Could genocide really happen here? Leading scholar says America is on "high alert"
This article is complete dreck. It is a Leftist fantasy penned for the consumption of social justice warrior porn. If what this article suggests has any credence at all, what happened in Philadelphia recently would never have happened. Those white supremacists would never have been run out of town because they would have had too many supporters. Obviously, they did not have supporters.
Nope. If there's going to be anything like a genocide, it's going to come from the Left and articles like this one are a part of it. It is designed and worded in such a way as to portray anyone on the right, be they white nationalists, conservatives, centrists or independents, are the enemy. They make no distinction. Do you think there's a problem with immigration or the border? You're likely to support a genocide. Against CRT? Genocide. Complete and utter propaganda. But this article comes from Salon, so, no surprise there.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
© Provided by Salon National Socialist Movement; Neo-Nazis
Members of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) wave American Flags and NSM flags as they march from the Washington Monument to the grounds of the United States Capitol Building on April 19, 2008 in Washington, DC. Between 30-40 members of the group marched to bring attention to their views on illegal immigration and the city had about 1200 police officers on duty. David S. Holloway/Reportage by Getty Images
Even the title of Alexander Laban Hinton's new book provides a chilling summary of the current danger facing this nation: "It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the U.S."
Hinton is one of the world's leading authorities on genocide and atrocity crimes. He is the author of 12 books on the subject and directs the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at Rutgers University. He testified as an expert witness, at the trial of Nuon Chea, who was prime minister of Cambodia during the genocidal tyranny of the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s.
With sober analysis and in assiduous detail, Hinton explores the ways the United States is "simmering at a low boil," and evinces every risk indicator for widespread mass atrocity crimes. White supremacist organizations and armed militias are mobilized for political action, the Republican Party has declared war on multiracial democracy and right-wing voters have become increasingly radical and hostile, falling into the personality cult of Donald Trump and the apocalyptic cult of QAnon.
As historian Timothy Snyder, philosopher Jason Stanley and former Republican insider Mike Lofgren have also warned, the U.S. is teetering at the edge of fascism. With "It Can Happen Here," Hinton brings his knowledge and experience to bear on a dynamic history of the Trump administration — taking his readers inside his classroom, to white power rallies and to his own testimony at the Chea trial. One of the book's strengths is its accessibility. Written with literary style rather than in dry academic prose, it makes for fascinating, albeit deeply disturbing, reading.
Alarming but never alarmist, Hinton provides a chilling introduction to genocide studies through a chronicle of his travails during the Trump years. The echoes of historical genocide are impossible to miss in contemporary American politics.
Most Americans undoubtedly prefer to think of the United States as immune to the forces of history, and above the various forms of political violence and societal collapse that have affected every populated continent on the planet at one time or another. Hinton is here to tell us that kind of passivity and apathy is all too likely to create the conditions for historic catastrophe.
I recently interviewed Hinton by phone. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
You gave your book the title, "It Can Happen Here." You are, of course, playing off Sinclair Lewis' classic novel, "It Can't Happen Here." Like Lewis, you are combating the illusion of American exceptionalism, the idea that freedom, democracy and progress toward equality are almost like laws of nature. In fact, you make the argument that "it" has already happened here. Can you explain how the belief that "it can't happen here" is historically wrong?
I think of two contextual blockages that prevent us from grappling with our past, and the present that is informed by it. One is what you just named, "American exceptionalism," the "not us" idea. You know, "this is America and it can't happen here." We get this over and over again. The corollary to that is "not me." That's the idea, "Oh, it's a bunch of crazy racists over there. I have nothing to do with that." From "not me," we get the "bad apples" idea. I spend a lot of time in the book addressing the fallacy of "bad apples" and "the hater" — the isolated villain. The danger of these concepts is that if we allow people to believe that "not us" and "not me," they will soon think, "Well, then it's not my problem."
To the second part of your question, that was how the project began. I was testifying in the trial of Nuon Chea right as Trump was riding into power. Many people were making analogies between Trump and genocidal leaders. As someone who studies these things, I am always wary of direct historical analogies. I think of them more as echoes, or patterns that take place, and we can look for a manifestation. For example, if we look at the history of fascist ultra-nationalism, there are many echoes with the Trump administration. I started noting the echoes, and then we got to Charlottesville. That was when I felt it was necessary to take it on, and bring to bear an analysis of the risk and danger of mass violence.
That begins with a long journey through the specific lens of genocide studies, and a genocide-driven revisionist look at the United States, which leads us through settler colonialism and the connection between the need for land and need for labor, which sets everything in motion. I also teach about atrocity crimes. We're talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Indian Exclusion Act, what happens when we push Native Americans further and further west and, of course, systemic white supremacy. Oddly, now the latter is being pushed through the frame of "critical race theory." I don't use that language, but I'm certainly familiar with the literature. When I began writing the book, few people were having these conversations, and now they are commonplace. The speed with which the discourse has changed is remarkable.
When it comes to the writing itself, you made an interesting choice. Rather than writing this book as an academic treatise, you use literary techniques to establish a chronicle, taking us inside your classroom as your students react to events such as Charlottesville. You take us to your testimony, and even attend a white power rally, reporting on it almost as a journalist. Why did you decide to approach the book that way?
I was trained to do academic writing, but over time, I grew increasingly dissatisfied with that form of writing. With this particular book, however, it wasn't so much a pre-planned strategy as much as it emerged out of the context of what I was writing about. I wanted to directly confront the issues, in one sense. The classroom was an effective setting, because what is teaching about, if not critical thinking and searching for the truth? Here we are in the midst of a time when the very basis of truth is called into question, which is another echo of genocide studies, especially if you think about Holocaust denial. Also, with the students I am teaching at Rutgers, this is their lived reality. Most of them are Black and brown, and the events of the Trump years were having a powerful effect on them. That was another aspect that made me think I should take the readers into the classroom.
I also wanted to write a ground-level history of the Trump administration, while we were facing the risk of atrocity crimes. Little did I know that it would get even worse, because I finished the book before Jan. 6. So I wanted to capture what it was like to live in the middle of this heightened crisis, and not from the White House or another institution of power, as most history is told, but at the ground level. Through reporting on the classroom and my students, I could also write an accessible history of white power mass atrocities in the United States, and that became the narrative thread.
My goal was to write a book that could actually be used by high school students in genocide education. To write with narrative engagement and clarity makes it more accessible to that audience. Many states, including mine, which is New Jersey, mandate some Holocaust or genocide studies. The chapter I write on the Charlottesville teach-in, for example, could be pulled out and used in a high school classroom.
Yes, and you consistently make excellent use of Theodor Adorno's admonition: "The premier demand upon all education is that Auschwitz not happen again." You're attempting to rise to that challenge, bringing your analytical apparatus to bear on the Trump administration and the radical right-wing movement within the United States, offering your expertise as a genocide scholar and anthropologist. The ultimate question, then, is about the current threat of the United States descending into mass atrocity crimes. How do you assess that, and on what do you base that assessment?
