LA Times FINALLY Acknowledges Violent Left-Wing Hate Groups Such As ‘Antifa’ – Then Says Free Speech Should Be Taken Away From Right

Well, it was an amazing thing.  After YEARS of unrelenting violent hatred being poured out on supporters of our current president, the Los Angeles Times FINALLY had an article specifically mentioning that there are left wing violent groups.

Mind you, as you read it, you already see the “Lost Cause” theory that the LA Times takes in covering their asses from the violence organized and perpetrated by their side:

Of the dozens of organizations that turned out for Sunday’s mass protest against racism here, one group was impossible to miss.

Its members dressed head to toe in black, with masked faces and some bearing pastel-painted riot shields that read “no hate.” These 100 or so militants billed themselves as a security force for progressive counter-protesters, vowing to protect them from far-right agitators.

But as the protest got underway, some of those in masks would resort to mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis.

The graphic videos of those attacks have spurred soul-searching within the leftist activist movement in the Bay Area and beyond. Emotions remain raw in the wake of this month’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., which left one woman dead and dozens injured.

You see, on the “Lost Cause” theory, it wasn’t about slavery, or hate, or intolerance that motivated the Confederacy; no it was something NOBLE taking the form of an honorable struggle to protect the Southern way of life.  And in the same way, these groups like the Antifa aren’t inherently fascist entities that are trying to violently shut down the free speech of their opponents by showing up at virtually every single conservative rally; no, they are “protesting against racism.”  And I mean, that’s good, right?  Just as it is obviously good to wage “an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life.”  I mean, you’ve really got to pardon the violence because the noble cause is just so darn JUST.

But the YEARS of intentional ignorance and misrepresentation may finally be catching up to the left, it’s political party, it’s politicians, and its media organizations that have participated in the cover-up of their hate.

I mean, oh my goodness, the leftist violence is now so rabidly out of control that even Nancy Pelosi was forced to distance herself from it:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday condemned the ‘antifa’ protesters who clashed with President Trump supporters in Berkeley, Calif. Sunday.

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

Pelosi’s statements follow clashes on Sunday between supporters of Trump and counterprotesters clashed in Berkeley, Sunday.

Arrests, pepper spray and smoke bombs were reportedly used on Sunday after violence broke out among a handful of protesters. More than 1,000 people had turned out on Sunday, and most protesters were peaceful.

Reports indicate 14 people were arrested during the rally. Several of those targeted for violence were known for pro-Trump or far-right views, according to the Los Angeles Times and SFGate.

The reason there is a [slightly] different framing of the leftist hate groups is that it is beyond obvious as you watch the scenes from conservative rallies from all over the country being violently broken up by masked leftists clad in black surrounding and viciously beating conservatives they are able to separate from their group that it’s only a matter of time before these liberal hate groups murder someone in a way that cannot be ignored or denied.  This has now already HAPPENED, mind you, but the avalanche or reality is becoming too overwhelming to ignore.  So they have to begin to distance themselves from it in foresight of what these groups are very obviously building toward.

I prefer this Washington Post headline:

Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley

Because that’s what happened, without any nuance by simple factual, objective reporting.  And this has been happening over and over again throughout the entire presidential campaign.

Mind you, it was San Fran Nan who had actually called upon these same Antifa people she is now somewhat hypocritically – BUT FINALLY!!! – decrying when she called a conservative group Patriot Prayer’s Freedom Rally “a white supremacist rally” which literally BAITED the left to come to violently disrupt it “By Any Means Necessary.”

CBS Local in San Franscisco wrote (and asked) even prior to the rally:

Pelosi Dubs Patriot Prayer In San Francisco A ‘White Supremacist’ Rally
August 22, 2017 6:49 PM By Melissa Caen

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — The group Patriot Prayer could get its permit any time now for Saturday’s planned rally at Crissy Field.

Patriot Prayer says they should officially get their permit for Saturday’s Freedom Rally sometime on Tuesday. Organizers have publicly distanced themselves from neo-Nazis, the KKK and violence.

But Nancy Pelosi and other leaders have denounced the event as a planned “white supremacist” rally.

Terms like neo-Nazi, white supremacist, white nationalist, alt-right, alt-left, fascist, Marxist, are loaded terms that are being used daily.

Pelosi had an event in San Francisco Tuesday and KPIX 5 political reporter Melissa Caen asked her about the labels, and asked her to explain her choice of words.

Conservative speakers say their free speech is being lumped together with bigoted and racist speech.

But Pelosi said Crissy Field is a special place.

“And now they’re going to give it as a venue to Nazis and white nationalists,” Pelosi said.

We looked at the Patriot Prayer group. Some of them are Trump supporters, but does that make them extremists?

So it’s kind of funny that the same Nancy Pelosi whose inciting “crying-fire-in-a-crowded-movie-theater” rhetoric brought these vicious thugs to come beat “white supremacists” would turn around and decry them doing what she incited them to do.

Here’s the truth reported by KTVU News San Francisco:

[Patriot Prayer organizer Joey] Gibson says he’s absolutely not a white supremacist. “I’m Japanese. We have three black speakers, a couple Hispanic, an atheist, a transsexual. We’re extremely diverse. It’s really irresponsible for the leaders to call me a white supremacist. It’s completely unfounded.”

But of course you only qualify as “black” if you live on the ideologically slave plantation of the liberal activists who ardently love the political party that kept their ancestors in slavery, who fought a vicious Civil War to keep their ancestors in the bondage of slavery, who organized the Ku Klux Klan after being defeated by the Republican Party to continue to the racist fight into the next century.  If you are “guilty” of free thought, these haters will come after you and attack you worse than they attack the whites they rabidly hate.

Joey Gibson is then asked, “So why do people make that claim, not only against you, but also those that are part of your group?”  He says, “I don’t know if she’s trying to stir up a riot, I’m not sure why she made that claim…  At the end of the day, you need specific examples of why anyone would say that I’m a white supremacist, because the things that I talk about, the things that I preach, has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with what’s on the inside.”

Gibson is right claiming that Nancy Pelosi wanted a riot.  But this goes farther: the left that she is very much a part of is openly attempting to frame the narrative such that support for Donald Trump – the 45th President of the United States of America – IS an act of extremism and white supremacy and terrorism and every other hateful charge they can make.  Even that Trump is HITLER and “literally tried to kill our communities” in an act of GENOCIDE according to the racist organization “Black Lives Matter.”

And of course BLM has the video of Donald Trump with the death squads and standing over the mass graves.  Except, oh wait, these people are all whackjob evil psychotic demented demon-possessed and the only thing they are capable of seeing is their own racist hate.

The left and the “journalists” who are among its minions keeps calling “white supremacist” and “Nazi” groups “right-wing” because their intellectuals are following the exact same labelling approach the communists followed in the Nazi vs. Stalinist era:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

Liberals like to parse “communism” as “Marxism” and then say that there’s a difference, and that “true communism” is somehow good, you should smell the dead rat that is their collectivist brain: because EVERY SINGLE TIME COMMUNISM HAS EVER BEEN TRIED, IT HAS BEEN TOTALITARIAN AND CRUSHED THE HUMAN SPIRIT.  EVERY SINGLE TIME.  But the left keeps trying to manufacture this “noble version of communism” and then contrast it to “Nazism.”  When by any practical historical realistic standard the two movements were virtually IDENTICAL: They were BOTH totalitarian; they were BOTH socialist; they were BOTH militaristic; they BOTH denied the basic freedoms of their peoples and had secret police to terrorize any kind of dissent; they were BOTH therefore determined to take all guns away from their subject peoples so they could not rise up; they were even BOTH anti-union in the sense that BOTH pursued the identical same policy of abolishing all unions and then creating one union that they had total control over.  They were BOTH the SAME.  The Nazis were, if anything, the “right-wing” of the very rabidly far radical LEFT.  And to the extent that communism was ”

The professors and academics who claim otherwise are MARXISTS.  They are merely following the exact same paradigm of the Marxist scholars of the past.  Even to the extent that the phrase “Workers of the world, unite!” reflected some false semblance of “proletarian internationalism,” Stalin proved that his communism was every bit as capable of being “nationalistic” as Hitler’s brand of socialism when he began to talk about the urgent need of his people to rise up to defend “Mother Russia.”

