Social Studies
Today, Crooks and Liars brings us some commentary on a television piece done by Phoneix, AZ’s local Fox affiliate on Neo Nazis, but they miss the subtext.
|
Jabba the Nut: J.T Ready |
In an investigative piece, Phoneix’s Fox 10 reports on the shennanigans of J.T. Ready, a blubbery local Nazi and his tribe of disaffected meth addicts and unemployed baby daddies, but the reporter’s lead-in gives the game away:
“The signs, the flags, the pins, the websites. Everywhere you look, Socialist, Nazi, Skinhead… by any name they are here.”
Now, anyone who doesn’t think Fox knows what it  is doing when they incorrectly identify Nazis as socialists just isn’t paying attention. Indeed, though the rest of the segment correctly refers to the uptick in National Socialist hate-mongering, the excessive use of that very term is a bit suspicious in itself, as if Fox prefers it to Nazi, or even neo-Nazi.
Paranoid? Nitpicky? I think not. Propaganda is not a thing which is always represented by its broad strokes. Small moves are needed as well, sort of like poking a fire with a stick to nudge the wood back into the flame. In recent months, “Nazi” and “Socialism” are terms that have dominated the output of the national Fox network. Why then would their affilaites not want to get in on the act?
And really, what percentage of Fox viewers do you think even understand the difference between Socialism and National Socialism, especially after Glenn Beck and the D-Bag movement have worked so hard to marry them?
Discussion (28) ¬
You apparently never picked up a history book and I’m not talking about one of the “real” history books plugged by the republicans but one that is used in schools around the country. Nazi is actually a slang term for National Socialist party. You often tend to skew the facts whenever you give your opinion. Alot of what is going on in the country now is simply a repeat of what happened during the Great Depression of the 1930s’ with one key difference: FDR wasn’t just a puppet for the Liberal Movement. He actually tried to improve certain aspects and eventually, due mainly to the fact that a capitalist economy is cyclical, the country recovered. When everyone wants something for nothing, they always fail to realize that someone ALWAYS ends up paying for, but they figure as long as they don’t have to its okay. You really ought to read a history book before you go calling a news organization, who according to a non-biased poll is about 50 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, and 5 percent Independent, wrong.
I believe the crux of my point is that Nazis–National Socialists– are quite distinct from socialists by definition, except to Fox News. But please, if you think you can find in the works of Marx a definition of socialism that advocates for extreme chauvinism, racism, nationalism, authoritarianism, blood myths and, of course, the preservation of capitalism, I would love to know about it.
Perhaps you suffer from today’s Captcha challenge: Hershberger’s insanity.
If you think national socialists have anything to do with socialists then you should try reading the history books yourself. Specifically the part where the Nazi SA violently interrupted Socialst and Communist rallies.
Watching a single minute of Fox News tells me that it’s extremely biased and slanted and certainly not afraid to use cheap scare tactics to achieve whatever Rupert Murdoch has on his agenda.
Gee Zalb, I would never believe a news organization like Fox News would ever resort to biased opinions. I mean that’s like saying that CNN or CSPAN or MSNBC have biased to the more Liberal side of things. Oh wait, they do. If you would bother to actually watch Fox News instead just glancing at it, you would see that they give equal to ALL points of view. Even the news organizations that were more toward the Left came to the defense of Fox when the White House refused to answer any of their questions. The White House then said that ANY news organization that disagreed with their actions would be subject to the same treatment. In other words, Make us sound right or suffer the consequences. You claim that I never read any of the history books that I made mention of, well, lets have a little history lesson. In the 1930s’ the German government would stifle ANY propoganda that did not support the Nazi Party. Russia in the 1950s’, 60s’, and 70s’ did the same thing only instead harboring hatred toward a specific race or religion, it promoted hatred of anything non-communist. Now as to Mr. Youngbluth, while I will admit, you do have a point about the works of Marx. Nowhere in his manifesto does it advocate such hatred. However, much of the communist doctrine wasn’t created by Marx, he just set the skeletal framework. Much of the communist doctrine that is in the history books is the work of Lenin and Stalin. I will apologize for my jabs at your intellect, but my point is that if you really take a close look at Nazism and Communist-Socialism, there isn’t much of a difference. I am glad that you corrected me in such a polite manner, unlike Zalb, who DIDN’T do his research before he proceeded to run off at the mouth.
