Breitbart's BigGovernment challenges Media Matters and progressives to address "their movement's role in the Nazi genocide"
January 24, 2010 10:42 am ET by Media Matters staff
From BigGovernment.com accessed January 24, 2010:
I would like to officially challenge the folks at Media Matters, and other progressive intellectual sink-holes, to address their movement's role in the Nazi genocide.
The Neo-Progressives might do themselves a service by admitting the damage their predecessors have done, and trying to make amends for their horrors. Denying these documented crimes is the same as excusing them.
I would also like to challenge American Jews and Blacks, the main targets of Progressive Eugenics, by asking how they can call themselves Progressives given what the movement has unapologetically done to their populations.
Progressive intellectuals inspired and fed the ideology of Nazis and the Klan.
Is a Jewish Progressive any different than a Jewish Nazi? If so, how?
Is a black Progressive any different than a black Klansman? If so, how?
If those questions strike you as painful, they should. This topic demands some tough questions.
By no means am I concluding that Progressive Jews and Blacks are Nazis or Klansmen. Of course they are not. I am absolutely suggesting they have not a clue about the movement they have signed onto. How could they be aware of what Progressivism unapologetically did, and still join it?
These are serious questions which I wish any progressive would attempt to address.
"is a Jewish Progressive any different than a Jewish Nazi?"
huh?
"s a black Progressive any different than a black Klansman? If so, how?"
huh?
wtf? Life is too short to waste time on these meatheads.
This guy B*tchbat puts the ding in dingbat.
No response?
There we got PROOF POSITIVE!
Ay-yi-yi...
"Moslem", however you probably meant "Muslim". Also, the syntax of your opening sentence suggests that you meant "terroists" and not terrorist.
Other than that, you get a A+!
I'm willing to bet that the reason they can call themselves progressives is because you're talking out of your a$$.
But leave it to the conservatives to distract the public with sensational but completely made up nonsense to change the subject from more important questions, like why the banks are still giving their CEOs huge bonuses with the bailout money WE the tax payers gave them.
FYI - MOST of the banks that received bailout money from the US taxpayer has already paid it back to the Treasury, with interest. Also, MOST of the "large" banks that received bailout money were forced to take it in the first place. Funny how we don't hear about GM & Chrysler - those EVIL car companies in 15 second soundbites on the news every half hour. Those EVIL car companies have more of OUR taxpayer dollars than those EVIL banks, and have yet to repay one penny. Why????? Well maybe because the government is now running those EVIL car companies, well - the government and the unions. Great combination! Been to the post office lately?
Best advice I can give you - don't talk about things you know little about.
Could peddle this garbage and hope to get away with it. ...The shameless B@tchbat.
These questions aren't painful, they are absurd!
(BTW, I'm feeling better now, but still kind of 'tender tummy')
Bonus wingnut points to the first moron who points out that Nazi stands for National Socialist!
No it doesn't. It demands some Ritalin.
I would like to officially challenge the folks at Media Matters, and other progressive intellectual sink-holes, to address their movement's role in the Nazi genocide.
The only way to address this type of statement is to ignore it but; even then, you lose.
Unless you can turn it on them, somehow, and have them prove that they have addressed their connection to the Nazi genocide.
'Technically' it was Prescott B., a director of the bank which loaned Hitler the money to get his guns on, during the 1930s ... after earlier fronting the cash to bail Hitler out of prison, 1924, 9 months into a 5 year sentence -- nazi Bush family tree FUX News reported here.
But talking Hitler digresses back into the childhoods of the creators cum directors of the rightwing fascism in today's USA war crimes, antisocial influential engineers still breathing (the seig hiel fury-fire) such as GHWBush (b. 1924), Kissinger (b. 1923), David Rockefeller (b. 1915), Murdoch (b. 1931), Saudi Arabia King Abdullah (b. 1924) ... and check on the Queen of England, and Netanyahoo, and more you see the names of in the 'news.'
... and such digression departs from where I got stuck, stopping reading, with my First Question in Not-So-BrightButt's first line, asking: What Where When Why How and Who makes it 'official'?
-
In a nutshell, Beck want to purify the nation. Now who does that sound like?
It is a way to suggest that regulating the banks is only what liberal, communists and nazi's do.
It is a talking point that reinforces the GOP talking points that the banks should not be regulated.
Ezekiel 18:20
Perhaps we can begin this pointless debate there, Mr. Breitbart?
Then we can tackle why you are so concerned about connecting every human atrocity known to man to these fine men...
Who will be the first on Fox to denounce America ?
jk, I know the Fox employees and their audience would have been loyal to the Crown.
This ridiculously inept attempt to paint Nazis as liberals goes into a special category of right-wing propaganda, that exclusive area of "Nah, even the typical Hannity fan isn't going to buy this pile o' crap".
That's my initial reaction to these things, but of course, there's always somebody stupid enough to let me know that I've overestimated the bottom rungs of wingnuttery.
Exhibit A: the robotic neo-Nazis who posted on threads related to Beck's crockumentary over the past couple of days, proving that there is no boundary to how stupid right wing propaganda can get and still fool a few of them.
Everybody has an image of the Nazis, even those with almost no knowledge or understanding of history. Let's say we concede Beck's point,just to be sporting, that the Nazis ran on a platform of universal health care.
Then we ask the Beck fan which of the following descriptions best describes the Nazi party;
A. Hyper-natioalistic, militaristic, authoritarian group who rallied their followers by demonizing minoritiy groups and "others.
or,
B. Providers of universal health care.
Only the most dishonest or willfully ignorant would choose "B".
They stereotype liberals as authoritian bullies because this is the way they approach the world. They want to define and control without complications. They want power.
A sick, messed up logic
You can play this free association game for hours. The problem is, the associations don't always go where you want them too:
Nazi's had an agressive militarisic foreign policy, conservatives call for an agressive militaristic foreign policy...
If Beck were honest, he would dress like a clown. In Mexico a few years back they had a pundit who actually did dressed like a clown on TV. It was refreshing to see an opinion guy who was willing to dress the part.
Here is a link showing the clown interviewing a leading national politician: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dyWJJdj9Ec
What is his agenda?
He is saying that progressives are dangerous. That they will become angry and violent.
I wouldn't dismiss his comments as clownish hyperbole, because I consider him to be a threat to our society, frankly.
We should pay attention to what he is saying because it is dangerous propaganda of the creepiest magnitude.
On the other hand, I find it humorous that Beck might actually believe that he lives in a country surrounded by tens of millions of dangerous Stalinist Hitlers that want to make sure he has access to health care without going bankrupt, like in Canada.
It is not OK. And, by the way, that is what Beck was portraying in his documentary. If you really watched it, and did not just take sound-bites from it, you have to admit that he portrayed the major regimes in history that have restricted or downright forbidden free speech, free ideology and freedom of religion.
If you did not make that connection, then you either need to watch it again or you are part of the problem. And by the way, if you really believe that health care in Canada is far superior to that of the US, don't let the door hit you in your backside!
My question to Beck is who will die? Who is the target of this murderous progressive genocide to come?
The Nazis and fascists oppressed the poor to prop up the old regime and used patriotism and religion to form a really unified, monolithic, top-down society.
The Soviets threw all the people who lived off other people out on the street. The monks (buddhist in Mongolia, christian elsewhere) out on the street. They took the land and factories from the powerful and rich.
But both of them did it with -state power-. The libertarians (anarchists) are on the right today, because the left votes for more government power. John Conyers and Maxine Waters, the furthest left in today's Congress, do this to help the poor, not to keep the social order. But if you forget their ends, and only look at their means, the left today is for expanding state power while the right (at least the far right) is for limiting it.
Why are we progressives obligated to look at them with shame? We look at them with scorn and don't consider them anywhere near our political realm?
Name 1 thing that we progressives support under Hitler's Nazi party (existed before Hitler), Stalin, Mao, the KKK, etc.
I can't believe I'm wasting my time under this bozo.
Jews are Jews
Blacks are Blacks
That is all Breitbart said. In essence his observation is completely racist.
The difference dear sir, is that both Nazi's and the KKK believe in eliminating people that don't agree with them.
Liberal Jews were accused by the Nazi's of being pacificsts.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a black Klansman?
But yeah, like totally... I'm super Nazi-ish and stuff.
They were talking about the Hate Crimes bill, or some bill that would make it illegal for employers to fire employees because they're gay. And some idiot on that site said, "If I have to work with these gays, wouldn't it infringe on MY civil liberties." And I basically explained how the person's argument made no sense and was wrong. And boom, it was revoked almost immediately.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(taking a moment to breathe)
(wiping tear from eye)
Hah.
Haaah.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Seriously, all I can do is point and jeer.
And in the interest of helping our friends at BigGovernment to better understand themselves, I must link to Top 20 Logical Fallacies. Hope springs eternal.
I realized pretty quickly that it was wasted effort. Logical fallacies are the bread and butter of their sources, and they don't seem to understand that there's anything wrong with them. They're considered clever rhetorical techniques by many right wingers.
More than once, I've pointed out a specific fallacy, with a link illustrating the problem, and have been accused of changing the subject, followed by demands to address the deeply flawed "argument".
They just don't seem to get it.
( How am I doing?)
And you thought I only pretend to care?
Because if anyone knows something about not having a clue, it's Our Man Andy.
Liberals are trying to undermine Beck's influence by accusing him in associating Liberals to Fascism, which is NOT what he is saying.
Beck is linking Progressive Liberals to SOCIALISM, not to Fascism directly. Socialism, in turn, can and should be linked to Socialism.
As someone who lived under the Soviet Socialism for 30 years, I can tell that the goal of Progressivism is always the same - Socialism.
Another current example is how Progressivism has changed into Socialism is Chavez/Venezuela.
Progressivism always starts based on the same bias: it's a genuine guilt for the poor or for the less fortunate or for the oppressed. When there is an oppression (in Liberal mind) then there has to be an oppressor. While it seems like a genuine desire to help the oppressed and is always initiated by Intellectuals, the problem with Progressivism is that it always takes the populist's side, the side of the unintellectual sheeple, and so the oppressors are always those who are on the opposite site of the sheeple - the rich or the achievers or the Intelligent ones. This is not because the Progressives have shallow mind, no, it's because Progressives are people who do not believe in self-reliance and feel insecure between the self-reliant people. The self-reliant people are their antagonists, thus progressives always choose the self-reliant to be their their enemy, and because the self-reliant always appear more fortunate, richer and often employ the poor ... the Progressives always naturally choose them as the Oppressors of the poor. But what Progressives never consider is that the self-reliant are the ones who enable the poor to survive and often to become self-reliant. But because the Progressives hate the self-reliant, they choose to ignore that part and concentrate their hate on diminishing the self-reliant. Also, because the Progressives' guilt is always directed not at one individual poor but at all poor people, they think of the poor as of 'collective'. And because they pride themselves on helping all and not just one, they logically think of all poor as equal, thus naturally coming to a conclusion that the poor are being oppressed collectively and that each poor must get an equal share of love or goods in order to be saved from the oppressors. As such, the progressives naturally accept Socialism as an ideology that supports their way of thinking and provides them with a template to defeat the oppressors.
Just to prove my point ... Russian Progressives in the early 1900's chose to side with the Russian poor and organized them against the self-reliant and against the rich intelligentsia, and so they accepted Marxism/Socialism.
Exactly the same is happening now in Venezuela.
Exactly the same happened in China under Mao.
Exactly the same happened in Korea under Kim Jong-il.
Exactly the same happened in Cuba, many other Latin American countries and many countries in Africa where Marxism/Socialism has spread.
As history shows, once Progressives accept Socialism, there is no coming back ... because it feels so natural to them. The problem is that Socialism is an ideology that is designed to direct hate to curtain other 'collectives' of people ... like the collective of the oppressors. So there you go ... the Socialism drives Progressives into a conflict between classes, between the oppressed and the oppressors.
And because Socialism supports the idea of killing other classes in order to help just one class - the poor - the Progressives have always done just that ... they've killed millions of Rich or just Intelligent Self-Reliant people. Just like they did it in Russia, in Cuba, in China, and are doing it now in Venezuela.
The Progressives do it to satisfy their guilt for the poor. They do it genuinely, based on good intentions as they believe it is their purpose on this Earth - to help/free the poor by sacrificing the rich. In other words, Socialism comes to Progressives naturally, so as the killing.
History shows that this happened many times and there is no sense to believe it won't happen again. Of course, the democratic constraints of Capitalism make it more difficult for Progressives to achieve, especially in America where Capitalism is the purest.
That is why modern Socialists like Saul Alinsky, Bernard Shaw, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and other came up with the ideas of slower, less visible and less invasive Socialism. They decided that Socialism during Capitalism can be achieved by changing the way people think (via education), by using populist reforms (like free healthcare, free education and other welfare programs) and by regulations (imposed on banks, financials, corporations).
In the case when reforms won't work and if there is too much resistance from self-reliant individuals, applying force and killing many is reserved as the final option... as Socialist Ideology fully support that option, and as Socialist Ideology hasn't changed, only the means have.
This makes Progressives highly dangerous, and this is why Glen Beck is working hard to warn the public of the possible outcome of the Progressive Movement in the US.
Many American Liberals tend to side with Progressives, and easily accept Socialism as their own ideology without considering the common Evil outcome. This is why they need to watch Glen's film, understand the dangers of their association, and try to distance themselves from Progressives.
Unfortunately for the US, their current President is a populist Progressive whose final goals are no different from those of Chavez, and his populist appeal helps to lure many American Liberals into the Progressivism movement. Warning and stopping Liberals from taking that dangerous road is the goal of Beck's film.
And that is also a reason why many conservatives pray that this President fails. Not because he is black, as Progressives want you to believe, but because this President is a dangerous Socialist who just happened to be black...
Like Sheriff Bart in Blazing Saddles?
I would like to officially challenge the folks at BigGovernment to stop sniffing glue.
-revised from AIRPLANE!
Oh they are painful, Mr. Breitbart: painfully obtuse. This is like asking the heads of corporations today to address how they are any different than King Leopold II.
Here's how I'd address the difference between a progressive in 2010 of any ethnicity, nationality, religion, racial identity, gender, or sexuality and Nazis and Klansmen: progressives want a more egalitarian society regardless of the composition of that society, not a society that subordinates anyone based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, or sexuality. Nazis and the KKK aren't so hot on that idea.
I should have added even that this comparison is only valid if one accepts Breitbart's premise, which he does nothing to substantiate.
Nice of you at least give them the opportunity to see an actual discussion. Not sure if will have much effect. From the posts I skimmed over, there didn't seem to be much beyond " If they're attacking Beck, he must be doing something right !".
Which is pretty self-defeating, as that logic would have to prove that liberals are right if Beck is doing an entire fake documentary trying to smear them.
I'm guessing you didn't get the memo either..
Did progressives do this?
Black teen beat by white police over Mountain Dew bottle
Man these people annoy me
Just "You're NAZIs and segregationists," over and over again.
Scary.