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

It wasn't the existence of the "Unite the Right" putsch that bothered me. These a-holes regularly surface when they think their "time has come."

What bothered me is that so many "Conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, right-libertarians, etc." here at ATS and in the culture at large EXPLAINED AWAY their actions! Claimed that invading a town with Nazi flags in hand, Nazi slogans shouted from their frothing mouths, bringing violence and death to the RESIDENTS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE VA (that composed the counter-protestors) were "just exercising their First Amendment rights." The President himself claimed that BOTH SIDES were basically the same.

And many here at ATS agreed with that apologist nonsense.

THAT is the danger here. A lot of folks "on the right" agree in part with these Nazi and White Supremacist pricks and are willing to look the other way ...

... and that's how it starts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Both sides are basically the same. The only difference is what they are intolerant of, and the educational level of those involved. The tactics look pretty similar to me.

I agree with them only insofar as they have a right to assemble. TBH, it makes it easier to know who the assholes are if they feel free to speak about what makes them an asshole. That said....folks on ATS talking about that event were all talking out their ass. Every one of them (myself included). Details still are sketchy, i think mostly because authorities don't want to admit any wrong doing like "Hey maybe we shouldn't have given a permit to those clowns" or "maybe we should have sought some outside support to deal with the group we authorized to assemble in our park". It all started with a permit.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Both sides are basically the same. The only difference is what they are intolerant of, and the educational level of those involved. The tactics look pretty similar to me.

I agree with them only insofar as they have a right to assemble. TBH, it makes it easier to know who the assholes are if they feel free to speak about what makes them an asshole. That said....folks on ATS talking about that event were all talking out their ass. Every one of them (myself included). Details still are sketchy, i think mostly because authorities don't want to admit any wrong doing like "Hey maybe we shouldn't have given a permit to those clowns" or "maybe we should have sought some outside support to deal with the group we authorized to assemble in our park". It all started with a permit.

Both sides are the same? In Charlottesville?

Nope. Not even close. The residents of a town stood up against Nazi invaders. They called for help and help came.

It's not comparable to Berkeley or Washington DC or any other place where "ANTIFA" groups have inflicted violence on others. For those groups, I don't disagree with your equation.

But not in Charlottesville.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thats a 3rd side. Residents of Charlottsville are not Antifa (or maybe some are, but you know where im going here). Im referring to both sets of known agitators that showed up. The residents caught in the middle likely didn't expect the militants from the left to show up to fight....but they did. That is the "other side" im referring to.

I say "known agitators" because it is VERY common that agents provocateurs are placed in these types of events when a spark is wanted. Its been done for years, sometimes proven and sometimes not.

In all of this, the people of that small town are the victims. Its them that had the ugliest side of US Politics come to their town and take a big crap on it. But make no mistake: there are extremist factions in both parties, and they are behind the worst of what we see. They are the ones driving words into violence. And I hold both sides in complete contempt.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's just it though Texan ... the residents weren't "caught in the middle."

The two permits issued for counter-protesters were issued to residents. The groups that stood up to the Nazi invaders were residents.

Who organized the counterprotest?

A Charlottesville-based network of activists and clergy members called Solidarity Cville called attention to the “Unite the Right” rally and urged people to show their opposition. The group includes ministers from local churches, as well as racial justice activists.

New York Times

Brittany Caine-Conley, a minister at Sojourners United Church of Christ in Charlottesville who is part of Solidarity Cville, sent a warning message in advance of the rally. “There is an extremely high potential for physical violence and brutality directed at our community,” she wrote. “We need your help — we don’t have the numbers to stand up to this on our own.”

Organizers of the counterprotest said it was important to turn out even with the threat of violence.

“We cannot ignore them away as their numbers grow and their influence expands,” Matthew Owens of Showing Up for Racial Justice, a local group that is part of Solidarity Cville, said in a statement. “We cannot let their worldview normalize.”

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you would KINDLY remove law enforcement protection of supremacists of any type I WOULD love to show you otherwise.
With SAP gloves, I should think.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok, I am home now & able to compose more substantive comments.

