Wednesday, August 16, 2017

On the Fake Right

Neither neocons nor national socialists are of the ideological Right. Both groups are 100 percent Fake Right and rely upon deceit to try to worm their way into the genuine Right to drum up support on the basis of a few points of commonality because they are defeated left-wing factions.

This is nothing new. I was writing about this in 2004.

"Over a third of the 1920 Munich Manifesto precisely matched goals put forth by the American Democratic party, and that percentage more than doubled if one eliminates the historical aspects of the Nazi platform that simply have no application today." 

And before that, in 2003, I looked at the ideological spectrum on a party-by-party basis.

The most common error is to postulate a Communist left-wing extreme opposed by an extreme Nazi right wing. Not only does this leave out a substantial body of political and philosophical thought, but the construction falls apart the moment the two socialist ideologies are compared. Any reasonable comparison inevitably forces the confused advocates of such a definition to assert that the spectrum is actually a circle, in which case the terms left and right, much less left-wing and right-wing, are wholly nonsensical.

Nor is the original usage of much utility today, since it represented the fundamental division of the pre-revolutionary French national assembly. Since very few nations feature a monarchy these days, and even fewer political parties espouse positions with regards to the Bourbon kings, this definition is now defunct. And the notion of basing the spectrum on progress, of course, begs the Marxian question. In other words, progress toward what? The worker’s paradise?

To find a stronger foundation for a proper political spectrum, it is necessary to delve into intellectual history. Looking back to ancient Greece, one finds striking similarities between the collectivism of Plato’s Republic and modern leftist thought. And likewise, the close relationship between the Aristotelian regard for the individual, the American Bill of Rights and today’s Libertarian Party is equally hard to escape.

Taking this fundamental dichotomy between the supremacy of the community and the primacy of the individual as a starting point, it becomes relatively easy to determine where an individual or party happens to fall on the political spectrum if communism is accepted as the anchoring point for the extreme left wing. The figure below illustrates where some of the most familiar political philosophies fall upon the spectrum based on an analysis of what I consider to be the ten most significant elements affecting individuals and their relationship to their government, followed by a point-by-point breakdown of how these positions were determined.

The ten issues were: Religious Freedom, Right to Life, Gun Control, State Money Standard, Private Property, Freedom of the Press, National Sovereignty, Standing Army, State Schools, Central State Authority

The totals:


This is conclusive evidence that all National Socialists and all Alt-Reichtards are 100 percent Fake Right. They are not only to the Left of the Republicans, they are observably to the Left of the Democratic Party and the DNC.

Nor is the claim that they are pro-white even remotely convincing. First, the German national socialists killed more white people than anyone but their fellow left-wingers, the Communists. Second, the overwhelming majority of genuine national socialists in the world today are not white at all, they are Asian and Arab. And the Chinese version of national socialism both preceded and survived the German version.

Labels: , ,


«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 235 of 235
Anonymous Antipas August 16, 2017 3:15 PM  


It's an important consideration because it allows the left to weaponize the crimes of nazism against any group that declares itself to be nationalist and it's obviously been a powerful weapon over the past several decades.

The educational/political/media industrial complex has long taught that nationalism == "far right". The nazis were nationalist, therefore nazism == "far right". Thus, if you are to the right of a cuckservative you are clearly moving into nazi territory and must be purged from polite society (Birchers?)

I'm just trying to understand the root of this corrupted thinking. I have my theories, of course.

Anonymous BBGKB August 16, 2017 3:20 PM  

A green beret was discharged from the military because he beat up an sand merchant for molesting a child... Does that make us pro-paedo? No, it doesnt.

Objectively, it does.

With John Podesta in power it was US policy to not hurt child molesters- Anderson Cooper reporting

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents August 16, 2017 3:25 PM  

I'm just trying to understand the root of this corrupted thinking. I have my theories, of course.

Once you understand this, then so what?