The United Nations has a good means of risk assessment, using a few key clusters of risk indicators. One factor is a history of mass atrocities. Well, that hasn't gone away. That's always there. If you think about it as a kettle on a stove, there's always a little bit of heat with that risk factor.
Another risk factor is "upheaval," and before I get into that, because it is really important, you have these other things that the UN calls "buffers." Well, Trump eroded the buffers throughout his administration. You can read about what he did to the Justice Department, and how he marginalized anyone who tried to push back on him. Many democratic practices and norms, which we thought were really strong in the United States, were quickly eroded.
Then, you have "catalyst." OK, guns. The U.S. is awash in guns, and we have armed groups becoming more active throughout the country.
Now, back to "upheaval." We had a pandemic. Then you bring in economic collapse. Then you bring in presidential incitement of militias and armed groups. Then you bring in increasing polarization. We have this incredible mix of factors.
The book finishes in July 2020, and to return to the kettle on the stove, we were at a high boil at that point. I wrote an op-ed around that time, headlined, "Trump's Helter Skelter," warning that we were in a really high-risk situation. Other experts began issuing the same warning.
If we look at Jan. 6, it is almost remarkable that there wasn't a lot more violence. If there had been, it would have sparked more violence across the country. Also, if we didn't have Jan. 6, and Trump was still on Twitter and social media platforms — he's a master at using these mediums — we would have gone right up to the inauguration with Trump potentially inciting mobs and hate groups, and who knows what would have happened? Trump losing Twitter was a defusing of the situation.
So, moving forward, Biden comes in. We have a strengthening of the buffers, the pandemic is improving and the economy is improving. That takes things down from the rapid simmer, but what is worse is the lingering polarization and the belief that Biden is illegitimate. This overlaps with the GOP now having white grievance as its default issue.
We have the high-alert danger posed by extremist groups — white power groups, militias. Now, let's imagine that Trump gets access to Twitter, or another dynamic social media platform and things can move in a very dangerous direction, very quickly.
On the subject of buffers, the Republican Party, along with its propagandists in right-wing media, are waging a war on electoral politics.
Of course. That's incredibly dangerous, and you have the potential for counterprotesters directly confronting white power extremists. We have gone from Charlottesville, which was a collection of small extremist organizations gathering together, with the militias claiming they were there only to keep order, and then we move to Trump announcing, "Stand by, Proud Boys." With that comment, the militias are highly agitated and mobilized, and move from "keeping order," or so they claimed, to becoming directly active.
You also have white Christian fundamentalists, which we saw clearly during the January insurrection, agitated and mobilized. You also have the "Stop the Steal" people very upset and feeling increasingly desperate. Then, we have QAnon, which went from barely existent at the time of Charlottesville to a movement of millions strong. To add one more piece, we have this long documentary record showing that, among the general public, 10 to 15 percent have white supremacist sympathies. That's a lot of people. Then, we have Fox News increasingly taking the white nationalist line in their broadcast. Even today, CNN and MSNBC are talking about COVID-19, and Fox is talking about Black and brown crime in the inner cities, and the "invasion" of immigrants that everyone should fear.
In January 2021, the risk was really high. It has subsided with the Biden administration, but we are still at a low boil. It's not a good place to be.
How crucial was it that Trump, using the bully pulpit of the presidency and with the full support of the Republican Party, provided encouragement to these hate groups? It seems to have functioned in two ways. It strengthened them. But also it ushered them into the mainstream of right-wing politics, and allowed average Republican voters to excuse or even embrace them. Robert Pape, one of the country's leading researchers on terrorism, found that most of the participants in the insurrection of Jan. 6 were not connected to hate groups.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. At the time of Charlottesville, it is a small group of extremists. They are savvy on social media, but appear as if they are on the fringe. By the time we get to January of 2021, the white nationalist movement is millions and millions strong. So what was a shock to some people, when you look at Pape's study, was not a surprise, because it had been a trend for a long time. The swelling of support for Trump has not gone away. Perhaps it has dissipated at the edges, but it is still tens of millions of people who are enraged, and that includes far-right extremists, but also QAnon, which is a lot of things, but a key piece is "Deep State," globalists, antisemitic tropes. So QAnon can have synergy with far-right movements, and it is massive.
Think back to Sinclair Lewis. He looked around in the 1930s, and he saw that millions of people were listening to Father Charles Coughlin. There were the Silver Shirts, which were the U.S. equivalent of Brownshirts. If we look around now, it is very similar to what Lewis saw.
We are in a different cycle, but one that is highly volatile. If Trump can return to a dynamic social media platform, or if his former campaign strategist, Jason Miller, can succeed with the social media platform that he has created, that is the ingredient that can escalate the crisis.
Returning for a moment to Trump, Fox News and the "white nationalist line," you make Trump's appropriation of the snake parable central to "It Can Happen Here," even placing that image on the cover of the book. It tells the story of a woman who accepts a wounded snake with "colored skin" into her home, nurtures it to health, only to have it kill her with a venomous bite. As she is dying, the snake mocks her: "You knew I was a snake when you took me in." Trump recites this story to audiences at nearly every rally. Why do you view this story as pivotal to understanding Trump, the white power movement and right-wing politics more broadly?
It embodies the idea of "white genocide." It embodies the idea of Black and brown invaders. Before Trump would recite it, he would frame it as saying, "I'm talking about immigration." In the 2016 cycle through his presidency, this is a clear metaphor of "white genocide" invasion. The snake traverses the domestic boundary of the home, manipulates the innocent woman, who symbolizes white purity. There is a big trope in white-power discourse that is very patriarchal, with white women in need of protection by white men from the dangers of other races. So, in the story, the woman is bitten and dies. The Black and brown invaders kill whiteness, according to the metaphor.
Trump recited the snake parable the same day that I testified in the Nuon Chea trial, and this is the exact same language that he used, and that authoritarian leaders, demagogues and hate leaders use, about external enemies threatening the body politic. There are notions of contamination, and that the body politic will be destroyed if they don't take extreme action.
I was stunned to learn that the Khmer Rouge discussed nearly the same story, about a crocodile.
Yes, the crocodile, which was the metaphor for the Vietnamese. Also linked to Trump, and common in these regimes, is language of "enemies lurking within." If you remember, former Sen. Jeff Flake, Republican from Arizona, to his credit, took to the Senate floor to point out that Hitler, Stalin and Mao all derided journalists and critics as "enemies of the people." Donald Trump, as president of the United States, did the exact same thing.
There is also an antisemitic thread that runs through all this, because Jewish allies of Black and brown people are often the "enemies of the people." In terms of the snake, there are many depictions in white power literature of the Jewish people as snakes. A big part of Trump's constituency is Christian fundamentalists, and of course in the Bible the snake is representative of Satan. So the snake has many different valences.
This is why the book begins with the snake, but ends with Toni Morrison's bird. Morrison tells the story in her Nobel Prize address of an old, blind woman confronted by young men. One of them taunts her by saying, "I hold in my hand a bird. Tell me whether it is living or dead." The woman takes a long pause, and then answers, "It is in your hands." Morrison explains that the blind woman "shifts attention away from assertions of power to the instrument through which that power is exercised."