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  If there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” – and I submit that is the TRUE name of the Democratic Party today – it would be LIBERALS.  The ONLY meaningful difference between the two brands of socialism amounts to a still-meaningless distinction between communism confiscating all the means of production “in the name of the proletariat” but of course NEVER ACTUALLY SHARING ANYTHING WITH THE PEOPLE THEY OPPRESS versus Nazi fascism which allowed private ownership of industry on a self-serving basis but dictated what they would be required to produce.  Such that the State still held complete control of all the means of production in a government-controlled totalitarian society.

Did the communists hate the fascist and did the fascist hate the communist?  Yes.  But from what I see, the Bloods hate the Crips and the Crips hate the Bloods and there isn’t a dimes’ worth of difference between these vicious gangs (or how about the Mongols vs. the Outlaws or the Hells Angels vs. the Vagos or for that matter Barbie vs. Bratz dolls or Coke vs. Pepsi.  The fact that communists have always fought fascists doesn’t mean the two are opposite: it’s actually more proof that they are very nearly identical and compete for the same type of rabid haters.

In the same way, there is NOTHING racist about the “right-wing” versus the “left-wing.”  Both have their racists and if anything the left has a FAR MORE DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF RACISM THAN THE RIGHT EVER HAS OR EVER WILL HAVE.  Not when I can document that the Civil War was essentially a war over slavery between anti-slavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats.  Not when I can document that after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan was formed to terrorize and intimidate blacks and white Republicans alike.  Not when I can document that even a full sixty years after the Civil War, the Klan was so embedded into the Democratic Party machine that the 1924 Democratic National Convention was infamously called “Klanbake.”   Not when I can document that THE most infamously racist governors and officials in America such as George Wallace in the 1970s and Bull Conner were DEMOCRATS.  Not when I can document the self-acknowledged racist history of the unions that are at the forefront of Democratic Party machine.  Not when I can document that unions are STILL “fucking rabidly racist” today according to even senior-level union officials.  This slanderous tactic is again nothing but the product of communist scholarship falsely attributing whatever is “evil” with one’s ideological opponents even when it very clearly applies more to themselves than those they’re demonizing.

The history is overwhelming in establishing which party is “the party of hate and racism,” but Democrats are now actively destroying history – much the same way ISIS did in areas it controlled in their caliphate they were allowed to create in the Obama years – so that they can rewrite it.

So whatever is deemed to be evil or bad or wrong, Marxist scholars immediately claim ITS THE OTHER GUYS who are purely responsible for all of it.  And the left-wing mainstream-media gulps it down the way goldfish eagerly and immediately gulp down the spit of mean kids.

And so we see these charges of “hate” and “hate groups” being screamed by the left at the right WHEN THEY ARE THE HATERS AND THEY HAVE FAR AND AWAY THE MOST VICIOUS HATE GROUPS.  But again, going to the Los Angeles Times (just to keep shining a spotlight on how dishonest and hypocritical these perverters of genuine news truly are), from an article titled “Violence isn’t part of free speech – it’s a threat to it” on p. B-1 from August 22, 2017:

How do we protect ourselves from neo-Nazis armed with clubs, knives and shields?

Well, we can start by stripping them of their clubs, knives and shields. Plus helmets, pepper spray and any guns.

And take away the masks some wear to hide their identity from prosecutors.

The 1st Amendment does guarantee “freedom of speech” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Note a key operative word: “peaceably.” I’m no constitutional lawyer, but it does seem that anyone armed with a club, knife and shield isn’t intending to “peaceably” assemble.

In fact, since the deadly violence at a Charlottesville, Va., white supremacist rally, California affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union have issued a strong statement qualifying their traditional defense of the 1st Amendment.

“The 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence,” the ACLU statement reads. “If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.”

At no time does the leftist author of this bird-liner ever once acknowledge that there are ANY left wing hate groups.  And we now know for a FACT even from LA Times’ OWN REPORTING that the people wearing masks, who are pepper-spraying their opponents an yes, who are coming to events armed with shields, knives, clubs, bike locks, bottles of urine, rocks, incendiary devices, and yes even guns are almost ECLUSIVELY ALL FROM THE LEFT.  And again, I can document that even from the slanted LA Time’s OWN REPORTING now.  As Redneck Revolt puts it: “You know, if you keep going further left, eventually, you go left enough to get your guns back.”  Not that the damn LA Times would ever report that little factoid.

But what do these dishonest “perverters” (because that’s what journalists are these days, people who pervert the truth) “report”???  They blame the side that are largely the VICTIMS of their side’s violence.  Which by the way was a very successful Nazi tactic.  George Skelton is a Nazi.  The LA Times is a Nazi newspaper.  They are not reporters but perverters.  They “report” fake news because they dishonestly “report” only those “facts” that are cherry-picked to support their agenda.  Okay?

We need to understand how the progressive left thinks in purely pragmatic rather than moral terms.  A piece from the LA Times on the ACLU sheds much light:

The American Civil Liberties Union has been much scrutinized since its decision to represent white supremacists in their quest to march in Charlottesville, Va. Board members have resigned and allies have declared that the ACLU, at long last, has gone too far. In the aftermath, the ACLU of California issued an equivocal statement, endorsed by the national ACLU, clarifying that the 1st Amendment “does not protect people who incite or engage in violence” but reiterating the organization’s complete support for “freedom of speech and expression.

Commentators have rightly observed that the ACLU has defended far-right speech since its founding, despite fierce criticism. But there is a common and mistaken premise in this analysis. It assumes that the organization has always believed, as it does today, that “freedom of expression is an end in itself.” In reality, the early ACLU viewed free speech as a tool of social justice, suited to particular purposes under particular conditions.

To correct the prevailing misconception, we need to look back to the 1930s, when economic desperation was fueling a battle between reactionary impulses and radical aspirations, and Nazis first appeared on American streets. Even as American fascists appealed to anti-Semitism and white privilege, the ACLU fought for their right to hold rallies. Although it did not oppose regulations against armed marches, it insisted that “the right to parade,” even “in brown shirts with swastikas,” should “never be denied.”

Why did the ACLU defend Nazis when they were terrorizing Germany and their virulence was painfully apparent? As the organization acknowledged in its pamphlet on Nazi speech, it was a “practical tactic” as much as an “abstract principle.”

A core contingent of the ACLU leadership hoped that an expansive interpretation of the 1st Amendment could pave the way to fundamental economic change, above all through the movement to organize America’s workers. The organization’s founders described themselves as “partisans of labor.” And they understood that the courts, which historically were hostile to unions, were disinclined to distinguish between the intimidation posed by Nazis marching in uniform and the intimidation posed by workers on a picket line.

