ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Mailvox: ideological ignorance

Jack Burroughs demonstrates his complete ignorance of virtually every single left-wing ideology, party, and movement in human history in seeking to argue that the Nazis Are Too White Right-Wing Christian Conservative Republicans.
Read the Munich Manifesto. The fact that you've swallowed the ahistorical revisionism doesn't change history. The Mensheviks fought the Bolsheviks too, the SPD fought the KPD too, that didn't make any of them parties of the Right."

I have read it, Vox. The issue here is not my ignorance of history, but rather that you insist on approaching this question as an extremely narrow definitional argument, almost as if you can, through linguistic sorcery, magically define the Nazis out of the history of the Right. You don't usually argue that way, but for some reason you do it with this question.

Yes, there are some Left wing elements in the National Socialist platform. I have never denied that. My point is that National Socialism is blatantly anti-egalitarian in spirit and racially supremacist at its foundation, and for that reason cannot be called primarily Left wing. It was a sui generis experiment in political hybridization that was unmistakably Right wing in spirit, while making certain concessions to the collectivist Zeitgeist as a means of preempting the Communist threat.

The Nazi's ideological commitment to anti-egalitarian racial biology, along with their astonishingly vivid and imposing rallies and heroic iconography radiate Right wing energy like a fever dream. That is why people with Far Right tendencies are often drawn to Nazism, and that is why people with Left wing tendencies are universally repulsed by it.

The call for equal rights for Germans in the Munich manifesto was, in effect, a call for an organic meritocracy, with free and flexible social mobility, such that the most gifted people from the lower classes could rise, and the pseudo-elites at the top could be purged. It was also a declaration of social and political holism: every person, of every class, had value to the whole of the State.

But It was not in any sense a Left wing claim that everyone is basically alike, but for differences in economics and social circumstances.
My argument in this case is no different than my argument in every other one. Jack simply doesn't know what he is talking about because he is a historical and ideological ignoramus. By his bizarre definition of the ideological Left, even the Leninists and Stalinists and Jacobins and Zapatistas and Nasserites and Khmer Rouge and Maoists were all right-wing. All of these major leftist movements were extremely conscious of the difference between their countrymen and everyone else on the planet. It will be interesting to hear how Jack tries to explain how Stalin and Bukharin's "socialism in one country", which became formal Soviet policy as early as 1925, and Nasser's socialist Pan-Arabism, are somehow of the ideological Right.

Jack has no case whatsoever because he doesn't understand what it means to be of the political Left. The absolute egalitarianism of globalism is a recent and extreme form of Leftism, it is very far from defining the historical limits of Leftism. It is well to the Left of both Trotsky and Stalin; even Trotsky's "World Revolution" ideology openly acknowledged that everyone is not "basically alike but for differences in economics and social circumstances."

And neither nationalism nor ethnocentrism is intrinsically of the Right either. As I pointed out in my debate with Greg Johnson, the national socialist parties that historically preceded and followed the German variant in China, Vietnam, and Egypt were also all of the Left. Jack's equation of the Left with absolute global egalitarianism is not merely wrong, it is completely ahistorical. And when Jack talks about "an extremely narrow definitional argument", he is observably projecting his own approach.

Labels: ,

340 Comments:

1 – 200 of 340 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Koanic January 26, 2018 6:21 AM  

What are some examples of right-wing parties that have held power in the last 100 years?

Anonymous Locke January 26, 2018 6:31 AM  

Since the left is observably anti-white and especially anti-white male, it's hilarious to see Burroughs proclaim that being anti-egalitarian and desiring racial supremacy isn't of the left.

Blogger SciVo January 26, 2018 6:34 AM  

I see this nonsense all the time. Socialism is an entirely leftist thing, with racism and authoritarianism baked into the cake, so it's left on left on left when naive national socialists fight aggressive international socialists on the turf of placid municipal socialists. Bret Hume needs to disavow both Richard Spencer and Social Justice or he's either a Nazi or a godless commie faggot.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 26, 2018 6:39 AM  

This is insane. Even in high school, I was aware that the Nazis were left-wingers. How can these grown people not realize this?

Blogger James Dixon January 26, 2018 6:41 AM  

> it's hilarious to see Burroughs proclaim that being anti-egalitarian and desiring racial supremacy isn't of the left.

Yes. It's always entertaining to see leftists deny their own historical record. The Nazi's were socialists. By definition they were leftists.

One wonders if he's going to be denying Sanger next.

Anonymous ZhukovG January 26, 2018 6:44 AM  

Indeed the White Male, and soon enough White people in general, are the new 'Untermenschen' of the Militant Left.

That said, attempting to create a nationalist movement out of a skin/uniform color, as 'White Nationalists' are, is problematic at best.

Blogger staff January 26, 2018 6:44 AM  

"Jack simply doesn't know what he is talking about because he is a historical and ideological ignoramus."

He is so far off the mark that I suspect he knows the truth and is being disingenuous.

The fascism of Germany and Italy were of a kind and only slightly different. If we look at Mussolini we see a socialist of the left who did not want to see Russian international socialism win out; but rather wanted national socialism to win. That is definitely not "of the right".

OpenID markstoval January 26, 2018 6:46 AM  

#7 was me. I have no idea how I published as staff. Do I get paid now? :-)

Blogger VD January 26, 2018 6:48 AM  

a socialist of the left who did not want to see Russian international socialism win out

Even that is not quite correct. He did not want to see Trotskyite international socialism win out. Which was Jewish, not Russian. Stalin instituted Bukharin's Russian socialism-in-one-country in 1925.

Blogger Rantor January 26, 2018 6:50 AM  

The false right left dichotomy taught in the West since WWII is to blame. As a boy I believed it. At some point in my political education (BA Poli Sci) I realized that Hitler & Mussolini were socialists -albeit with a more pragmatic approach than Lenin/Stalin. Very few see and accept this. A coworker with a Masters in the field told me I was the first person he ever heard talk this way. I gave him an Austrian Econ essay on the topic. I don’t think he believes yet, but he has stopped arguing the issue. Jack sounds like he hasn’t fully explored the evil, divisive and Uber-patriotic aspects of the socialists he accepts against the socialists he rejects.

Egalitarian Soviet’s? What then was the Nomenklatura?

Anonymous Patron January 26, 2018 6:53 AM  

staff wrote:The fascism of Germany and Italy were of a kind and only slightly different.

I like Jonah Goldberg's take on it in Liberal Fascism, which was that both fascism & national socialism were in large part built upon the existing cultures of Italy & Germany. Eg, the Italians were far less obsessed about racial purity than the Germans. Both were, in his view, heresies of traditional (ie internationalist) socialism though.

= = =

"And neither nationalism nor ethnocentrism is intrinsically of the Right either."

Richard Spencer anyone?

More to the point, go back to the original left-wing revolution - ie the French Revolution of 1789. Is Jack Burroughs now saying that was a right-wing event, because it was nationalist? And here I was thinking people like Rousseau were left-wing philosophers, rather than crypto-reactionaries seeking to undermine the World Brotherhood of Man...

OpenID markstoval January 26, 2018 6:54 AM  

I can agree with that assessment.

Anonymous Rocklea January 26, 2018 6:55 AM  

I love a good Choose Your Own Authoritarian Regime Adventure Story. To the left, the othering of the diverse, is authoritarian. To the right, the forced acceptance of the diverse, is authoritarian. Don't Panic. Have the best possible uses of our enormous increases in productivity been achieved? Is that even desirable?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 26, 2018 6:56 AM  

Vox, merely by arguing the point you're encouraging them to escalate. Do you still not understand how they think?

Blogger SemiSpook37 January 26, 2018 6:59 AM  

I mean, by definition, socialism is a Left wing ideology. You can add words around it, toy with certain aspects of it, but it’s NEVER going to be associated cleanly with any sort of Right wing ideology. It just can’t happen.

I think what is setting a lot of these folks off is the fact that when you mention a failed ideology of the Left and imply that it’s the Left’s fault for it failing so horribly, the reaction is to immediately project against the Right and claim that their ideology isn’t like whatever failed trope you just pointed out is (though it usually is exactly like it).

Anonymous JAG January 26, 2018 7:02 AM  

It was linguistic sorcery that put a totalitarian left wing ideology in the camp of the Christian Right.

Anonymous Patron January 26, 2018 7:13 AM  

OT, but the convergence at Blizzard appears to be continuing. They've just had the data-miners digging through the stuff for their next expansion, "Battle for Azeroth", and they discovered new (NPC-only) human female models. Behold:

https://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2018/january/KulTiranFemale002.jpg
https://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2018/january/KulTiranFemale003.jpg
https://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2018/january/KulTiranFemale004.jpg
https://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2018/january/KulTiranFemale005.jpg

The new NPC human males are big guys, maybe a bit of a beer belly but nothing like XXL Barbie above.

Blogger VD January 26, 2018 7:15 AM  

Vox, merely by arguing the point you're encouraging them to escalate. Do you still not understand how they think?

Why do you think I fear escalation?

Blogger Stilicho January 26, 2018 7:17 AM  

Ah, but other leftists (bolsheviks, soviets, (((socialists))), etc.) really need German socialists from the 1930s and 40s to be "right wing" to avoid having to acknowledge that they're just brothers from another mother(land). They've simply invested too much time, energy, and emotion into outgrouping their kindred to be able to accept the truth. Thus, their collective amygdalae must be continually assuaged by denying that German national socialism is just grape soda to their Marxist purple drank.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 26, 2018 7:22 AM  

Why do you think I fear escalation?

I'd appeal to your impatience. They aren't going to stop coming back until they stop believing in the law of attraction.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 26, 2018 7:26 AM  

Good persuasion peels the onion from the inside out:

1. The modern world says I need to die.
2. The modern world is wrong.
3. The Jews are the modern world.
4. The Jews are wrong.
5. Hitler opposed the Jews.
6. Hitler was right.
7. Hitler believed in socialism.
8. Socialism is right.

Blogger VD January 26, 2018 7:27 AM  

They aren't going to stop coming back until they stop believing in the law of attraction.

When have I ever tired of beating dead horses? I am forced to deal with stupid arguments every single day. These don't even require me to pay attention or look up a source.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 7:32 AM  

"you're encouraging them to escalate."

The harder they fall.

OpenID het1 January 26, 2018 7:34 AM  

> Bukharin's "socialism in one country"

It was not Bukharin's, but Stalin's thesis.
See also Harry Hopkins: "It is ridicule to think about Stalin as a communist. He is Russian nationalist"/
See also Bernard Shaw: "The government of Stalin are ultra-right".

Anonymous JAG January 26, 2018 7:36 AM  

I can only laugh...