Rather than distilling everything down to the snake point of view, which is overwhelming, hegemonic terms of power, we have to listen to multiple voices, and consider multiple possibilities.
Tags
Who is online
265 visitors
Articles like this piss me off.
The author makes his points well. Authority after authority warn us the gravest threat to Democracy is the rise of the far rightwing extremists in the US...
Our power is in our unity as a nation. Let that go (over some selfish interests bull patty) and this country will fail to be a world power. We become just another has been region of the world. China and Russia win (without firing a 'tipped' missile.)
Authority after authority warn us the gravest threat to Democracy is the rise of the far rightwing extremists in the US...
There is no evidence to back up that false assertion.
In fact, they are far outnumbered by the far left extremists
There is a plethora of evidence that has been compiled for years. That is a fact.
You are wrong.
Some conservatives are the group which is unwilling to compromise or change. Liberals will not surrender their freedoms completely and become conservatives.
Then show your "facts".
Ignoring the last 5 plus years where the violence has come from left wing extremists in BLM, Antifa, and their off shoots. No one (outside of Democrats, media, and their lemmings) is buying the unseen, unknowable, able to mask their movements from every law enforcement agency, media, and Democrat "right wing agitator". They have never been smart enough to do it before; but now suddenly.....
Multiply Jan 6 by 5 plus years. There have been assault; murder; arson; looting; attacks on federal officers; and destruction of federal property. Democrats have ignored, denied, and even encouraged and provoked their leftist Brown Shirts.
We all know what happens to anyone on the right that runs afoul of the law- they are hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent. Leftist get slaps on the wrist; or outright released.
The author ignores that everything he has stated can just as easily be applied to Democrats and the left.
Link?
He just likes to claim the opposite of what is obviously true. [deleted] Nothing but projection, deflection, and denial.
Why repeat the truth over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for you to deny?
Of course it can happen here. Fake conservatives are playing with political fire. We are never going to kiss Donald J. Trump or Trump's supporters ring and some conservatives can't stop lying and demonizing the truth: So NOW WHAT?!
Interesting word: Genocide (In America).
Pathetic that it is even being "dreamt about." Yet, this writer is not the only one conceiving how the United States of America falls from its superior role in the world, to a mere regional power of loosely (and irreconcilable) connected states.
Lies and more lies will not make the U.S.A great: It will only make it delusional (like fool's gold).
Incidentally, it is why Texas is desperate to do so much voter activity in order to disenfranchise an essential percentage of its (liberal) citizens and pick voter segments; Texas with its large population and land space is a must 'capital' of any future red-state "new found land."
Of course it can happen in the US, the natives can make a strong case that it already has. Our system government is not a sure thing and can definitely be lost if the citizenry sits back and let’s it. Donald Trump was a serious warning, and it looks like it is either going unheeded for half the country or is exactly what they want.
That isn't the case the article makes. Yes, in the past, even the recent past, the NA could make a valid argument for this, but not today. They actually have people who are giving land back to the NA in places.
But that's more or less the point behind my objection to this article. Can you honestly see genocide coming anytime soon from the right? Seriously? The public school system is producing functional idiots indoctrinated with Leftist propaganda, so no fertile ground there for a right wing genocide. White Supremacists can't take a crap without it being examined by several organizations to expose it.
Are you kidding me? When Trump began his term, his party controlled all three branches of government but what did he get done? Arguably, the border wall was his main thing and he couldn't even get enough support from his own party to make it happen. His own party worked against him on nearly everything. Republicans may have used Trump as a tool against the Dems but they sure as hell didn't support him. Hell, even his own White House staff leaked info like a colander leaks water.
Are there White Supremacists in this country? Yes. Are there Black Supremacists? Yes. Are there supremacists of every color? Yes. It's human nature and it's never going to change. Only an idiot will think otherwise because they don't understand human nature. So, what's really going on here is propaganda. It's just another attempt to rile up the Left about the "dangers" of the right. They all have to be White Supremacists by the mere fact they disagree with the Left. Horse shit.
It’s happened before and can definitely happen again. Only a moron would argue that genocide is not a possibility in America today. Some of trumps most hardcore supporters desire it. And yes I can absolutely see the right carrying it out if the conditions permit. It wouldn’t be immediate, but you give assholes like Stephen Miller the ability and you know he would do it.
And of course Trump can’t do it, he’s a fucking retard. But what that retard has shown is how fragile our system really is and all it takes is someone just a bit smarter but still a complete moral dumpster fire to put our system down.
The title question: Could Genocide Really Happen Here?
It did, as Thrawn 31 has pointed out, and when the Residential Schools are investigated as they are being in Canada there is no doubt that that a more current example will be exposed, so there are IMO more reasons for Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention to be mistaken with their "It Can't Happen Here".
As far as I'm concerned, the Second Amendment guarantees that they will have the tools to do the job, if the right-wingers get sufficiently organized to do it. The January 6th insurrection was a test, proved their power, so I believe it COULD happen here, (in the USA) although it most likely will not.
Can you explain how this giving back a minimal amount of land that in most cases was taken illegally to NAs makes genocide or ethnic cleansing OK. That is delusional at best.
Yes. that's true, however, the question isn't whether or not it has happened before. Nor is it, can it happen again. Of course it can. The question is, could it happen today? No. Do you honestly think the government is in any danger of becoming something like a National Socialist government? Who the hell is doing all the rioting? It sure as hell isn't the right. Not even White Supremacists.
Well, I must be a moron, since I can't see any scenario other than race wars engendered by the Left that would make genocide possible. While I'm not a Republican, most here would probably consider me conservative. I don't give a damn about anyone's skin color. I care about their character. To the best of my knowledge, everyone I know feels the same way, and they aren't all white. The idea of genocide in America today is ridiculous. If there's going to be anything like it, it will be over ideology, not race.
Trump was a retard in certain aspects only. His narcissism was his biggest weakness. Otherwise, a lot of what he tried to do made sense and that Biden is continuing some of his policies only confirms this.
Completely untrue. Trump fought against his own party as much as he fought the Dems. That alone should tell you how untrue your comment is.
Why is it my responsibility to explain something like that? I didn't say it was okay. I don't approve of what happened, with a few exceptions. As for the land, welcome to human nature, including NA nature.
So what, Drakkonis? Ideological or racial war? Conservative America is impregnated with a certain type of clientele. Liberals are diversified and multi-cultured, and some conservatives are not! The some conservative sameness is evidenced by the cult following. There is no such thing as a diversified cult!
And, more to the fact, nothing about Trump daily lying makes sense not a damn bit of it. Y'all can support that buffoonish fool and let him make a . . . whatever out of y'all but no one besides y'all are buying his ignorant, delusion.
For so called, rugged individualists, y'all are not individualists at all. It's cultish. And, that makes for a diseased 'party.'
