Occupy Wall Street: endorsed by the American Nazi Party!

Posted by: Phineas on October 16, 2011 at 12:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Adolf and Benito salute Occupy Wall Street!

Congrats, you aging 60s radicals and 20-something anarcho-whatsit fighters for… something! Your National Socialist brothers have got your backs! From ANP “Führer” Rocky Suhayda, via The Blaze:

Many racialists are unsure about, and even against, these Occupy Wall Street protests all around the country. It has been pointed out to me that many protesters are non-white and/or “communists.” Well my answer to that is: “WHO CARES?!” They are against the same evil, corrupted, degenerate capitalist elitists that WE are against! Instead of screaming, “6 million more!” The pro-white movementites should be JOINING this Occupy movement and supporting it!

Seriously people, just WHO is our enemy? The unemployed left-wing 25-year-old holding up a sign, OR the judeo-capitalist banksters who swindled the American taxpayers out of A TRILLION dollars in the “bailout” scam AND continue to oppress the White Working Class?!? Even Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP had to vote with open communists on some issues to achieve their goals. WE need to utilize and support every movement of dissent against this evil American empire, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it originates from.

Visit The Blaze for the rest. (1)

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Nazis would endorse anti-capitalists, Socialists, communists, Big labor radicals, or other figures on the Left. After all, Nazism, aka National Socialism, is a product of the Left, too, just one point along the Statist, anti-individual liberty scale that runs from a relatively mild Social Liberalism through progressivism to full-blown totalitarianism.

And, gee, they even have Jew-hatred in common! It’s a match made in… some place other than Heaven, since I doubt these folks are Judeo-Christian.

By the way, are the Democrats sure they want to co-opt this movement? (2)

via EdinCali on Twitter.

Footnotes:
(1) Because there is no way under the sun that I am linking to a Nazi Party web page. I like my computer too much to sully it like that.
(2) That “guilt by association” card can be played both ways, you know.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

30 Responses to “Occupy Wall Street: endorsed by the American Nazi Party!”

Comments

  1. Zachriel says:

    Phineas: After all, Nazism, aka National Socialism, is a product of the Left, too, just one point along the Statist, anti-individual liberty scale that runs from a relatively mild Social Liberalism through progressivism to full-blown totalitarianism.

    Nearly all historians treat Fascism as a movement of the far right. This is a non-controversial position.


    Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.

    The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.

    The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.

    Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.

    France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.

    Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.

  2. Robert says:

    National Socialists are always the same, whether now in America or in Germany in the 1930’s/1940’s. these are the SAME PEOPLE folks.

    here are some excerpts from a study I am writing about the quite obvious similarities between our American National Socialists who now call themselves Democrats, and their parents of 70 years ago over in Germany.

    LAWLESS REGIME
    1930s Germany – Nazi police state made up its own laws for their own benefit.

    2011 Democrats – elected officials ignore and refuse to enforce laws they don’t like; they fabricate reasons not to enforce said laws, i.e. immigration invasion; make up their own self-serving unconstitutional laws to control the citizens (Obamacare; cap and trade; global warming fraud); stealing from citizens under the guise of compassion and fees and regulations and the environment and any other reason they can make up for their own benefit.

    IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION
    1930s Germany – Adolf Hitler dissolved the existing Weimar Republic constitution and acted with impunity until the nation was destroyed

    2011 Democrats – despite operating in a nation which has a very specific Constitution precisely limiting government and providing clear checks and balances against socialist or royalist tyranny, this political party loves and worships government above all else and thus considers the US Constitution a severe threat to their goals of making the US into a National Socialist statist regime for all time; they consciously lie about the Constitution, claiming it does not say what it clearly says, and claiming it says things it does not say; they ignore constitutional limitations on government in their endless push for socialism; they go out of their way to ridicule the Constitution and those who value it; they claim it is changeable and irrelevant to modern day life (because it limits their power and limits their ability to act against citizens) for no reason other than they wish it to be so.

    PERSECUTION / SMEARING / CRIMINALIZING OPPOSITION
    1930s Germany – Jewish people persecuted on a historic scale; Holocaust

    2011 Democrats – conservatives are their Jews, targets of their constant hate speech, smears and vituperation; they hate real Jews too, they are called Israelis.

    DEMANDING UNIFORMITY / PUNISHING INDIVIDUALISM
    1930s Germany – dissent and resistance meant jail, concentration camps, torture and/or summary execution

    2011 Democrats – dissent and resistance means public ridicule as “extreme” and “racist”; character assassination by state-controlled media; jeopardization of career; can mean jail in some instances

    IDOL / MESSIAH / LEADER WORSHIP
    1930s Germany – Adolf Hitler deified as der Fuhrer and granted god-like status and powers by a deceived public; swastika icons omnipresent.

    2011 Democrats – Barack Hussein Obama deified as a “messiah” and granted god-like status by state-controlled media over the objections of 47% of the undeceived public; O icons omnipresent, overshadowing or eliminating the American flag in most instances.

    SPEECH CONTROLS
    1930s Germany – the state brutally policed the speech of all citizens to enforce compliance with the Nazi state; Gestapo

    2011 Democrats – invented a fake speech control called “political correctness” to silence and cow the public and to demonize and smear conservatives who oppose them; only Democrats are allowed to judge speech; certain kinds of speech which may expose truths they are desperate to keep quiet are criminalized as “hate speech”

    BEHAVIOR CONTROLS
    1930s Germany – state-controlled “health care”; government unions get favored treatment; state-controlled media; conscription to war; secret police; concentration camps; legalized murder.

    2011 Democrats – state-controlled “health care”; government unions get favored treatment; National Socialists masquerading as journalists, pushing the statist agenda and burying any opposing views; PC police; sensitivity training; smearing opponents as “racists” to intimidate them and make them shut up.

    ABSOLUTE POWER FOR THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT
    1930s Germany – achieved first by deceit and then by force; acting with impunity and brutality; unelected Nazi officials controlled all state policy from Fuhrer’s office.

    2011 Democrats – achieved by deceit and by direct actions against the Constitution; widespread voter fraud (Acorn & others) promoted and aided by National Socialists who demand no ID requirements at the voting polls to prove voting eligibility, and smearing anyone who asks for ID to vote as (again) “racist”; ignoring Congress; czars who evade congressional oversight/approval are controlling all state policy from Obama’s office.

    same thugs, different decade, and same end goal.

  3. Lorica says:

    Nearly all historians treat Fascism as a movement of the far right. This is a non-controversial position.

    LOL Yeaaaa Riiight!! – Lorica

  4. Ray says:

    That OWS would attract the support of Nazi’s shouldn’t be surprising…

    These fascists are desperate, and will latch on to the unwitting and ignorant, which aptly describes OWS.

    The poor saps known as OWS, angry at the banker bailouts, corporations, and Wall Street, can’t even figure out that Obama and most Dems fully supported TARP, that Obama promised not to have any corporate lobbyists in his administration, yet tossed that promise to the side after he took the oath of office, and that Obama has raked in more money from Wall Street than any politician in the past 20 years:

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-wall-street-dough-044804642.html

    Obama/Democratic Party = Wall Street, crony capitalism

  5. Great White Rat says:

    Good details, Robert. To extend on those points, here is a list of some of the beliefs and policies of the Nazis:

    – free health care
    – guaranteed jobs
    – confiscation of inherited walth
    – massive spending on public education
    – elimination of the church from public policy
    – supreme authority of the state over the individual in almost every sphere of daily life
    – abortion
    – euthanasia
    – gun control
    – anti-smoking activism
    – opposition to the free market
    – strict racial quotas in the universities
    – and of course, anti-semitism

    And let’s not forget the Hitler was a strict vegetarian and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

    Let’s see….does that sound more like today’s liberals or today’s conservatives?

    That’s not to say that every liberal today is a goose-stepping fanatic bent on implementing a “final solution”. But it is undeniably true that fascists and our modern progressives (as they now like to call themselves) trace their ideas back to the same intellectual cesspool. in fact, if you look at the history of the 1920’s and 1930’s, Mussolini was considered a hero in our left-wing circles. The American left didn’t stop admiring fascism until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

    In short, Nazi is short for National SOCIALIST, and Nazism/fascism is a left-wing creation, no matter how Zachriel or any other liberal tries to disavow the relationship.

  6. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: LOL Yeaaaa Riiight!!

    Handwaving. We provided multiple citations. More available upon request.

    http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html

  7. Lorica says:

    LOL Zach out of all of these excellent comments refuting what you say you reply to me. LOL Too Funny.

    All of your so called historians are in agreement with Benito Mussolini, as he was the 1st person I am aware of, who postulated the foolishness that these forms of governance were right leaning. They are not. – Lorica

  8. Carlos says:

    Instead of viewing political beliefs in a straight line, Zachriel, use a much more intelligent model, like a circle. In that case the underlying premises change slightly as one examines each stop in the circle, and language used changes, but overall endgames are remarkably similar the closer on the circle groups are examined.

    Having been tangentially involved with both extreme right and left activities, it is amazing how dissimilar their used vocabularies are but how similar their goals are, once the smoke and mirrors has been removed.

    But one must think critically and without prior assumptions to see this.

    The goals of national socialism, whether the brand of white supremacist or the Democraps, is so strikingly similar as to be extremely scary. Someday I hope you’ll look into that and come to better conclusions than you obviously do now.

  9. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: LOL Zach out of all of these excellent comments refuting what you say you reply to me.

    Let’s look at the original claims.

    Phineas: After all, Nazism, aka National Socialism, is a product of the Left, too, just one point along the Statist, anti-individual liberty scale that runs from a relatively mild Social Liberalism through progressivism to full-blown totalitarianism.

    Zachriel: Nearly all historians treat Fascism as a movement of the far right. This is a non-controversial position.

    Followed by multiple citations.

    Carlos: Instead of viewing political beliefs in a straight line, Zachriel

    As the original post introduced the Left-Right dichotomy, the question concerns the position on that continuum. Left Wing is defined as support for an egalitarian society. Right Wing is defined as support for existing, hierarchical institutions. Fascists supported the most extreme version of inequality, with support for a totalitarian leadership and extreme nationalist and racist policies. Communists supported the most extreme version of equality, including the destruction of the class society, and the breakdown of international boundaries. There are plenty of Left-Wing nightmare scenarios, without having to distort the meanings of the terms to satisfy a provincial political agenda.

  10. Lorica says:

    Lorica: LOL Zach out of all of these excellent comments refuting what you say you reply to me.

    Let’s look at the original claims.

    Huh??? What original claim. I laughed at you, I wasn’t claiming anything. You are in agreement with a tyranical dictator who met his death at the hands of his people. – Lorica

  11. Carlos says:

    Oh, so what you want to do, Zach, is use the textbook definition of “communist” against the real-world examples of “extreme right wing”? That really works.

    Your argument is extremely faulty, and the “left wing” – “right wing” terms today are only terms of convenience, not specificity to a linear graph.

    Don’t talk to me about “provincial political agenda” until you can argue what the disagreement is.

  12. Great White Rat says:

    Zach repeats himself:

    Nearly all historians treat Fascism as a movement of the far right. This is a non-controversial position.

    No, it is not non-controversial. You’ve committed the old Argument from Authority logical fallacy. The truth of an proposition should ultimately rely on logic and evidence, not the authority or alleged credentials of the persons subscribing to it.

    In this case, the evidence is not with you. I’ve already pointed out how you “progressives” have many ideas in common with the fascists and Nazis, and in fact share a common ideological ancestry. Now, it may not bother you and the rest of the OWS crowd to be aligned with both the modern day Nazis and Communists here. So be it.

    By the way, your self-serving definitions of left wing and right wing are hardly applicable. One common ground of left wing movements back at least as far as Marx is a centralized totalitarian government and suppression of individual liberties under dictates from a ruling elite. There’s nothing “egalitarian” about it.

  13. George Robinson says:

    Our big problem is the basic tenets of our right do not lend themselves to radical movements. I often wish they did:(( It is really hard to get a gang of self reliant folks on the same page. My conservative pals seem to care about junk like gays, I have no interest. I am mildly against hard drugs, let adults fry their brains, a lot of kids are easily led. I almost never recognize porn as depicted in normal commerce etc. but dislike young girls being taught the really nasty stuff is the norm– boys, to hell with them. So what would I have a meeting about? I guess using progressives for target practice;)

  14. Motorcyclist says:

    Never argue with a libtard out of court. They’re uneducable and you’re wasting your time trying to prove points that are dead obvious to anyone who didn’t struggle with the 3rd grade.

  15. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: No, it is not non-controversial.

    The way to show that would be to show that there is a substantial controversy among historians.

    Great White Rat: You’ve committed the old Argument from Authority logical fallacy.

    The immediate claim concerned the consensus among historians, something you can determine simply by noting that generations of historians have treated fascism as a movement on the right. Concerning the substance of the matter, an appeal to authority is valid when
    * The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
    * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
    * The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
    * There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
    * There is no evidence of undue bias.

    We provided more than sufficient support for the appeal, and would be happy to provide additional citations. The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. And again, we have provided ample support. In order to sustain your objection, you are forced to redefine well-established concepts to fit your preconceptions.

    How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

    Great White Rat: By the way, your self-serving definitions of left wing and right wing are hardly applicable.

    The terms date to the time of the French Revolution.

  16. Carlos says:

    Hold the presses! Hold the presses!

    It has been discovered that the world is in fact flat! How? Because the leading scientific minds have determined it to be so!

    What’s that you say, Zach? I’m about seven hundred years late with this?

    Well, dang! I thought it would be so just because all the greatest scientific minds said it was…

  17. nearly all leftist college professors treat nazism as a movement of the right, wrongfully.

  18. Steph says:

    Left/right? Not even going to go there! Here is what I noted at the very beginning of OSF and still observe: there are few persons of color attending them. Oh, sure, I see an occasional black or Asian but not even the percentage that they exist in our nation. In OWF (that is Occupy San Francisco), a group of black women were told to LEAVE! See the San Francisco Chronicle for the story. What disturbs me is that TEA Party attendees were accused of racism so what do you call what they are doing? Just sayin’

  19. Great White Rat says:

    Sorry, Zach. Cherry-picking your “authorities” doesn’t make your argument any more valid, no matter how you choose to pick them to “fit your preconceptions”.

    The terms date to the time of the French Revolution.

    You probably haven’t noticed this, but the French Revolution has been over for more than 200 years, and it predated Nazism and fascism for more than 100 years. The meaning of political terms changes over time. For example, a classical “liberal” once was one who favored individual freedom and restraints on government. That’s a description of today’s conservatives.

    Since we live in the year 2011, we choose to use the terms as they are understood in today’s political discourse. To suggest that fascism is somehow related to today’s conservatives because you choose to define “right wing” as it was understood in 1789 is dishonest sophistry and a rather pitiful attempt at a smear.

    The error of your argument is visible in the streets of New York. By your standards, those “right wing” fascists should be directly and vehemently opposed to your fellow left-wingers and the communists. Yet there they are, arm in arm, in solidarity. If the leftists and the nazis are in agreement and share so many beliefs, your premise must be flawed. Both are left-wing groups, and always have been.

    And so there’s no confusion, I’m using the term “left wing” in the 2011 sense.

  20. Kate says:

    ..and the French Revolution and the Great Enlightenment of Europe turned into a bloody mess which turned inward and killed it’s own leaders! Lovely!

    End game….people who speak evil and support evil have only their own self interest at heart. Envy of those who worked hard to make something of themselves and dressing it up as a movement of justice is simply wrong.

    Ask the African-American union teacher in CA who told it like it is…she’s against the “Zionist” who control the banking industry..what do you call that? Oh, just give her a pass, Z. She’s one of your useful idiots I suppose.

    And left/right, these terms are just the intellectual equivalent of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin..the facts speak for themselves. Z cannot look in the mirror and see his face without the direction of his intellectual buddies.

  21. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: The meaning of political terms changes over time.

    Yes, they do, which is why we provided modern citations. Here are some more:

    Alexander & Tatalovich, Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies, Broadview Press 2003

    Bobbio & Cameron, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction University of Chicago Press, 1997

    Merriam-Webster: Left, often capitalize, those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man.

    Merriam-Webster: Right, often capitalized, individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies.

    Wikipedia: In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist generally refer to support for an egalitarian society.

    Wikipedia: In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist generally refer to support for a hierarchical society justified on the basis of an appeal to natural law or tradition.

    When you are using the terms, you should use them the way other people use them. If you are using a “special” definition, it should be clearly defined and you consider the use of scare-quotes.

    Great White Rat: To suggest that fascism is somehow related to today’s conservatives because you choose to define “right wing” as it was understood in 1789 is dishonest sophistry and a rather pitiful attempt at a smear.

    To suggest that fascism is somehow related to today’s liberals “is dishonest sophistry and a rather pitiful attempt at a smear.” In any case, we never said that conservatives were fascists, or anything of the sort. But this does reveal why many on the Right have so recently redefined the terminology.

  22. Zachriel says:

    Kate: ..and the French Revolution and the Great Enlightenment of Europe turned into a bloody mess which turned inward and killed it’s own leaders! Lovely!

    Yes, good example. It was Left-wing extremism run amok.

  23. Carlos says:

    The “right” is generally defined today as those who desire a smaller, less centralized government, Zach. The “left” is generally defined as wishing for a bigger, more powerful centralized government.

    How is that redefining anything? Especially since the glorious leader we have today is a determined autocrat bent on ruling by fiat? His only apparent focus (as shown by his actions, not his words) is to destroy his opposition. It certainly isn’t on making the country run any smoother or creating private-sector jobs or reducing a Himalayan-sized mountain of debt he’s created by his socialist cronyism.

    Seems to me to fit fairly well with the definition of fascism as found in the Merriam Webster dictionary.

  24. Great White Rat says:

    To suggest that fascism is somehow related to today’s liberals “is dishonest sophistry and a rather pitiful attempt at a smear.”

    Clearly, reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. Go back to my first post in this thread where I said, quite clearly:

    That’s not to say that every liberal today is a goose-stepping fanatic bent on implementing a “final solution”.

    What I have said, and what is “non-controversial” is that fascism and modern progressivism are offshoots of the same left-wing (and here I’m using the modern term as Carlos correctly defines it, not by your 18th century defintion of convenience) ideology. You’ve studiously avoided addressing the subject of commonality of platforms of the supposedly “right wing” Nazis and the admittedly left-wing progressives. I wonder why that is. No, I think we all know.

    As for your defintions, the dictionary definitions are outdated. There is no leftist today who advocates “change in the name of greater freedom”. That’s the classical liberal I described above. Apparently you had difficulty comprehending that too. See Carlos’ post just above this if you require further amplification.

    And once you begin quoting wikipedia as your authority, we know you’re grasping at straws. Shall I go edit it to say the exact opposite, and then cite it as definitive?

    Anyway, it’s clear you’re determined to ignore the reality of the SOCIALIST family connection between the Nazis and the rest of the left, so I’m not going to waste any more time trying to educate you.

  25. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: The “right” is generally defined today as those who desire a smaller, less centralized government, Zach{riel}. The “left” is generally defined as wishing for a bigger, more powerful centralized government.

    Not defined as such, but those are the usual positions. That’s because for the last century or so, government has been the engine of greater equality, such as outlawing child labor, providing universal education, ending segregation, and so on. Conservatives point to unintended consequences of many of these reforms, especially when such reforms are too rapid, trample existing institutions, or are not properly thought out.

    The rest of your comment is a gross overstatement.

  26. Carlos says:

    Yes, I can understand you having an aversion to talking about “unintended consequences,” Zachriel. Those inconvenient problems of socialist planning, mostly by the Democraps (with the aid and abetting of some so-called Republicans) have led to an incredibly poor state-run school system nationwide, outrageous abortion rates (especially in the black/African-American community), higher and more serious drug abuse in minority communities nationwide, and far greater gang-related property and personal violence in nearly all poorer communities nationwide, all at a cost of trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

    Yep, sure sounds like greater equality through bigger government to me!

    And I don’t see where the overstatement is in the rest of my statement. Please enlighten me. I’d like to know that our president isn’t trying to rule by fiat, that his every waking hour isn’t spent in trying to discredit and/or destroy the “loyal opposition,” or that he hasn’t/isn’t created/creating an unrepayable mountain of debt.

  27. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: Yes, I can understand you having an aversion to talking about “unintended consequences,” Zachriel.

    Um, Carlos, we are the ones who brought it up. Indeed, there are a variety of left wing nightmare scenarios, such as 1984, or in a comedic vein, Harrison Bergeron, and extremism on the left has led to great human suffering. However, fascism is right wing extremism.

  28. Lorica says:

    However, fascism is right wing extremism.

    Which has more in common with today’s extreme left wing. – Lorica

  29. Carlos says:

    Which brings us right back to the idea that ideologies should be evaluated in a circle concept, not a straight line.

    Lorica is correct. I know, because, been there, done that.

    Fascists have much, much more in common with a Nazi-style government than with one leaning toward “as small as possible and still protect the people,” which is why Obhammud scares the daylights out of me.

  30. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: Fascists have much, much more in common with a Nazi-style government than with one leaning toward “as small as possible and still protect the people,” which is why Obhammud scares the daylights out of me.

    You are comparing authoritarian tactics, which fascists and communists share, with ideology, which they do not share. Left Wing is *defined* as support for an egalitarian society. Right Wing is *defined* as support for existing, hierarchical institutions.
    http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html