Blogger Stilicho January 26, 2018 7:42 AM  

EVERY socialist is in favor of a political and social order with his tribe at the top. The only difference is which particular tribe an individual socialist most identifies.

Blogger VD January 26, 2018 7:45 AM  

It was not Bukharin's, but Stalin's thesis.

Stalin coined it, but Bukharin developed it... and they both traced it back to Lenin's adoption of the NEP.

In the first edition of the book Osnovy Leninizma (Foundations of Leninism, 1924), Stalin was still a follower of Vladimir Lenin's idea that revolution in one country is insufficient. Lenin died in January 1924. By the end of that year, in the second edition of the book, Stalin's position started to turn around: the "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". In April 1925 Nikolai Bukharin elaborated the issue in his brochure Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? The Soviet Union adopted "Socialism in One Country" as state policy after Stalin's January 1926 article On the Issues of Leninism.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore January 26, 2018 7:45 AM  

WOW! According to that dude's argument, The Black Panthers were right wing, The Black Liberation Army is right wing, and "Assata Taught Me" (a Black Lives Matter slogan) is a right wing mantra.

Anonymous Aphelion January 26, 2018 7:52 AM  

i think it funny that modern socialists have no problem identifying with Lenin, Stalin or Mao but get real upset when you tell them Hitler was a socialist...murderous villains all.

Anonymous TS January 26, 2018 7:58 AM  

"Jack's equation of the Left with absolute global egalitarianism is not merely wrong, it is completely ahistorical.

"Equation..." heh. Nicely done VD.

"When have I ever tired of beating dead horses?" Funny!

Blogger Emmett Fitz-Hume January 26, 2018 8:01 AM  

Jack Burroughs sounds like nearly every college professor I had. And that's not a compliment.

They would engage in all sorts of sophistry and contortionist explanations, parsing words and such just to prove that their brand of Socialism has nothing, nothing nothing to do with the only truly Evil brand of Socialism, the National kind; So that just made National Socialism Right Wing. It had to be. No other way you could describe it. Self-evident, don't you see? Plain as day.

Of course, all while studiously downplaying their own brand's death tolls.

Anonymous TS January 26, 2018 8:02 AM  

The whole fantasy of the "proletariat" running things is intrinsically very egalitarian. But as others have stated it just provides cover for the psychopaths who end up running things into the ground.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer January 26, 2018 8:05 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Good persuasion peels the onion from the inside out:

1. The modern world says I need to die.

2. The modern world is wrong.

3. The Jews are the modern world.

4. The Jews are wrong.

5. Hitler opposed the Jews.

6. Hitler was right.

7. Hitler believed in socialism.

8. Socialism is right.


On the flip side, from the leftist perspective. The Tribe have invested vast amounts of time and effort making sure everyone knew Hitler was the most monstrous world leader ever because he targeted the tribe. "Never let a crisis go to waste" kicked in almost simultaneously and they decided if they were going to expend the effort to turn Hitler into the worst world leader in history they might as well use it to score political points as well. Therefore, in the vast volumes written about him, make sure to slip in the case that he was right wing.

They will never let go of that narrative. They have invested over 7 decades and countless works in that story. If they gave in now, they would never be able to rebury it so it couldn't be used against left wing ideology. The details are too well known due to their own efforts. They also run into a problem where they have no good immediate replacement. Pinochet is not nearly as well known and he is minuscule when comparing body counts to any of the left wing dictators. To the point of not even being worth bringing up in the conversation.

Anonymous Ronald Reaganite January 26, 2018 8:06 AM  

The Real Right are those who voted for Romney and McCain.

Blogger Eric Steiger January 26, 2018 8:08 AM  

By Jack's logic, leftists are right to claim communism cannot be condemmed because it has never REALLY been implemented.
After all, the Soviets, Maoists, Khmer Rouge, etc may have claimed to be leftists, but they radiated right wing energy.

Anonymous Democrats are da real Nazis, and racists January 26, 2018 8:09 AM  

““What are some examples of right-wing parties that have held power in the last 100 years?”

The GOP obviously.

Blogger Sherwood family January 26, 2018 8:09 AM  

1. The modern world says I need to die.
2. The modern world is wrong.
3. The Jews are the modern world.
4. The Jews are wrong.
5. Hitler opposed the Jews.
6. Hitler was right.
7. Hitler believed in socialism.
8. Socialism is right.
9. Many prominent socialists were Jews
10. Hitler was a prominent socialist
11. Hitler was Jewish?

Anonymous ZhukovG January 26, 2018 8:10 AM  

Nationalism is neither Left or Right.

Stalin, was a Georgian, not a Russian. He was much like the Alt-Retards, save he was likely an Alpha rather than Gamma. He was a Soviet Nationalist rather than a White Nationalist. But both would try to create a Nationalism on a fractured foundation.

It is instructive and cautionary that Stalin's apparent successes were only brought about by murdering millions. Even then, it was so weak that he had to dust off a lot of Czarist imagery and tolerate the Russian Orthodox Church in order to rally the country against Nazi Germany.

Anonymous Looking Glass January 26, 2018 8:16 AM  

@18 Stilicho

Beyond just the Diaspora Jews needing a boogeyman, I think part of the hatred for the Nazis, from the Left, really comes down to them just being better dressers. Leftism, being always very effeminate in nature, does tend to take on a lot of the social interaction cues that Women use.

All of the other Communist & Leftist revolutionaries always dressed poorly. Oh, they said "like the common man", but it was really just that they were badly dressed. Not so with the Nazis. They were better dressed and better looking, while still being murderous Leftists. That's simply not something acceptable to a shabby dressed & ugly Leftist. Think of the whole Che chic, then look at who likes to wear it. All Leftism is built on subtle Envy, so one would expect Leftists, when trying to gain an advantage, to rely upon what they know.

Anonymous Northern Observer January 26, 2018 8:24 AM  

"National Socialism is blatantly anti-egalitarian in spirit and racially supremacist at its foundation, and for that reason cannot be called primarily Left wing."

You see this all the time on the Left. "Right wing is "

So, to them, right wing is:
- militaristic
- racist
- nationalistic
- anti-Semitic
- dictatorial
- cult of personality driven
- expansionist

They totally ignore the fact that these attributes all apply to the largest and most successful socialist regimes.

OpenID het1 January 26, 2018 8:26 AM  

to VD

> Bukharin developed it.

After 1929 Bukharin completely lost his political influence.

To ZhukovD

> Stalin was a Georgian, not a Russian.

Stalin was an Osetin (ancient As; from the side of his father, subclade G2a1a1-Z6638), and "man of Russian culture" (his own words)

Anonymous No True Right Winger... January 26, 2018 8:31 AM  

So, to them, right wing is:
- militaristic
- racist
- nationalistic
- anti-Semitic
- dictatorial
- cult of personality driven
- expansionist

They totally ignore the fact that these attributes all apply to nationalist and populist regimes.

Anonymous krymneth January 26, 2018 8:36 AM  

I have noticed that if you put the Nazis back in their proper place on the left, and fairly far to the left, the whole bit about how right and left extremism wraps around to meet each other vanishes, and extreme right and extreme left resume being extremely different, as you'd expect, rather than the same.

Which is another piece of evidence that the Nazis belong on the left.

Anonymous vfm January 26, 2018 8:38 AM  

Leftards trying to nail down "definitions" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUODdPpnxcA

Anonymous kfg January 26, 2018 8:41 AM  

In 1933 every leftist in the world knew Hitler was on the left. Then in '36 they all started racing each other to see who could be first to throw themselves down the memory hole and rewrite the narrative.

Well, at least there's still Stalin.

Oh. Shit.

I'm not old enough to remember the events personally, but I'm old enough that I've had work, at board level, with some of the drooling idiots that were activists in the 20s. They'd had to throw the speeding car into reverse so many times they didn't have a single tooth left on their mental gears. Even other red cards rolled their eyes at them.

Blogger Koanic January 26, 2018 8:45 AM  

> The GOP obviously.

What in-power GOP in the last 100 years was right wing?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 26, 2018 8:53 AM  

8. Socialism is right.
9. Many prominent socialists were Jews
10. Hitler was a prominent socialist
11. Hitler was Jewish?


Great start but you went for the sacred cow a little too fast. Try:

10. Socialism is wrong (peel the onion).
11. Hitler was wrong about socialism, though right about everything else. (You could lie here and argue he wasn't a socialist if you consider the Alt White enemies to be gaslit and destroyed, but I doubt anyone here is really convicted enough on that point to kill them.)

Blogger JACIII January 26, 2018 8:54 AM  

krymneth wrote:I have noticed that if you put the Nazis back in their proper place on the left, and fairly far to the left, the whole bit about how right and left extremism wraps around to meet each other vanishes, and extreme right and extreme left resume being extremely different, as you'd expect, rather than the same.

Which is another piece of evidence that the Nazis belong on the left.


Boom! X-ring.

Dead on. This is the piece of the puzzle that eludes so many, and a testament to how the left has muddied the waters so effectively.

This one simple obfuscation the left has achieved in popular culture is the basis or much of the population being sold a wagon load of hogwash over the years.

Break this one twisted bond, that Nazis were/are of the right and the whole stinking edifice will crumble in peoples minds.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 26, 2018 8:55 AM  

Please note point 11 is too on the nose for proper rhetoric. In the vernacular, "I don't agree with Hitler on socialism but I admit he had some good points".

Anonymous Rex January 26, 2018 8:56 AM  

- militaristic
- racist
- nationalistic
- anti-Semitic
- dictatorial
- cult of personality driven
- expansionist

Franco and Pinochet?
Minus the JQ... Washington, Jefferson, Jackson?

Blogger dienw January 26, 2018 8:57 AM  

@ James Dixon
One wonders if he's going to be denying Sanger next.

Now there is cognitive dissonance in spades. The raison d'etre of Sanger and Planned Parenthood is racial inequality and mental, social, and economic inequality as well. Sanger's perceived inferiors -- many of the same are the current Left's darlings -- do not fare well under her rubric; will the left at some point call abortion right-wing?

Anonymous Gary January 26, 2018 9:06 AM  

“We are socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system…”.

Imagine being against the (((global capitalist system)))... we libertarians and conservatives support corporations and global bankers!

Anonymous vfm January 26, 2018 9:11 AM  

"I think its funny that modern socialists have no problem identifying with Lenin, Stalin or Mao but get real upset when you tell them Hitler was a socialist...murderous villains all."

Yeah because Lenin, Stalin and Mao were nothing like that evil Hitler guy *rolls eyes* That's some cognitive dissonance there.

Murderous villains = socialists That's a pretty good equation though it looks like the Nazis are the (((scapegoats))).

Blogger Dangeresque January 26, 2018 9:13 AM  

This guy doesn't even understand the difference between race and ethnicity... Pretty pathetic.