I can't respect the former GOP as a political entity anymore. It is a creature of moral turpitude.It needs to be gone away and something new (and more wholesome) rise in its place!
And y'all say that to 'cover' what? Do y'all "give a damn" about liberalism? Do y'all hate, detest, abhor liberals? Are y'all an UNCOMPROMISING, disagreeable, "soldiers" in arms of conservatism? Are there any good liberals in y'all opinion?
Y'all can pretend not to understand, but it's only pretense-we know better. We see y'all for what it is!
We're not becoming conservatives to please y'all. Deal with it! Or not, no one will care. I pray liberals do not concede much ground to malcontent conservatives at all; our happiness in this life must count just as much as y'all continued happiness should.
Don’t confuse can with is it likely. Of course it isn’t likely, you will see a civil war first, but the potential and desire among some is certainly there. And you seem to think it has to only be about race, the motivation doesn’t really matter, genocide is genocide. It could be over race sure, but I think religious, political, and ethnic differences are far more likely to be the motivating factors. And naturally no matter what it was about, Jews would be a target group well… just because they always are for one reason or another.
And you must be in denial as to how thoroughly the GOP is in Trump’s grasp. Licking his ass on all matters is step number one for any aspiring republican. The GOP wasn’t fighting him while he was in office, they and he just had no plan of attack, no strategy, no goals really except “stick it to the libs” but that only works when you aren’t the ones in power.
That has been the case for a long time but especially since the Obama presidency. The best example is the fact that they couldn’t even get rid of the ACA because they had no fucking idea what they wanted to do instead and we’re just lucky McCain saved their asses.
You made the comment and from your response, it's pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
No. That's why I said that if anything like this is going to happen, it's far more likely to come from the Left rather than the right. Something like Mao's cultural revolution.
Yeah, I made the comment. You asked an irrelevant question unrelated to the topic and was in fact a straw man. Nothing I said was an argument for justifying genocide or what happened to NA's. Yet you asked the question as if I had or that it somehow was the topic. From here, it seems to me you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
Another load of BS. The subject was brought up by Thawn and you responded with this comment.
And I asked the following:
The only strawman is yours since the subject was brought up and you responded to it and now are trying to say it wasn't part of the topic.
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yet the first modern genocide happened fascist Turkey, killing 1.5 million Armenians. Hitler learned from that, and in his fascist state, killed 12 million people in death camps.
You can't say that it would only come from the left when history shows us that it can come from either extreme. And history shows it can come anywhere.
Adolf Hitler was left-wing; not right-wing. That's why Hitler appealed to liberals in the United States. Can you provide the examples of Adolf Hitler's conservatism? Did Hitler invoke God, morality, the protestant work ethic, and the language of opportunity? Or did Hitler invoke the language of the victim, injustice, unfair treatment, and inequity?
Keep in mind that the Nazis portrayed Jews, degenerates, and the mentally inferior as the 'enemy within'. The 'enemy within' was preventing Germany from achieving its rightful place as a leader of nations. The Nazis rewrote history by destroying the past, defined culture, established standards of justice, and used social engineering to create an idealized society. Nazis believed in science, exalted academic authority, shaped the courts to conform to their idealized society, and controlled government.
What made Adolf Hitler conservative?
Total bullshit.
" The Nazi Party , officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party ( German : Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP ), was a far-right political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of Nazism . Its precursor, the German Workers' Party "
" The conservative elite were the old ruling class and new business class in Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s they became increasingly frustrated with the Weimar Republic’s continuing economic and political instability, their lack of real power and the rise of communism. They believed that a return to authoritarian rule was the only stable future for Germany which would protect their power and money."
The conservative elite’s second move towards authoritarian rule was helping the Nazi Party to gain power. The conservative elite and the Nazi Party had a common enemy – the political left .
As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right , the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite.
Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice ."
More total bullshit, Hitler appealed to conservative elites just like those who existed in Germany and offered them an imagined ideal society controlled by the right wing conservative elites.
Yes.
" Were the Nazis socialists? No , not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934."
" Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements , and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act . In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps ."
Right wing: noun - the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.
There is simply no question that Hitler and the Nazi's were right wing conservatives. Even the self-proclaimed Nazi's in America today affiliate with themselves with the right wing conservative party and support right wing politicians. They fly their swastika flags side by side with the confederate flag and obviously have a kinship with right wing white supremacists. They often consider themselves white conservative Christians and wear their Nazi regalia emblazoned with slogans like "Gott Mit Uns!" (God with us).
Yes. He claimed to be Christian and his soldiers had to swear fealty to the Nazi party and God with their hands on a bible.
His actions, his ideology and the facts.
Trying to proclaim Hitler and his conservative fascist Nazi party were somehow left wing is beyond dishonest, it's blatantly stupid and demonstrably false.
Comment 4.1.14 is a complete and total falsehood. Shameful. What a disgrace.
The shameless gas-lighting of some here is unprecedented !
WTF?!?! Is there a flag for posting lies so bad they are insulting?
It seems to be in overdrive.
Gee, good to know that a workers party is right wing. And if aligning with business and industry is conservative then Obamacare must be Fascist and mandates for electric vehicles must be conservative.
All the 1920s German political parties were on the left end of the political spectrum. All the political parties advocated some form of central planning by a strong technocratic government which is a hallmark of politics on the left of the political spectrum.
The fact remains that Adolf Hitler used the language of the victim, injustice, unfair treatment, and inequity to appeal for popular support. The fact remains that the Nazis rewrote history by destroying the past. The fact remains that the Nazis believed in science, social engineering, and the use of indoctrination and government to create an idealized society. The Nazis used schools to teach children Nazi ideology according to academic theories deemed necessary to create an idealized society. The Nazis shaped the courts to conform to the precepts of an idealized society. While Hitler did seek support from business and industry, the fact remains that the private sector was subordinate to government.
It's true Hitler was not Communist. But Hitler did not follow capitalist orthodoxy, either. Nazi Germany had more in common with today's China than with any history of United States.
This is nothing but an example of trying to gaslight history. No one, but someone trying to re-write history would ever say that. It's so far divorced from reality it smacks of trolling. Combined with the statements directly above it and I'm convinced it's trolling.
IE: Populism. While populism can be either left OR right - in the case of 1930s (including Hitler) it was a rise rightwing populism. Please stop thinking the rest of are stupid, Nerm. We ALL know Fascism, including the Nazis, view political and social liberalism as the enemy.
A major distinction between conservatives and liberals concerns the role of government. What was the role of government in Nazi Germany?
What institutions was Hitler trying to preserve and protect? Did Hitler voice conventional wisdom and promise to maintain the status quo? Or did Hitler promise progressive change?
I used to think the word "Genocide" meant the actual extermination of an entire people. But it is also used to mean the attempt at extermination...even it didn't succeed 100%.
Nerm does seem to think that this is our first intellectual run in with fascism or German history.
