself to be a Liberal in all things, just not at all a progressive. I am not an anarchist, and I do believe that extreme left and extreme right in the left/right paradigm I presented are bad for societies. I need to clarify that left is not just fascist, it is all things authoritarian where the state supersedes the individual. It includes Monarchy which is not fascist. It is the extreme opposite of anarchy. Pure spin. The French Revolution promoted "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" yet look at the results! It was ultra left-wing, do you agree? Appeal to the lower class to rise to power. Immediately following the actual revolution came the Days of Terror and prolific use of the guillotine. Shortly following the revolution came Napolean. Ultra left-wing, indeed. It's about as LEFT WING as it gets. Economic liberalism is right wing. Collectivism is left wing. Totalitarianism is a feature of left wing regimes everywhere. Pol Pot and his communist buddies were racists, and used mass murder to achieve their form of eugenics. Jews were horribly persecuted in Soviet Russia (anti-Semitic). &c Germany suffered greatly from the economic penalties imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. This cannot be disputed. Maybe you need to read more, because Antisemitism is on the rise world-wide and here in the USA, and it's all come from what you call the left-wing. Here in the USA, it's the Democratic Party that's the main source. Oddly, evangelicals and others you'd call "right wing" are anything but Antisemitic. These are typical of the kinds of things people on the left have been saying all along: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It is true that when Democratic Congressman James Moran of Virginia, who is white, charged in 2003 that "the leaders of the Jewish community" sent the country to war in Iraq, he was criticized (no more than that) by fellow Democrats. Also, on May 20 of this year, Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democratic senator, alleged, on the floor of the Senate, that Bush had sent the country to war "in order to win Jewish votes." (Apparently Hollings, during his seven terms, had never discovered that a majority of Jews would vote Democratic even if Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden were at the top of the ticket.) [/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]To his credit, Kerry on the very next day condemned Hollings for "lend[ing] credence to... anti-Semitic stereotypes that have no place in America or anywhere else." Nevertheless, it is clear that the Democrats have a growing "problem" at the grass-roots or Michael Moore level of the party that they know not how to deal with. [/FONT] http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/democrats_and_the_antisemitism.html Various Democrats have looked with favor upon the anti—American Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez over the years, his record of deepening anti—Semitism notwithstanding. Ex—president Carter helped him secure his position by certifying election results that others have cast doubt upon. In 2002, 16 Democratic Congressmen, including senior Judiciary Committee member John Conyers of Michigan, voiced their support for Chavez when they sent a letter to President Bush complaining that America was not protecting Chavez from internal opposition to his authoritarian and increasingly erratic rule. In that same year, Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts established a 'Venezuelan Caucus' to show 'friendship to President Chavez'. The Nazis vote for Nazi Party candidates. David Dukkke ran for political office in both parties, and as a republican got very few votes for national office. Have you ever looked at Hitler's platform? It looks like the Democratic Party Platform to a huge degree: I think you express why I say the US is considerably left of center - even what you label the Right Wing here is so far left they look to government to: a) make it bigger b) have it hand out the peoples' money to promote their chosen view of socialism.
Fascism is Right Wing: All these points directly speak to the NeoCon agenda in our country. "1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."
People who blow up abortion centers...are right wing. People who commit hate crimes...are right wing. The Nazis of today and yesterday, are right wing.