I had hoped you might understand that when I said I was out of town for a funeral, I was not in a position to focus and respond thoughtfully to your comment. In fact, I was not just out of town, I was in another country (Canada). I couldn’t use my cellular data on my phone — I was restricted to hotel wi-fi only, & pecking out a lengthy response would just be an exercise in frustration for me. Furthermore, my emotions have been running high over the last few days, & I probably should have just not responded to your mischaracterization of my comments, at all, but I really have had it with that & couldn’t keep from defending myself and serving it back to you.

To be honest, it didn’t take a thorough read to see how you distorted what you quoted from me and then set out to begin the next few paragraphs with “You seem to not know this or that…” and nothing I've said indicated any such lack of knowledge.

I have now read your comment and I am on my laptop where I can properly type up my thoughts.

First, I have to say that I thought we were purely discussing the issue of racism and black Americans with regard to the Democratic party. You’ve rolled Islamaphobia and gender equality issues into your comment and if that was the discussion (it wasn’t), I would have agreed that Muslims have very good reasons to favor the Democratic party.

I would also have said that the Democratic party is better on gender equality issues than the Republican party — although I left the Democratic party, in 2008, because it was/is overrun by rabid misogynists, IMO. Women’s issues are near and dear to my heart and I could no longer stomach the party after the misogyny Democratic voters leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, in 2008, and after Democratic party leaders prioritized party rules over counting actual votes when the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee met to determine how the votes in the 2008 Michigan and Florida primaries would be counted.

But I did not run to the arms of the Republican party. I registered ‘Unaffiliated.’

Regarding your thoughts on religious values among black Americans, I am sure you know there are many black conservatives that specifically take issue with the Democratic party’s policies and attitudes on religion (Christianity, in particular). I would not say that, in general, the Democratic party has much religious-value appeal outside of the Muslim community. As an atheist, I was attracted by the party's lack of interest in appealing to religious voters.

Furthermore, I am not entirely convinced that all is what is seems with regard to the ‘emboldening of white supremacists,’ by the Republican party. I believe 100% that agent provocateurs are used to discredit political parties/movements and have been for many, many decades, in the U.S. In fact, I find the ‘Unite the Right’ rally-theme to stink to high heaven. Take a look around….neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans WANT to own white supremacy, the KKK, and neo-nazis. So why should I take it for granted that white supremacy, the KKK, and neo-nazis are a problem in the Republican party? I cannot and I won’t.

I do cringe at many comments from Republicans on ATS with regard to racism, but I cringe at many from Democrats, too.

I don’t believe there only exists racism in the form of blatant hate speech or dog-whistling. Nope.

It’s not so.

I think the Democratic party exploits the issue of racism to appeal to black voters, while delivering policies that result in segregation….no matter what their candidates say in opposition to segregation. I also think the Democratic party literally terrorizes all Americans on the issue of racism. It’s little wonder to me that 90%+ of black voters are Democrats considering the party relentlessly tells us all how much Republicans hate black people. Perfectly legitimate issues, like free speech & states' rights, are conflated to racist dogwhistles because those distortions serve the interest of the Democratic party.

I don’t think that, in 1964, suddenly the Democratic party changed their tune. In fact, I think the Democratic party HAD NO CHOICE but to accept that black Americans are equal and have equal rights. The party lost their white supremacy and were forced to develop a new strategy…devalue the black vote by monopolizing the voting bloc, enslave black Americans through policies that result in a dependence on the party, project the party’s racist history on to the Republican party and terrorize black Americans….tell them they are hated in such general terms that they feel hated by possibly every white person they encounter, and claim the moral high ground by feigning to be interested in *undoing* all the damage the party is responsible for inflicting on black Americans for centuries. If you want to debate the success and failures of the Democratic party’s policies with regard to black Americans, we can do that. The proof is in the pudding though.

And their failed policies don’t just affect black Americans. The poor are getting poorer, the quality of education, in the U.S, continually deteriorates, education is still inaccessible to too many people, healthcare is still unaffordable.