I have actually heard some folks, not Nerm I don’t think, claim that the Nazis were a far left group and the reason they targeted every other left leaning group/ideology was to eliminate competition. But definitely not because their views were antithetical to those of left leaning ideologies (this making the extreme right), oh no, that definitely isn’t a possibility. Fuck what scholars and political scientists around the globe think! Randos like Nerm are the real authorities.
Hitler was obsessed with personal power. He structured everything based along a pyramid with him at the top.
The reason why Trump is often compared to Hilter is both are demagogues. They appeal to irrational prejudices of people rather than rational arguments. Hitler exploited the depression and joblessness to make his rise to power and made his appeals to a culture war - in his speeches it was the liberals, communists and foreigners that were destroying the greatness of the Fatherland. Precisely the same way Trumpism is creating their white grievance culture war. Trump never got control of the military.
Social liberals advocate an idealized society achieved through elimination of undesirable elements in society. Social liberals promote social engineering based upon social theories, indoctrination as education, and conformity to an idealized model of society through authoritarian means.
Social liberals declare that those who do not conform to an idealized model of society are enemies of the state. And social liberals will use the state to eliminate nonconformists.
Rwanda. Uganda. Congo. Sudan. Burundi. Namibia.
Please, explain which side were the white supremacists.
Where was the specification that it had to be white supremacists doing it? Nerm, are you just making shit up again?
Hillary Clinton was obsessed with personal power, too. Along with Nancy Pelosi, for that matter.
The reason Trump is compared to Hitler is because Trump won an election. A democratic election, at that. The people spoke and liberals refused to accept what the electorate said. So, the nonconformists in the electorate that put Trump in office became enemies of the state. And liberals have used the state against those nonconformists.
however, the question isn't whether or not it has happened before. Nor is it, can it happen again.
Did you actually check the title of this seed before posting that comment?
It is:
Could Genocide Really Happen Here?
The premise of Alexander Hinton's argument is that the rise in white supremacy poses a risk of genocide happening in the United States. Hinton isn't pointing fingers at the left of the political spectrum when he says it can happen here. Hinton says that white supremacists are responsible for genocide by citing the Nazi example.
Of course, Hinton conveniently ignores what happened inside the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and the various socialist juntas in Central and South America. Apparently Fidel Castro never engaged in a genocidal purge. And no one pays attention to the African continent for reasons that others may surmise.
If the United States becomes more like central Africa in political and social divisions, then genocide can happen here as it has in central Africa. But, unfortunately for social liberals, what has happened in central Africa doesn't have anything to do with white supremacy.
Utter BS
That was one of the biggest loads of crap I have read in a while.
Complete revisionist history.
It most certainly happen her Drakk.....
The second that you make a group of people less than human (sub-human) then one group can unleash all sorts of inhumanity on the other.
And all you have to do is listen to the likes of Hannity, Rush, or a plethora of right wing conservatives that have been calling democrats and liberals "the enemy" for decades. So yes.... genocide can happen here in today's USA!
It’s sort of the title of the book that the seeded article is about.
"It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the U.S."
Then the whole interview is about white power, white supremacy, white nationalism, etc. and so forth.
No, it was capitalist, pure and simple, because that's the system we have in America. Capitalism tempered with social programs to make sure no one falls through the bottom of the net.
Bullshit. you've provided zero evidence of this claim which shows how ridiculously moronic your spurious claim is.
Yeah, just like conservative right wing pieces of shit who cry constantly about being the victim. "Oh, its a war on Christmas!" "War of Christians!" "War on conservatives!" "War on religious freedom!" Boo fucking hoo.
You obviously wouldn't know a fact if it laid itself on your face and waited for you to suffocate.
Yeah, and Hitler was a vegetarian so that must mean all vegetarians want to rule the planet and will always try to build armies to kill and conquer the meat eaters. /s
With you using up all the "facts remain" apparently your comments are void of anything that even barely resemble a fact. Your comments are so full of shit its embarrassing.
Which of course is nothing like Americans schools that are trying to teach the truth about slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws and the pointless resistance some conservatives have against removing the blatantly racist memorials and monuments to blatant racists.
Nor was he a socialist or a leftist.
Moronic bullshit with zero evidence. Hitler was in fact a right wing conservative capitalist who protected his fellow right wing conservative capitalists.
Go ahead and lie to yourself with whatever bullshit narrative helps you sleep at night and falsely claim the right wing in American has nothing to do with the Reich wing in Nazi Germany. They are obviously birds of a feather but some dipshit's who can't handle the truth are determined to refute facts with hilariously flawed opinion and useless idiotic deflection and projection.
For all the good it will do, I will tell you what really happened. Thrawn made the comment...
The point Thrawn was making here, which seems clear to me, was that genocide already had happened here. Please note that the subject has not now become NA's. The subject is still genocide and NA's were used to make a point about it.
Then I replied with....
The subject is still genocide. I'm making the point with the last sentence to illustrate that attitudes, by both the Government and citizens are not what they were. I can't say for sure but I doubt even twenty years ago anyone thought a second about giving land back to NA's. That land is not the subject, however, nor the topic. It is just a point made in support of an argument.
Then you come in with your straw man...
This addresses neither the topic or subject, which are both genocide. Worse, it assumes that my point was that somehow it makes up for whatever or excuses whatever. It doesn't address it at all and only someone who's looking to either change the subject, look for a fight or both would write this, since the question isn't justified by the statement. A straw man.
Now, I'm sure I just wasted my time but that's all I'm going to spend on this silliness.
I didn't say that it would only come from the left. I said the left is more likely at this time to come from the left.
I don't think so. We're not even close to the conditions necessary for that to happen. A civil war? We're much closer to that then a genocide.
Thank goodness your nonsense and word salad is enough for today, tomorrow, and the next year.
The side that drew the maps, the "white supremacists" a.k.a. euro-colonialists who planted their flags and said "mine".
Can't argue with that kind of logic.
I suppose not. I meant to say, genocide is more likely to come from the left at this time. That doesn't mean imminent. Just more likely than the right, in my opinion.
Genocide is NOT acceptable from ANY side. Those who want to engage in genocide don't have to belong to any political party. The genocide inflicted on the Native American human beings was not based upon any political factor or party. It was conducted for the sole reason of greed.
Your trying to lay the possibility of genocide solely on the left is no more rational than to lay it on the right. And your political bias is showing a mile long.
And if you really want to know about genocide, just ask the Jews, Armenians, Native Americans, and all other ethnic people who really know what genocide is and they will tell you that politics was never a part of it, nor will it likely ever be.
What are you talking about? Has anyone in here, from any side, claimed genocide is acceptable? Alluded to it? Even vaguely? So I don't understand the purpose of the comment.
As for "laying the possibility of genocide solely on the left", that isn't what I said or tried to do. I said that it was my opinion that if genocide were to happen anytime soon (which is very unlikely) it will come from the left and will largely be over ideology. Something like Mao's cultural revolution.
And, unless you're prepared to say that genocide can only be practiced against race, genocide has been practiced for political reasons already and on numerous occasions. Communists killed millions of their own people for political reasons.
Yes you did.
Go ahead and try to back out of what you said. But, your own words speak loud and clear.
Being more likely is not laying the possibility SOLELY on anyone FFS.
Bullshit! I could respond more and in detail, but you don't want to have an honest discussion of facts. It's one thing to challenge facts, it's another to insult my intelligence.
Capitalism tempered with social programs isn't capitalism. Socialism that maintains private ownership and private sector operation isn't socialism. Obamacare is a hybrid between capitalism and socialism; Democratic Socialism. Obamacare managed by unelected representatives of the people is very similar to a Fascist system.
And you've provided no evidence to claim otherwise. You are only making empty allegations and appealing for popular support.
Genocide can happen here, according to Alexander Hinton. But history shows that the far left is more likely to embrace a genocidal purge.
So, the Nazis did not rewrite history to fit their ideology? Is that the fact you are stating?
Really? Those statues and memorials are of people so far in the past that few know who they are or were. Our children must be taught that those statues and memorials are racist. And the political left isn't claiming that indoctrination is education?
You know, if children must be taught about racism because they don't know about racism then perhaps the purpose of the education is not to end racism.
If anyone is obsessed with personal power, it is Trump.
And pagans, Protestants, and Catholics. Those on the left of the political spectrum willfully ignores that European history was written in blood. The Atlantic coast of North America was settled by fortune hunters and refugees of genocide.
The religious intolerance of those on the left of the political spectrum was also the cause of several genocides in Europe. But that history isn't being taught.
Oh yes, the Christian Crusades was a leftist consort....
Please.
Weren't the Christian Crusades really Catholic Crusades? Unless you've rewritten the history, the crusades took place well before the Protestant Reformation.
So Catholics are not Christians?
All Catholics are Christians - but - not all Christians are Catholics.
The distinction between Protestants and Catholics is important but the significance is lost on those who do not know the history. The significance of the distinction between Protestants and Catholics could be taught but should that teaching be from the Protestant point of view or the Catholic point of view?
You are now arguing stupid semantics.
I guess the false idea that every atrocity in history is from leftist people is debunked so ..oh my.. do you know the difference between denominations?
You made bullshit claims that you cannot back up and were backed into a corner. I was actually waiting for the Catholics are not true Christian memes.
Never claimed that every atrocity in history was from 'leftist people'. What I've claimed is that 'leftist people' have their share of atrocities in history.
Those on the left of the political spectrum are trying to rewrite history to avoid confronting their own atrocities. Claiming that Nazis were far right doesn't withstand scrutiny when today's China has much in common with Nazi Germany. Claiming that Fascism is far right doesn't withstand comparison to Democratic Socialism.
Would the Irish agree that it's bullshit? Those of us who have been around a while have seen a repeat of Medieval genocide play out in Ireland.
Keep on with it. Yeah that is the ticket. Claim the nazi people were leftist and keep saying it...maybe it will come true...yes it will, all because of China...
I think you severely lack understanding of socialism.
China's economy and society has become a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. China has adopted a form of Democratic Socialism - or - Fascism. I'll leave it to you to argue the semantics.
China was a communist country that let capitalism creep in.
That's no different than a capitalist country letting communism creep in. The result in either case is some form of Democratic Socialism - or - Fascism.
You might also say that it has been a rather successful "fascist" nation for having taken advantage of aspects of capitalism, leading it to a moderately prosperous society wherein abject poverty has been eradicated. As for governance, it differs from a democracy by being a successful consistent meritocracy, giving it the advantage of being able to set long term goals that have been achieved and are achievable without interruption by changes in administration.
In some respects the Jan 6th insurrectionists were like the dog that catches the ambulance. At that point the dog doesnt know what to do. To some extent the only rioter that had a clear and specific intent was Ashley Babbitt who threatened the safety of the US House members in a very certain way and was shot dead for it. I do think a lot of the rioters wanted to fight. That is why they did fight with the police, it was fun. I'm not as sure that they truly intended to hang Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi. That may have been all talk.
They did intend to scare the legislators into overturning the election though, and that is the insurrection and the "treason".
If all they wanted to do was "protest" they would have stayed outside the building. They wanted to intimidate and threaten the congresspeople and senators.
What a bunch of revisionist hokum smokum. The language of the 'enemy within' comes from the left-wing. Alexander Hinton conveniently ignores the French Council of Public safety, the Bolsheviks, the origin of Fascism, and the Cultural Revolution. Alexander Hinton is a prime example of the danger of viewing history with a biased eye.
The right-wing has not been the source of mass violence in the United States. The right-wing has not been attacking civil society on city streets. The right-wing has not seized control of government for the purpose of indoctrinating the population and attacking the 'enemy within'. The right-wing is not advocating for another cultural revolution.
Opposition to left-wing extremism is common sense; not right-wing. The people of the United States don't want a Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, or Mao. And the people of the United States recognize that the greatest threat to sane government is left-wing extremism.
Nonsense. Some conservatives have a Trump-lock installed on their minds. Some conservatives have been storing guns like there is no tomorrow planned where high-powered rifles are not involved. Been "merchandising" gold (and selling ad space all over the country) like when the "apocalypse" comes they shall be the rich/wealthy ones coming out, and are now 'locking' red-states together in the middle of the country and persuading red-staters of "fear and loathing" of liberals.
David French (a conservative) wrote a book about this:
Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation Link opens in new window
by David French
It is about how the Right could break up this nation following 'steps.'
If you don't know something you need to get informed. This "revolution" should it come will be televised in the U.S. of A.
How many right-wing revolutions can be found in human history?
1922 in Italy when right wing fascist Benito Mussolini rose to power.
1933 Nazi party and Hitler rising to power using fascism and nationalism and arresting and imprisoning socialists.
1936 Japan when the r ight-wing elements in Japan, including industrialists, military officers, and the nobility, had long opposed democracy as an anathema to national unity and Japan and Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact (an anti-communist pact signed between the Nazi's and the Japanese Empire).
1933 Engelbert Dollfuß, an Austrian fascist politician who became Chancellor called it "Ständestaat" which was borrowed from Mussolini. Dollfuß dissolved parliament and established a clerical-fascist dictatorship which lasted until Austria was incorporated into Nazi Germany through the Anschluss of 1938.
1932 Brazil, the regime of Getúlio Vargas aligned with Plínio Salgado 's Integralist Party , Brazil's fascist movement. Vargas took inspiration from Mussolini in a number of areas, especially labor law. The Brazilian Consolidation of Labor Laws , a decree issued by Vargas in 1943, has been described as partly inspired by Mussolini's laws of 1927.
And many more... fascism spread widely during the mid-20'th century.
1941-1945 Croatia
1940-1944 France
1936-1941 Greece
1932-1945 Hungary
1942-1945 Norway
1933-1974 Portugal
1940-1944 Romania
1930's Poland
1939-1945 Slovakia
1936-1975 Spain
Under Fascism was the government subordinate to the private sector - or - was the private sector subordinate to the government? Did business and industry control government - or - did government control business and industry?