Anonymous 8859 ways ro be adorable January 26, 2018 9:18 AM  

They are blind to anything eroding their religion.

Blogger bob kek mando January 26, 2018 9:31 AM  

some retard said
"along with their astonishingly vivid and imposing rallies and heroic iconography radiate Right wing energy"


what in the FUCK?

because the Sovs and Red China never have any "imposing rallies"?

because Marxists from Castro and Che and Chavez to Saddam and Kim never use "iconography"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QQKyIVVzvg

this is as damn stupid as asserting that "militarism" is Right Wing ... as if only drug using Peace&Love hippies ( tell it too the WeatherMen ) can be Marxist.

Blogger Zerk J January 26, 2018 9:32 AM  

If right wingers aren't nationalist, f#%!'em.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion January 26, 2018 9:34 AM  

Watch them roll their eyes back and foam at the mouth when discussing Ché's hobby of shooting gay men.

First time I did was at a university gay club meeting to a guy wearing a Ché shirt. (Not gay, just a fun group to drink and shop with.)

Anonymous Avalanche January 26, 2018 9:34 AM  

@4 "Even in high school, I was aware that the Nazis were left-wingers. How can these grown people not realize this?"

Doesn't fit the Narrative AND the modern day leftists (and alas,lots of Rightists) have had no history whatsoever to know anything but their teachers/professors' (media's) propaganda!

Hell, I was out of college and about to go into Navy Officer Candidate School before I learned a "u-boat" was NOT some kind of destroyer -- but (duh) an "Unterseeboot"! (Spent a weekend in the NYC Library reading every book they had on the Navy: my own little cram-school because I thought I'd be so far behind the others.... alas for the Navy, I wasn't at all!)

Blogger Fenris Wulf January 26, 2018 9:36 AM  

The Nazis were socialist, collectivist, totalitarian, militarist, imperialist, and rabidly opposed to individualism and capitalism. The Soviets were all of these things as well. Both regimes operated death camps and forced labor camps. The main difference was race war vs. class war, and the identity of the designated scapegoat group. The modern Left combines aspects of both, is openly and explicity anti-white, and openly endorses racial violence.

Anonymous 8859 ways ro be adorable January 26, 2018 9:41 AM  

All lefties I've talked to have memory holed the murders, claiming 1: all victims were righties who needed killing, and the right-wing historians grossly inflated the numbers anyway.

Anonymous addendum January 26, 2018 9:42 AM  

Murderous villains = socialists That's a pretty good equation though it looks like the Nazis are the (((scapegoats))) IN THE SOCIALIST RELIGION.

Blogger Zerk J January 26, 2018 9:49 AM  

You clowns will never defeat collectivism with individualism.

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 9:49 AM  

"First time I did was at a university gay club meeting to a guy wearing a Ché shirt. (Not gay, just a fun group to drink and shop with.)"

...

Son I have some bad news for you...

Blogger James Dixon January 26, 2018 9:49 AM  

I should note that pretty much all modern leftists movements derive from the communist branch of socialism. Of course they deny that the Nazi's and Fascists were left wing, as they were their primary leftist opponents throughout the early 20th century. The worst feuds are always within the same family.

Blogger James Dixon January 26, 2018 9:51 AM  

> You clowns will never defeat collectivism with individualism.

Heh. You don't know us very well, do you?

Blogger Fenris Wulf January 26, 2018 9:54 AM  

There are NO bona fide Nazis today. The term is a Leftist dog whistle. It signals that the target is a political enemy and fair game to beforcibly silenced. Scientific racism and eugenics were historically Progressive ideas, and proceeded from a collectivist ideology. Egalitarianism is a recent mutation of Leftist thought. It's not a fundamental principle, it's a tactic in the war against capitalism.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion January 26, 2018 9:56 AM  

Sanger is my hero.

Getting black people marching in the streets for the right to kill their own babies.

Sheer genius.

Anonymous kfg January 26, 2018 9:56 AM  

@60:

After having ground all their gears over Hitler and Stalin, the old timers just couldn't face going through all that again, so they had to formulate a narrative where if Hitler did it it was bad, but if Mao did the same thing bigger it was good.

Anonymous Reason Magazine Reader January 26, 2018 10:04 AM  

> You clowns will never defeat collectivism with individualism.

When my 6-year-old trannie concubine nukes your company town using my private corporate army, you collectivists was see the error of your socialist ways.

Blogger Zerk J January 26, 2018 10:15 AM  

What do you mean "us"?

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:16 AM  

why are we still talking about ideology when some dude just claimed he isn't gay but went to Gay Club meetings in school because gay dudes are fun to drink and shop with???

Blogger James January 26, 2018 10:23 AM  

"an extremely narrow definitional argument"

This is leftist deconstructionism. They would argue the same about gravity if it didn't fit their narrative. Of course, they would never define what they meant by a narrow definitional argument, nor would they describe each of the 57 genders now available for public consumption.

Blogger Rashadjin January 26, 2018 10:34 AM  

Jack is a lefty thinker and so he's focusing on the symbolic representation of the movement whereas Vox is focusing on the economic and political side. It's a lot of talking past each other.

Jack's big mistake is this: "The Nazi's ideological commitment to anti-egalitarian racial biology, along with their astonishingly vivid and imposing rallies and heroic iconography radiate Right wing energy like a fever dream."

The vivid energy he's feeling is because most of that was left-wing rhetorical arguments by way of staging and props. The ubermensch is left-wing symbolism layered on top of rote tribalism. The history he's forgetting is that the left once believed in shaping biology as much as it still believes in shaping culture to produce their desired, better humanity.

They've purged that part of their history for a lot of reasons, and easily so because of the natural right-wing focus on tribe. It may even be something like a sense of betrayal to their ideals pushing them to disavow the once biology focus, like they got tricked into imbibing on a base, right-wing impulse and liking it. Think reaction to cannibalism.

The 'anti-egalitarian' piece getting tacked on to the focus on biology is post-hoc rhetorical sleight of hand to pretend they weren't all in for it. It's the same trick as saying real communism hasn't been tried by real lefties.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 10:34 AM  

"Son I have some bad news for you..."

A very salient point, following "Not gay, just a fun group to drink and shop with."

You like to drink with gay guys and shop... with gay guys, and you also like shopping.

Yeah, he's 100% organic-soy gay.

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:39 AM  

Gay. Super double plus extra Gay with Gay sauce, a side of Gay and little sprig of Gay for garnish.

Blogger Dire Badger January 26, 2018 10:40 AM  

Nate wrote:why are we still talking about ideology when some dude just claimed he isn't gay but went to Gay Club meetings in school because gay dudes are fun to drink and shop with???



Sucks to be the only dog in a dogpile, doesn't it?

Blogger Dire Badger January 26, 2018 10:43 AM  

Hey, I like the idea of going base jumping with Gay guys. They are so good at ignoring natural laws that they don't even need parachutes.

Blogger LES January 26, 2018 10:44 AM  

You might be a liberal if you believe:
Nazis were white heterosexual men therefore all white heterosexual men are Nazis.
If you are not a, self-hating, white heterosexual man then you are Hitler.

Blogger Koanic January 26, 2018 10:44 AM  

He's not gay unless he's committed sodomy, which is not a subject anyone laughs about in the Bible.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 10:44 AM  

"It may even be something like a sense of betrayal to their ideals pushing them to disavow the once biology focus"

Not even that complicated. The Nazis were more in tune with reality (not saying very much, I know) due to the biology focus.

Their religion is one of lies and denial of reality, so any aspect of truth, honesty, or anything virtuous in the slightest can and must be rejected as being wholly of the "double-plus-ungood opposition". Thus, any fragment of sanity must be destroyed and anathematized. Lumping all anathema things together is just a normal psychological feature ("All the ungood things are the same!") for simplistic thinkers.

Not that all the actually bad things aren't similar (they are in certain ways).

Blogger Silver Airplane January 26, 2018 10:46 AM  

North Korea is as left-wing and Socialist as any government can be, and it meets every criteria Jack Burroughs cites as hallmarks of right-wing National Socialism.

"Blatantly Anti-Egalitarian": Barbara Demick explains in her book, “Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea” that the North Koreans are so stratified that they rival India's caste system.

"Racially Supremacist at its Foundation": North Korea's explanation of why the Eastern Europeans and the Chinese couldn't maintain their principles is because the North Koreans are the superior race. The other Communist peoples just aren't as strong.

"Astonishingly Vivid and Imposing Rallies and Heroic Iconography": If there's one thing the reclusive North Korea is known for around the world it's the colorful mass rallies and iconography. In fact, the North Koreans are planning a mass rally on Feb 08, just one day before the opening ceremonies of the Winter Olympics in South Korea. Infogalactic indicates there are over 500 statues of Kim Il-sung in North Korea. That's a lot of iconography for a country which is only about the size of the state of Pennsylvania.

Blogger NO GOOGLES January 26, 2018 10:46 AM  

"By his bizarre definition of the ideological Left, even the Leninists and Stalinists and Jacobins and Zapatistas and Nasserites and Khmer Rouge and Maoists were all right-wing."

Somehow I am cynical enough to think that is his entire intention. "All these bad socialists and communists were all actually Right Wing you guys, REAL socialism/communism is left wing and totally works!"

I've argued with way too many Communists to think that Jack's position is just from ignorance. He intends to completely whitewash the crimes of the Left by redefining them as "right wing".

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 10:47 AM  

"He's not gay unless he's committed sodomy"

If you want to be that way:

People who commit sodomy != Happy people.

Gay people = Happy people. (Actual definition of gay, gaiety, etc.)

Thus sodomites are logically not gay.

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:48 AM  

"He's not gay unless he's committed sodomy, which is not a subject anyone laughs about in the Bible."

ah ha! now see i like this line of reasoning. Because the root of it is that gay is just an act... not an identity or even a preference.

unfortunately the implication here is that a dude that thinks dudes are hot... and owns a juicer... and loves Duran Duran... is not gay.

and we all think that dude is gay. so... we're just saying "hey its only a matter of time."?

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:49 AM  

Oh sweet baby Jesus now here come the aspies...

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 10:49 AM  

It's okay Nate, we're on your side.

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:51 AM  

"What are some examples of right-wing parties that have held power in the last 100 years?"

how about Pre-Commie Chile?

Blogger NO GOOGLES January 26, 2018 10:51 AM  

@7
Mussolini himself considered his brand of fascism to be a natural evolution of socialism. He definitely considered himself left wing (if that is even a useful metric when you get to the point where Mussolini was) although lots of people today wrongly consider fascism to be exclusively right wing.

Blogger James Dixon January 26, 2018 10:52 AM  

> It's a lot of talking past each other.

