A remaining important objection to the account I have given so far is that Hitler's few remaining admirers in at least the Anglo-Saxon countries all seem to be on the political far-Right. In discussing that, however, I must immediately insist that I am not discussing antisemitism generally. Antisemitism and respect for Hitler are far from the same thing. Although vocal support for antisemitism was in Hitler's day widespread across the American political spectrum -- from Henry Ford on the Right to "Progressives" on the Left -- such support is these days mostly to be found on the extreme Left and for such people Hitler is anathema. And the antisemitism of the former Soviet leadership also shows that antisemitism and respect for Hitler are not at all one and the same.
Of course he's not talking about Antisemitism on it's own, and yes Stalin was an antisemite, however Stalin's own anti-semitism should not be confused with that of Hitler's.
"Stalin was an anti-semite by most definitions but until after the war, it was more a russian mannerism than a dangerous obsession. He was never a biological racist like the nazis. However, he disliked any nationality that threatened loyalty to the multinational USSR. He embraced the russian people not because he rejected his own Georgian origins but for precisely the same reason: the Russians were the foundations and cement of the Soviet union. But after the war, the creation of Israel, the increased self-consciousness among Soviet Jews and the Cold War with America combined with his old prejudice to turn Stalin into a murderous Anti-Semite. Stalin and his [token] Jewish Comrades like Kaganovich were Proudly Internationalist. Stalin, however openly enjoyed jokes about national stereotypes. He certainly carried all the traditional Georgian prejudices against the moslem peoples of the caucasus whom he was to deport. He also persecuted Germans. He enjoyed the the Jewish jokes told by Pauker (himself a Jew) and Kobulov, and was amused when Beria called Kaganovich 'the israelite'. But he also enjoyed jokes about Armenians and Germans, and shared the Russian loathing for Poles: Until the 40's, Stalin was as Polonophobic as he was anti-semitic " - Simon Sebag Montefiore, "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar", p310.But in the Anglosphere countries Hitler DOES still have his admirers among a tiny band of neo-Nazis and it is true that these are usually called the extreme Right. They normally refer to themselves as "The Right",
If even neo-nazis call themselves Rightists and as i have demonstrated and will continue to do so that Hitler himself was a rightist. Why do you think that is? Is it because Nazism itself is rightist by any chance? Anyway he continues...
I must point out that the description "Far-Right" is a great misnomer for the successors of Hitler in modern-day Germany. As we will see,... modern-day German neo-Nazis are demonstrably just as Leftist as Hitler was. So are American, British and Australian neo-Nazis also Leftist in any sense?
The answer to that is a simple one: They are pre-war Leftists, just as Hitler was. They are a relic in the modern world of thinking that was once common on the Left but no longer is. They are a hangover from the past in every sense. They are antisemitic just as Hitler was. They are racial supremacists just as Hitler was. They are advocates of discipline just as Hitler was. They are advocates of national unity just as Hitler was. They glorify war just as Hitler did etc. And all those things that Hitler advocated were also advocated among the prewar American Left.
Well he's already admitted that...
"vocal support for antisemitism was in Hitler's day widespread across the American political spectrum."
It may have been a very weak description, but it's there, which kind of gives the game away as regards to the rest of his statement for here he is guilty of Deception by omission, As i have already shown all he lists here was popular on the German right too, and in-fact the Right wing in general, and even today such ideas still linger on in some right wingers. GOP House hopeful Jim Russell for example has been caught praising racist practices and advocated eugenics in a 2001 essay he wrote!
And what about David Duke. Is he a left winger now?
That does however raise the question of WHY such thinking is seen as "Rightist" today. And the answer to THAT goes back to the nature of Leftism! The political content of Leftism varies greatly from time to time. The sudden about-turn of the Left on antisemitism in recent times is vivid proof of that
Antisemitism? Actually it is the Right wingers who have performed the U-turn on Jew hatred. once they were the Jews more bitter of their enemies, now they cannot get enough of Israel [This U-turn in fact means that left wingers have been left "hung out to dry" with regards to the mantle of Antisemitism] This reflects somewhat in how the Far-right treats Israel today. Nick Griffin for example claimed on TV that his party was the only party to support Israel in its war "against the terrorists" during Operation Cast Lead [though his real support for Israel i may say is i think dubious]. Right wing terrorist "Anders behring breivik" claimed to be a Zionist and friendly towards the Jews, In fact this article from Jta.org sums up the hypocritical nature of the relationship with Israel that these Right wingers. Here's an Excerpt:
"European right-populist parties increasingly have been waving the flag of friendship with Israel, as well as expressing vehement opposition to Europe's multicultural society.
"Last month, after it emerged that German-Swedish far-right politician Patrik Brinkmann had met in Berlin with Israeli Likud Party lawmaker Ayoub Kara, who is deputy minister for development of the Negev and Galilee, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Kara be prevented from making further trips abroad. According to Ynet, Lieberman accused Kara of meeting with neo-Nazis and causing damage to Israel's image. Brinkman said he had reached out to Israeli rightists hoping to build a coalition against Islam
In postings on the website Document.no that appear to be by Breivik, the poster pondered whether one could "accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves" from the extermination of the Jews.
The words of right-wing populist politicians "are dangerous, it allows them to radicalize," Hajo Funke, an expert on right-wing extremism in Europe and the Holocaust at Touro College Berlin and the Free University Berlin, told JTA in a phone interview.Actually what he writes there about Anti-semitism was just a projection as was pretty much the whole paragraph it was in almost. He's only projecting things onto the left that really are just as true of the right, add into that his deception by ommision. Aren't the tea partiers and Sarah Palin "push[ing] it to extremes in order to draw attention to themselves as being the good guys" and try to make us believe that they are "courageous champions of popular causes"? Okay then i'd better go tell Sarah Palin she's a Leftist and see if i can outrun the bullets from her Moose hunting rifle.
"It is a tactical viewpoint of the rising populist right-wing to use this kind of identification, or forced identification with Israel, to be accepted," he said. "They say, 'Our enemies are not any more the Jew ... the real enemy as you can see all over the world is Islam, and not only Islam, but the Islamic person.' This is the new, great danger."
Stephan Kramer, general secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, told JTA that "in the recent years we have witnessed the phenomenon of radical rightists proclaiming their sympathy for Jews and their support for Israel, also in Germany," adding that "In many cases, it is clear that this is no more than a PR maneuver to create an air of respectability."
But the thinking of the man in the street does not change nearly as radically as Leftists do.
Or rightists, or simply politicians for that matter. In my country if a prime minister or political party pushes the electorate too far against their taste, they jump ship as it were.
Although it may no longer be fashionable, belief in the superiority of whites over blacks is still widespread, for instance. Such beliefs have become less common but they have not gone away.
Could it be because if we were to look at the side of his blog, we can see this?
People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter: The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.
Such beliefs have become less common but they have not gone away. They are however distinctly non-Leftist in today's climate of opinion so are usually defined as "Rightist" by default. So the beliefs of the neo-Nazis are Rightist only in the default sense of not being currently Leftist. They are part of the general stream of popular thinking but that part of it which is currently out of fashion.
And hopefully you can see why now this is nonsense!
And so it is because the old-fashioned thinking of the neo-Nazis is these days thoroughly excoriated by the Left that they see themselves as of the Right and reject any idea that they are socialists.
"Reject that they were socalists"? I wonder why given all i've wrote.
I can attest from my own extensive interviews with Australian neo-Nazis that they mostly blot out any mention of Hitler's socialism from their consciousness. The most I ever heard any of them make out of it was that, by "socialism", Hitler was simply referring to national solidarity and everybody pulling together.
And that was based most likely on their probably poor recollections of Hitler's "Volksgemeinschaft". Again see Ian Kershaw earlier. As to the ideas of Hegel which he then mentions, he's a very abstract thinker [the philosopher's philosopher as i have once heard it put] and someone who has been admired by the left and the right wing. I don't think he can be pigeonholed into any particular wing of thought. So one can cite him all day because it's meaningless. Neo-Cons like Francis fukuyama have been influenced by Hegel. Also "autarky and government control" are not intrinsic qualities of socialism.
And the neo-Nazis are assisted in their view of themselves as Rightist by Hitler's anticommunism. The falling-out among the Nazis and the Communists was in Hitler's day largely a falling-out among thieves but the latter half of the second world war made the opposition between the two very vivid in the public consciousness so that opposition has become a major part of the definition of what Nazism is. And Marxism/Leninism was avowedly internationalist rather than racist. Lenin and the Bolsheviks despised nationalism and wished to supplant national solidarity with class solidarity. Given the contempt for Slavs often expressed by Marx & Engels, one can perhaps understand that Lenin and his Russian (Slavic) Bolsheviks concentrated so heavily on Marx & Engels's vision of international worker solidarity and ignored the thoroughly German nationalism also often expressed by Engels in particular.
maybe, just maybe it's because Lenin saw something that JJ ray doesn't? Sorry, there's no real nationalism much less something as extreme as the extreme nationalism of the nazis in the writings of Marx and Engels except that gleaned from quotemines. And the final paragraph of the "But neo-Nazis are rightist part" is just full of superficialities and strawmans, So i'll skip it.
So, Right wingers are insane. Leftists are sane. Hitler was sane therfore leftist?
Or is it .... Left wingers are insane. Right wingers are sane. Hitler was insane therfore leftist?
Either way, Sanity is not a determiner. Let's make the case he was sane.