Anonymous Thomas777 August 16, 2017 3:30 PM  

The ''Nazis are Leftist'' canard was/is a favorite NeoCon propaganda talking point, popularized by Alan Bloom at the close of the Cold War, and revived by the even more asinine screed titled ''Liberal Fascism''.

Briefly, the Nuremberg system/precedent that replaced the Westphalian paradigm of world-political order was and is premised upon an the ideology of Anti-Fascism...if you're aiming to understand (and if you purport to lament) why in America the ''right'' always loses, is ''cuckolded'' etc. its because there is no political ''Right'' in America and there hasn't been for over 70 years. The Second World War, its conclusion at Nuremberg criminalized the political Right for all time - men who are unwilling or unable to comprehend this, or who have some sort of inexplicable sympathy for Jews, or who are incapable of accepting that America is the mortal enemy of White Christians have a tendency to make believe that the Third Reich was ''evil'' or that National Socialism was ''left wing'' or ''liberal''.

Its a phenomenon not unlike Stockholm Syndrome.

Blogger Prof. Spudd August 16, 2017 3:35 PM  

Stupid question here. Saying that Nazis are left is good dialectic. But is it good rhetoric? Normies see Nazis as far right, it doesn't matter how stupid the idea is, once you try to contradict it you just end up going down the rabbit hole of arguing about the political spectrum.

@173 Luca Brayson
Most normies don't know diddly about National Socialism. But you know it's leftist because more women, bless their collectivist hearts, voted for the Nazis than men did.

Vox is the world champion of tilting at esoteric strawmen. Invented enemy of the day: Chinese Nazis.

Quite apart from the Chinese, the most obvious Nazi state currently in existence is North Korea.

Anonymous kfg August 16, 2017 3:39 PM  

"It was not a self-appelation, but it predates the war."

"The war" is somewhat ambiguous. The war in context is the Spanish Civil War. Before that many socialists thought he was the coming of the Messiah. It was his alignment with Franco that made them backpedal him to the right.

Blogger DonReynolds August 16, 2017 3:46 PM  

The word that is missing, that is seldom mentioned anymore is Reactionary. Traditionally, those who supported the monarch were Reactionary.

After WWI, many of the monarchs were no longer in business, so the Reactionary fevor that was for the monarch, became nationalist. The Reactionary obedience to the monarch was replaced by what remained after the monarch was gone. The Stat became the new monarch.

The Reds during the Russian civil war saw the Whites as their enemies, because they supported the Czar (and the Orthodox Church). The Kaiser was the King of Prussia, as well as head of the German state. (Hitler despised the old Prussian state and punished those who paid any homage to the Kaiser when he died.) The Nazis were a revolutionary movement, no less than the Communists. Both claimed to promote the common man over the aristocracy, and both of them lied through their teeth because they both needed the rich industrialists.

In the USA, Franklin Roosevelt was the same bundle of contradictions, pretending to be for the common man to get their votes, but being from an aristocratic family and relying on wealthy industrialists. His wife was the real firebrand, in terms of "alternative lifestyles" with other women and her advocacy for the Negro. It was FDR (and Truman) that finished the turning of the Democrat party to the "authoritarian Left", started by Woodrow Wilson.

The Democrat party had traditionally been the party of Andrew Jackson. After the civil war, the Democrat party continued as the more conservative party but Wilson and FDR changed the direction of the party. That change was made complete with the exit of the conservative Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then, the party has become more authoritarian and moved further to the Left.

Blogger DonReynolds August 16, 2017 4:05 PM  

In terms of the Republican party, it was Dwight Eisenhower that overthrew the Taft-Hoover control of the Republican party and won several states in the "Solid Democrat South" for the Republican party. His vice president, Richard Nixon, finished the revolt in the party with his Southern Strategy, which was duplicated later by Ronald Reagan. Now the Southern States are the bulk of Republican electoral strength. Yes, the Mountain and High Plains states are still Republican, but they have much smaller populations.

The fact that so much of the Negro vote is still in the South has frustrated the Democrat party. As the Negro voters shifted from Republican to Democrat in the 1960s, the Democrats make the mistake of kicking the conservative Southern Democrats out of the party, who still controlled the vote in those states, so the Democrats lost the "Solid Democrat South" to the Republican party, even as they gained the black voters. Now the "Solid Democrat South" is the rampart of Republican political power. The mores of the people are unchanged. What changed was the parties themselves.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 4:12 PM  

Dude, if you're protecting paedophiles, you're objectively pro-paedophilia, regardless of your declamations on the matter.

If I claim I'm against political violence, but I make sure that Leftists are never punished for it, I am objectively pro-Leftist-violence.

If I run for office campaigning against abortion, but use my political influence to make sure that Planned Parenthood gets not just protected, but paid regardless of their crimes, I'm objectively pro-abortion.

Is it that you don't understand the meaning of "objectively" in the given context?

Blogger Doc Rampage August 16, 2017 4:19 PM  

In defense of Plato, he didn't have 200 years of history to show him the horrors that could come from government by committee but he did have a thousand years of history to show him the horrors that could come from individual despots.

Blogger Kristophr August 16, 2017 4:21 PM  

The only difference between the Nazis and the Democrats is in tactics.

The Nazis paid white women to have more babies. The Democrats paid black women to kill their babies, before they figured out that blacks could be trained to vote Democrat. Now they encourage white women to kill their babies, and black women to have more.

Any one who claims racism is the difference between Nazi socialism and Democrat socialism is a fool.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 4:23 PM  

Kristophr wrote:The only difference between the Nazis and the Democrats is in tactics.
No, the tactics are exactly the same.
The difference is who they're rooting for.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 16, 2017 4:28 PM  

The Jeff Bezos blog reports Anti Goolag protests postponed due to "credible threats from the alt-Left".

“The Peaceful March on Google has been postponed due to credible Alt Left terrorist threats for the safety of our citizen participants,” organizers wrote on a blog post on the protest’s website.

Anonymous glosoli August 16, 2017 4:53 PM  

@D.C. Sunsets,

Interesting to read your thought process on the thread, and to see that you nearly reached the logical conclusion.

It's not just biology, as if that was the case, you'd be equating humans with all other flesh and blood animals. We're more than that though.

We're different because we have souls and a spirit, and because we have the ability to recognise good and evil. Some of us turn to good, some of us turn to evil. The logical conclusion is that humans are different. That leads to how and why. That leads to Jehovah and His Son, and our creation and redemption.

There's your right wing: God
left wing: satan


Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 4:58 PM  

glosoli wrote:There's your right wing: God

left wing: satan


Simple, wrong,a nd stupid. Politics is (believe it or not) a separate domain.
It's like saying;
Right wing: Apples
Left: bananas

Anonymous glosoli August 16, 2017 5:23 PM  


It's Ok if you don't grasp the concept snidely.

Clearly you don't. Politics itself is evil, leftist and satan's domain. There, now you get it.

Perhaps read the bible, you'll find the answers to every human conundrum in there, the rights and the wrongs (or the lefts).
God left nothing in doubt for us.

End all *states*, end all countries, ditch all Kings and politicians, and start from scratch, small tribes of kith and kin.

That's the true right wing for you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 5:45 PM  

glosoli wrote:End all *states*, end all countries, ditch all Kings and politicians, and start from scratch, small tribes of kith and kin.
You left out step 4, get conquered and either wiped out or absorbed by the more powerful nation next door that wasn't so stupid as to abandon social organization.

Not all questions are questions of religion.

Jesus isn't always the answer
"What's the weather like today?"

Specifically in the political realm, answers are ALWAYS contingent and frequently, Jesus doesn't give us an answer.
Should we have a minimum wage?
Is nationalized health care the best approach?
Who should I vote for?

Well, Jesus isn't running.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 5:46 PM  

glosoli wrote:Politics itself is evil, leftist and satan's domain. There, now you get it.

Ironic clown: The guy who sneers at me for "not getting it" then writes this sentence.

Anonymous glosoli August 16, 2017 5:50 PM  

Still you entirely miss my point, demonstrating both your innate leftism and your stupidity.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 6:53 PM  

No, I got your point. Any child could get your point. My point is that your point is both false and stupid. It is meant to appeal to the Christian desire to put Christ above all. To the extent that it does so, it is a clever tactic of the anti-Christ, and you do his bidding when you assert it.

Which should bother you, but I don't imagine you are even capable of understanding the words I am typing. You certainly haven't demonstrated the capacity so far. Instead you sneer and pretend to be smart, despite obvious fact.

Even Christians can be Secret Kings.

Anonymous glosoli August 16, 2017 7:12 PM  

The last time I (stupidly) interacted with you was exactly the same, you resorted to literally incoherent statements and name-calling. By all means disagree with me, but try to write rational responses. You didn't get my point at all (as was obvious by your apples/banana, and your voting analogy). I still don't think you get it. But I care not.

There won't be a third time we interact, time is precious.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 16, 2017 7:26 PM  

You obviously don't understand the idea of problems being in different domains, as the explicit statement as well as the examples given seem to confuse rather than enlighten you.

glosoli wrote:you resorted to literally incoherent statements
There are two explanations for this assessment on your part. You are choosing the wrong one.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 16, 2017 7:53 PM  

VD wrote:with regards to identity, remember, Lee Kuan Yew said that in a multi-ethnic society, you vote on race AND religion. The atheists and pagans are no more on our side than bush people and Laotians.
FFS, in your business you probably work hand-in-hand with lots of atheists (not so many pagans).  There's a hell of a lot more difference between an American Protestant and an American Catholic on things that matter than either has to an atheist (NOT a cultist like a Marxist), whose only related demand is not to be ruled by religious dogma.

Demanding religious conformity heads right back to the Thirty Years War, the English civil war, and so many other things the USA was founded to keep us from repeating.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 16, 2017 7:54 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:Any law passed by a NATIONAL government that obtains even 20% opposition (or even 10%, or 5%, or even 1%) should never see the light of day. What would emerge would be English Common Law: no assault, no robbery, no murder.
Between Blacks and browns, there's at least 20% that object to drug laws, gun rights and so much else that FedGov wouldn't be able to do much of anything.  Then again, that's probably a good thing except in time of war.

Anonymous Avalanche August 17, 2017 12:38 AM  

@100 "The real problem was their flagrant contempt for the sanctity of human life, which earned them the contempt of all good people. Hitler is poison because of the oceans of blood on his hands,"

You mean the way Lenin and Stalin and their ilk also (and more) earned contempt from "all good people" -- or do you think the Soviets felt something about the sanctity of humans life? Can you not SEE that this is part-and-parcel of the (((BRAINWASHING))) we westerners (I'm looking at you!) have been subject too?

Anonymous Mister Senor August 17, 2017 12:40 AM  


This is ridiculous, and your meme sucks.

It doesn't matter what National Socialism was or what it is now. It is how people view it. The Alt-Right has redefined it by using it as a symbol against the narrative, and instead of you using it as a bludgeon against the enemy as well, you are attacking your own allies.

Anonymous Avalanche August 17, 2017 12:41 AM  

(Sorry, that was to @101.)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 17, 2017 12:55 AM  

Mister Senor wrote:It doesn't matter what National Socialism was or what it is now. It is how people view it. The Alt-Right has redefined it by
no, you haven't.
You simply haven't.
And that's why you're alt-Tard

Blogger szopen August 17, 2017 4:31 AM  

Well said.