I've noticed that happens a lot when one side has no idea what it's talking about.

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:52 AM  

also the US government (by world standards) has been right wing. Certainly it was right wing under Coolidge.

Blogger NO GOOGLES January 26, 2018 10:53 AM  

@86
Franco's Spain

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 10:54 AM  

Hungary seems pretty right wing right now. And honestly so does Russia.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly January 26, 2018 11:02 AM  

Come on. Who hasn't dropped by the gay club now and again. But totally just to drop SICK BURNZ on their fashion collaborators! Drama dahling, the fuel of a ...straight! Very straight man's life.

Anonymous kfg January 26, 2018 11:05 AM  

" . . . the 57 genders now available for public consumption.

That was at 7 this morning, EDT. Do make some effort to keep up with Current Time.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly January 26, 2018 11:07 AM  

The South Africans at various points held the right wing moniker in the last 100.

Blogger Rashadjin January 26, 2018 11:12 AM  

You're on to something, Azure Amaranthine. The betrayal may be that biology hasn't lived up to lefty ideals, and so they're purging their relationship with it from their history like a spurned lover. And now pretending very hard that it doesn't exist.

Blogger Were-Puppy January 26, 2018 11:13 AM  

@58 Fenris Wulf

The main difference was race war vs. class war, and the identity of the designated scapegoat group.
---

In Soviet Russia, everything is good until they designate you a Kulak.

Anonymous User January 26, 2018 11:14 AM  

As population size increases human polities undergo phase changes. People that live in hives become hive-adapted. The classic American Right Vox seems to want is dead and gone until there is a major sustained population drop.

It doesn't matter how leftist a party's platform is—if they can reduce the population by a few log levels in a eugenic fashion, the end result will be a swing hard to the right.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 11:23 AM  

"In Soviet Russia, everything is good until they designate you a Kulak."

Only kulaks have food.

Anonymous Neo January 26, 2018 11:26 AM  

"Human polities undergo phase changes...

But human nature doesn't. Eugenics really!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUEtHFmE8OM

Anonymous Brick Hardslab January 26, 2018 11:32 AM  

Hypothetically, if the Japanese invaded the east coast and established a puppet government would it be national socialist or international socialist?

More importantly would anyone notice the difference?

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 11:39 AM  

"also the US government (by world standards) has been right wing. Certainly it was right wing under Coolidge."

Assuming right-wing = approximately Girondist, it's easy to argue for Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.

If your standard is the world average, FDR is right-of-center (which is a bit horrifying).

Blogger paradox January 26, 2018 11:45 AM  

Nazi were Left-wing based only on their culture. They didn't try to reestablish the monarchy. Their song, Horst-Wessel-Lied, spells out they were revolutionaries.

"Comrades shot by the Red Front and REACTIONARIES,
March in spirit within our ranks."

Now, while I consider Nazis Left-Wing, I'm not about to label, for example; Pinochet, Franco, and G.K. Chesterton as Left-wing, based only their view of capitalism. And at the same I will not attribute the Right-wing label to, The Koch brothers, libertarians, or Reason Magazine capitalist that support globalism, open boarders, abortion, gay marriage, and transgender restrooms.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 26, 2018 11:48 AM  

Jack's syllogism seems to run like this:

Jack is Left.
Jack doesn't like Nazis.
Therefore Nazis are Right! Right! Not Left!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 11:54 AM  

"More importantly would anyone notice the difference?"

Yes, crime would go way down and they'd probably start deporting Mexicans yesterday.

Oh, and there'd be about 1000% more fake smiling.

Blogger Lance E January 26, 2018 11:55 AM  

From what I can glean, it comes down to a single-minded obsession with a composition fallacy/hasty generalization. It always takes this form:

1. Current-day progressives/globalists hold belief/attitude X
2. Therefore "the left" is defined by holding belief/attitude X
3. Therefore anyone who is anti-X is right-wing!

"X" can be any of: globalism, pacifism, Judaism, feminism, anti-whiteness, or in the case of civic nationalists, even "authoritarianism" or "anti-constitutionalism". There's no logic to any of it, but they present it as (pseudo) dialectic anyway. It's barely distinguishable from the typical SJW argument; just replace "right-wing" with "Nazi".

It really is incredibly shallow. It seems that simple minds have a desperate need to subordinate all ideas and all evidence to a single meme.

Blogger DonReynolds January 26, 2018 11:56 AM  

"Jack has no case whatsoever because he doesn't understand what it means to be of the political Left."

Nailed it, Vox.
Jack has no understanding of his own brand, not only in theory, but not in the history or practice either.

He is correct to admit that the National Socialists removed the class barriers of traditional German society, but Jack calls this meritocracy and not egalitarianism....which is funny. The Leftists I have argued with insisted on equality of opportunity as their basis for egalitarianism. Of course, we all know that egalitarianism is much more than the pretense of equality.

Hitler reserved his worst insult of other Germans, not because they were Communists, but because they were "petty bourgeois". The traditional Reactionary German (Prussian) was more of a threat to the Nazi state than the other forms of the Left to the German Workers Party.

What Jack insists is the idea that race is the dividing line between Left and Right, no matter what else they may differ upon. Of course, this is yet another revision in history and theory that did not exist in the past. The only fevered minds I have seen are those Leftists desperate to find a history they can agree with!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 11:58 AM  

"Jack is Left.
Jack doesn't like Nazis.
Therefore Nazis are Right! Right! Not Left!"


That's how most of human logic works. As I've said before, in the fallen nature the intellect is necessarily the slave of the desires.

Actually it's the slave of the desires in the non-fallen nature too.

The only difference is that the desires of the fallen nature are Satanic where the desires of the non-fallen nature are righteous as God intended them.

Anonymous Tars Tarkas January 26, 2018 12:09 PM  

They use hierarchy as a measure of left and right. The problem with this is that almost all governments can be described as far right. Not only governments, but basically any institution. You could reasonably define a family as a right wing institution using this criteria. This allows leftists polysci professors to define every left wing authoritarian murderer as right wing.

Blogger James Dixon January 26, 2018 12:10 PM  

> As population size increases human polities undergo phase changes. People that live in hives become hive-adapted. The classic American Right Vox seems to want is dead and gone until there is a major sustained population drop.

Only if you live in a city. But yes, that does seem to describe the major city versus country divide in the US.

Blogger DonReynolds January 26, 2018 12:17 PM  

LES wrote:You might be a liberal if you believe:

Nazis were white heterosexual men therefore all white heterosexual men are Nazis.

If you are not a, self-hating, white heterosexual man then you are Hitler.


Any such "Liberal" would simply be a historical ignoramus. The FIRST purge of the Nazis was to kill off the homosexual cult that dominated the higher ranks of the SA....which was party militia and the larger part of the party. Ernst Rohm was personally arrested and shot by Hitler himself, as were a number of his favorites, but only AFTER the party came to power. While they were purged, they were an important part of the party.

Anonymous Simon in London January 26, 2018 12:18 PM  

I guess the NSDP were seen as a left-wing party that the German Right 'could do business with'. There was not a whole lot Right-wing about NSDP ideology, agreed. Even Himmler's pagan romanticism was closer to Rousseauean beliefs in a perfect State of Nature followed by the Fall into civilisation.

Blogger Anne January 26, 2018 12:33 PM  

Long long ago, I heard someone claim that Hitler was Jewish, i.e. one of his grandparents was. It wasn't online, I don't know where I heard it.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 26, 2018 12:45 PM  

Fenris Wulf wrote:
There are NO bona fide Nazis today. The term is a Leftist dog whistle. It signals that the target is a political enemy and fair game to beforcibly silenced. Scientific racism and eugenics were historically Progressive ideas, and proceeded from a collectivist ideology. Egalitarianism is a recent mutation of Leftist thought. It's not a fundamental principle, it's a tactic in the war against capitalism.

Egalitarianism pre-dates Lenin by a century or more. You are correct about the scarcity of actual Nazis, though. Anglin clearly had no idea what actual Nazis believed in the 'debate' with VD - which was frankly painful to watch (Anglin's IQ must be around 85-90). Terms concocted in the final days of Louis XVI and the Estates general aren't terribly useful to describe the situation today. The chief reason Nazis are identified as being on the 'right' is a relentless seven-decade repeat of this mantra by (((fake news))), not their actual policies. The real Nazis, whose allies include George Soros - who spoke at Davos the other day for those who believe nonsense about his arrest - killed 2 whites for every non-white, so folks like Anglin holding them up as some sort of role model is even more ridiculous than the Tea-Party Patriotards in Tricornes waving flags of the Fake Banana Empire.

Blogger Koanic January 26, 2018 12:47 PM  

Vox believes that economics distinguishes Left from Right. However, I can conceive of a ubiquitous supercomputer which solves the impossibility of socialist calculation better than human markets. Two such societies could still diverge fundamentally, one to the Left, the other to the Right.

Anthropologically, patriarchal herders conquer matriarchal gatherers, like patriarchal chimps and pacifistic bonobos, proving that Left and Right are pre-monetary biological phenomena.

In my view, the primary distinction between Left and Right is dysgenics vs eugenics, with the "good" in "eu-" being defined as Christlike behavior. Removing Jews and Gypsies from the German population was profoundly eugenic; however, gamma-led socialist imperial expansionism was even more profoundly dysgenic.

My view may break down under stress testing, however, because I can conceive of societies far to the Right of the Christlike, such as that of the Predators of AvP.

The insistence of the less intelligent that Nazis are Rightist is easily explained - the non-abstract thinker perceives only that the Nazi ethos is very sociobiologically similar to that of chimps, and very distant from that of bonobos.

In the end, perhaps the babes have the right of it. In which case we should seek not the Right, but the Righteous. Are not debt jubilees left wing?

---

I misspoke. Someone did find something tangentially related to the subject of sodomy amusing in the Bible. Canaan laughed about his father's nakedness.

Probably Israelites did not call each other Sodomites because bearing false witness regarding a capital offense carried the death penalty.

It is unfortunate that David and Jonathan could not avail themselves of this masculine bonding ritual. One imagines their dialogue would have been enriched by protestations of "No homo."

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener January 26, 2018 12:52 PM  

The Soviet Union was a multicultural empire from its inception. NSDAP Germany sought to become a multicultural empire.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 26, 2018 12:53 PM  

North Korea is as left-wing and Socialist as any government can be, and it meets every criteria Jack Burroughs cites as hallmarks of right-wing National Socialism.

As I understand it, despite Norks' one-party still being referred to by a communist name, the actual constitution has been re-written to remove nearly all references to Marxism as it distracts from the worship of the Dear Leader and his ancestors. This is hearsay, so you can take it for what it's worth.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 26, 2018 12:55 PM  

He's not gay unless he's committed sodomy, which is not a subject anyone laughs about in the Bible.

