Here’s the QOTW, a comment left on a YouTube video:
Very well done. Except, unfortunately, history will show that climate denialists are worse than nazis.
What prompted that? This:
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Hitler video was used on me. It can be used to parody just about anything. The best part is that it provides a window into the mindset of the creator, Jenkin Brown, plus the people that are doing the piling on in comments like the one above.
Gosh. All this denigration because I have an opinion and dare to write about it with citations. Yes, surely that’s just as bad (or worse as the commenter says) as putting millions of innocent people in gas chambers or shooting them in mass trenches. The comparison made by the commenter is so absurd that it overshadows the satire. It’s laughable.
I suppose we can thank Ellen Goodman for popularizing this connection:
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate”
Obviously, since I posted it here, I don’t mind the satirical video, because it still isn’t as bad as the time I was labeled as having sex with farm animals (scroll down to bottom) for asking for a factual correction to an article.
I’ve been insulted by professionals, this is just an amateur effort. 😉
NOTE TO COMMENTERS/MODERATORS: Keep it clean in comments. I thought about not having comments at all, but I’m sure many readers would have something insightful to add. If you don’t, don’t comment. Moderators, you have carte blache to bit bucket any hateful comments. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As saying goes like this;
“Global warming causing climate change may be the ultimate issue that unites us all”
Ever notice that many liberals just have no morals?
I’m reminded of a quote attributed to Ghandi …..”First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
At least we aren’t on par with the Vogon Constructor Fleet. I mean, they’re going to destroy the earth to make a new hyperspace bypass. We’re just turning up the dial on the easy bake oven.
Veery intersting, but shtupid
Friends:
I am withdrawing from further discussion with the nutters who are claiming the ultra-right does not exist. Discussion with them gives the appearance that there is some credibility in their absurd assertion that fascism is not right-wing.
My refusal to continue engagement with them is NOT my running away: it is an indication of my disgust at those who attempt to reduce opposition to forces of evil that still exist (e.g. Anders Breivik).
Richard
@”richardscourtney”
Do you actually know what the terms “right wing” and “left wing” mean? It goes back to the early days of the French parliament when the liberals and other parties that supported “commoners” sat on the left side of the parliament and those that supported the aristocracy sat on the right. So the question is, did Hitler get his support from the ordinary German or from the German elite? Well the German elite seems to have tolerated the former Corporal from Austria, but the torchlight rallies were very much of the people. Hitler rewarded ordinary people with cars, motorways and even holiday camps. As far as I can see he was very much a man of the left in that definition. May have been a different flavour of left-wing to the British Labour Party, Swedish Socialists, Trotsky or Stalin but so what? None of these people had much time for each other despite being “on the same side” notionally. The idea that Hitler was right wing came about from radical left-wing historians after WWII like AJP Taylor, but does it make sense?
Here are some facts about Hitler:-
Was a communist for a long time before joining the pre-existing Nazi party (the fact that German communism was dominated by Jews seems to have been a factor)
Claimed that ordinary Germans had been betrayed by the ruling class during WWI
Drew his support from ordinary working Germans
Would probably have been elected Chancellor by ordinary working Germans if the trend in growth of support had continued as it had been before the Nazis siezed power
Allied with Stalin before WWII
Allied with Swedish Socialists durring WWII
Did everything he could to stop the Allied advance on Berlin whilst allowing the Communists to take the city.
This all makes sense if you consider Nazism to be a form of communism bound up in nationalism, with the state at the center of everything, controlling German industry, creating ideal “clone” citizens from the working man. Not so very different from the Stalinist or Maoist view of communism.
Of course you could argue that if Hitler was deep down a communist sympathiser, it was strange that he attacked Russia, but modern evidence from Russia itself makes it clear that Stalin intended to invade Germany whilst the Nazis were pre-occupied on the Western Front. This makes strategic sense and thus Hitler’s pre-emptive strike against Stalin can be justified despite its apparent bad timing. You could also claim that Hitler made anti-Communist statements before WWII – but being left-wing doesn’t inhrently mean you are a Communist (Orwell was left-wing but hated Communists and regularly outed Marxists to MI5) and in any case being anti-Communist was a popular stance in Germany guranteed to win votes.
Europeans and those whose thinking mirrors the European model of political thought get terribly confused when they hear Americans discussing left – right issues, because the spectrum is different.
While a given person or group’s position is often muddled, and it can be hard to nail down, if you tell an American (whose ideas are informed by American traditions, primarily) that the National Socialists and the International Socialists were on the *opposite* ends of the political spectrum, they will, and not without justification, look at you as they would someone who tried to sell them their own shirt.
Ironically, this really, really offends the kind of person who says that sort of thing, usually because by unhappy circumstance you’re effectively responding that they’re in roughly the same territory, ideologically, as their dreaded historical daemons.
Part of the problem is that Europeans tend to be so ideologically similar that they think of the terms “left” and “right” in terms of specific social policies or authoritarianism, and that makes no sense in American politics no matter how many hammers you apply to the problem.
This is doubly complicated by the fact that many people in America who call themselves “Liberals” have adopted the European mindset, which is one of the reasons the left and right in the US can’t communicate adequately – they use the same words but they mean completely different things. Thus the constant accusations of dishonesty – resulting partly from people having irreconcilable and impenetrable assumptions about others, which is a horrifying situation.
I see that moderation is up to it’s usual standard and reasonable criticism is getting through.
In fact the only comment which is contrary to Anthony, which did get through, is not representative.
I wonder why that is……
I’m not sure this is worth the words, but the ultra right-winger is an extreme libertarian, not a fascist. Hitler was at the extreme right end of the extreme left, if you can define polarization within ultra-leftists. The extreme left is ultra-authoritarian in all its incarnations, the extreme right is the complete entithesis of that. What the extreme right can’t figure out is who makes the decision to build the public road, while the extreme left easily decides that everybody else should build it for them.
Ryan:
At September 4, 2012 at 3:32 am you ask me
I answer: YES, I do, but your obfuscatory post demonstrates (as a most charitable understanding) that you do not.
I am only replying to your post because it seems probable that you made it unaware my post of September 4, 2012 at 2:12 am was still in moderation. I shall ignore future similar nonsense which e.g. presents as ‘evidence’ that ‘H1tler was left wing because he had a treaty with Stalin’ but ignores that e.g. Churchill had a much stronger alliance with Stalin.
Richard
Fascism is not right wing, no matter how many times that lie is repeated.
With the greatest of respect, Anthony, you invited this sort of parody by suggesting, in another recent post, that those who accept the scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of the climate disruption we are now witnessing actually want people to die from preventable diseases like malaria.
I really do think it is well past the time that you accepted that widespread malnutrition, starvation and premature death are not the result of money being diverted to prevent a problem you say does not exist (or can’t be fixed). These phenomena are the result of too many people living in environments that cannot support them; and of too many people burning too many fossil fuels.
Far from running out, our problem is that we now have too much fossil fuel left to burn; and too many people seem far too willing to dispute that burning them is the primary cause of the change now becoming obvious.
REPLY: As usual Martin, your thinking suffers from a lack of understanding combined with spoon fed talking points. I doubt we’ll ever agree on anything, much less this, and I’ve learned that trying to tell you anything is nothing but a time sink. So I’m not going to bother to comment further as I have more productive things to do with my time than worry about your misguided opinion. – Anthony
“…the other denies the present and future.”
Tommorrow Belongs to Me.
As I understand it (this from an immediately post WW2 hunter of Nazis, while in the British Army – who happens to be my father), Fascism was invented by a lifelong Communist, in an attempt to undo the fatal damage that World War 1 did to Internationalism (i.e. International Socialism), by using a different name? Winning praise from Lenin and other Russian Communists for his activities, and being described as the ideal future Communist Leader of his Country.
The inventor of Fascism described it as “Corporate Socialism” (a Statist by any other name, still stinks as bad), and he led the ‘Fasci’ during WW1.
His name was Benito Mussolini (and I suppose he aught to have known what his own invention was).
Makes you wonder whether ‘Internationalism’ has had yet another name change in the years since, doesn’t it?
‘New World Order’ certainly seems to tick an uncomfortable number of boxes, that’s for sure.
@ur momisugly Richardscourtney and others arguing over the political affiliations of fascism:
The clearest voice on this issue was that of George Orwell, author, of course, of Nineteen Eighty-Four who, as can seen in the concluding sentences of his essay, “What is Fascism?” found traces of conservativism and ‘all colours of socialism” in fascism. I recommend all of his essays for their outstanding clarity, but in this case his “What is Facism? is a strongly recommended read.
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
OK, I see the “What is a Fascist?” thread has broken out again.
The common usage as “right wing” was promulgated by Stalin (as everything was to the right of them). The Fascists ( Italian Government, as opposed to ‘fascists’ lower case that’s the generic term) and the NAZI had several things in common. Central Planning. Primary importance of Labor Unions ( Fascist comes form the word for ‘bundle of sticks’ meaning strength of a Union Of Workers). Mussolini started his career translating communist literature into Italian and attested that they were good and proper Socialists. Hitler, too, espoused the supremacy of The Folk or The People and the value of Unions. The list of what they held important has a high overlap with the list in Marx Communist Manifesto.
THE primary disagreement was that Communism wanted ONE global system. The Nationalists wanted a distinct Socialism for each Nation (and in the case of Hitler wanted to kill off every other race…)
There’s little doubt that they both were, and are, Socialist systems. In intent, design, goals, and execution. Also in their own words and statements of self.
NAZI is the abbreviation for: National Socialist German Workers Party.
Pretty clear…
I’ve thrashed this through to some great extent here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/nationalist-socialists/
Some quotes in their own words here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/some-quotes-on-socialism-and-fascism/
such as:
For those wanting a broader look at Socialism(s) and their roots:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/
And remember that “right wing” and “left wing” are essentially meaningless terms. As originally defined, “right wing” was those seated to the right in the old French Parliament. Kings, Church, Aristocracy. “Left wing” included petty merchants, folks wanting a Republic. Now the “Republicans” are moved to the right? And Socialists to the left where the Republicans and Merchants were?
So please, before breaking out in a “Is SO! – Is NOT!” here; please read those pages. I think you will find the topic pretty well beaten to death there. That the Socialists of today want to distance themselves from the Fascists and Nazis is a very understandable thing. They ARE different (especially on the Nationalist and Racist and Violence aspects). But they still want the same kind of Central Planned and Regulated economy and a Workers Party / Union point of view.
The Fascist Doctrine, for those who want to read it for themselves:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/fascist-doctrine/
So please please please don’t reprise that same long trudge here. It may offend your preconceived notions of what / who they were, but they were NOT free market capitalists. They were a particularly vile kind of racial supremacists with a Nationalistic streak. But they were also Socialists. (The major reason for the war between Communists and Nationalists was that the Communists wanted ONE INTER-national Communism, while the Nationalists wanted to be in charge instead… Central Planning really hates it when someone says they want to do their own thing; even if it is another Central Planner… )
I will not be responding on this topic in this thread. Anything I have to say is already in those links and repeating it here would be a waste of time and annoying to Anthony. If you want to rant at me, I’ll respond on those threads over at my place.
Wow. So, CAGW is primarily a ruse for mega- to totally-centrally planned governmentalists and those who wish/need to obtain power/money? CAGW “skeptics” are mostly scientifically minded individualists. Those who even can consider that CAGW is not significantly CA gw are assumed enemies of the state by the central planners. And Left/Right needs to be defined prior to debate. Got it, and have gotten it.
Let’s not forget this Hitler classic
In support of E.M. Smith:
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party: “Van den Bruck coined the term “Third Reich”, and advocated an ideology combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.”
“Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. … These organisations (ie Fascism and social democracy) are not antipodes, they are twins.” (J.V. Stalin: Concerning the International Situation (September 1924), in Works, Volume 6, 1953; p.294.) This later led Otto Wille Kuusinen to conclude that “The aims of the fascists and the social-fascists are the same.” (Report To the 10th Plenum of ECCI, in International Press Correspondence, Volume 9, no.40, (20 August 1929), p.848.)
Scant wonder they are confused as distinct.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party: “Van den Bruck coined the term “Third Reich”, and advocated an ideology combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left.”
“Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. … These organisations (ie Fascism and social democracy) are not antipodes, they are twins.” (J.V. Stalin: Concerning the International Situation (September 1924), in Works, Volume 6, 1953; p.294.) This later led Otto Wille Kuusinen to conclude that “The aims of the fascists and the social-fascists are the same.” (Report To the 10th Plenum of ECCI, in International Press Correspondence, Volume 9, no.40, (20 August 1929), p.848.)
Scant wonder for the confusion.
[snip – inappropriate comment]
Any chance of a clue as to why?
Peronsally I’ve noticed that it was the Fascists and Communists who tended to create their own view of reality. Rather than going with the facts.
There is no comparison between environmentalism and fascism (or communism), because all dictators have a utilitarian attitude to the environment.