Calling Nazis and Fascists “socialists” is an old chestnut the right has used since after WWII, basically to transfer blame for the Nazis onto the left when it was clearly a right wing movement. it rose largely to stamp out leftist socialism. Nazism was indeed a form of socialism, but only for the rich and powerful, a melding of government and industry. For everyone else it was a dictatorship.
Nazism and Soviet & Chinese style communism were similar in that they were horrific mass movements in which the rights of individuals did not exist. That was more an outgrowth of the population explosion and dehumanizing industrialization than any left or right philosophy.
I hate to break it to ya Richard, but a socialist by its definition isn’t rich or powerful. Socialism is the idea that no one is above anyone else. That everyone is “equal”. However, if you want to know what socialism and communism is really like read the novel “Animal Farm”, a satire of the movement but as close as alot of us will get to actually seeing it in action.
Point of Clarification; Animal Farm is a satire of -Communist- Russia.
National Socialism was not a result of the actual philosophy that socialism was founded on but due to a wolf of German nationalism with fascist teeth in a Socialist sheep’s clothing. The original group that was founded by Anton Drexler 1919-ish had most of the cruel ideologies we became aware of today like anti-Semitism, German Traditionalism, anti-gay, uniformity, etc. The group was hanging out in the beer halls as were many other political groups at the time. This group went through a few cast changes. Hitler, who joined up a year or so later like 1920-ish, became the mouth piece. He started adding his own stuff and the group was eventually hijacked by Hitler and his cult of personality. Hitler used this popularity. In order to appear tastier to the public, Hitler had Drexler rename the group to the national socialists to attract workers to make a bigger umbrella. They were sort of socialist but not in the sense that was founded in France or philosophized on by the German Marx. They were more focused on nationalism and had little tolerance for anyone who stepped out of line or did not fit their ideal image. Scary, scary stuff. But this is the German brand; it will never become the American brand. So why fret over it?
I don’t fear German fascism. I never will. I will never fear socialism in the way that was described the way the Fox watchers scream about. To me, it’s like watching the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where they meet up with the nights who say “ni†–we really don’t get why- it’s just a word that makes these crackpots cower when someone says it.
What I fear is possible “American Fascismâ€, our own home brew of the stuff that may happen when we get afraid of our own shadow and can’t tolerate people who are different – the brand that won’t allow for a shred of humanity to help fellow Americans, who can’t tolerate different sky mommies and daddies they do or do not believe in, I fear people who want to try to cure others through bad and fraudulent science and think that listening to former hosts of crappy MTV game shows and other Hollywood crackpots will give them the answers they need to avoid or cure terrible diseases they don’t understand. I fear people who won’t think for themselves and want answers from idiots like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
To adress the point of liberal and conservative agendas, the news outlets themselves do not hold views. Every major media outlet in the USA is commercial, and as such they
share the interests of any owners or shareholders, which often happens to be profits.
I would be highly skeptical of any for profit media outlets, that includes FOX CNN and et cetera.
Back to the Nazi discussion, I feel that there’s several points that need adressing.
First of all I feel that accusing of being a socialist is wrong because 1. Obama and the DNC remain political moderates who in no way could be considered socialist.
2. “accusing” someone of being a socialist is inane since socialism isn’t by any standard wrong unless you have a warped view of socialism.
3. Socialism shares no ideals with National Socialism whatsoever.
Social Democracy stands for the belief in total equality with no differences between sexes, races or cultures. Being treated equal to others is considered a right.
The ideology also dismisses violence as a solution for problems.
Meanwhile the Nazi ideology stands for the idea that war is something neccesary, even something that deserves glorifying.
The most important difference is their belief in eugenetics, a twisted version of Darwins Theory of Evolution, that states that some physical traits are inherently superior and that these should be promoted while those that do not share these traits are to be considered worth less.
I have listed some of the main reasons for why Socialism and Nazism are irreversibly separated and why they can never be likened.
As a finishing note to this wall of text I’d like to mention that if the President of the United States, the most powerful military and economic power in the world, was a Socialist then the world would be a better place.
I hate to break it to ya venom but I probably read “Animal Farm” before you were even a gleam in your father’s eye. And I was using “socialism” in the facetious sense, as in “corporate welfare.” You are hardly an expert on this topic, despite your delusions otherwise.
I’d suggest doing some in depth reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party) is a good place to start. Nazism is a far right political ideology, I’m sure Joseph Goebbels would have found FOX fair and balanced as well. -Q.
I’m so glad that so many political leftists came out of the wood work to detry any comparison between actual socialism and Nazi socialism. I just happen to err on the side of the late Richard Jeni, who was a centrist. He said, ” the people who annoyed him slightly more than all the rest were the trillionaire, bleeding heart liberals. People who are gonna change the world even if they have to spend every buck of your money to do it.” I understand you guys are looking at this issue from a purely left wing perspective and that is fine, but always remember this addage: Opinions are like cowboy hats. Eventually every asshole has one. I know it sounds a slam on myself and I’ll admit I was a bit of an ass when I started this conversation, but I was making a right-leaning centrist’s observation, nothing more. I do apologize to the folks I have offended, but in the words of the Eagles, “All the bitching and moaning and pitching a fit. Get over it. Get over it.” I will say one more thing and then I will concede the arguement to the next blogger. In socialism, everyone shares everything, which I will admit sounds wonderful. But let me ask you this: If you and another guy are hired to do a job and you work hard while the other guy lazes about and doesn’t do anything to help, should he still get payed? According to socialist doctrine, he does whether he helped with the project or not. You give up some of your hard earned money so this guy can sit around with his thumb up his ass. While Socialism is a good THEORY it doesn’t live up to what alot of people want it to be. Always remember Animal Farm and the rules of Animal Farm when the pigs took over: All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
As far as I sees it, tyranny is tyranny.
Whether you’re a “conservative” who believes that business/government (60/40) should tell individuals what to do, a “liberal” who believes that government/business (60/40) should tell individuals what to do, a fascist who believes that businesses should tell everybody what to do, or a socialist who believes that the masses should tell individuals what to do, it’s still adherence to the belief in the rulers having a monopoly on violence.
I believe, on the other hand, that voluntary individual cooperation backed up with a promise of violent self-defense if coercion is attempted by either party is superior to any system of unidirectional violent coercion. It has been demonstrated that in when one or several groups have a monopoly or oligopoly on violence, those in power universally seek to expand their power and will battle the others with power to demonstrate their might.
Social groups always stratify: rulers and ruled, rich and poor, powerful and powerless. It is a fact that some always lead and some always follow, but a leader doesn’t have to have moral character to qualify. A leader simply needs to be capable of getting a group to follow him, for whatever reason. Leaders have no inherent virtue, and this is the best reason why leaders should never be given the power to become rulers.
It’s a Hobbesian canard that the masses require rulers to keep them in line, when it is clear that the rulers themselves are less likely to stay in line themselves. Instead, people hand over their sovereignty to rulers out of fear, ignorance or laziness, but usually a combination of the three.
Whatever your stripe or flavor, if you believe that there should be any group issuing mandates to individuals that must be followed “or else,” you’re part of the problem.
“Left” and “Right” is a game invented by those in power to divide and conquer.
Those listed as “far left” include anarcho-hippies and Josef Stalin, while those on the “far right” include Hitler and anarcho-libertarians.
Tell me what a no-government pacifist has in common with the mass-murderer of Moscow, or what a no-government gun-owner has in common with the gun-grabber of Germany?
Did Stalin tell people how they could live? Did he kill the dissidents? Did he oppress certain races and groups? Did he run the government to the benefit of the ruling class?
Yes.
Did Hitler tell people how they could live? Did he kill the dissidents? Did he oppress certain races and groups? Did he run the government to the benefit of the ruling class?
Yes.
So, what’s the difference between Hitler and Stalin? That Stalin fought on the side of the “allies” while Hitler was on that of the “axis?” That Hitler openly spoke of the people he wanted to wipe off the planet while Stalin played his hatred closer to the vest? That Hitler gave special privileges to the powerful business leaders while Stalin gave special privileges to the powerful bureaucrats?
Honestly? Anybody?
The fact is that both of those chuckleheads were violent dictators who would have been overthrown internally had the United States not gotten involved and supported Stalin and the USSR directly, while galvanizing Hitler as Germany rallied together in defense against foreign invaders.
But people today still argue, “Hitler was a right winger!” and “Stalin was a left winger!” It doesn’t matter a bit, because the so-called left and right of today have disavowed connection with either of these idiots.
As I said before, tyranny can come in any guise. The key is to deny EVERYBODY the power of the tyrant, rather than just those you disagree with ideologically.
Wow Mikey. Just wow. After reading your blog, two things became apparent to me. 1. that you’re right. neither side is better than the other.
and
2. That someone out there isn’t just going to roll over and play dead for our puppet president.
I call him a puppet just because he doesn’t seem to to do anything unless his party has their collective hands up his ass to move him.
I would like to personally apologize to Mr. Yougbluth on behalf of the right-leaning centrists out there. I had hoped that the match of wits would be just between us but I failed to recognize just how many people want to get their two cents in. It was not my intention to turn your blog into a political arena on socialist doctrine.
‘Reaganomics is a good THEORY but what if the rich people keep the money to themselves?’
What makes you think that you or I are any better than this co-worker? We all live in comfortable consumer societies that achieved that luxury byway of Imperialism and exploiting other countries. Every “hard earned dollar” you earn over the bare minimum goes to luxuries and corporations, every new piece of clothing is made in some factory in Asia where workers toil and shareholders profit.
Millions upon millions work themselves to death so we can have the resources to sustain our extravagant way of living.
I don’t think anyone on the right truly comprehend what they’re implying when they refuse Socialism. Who are you to say that despite draining the resources of distant nations and all of exploitaion of nature we can’t even afford to treat our Western population as equals?
We are all parasites, the co-worker is just aware of it.
@Venomsamurai7 -I’d actually appreciate it if yo stopped stirring up bullshit so people would see your point of view.You are the one who needs to stop trying to decry Socialism as something that it isn’t,because if it were anything like Nazi Socialism I’m pretty sure your ass would have been exterminated with everyone else who was not of “pure blood”.
Captcha: emitting 166-If has anything to do with your IQ,I’m pretty sure you’re well below that point.
@Mikey
I offer the examples of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il as evidence that totalitarian control is by no means self-correcting. And Stalin, as you will recall, remained in full command until his natural death.
@Venom
Hey, more traffic for me! I will make this observation, however, and that is that the overall condemnation of Obama as a socialist is both contrived and, where accurate, is accurate in the wrong way.
By “contrived” I mean that the accusations began well before Obama was even elected, and were designed simply as a Republican strategy for the next election, insofar as massive government spending to offset the Depression was entirely predictable. This is pretty straightforward politicking: let the other side take the heat for what you yourself would have to have done in the same position. And remember, Bush DID sign off on his own massive spending, viaTARP. The trillion dollar debt was on his watch. No one is clean in the spending department or the disaster that preceded it.
You can see the truth of this in how the Republicans have been attacking Obama. Most of their fury has been leveled at the spending anticipated for health care reform. Very little actual hostility has been leveled at Obama for the Wall Street bailout, for obvious reasons. Oh sure, they will treat it as part of the same package, but by and large the Republicans have steered clear of attacking AIG, Goldman Sacchs, the banks, etc. When they do go after something besides healthcare, it is GM, since that at least contains the potential of union bashing (from a talking points perspective, this also allows for cross-referencing with “card check”, another Republican hot topic).
So you see, where the Democrats are most socialist–the bailout to the richest Americans–the Republicans are largely silent. The whole “war within the GOP” is due to the fact that the Republicans have no ideas for addressing the calamity that are more than cosmetically different than the Democrats. And unlike previous crises, this one undisputedly began while the Republicans held power. They are in it just as deeply as the Left. Better to let the ultra-right (Glenn Beck, the D-bags) dominate the airwaves and muddy the water lest anyone remember how badly Republican policies have failed us in the past decade.
@JY
Stalin didn’t exist in a vacuum. His people, like Hitler’s, Hussein’s and Kim Jong Il’s rally around the fact that the United States and its allies pose(d) a palpable threat to their lives (and has done so for about, eh, 200 years) and support of the villains they know beats the hell out the \help\ they’d receive from Amuhrka, aka, death rained down from above, body counts in excess of 1 million, and then the fun stuff, like the U.S. installing a puppet dictatorship (one of which Hussein helmed until he went \rogue\ and decided to stop trading in dollars).
Most importantly, so long as the dictators take on their minorities one at a time, and provide some sort of justification to their constituencies while painting the targeted groups as radical and dangerous, they can stay in power for a long, long time.
It doesn’t mean that another dictator should come along and depose them.
@Mikey-Why does it sound like you okayed the fact that idiots like Hussein and Kim Jong II should suppressed the hell out of their people and bigot the ones they hate? I bet you think differently if you were under they’re control,then again I bet you would make a comment about how the current administration is getting us there,then again I expect loons like you they could care less about structured society to say something inane like that.”Fuck everything,let anarchy rule” You all can kiss my left nut,the reason for institutions like this is “at least” and attempt to keep one single person from having so much better it actually trumps the common and the better good of the country.That’s why we have the system of checks and balances,sure the president could try to upsurge power for his own or even do it in crafty way so it goes on noticed,by why would you to inadvertently tripping yourself up,being punished,and then having the world at large hate the country you’re running even more? Then again,if you just don’t care,that would make alot of sense,and that’s why many of those idiots in other countries have tried to go for bad doing totalitarianism are either out of power or look like whiny little babies who get pissy when no one is taking them seriously,and just has to do something to pump themselves up.
@JY
Suprisingly enough, Mr. Youngbluth, I agree with you. Republicans are responsible for the mess we are in and given the circumstances, would probably have done the same thing that the Demis are doing now. But that still doesn’t make the fact that they are trying to get us out of the hole by digging it deeper.
@A.L.
I’m sorry A.L. but the problem that I am having is that the Left’s best arguments tend to descend into the belief structure of a five-year old in as much as they tend to pretty much say, “I’m right. You’re wrong, so nyah!” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the right isn’t doing the same thing but they don’t condescend to their opponents by directly calling them stupid. By the way, that little comment you made at the end of your paragraph pretty much proves my point, genius.
@A.L.
Yes. You have uncovered the secret. I, like all my anarchist brethren, clearly endorse totalitarian dictators. It’s the primary tenet of anarchy to have a single, central dictator. We call this ideological single central dictator “An” (pronounced ‘ann’). Hence, an-archy.
Therefore, Hussein and Kim Jong Il (or Kim Il Jong) are/were the “An’s” of Iraqi and Korean an-archy. You may have beaten us this time, but we’ll be back! We now have to go back to our secret base shaped like Darth Vader’s helmet and hold a meeting to determine when and how to launch our next volley. Last meeting we all opted for matching charcoal gray turtlenecks, and then Toyman started an argument with Lex Luthor about whether the embroidered “A” symbol should be upside down or right-side up.
Now, a rebuttal to (what I could decipher of) your ramble:
I’m not going to debate the merits of anarchy with anybody who uses the phrase “let anarchy rule” in an effort to disparage my worldview, since it’s the same as saying, “let pacifism attack.” The ideas are incompatible.
I will, however, say that I as an individual have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to get involved in “liberating” the people of Iraq from their bad dictator, any more than I have an obligation to “liberate” my neighbor from the clutches of Catholicism (were I opposed to Catholicism), or the members of a Koresh-style cult from their crazed leader.
Really, it’s a matter of subjective value. If I personally value helping other people overthrow their rulers, or if I believe that I am sufficiently oppressed myself, finding the circumstances to be unlivable in contrast to the alternative, then as a resourceful and thinking human being I’m going to find a way to liberate either them or myself, by whatever means necessary.
The messy business about nation/states overthrowing other nation/states is that the conquerors always see fit to mold the new state in a fashion they see fit, let alone the consequences of a group of leaders from the conquering nation/states ordering, on penalty of imprisonment, or even death, individual inhabitants of their nation/states to invade and kill on their behalf, whether the soldiers find that the cause falls in line with their individual codes or not.
One only has to look at the history of the United States international actions over the last 75 years to know that there is a universal destabilizing effect when an invasion occurs. I was working on a history of U.S. invasion problems but the failures are too numerous for this post.
A few other pertinent questions:
Do groups of individuals somehow have more rights than the individuals comprising those groups? Are they somehow “morally” superior because they have superior numbers? Is it therefore true that China, having 2 billion+ individuals in its collective, is more correct than the United States, having only one sixth that number? I mean, if we put it to a proper democratic vote?
Why is it that when a group of individuals who call themselves a “state” or “nation” decide to attack and kill other individuals it’s a war, but when a group of individuals who don’t make that distinction do the same it’s called “murder?”
Why is democracy valid while anarchy is for “loons?”
@Venom-No,most of the folks on your side are in the belief of blowing dust around on issues that have next to nothing to do with situations at had i.e. Clinton’s Affair back at the turn of the century.I really fail to see how that was of any significance at the time outside of “oh,he’s getting some head on our time”,and then proceeded to make such a big issue out of it to try and tarnish his rep and make him fold.Kinda like how you all were quick to try and raise outrage at every little personal facile relating to open before and after he ran for president.The again,most politician due that for for public image to make their party look better,only difference is that most of the crap that kept coming up wasn’t try and wasn’t anyone’s business. And again,republicans have outright said outlandish things that should have gotten processed by their brain before their porkhole opened.Case in point Joe Wilson opening his yap and yelling “you lie” at Obama when he was making his pitch for his health care bill,but apparently you think he was well within his rights but a democrat does it’s uncalled for.Oh and thanks for the genius crack,but please don’t relate that crap to how all democrats are.The difference there is I,like many others of different races,creeds,religions,and what have you,will speak my mind and I have no qualms when dismantling someone’s argument when there trying to force their opinion down everyone’s throat and say they’re more right than the next person and think there won’t be backlash for it.I don’t care if you like my views or not,but you’re going to try and insult me for trying to be open regarding certain issues that should not facilitate hatred and fear mongering among people or thinking that having a structured society so things will -and I say this loosely nowadays- will be fair for everyone.
@Venom- I must have hit the nail somewhere to have been graced by such a lovely and long response.For starters,I never said that,you just did.I made that comment in response to what you said regarding government systems as a whole and the fact that you seem to think it’s ok for people to have to suffer miserably either because the person in charge doesn’t care about their asses or doesn’t care about their asses because they happen to be alittle different than them.
Further more,and I know these probably confuses alot of folks when I speak about this stuff,I could honestly care less if we’re going to assistance another country or not in efforts to squash out hostilities that may or may not pose a thread to us or the people of the country our country our helping as long as were doing it for the right reasons (and to be frank alot of those reasons weren’t very right to begin with).I’ve never felt war was right,but at the same time some folks could care less because to them it makes sense to “get them before they get us.”And having said that,I think we’re pretty much on the same page as far as this stuff goes.So I’ll retract most of what I stand in my previous post,but I still stand by everything else I’ve mentioned since most of what we’re discussing is basically the same thing,at least view wise.
Captcha: oratoy Columbia
Bet this news post makes people feel they’re on Capitol Hill.That or the elementary school down the street from it.
@A.L.
I don’t particualarly want to get into a schoolyard name calling contest with you, A.L. (which I assume stands for Avid Liberal). I’ll agree that making a big deal about little issues on either side is stupid but you aren’t looking at the whole story, just the side that makes your argument sound valid. For example, during the “Clinton Affair”, he decided to start an artificial war with Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the exact same thing that you are accusing the Repubs of doing. Most of what goes on in any type of politics is getting attention away from the important issues that don’t correspond to your agenda. A great historical example happened just prior to the Battle of Thermopolaye. Domestecles lied to Athenian government officials in order to get more warships for the navy. Granted, had he not done this, the Last stand of the 300 would probably not have happened but the point remains that he lied.
By the way, I will apologize for directly condescending to you over what the Captcha quote was at the bottom of the entry for Nov. 12, 1:22pm.
That would be why I originally wrote that long response.
I truly doubt a single neo-Nazi from middle America knows a thing about German socialism from the 1940s. On the same token I doubt any of these skinheads are Socialists.