Says the guy with a stick up his ass.

Blogger Anne January 26, 2018 12:57 PM  

Personally, I wouldn't want to convince someone to think he was gay when he didn't already think so. Then I might be partially responsible for the actions he takes with respect to his new belief.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 26, 2018 1:09 PM  

You're on to something, Azure Amaranthine. The betrayal may be that biology hasn't lived up to lefty ideals...

That's an interesting point if you think about it in terms of Jerry Pournelle's two-axis political chart. By that chart, both commies and nazis worship government, but differ on whether people are perfectible or not.

Anonymous Gen. Kong January 26, 2018 1:13 PM  

For those interested in the whole topic of the application of the terms 'right' and 'left', there is a good three-part series by James Lawrence over at Liddell's Alternative Right - the original site founded by Spencer who later abandoned it.

*Part 1
*Part 2
*Part 3

Lawrence's take is interesting as it seeks to expand the terms beyond the absurdly narrow definitions used by some here - under which Goldman-Sachs and other looters are "right-wing" because they're "capitalist". Perhaps Pablo Escobar and the Mexican cartels are an even better example of 'right-wing capitalism' under such a schema. The terminology is largely obsolete as it's employed today because of massive changes since they were originally concocted, not to mention deliberate obfuscation employed by the über-capitalist (((fake news))) for the last 60 years. Lawrence is attempting to look at it from a larger historical perspective.

Blogger Bodo Staron January 26, 2018 1:14 PM  

Wouldn't it be easier to give an example or explain in a blog post how a right-wing government/state would operate, what policies they run under etc.
Maybe even a historical example of a state that ran under purely right-wing policies.

Yes, I'm serious and not trolling. Every academic, every newspaper, almost every politician in Germany calls the Nazis "right wing extremists".

I thank you in advance.

Anonymous Grumbles the Horny Antago-Troll January 26, 2018 1:15 PM  

The real Nazis [...] killed 2 whites for every non-white

muh but Hitler was gonna breed 2 Krauts for every dead Slav!

muh with dead-sexy Norwegian bitches!

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 26, 2018 1:25 PM  

As someone who has quite a bit of real-world experience dealing with National Socialist sympathizers, I'll say this:

When you can get them to drop their guard, when you can get them to dispense with the rationalizations, they 'beleive' as they do because they find it absurd prima facie that the Western World -- i.e. "White People" -- are better off today in virtue of the Germans having lost World War Jew.

Until one cracks that nut, one gets precisely nowhere with these sorts of people.

Blogger Nate January 26, 2018 1:28 PM  

"Yes, I'm serious and not trolling. Every academic, every newspaper, almost every politician in Germany calls the Nazis "right wing extremists"."

Liberals call the Nazi's right wing? NO WAY

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 1:28 PM  

Thanks for answering my point, Vox. All due respect for that.

However, you miss the core of my argument, just as you miss the core of the difference between Right and Left, and between Nazis and Communists.

That core is this: the Nazis were very different at their foundation, and in their animating energies, and in their collective psychological profile, from the Communists. Before we even get into considerations of policy, we must contend with this unmistakable qualitative difference in energy, in climate of thought, and above all in *human type*. The notion that it's just Left wing propaganda that has tricked us all into believing that the Nazis were Right wing might have some merit if it were mainly the Left that resisted reclassifying the Nazis as Left wing. But in fact almost everyone resists this, even people who despise the Left, and who would be happy to burden them with the Nazi legacy. Indeed, many of the people who most strenuously resist this reclassification are the neo-Nazis themselves. Why should this be?

It’s because they see what practically everybody (but you) sees about Nazism. The feel of it, the spirit of it, the energy of it, the look of it--it all radiates anti-egalitarian visions of greatness, almost like a sickness. And this impression is so viscerally overwhelming to most people that it amounts in practice to a kind of gaslighting to argue, by dint of definitions alone, that despite *extreme* appearances to contrary, the Nazis were really--no, really!--Left wing.

Let me try a different approach. I think we can agree that one’s political outlook is strongly influenced by one’s inborn temperament, right? That’s Anonymous Conservative’s main thesis. To use AC’s framework, do you believe Hitler was r selected, or K selected? And speaking strictly intuitively, if Hitler had been born in the US in our time, do you believe that his basic nature would incline him toward the Left, or toward the Right? Would a man with Hitler’s temperament, his psychological profile, in our society today, likely have voted for Trump? Or would he have been for Clinton? Or, hey, would a contemporary American genetic twin of Adolf Hitler have been a Sanders man??

What do you think, Vox? Is it really your view that a man with Hitler’s temperament (as distinct from his ideology) in our society today would NOT have voted for Trump?

My point is that, prior to ideology, prior to specific policies, prior even to specific deeds, one must consider the qualitative dimension of a political movement, because it is primarily this energetic quality that speaks to actual human beings in the real world. Who this energy inspires, and who it repulses, is mainly a matter of temperament. So whatever substantively Left wing policies the Nazis might have embraced, the Nazis themselves were obviously *temperamentally* of the extreme Right, and it is this palpably anti-egalitarian Right wing temperament that defines how people perceive them and politically classify them.

The critical importance of temperament for intuitive political classification is, for instance, why Trump could say to an audience of Republicans in South Carolina that the Bush Administration lied the country into war, and STILL win that primary. Southern Republicans resonated with Trump’s temperament, so it just didn’t much matter that he was committing a political heresy in that state.

That’s what you’re up against when you argue that the Nazis were really Left wing. People hear you making these pedantic, abstract, and definitional arguments, and they think, “What the hell is Vox talking about? Hitler is Left wing?? I can tell just by looking at the fuckin’ guy that he’s as Right wing as it gets. I mean… LOOK at him. LISTEN to him. Check out the imagery, the atmosphere, the militarism, the extreme preoccupation with discipline, with order, with greatness, with glory. This is some blatantly Right wing shit, man. Vox is stuck in head on this one.”

That is why the overwhelming majority of people will always disagree with you on this issue.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 1:29 PM  



Vox: “Jack simply doesn't know what he is talking about because he is a historical and ideological ignoramus. By his bizarre definition of the ideological Left, even the Leninists and Stalinists and Jacobins and Zapatistas and Nasserites and Khmer Rouge and Maoists were all right-wing. All of these major leftist movements were extremely conscious of the difference between their countrymen and everyone else on the planet. It will be interesting to hear how Jack tries to explain how Stalin and Bukharin's "socialism in one country", which became formal Soviet policy as early as 1925, and Nasser's socialist Pan-Arabism, are somehow of the ideological Right.”

It’s true that both the Nazis and the Communists both made many concessions, under pressure of events, to their ideological opposites. That kind of thing happens all the time. The point is that each did so from a very different *psychological* and *temperamental* foundation. Stalin and Bukharin were very different kinds of men from Adolf Hitler, which means that even when they embraced somewhat similar views and policies as Hitler, it has a different *meaning* when they do it. The same goes for Hitler with his embrace of socialism.

One could make the same observation about the difference between the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam in the days of Malcolm X. Both groups were militant black activist groups, but they were led by very different kinds of men. The Black Panthers, under the leadership of Bobby Seale, were palpably Left wing types, with all the predictable pathologies and messiness that go along with that orientation to life. But Malcolm X was basically a Right wing temperament making Left wing arguments. In fact, he’s essentially a black National Socialist. That’s why he stands out as unique among iconic black leaders, and that’s a big reason why even many white Right wingers respect Malcolm X.

Most people can *feel* these differences, Vox, even if you can’t.

You’d have a much better shot at dissociating the Nazis from the Right if you were to concede that the Nazis were obviously Right wing *types*, with a palpably Right wing energy, even if they embraced some objectionably Left wing *policies*. Perhaps you could describe them as natural Right wingers gone wrong. A new label that somehow captures the weird hybrid of what the Nazis actually were might have a realistic hope of gaining some traction. Whatever it is, this new term must view the phenomenon *holistically*, rather than shoehorning the Nazis into a category that feels drastically wrong, or purely abstract, to most people.

In any case, if you don’t alter your line of argument, then you’re going to lose this debate with the broad public.

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 1:34 PM  

"Hitler is Left wing?? I can tell just by looking at the fuckin’ guy that he’s as Right wing as it gets. I mean… LOOK at him. LISTEN to him. Check out the imagery, the atmosphere, the militarism, the extreme preoccupation with discipline, with order, with greatness, with glory. This is some blatantly Right wing shit, man."

You heard it here first: Stalin and Mao are now right-wing.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 1:39 PM  

"You heard it here first: Stalin and Mao are now right-wing."

Strangely, that is not the holistic impression they make on most people. I wonder why?

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 1:41 PM  

Talking about Nazis doesn't clarify anything, it only muddies already complex topics. It's useful to look at why Nazism arose and the conditions of Weimar Germany, but that's about it.

Perhaps you could describe them as natural Right wingers gone wrong. A new label that somehow captures the weird hybrid of what the Nazis actually were might have a realistic hope of gaining some traction.They were opposed by reactionaries. The right-wing at the time opposed them because they were revolutionaries. There is a label for them: Nazis. It's a movement that arose in one nation with a cult of personality around Adolph Hitler. You would gain more insight into current politics if you spent your time studying the Song Dynasty, let alone almost any other time period in Western history. "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly January 26, 2018 1:42 PM  

@126 if only we could better explain to the masses! They don't quite understand the nuance. Perhaps a new term.

Former Democratic strategist?

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 1:43 PM  

"Strangely, that is not the holistic impression they make on most people. I wonder why?"

You're not most people. Stop claiming that you are.

Anonymous SigOther January 26, 2018 1:46 PM  

Calvin Coolidge.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 1:47 PM  

"You're not most people. Stop claiming that you are."

You're right. It's not as if most people think Stalin and Mao were Left wing, and that Hitler was Right wing. Those are just my own eccentric, individual opinions.

What was I thinking?

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 26, 2018 1:50 PM  

Jack.

Bro.

Stop typing.

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 1:52 PM  

"You're right. It's not as if most people think Stalin and Mao were Left wing, and that Hitler was Right wing."

There's a reason that horseshoe theory has stuck - the negligible difference between NatSocs and Commies makes it impossible to claim that they're left/right.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 1:54 PM  

"Talking about Nazis doesn't clarify anything, it only muddies already complex topics. It's useful to look at why Nazism arose and the conditions of Weimar Germany, but that's about it."

I didn't bring it up. Vox did. This issue preoccupies him, for some reason.

"they were opposed by reactionaries. The right-wing at the time opposed them because they were revolutionaries."

Conservatives opposed them, yes. But this has nothing to do whether they were essentially *Right wing* revolutionaries.

