Media conservatives claim Holocaust museum shooter a "leftist"
SUMMARY: Several conservatives in the media have suggested that the alleged Holocaust museum shooter, reportedly a neo-Nazi, was a leftist.
In responding to the June 10 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, several conservatives in the media have suggested that the alleged shooter, James von Brunn, reportedly a neo-Nazi, was a "leftist," as Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth has noted. Indeed, in some cases, those media figures have stated or suggested that Nazism itself is "a leftist phenomenon" because the English translation of the official name of Adolf Hitler's political party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party."
In a New Republic review of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning -- a book that furthers a similar premise and includes a chapter titled "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left" -- Guardian America editor Michael Tomasky wrote that Goldberg's theory constitutes "revisionism" because, among other things, "there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and [Josef] Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism."
Tomasky wrote:
We have also recognized, since at least the 1950s and in some prescient instances even earlier, that certain consanguinities between the far left and the far right did exist in those days, and that the Nazi program was in some respects a left-wing program, appealing on a class basis -- and, always, a racial basis -- to German workers and the petit bourgeoisie. It was not called National Socialism for nothing. Goldberg goes into great detail on all this in his chapter titled -- are you sitting down? -- "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left."
Now that is revisionism. But for all his chapter and verse on the proletarian rhetoric that Nazis employed, Goldberg somehow forgets to mention certain other salient matters, like the fact that within three months of taking power Hitler banned trade unions -- and on the day after May Day, 1933. Their money was confiscated and their leaders imprisoned. And the trade unions were replaced with the Nazi "union" called the German Labor Front, which took away the right to strike. Hitler did many worse things, of course. I single out this act because it would hardly seem to be the edict of a "man of the left." And there exist about a million nearly epileptic quotes from Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis expressing their luminous hatreds of liberalism and of communism, none of which seem to have found their way into the pages of Liberal Fascism.
Similarly, UCLA sociology professor and Fascists author Michael Mann wrote in a Washington Post review of Goldberg's book:
Goldberg finds similarities between fascism's so-called "third way" -- neither capitalism nor socialism -- and liberals who use the same phrase today to signify an attempt to compromise between business and labor. But there is a fundamental difference. The fascist solution was not brokered compromise but forcibly knocking heads together. Italian fascists formed a paramilitary, not a political, party. The Nazis did have a separate party, but alongside two paramilitaries, the SA and the SS, whose first mission was to attack and, if necessary, to kill socialists, communists and liberals. In reality, the fascists knocked labor's head, not capital's. The Nazis practiced on the left for their later killing of Jews, gypsies and others. And all fascists proudly proclaimed the "leadership principle," hailing dictatorship and totalitarianism.
Examples of conservative media figures stating or suggesting that von Brunn was a "leftist" include the following:
- On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, guest Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute said, "Well, this Von Brunn's culture is a tribe of racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Negro, anti-immigrant, everything, and therefore he's a phenomenon of the left, because racism is a form of collectivism. The right wing is individualist -- believes in individual rights, freedom, the dignity of each individual life. But it's the left wing -- you know, Hitler was National Socialism, right? It's a leftist phenomenon." Host Glenn Beck replied in part, "[Y]ou look at people who are Nazis, and you say that those are right wing. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever." As Media Matters for America has documented, Beck has repeatedly invoked the Nazis in talking about President Obama and other progressives and frequently uses his program to smear liberals as fascists.
- In a June 11 FrontPageMag.com article -- headlined "Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist" -- managing editor Ben Johnson wrote [emphasis in original]:
Leftists have decided to exploit Von Brunn's madness to engender fear of rampant conservative terrorism. They overlook one point: the shooter was not a conservative.
A review of his lengthy associations reveals Von Brunn hardly fits the stereotype of a Religious Right, GOP precinct captain. He denounced the Christian faith as a dastardly Jewish conspiracy, a "HOAX" invented by the Apostle Paul to "DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE" from within by undermining its pagan virility. (All screaming capitalization and grammatical errors in this piece appear in the original.) Like others on the racist fringe, the shooter proclaimed clearly: "SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West."
Johnson's post was subsequently highlighted by NewsBusters under the headline "Holocaust Museum Killer Conservative? Not So Fast!"
- On the June 11 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh said, "Very predictably, ladies and gentlemen, the media, the American left is trying to score some political points as a result of this tragedy at the Holocaust museum in Washington yesterday, and as predictable, they are trying to blame this on me, other conservatives, and right-wingers. It's the traditional approach taken by the American left." Limbaugh continued:
The facts of the case, however, are such that if we want to start assigning blame for this beyond this nutcase Jew-hater -- and notice that very few people actually want to do that. They want to claim this guy didn't have the ability to act on his own. He only could act if he was inspired by somebody. Well, who did he hate? He hated both Bushes. He hated neocons. He hated John McCain. He hated Republicans. He hated Jews, as well. He believed in an inside-job conspiracy of 9-11. This guy is a leftist, if anything. This guy's beliefs, this guy's hate stems from influence that you find on the left, not on the right.
From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BINSWANGER: It's only going to get worse, because under pressure, people should resort to their standards and principles, but they don't have any standards and principles today. Standards have been knocked down by our universities who tell us that truth is relative, there is no morality; it's all your culture or my culture.
Well, this Von Brunn's culture is a tribe of racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Negro, anti-immigrant, everything, and therefore he's a phenomenon of the left, because racism is a form of collectivism. The right wing is individualist -- believes in individual rights, freedom, the dignity of each individual life. But it's the left wing -- you know, Hitler was National Socialism, right?
BECK: How did, Harry -- how did it --
BINSWANGER: It's a leftist phenomenon.
BECK: How did it happen that this was -- that you look at people who are Nazis, and you say that those are right wing. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
BINSWANGER: Well, there was a deal made between the communists and the Nazis in Germany in the '30s where they each agreed to define themselves as the opposite of the other. You see the percentage in that -- you define my gang or your gang, and you rule out of court any other possibility, such as freedom without any gang rule.
BECK: Right.
BINSWANGER: So it's actually a strategy adopted in Germany in the Weimar Republic in the '30s.
BECK: We're -- we're -- America, we're surrounded by people who want to control you. You've got the government that is -- I think, just going crazy out of control. You have -- you have some crazy nutjob who wants to control what races are here, you know, how -- what our makeup looks like. You have everybody who is struggling for control, and I think you are just somebody that just wants to be left alone, quite honestly. Just wants to be -- let me just, please, let my kids go to school, be safe. Let me go to work, let me -- let me just have a normal life. But it's getting harder and harder.















FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
WTF?
2. We have been accusing Obama of being a "socialist."
3. Therefore, anybody who hates Jews and Blacks is a liberal.
Do you understand now, nerzog?
P.S. See noted historian Glenn Beck for proof that Woodrow Wilson was a Fascist.
I seem to remember the German Democratic Republic (Dictatorship) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Dictatorship). Just cause you call yourself something doesn't mean you are.
You people just refuse to see the truth when it's right in front of you!
</sarc>
In a socialist state, they are state owned, for the benefit of the people. Hitler did it to reign in total control over the country.
Hitler had NO liberal policies at all.
However, I would hope that any decent person of integrity would evaluate what they say on our public airwaves and put their stinging, hate-filled political rhetoric aside for at least the day after such a tragedy occurs. Put this horrible shooting in perspective to your audience of listeners and focus on what is really important, instead of calling him a "leftist" and making sure the other side gets blamed. Is that too much to ask for Glenn Beck and the others? It is beyond irresponsible.
Consider of whom you just asked that, RO. Your answer is a decided yes...
Well said - thank you.
After all, FRED PHELPS is a DEMOCRAT, but the Democrats as a party do not embrace a single policy or philosphy of indeed any of the filth that he spews out. OTH, the Republicans DO operate on a philosophy that, if taken to the extreme, gives you scumbags like Von Brun.
His political affiliation IS important, because it's what motivates him. You should be more concerned with the fact the your lot seems to want to apologize him, or somehow make him one of US (the left) while continuing to expouse his very philosophy. And if you think they don't, you lack teh ability of (or the stomach for) introspection.
You're just out to score political points like Beck and the others are, so you have no place to criticize them.
But I know that doesn't feed into your using this tragedy to score your own political points, so you refuse to see it. Your problem.
This does not mean all conservatives, or even a simple majority of them, but this particular brand of conservatives (far right wing crazies who do have a politcal agenda).
Know what I mean?
And while you may accuse me of "trying to score points" at least I'm trying to score points for the side of GOOD. BECK is trying to score point s FOR EVIL!!! And he's ONE OF YOURS!!! And I don;t see a REAL critisicm of Beck. To my reading, your just saying that I'm as bad as he is. (1) That's far more insulting to ME than it is to him. (2) I'm critising the scholl of thought that this man possesses, while Beck criticies his critics. Night and day.
Score your cheap political points elsewhere.
It's that the right is desperate to call this guy a leftist, and it's clearly not true.
It's undeniable that your only point here is to distract us from the topic being covered. That topic is not that we insist he be called a righty.
It's undeniable that this is a version of WITH. I only posted a few times before Tommy disappeared, but according to older posters, JamesB was Tommy under another name, and now JamesB is gone and you are here. This was a trait of JamesB's posts, to derail the conversation and ignore the point that MMfA was making.
If you aren't a banned poster coming back under another name, how do you know about "Sue" anyway?
I only know about her because of the false allegations others have made. But they haven't been made recently. Like I said, those posters who used to make those accusations have disappeared, and likely were banned.
So, how do you explain your knowledge of stuff that happened before this screen name ever posted here?
I am not Sue. But you are pretty clearly a sockpuppet. Maybe 'Tommy' created this screen name months/years ago to pull out in a pinch. I wouldn't be surprised, as that is the pattern trolls follow all across the internet.
But what we saw here was me attacking your message, the junk about how we were being meanies for calling him a righty, a very accurate portrayal of your bogus argument. And what we saw you do was attack me, the messenger, and falsely accuse me of being someone I am not.
That's the epitome of a sockpuppet troll trying to defend a bogus argument. They attack the person who took off their mask.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200906100028#comments
Several people on that thread about the Israeli-shoe-insult nonsense pointed out the similarities between RightOn's actions and Tommy's, and RightOn didn't deny it at all.
Because it's the truth.
Coincidence? Right ON would have you believe that it is all just coincidence - the effort to derail the conversation, the WITH posts, all just common to what any poster might do!
His reading comprehension is just fine.
He couldn't debate the point being made, so it was time to make fun of the poster to try to derail the thread that way.
Any port in a storm.
Because those "conservatives" are idiots...
The last time a liberal went "off the deep end" was forty+ years ago and they just blew up an empty pentagon men's room. Wow. You show me ANY liberal (and that automatically precluded ANYONE motivated by religion) who's done ANYTHING to comapres to McVeigh or Von Brunn. (And remember: this is NOT Von Brunn's 1st offense: He made it all the way to the door of the boardroom of the Federal Reserve, ARMED, in 1981 inteding to kidnap the Governors of the Fed.) You give me ANY examples of rhetoric by the American Left that is as close to "going off the deep end" as the current Palin/Republican/Beck rhetoric is to Von Brunn's rantings.
Lot's of luck with that.
His sole purpose is to derail the thread. Remember other famous posters here whose aim has been exactly the same.
The postings by Media Matters that make the right look the worst and the stupidest, those are the ones that they most often try to distract us on.
My point was, and is, that political affiliations in this country are not a motivator for heinous violence. Nowhere did I bring up the Nazis until you introduced it, so you were the one who broadened the discussion and changed it, not me. Heal thyself.
His political affiliation is irrelevant. The guy is responsible for his own actions, nobody else is.
With his very first post, trying to change the subject. Then he keeps going down that rabbit hole, and turns it into posters here saying that he's a righty, and how that's the problem.
Tried and true methods to derail a thread.
Does anyone have an idea what that means?
Why would they do that?
Loonz, sir, I'd be willing to make a fair wager that even Binswanger doesn't have an idea what that means, just that it makes liberals look bad, which is what he was after in the first place...
Same as the guy that shot Dr. Tiller.
Same as the guy that shot the Army recruiters.
All 3 were far right ideologues.
(pitch pipe)
NO NO NO!!!! RACIST VON BRUNN IS A LIBERAL!!! ARMY RECRUITER MURDERER IS AN ISLAMOFASIST LIBERAL!!!!! SCOTT ROEDER IS A CHRISTIAN HERO WHO SAVED INNOCENT BABIES FROM LIBERAL BABY MURDERERES!!!!LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!! ONLY LIBERALS TRY TO DESTROY AMERICA!!!! WAKE UP AMERICAN BEFORE ITS TO LATE!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, that takes a lot out of me! No wonder those drive-by trolls only post once--they have to take a nap afterward! But seriously, ML--it's becoming harder and harder to distinguish mainstream conservatives from right-wing militiabots, mostly because most mainstream conservatives are too busy trying to blame von Brunn's attack on liberals. With the curious exception of Right ON, who has made several valid points on other threads today...
That Binswanger fellow has it correct that Conservatives in the U.S. are defined by a belief in individualism and individual freedom (though Rand's brand of 'Egoism' is pretty sophomoric). As such, conservatism stands opposed to 'statist' or collectivist schemes of government.
Fascism is a 'statist' (leftist) program. Tomansky quoted above says, i]"...the Nazi program was in some respects a left-wing program, appealing on a class basis -- and, always, a racial basis -- to German workers and the petit bourgeoisie."[/i]
The similarity of Fascism to modern 'progressives' (old liberals) in the American political scene is in this area of 'statism.' American progressives see the state as the ultimate good, or at least as the best hope for good. The way it plays out is that progressives want more government, more regulation, more centralized planning. Conservatives stand opposed to that incremental government encroachment on individual freedoms because they are rightly convinced that it will inevitably lead to tyranny.
But be clear about fascism: it's dictatorial marriage between corporations and the government. It's when giant corporations write legislation and it gets rammed through, and the people matter not at all.
And that's all you really need to read.
-I see the state as evil when conservatives are in charge.
-Fascism favored corporations over workers even though corporations were heavily regulated. The Fascists saw trade unions as a threat so they threw union leaders in jail and created a state union and curtailed the right to strike and the right to negotiate with their employers - the state made all the decisions about wages, benefits and work conditions. The Fascists also started creating monopolies in business destroying competition and the heads of corporations were making a ton of money.
Conservatives are against individual freedom. They're always trying to tell people how to live their lives and trying to force their brand of morality on the rest of society.
Conservatives, in general, promote economic liberty while trying to legislate personal morality. Liberals, in general, promote personal liberty and while trying to control the economy for the purpose of "spreading the wealth". Libertarians try to promote both personal and economic liberty. Which would you rather have?
"Spread the wealth" is what candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber. Sometimes the phrase used is "a level playing field", or "more affordable (fill in the blank)".
Why am I not surprised that you would do that?
OK, what exactly did he say and how exactly did he mean it?
I did not admit ignorance, and neither you nor LuvLuLu have actually bothered to refute my statement with anything resembling a fact. But just in case you want to come up with some other lame refutation, here's Obama's quote from ABC:
Obama said, "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html
The Libertarian philosophy will not work. Ever. It's pie in the sky that has catastrophic fatal flaws.
How successful has that been overall? Or for that matter the War on Drugs? At what point do you call either one a success?
The War on Poverty has worked, not perfectly, but that's also more because of the Republicans efforts to increase the wealth of the rich on the backs of the poor than because the War on Poverty was misguided or bad.
I neither said nor implied that it was a liberal anything.
The War on Poverty has worked, not perfectly, but that's also more because of the Republicans efforts to increase the wealth of the rich on the backs of the poor than because the War on Poverty was misguided or bad.
Has the overall rate of poverty significantly decreased since 1964? If so, then how much and how many billions of dollars has it taken? And which specific Republican efforts are you talking about?
No one political party's philosophy has worked swimmingly so far, has it? And seeing as how Libertarian-style governance has not been attempted (except for maybe Jefferson's administration), how can you say with certainty it wouldn't work? Can you name even one "fatal flaw"?
Since when is setting a standard on wages a conservative idea? Please be specific.
Wrong-o, buddy. Here's the literal denotation of liberalism, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:
"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"
Individualism is one of our strengths; your side is the one that is more likely to be of a robotic mindset.
Is that why "diversity" is always framed in terms of group identities and never about individual qualifications and accomplishments?
That's an excellent point. Unfortunately, the federal government has run roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, the ones that would reserve powers to the states and individuals that are not delegated or specified for the federal government. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have ever reduced the size of the federal government outside of troop reductions. More centralized power in D.C. means less of a voice for you.
Well you're partially right. Jim Crow laws were the result of the Supreme Court ruling in 1883 (?) that several federal laws, including the 1875 Civil Rights Act, were unconstitutional. So even though Congress got it right, the Supremes got it wrong, and both are part of that "big bad government". And if I'm not mistaken, it was a Republican-led Congress that passed the legislation. That set up Jim Crow and eventually Plessy v. Ferguson, which set back civil rights back another 60 years until Brown v. Board of Education.
Your contention that fascism is leftist is absolutely ludicrous. Look here and here. The United States emerged out of ENLIGHTENED LIBERALISM, not Conservatism, and you clearly don't understand that. Your statement that Conservatives are defined by a belief in individualism and individual freedom is directly opposite to the rhetoric coming out of the neocon leaders today. The best thing I can say about you is that you don't know what you're talking about.
This must've been a show from the 1950's.
BTW, what more proof do you need that the guy was a Righty than the fact that Fox News is barely even covering this murder?
How, exactly, does hating anyone other than white Christians make von Brunn "right wing"? Didn't Rev. Jeremiah Wright allegedly make a disparaging comment about Jews the other day? Or Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1984 remark about "Himey Town"? No one considers either of them right wing...
It seems you are either unable or unwilling to put any detailed thought in this thread to substantiate your belief that Nazism is right wing.
I just watched the first 6 minutes of Hannity today and he is pitting two african americans against each other as it relates to hatred against jews.
They played a clip of Obama's preachers' rantings during the time.
Does he not know better? I bet he does.
He is doing it for his beliefs, greed and, being the coward he is (and others like him) and not admitting to his true feelings.
God save America, and the rest of the world too.
I'll never understand this senseless use of the words 'right' and 'left' to describe opinions on Public and National Policy...
If there's truly a relationship between those opinions, and horizontal directions with respect to the body, then it's lost on me... I hear people argue about the 'left' and the 'right', but without saying anything specific at all about Public or National Policy, and so I'm left to wonder just what it is they're saying, just as though I were listening to people arguing in the Chinese language... of course, if they were actually arguing specific Public or National Policy issues, such as the regulation of financial services companies and banks, then those would be the terms they spoke in, wouldn't they... they'd say "regulations" and "banks" and "AIG", wouldn't they... and what place then would there be for the words 'left' and 'right'... no place, and no sensible reason to say those words (unless you were indicating horizontal directions, like in "there's a copy of the proposed regulations just to your left", or "the bank I'm talking about is the one over there on the right")... but when people neglect the particulars of their Public and National Policy opinions, and substitute instead the senseless words 'left' and 'right' (truly senseless in the context of Public and National Policy), what are they really saying?
I'll tell you...
They're saying "I despise you and your political opinions"
They're not truly saying anything about National or Public Policy when they say 'left' and 'right', because if they were, they'd have to mention the particulars in order to be understood, particulars such as regulation and emissions and Congressional ethics (Rules) and campaign finance law and IRAQ and Afghanistan and National Security... words and opinions so full, there'd be no room or need for the senseless diversion of descending into language that refers properly to horizontal directions with respect to the body...
Otherwise, they say nothing substantial or real or sensible about Public and National Policy... they just say 'left' and 'right', or they dispense even with those coded words, and get mad and use the true words they are code for:
"I despise you and your opinions"
Of course, there is one truly sensible and meaningful and even preferred and even brilliant use of a word that refers to a horizontal direction, when giving your opinion on Public and National Policy, and that word is RIGHT...
As in "I am right" or "I am on the right side" or "my opinion is right"
Because the word RIGHT, in addition to being a horizontal direction, means also proper, correct, appropriate, genuine, and true.
That's the only political use of the word RIGHT that makes sense to me... because when people say they are RIGHT, they are also saying they are correct and proper and appropriate and genuine and true, aren't they...
Right or not right?
I mean, true or not true? Correct or not correct?
In discussing Policy opinions, about the only thing more backwards than calling yourself 'left', is calling those you disagree with 'right'...
That's another thing I'll never understand about this 'left' and 'right' nonsense (except when I think my Policy opinions are right, or true or correct, in which case I say what those opinions are in the sensible particulars and details of them, and then I have no need to say the word 'right' in either of it's senses).
Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute on Glenn Beck
Source: www.youtube.com
Dr. Harry Binswanger, a member of the Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors, on Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel , June 10. Dr. Binswanger will discuss anti-Semitism in light of todays holocaust museum shooting.
The guy hates Jews, constantly rants and raves against "Neocons", and has an affinity for "cutting defense". He is a proclaimed member of the Aryan Nations, who subscribe to the following:
•Promote and preserve the industry and livelihood of the citizens.
•[E]liminate the current practice of damaging and poisoning life and environment.
•Provide honest aid to farmers and other business people, and shall restore to all citizens rightful land ownership.
•Make the necessary provisions for the aged, who have been impoverished by fraud (inflation).
•Confiscate all unearned wealth, stolen by fraud or usury and that which is gain from war.
•Nationalize all monopolies and multi-national interest[s].
•Immediately bring about land reform….
Right winger? I thinks NOT!! Left winger? Hell, this guy should run for the Democratic Nomination in 2012. His criminal record should push him right over the top of Obama.
Will the real right wing crackpot please stand up, or can someone please let me off this merry-go-around?
Look at his ideology, and what he espoused. Pure far far right wing extremism. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
THAT is the "liberalism" that Hitler and Mussolini rejected.
If you could all just step back from your labels and think of reality a moment, it would help a lot.
The two axes of socio-politics is freedom and individualism, or force and collectivism. Full stop. All history, all societies, have that fundamental choice. To be honest, you must recognize that Nazism and Communism are totalitarian, i.e. the very extreme of the force/collectivism axis. They must be on the same side of the spectrum, and we call it "leftwing" because that is, without a doubt, where people place communism.
How can you defend having the fundamental, extreme alternatives, be the same thing -- i.e. totalitarianism? Do you want to place freedom/classical liberalism -- the antithesis of those extremes, in the middle, as if to imply it is a compromise between extremes? That is bizarre.
Left-wing and right-wing philosophies can both go too far when they drift into authoritarian territory, that doesn't mean they're both on the "same side of the spectrum". That is bizarre.
Communism, socialism, progressivism like facism in that the bonding of commerce to the government with the government as controlling entity, serving as political goal. It's just a matter of what in the government serves as power broker, an individual, people's committees or czars.
Conservatism is all about the individual's power to control their own lifes, morally (don't mock ours), economically (don't make everyone indebetted to the government via regulation and feudal pay source)and politically (free expression of all views but not the demand that those views have to be agreed to)
PS to the mm(fvl) censors, is this acceptable according to your standards, or is this obscene or hateful?
Politically, take an elementary poly-sci course and see that structurally, Hitler's view of a government, it's control of the economy and the political arena are similar to communism. If he had been victorious over the russians, the only change in government would have been in the leadership model, not in philosophy.
Facism, socialism, communism, progressivsim all see the ideal government as one that is top heavy with limited input from teh general citizenry. You say conservatism is not about individual liberty, please give an example of those 'current events' that proves your point.
Tea Party movement,Terry Sciavo,the Patriot Act,gay-marriage ban,state right movement...I could go on but you get the picture.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Didn't these apply to the Soviet Union as well? Are they not considered "leftist" according to your own arguments?
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
What political party or ideology does not attempt to identify some common foe?
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
And just how prominent was religion once Hitler or Mussolini took power?
9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
And yet both Bush and Obama are out to protect businesses from failing...go figure...
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
Unions have not been eliminated, and the bulk of the unions are in government, both at the federal and state level. That's quite a threat...
Did you actually read any of these "tenets"? Even Naomi Wolf didn't characterize the Bush administration as fascist in her book, "The End of America" (by the way a very good read).
Language manipulation, obfuscation, demagoguery and doublespeak are their only hope for keeping their highly lucrative fear and paranoia industry afloat. Like cornered animals sensing their imminent end, the CRAAWMs are lashing out in desperation.
Discrimination is discrimination. When someone is taking a test for a promotion, and then the test is scrapped and the promotion is denied because not enough people of a certain color passed the test, that's discrimination. It has nothing to do with Orwellian vocabulary, it's the very stark-cold facts and realities.
If anything, it's the oft-encountered slogan "Islam is a religion of Peace" that fits the bill of Orwellian.
And as for the Nazi museum murderer - I doubt he has any affiliation to any conservative convictions or even Republican tenets and platforms. I guess it's the Democratic party that excels in matters of white supremacy and gay-bashing (Robert KKK Byrd and Fred Phelps, respectively). As a Jewish gay guy who despises both parties, the way I see it Democrats are hungry wolves compared to the Republican foxes (no pun intended).
Lest we forget - ELF - a vicious, murderous environmentalist terrorist group, the murderer of Dutch MP Pim Fortuyn, Stalin, Lenin etc...Many US presidential assassins had leftist leanings, the list goes on.
And the reasons Hitler might be cast as leftist are (to put it succinctly): A. Socialism. B. Sacrifices made for the greater good (of the Aryan race of course).