You can readily see how rabidly biased the people “scrutinizing” the ACLU truly are given the fact that they never “scrutinized” them for thousands of OTHER incredibly vile policies and actions that have oppressed Christians and conservatives in mostly small towns that couldn’t afford to fight these lawthugs.  But here we get to a more important point: why did the ACLU support free speech that was openly hostile to freedom on the part of Nazis?  Because they knew that their own SIDE was every bit as vile and obnoxious as the Nazis and reasonable people would immediately comprehend that union thug violence and Nazi thug violence beat and battered and bruised equally the same.  And since union thug violence was at the very core of the ACLU mission, well, they sided with the violent to protect and promote their own brand of violence.

So it’s important to understand that this “support for free speech” was NEVER something the left actually believed in.  NEVER!!!  These fascists always exploited it as a means to an end with their end being the taking away of free speech for anyone who disagreed with them.  FACT.  And you’ll see that below, again, reported by the “esteemed newspaper” the LA Times.

The left has always been violent.  The Civil War was an act of Democratic Party violence.  The Ku Klux Klan that emerged after the Democrats lost the Civil War was an act of Democratic Party violence.  Just as the unions have been the violent thug arms of the Democratic Party machine until the Occupy Wall Street Movement, Black Lives Matter and now violent leftist groups such as Antifa, the anarchists, Redneck Revolt, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and many others are carrying out the same legacy of hate from the same rabid species of leftism.

Given the hate rhetoric like this that comes from the left at the very highest Democratic Party levels and is espoused by organizations such as BLM that are accorded legitimacy by both the Democratic Party and the mainstream media that serves as their propaganda wing, you shouldn’t be surprised one bit when leftists start thinking in terms of “By Any Means Necessary” to violently attack the people their leaders decry as Hitler-evil mass-murderers

“White nationalists” of course were attacked for a man driving his car into a crowd and killing one woman at an event to protest the removal of Confederate statues.  The mainstream media conveniently failed to remember the avowed black nationalist who participated in a Black Lives Matter event (you know, the kind where the mob masses are organized to chant, “What do we want?” “Dead cops!”  When do we want it?  “NOW!” over and over and over again) and assassinated five police officers and specifically attempted to target white police officers.

They also chanted stuff like “Whose streets? OUR streets!”  “No justice, no peace, no racist police!”  “How to you spell racist? N-Y-P-D!”  Obama didn’t decry it.  Not at all.

The assassination killing of NYPD officers Raphael Ramos and Wenjian Liu took place only days after this BLM chant was caught on tape at a BLM-organized event.  The assassination murders of the five police in Dallas followed.

Obama didn’t call out black hate before or after the Dallas racist massacre of police officers; Obama didn’t even MENTION black hate or leftwing hate groups or the leftwing violence those leftwing hate groups were continually committing.  Obama decried the liberal bogeyman of guns in a blatantly partisan and biased statement that the media refused to criticize at the time or remember afterward when they were attacking Donald Trump with far less grounds to do so.

No, the left spouted crap like this:

They speak to a raw anger at a system those activists want changed. But they can’t be called an endorsement for killing cops.

And they said stuff like “The hateful outrage of a few does not represent the views of the vast majority of sincere demonstrators.”  That sort of thing.

I call it “crap” because they refuse to give the other side anything even close to the same generous assumption that deep down, they’re just good folk who want good things for their families.  Rather it’s “Our haters are wonderful but your haters are evil and you’re evil for tolerating your haters even though we’re obviously not evil for tolerating our haters.”

At the Charlottesville rally where we had the car-ramming incident – which for the record I decry as a “terrorist attack” because unlike the left I am capable of seeing reality – the left had shown up and for TWO HOURS were assaulting and beating the so-called “right-wing” demonstrators.  And I simply point out that it is highly likely that the car-ramming was not a planned attack, but rather a reaction against the violence that the driver saw being unleashed against his side while the police stood by and did nothing to protect them.  The police – under the control of a very leftist mayor – literally facilitated the climate for violence and basically lit the match when they actually funneled the white nationalists directly into the left wing mobs which were shockingly in positions they were specifically supposed to be banned from holding.  And then after it was totally out of control and a violent leftist mob was all around, this:

Attendees began attempting to leave via exits 1 & 2 and were set upon by antifa as they attempted to do so.

They weren’t even allowed to leave without having to go through a gauntlet of physical beating with masked thugs armed with sticks and shields.

It looks like the left was hoping for what happened.

That isn’t “free speech.”  And we’re seeing it again and again and again: the police are casually stepping back and allowing masked goons to attack people.

The left wants to make this so damn confusing, but two things are crystal clear:

#1. Anyone wearing any kind of mask at a public demonstration ought to be immediately cited and/or arrested.  I don’t care if they are KKK or Antifa or Barney the Dinosaur.  The ONLY reason you are wearing a mask to a public demonstration is because you are planning to do something that you don’t want to be recognized and prosecuted for having done.  And frankly the fact that the police are not arresting people for wearing masks BEFORE the violence amounts to proof that the leftist police in leftist cities are collaborating before the fact with the violent antifa thugs.  Because any fool ought to know what these people are planning to do the moment they show up.

#2.  If one group – irregardless of their political/social views – obtains a legal permit to hold a demonstration or rally, and another group representing a different view shows up without a permit to confront that group, then the group without the permit is to be held responsible for the ensuing violence.  There should be no such thing as the “counterprotestor,” but rather any and all protests and demonstrations – “counter-” or otherwise – should be required to obtain permits and demonstrate solely within the confines of their permitted area.  And any “demonstrator” who goes outside his/her permitted area to confront demonstrators within their own permitted area is to be immediately arrested for fomenting or inciting riot.

These two principles would apply to all demonstrators and to all demonstrations from all groups representing all sides.  It would be fair to all.  But we don’t have that.

If you just accept these two commonsense principles, it is then beyond-obvious that the LEFT is ENTIRELY responsible for ALL the violence that we are seeing.  Because no, it is NOT the so-called “rightwing” that is showing up at leftist demonstrations and rallies; it is always the OTHER WAY AROUND with violent leftists showing up armed with shields, weapons and masks to attack the other side.

We see that in every single case, liberals are so rabidly intolerant of the 1st Amendment and the free speech that it guarantees, that they are determined to shut it down “By Any Means Necessary” which clearly includes violence.

Instead, what do we see?

We see this kind of crap which the print edition of the Los Angeles Times (p. B-1 for Wednesday, August 30, 2017) titled, “Free speech at what cost?:  After ‘antifa’ violence in Berkeley, city debates whether conservative firebrands are welcome“:

Violence over this weekend by left-wing “antifa” activists in Berkeley has opened another chapter in the debate at the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement over UC Berkeley’s plan to host several conservative firebrands next month.

University officials have vowed to allow speakers, including conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, to come even under the threat of violence, which has occurred at Berkeley and other universities earlier this year.

Some city leaders are becoming increasingly wary, fearing a repeat of Sunday’s clashes in which the protesters, wearing black with their faces covered, attacked a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis.

“We don’t want the moral, psychological and fiscal expense of having these agents of hate coming to our town,” said Berkeley City Councilman Ben Bartlett. “We know the contest of ideas is at the very heart of freedom, but at the same time when the ideas are certain to cause bloodshed I’m inclined to err on the side of protecting the population, and I say that with a heavy heart.”

Councilwoman Cheryl Davila also opposed the appearance by the conservative speakers, adding: “I don’t appreciate that there are racists coming to UC Berkeley to spew hate.”

Yep.  The ACLU project to “protect free speech” can be cancelled now.  Only the left should have the freedom to speak.  And the freedom to violently riot, of course.  And we’ll just blame everything we do on the other side.  Because if they didn’t speak, we liberals would bash them in the face.  It’s really entirely their fault we beat them.

Ah, Nazi thought is so alive and so well in liberalism.

Now, I have already shown you above that this event was marred by violent leftists attacking peaceful conservatives.  I have already shown you how Democrats have repeatedly slandered conservatives by falsely labelling them as “white supremacist” or “Nazi” when they had nothing whatsoever to do with either label.

And so here is the logic flow: “Liberals are so sick, so demented, so psychologically-unhinged, so depraved and so evil that if conservatives are allowed to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed free speech and free-assembly rights, the demons screaming in the collectivist souls of the left will force them to commit violent mayhem.  And so we must banish conservative speech that evil may triumph.”

When liberals threaten violence or commit violence, they should be ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.  Or there IS no law.

And I state this as a categorical fact: if you are a Democrat, YOU are the Nazi.  Because when Hitler was rising to power, his homosexual-filled SA Brownshirt thugs (and see also here because the mindset is just as true now as it was in the 1930s) did EXACTLY WHAT YOUR SIDE IS VIOLENTLY DOING NOW ON A DAILY BASIS.  If you are a Democrat, YOU are a Nazi, because when Hitler assumed power, he banned the “other side” from having any right to any kind of protest to his totalitarian power EXACTLY AS YOUR PARTY’S OFFICIALS AND BUREAUCRATS ARE TRYING TO DO NOW.

 

 

 

 

Nazis, Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Obama, Media Propaganda ALL Support Occupy Wall Street

In preamble to the following article, I disagree with David Martosko that having Nazis and liberals together in any way counts as “strange bedfellows.”  If you understand the platform that brought the Nazis to power in the first place, and if you understand that “Nazi” itself stands for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party,” and if you understand that Nazism was all about big government socialist tyranny, you know that it is absolutely within the character of the Nazis to support yet another leftwing movement.  Just as it is absolutely within the character of the left to embrace the support of the most vile organizations on earth.

Red, White and Angry
: Communist, Nazi parties endorse ‘Occupy’ protests
By David Martosko Published: 12:31 AM 10/17/2011 | Updated: 4:28 PM 10/17/2011

In a move that may redefine the term “strange bedfellows,” the American Nazi Party issued an official endorsement of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement on Sunday afternoon. The announcement put the organization, a self-described “National Socialist” political party, in company with the Socialist Party USA, which explained its own support for the left-wing protesters in a nationwide conference call last Tuesday night, crediting organized labor with the protests’ strength and sophistication to date.

The American Nazi Party is the most politically sophisticated U.S. remnant — but by no means the only one — of white supremacist Adolph Hitler’s murderous 20th century movement, which sought to establish socialism for Aryans, and to subjugate non-Aryans. The party calls Hitler’s Mein Kampf “an ideological blueprint for healthy Aryan survival.”

In its statement on Sunday, the Westland, Mich.-based Nazi party wrote that the Occupy Wall Street protests are “TAYLOR [sic] MADE for National Socialists, as well as WN [White Nationalists] who are serious about DOING SOMETHING.”

“I urgently URGE all of you,” the statement’s unnamed author added, “to TAKE PART and JOIN IN when these protests hit your neck of the woods. Produce some flyers EXPLAINING the ‘JEW BANKER’ influence — DON’T wear anything marking you as an ‘evil racist’ — and GET OUT THERE and SPREAD the WORD!”

While Nazis seem unenthusiastic about visibly linking their flagship organization to the vocal protests that have popped up in dozens of U.S. cities, the same can’t be said of the Communist Party USA.

John Bachtell, an Illinois-based community organizer and Communist Party USA board member, addressed the “Occupy Chicago” protest on Saturday.

“I bring greetings and solidarity from the Communist Party,” Bachtell said to hoots and applause. “We are here, marching side-by-side. We’ll sleep here. We’ll be with this movement ’til the very – ’til we make all the changes that we know we have to make.”

This is a movement that believes that sustantially believes that the U.S. government is no better than Al Qaeda.

There have been hundreds of arrests in this movement.  In fact, at least EIGHT HUNDRED leftists have been arrested at Occupy Wall Street events.  Versus almost ZERO arrests for the Tea Party – which has been demonstrating for going on three years.  And yet the liberal hypocrite cockroaches in both the mainstream media and the Democrat Party deceitfully depicted the Tea Party movement as “violent” while they depict the Occupy Wall Street movement as positive.  In the same way, the Tea Party was denounced as “racist” because the Tea Party demonstrators were mostly white; while the fact that the Occupy Wall Street movement is almost entirely white has gone completely unnoticed in the dishonest mainstream media propaganda machine.  Because they are liars without a scintilla of shame or integrity or honor.

I’ve been pointing out that Nazism was leftwing for years now:

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine Turns Other Way As Democrats Now Want To ‘Get A Little Bloody’

Leftwing Violence And Media Propaganda/Coverup Continues Unabated

Lest We Forget: Liberal Progressive ‘Science’ Was At The Core Of The Holocaust

Helen Thomas, Liberal Journalist, Useful Idiot And Typical Progressive Bigot

Liberals Really WOULD Like To Live Under Kim Jong Il’s Regime

The Democrat Party Is Different From The Communist Party How, Exactly???

The Manhattan Declaration As The New Barmen Declaration

Democrats’ Pseudo-Demonization Again On Display

Health Care Debate: As Charges of Nazism Abound, Which Side Is Right?

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)

Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

It’s nice to have the validation of the American Nazi Party helping me prove my case.

Seventy Democrats In Congress Are Members Of The Socialist Party Of America

The story:

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:35
Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus
Posted on August 16, 2011 by Conservative Byte

This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. The radical Marxist-progressives (communists) took control of the democrat party some time ago. They’ve only become more emboldened with the election of Barack Obama, who was raised as a communist from birth.

With their new found leader, Barack Obama, the Socialist Party of America felt secure enough to announce the names of 70 democrats in Congress that belong to their caucus.

Other than Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly ran as a socialist, the rest of this lot ran as “moderate democrats.” I think it’s time we put the myth of the “moderate” democrat to bed. They are all Marxists, or Marxist leaning. They all are big government totalitarians hell-bent on destroying America, the Constitution, and our way of life. One needs no other proof than the way Congress has acted since the Marxist-democrats took control four years ago, and the tyranny that has been championed since Obama was sworn in.
Read the entire document here.

The proof:

 

I have already pointed out that the only difference between communists and Democrats is that communists are more honest than Democrats.  I also pointed out that communists see in Barack Obama a fellow Marxist traveller.  And now this.

I’ve also recently been able to DOCUMENT that Democrats are unpatriotic, and that being around an American flag creates Republicans.

Democrats have become genuinely evil and completely depraved. They have embraced what Democrats of the past would have fought to the death.

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

John Edwards ran a campaign of “two Americas” in 2004 and again in 2008.  This particularly disgusting species of vermin could have been our president; he certainly could have been our vice president.

Now decent Americans know they would NEVER want to belong to “John Edwards’ America” if there was any possible other one to belong to.  The man is pure slime, as are the “values” he ran on.

John Edwards was right, though: there REALLY ARE “two Americas” being fought over right now.  They are the United States of America that our founding fathers fought for and created based on a profound Judeo-Christian view of the world, versus the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America dreamed of by the left.  The former has an economic basis of free market capitalism; the latter has an economic basis of a hybrid mixture of crony capitalism (i.e. fascism) and communism.  The former is based on individual liberties balanced by duties based on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition; the latter is based on a Marxist/fascist notion of statism balanced by nothing but their own lust for power.

On June 17 a union leader denounced New Jersey Governor Chris Christie compared Christie to Adolf Hitler and threatened to start World War III to destroy him:

At a rally in New Jersey protesting Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s deal to reform New Jersey’s state pension system, a union leader charged Christie with acting like a Nazi. And not any ordinary Nazi, but Adolf Hitler himself.

“Good afternoon brothers and sisters. Welcome to Nazi Germany,” Communications Workers of America District 1 Vice President Christopher Shelton is seen raving at a Thursday rally in a video posted on YouTube.

“We have Adolf Christie and his two generals trying to make New Jersey Nazi Germany.”

After ranting more about “Adolf Christie,” the YouTube video shows Shelton comparing the pension battle in New Jersey to World War II.

“Brothers and sisters, this is not going to be an easy fight,” he shrieked. “It took World War II to get rid of the last Adolf Hitler. It is going to take World War III to get rid of Adolf Christie. Are you ready for World War III?”

Rally attendees are seen wildly cheering Shelton’s speech in the video.

There’s a couple of major problems with Christopher Shelton’s thesis: one is that Adolf Hitler was a socialist: “NAZI” stood for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party“; and the second is that it was Adolf Hitler and those who thought like him who started that terrible war.  Just like the REAL Nazis in Shelton and the leftists who think like him are angling to start the NEXT world war.

Who is starting the wars going on now?  Look at Greece, where leftists are violently rioting because there isn’t any more money to pay for their socialism.

When you look at the Nazi Party platform, you see hardened socialism all over it:

• The abolition of unearned income;
• Nationalization of trusts;
• Inclusion into profit-sharing;
• Increase in old-age pensions;
• Creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class;
• Aguarian reform, which included the siezing of land without compensation;
• State control of education;
• Creation of a “folk” army to supplant or replace the regular army;
• State control of the press

Leftwing socialist is in the Nazis’ own words:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

You look at this platform and you explain to me how “the National Socialist American Workers Party” wouldn’t be the DEMOCRATS.

Unions HELPED Hitler rise to power.  Homosexuals DOMINATED Hitler’s SA which he rode in his rise to power.  Both were purged when they had outlived their usefulness.  Hitler didn’t want “unions”; Hitler wanted THE union of all Germans in a greater German Reich.  Hitler didn’t abolish unions; he created one big giant union by unifying them.  Hitler had said of the trade unions:

“I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.”

Read up on the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF): “DAF membership was theoretically voluntary, but any workers in any area of German commerce or industry would have found it hard to get a job without being a member.”  That is NOT the “right-to-work” policies of conservatives; IT IS THE UNION AGENDA OF LIBERALS.  Read up on the Obama NLRB lawsuit against Boeing for daring to open a plant in a non-union right to work state and explain how we’re not seeing the same story all over again.  Obama is dictating (like the dictator he is) to a private company while unions say “if you aint union, then you don’t get no job.”

Nietzsche – a hero of Nazis AND leftists ever since – put it best.  He pointed out that the artist was not only the creator of beautiful objects but of values.  He pointed out that cultural change requires artistic change: “Change of values – that is a change of creators.”  And this change to new values had to involve the breaking of old values.  As Nietzsche put it, “Whoever must be a creator always annihilates.”  Destroying the old order and giving birth to the new attracted ALL the cutting-edge leftists of the day.

Homosexuals, artists, and all the other leftists and leftist movements of the day joyfully joined Hitler.  But once Hitler gained power and forged his own social order, many of these began to encounter brutal censorship.  Why?  Simply because when these people and movements were attacking the old order, they were useful, but once Hitler began to impose his own order, they who attacked order became a threat to be repressed.  To put it in other words, they were hung on their own petard.

To whatever extent that Hitler crushed the trade unions that had eagerly helped him gain power, he crushed many other useful idiots the same way.  That participation in their own destruction is part of the ultimate death-wish that is liberalism.  We’re seeing it now as liberals routinely support Islamic radicals who would gleefully murder every single one of these tools the moment they gain real power.

That said, there is also a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of fascism by the left.  If you read leftists, you come away thinking that somehow “fascism” is the takeover of a state by corporations.  But stop and think: Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Hess and all the other key Nazis WEREN’T corporate CEOs who took over the state; THEY WERE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO TOOK OVER THE CORPORATIONS.  They usurped the corporations and FORCED them to perform THEIR agenda.  They either performed the Nazis’ will or they were simply taken away from their rightful owners and nationalized.

And to the degree that German crony capitalist corporations helped Hitler in his rise to power, THEY WERE JUST MORE USEFUL IDIOTS.

The same sort of takeover of German corporations by socialists is building in America.  Take Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, as the perfect example.  Whad did she say of the oil companies?

“This liberal will be all about socializing … uh uh … would be about … basically … taking over … and the government running all of your companies.”

THAT’S what Hitler did, too.  Hitler got this power through regulations that required corporations to do his bidding, just like Obama has repeatedly done.

And then consider how willing Maxine Waters used “crony capitalism” (which is the essence of developing fascism) to directly personally benefit even as she shaped the banking industry.

The Democrat party is the party of socialism.  It is the party of Marxism.  It is the party of fascism.

Here are some pictures from the latest May Day rally, along with a brief description of what is going on.  For the record, this is from an email that was forwarded to me.  I did not write it or generate the pictures, but could not provide a “link”:

Pictures taken on May Day, May 11, 2011

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I tell people that public political rallies are more and more being led by communists and socialists, most folks simply don’t believe me. Aw, come on, you’re just giving decent protesters an extreme label, they say. No, actually, I’m not: The communists freely and proudly declare their affiliation. And the SEIU has no problem marching arm-in-arm with them. “Smash Capitalism” is a slogan the SEIU apparently endorses — or at least doesn’t mind marching behind. In case you think the SEIU is some peripheral out-of-the-mainstream organization: The SEIU devoted $28 million to Obama’s campaign, making the SEIU “the organization that spent the most to help Barack Obama get elected president.” Furthermore, who is Obama’s favorite White House guest and one of his closest confidants? The individual who has visited the Obama White House the most: SEIU President Andy Stern, who has visited 53 times. Obama is closely linked with the SEIU. The SEIU is closely linked with communists. You do the math. Did I say communists? Sorry, I meant Communists (with a capital “C”). Note how the Communists that day (like the women on the right in this photo) carried solid red flags symbolizing their ideology. Keep that in mind as you view the next photo… One of the SEIU leaders picked up a Communist flag and led a contingent of rank-and-file SEIU members. Everyone was OK with that. The way you can identify the SEIU members in all these pictures: They’re the ones in purple t-shirts carrying blue-and-yellow signs. So, as you can see, the communists and the union members intermingled as the march progressed. In case you were wondering what the SEIU was saying during all of this, here’s a video of the SEIU chanting “Legalization or REVOLUTION!” Clear enough? And it wasn’t just the SEIU at the march — other “normal” unions like the AFL-CIO were on hand as well. There were plenty of teachers’ unions attending too, and they brought along many of their public school students for some good old-fashioned communist indoctrination,. Most of the idiots in the US who walk around with Che buttons or Che shirts do so simply because they foolishly think he’s “cool.” These hardcore communists carry his image not because he’s “cool,” but because he was one of the most radical revolutionaries who ever lived. Right up there with Lenin, apparently. In order to have a more “civil dialogue” with their political opponents, the marchers made a puppet of a demonic Statue of Liberty aligned with the “Tea Bag Party.” OK, I guess Hitler comparisons are off the table for now — too many people have called it taboo. So what’s second best? The Devil! Tell me the honest truth: If the Tea Party had marched in a rally behind a banner held up by fascists or neo-Nazis, don’t you think it would have been national news? But the nation’s biggest Obama-supporting political organization marched behind banners like these, and not a peep about it in the media. Hmmmm…. Until recently, the average American has regarded fascists and communists as equally noxious and equally malignant. As well they should have. But the drive these days by the left side of the spectrum is to make communism and socialism somewhat less remarkable and more palatable. For two years they angrily denied the Tea Party accusation that Obama’s policies and supporters had a socialist bent. But in recent months, as the accusation had started to gain traction, the new leftist tactic has become: “What’s so bad about socialism after all? You’re demonizing a very popular and respectable ideology!”

The very first picture above brings the riots of the left in Wisconsin to use fascist tactics to block the elected democratic process in that state.

The war has already started, and the people who say today – “Because workers of the world unite it’s not just a slogan anymore“ and “We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power “ – are the ones who started it.  They are saying to one another:  “There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement“; and “you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.“

These are people with no morals beyond the morality of fascism.  They want to impose their will on you.  They want to take what is yours and give it to themselves.  They want to make the state god while THEY run that state; and then force you to come to them and devote yourself to “the state” in order to have a job, health care, food, life itself.

The beast is coming.  And when he comes, Democrats will be the Party that cheers him and votes for him.

The Democrat Party has become the party of genuine evil in America.  A vote for Democrats has become a vote for hell itself.

Stop and think about why the union leader in New Jersey demonized Gov. Chris Christie: Christie wants to save his state from certain financial implosion.  He wants to restructure government union benefits that are giving many “public employees” a hundred thousand dollars in benefits a year while they are retiring in their mid-fifties.  These unions want to leach off the system until it collapses.  And it WILL collapse: in California ALONE the public employees’ accumulation of unfunded liabilities is $500 BILLION.  The unfunded liabilities of all the states easily exceeds $1 trillion.

Which of these “two Americas” is fascist?  The one that wants to kill America and impose a totalitarian system in its place, or the one that is trying to embrace the vision of our founding fathers just short of way too late?

Update, June 20: The overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled New Jersey Senate just agreed with Governor Chris Christie on the reforms that he was called a “Nazi” for proposing.  If you want to see the Nazis in the story, look at Christopher Shelton, look at his union and look at the Democrat Party that is controlled by these unions.  THAT’S where you’ll find all the Nazis.

Labor Unions: A Century Of Genuine Evil

If you’re like me, you never heard of this evil event that was reported in an Los Angeles Times editorial below.  It has been hidden from you, just as the truth about so much history has been hidden by the teachers and historians who were supposed to teach the truth, but instead have fed us on propaganda and lies.

As terrible, and as evil, as the following event was, which has been deliberately omitted from virtually everyone’s history books, it represents only one of many evil and ugly incidents in the history of labor unions.

The blast that rocked labor: The bombing of the Times Building 100 years ago set off a chain of events that devastated America’s unions.
by Lew Irwin
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Page A27, Los Angeles Times

Shortly after 1 A.M. on Oct. 1, 1910, 100 years ago Friday, a time bomb constructed of 16 sticks of 80% dynamite connected to a cheap windup alarm clock exploded in an alley next to the Los Angeles Times.  It detonated with such violence that for blocks around, people ran panic-stricken into the streets, believing that an intense earthquake had hit the city.

The explosion destroyed the Times building, taking the lives of 20 employees, including the night editor and the principle telegraph operator, and maiming dozens of others.  Two other time bombs – intended to kill Gen. Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher of the newspaper, and Felix J. Zeehandelaar, the head of a Los Angeles business organization – were discovered later that morning hidden in the bushes next to their homes.  Their mechanisms had jammed.

Eventually two brothers, J.B. McNamara, who planted the bombs, and J.J. McNamara, an official of the International Assn. of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers union who ordered the attacks, were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned.

In it’s day, The Times bombing was equivalent to the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.  It was called “the crime of the century,” and it remains the deadliest crime to go to trial in California history.  It would lead to investigations, arrests and trials of union leaders across the country who, it turned out, funded hundreds of terrorist bombings at mostly nonunion construction projects between 1907 and 1911.  They included officials of the California Building Trades Council in San Fransisco, the ironworkers union and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters in Indianapolis, the Machinists Union in Syracuse, N.Y., and the Building Trades Council in Detroit.  Hirelings of the union involved in executing the bombings were also brought to trial – 46 members of the ironworkers union alone.  In addition to the McNamaras, who were sentenced in 1911, 39 men were convicted and sent to prison in 1912; five others received suspended sentences.

The testimony during their trials and their convictions devastated the American labor movement, virtually paralyzing it until the New Deal. […]

The terrorism that gripped America 100 years ago is barely mentioned in California history books today…. The bombing is now regarded as an embarrassment to organized labor, which has never gotten around to an unequivocal denunciation of it.

A 1996 history of the Ironworkers Union says that … “The international officers stretched the limits of zeal in a righteous cause.” […]

Former President Theodore Roosevelt reacted against those “foolish sentimentalists” who urged that the McNamaras be regarded with sympathy because they were struggling in a war on behalf of their class, pointed out that all of their victims had been “laboring people.”  “Murder,” Roosevelt said succinctly, “is murder.”

“Bomb.”  “Violence.”  “Murder.”  “The equivalent to the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.”  The “the crime of the century.”  “The deadliest crime to go to trial in California history” to this very day.  Labor unions.  All of those words and phrases go hand in hand together.

A century of evil.  That’s the legacy of labor unions.

Interestingly, the article points out that the American labor movement was virtually paralyzed until the New Deal.  So let’s pick up with the New Deal.  From “Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks?“:

By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.

From violent terrorist bomber murders who committed the crime of the century equivalent of the 9/11 terrorist attack to racists who hurt poor blacks.

Thirty years later, the unions got a second chance.  And they were still genuinely evil.

Let’s also point out that while labor unions were being violent racists in America, they were in the process of being the source of the greatest evil in human history in Europe.  It was the labor unions that formed the core of Lenin’s violent communist movement.  The Marxists started out in 1898 by forming the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.  Just as labor unions formed the core of Hitler’s National Socialist German WORKERS Party.

From a 1935 German magazine:

“A Socialist Workers’ Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, tho in some respects it approximates, Communism.  Adolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact – for the present time.”

“The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers…”

While American labor unions were basking in the light of FDR’s pork barrel political favoritism and doing everything they could to keep poor blacks down, their European counterparts were at work preparing to set the world on fire.

So far, I can’t say I’d be proud to be a member of a labor union.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka recently appeared before an audience of fellow socialist travelers and said:

“…we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.

I Hate the Media points out the scary parallels to the ugly history of the past:

“Re-establish”? Wouldn’t that imply that there had once been popular control over private corporations?

Richard. Mr. Trumka. Sir. Pardon our impertinence, but we believe that what you’re talking about here is National Socialism.

As in Adolf Trumka.

Meanwhile, while AFL-CIO head Trumka was flirting with National Socialism, recently retired SEIU president Andy Stern was kissing up to socialism’s more famous sister, communism, saying:

“Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore.  It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work.”

But let’s get back to Richard Trumka.

Of course, Richard Trumka isn’t just our next budding fuhrer; he’s an incredibly violent and evil man.  Here’s the short version of one story about Trumka:

On the orders of the United Mine Workers (UMW), 16,000 miners went on strike in 1993. One subcontractor, Eddie York (who was not a UMW member), decided it was important to support his wife and three children and crossed picket lines to get to his job. He was shot in the head as he left the job site to go home. UMW President Richard Trumka (now Secretary-Treasurer at the AFL-CIO) told The Washington Times that “if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you’re going to burn your finger.” UMW strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe was found guilty of weapons charges and conspiracy in York’s death, and York’s widow Wanda sued the union for her husband’s wrongful death. The UMW fought the lawsuit for four years, but settled with Wanda York only two days after federal prosecutors announced that they would share evidence from the criminal trial with York’s attorneys.

The short version doesn’t include the fact that Richad Trumka’s union thugs – in addition to shooting a good family man in the head and murdering him – threw rocks at the rescue workers who showed up to try to save Eddie York’s life as he lay dying.

As head of the United Mine Workers, Trumka ordered a nationwide strike against Peabody Coal in 1993. On July 22, a non-union worker, Eddie York, was shot in the back of the head and killed as he attempted to pass striking coal workers. Picketers continued to throw rocks after York was shot, preventing his would be rescuers from assisting him.^[14]. Trumka and other United Mine Workers officials settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Mr. York’s widow out of court in 1997.

And it was following that vicious display of supremely ugly violence that Richard Trumka delivered his “he got just what he deserved” remark.

The executive summary of a 31-page report titled, “Freedom From Union Violence” states that:

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has recorded 8,799 incidents of violence from news reports since 1975.

And that report was dated 1998, meaning that we’ve very likely witnessed a lot of violence since.

That report is filled with separate accounts of violence.

I could go on and on and on reporting incidents of union violence.  But I want an article, not a 10-part collection of books.

So let’s move on to the newest form of labor union violence: economic violence.

How does an unfunded gap of $3.23 TRILLION in public sector union pensions sound to you?

From The Hill:

Businesses and unions planning to meet on possible $3 trillion pension disaster
By Jay Heflin – 09/05/10 09:04 PM ET

Labor groups will be invited to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to talk about an alarming shortfall in state employee pension plans that some believe could lead to a new government bailout.

Randy Johnson, the Chamber’s senior vice president for Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits, told The Hill the total shortfall for state pension funds could run as high as $3 trillion.

That doesn’t count the private sector unions, which are so deep in unfunded pension debt it’s unreal.  SEIU’s unfunded liabilities represent more than 80% of the union’s total assets, for just one example.  And that is just part of a bailout movement that could – gulp – top $100 trillion.

And when the system can’t pay the unions, there will be blood.  We’ll see the kind of violence and outright anarchy that has been gripping Europe in recent months.  Only we’ve got a lot more guns in America.

Labor unions have destroyed every single industry they have ever been allowed to contaminate.  From manufacturing (airline, auto, steel, textile, etc.) to teaching.  And Superman aint coming, because labor unions are the strength-sapping, lethal Kryptonite.

Labor unions have represented genuine evil for more than a century.  And if we don’t vote out the Democrats who use public money to keep their voter-turnout apparatus going in a sick game of political patronage, they will murder this country.

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.”
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

“It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

“Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

“National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

“The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

“They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Progressives Grinding America Down

This powerful video is a trailer for an upcoming documentary.  The only thing I can say about it is, ‘See it for yourself.’

Amazing: Liberals Show They Are Even MORE Intolerant And Violent Than Neo-Nazis

This is a really amazing story.  As loathsome as Neo-Nazis are, and as hateful as they are, they are actually surpassed by garden variety American liberals.

Do you remember mostly Hispanic protesters marching to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants (and also see here)?  Well, Neo-Nazis think they have a right to protest too.  And, of course, American liberals thought that Neo-Nazis had every right to march when they were marching through a town filled with Jewish death camp survivors.

The same First Amendment free speech rights that gave the one group the right to protest give the other group the right to protest, too.  At least, that has always been how it was supposed to work.  And that was what leftist protesters proclaimed when they were out protesting a message that many others didn’t like.

Not that liberals give a damn about genuine fundamental rights that apply equally to all citizens.  They want total power and total control, and to hell with anyone who opposes any part of their agenda.  They launch protest after protest until they gain power, and then they move to squelch the right to protest.

The thing I want to emphasize today is – when we consider Neo-Nazis and American liberals qua protesters – which side is actually more fundamentally intolerant and reactionary?

Apr 17, 2010 11:45 pm US/Eastern
Neo-Nazis, Counter-Demonstrators Square Off In LA
White Supremacists’ Rally Against Immigration Meets Resistance From Hundreds Of Demonstrators
LOS ANGELES (AP)

Police block an angry crowd of counter-protesters after the neo-Nazi group, The American National Socialist Movement, held a rally in front of the Los Angeles City Hall, on April 17, 2010.

Let me interrupt this article with a very important message:

Note that this isn’t the right wing versus the left wing.  This is, rather, the left wing versus another group of the left wing.  You might say that it is the right wing of the extreme left versus the left wing of the extreme left.

I would also point out that Nazism is and always HAS BEEN a leftwing movement.  The primary difference between Nazis (i.e., the “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and Marxists (e.g., the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) was that the former group wanted socialism in a nationalist manner, and the latter wanted socialism in an internationalist manner.

The Marxists said, “Workers of the world unite!“, which was just what Andy Stern of the SEIU – who visited Barack Obama in the White House more than ANYONE – said.

Which is to say that, currently, Marxism is the form of radical socialism most in vogue with the American left.  It is the form of socialism that the current occupant of the White House clearly favors.

The last thing I’d point out is that the Neo-Nazis of “The American National Socialist Movement” want socialism for white nationalist Aryans; conservatives don’t want socialism for ANYBODY in America.  We want the socialism that the Nazis, fascists, Marxist and communists wanted the hell out.

Sorry for interrupting.  Let’s continue.

A white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense standoff that included several arrests, thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Oops.  Have to stop again.  And not just to point out that the Associated Press should have people who at least know how to spell “protesters” to write about protests.

Are the Neo-Nazis a white supremacist group?  Of course they are; only a fool would argue that they aren’t.  Then again, there ARE a great many fools in the country.  So, yeah, while many of these Neo-Nazis would deny being “white supremacists” and pontificate and filibuster about other issues ad nauseum, let’s just agree that they are white supremacists.  But what about the other side?

What we have on the other side are “Latino supremacists.”  There’s the powerful Latino group “La Raza,” which means “the race.” Can you even imagine how a racial group that calls itself “The Race” isn’t racist?  There’s the term “reconquista” being dragged out again, which means “reconquest” of Southwestern America by Mexicans.” There’s thousands of Mexican protesters marching on American soil and demanding rights and privileges and concessions be granted to them by “white” Americans.  Among other things, they argue that the Mexican government has a right to diligently protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants, but that the American government has no right to similarly protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants.  They argue that Mexico and other Latin American countries have a right to be sovereign nations, but that America must become an “open borders” non-country.  There’s the waving the Mexican flag above an American flag which they hang upside down in mockery.

I don’t mind for a second the media calling Neo-Nazis “white supremacists.”  Just be honest and call BOTH SIDES what they are.

And let’s also realize that the theme of one group of leftists opposing another comes up again.  The so-called “pro-immigration” events were organized by COMMUNISTS.

Sorry to interrupt again.  Moving on:

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles’ City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The white supremacists, many of them wearing flack helmets and black military fatigue uniforms, shouted “Sieg Heil” before each of their speakers took the podium to taunt counter-protestors with racial, anti-Semitic and misogynistic epithets.

“We will meet you head on,” one of the white supremacists, whose name could not be made out over the fuzzy public address system, warned the crowd from behind several phalanxes of police in riot gear.

Members of the Detroit-based group said they picked the location for their rally because of Los Angeles’ large immigrant population. They accused some of the immigrants of stealing jobs and committing crimes.

Group members also said they were reacting to the recent number of street marches across the country encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

Oh, oh.  Have to stop again.  Just long enough to point out that all the pro-immigration and pro-amnesty street marches are apparently fine.  It’s just the any street march that in any way opposes the leftwing agenda that must be attacked and vilified.  Whether it’s Neo-Nazis advancing their favorite form of socialism or whether it’s little old ladies who want to advocate limited government.

Moving on.

National Socialist Movement regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall announced that the group would begin backing political candidates who agreed with their anti-immigrant message.

But much of the white supremacists’ words were drowned out by such chants as “Hey hey, ho ho, Nazi scum have got to go” from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read “Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles” and “Racists Are Ignorant.”

There was a brief flare-up of violence before the speakers arrived. A shirtless man was seen being escorted to safety behind police lines by a plainclothes officer as counter-protesters punched and grabbed at him. Blood could be seen at the base of the man’s neck.

National Lawyers Guild executive director James Lafferty, who attended both as a legal observer and counter-protestor, said he saw the man get into a fight with crowd members who saw his Nazi lightning bolt tattoos.

Police Commander David Doan said a second man who crowd members believed was sympathetic with the white supremacists was also assaulted during the rally. Both men were treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line and into a parking lot where the white supremacists’ had left their cars.

Some members of the group had trouble starting a black Ford Mustang and attempted to hook up jumper cables to their engine. They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.

The white supremacists eventually gave up and pushed their car away so they could jump-start it out of range of the projectiles.

Doan said three or four counter-protestors were arrested for throwing items.

Yes, that’s right.  The group that peacefully protested, the group that followed the rules, was the Neo-Nazis.  The group that was violent and intolerant were the liberals.

This sentence is particularly heartbreaking:

“They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.”

Can you even imagine that swastikas actually became the superior moral symbol during the day in that it was employed as a protective shield against a group who was using employing a violent symbol of rocks designed to attack and create injury?

Who ever would have thought that there was a group more loathsome than Neo-Nazis?  Personally, I never would have dreamed such a thing could ever happen in America.

But it happened.  And it happened even as peaceful Tea Party protesters are routinely targeted as somehow being tied to “violence.”

Shocking Obama Spending Digging America Into Great Depression

We are beginning to learn that $12.8 trillion doesn’t last very long when it is being spent by corrupt politicians and idiot bureaucrats.  It doesn’t seem to matter how much Obama has already spent or committed; he just has to keep spending more and more and more.

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Monday it will need to borrow $361 billion in the current April-June quarter, a record amount for that period.

It’s the third straight quarter the government’s borrowing needs have set records for those periods.

Treasury also estimated it will need to borrow $515 billion in the July-September quarter, down slightly from the $530 billion borrowed during the year-ago period. The all-time high of $569 billion was set in the October-December period.

The huge borrowing needs reflect the soaring costs of the $700 billion financial rescue program and the recession, which is nearing a record as the longest in the post World War II period.

The slump has cut sharply into tax revenue and boosted government spending for benefit programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps.

The administration is projecting the federal deficit for the entire budget year ending Sept. 30, will total a record $1.75 trillion. A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous record of $454.8 billion set last year.

To cover the government’s heavy borrowing needs, Congress in February boosted the limit for the national debt to $12.1 trillion as part of the legislation that enacted President Barack Obama‘s $787 billion economic stimulus program. The national debt now stands at $11.1 trillion.

Not the first time we’ve seen insane spending, as a 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon would illustrate:

But FDR never dreamed of the MEGO numbers (“My Eyes Glaze Over”) that we are facing today.

What is it those little notes on the out-of-control wagon say?

“Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world.”

“Spend! Spend! Spend – Under the guise of recovery.  Bust the government – blame the capitalists for the failure – junk the Constitution and decree a dictatorship. “

And the figure of Stalin says, “How red the sunrise is getting,” to denote the communist mindset that such levels of government spending and control over the economy entails.

Which is EXACTLY the Obama mindset today – right down to the “Young Punkies from Colombia and Harvard” Brain Trust.  And even the Russians and the Chinese have been urging us to stop this insane government spending binge.

The Tribune cartoon was drawn in 1934.  The Great Depression – in testament to the folly the artist was pointing out – would continue to drag on for years afterward.  FDR’s “solutions” didn’t solve the crisis; they prolonged the suffering.

Michael Boskin described the radical extent of the Obama socialist spending in The Wall Street Journal (the newspaper people are actually willing to buy):

It’s hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president’s policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents — John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance — President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter’s higher taxes and Mr. Clinton’s draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

The argument that we need either massive government spending as a bulwark against a depression during periods of grave economic distress presents an entirely false dilemma. Reagan proved that positively, and FDR – who substantially prolonged the Great Depression with failed policies (and see here and here for more) – proved it negatively.

Many liberals stubbornly cling to the thesis that FDR’s policies brought America out of the Great Depression. And they can cite a boatload of leftist historians who have come to precisely that conclusion.

But I would submit that anyone taking that position must refute Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s VERY OWN TREASURY SECRETARY.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 9, 1939

The unemployment rate for April of 1939 – the full month before Morgenthau spoke these words before the House Ways and Means Committee – was at 20.7% And while other nations had similarly gone through severe economic depressions during the 1930s, they recovered in less than half the time of the U.S. under FDR. “In most countries of the world recovery from the Great Depression began between late 1931 and early 1933.” But the American depression dragged on and on.

We are spending FAR TOO MUCH MONEY, and we’re spending it on the wrong things.  We are repeating the worst mistakes of the Great Depression, and are very likely doomed to repeat the consequences of our failure to learn the lessons of history.

Michael Boskin speaks of Obama’s shocking abandonment of defense spending.  I shall say this:

The fact of the matter is that ignoring defense spending was a hallmark of FDR, too.  In spite of the growing and building threat of both the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists for YEARS, FDR spent massively on virtually everything BUT defense spending.  Which is why we were so woefully unprepared for hostilities following the Pearl Harbor sneak attack that inexcusably caught us completely off guard.

Getting back to Reagan, one is forced to only imagine how many American lives would have been saved if we’d had a Reagan rather than a socialist-spending FDR serving as President; and we’d gone into World War II with the mightiest military machine in the world rather than with the 2nd rate joke we were forced to begin with.

And thanks to Obama’s massive defense cuts one may be forced to wonder about how many lives we could have saved all over again as he slashes our military rather

In many ways, FDR and BHO are images of one another.  Both men were skilled politicians with great oratorical skills (providing Obama has a teleprompter, anyway).  Both men had never had a single success of their own in business.  And both had the completely wrong idea of what was wrong with the national economy, and what needed to be done to get it back on track.

The one difference is this: FDR foolishly caused America to REMAIN in the Great Depression by zealously pursuing failed policies; BHO will foolishly force America INTO the next Great Depression by zealously pursuing the SAME failed policies that never worked for FDR.