As Vox himself is constantly pointing out, the true Right is not conservative. They might ideologically overlap in places, but they are not the same kind of person.




Anonymous SigOther January 26, 2018 1:59 PM  

Anyone else notice that "radiating massive centralized state power" is a "right wing" vibe? I guess all those military parades of the Red Army in Red Square were actually put on by secret right wing communists. What color is the sky on the planet this guy's from?!? Maybe this guy has found a new fallacy; instead of no true Scotsman, it's no true commissar.

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 1:59 PM  

As Vox himself is constantly pointing out, the true Right is not conservative. They might ideologically overlap in places, but they are not the same kind of person.

He's talking about modern American conservatives. They're a RW version of progressives. Sort of like Hitler!

Vox is most definitely not bringing up Nazism. He's responding to it. It's coming out of one small autistic corner of the #AltRight who don't understand the difference between memes, trolling and political philosophy.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:02 PM  

"There's a reason that horseshoe theory has stuck"

Horseshoe "theory" is not a theory at all; it's a misleading metaphor. And it hasn't "stuck." Most people don't believe in it. In fact, most people haven't even heard of it, and those who have generally find it unpersuasive. Unless they are followers of Sargon of Akkad.

"- the negligible difference between NatSocs and Commies makes it impossible to claim that they're left/right.'

Have you ever spoken to people who lived in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia? I have. The differences were not negligible at all.

Anonymous SigOther January 26, 2018 2:03 PM  

Or that FDR, that infamous right-winger, supported and sustained racial segregation...yep, FDR cannot be called a leftist, guys. He wasn't a TRUE commissar of the people's revolution.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:03 PM  

"He's talking about modern American conservatives. They're a RW version of progressives. Sort of like Hitler!"

Right! Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell--very Hitler-like, those two. Obviously exactly the same kind of man.

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 2:04 PM  

I should say American ocnservatives are the "right-wing" of the progressive movement.

Blogger DonReynolds January 26, 2018 2:05 PM  

Jack..."The feel of it, the spirit of it, the energy of it, the look of it--it all radiates anti-egalitarian visions of greatness, almost like a sickness. And this impression is so viscerally overwhelming to most people that it amounts in practice to a kind of gaslighting to argue, by dint of definitions alone, that despite *extreme* appearances to contrary, the Nazis were really--no, really!--Left wing."

You seem to be carried away by war propaganda. Until WWII began...there was no widespread and universal condemnation of Nazis, just the lingering resentment over WWI and the Kaiser, from less than a couple of decades before. Quite a number of people, who later found themselves at war with the Nazi state, were actually supportive and impressed by the assumption of power by the Nazis in Germany. This of course was before the Blitz and the Holocaust and the wonder weapons, so likely a good bit of your "feelz like" are nothing more than wartime PR that did not exist before 1939.

Your arguments are even less persuasive when applied to the original form of fascism in Europe, which was Italy, which does not seem to have (nearly as much) of the wartime propaganda burden or guilt. Fascists assumed power in Italy in 1922, with many of the same features anyone would find in the Nazi state. Mussolini considered himself a Leftist Revolutionary, and indeed he was, as was his party and government, long before the Nazis came to power in Germany. There were no incompatibilities or contradictions between fascism in Italy and fascism in Germany.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:08 PM  

SigOther: "Or that FDR, that infamous right-winger, supported and sustained racial segregation...yep, FDR cannot be called a leftist, guys. He wasn't a TRUE commissar of the people's revolution."

That's really how they are arguing, isn't it? FDR did some some stuff that is typically considered Right wing, so... he's Right wing!

There's no getting out of it. Doesn't matter what kind of man he was, or how and why he did what he did. He did some Right wing stuff, so he's Right wing forever, and that's that.

FDR: Icon of the American Right.

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 2:08 PM  

Right! Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell--very Hitler-like, those two. Obviously exactly the same kind of man.

They are the right-wing of a leftist movement. As Hitler was in his time, the right-wing element of a left-wing revolutionary movement. If you live in a world where Hitler is "right-wing", it's because the communists won.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:12 PM  

"Your arguments are even less persuasive when applied to the original form of fascism in Europe, which was Italy, which does not seem to have (nearly as much) of the wartime propaganda burden or guilt."

I'm making, above all, a psycho-political point. Look at the kind of man he was, and look at the kinds of people who were drawn to him, and to his movement.

By and large, these are not Left wing temperaments, whatever may be the substance of the policies advocated by Hitler and Mussolini.

Much more than ideology, it is the character and temperament of the leadership and the people who determine the political climate of a movement.

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 2:14 PM  

I'm making, above all, a psycho-political point. Look at the kind of man he was, and look at the kinds of people who were drawn to him, and to his movement.

Tell me more about the Authoritarian Personality.

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 2:15 PM  

Dude, no different from Mao and Stalin by the very characteristics you chose. Military grandstanding is archetypal Communist. Your argument is self-contradicting.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:21 PM  

"They are the right-wing of a leftist movement. As Hitler was in his time, the right-wing element of a left-wing revolutionary movement."

You're missing my point. And you're viewing the issue too abstractly, just as Vox does.

I'm making a point about the kind of man Hitler actually was, and the kinds of people who were, and are, generally drawn to Nazism.

These are not what anyone would consider Left wing temperaments. That is true irrespective of whatever somewhat Left wing position they happen to take on any given issue.

There is an important reason why Anglin and Spencer, both of whom Vox reviles as "fake right", *both* voted for Trump.

Think about that. Vox and his enemies supported the same Presidential candidate for temperamental reasons that transcend, yet inform, ideology and policy preferences.

That's a different version of the same point.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:24 PM  

"Military grandstanding is archetypal Communist."

It's not about the presence of absence of military grandstanding. It's about the overall difference in spirit of military grandstanding. Left wing military grandstanding has a very different energy from Right wing military grandstanding.

Consider the difference between the military grandstanding of the Black Panthers vs that of the Nation of Islam in the 60s, and you'll see what I mean.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:26 PM  

"Tell me more about the Authoritarian Personality."

It's more than that. Because there are Left wing Authoritarians and Right wing Authoritarians. And these are recognizably different types of people.

Blogger DonReynolds January 26, 2018 2:27 PM  

I see, Jack....
So it has nothing to do with Hitler or Mussolini, or their policies, it is only about the people (ostensibly) attracted to them.

Your complaint is about militarism it seems....but no link with Soviet militarism or Chinese militarism, but yes, it must be the same as American and West European militarism.

Now you have become humorous with the psycho-babble. Militarism has a long history in Europe. You could even say, especially with Italy and Germany, although neither existed before 1870.

You find militarism anywhere you find reactionary monarchies. Yes, Japan had plenty of militarism and the spectacle and grandeur of militarism and popular pride in national military form and display. The mere presence of military does not mean they have attracted the support of the military. It simply means that the military serve authority, however their politics might be defined in every country. A point in fact, a great deal of the opposition to the Nazi state was actually from the militarists. They had several plots to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazi government...one nearly succeeded.

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 2:29 PM  

Oh, now it's about the "energy" of the grandstanding.

Damn hippies.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:31 PM  

"So it has nothing to do with Hitler or Mussolini, or their policies, it is only about the people (ostensibly) attracted to them. "

It's not that it has "nothing" to do with policy, and is "only" about the temperament of the people. Obviously, policy is relevant and important.

It's just that when you're talking about Right vs Left, you have to consider the nature, the psychological profile, of the actual human beings that you're talking about. Otherwise, you will misjudge the phenomenon.

And misclassify it.

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 2:33 PM  

I'm making a point about the kind of man Hitler actually was, and the kinds of people who were, and are, generally drawn to Nazism.

The same is true of Coke and Pepsi. Different people are attracted to different brands, it's called marketing.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 26, 2018 2:36 PM  

Alt-retards whining that wanna be part of the alt-Right club because "didnothingwrong" makes as much sense as "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande".

One bunch of 'natural conservatives' as fake as the other.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 26, 2018 2:37 PM  

I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. wrote:When you can get them to drop their guard, when you can get them to dispense with the rationalizations, they 'beleive' as they do because they find it absurd prima facie that the Western World -- i.e. "White People" -- are better off today in virtue of the Germans having lost World War Jew.

I wouldn't want to have to make the case that Hitler's NatSoc was more destructive than Merkel's GlobSoc. That doesn't make NatSoc good. Merkel and Hitler are both Left, and evil, and bad for their nation.

Blogger Resident Moron™ January 26, 2018 2:38 PM  

Jack also pulls a Bait n Switch in his argument, vis a vis:

"That is why people with Far Right tendencies are often drawn to Nazism, and that is why people with Left wing tendencies are universally repulsed by it"

... in which he contrasts (a) his pretense that people with "FAR Right" tendencies are drawn to Nazism, with (b) his assertion that the entire Left are repulsed by it.

It's like the FAR Left doesn't exist in Jack's world, and if they do they share all the characteristics of the entire Left. But if that were so, what qualifies them to be "FAR" Left?

I was suspended from Twitter last week multiple times after getting into an argument on this exact point. Unsurprisingly he used Jack's exact formulation, implying I'm a Nazi by "observing" that the far Right insist on the leftist status of the Nazis while being the only faction who admire them.

When I told him to fuck off I was suspended.

This is the Left's defensive talking-point against the historic record; insisting that the history of the Nazi's origins in early 20th Century socialism and communism cannot be airbrushed away means that you're a Nazi.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:40 PM  

"Now you have become humorous with the psycho-babble. Now you have become humorous with the psycho-babble. Militarism has a long history in Europe."

For an extreme contrast, consider these two videos.

Right wing militarism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ceLnMT0rps

NOT right wing militarism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHLTKZ05zM4

So you see, there are stylistic differences between different displays of militarism. These are rooted in differences between the kinds of men involved in these displays.

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 2:42 PM  

It's just that when you're talking about Right vs Left, you have to consider the nature, the psychological profile, of the actual human beings that you're talking about. Otherwise, you will misjudge the phenomenon.

If you want to sell pick-up trucks in Seattle, you tout their "green" qualities. If you sell them in Wyoming, you tout their towing power. In both places they are pick-up trucks.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 26, 2018 2:43 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:That core is this: the Nazis were very different at their foundation, and in their animating energies, and in their collective psychological profile, from the Communists. Before we even get into considerations of policy, we must contend with this unmistakable qualitative difference in energy, in climate of thought, and above all in *human type*.

So, the defining difference between Left and Right boils down to elements of style? Torchlight rallies and snazzy uniforms are Right, Mayday parades and dreary uniforms are left? That's what I've gotten from your posts here. If that's really what you're getting at, there is no ride you are tall enough for.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:50 PM  


"The same is true of Coke and Pepsi. Different people are attracted to different brands, it's called marketing."