Do I think Democratic voters, themselves, are responsible for this? No. Not really. However, there are some white Democratic voters that hide behind the skirts of black Americans with their strawman race-baiting, for the sole purpose of scoring a few cheap partisan political points — with NO REGARD for the damage they are inflicting on race relations in this country. That's exploitation and it is racist. Flowery talk about holding up a tan arm to a light-skinned black person's arm and how there is some profound point to be made in that. Bleh.

And, NO, this is not a liberal vs. conservative thing.

This is a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Check the voting stats. 95% of people voted Democrat and Republican, in 2016.

People try to act like they aren’t really Democrats or Republicans…they are simply liberal or conservative. But that is pure bullsh*t. The voting stats do not lie.

The Democratic party has the history of oppressing and exploiting black Americans and they didn’t suddenly stop doing that. They just found new ways to oppress and exploit. Ways that are much more significant and destructive, IMO, than waving a confederate flag. And I am allowed to have that opinion.

I don’t care if Strom Thurmond or a couple of other prominent racist Democrats switched parties after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That doesn’t impress me, at all. For all I know, they were agents provocateurs who were simply ushering in the new method of white supremacy practiced by Democratic party leaders…the one I described above.

It makes me queasy to see Republican voters fall into this trap and take up the causes that Democrats WANT them to take up. But, yeah, they need to own that…and first they need to see it for what it is…they are being baited.

Black Americans shouldn’t be voting for either party -- IMO -- and I am glad to read that you voted for Jill Stein although I see you don’t support the Green Party anymore. For the record, I voted for Cynthia McKinney, in 2008, and Gary Johnson, in 2016.

If we were all wise and frugal with our votes, we would be voting for third parties to end this horrible division that has bamboozled 95% of voters.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So it was those religious leaders that are referenced here, by some of the residents of Charlottesville?

It was basically impossible to miss the antifa for the group of us who were on the steps of Emancipation Park in an effort to block the Nazis and alt-righters from entering.

Antifa was there. The residents were launching counter protests. Antifa pushed that counterprotest a bit further. Their presences was the provokation that the Nazi-tards were loooking for. But Antifa was present, and has been attested to by a multitude of folks. In most cases, the clergy seems to have quelled their passion (at least for a bit) and gained an ally in the extremists. But like any wild animal, the extremists went back to biting and clawing instead of peaceful counterprotesting.

It is hard to imagine the bedlam that was described from the left coming from Clergy and their followers. There was a 3rd party present.

I don't think Antifa files for permits, but I could be wrong. They are an anarchist org, and filing for a permit is anathema to such orgs.

if you're between a group waving swastika flags and telling vice reporters that the jews must be exterminated, and another group whose only uniting factor is taking the thought of a nazi renaissance very seriously and really wanting to stop it, and you consider yourself to be "caught", i feel like that sheds a pretty grim light on your own values

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't think Antifa files for permits, but I could be wrong. They are an anarchist org, and filing for a permit is anathema to such orgs.

No they wouldn't file for a permit but they're not an anarchist org in the slightest, anarchists may make up a percentage of AntiFA but it's always been about counter protesting fascist deomonstrations, left and right unite to stand up against neo-Nazism, there's no single political doctrine it follows as doing so would give rise to another form of fascism.

originally posted by: continuousThunder
if you're between a group waving swastika flags and telling vice reporters that the jews must be exterminated, and another group whose only uniting factor is taking the thought of a nazi renaissance very seriously and really wanting to stop it, and you consider yourself to be "caught", i feel like that sheds a pretty grim light on your own values

Word. Scary how many people are ignorant to this and seem to think burying their heads in the sand is going to make things better.

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No we didn't. The Revolutionary War was fought because a bunch of smugglers didn't want to pay taxes on corporate products they were forced to buy because they were sponsored by the British government. A good portion of the colonies didn't even want to fight the war until Franklin ran his propaganda campaign to unite the colonies, and even then they still had trouble drumming up support for the war.

Gonna call BS on your statement here because of your ignorance and general attitude to anybody who disagrees with you.

You shouldn't disagree with someone just because you don't like them. It exposes your ignorance.

The roots of Colonial discontent were in Boston and surrounded smugglers like John Hancock trying to get around paying duties or taxes on imports. It was a huge game where the Crown and smugglers went back and forth trying to get business from the other. Which culminated in the Boston Tea Party.
Organized Smuggling in Colonial Boston

Boston Tea Party wasn't about taxes, rather than the fact that the British East India Company found a way of importing tea cheaper than John Hancock could smuggle it in to Boston and it was ruining John Hancock's smuggling business.

Revenue Act

During the 1750s, the Board of Trade was trying to figure out a way to crack down on smugglers and colonists who otherwise abused the Navigations Acts. Parliament passed the Revenue Act of 1762 in an attempt to halt bribery as routinely practiced by colonists circumventing the Molasses Act.

Of course the British measures did not sit well with colonists. One target of American outrage was customs collectors, whose job was to stop smugglers and collect taxes. They sometimes conducted searches under writs of assistance. These were general warrants that allowed them to search any house for smuggled goods. When customs officials in 1768 seized John Hancock's ship on charges of smuggling wine, Boston mobs attacked them. The British government ordered two regiments of soldiers to occupy the town. About 700 British regulars marched with fixed bayonets into Boston. The people refused to take the troops into their homes, so units of soldiers were quartered in public buildings and warehouses.

There is more and more. A lot of petty politics between Boston, the Crown, and corrupt customs officials on both sides. Keep in mind that the Revolutionary war was started in Massachusetts, outside of Boston. Once it kicked off, Ben Franklin knew that they needed the support of all the colonies so he started the infamous "Join or Die" propaganda campaign to unite the colonies.
Join, Or Die: America’s first political cartoon

I learned all this in entry college American History by the way. You can google it. Hell even your source admits that taxes played a huge role.

Some historians believe that denial of use of these trees was at least as instrumental as taxation of tea in bringing about the American Revolution. In fact, the Eastern White Pine was the emblem emblazoned on the first colonial flag.

Lumber may have been an important issue too, but don't pretend like I'm wrong and you got me with an inaccuracy. Everything I said is easily confirmable.

a reply to: continuousThunder

Bu bu but free speech or something... (facepalm) I feel like people have already forgotten this, so I'll repost the Vice video from that "Unite the Right" rally.

The main right winger dude even says at the 7min mark that they'll kill the counter protesters if they have to. And low and behold, guess what happens?

Note: I'm agreeing w/you and the facepalm above is directed at the "free speech" argument for defending literal Nazis.

a reply to: continuousThunder

Indeed it does. But knowing this and responding appropriately rather than with blind rage would still be a better option.

If someone already has their fisted balled and you poke them in the chest, you want violence as much as them. That isnt "cuvilization".

The program of the German Workers' Party

1. We demand the union of all Germans to form a Great Germany on the basis of the right of the self-determination enjoyed by nations.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German People in its dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and territory for the nourishment of our people and for settling our superfluous population.

4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.

5. Any one who is not a citizen of the State may live in Germany only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to foreign laws.

6. The right of voting on the State's government and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the country, or in the smaller localities, shall be granted to citizens of the State alone.

We oppose the corrupting custom of Parliament of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or capability.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign nationals (non-citizens of the State) must be excluded from the Reich.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who entered Germany subsequent to August 2nd, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of each citizen of the State to work with his mind or with his body. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work.

12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore ruthless confiscation of all war gains,

13. We demand nationalisation of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies.

14. We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalisation of wholesale business premises, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that extreme consideration shall be shown to all small purveyors to the State, district authorities and smaller localities.

17. We demand land-reform suitable to our national requirements, passing of a law for confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes; abolition of interest on land loans, and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc. must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that the Roman Law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a legal system for all Germany.

20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement, the State must consider a thorough re-construction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Comprehension of the State idea (State sociology) must be the school objective, beginning with the first dawn of intelligence in the pupil. We demand development of the gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must see to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labour, increasing bodily efficiency by obligatory gymnastics and sports laid down by law, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the bodily development of the young.

22. We demand abolition of a paid army and formation of a national army.

23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lying and its dissemination in the Press. In order to facilitate creation of a German national Press we demand:

(a) that all editors of newspapers and their assistants, employing the German language, must be members of the nation;

(b) that special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-German newspapers may appear. These are not necessarily printed in the German language;

(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravention of the law shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-German concerned in it.

It must be forbidden to publish papers which do not conduce to the national welfare. We demand legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature of a kind likely to disintegrate our life as a nation, and the suppression of institutions which militate against the requirements above-mentioned.

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within us and without us, and is convinced that our nation can only achieve permanent health from within on the principle:

25. That all the foregoing may be realised we demand the creation of a strong central power of the State. Unquestioned authority of the politically centralised Parliament over the entire Reich and its organisation; and formation of Chambers for classes and occupations for the purpose of carrying out the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the confederation.

The leaders of the Party swear to go straight forward — if necessary to sacrifice their lives — in securing fulfillment of the foregoing Points.

February 24th, 1920.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Edumakated

Those people and their ideology are all dead.
Progress is the root word for progressive.

So why are 'progressive' ideas so regressive?

Disarm the people, control speech, segregate the masses, government control of productivity, oppressive taxation...

Not one item on your list is "progressive."

My god, you folks do love your logical fallacies.

Exactly. Yet progressive pursue them. Why is that?

Gun control. PC/Hate speech. Affirmative Action. Socialism. Tax the rich, more more more.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It wasn't the existence of the "Unite the Right" putsch that bothered me. These a-holes regularly surface when they think their "time has come."

What bothered me is that so many "Conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, right-libertarians, etc." here at ATS and in the culture at large EXPLAINED AWAY their actions! Claimed that invading a town with Nazi flags in hand, Nazi slogans shouted from their frothing mouths, bringing violence and death to the RESIDENTS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE VA (that composed the counter-protestors) were "just exercising their First Amendment rights." The President himself claimed that BOTH SIDES were basically the same.

And many here at ATS agreed with that apologist nonsense.

THAT is the danger here. A lot of folks "on the right" agree in part with these Nazi and White Supremacist pricks and are willing to look the other way ...

... and that's how it starts.

I don't recall a single "conservative, right-winger, Republican, right-libertarian, etc." that defended or "explained away" any of their violent actions. There was a universal denouncement of all violence.

I *do* recall people defending their right to peacefully express their opinions, no matter how vile those opinions are.

I *also* recall a denouncement of Antifa behaving violent as well.

There are *not* a lot of folks who agree with the Nazi and White Supremacists racist ideals, except in the minds of people who need boogie men to feel oppressed.

They've killed the other thread!!! Pity though, that really was an excellent read. Now I'm left with this one. LEFT! That's so sad. SAD! Anyway, what was it again? Ah...

Foxy,

what kind of trickery is this?

Famous author Dinesh D’Souza

I sense a question, we need to talk about that.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

They've killed the other thread!!! Pity though, that really was an excellent read. Now I'm left with this one. LEFT! That's so sad. SAD! Anyway, what was it again? Ah...

Foxy,

what kind of trickery is this?

Famous author Dinesh D’Souza

I sense a question, we need to talk about that.

A sad decision indeed to kill the other thread...seemingly free speech killing as it was far superior to this one.

It stood all on its own...and should be re-opened.

Very lawyerish in scope..i guess someone did not like what was being said or what!

Are we supposed to copy paste all the decidedly new information and carry on?

This thread was already buried and died...

Liberalism ?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly. I think they do that to get us to forget that it was literal Neo-Nazis in 2017 marching alongside conservatives at a "Unite the Right" rally to protest the removal of a confederate leader.

. Neo Nazis and the CPUSA also marched with the Occupy Wall Street... my how we forget our inconvenient truths .

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly. I think they do that to get us to forget that it was literal Neo-Nazis in 2017 marching alongside conservatives at a "Unite the Right" rally to protest the removal of a confederate leader.

. Neo Nazis and the CPUSA also marched with the Occupy Wall Street... my how we forget our inconvenient truths .

Source?