A large distinction between conservatives and liberals concerns the role of government. What was the role of government under Fascism?
Fascism is interesting when it comes to economics. It’s kind of a hybrid model generally, but as far as I can tell as an ideology it doesn’t really have much to say on matters of economics. Nazi Germany being the most famous example, government and private industry essentially merged into one. There was still private ownership, but the owners were also high ranking party members, and of course ownership could quickly change hands if the owner was deemed to not be supportive enough of the Furher. It was more similar to modern China IMO.
I agree Nazi Germany had much in common with today's China. Fascism was essentially Democratic Socialism without democracy; an authoritarian form of Democratic Socialism.
It isn’t socialism, but it isn’t capitalism either. It has aspects of both (economically speaking), and really isn’t practiced the same way from one fascist group to the next. That is why it has been so hard to pin down from an economics standpoint.
Now politically fascism is on the extreme right end of the spectrum. Ideologically only totalitarianism is farther right.
How many right-wing revolutions can be found in human history?
1922 in Italy when right wing fascist Benito Mussolini rose to power.
1933 Nazi party and Hitler rising to power using fascism and nationalism and arresting and imprisoning socialists.
1936 Japan when the r ight-wing elements in Japan, including industrialists, military officers, and the nobility, had long opposed democracy as an anathema to national unity and Japan and Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact (an anti-communist pact signed between the Nazi's and the Japanese Empire).
1933 Engelbert Dollfuß, an Austrian fascist politician who became Chancellor called it "Ständestaat" which was borrowed from Mussolini. Dollfuß dissolved parliament and established a clerical-fascist dictatorship which lasted until Austria was incorporated into Nazi Germany through the Anschluss of 1938.
1932 Brazil, the regime of Getúlio Vargas aligned with Plínio Salgado 's Integralist Party , Brazil's fascist movement. Vargas took inspiration from Mussolini in a number of areas, especially labor law. The Brazilian Consolidation of Labor Laws , a decree issued by Vargas in 1943, has been described as partly inspired by Mussolini's laws of 1927.
And many more... fascism spread widely during the mid-20'th century.
1941-1945 Croatia
1940-1944 France
1936-1941 Greece
1932-1945 Hungary
1942-1945 Norway
1933-1974 Portugal
1940-1944 Romania
1930's Poland
1939-1945 Slovakia
1936-1975 Spain
Shhhh!
He's made up his mind-- don't confuse him with the facts!
(Remember, most Trump supporters are severely allergic to the actual facts!)
Quite a claim since liberals can't accept that Fascism is not right wing. Fascism requires central planning by a strong technocratic government. How is that right wing or even conservative?
According to those on the left of the political spectrum, Democratic Socialism is not Socialism.
Democratic Socialists do not subscribe to the requirement that workers must own the means of production. Democratic Socialists believe that workers (and the people) must have a voice in the functioning and management of the private sector. Democratic Socialism is democratic because the people's representatives in management of the private sector are elected.
The communist government of the Soviet Union was centralized, dictatorial, and repressive. The communist government of China established by Mao was centralized, dictatorial, and repressive. The communist government of Fidel Castro was centralized, dictatorial, and repressive. Communist governments have typically been totalitarian.
So, communism is on the far right of the political spectrum?
So if we just disregard facts and established definitions of words, then peace can be defined as war and wet can be defined as dry.
If you change fascism to mean "democratic socialism" then you have completely redefined the word fascism to mean something that it isn't. Nazi's were right wing fascists, plain and simple, and no amount of twisting and redefining words will change that.
Then it's not socialism. What you're basically trying to do is redefine what socialism is so you can paint your opponent with a different brush. You're a hunter who knows it's illegal to shoot a bald eagle so after shooting one you're gluing turkey feathers to it and trying to tell the game warden you really only shot a turkey.
IOW, as grandpa used to say, "Nerm is pissing on our legs and telling us it is raining outside".
The BS he is selling would make Orwell blush!
That's correct, Democratic Socialism is not pure Socialism and is not pure Capitalism. Democratic Socialism is a hybrid that includes elements of both Socialism and Capitalism. As did the hybrid of Fascism.
Democratic Socialism and Fascism are similar hybrids and are related with each other. The chicken and egg question is which came first? Did Fascism come from Democratic Socialism - or - did Democratic Socialism come from Fascism?
The answer is blatantly obvious to anyone who actually understands what fascism is, and the answer is "neither".
Here, this "Fascism Facts for Kids" should be able to explain it to you in small words.
" Fascism is a right-wing form of government in which most of the country's power is held by one ruler . Fascist governments are usually totalitarian and authoritarian one-party states. Under fascism, the economy and other parts of society are heavily and closely controlled by the government. The government uses violence to arrest, kill or otherwise stop anyone it does not like.
Three large fascist countries were Italy under Benito Mussolini, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler , and Spain under Francisco Franco.
Mussolini invented fascism in Italy in the late 1910s and developed it fully in the 1930s. When Hitler came to power in Germany in the 1930s, he copied Mussolini."
There are some nations that were Democratic socialist nations that were taken over by fascists, but that does not mean in any way that fascism came from Democratic socialism. The two terms are diametrically opposed. You can't have Democratic socialism and be fascist, there is no hybridization of those two concepts. Now Benito Mussolini called his political party the "Democratic Fascist Party" but it was "Democratic" in name only, much like how Russia claims to be a Democracy today but is anything but.
" Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties."
Some folks just make shit up as they go along.
How does that differentiate Nazi Germany from today's China? The definition depends upon simply declaring Fascism right wing without any supporting explanation. By that definition today's China is a right-wing Fascist country.
Confiscating and nationalizing private wealth and property requires a totalitarian government, doesn't it? By that measure the Bolsheviks were right-wing.
And the measure of government using violence to arrest, kill, or otherwise stop anyone it does not like means the French Revolution was a right-wing insurrection.
No, Fascism is more closely aligned with left-wing politics than right-wing politics according to the examples of actual history.
WTF is up with Trump supporters???
Why do they always seem to be so "allergic to facts"?
(I wonder how many of them would consider everyone who uses the phrase "The enemy within"...to be a "left-winger"?):
1.A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. Marcus Tullius Cicero
2 When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you. Winston Churchill
3. American's greatest deficit is no longer found in the federal budget. It is a moral deficit, and it may be found in a polluted and poisoned culture that has become the great enemy within. Pat Buchanan
4. Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future. Adolf Hitler
5. I am convinced that 1941 will be the crucial year of a great New Order in Europe. The world shall open up for everyone. Privileges for individuals, the tyranny of certain nations and their financial rulers shall fall. And last of all this year will help to provide the foundations of a real understanding among peoples, and with it the certainty of conciliation among nations. . . . Those nations who are still opposed to us will some day recognize the greater enemy within. Then they will join us in a combined front, a front against Jewish exploitation and racial degeneration. Adolf Hitler
6. We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty. Margaret Thatcher
Which is all you ever have.
I don't know why anyone bothers 'debating' with you.
What is this obsession with disparaging social justice? One says he cares about people, but these insults belie caring.'Porn'? Really?!!!
So the assertion seems to be that this genocide could only be perpetrated by white conservatives. However, a thing I think is missing from that scenario is the pattern of demonization of specific groups that we have seen as preliminary to other genocides. For example, in Nazi Germany, there was a years long campaign of anti-Jew propaganda. Turkey had years of marginalizing Armenians before that genocide. And so on.
Whatever tensions we see in America are largely political and not about race. The rhetoric from the Right is all about how liberals - regardless of ethnicity - are attacking their traditions. Those attacks are rooted in racial politics, and conservative politics are a reaction to it. It’s negative. We can’t really identify a positive, active agenda from these conservatives that shows they are out to cleanse society of black people or Muslims or whatever. Furthermore, political forces on the Right - rather than push a segregationist agenda - are trying to win people of color to their side. It’s just not the same pattern.
On the other hand, the Right might have an argument that genocide could come from the Left because the one group that is consistently demonized by the Left is white people. There has been a clear push in recent years to promote the idea that white people living today should be held responsible for the all the crimes of white people throughout our history. Thus we hear talk of reparations, including not just money payments, but even the forfeiture of real property. This is accompanied by what is arguably pre-genocidal propaganda in the form of Critical Race Theory and claims (from the man who is now president) that white people either want to put black people back in chains or return to Jim Crow. Be afraid of white people, we are told. Be very afraid.
So you can argue for genocide from multiple directions, but I think that the government and societal structures we enjoy will not likely allow any of these doomsday scenarios to occur. Not to mention the fact that millions of Americans are armed. There is no helpless, unarmed population to round up and carry off to camps.
What group majorities comprise liberals as a classification today? You are correct in that some conservatives are hiding their biases behind/inside politics, but two or more dynamics can be in play interchangeably, eh?
I hate to put it this way, but here goes putting it this way. Some conservatives require society to assimilate into a (some) conservative state of mind. One which does not identify them in anyway as individuals, but locks them in as 'bots' to the status quo of a select group of 'leadership' at the top. What say you?
Additionally, I know you do not mean to imply liberals are pushing segregation; I just know you did not go there!
I think you can argue that both conservatives and liberals do - and do not - try to coerce the rest of society to conform to their worldview. Occasionally, you hear, for example, about conservatives trying to bring prayer into a school, or eliminate sex education. But I think the reality is that in most places, liberals better control education systems via teachers unions and have more authority to introduce something like Critical Race Theory into a school system.
Either way, trying to spread your ideas is a long way from genocide.
I don’t think I said that. What I was getting at is the idea that being pro-segregation has historically been a conservative position. Today, however, that just isn’t the case, at least not at the level of a significant political party.
But since you bring it up, don’t think that modern liberals get a pass. In some cases they are openly promoting segregation . Some colleges for example have had days where they said white people should stay home . Others have had black-only graduation .
If you believe that those are actual examples of Genocide-- then its quite obvious you have no idea of what is the definition of Genocide!
If you believe I said those things were examples of genocide, then you didn’t read very carefully.
True. For that reason, onlookers and people of goodwill should search, find, and use truth as their guide and yardstick. Nobody should get a 'pass' for lying, cheating, stealing, or hating on innocent people. And by the way, it should always be assumed in these discussions we're looking for "best practices" to be the proper path to follow. Not simply, a path to travel on for mere discussing.
Some conservatives are putting true conservatives out of office, power, position, and influence. Accordingly, these 'absent' conservatives will have their wealth and careers negatively impacted and even in ruins. Some conservatives are in-charge of legislative state power giving these folks better control over states. Whereby, some conservatives are tampering with the rights and privileges of people to branch out, explore, and be a more free and balanced members of our shared society. Critical Race Theory is not anybody's enemy - unless somebody wants it to be!
These colleges and attitudes you delivered are interesting and complex campus issues. As colleges brand themselves "speech and activities expression-centric," the student bodies apparently are being "expressive" to explore alternatives to any status quo they wish.
That is not what I am talking about. Our federal and state governments are not appropriate places for segregation 'experiments' - we have the 'data' on states and segregation already. It was an epic fail.
College campus activities and life as civilians seeking a stable republic system of governance is not the same thing!
Go ahead: Deny White Evangelical Conservatives and Some conservatives (non-religous types) are stockpiling guns, ammunitions, and gold as a standard. Proceed. . . .
I’m not sure what you mean. I made a point of observing that the people are armed. However, both liberals and conservatives run to the gun store when politics upsets them.
Why US liberals are now buying guns too
There is no liberal 'rush' and long-term strategy to stockpile guns. As for the increase in gun ownership; which 'came' first? Preparations for an offensive or strategic planning a defense?
Note: Attempts to 'walk down the center' of these complex issues and topics properly will require that you fair statements, judgements, and distinctions up and down the line about what you see, read, and conclude.
No, it's the alleged conservatives who run to the gun store when 'presidents' like trumpturd say that President Biden is coming for your guns.
And your article says that a lot of liberals are buying guns because they fear the trumpturd supporters who are stockpiling weapons and announcing loud and clear their hate for all others. They need protection from the trumpturd supporters who are a valid, known threat.
I am only going to mention this little bit of disturbing fever dream because a conservative writer, David French, set it as a scenario* in his book (above):
A plane carrying nuclear weapons takes off from one town in the U.S.A, and instead of the flight crew following orders to land at its destination - the crew commandeers the plane, its nukes, and lands both in Texas, U.S. A.
Upon landing the governor of Texas and its legislature declares and officially announces Texas secedes from the union of states and will not return nuclear 'materials' to their regular order position.
So Tacos! What comes afterward?
*This scenario assumes nuclear weapons facilities are not already in Texas.
Roll credits on what sounds like a silly movie.
An important thing to note is that genocide doesn’t have to be based on race. It can be any number of driving forces behind it, but a lot of people (the seeder included) seem to want to define genocide in the narrowest possible way. It is really just a concerted effort to destroy a group of people, but has generally been based upon ethnic, religious, national, or racial differences.
Can it happen in the US? Of course, never say never right? Is it likely? At this point definitely not IMO. In the aftermath/during a civil war I can easily see it taking place, but where we currently stand, no.
Of course its already happend in the U.S.
What we did to American Indians is genocide.
Agreed. Although that appears to be the only focus for the author and the guy interviewing him.
Really? Where did I do that? I don't recall defining genocide at all, let alone narrowly.
The phony argument that Hitler was "left wing" or that the Nazi Party was a "workers'" party is the same type of right wing propaganda as the phony argument that the Civil War was about "States' Rights" as opposed to the right to own slaves. It's all trash.
The very word "genocide" has been trivialized, when everything including the kitchen sink is being thrown into it. With present definitions even the Las Vegas shooting could be considered a "genocide". These days people are even trivializing the words "holocaust" and "Krystallnacht". In fact, the Republicans are dong a pretty good job of trivializing the word "insurrection" considering their commentary and blocking investigative attempts concerning the January 6 insurrection.