Right. It was just a matter of marketing that Trump audaciously violated taboo, after taboo, after taboo, and still dominated everyone else in the Republican primary.

It was just a matter of marketing that Trump boasted about his dick size in a Presidential debate, and still overwhelmingly won the Evangelical vote.

It was just a matter of marketing that Trump said he had never asked God for forgiveness for anything, and conservative Christians still voted for the man in droves.

It was just a matter a marketing that Andrew Anglin, whom Vox considers an ideological enemy and a pseudo-Rightist, is just as enthusiastic about Trump as Vox is, if not moreso.

Boy, that was some marketing magic that Trump was able to work, in defiance of the non-stop venomous hatred of the entire establishment media.

Because I was thinking it might have something to do with Trump's temperament. You know, because maybe people somehow resonated with who we was, and how he was, in a way that nullified normal ideological and religious concerns.

But I guess i was wrong. Turns out it's all marketing. Like Pepsi and Coke.

I see it now.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 26, 2018 2:52 PM  

The greatest conflation of Feelz with Ontology I've seen in awhile. To what address do we send the Edible Arrangement, Jack?

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:53 PM  

"So, the defining difference between Left and Right boils down to elements of style?"

It boils down to differences in *temperament.* Style is an outgrowth of temperament.

Anonymous veryfunnyminion January 26, 2018 2:53 PM  

So this is what the 3SD IQ communications gap looks like....

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 2:57 PM  


"The greatest conflation of Feelz with Ontology I've seen in awhile."

What would you say is the defining difference between Feelz and ontology? That's a serious question.

"To what address do we send the Edible Arrangement, Jack?"

You can give it your Fascist sons on my behalf.

They will understand my point more easily than you do.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 26, 2018 3:00 PM  

I wouldn't want to have to make the case that Hitler's NatSoc was more destructive than Merkel's GlobSoc. That doesn't make NatSoc good. Merkel and Hitler are both Left, and evil, and bad for their nation.

But that's a wash.

Tough nut, idnit.

Blogger tublecane January 26, 2018 3:01 PM  

"The Nazi's ideological commitment to anti-egalitarian racial biology"

Commies made great hay out of this supposed fact, because it was in their interest to claim the entire left and erase a great swath of political reality from the map by pretending the Nazis were the far, far right. And there's some truth to it, because at least rhetorically communists were egalitarians, and Nazis stressed at least one area where humans were unequal.

But it's really hard to ignore how egalitarian Nazis were when it came to the German people, or how many distinction commies insisted upon making as regards class, for instance. Why does racial hierarchy make the Nazis rightist and class hierarchy apparently not matter amongst commies? No good reason.

We must take into consideration a great deal of aspects. When we do, both Nazism and communism come out as "groupie" movements relative to other modern political movements. Which in itself wouldn't mean they're leftwing from the long historical perspective. You need to take into consideration yet more things for that to be true. But it does mean the "anti-egalitarian racial biology" factor isn't as important as it's made out to be.

By the way, if the idea is that the difference with communist anti-egalitarianism is that they'll create a classless society when they get around to it, well, Nazis didn't want biology to stand still. I'm sure they'd have been perfectly happy if the entire world could be made into a master race.

Blogger DonReynolds January 26, 2018 3:06 PM  

Jack....."There is an important reason why Anglin and Spencer, both of whom Vox reviles as "fake right", *both* voted for Trump."

Do you have any idea how many Bernie voters cast their vote for Donald Trump, angry at Hillary for cheating Bernie out of the nomination? So they are really Hitler, in disguise, and not Leftists at all?

It is true that the Leftists had more candidates to pick from in the last presidential election, but only in Utah did we see such a heavy third party vote. Anyone who did not want Obama 2.0 for another four years, only had three choices in the last election....vote for Trump, not vote at all (which has the same political effect as voting for everybody), or throw their vote away on a no-chance third party candidate (which primarily helped Trump).

Had Ted Cruz (or any of the other Republican candidates) decided to run as an independent, Hillary would be president today.

2016 was simply a repeat of the spoiler elections we have seen in the past, with too many ideological candidates of the same stripe chasing the same votes. We saw it with George Wallace in 1972, Ross Perot in 1992, and Ralph Nader in 2000.

In other elections, we have seen either party exhaust themselves in the primary campaigns for the party nomination only to fail to unify behind the nominee in time for the general election....2016 was such a case. The Democrats had a hard fought primary campaign in 2008 but still managed to unify in time to win the election. That did not happen in 2016.

Blogger tublecane January 26, 2018 3:07 PM  

Jack Burroughs: You must be aware, I'm sure, that people--presumably possessed of the same psychology from moment to moment--floated from communism to fascism and back. It's not exactly an unheard-of phenomenon. In fact, fascism was given its official kickoff by quickly communist heretic named Mussolini.

Which could be a quirk of history. Those might have merely been the personality types to float between such movements. What about the Typical Commie and Typical Nazi?

Well, yoiay also be aware that at different times and places, including Weimar Germany, the Nazis and communist parties were competing for the exact same electorate.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:13 PM  

"Do you have any idea how many Bernie voters cast their vote for Donald Trump, angry at Hillary for cheating Bernie out of the nomination?"

There were some, sure. Maybe there were even many. But we have to distinguish sharply between a revenge vote, and a vote of positive enthusiasm. Disaffected Bernie voters were not drawn to Trump for the same energetically Right wing, temperamental reasons that Vox, Anglin, and Spencer were.

The interesting point is here that both Vox and Anglin, despite their supposedly deep differences, share an outspoken, enduring enthusiasm for Trump.

And for essentially the same reasons!

Blogger Orthodox January 26, 2018 3:14 PM  

Because I was thinking it might have something to do with Trump's temperament. You know, because maybe people somehow resonated with who we was, and how he was, ******in a way that nullified normal ideological and religious concerns.******

Do you read what you write? Hitler fooled the Right and he's still fooling them today, 80 years later! Trump didn't fool people because he was right-wing. But if you focus on shallow things like branding and temperament, you will be fooled by marketing.

Many on the Left think Trump is a "Nazi" because they are shallow thinkers. The reason why some on the right opposed him even into the early part of his presidency was because they didn't see a track record and believed he was marketing himself to the right, but planned to rule as a Democrat. They were wrong, but they at least had the brains to look beyond one liners.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 26, 2018 3:16 PM  

They will understand my point more easily than you do.

No, but they argue it better than you are. They are in fact cognizant of the fact that NazisSozis were, in both Form and Function, of the political Left.

Although, to be fair, they too can veer-off into halcyon transcendentals and effete something-I-know-not-whats, just not with the commitment to doing so you've attempted to pass-off here as the substance of your case.

Also to be fair, it's not that you have no points, it's that they carry an analogous weight to that carried in any discussion whatsoever about, say, Lesbian Dance Theory.

Anonymous DissidentRight January 26, 2018 3:20 PM  

Can the socialist sympathizers provide even a single logical reason for their defense of socialism?

It's almost like they don't understand the Right's Alternative to socialism is objectively superior in every way.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:21 PM  

"It's not exactly an unheard-of phenomenon. In fact, fascism was given its official kickoff by quickly communist heretic named Mussolini."

It's true that Mussolini was a communist heretic. You will get that from time to time--especially in the days before Fascism was an option for guys like Mussolini.

I'm not sure what it is, but you rarely see the opposite movement. How often does a Fascist become a Communist?
I can't think of a single example.

In any case, it doesn't matter. This is entirely beside the point. I'm not arguing that a guy like Hitler could never, under any circumstances, be Left wing. If Hitler had actually converted to Communism, then he would be a Leftist, despite his seemingly Right wing temperament.

I'm just arguing that you have to view these political phenomena holistically and intuitively, as well as definitionally and intellectually. And that temperament, energy, and spirit are extremely important for persuasively classifying political movements.

When you view the Nazis holistically, they were unmistakably a revolutionary Right wing movement, which however embraced certain Left wing policies.

And Hitler plainly did have a Right wing temperament.

Anonymous DissidentRight January 26, 2018 3:24 PM  

Horseshoe "theory" is not a theory at all

It's telling that Sargon's interactions with Alt-Retards have led him to essentially the same conclusion as Vox.

All extreme socialists, whatever their flavor, converge back to the same point. Not surprising.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:24 PM  

"Also to be fair, it's not that you have no points, it's that they carry an analogous weight to that carried in any discussion whatsoever about, say, Lesbian Dance Theory."

Actually, lesbians do dance in a certain recognizable way. It seems to have something to do with temperament.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. January 26, 2018 3:26 PM  

I take it back, Jack.

Keep typing.

Anonymous DissidentRight January 26, 2018 3:33 PM  

I don't know what's more cucky: self-proclaimed Christians who carry water for Judeo-Christ, or self-proclaimed rightwingers who carry water for socialists.

There is absolutely no reason, under any circumstances, to ever defend socialism. Period.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:35 PM  

"Do you read what you write? Hitler fooled the Right and he's still fooling them today, 80 years later!"

It's incredibly, isn't it, the staying power of Hitler's long con of the Right? How does he do it? Why do Right wingers insist on seeing Hitler as Right wing, despite Vox's definitionally dispositive argument that in fact he's really Left wing?

It's almost as if there is more to being Right wing than a checklist of policy preferences. Something that people instantly know when they see it, even if they can't quite articulate exactly what it is.

But... nah. That's just Hitler's long con. Clearly, there's nothing here to think about beyond the definitions of words.

"Trump didn't fool people because he was right-wing. But if you focus on shallow things like branding and temperament, you will be fooled by marketing."

I didn't say that Trump fooled people. I said that people set aside their usual ideological and religious reservations because they felt a temperamental resonance with him, and attraction to him.

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 3:37 PM  

I keep telling myself that I'm going to make the Venn diagram of the overlap of slavery and Socialism. It would save a lot of time pointing it out to the idiots who never read the Communist Manifesto.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 3:37 PM  

"That core is this: the Nazis were very different at their foundation, and in their animating energies, and in their collective psychological profile, from the Communists."

No, no, and yes.

Foundation? National socialism, foundation Marxism, same as Communism.

"Animating energies"? Again, socialism, although they also included nationalism. A large part of that nationalism was due to needing "animating energies" to fight off the infiltrating communists, you might say. Ultimately they may have fought them off, but they had a very similar Raison d'etre.

Collective psychological profile? Fair enough. Basically a cult of personality around Hitler, with a lot of Nietzschean philosophy included. That being said, that profile doesn't really fit the right wing either, so your point is moot.