Anonymous glosoli August 17, 2017 7:44 AM  


'You obviously don't understand the idea of problems being in different domains, as the explicit statement as well as the examples given seem to confuse rather than enlighten you.'

You are so trapped in your current paradigm, that you cannot even conceive of the world existing without separate domains.

Hence, you are merely another iteration of progressivism/leftism.

Here are some other examples:

--the Magna Carta (which proposed to grant certain rights to God)
--the Divine Rule of Kings (we don't need Kings)
--The Roman & Eastern Catholic churches (treating men as Gods)
--The US constitution (proclaiming rights to freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc)
--Any form of voting

I am not surprised that you don't see that adherence to God's laws is all we need. We've been moving away from that for over 2,000 years, with only a brief rally in the right direction during the Reformation.

Politics itself is leftism. The alt-right is merely another iteration of leftism. Mankind is the same creature he has always been, since Eden, tending to ignore God and make his own incredibly smart decisions. God will eventually restore a world that is perfect, until then, we're ever drifting leftwards, and you are a classic example of a modern leftist.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 17, 2017 1:04 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:This statue obsession thing seems eerily similar to the Taliban's destruction of ancient Buddhist monuments.
At least give credit where it's due.  You saw it here 3 months ago:

Anonymous Were-Puppy August 17, 2017 2:32 PM  

@23 Stilicho
Socialism is the Devil's version of teamwork.

I'm going to gab that out, great statement.

Blogger Unknown August 17, 2017 4:57 PM  

If somebody supports capitalism conservative social values, but also white identity politics, is that "left"? Because that describes a lot of people.

Anonymous Pennywise August 17, 2017 7:02 PM  

The Nationalist Socialists were conservative--they opposed race mixing, they adhered to patriarchy, they loathed popular culture, they opposed immigration, and they sought to preserve their culture.

It was a party was born out of a conservative reaction to the Weimar Era, with its policies focusing on the primary goal of restoring Germany to its traditional values. Anti-Semitism existed prior to this political group: it was a prejudice they amplified by appealing to the traditional factions of German society in their nationalistic desire to MGGA (Make Germany Great Again). Healthcare, education, and worker employment measures were developed to unify the German identity, just like the traditional policies used to facilitate economic efficiency. The National Socialists, through the lens of social conservatism, proclaimed the power of the people first before subjugating them as cogs in a military machine, i.e. blood and soil. Moreover, the National Socialists awarded women the Mother’s Cross in accordance to the number of children each German female produced. We know that the Catholic Church in its opposition to contraception and abortion encourages its adherents to have large families. Hence, the Nationalist Socialists drew from religious tradition as another important part of their conservative agenda.

Take the 1932 elections as a guide. The majority of Germans opposed the continuation of the Weimar Republic. Right-wingers of all persuasions felt it was necessary to support and strengthen (“conserve”) things like the family, the Army, and the Church, which they saw as the foundations of the country, and to be under threat. Most believed violent political change (“revolution”) would be necessary to stop and reverse the process of disintegration they saw taking place. The Nazis were prepared to work with the military, at least in the short term, and they largely left the Church as an institution alone. They strongly supported the family because of the need to breed lots of soldiers. Conserving German strength, unity and racial purity required revolutionary means. It also demanded the end of divisive party politics; a new political system with a visionary leader would overcome differences of left and right by creating an organic national community.

Anonymous reactionaryguy August 17, 2017 9:52 PM  

The USA will soon be minority White (European) people. I already live in a majority Hispanic area. All the politicians are now Hispanic. If the demographic trends continue we will be ruled by so called "minorities". Africa will soon have 2.5 million Sub-Saharans. Can you imagine if only 10 percent move to the USA? Democracy for us only works in a homogeneous society.

Yes according to 2016/2017 stats non hispanic whites are 61%.
To correct you: Sub-saharan Africa will go from 1 billion (2015) to 2.5 billion (2050)
and 4 billion (2100)

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 235 of 235

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts