The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

originally posted by: Pyle
What is with all the threads on ATS calling the left Nazis and racists instead of calling out the actual nazis and racists in the US?

quit the following and it will end:

Attempts to "rewrite" History so that the Abolitionists were Slavers and the party that pushed for it has become Racist....

Well what is really going on and you won't admit it is the Dems who are Leftist/NAZI/Fascicst and are using "SOCIAL JUSTICE" to spread their lies, are rewriting History and those of us on ATS are kind enough to give you a chance to get the facts straight. But, it must be a waste of our time on those who would not here the facts and rewrite History to suit themselves so they won't have to address the issues and pretend they are right.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But since you brought it up, if anything said rule set props up protects everyone but straight white males (ie special rights), therefore to continue pushing for more and more fine details is a perpetution of SJW Supremacy

Social justice, in these contexts, should always be "supreme".

Not if the ones who now 'claim' to know what it is get to decide what "justice" is. Their desire to get what they want without using their brains is epic "Idiocracy". They are clueless and will be causing mayhem that could lead to peoples death prematurely like so many in all the Social construct govs of Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela and N. Korea. Social justice should NOT come before the law or there is no law then.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66


The DEMOCRATIC side1956:

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Sounds like REPUBLICANS too...

Well isn't that interesting!? The Republicans were RINO"s then too!.....

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Gryphon66

No were pissed at your bs tactics, and sick of nazi style persecution tearing our sociery apart. And some of us are extra motivated because we truly are against The System that oppresses all of us, the whole damn world, and you guys are all minions of that system whether witting or not, meaning it tests our patience all that much more.

Best observation I have seen of logic. The debate is about the System stomping on us. The so called 'leftist', for lack of a better term right now, are helping the "Globalist/Robber Barons" that is our common enemy. Divide and conquer is all they have after the money. Diversity IS GOOD but we have to unite about freedoms and just focus on who is taking them away that has the power to do so. Joe Six Pack is getting f'd if he is white, black, green, red or yellow. Joe isn't as dumb as some think but is slow figuring it out.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: xuenchen

Right...and then this happened

Living in the South then I can tell you the good people in my family and others here, chose to leave the Dem's because of the Racism of the Dem's. The only logical choice left for people who wanted freedom and justice for all was the R's with the Blacks who were card carrying R's back then. I tried to vote R. after I gave up on the D's when Reagan was Pres. I will in the locals if they are a good person. Quickly gave them up on national elections to help the Libertarians because of the RINO liar types.....The RINO's i tell you are actually Dem helping progressives taking us down the path to communism.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem is that to you its about race. To others its heritage.

To me, its states rights and antifederalism.

Its not right to presuppose motives based solely onyour own worldview.

FWIW....my family comes from gypsy immigrants, german settlers, and "Lebanese" people. Only the "Lebanese" lived here during the civil war, and were likely freed slaves that tried to assume a different ethnicity. It was pretty common at the time.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Funny how out of all the people that disagreed with your bullsh*t, about AAs voting democrat because they have been brainwashed, the only one you chose to pull the victimised woman card on was an openly Muslim member...

I think others noticed that as well, but I'm damn well gonna say it.

I noticed. I also noticed that she later admitted that she hadn't even read my post before replying w/the "is it because I'm a woman?" response. And then later she admitted that she mischaracterized my words because she felt that I was mischaracterizing her words, even though she hadn't actually read my post to see if I'd actually mischaracterized her words. Yeah...

Wow.

Okay so the ones "rewriting history" are the Nazis who want to lead us to Communism.

Gotcha.

The sheer ... ignorance of such an absurd claim is mind-boggling.

The facts of history have been demonstrated here time and time again. Here's more:

Lee Atwater's Infamous Interview on the Southern Strategy

It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

NAACP Mourns the Passing of Robert Byrd

The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So why do African Americans say we vote for Democrats? In our own words, please.

Because of Pres Johnson's vow...... No joke and once he got them hooked on Dems, the economic and family situation went to hell, period. I go to church in a white church AND in a Black church. Sing in the choirs and both churches apparently voted R. The black christians have to be quite about DJT because the non church going blacks in this community have turned out to be absolute haters who have and will hurt them, their property and their families. Fortunately it appears that more attend Church and love their neighbors than not. The vote here was a massive landslide for DJT where white, black and legal immigrants voted together for the 1st time in a while. Not many BLM but they will do something and get on the news a bit over stuff like a car sticker and bashing that car.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Responding to the absurd claims of someone else about "race" is not making it "all about race."

Come on, Texan.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem is that to you its about race. To others its heritage.

How is that a problem? Many of the confederate states openly stated that they were seceding because of the slavery of black people. Do I really have to keep bringing out the "articles of secession" from each of the confederate states? Well, here they are.

Have you actually looked at what States like Texas and Mississippi said? This is literally from the 2nd paragraph of Mississippi's declaration (all of these are found in that link):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union,

How is that not about race? And this is from the 3rd paragraph of Texas's declaration:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

How is that not also about race? ETA: And this is from later on in Texas's declaration (read it all for full effect):

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

And here are literally the first 2 sentences from Georgia's declaration:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Getting the point yet? Or do I need to point out the words of William Tappan Thompson, the pro-confederate newspaper editor & propagandist who declared "As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.[5]… Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG [sic]." (HERE)

And unlike you, both sides of my family tree were actual slaves during that time period, most living in 3 different States. I'm talking about just 4 generations ago they were slaves. 3 generations ago, my great grandmother's brothers were the ones killed by ex-confederate Klansmen. 2 generations ago, my grandfather & his peers were drafted to fight against the literal Nazis in WW2, but had to fight in racially segregated units, still came back as 2nd class citizens for another 20 years, and would later fight in the Civil Rights Movement. 1 generation ago, both of my parents grew up during the Civil Rights Movement & the fall of racial segregation; were kids when black Americans were first allowed to vote; protested at their college for racial equality, etc.

The entire time they all had actual Klansmen & pro-confederacy right wingers opposing them, with some opposing actual Nazis as well. This isn't some biography I read; it's literally my family tree. So no, I'm not going to pretend that race isn't a major part of the issue when even the people from that time period said it was about race in their own words. And this doesn't even go into my own playground fist fights when I was in grade school in a small town w/people for calling me the n-word, telling me to go back to Africa, trying to jump me & the other "students of color", us facing off against actual skinhead gangs, etc. Isn't it ironic that both my grandfather and I have both fought actual Nazis? lol

The right wing has NEVER cared about my heritage or the effects that their words, actions, or monuments have had on my heritage. So why should I care about theirs? Let's be real here. People like you say it's just about heritage, but you don't give a crap about how that heritage destroyed or affected my heritage (don't forget, my enslaved maternal line were Muscogees/"Creek Indians"). If you can't accept that your "heritage" created a horrible & painful heritage for mine, then why should I care about the pride and familial ties that you feel from yours? I'm being serious here.

It's like you're asking me to ignore the racial element when the racial element was the whole point in the first place. If people want to remember, honor, and promote those bigots, they're free to do so in their private lives and on private property. But I'll always be against that crap being displayed on public lands.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Let's not forget the words of "the Great Emancipator" Abraham Lincoln:

“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Source

Or Confederate President Jefferson Davis:

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

Or Confederate Vice President Andrew Stephens:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep. Even a lot of the anti-slavery politicians didn't actually want equality for us here. 3 or 4 decades before the Civil War, there was an effort to send freed Africans from all over North America back to Africa, into American colonies there. Before Liberia became recognized as a nation, it was composed of a lot of American colonies like New Georgia, Mississippi Colony, and Pennsylvania Colony. "The American Colonization Society" is a great place to start with that.

Supposedly Lincoln at one time was a supporter of this "back to Africa" movement, though I don't have any data on this. And during the European colonization of Africa in the 1880s & 1890s known as the "Scramble for Africa", only 2 African countries weren't conquered: Ethiopia, because they defeated the invading Italians, and Liberia, because it was an American vassal state. Its capital Monrovia is named after the US President James Monroe who started implementing the initiative.

And ironically, the KKK supposedly had a nonaggression pact with the controversial civil rights leader and businessman Marcus Garvey because he was starting a transportation company that was meant to help Africans in North America leave. In an even bigger twist of irony, the FBI saw Garvey as a threat and sabotaged that company with the help of their agent James Wormley Jones. Many African American communities have almost completely forgotten Garvey though, because the goal for most of the major civil rights leaders was for us to have equal rights & privileges here, not for us to simply flee.

a reply to: Justoneman

yes...THEY are the ones trying to KEEP democracy building, THEY TOO wanted Hillary over a non-lawyer ,outsider.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Today, in modern times (not 4 generations back), it is more about heritage to some. To others, like me, its about antifederalism and states rights.

Everything you posted, while true, has nothing to do with what I said.

I'll add that the language you see in those documents reflects the times. Times that were set up by British colonialism and its use of white racial superiority to justify the domination of savages. The self evident truth of all people being created equal had not really been realized by Americans in the south. Partially because of this tradition, and partially because to recognize it would be to upend their economy. It was much less about race, and much more about using racial superiority as a pretext to maintain a domination over another group.

Honestly, i don't care about statues. I don't care about the confederacy. I hate the Federal Government, and like to stick it in their eye as much as I can....beyond that I don't give a crap about southern history. But I do recognize that what is happening right now is a response, a rush to action, and a very, very big mistake when it comes to uniting our nation. An entire segment of the country is feeling more and more cornered, and it will not make matters any better any time soon. And for what? Because of perceived race issues?

Who is a bigger racist:

- Bubba driving his dually with the stars and bars in the back window
- the law makers who continue to uphold legislation that targets minorities for prison time, while erecting development after development to isolate them further into the inner city?

Divide and conquer. Thank God the statues are coming down. The prisons sure ain't.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: enlightenedservant



Who is a bigger racist:

- Bubba driving his dually with the stars and bars in the back window
- the law makers who continue to uphold legislation that targets minorities for prison time, while erecting development after development to isolate them further into the inner city?

Divide and conquer. Thank God the statues are coming down. The prisons sure ain't.

Nicely put.

It's amazing how issues can be overblown to distract from more relevant things like incarceration and gentrification.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'll add that the language you see in those documents reflects the times. Times that were set up by British colonialism and its use of white racial superiority to justify the domination of savages.

There were abolitionists and pro-equality people back then, as well as women's suffrage groups & Christians like the Methodists who were against racism & segregation. However, the language in those documents reflects the views and theories about white supremacy that its writers held. Don't try to diminish that.

Also, it wasn't just British colonialism that pushed white supremacy. The French had large colonies in lands that would become a part of the continental US, and they still had similar white supremacy & slavery laws (called corvee). The Spanish & then Mexico controlled almost the entire region that would become the southwest US, and they also had similar white supremacy & slavery laws (called repartimiento).

It was much less about race, and much more about using racial superiority as a pretext to maintain a domination over another group.

Reread what you typed. How does that make any sense? It wasn't really about race because it was about the use of racial superiority to rule over others? Dude, that's literally about race! If the social label of "race" is the factor that determines who rules and who is oppressed, then it's literally about race. Race was clearly the deciding factor, right?

Honestly, i don't care about statues. I don't care about the confederacy. I hate the Federal Government, and like to stick it in their eye as much as I can....beyond that I don't give a crap about southern history. But I do recognize that what is happening right now is a response, a rush to action, and a very, very big mistake when it comes to uniting our nation. An entire segment of the country is feeling more and more cornered, and it will not make matters any better any time soon. And for what? Because of perceived race issues?

What started this whole debate? Not the OP, but the debate in general? The govt of a specific State decided to remove a statue. The right wing got pissed off about it & launched a "Unite the Right" rally to protest the removal of the monument. (Yes, the same right wing that claims to push for State's rights was pissed off that a State made a decision in its own jurisdiction). This rally brought out swarms of literal Nazis and scum like David Duke, with participants literally marching while chanting "Jews will not replace us" & Nazi slogans like "Blood & Soil".

You say it's over perceived race issues, but how else are we supposed to perceive literal neo-Nazis? Race was one of the fundamental pillars of their movement, just as it was one of the fundamental pillars of the chants and signs at the "Unite the Right" rally. And you're a mod here so I know you've seen the countless threads that have been deleted for overt racism and/or bigotry since that Charlottesville rally. Why should we care if the Nazis, klansmen, and their sympathizers feel cornered? You don't think the actual targets of Nazis & klansmen feel cornered when seeing their crap?

Who is a bigger racist:

- Bubba driving his dually with the stars and bars in the back window
- the law makers who continue to uphold legislation that targets minorities for prison time, while erecting development after development to isolate them further into the inner city?

Is this a roundabout way of bringing up the same old narrative that modern Democrats are actually the real racists against today's African Americans? If so, you might want to read this post of mine (HERE) that goes into a lot of the reasons why we tend to support Democrats.

Though for the record, Repubs are typically the biggest "tough on crime" party. Republican led States are even some of the slowest in the adoption of medical & recreational marijuana, too (w/drug laws being some of the largest contributors to incarceration rates). Repubs also control the majority of Governorships, State legislatures, and mayoral seats, as well as both chambers of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court right now. So if anyone is making the laws to build more prisons, target minorities, and the such like you implied, probability says that more Repubs are doing it than Dems. With all of the power that they have, why aren't Republicans improving the things that you mentioned?

Divide and conquer. Thank God the statues are coming down. The prisons sure ain't.

Then it's good that we can do more than one thing at a time, right? No need to shut down one debate in favor of another when we can always hold both debates simultaneously.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It makes sense because of cause and effect.

The racism was taught through institutional systems. It was propped up through economy. It wasn't one group saying one day, "Hey...we are so awesome that we are the most awesome". The racism was a means to an end: to maintain a status quo and justify horrid actions within the bounds of religious belief.

Is it a silly point to note? Perhaps. But when trying to understand the language used, it helps to know the history that lead up to that point. You seem to understand that history. So we will just agree to disagree.

As it relates to the parties...i see no difference between the two. One wants to imprison the masses, the other wants to isolate them from opportunity to maintain a kept voter base. Neither have the best interests of minorities in mind. I will point out, however, that Obama had full control of the US government, and did nothing to fix the issues of racially unequal legislation. So the same finger points both ways here, and further supports my point that neither party is here to look out for you or I. They are here to remain in power by using whatever emotionally charged words and issues they can. Not much has changed since the Articles of Confederation, in that regard. Its just that the goalposts have moved a bit.

Feel free to have a debate on statues. It won't get anywhere. And it won't catch fish for you. The only way to improve race is to improve opportunities. And that will not happen so long as we continue to isolate minorities geographically into "opportunity deserts". It won't happen as long as we cram minorities into the same project housing where we keep sex offenders and gang bangers. The only option for a felon is subsidized housing. The same subsidized housing we ask black women to raise good, solid citizens in. It doesn't take much insight to see how miserably that will fail (and it has). I fail to see how tearing down a statue in West Virginia will stop the wholesale slaughter of minorities by minorities in Chicago. I fail to see how tertiary education participation can be helped by removing Robert E Lee. It just doesn't make any sense at all. All it does it effect the feels, which do nothing to quench the thirst for opportunity that minorities are seeking.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

On a seperate note here: what does "Unite the RIght" have to do with "the right"?

I ask as someone who leans both ways, and cannot figure out how these broad brushes keep getting used by otherwise insightful people.

This particular element of the argument has nothing to do with political view. Unite The Right is a hate group, plain and simple. They are a "far right" extremist group full of people that most on "the right" wouldn't have anything to do with. There only relevance is a single event, on a single day, where another whacko extremist group showed up to fight with them.