"if it were mainly the Left that resisted reclassifying the Nazis as Left wing. But in fact almost everyone resists this"

Absolutely untrue on its face. Just because most of the people you know are leftists and/or indoctrinated by them does not mean that most are. Even beyond that, that most people believe something has precisely zero bearing on whether or not it is true. Hopefully we can agree that most people are (at the least) not very historically knowledgeable.

"Indeed, many of the people who most strenuously resist this reclassification are the neo-Nazis themselves. Why should this be?"

Both the neo-nazis and the leftists can at least see the flaws of their counterpart, if not their own flaws. Not wanting to be associated with obvious flaws does not mean that you yourself do not subscribe to obviously flawed ideology, nor does it mean that you do not subscribe to many of the same aspects of another obviously flawed ideology.

What it actually means is that you're both more focused on how you look to others than on how you actually are.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 3:37 PM  

"It’s because they see what practically everybody (but you) sees about Nazism. The feel of it, the spirit of it, the energy of it, the look of it--"

You keep referring to abstract, indefinite features that you refuse to define, other than,

"it all radiates anti-egalitarian visions of greatness, almost like a sickness."

This is your constant hang-up that you refuse to be talked out of. Egalitarianism is not the single overarching quality of the left, regardless of how much you would like it to be. Beyond that, egalitarianism is a utopian vision rather than a feature of reality.

You're aware of the definition of egalitarian? There are two slightly different definitions. Egalitarians, by the first definition, believe that all people are equal in fundamental worth or social status.

As for fundamental worth, I think we both realize that all people up to this point have physically died (or will physically die, at least so far as the lifetimes of those now living). After this realization, any fundamental worth of a human being can only be in what they do that outlasts their physical existence, as things that only please the mortal individual are transient and cease to be of any worldly value when he has died. There are four potential aspects to this:

#1: Physical offspring.
#2: Physical works.
#3: Intellectual/Ideological offspring and works.
#4: The immortal soul, if such exists.

Since we are dealing with physical polities in the world of the living, I think we can safely discount #4 for the purposes of our discussion.

Obviously all people are not fundamentally equal with regards to their worth. Many people die without producing any physical or intellectual offspring or works. Egalitarianism with regards to fundamental worth in the physical world is quite obviously untrue.

This leaves the aspect of egalitarianism in social status. While it is up for debate whether people can be made of equal social status, clearly they are not currently.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 26, 2018 3:42 PM  

And Hitler plainly did have a Right wing temperament.

You've used the word "temperament" 23 times so far, and are basing your entire argument on it. I suppose you have a comparison chart for left vs right wing temperaments? Something like:

Left wing <---> Right wing
sloppy dressers <----> stylish dressers

what else do you add to the list?

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 26, 2018 3:42 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:"So, the defining difference between Left and Right boils down to elements of style?"

It boils down to differences in *temperament.* Style is an outgrowth of temperament.


Right versus Left is about internal state. Identical policies and systems are Right or Left depending on the personality of the dictator who imposes them. We can differentiate between R and L on the basis of things like style, but not on the basis of things like systems and policies.

Ideas this crazy shouldn't be let out of the asylum.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:42 PM  

"Even beyond that, that most people believe something has precisely zero bearing on whether or not it is true. Hopefully we can agree that most people are (at the least) not very historically knowledgeable."

That's a reasonable point. But the consensus of historically knowledgeable people is not that the Nazis were "actually Left wing."

The consensus is that the Nazis were a sui generis revolutionary experiment in political hybridization. Right wing in spirit, but taking enough of Left wing economics and cultural collectivism to preempt the possibility of Communist revolution.


Blogger James January 26, 2018 3:43 PM  

Anne wrote:Long long ago, I heard someone claim that Hitler was Jewish, i.e. one of his grandparents was. It wasn't online, I don't know where I heard it.

Hitler's father, Alois, was born out of wedlock to Marie Anna Schicklgruber who later married Johann Georg Heidler. Heidler was also variously spelled Hitler. Johann Georg Hiedler is one of three people most cited by modern historians as having possibly been the actual paternal grandfather of Adolf Hitler. The other two are Johann Nepomuk Hiedler, the younger brother of Johann Georg, and a Graz Jew by the name of Leopold Frankenberger. Johann Georg never adopted Alois, but, In 1877, twenty years after the death of Johann Georg and almost thirty years after the death of Maria, Alois was legally declared to have been Johann Georg's son. Alois' second marriage was to Klara Poelzl, resulted in six children, of which Adolf was the fourth.

Now, the “story” that Adolf Hitler was at most ¼ jewish was that no one really knows who knocked Marie Schicklgruber up. The Leopold Frankenberger postulate has been discounted because the jews had been expelled from Graz where Marie was when impregnated and had not been readmitted when Alois was born. But, they were kicked out of other countries that they never left so take that with a grain of salt. It was speculated that Marie had worked as a housekeeper/maid for a jewish man, possibly a Rothschild descendent. If so, then Adolf Hitler would have been jewish to ¼ of the extent the father of Alois had been. And many people that accept this as truth even believe that the Anschluss was not only to join the German nations of Austria and Germany, but also to destroy any records of Hitler’s ancestry. It would be one of the great ironies of history and would also link jewish control to the history of Western Civilization. Like Central Banks. I think any true evidence is no longer available, so you just have the various opinions of different academic historians and different historical enthusiasts.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:45 PM  

"We can differentiate between R and L on the basis of things like style, but not on the basis of things like systems and policies.

Ideas this crazy shouldn't be let out of the asylum."

You're strawmannirg me.

Again, I'm not arguing that policy and ideology are irrelevant. That would indeed be crazy.

I'm just pointing out that political classification cannot persuasively be *exclusively* about policy and ideology. Temperament, energy, spirit, style, and other qualities are all highly relevant, too.

One must view political phenomena holistically, rather than merely definitionally.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd January 26, 2018 3:47 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:

"The same is true of Coke and Pepsi. Different people are attracted to different brands, it's called marketing."

Right. It was just a matter of marketing that Trump audaciously violated taboo, after taboo, after taboo, and still dominated everyone else in the Republican primary.

But I guess i was wrong. Turns out it's all marketing. Like Pepsi and Coke.


Wrong indeed. Trump's victories are largely marketing, like Pepsi and Coke. His personality lends itself to that marketing. That doesn't make Trump either Right or Left. Trump's policies make him Right. His personality makes him effective.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 3:53 PM  

"You keep referring to abstract, indefinite features that you refuse to define, other than"

That is the point. These energies and intangibles are HIGHLY relevant to political movements.

It isn't exactly right to call them "abstract," though. It's more just that they are difficult to define. But they are powerfully concrete in their visceral immediacy.

These qualities are so obvious and persuasive that just about everyone who doesn't post on Vox Day's blog knows exactly what I mean when I say that Hitler clearly had an intensely Right wing temperament.

Anonymous DissidentRight January 26, 2018 3:56 PM  

I'm just pointing out that political classification cannot persuasively be *exclusively* about policy and ideology. Temperament, energy, spirit, style, and other qualities are all highly relevant, too.

What a suspiciously self-serving argument for one who wants to call certain socialists rightwing.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 3:56 PM  

"Strangely, that is not the holistic impression they make on most people. I wonder why?"

Pure international propaganda. Hence, international socialism vs national socialism.

"Those are just my own eccentric, individual opinions."

Other people being crazy doesn't mean that you aren't.

"Anyone else notice that "radiating massive centralized state power" is a "right wing" vibe?"

Yes. The reason it "feels right wing!" but they can't describe why, is that they want to deny that all leftist/socialist regimes require the most massive, organized, potent states because they wish to cause the most unnatural changes.

"Most people don't believe in it."

Most people can see that you have a perverse sexual lust for hearsay appeals to the bandwagon fallacy, so you should like this point.

"If you live in a world where Hitler is "right-wing", it's because the communists won."

DING DING DING!

"I'm making, above all, a psycho-political point."

Would you say that it's more psychological or political? Psychologically it's you projecting your feels and wishes. Politically it's propaganda that you believe.

"It's more than that."

So define it beyond "energy" and "most people feel". Vox's not making abstract points from an abstract perspective at all. What's happening here is that you're trying to make points that you literally cannot define from a perspective you literally cannot define.

"They will understand my point"

Can't understand what doesn't exist, Jack.

Blogger S1AL January 26, 2018 3:56 PM  

You're wrong.

Definitive proof: Coolidge was as temperamentally opposite Trump as possible, but Trump's policy and governance is as close to Coolidge as anyone has come.

Your definition of "Right" hews pretty close to women voting for politicians who make them wet. Hitler gives you a boner. Get over it.

Anonymous HoosierHillbilly January 26, 2018 4:01 PM  

"Difficult to define" "powerfully concrete in their visceral immediacy"

GNOSTICISM is back baby! Midwest Winter Tour 2018. Coming soon to a polisci course near you.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 4:01 PM  

"What a suspiciously self-serving argument for one who wants to call certain socialists rightwing."

It would indeed be suspiciously self-serving if I were eccentrically alone in making this argument. But in fact I am describing the reason why almost everyone in the world agrees with me that the Nazis were Right wing in spirit.

Yes, there are a few heady holdouts, like Vox Day, and many of the people who comment on this blog.

But, guys, listen. Your view is very much in the minority for a reason. I'm giving you that reason.

This is why most people don't agree with you on this issue.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 4:03 PM  

"That's a reasonable point. But the consensus of historically knowledgeable people is not that the Nazis were "actually Left wing." "

That's a straight lie from you, Jack. Keep it up, you'll get spammed eventually.

"Right wing in spirit, but taking enough of Left wing economics and cultural collectivism to preempt the possibility of Communist revolution."

So, "90% left wing but I feel like they looked and felt right wing."

That means left wing, Jack.

"Temperament, energy, spirit, style, and other qualities are all highly relevant, too."

They're all literally facade, Jack. Where did you think the word "Fascism" came from? It has similar roots to "facsimile" for instance.

"That is the point. These energies and intangibles are HIGHLY relevant to political movements."

You know what else is both highly relevant to political movements and entirely separate from actual observable reality? Propaganda.

Blogger Jack Burroughs January 26, 2018 4:04 PM  

"Definitive proof: Coolidge was as temperamentally opposite Trump as possible, but Trump's policy and governance is as close to Coolidge as anyone has come."

Another straw man.

I didn't say that ideology and policy were irrelevant to political taxonomy. I'm just arguing that by themselves they are not enough. Temperament, with everything that implies, is relevant, too.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2018 4:04 PM  

"It would indeed be suspiciously self-serving if I were eccentrically alone in making this argument."

So your entire argument is self-serving feels of an insane person appealing to the bandwagon fallacy repeatedly without even being able to provide evidence that the bandwagon is indeed full.

You heard it from the man himself!

1 – 200 of 340 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts