The American liberal movement, aided by willing accomplices in the State-run media, has managed to paint conservatives as “fascists” and “Nazis.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
by Michael Naragon
On June 11, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote a piece on the dangers of right-wing extremism. While conservatives balked at the Department of Homeland Security’s recent assessment of the pro-life movement, Ron Paul supporters, and generally all those who opposed the current administration, Krugman claims that the government’s fears seem to have been well founded.
“With the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic,” Krugman wrote, “closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.” Conveniently, he left out the murder of an Army recruiter in Arkansas by a Muslim convert, but that would have weakened his attempt to distort the principles of conservatism.
Shepard Smith of FOXNews caused a stir this week when he equated those who disagree with the Marxist-socialist policies of Barack Obama with those who would commit murder. “If you’re one who believes abortion is murder,” Smith said during an interview, “at what point do you go out and kill someone who’s performing abortion. Well, I think we just learned from the killer of Dr. Tiller. If you are one who believes these sorts of things about the president of the United States…”
Presumably, Smith believes that conservatives who disagree with the president would take the opportunity to murder him if they could. Smith does not discuss the millions of Americans who oppose abortion and have not murdered a single abortion doctor, nor does he mention that the last successful assassin of a U.S. president was a socialist sympathizer.
The reason these two incidents of media bias against conservatism are mentioned is that the liberal establishment has worked since the 1960s to paint conservatives as “fascists” or “Nazis.” The Holocaust museum shooter? A self-described neo-Nazi, so he, of course, must be described as a “right-wing extremist.”
Gore Vidal, in a famous televised debate during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, continued to call William F. Buckley a “crypto-Nazi,” a comment which prompted Buckley to make what would now be called a hate threat against Vidal.
Why do liberals insist that the eventuality of conservatism is Nazism or fascism? At best, it is a misunderstanding of history. At worst, it is an attempt to draw attention away from the logical ends of liberalism in its modern form.
The notions of “right” and “left” began during the assemblage of the Estates-General prior to the French Revolution. Those on the right of the king were the royalists, those who wished France to continue the status quo. Those on the left, such as Maximilian Robespierre, wished radical changes in French government and society. This idea has some relevance today: conservatives are usually more interested in tradition and resist change, while liberals, such as Obama, push change for change’s sake, regardless of the outcome.
The traditionalist vs. radical view is an oversimplification in 2009, however. If you look at the eventual ends of both sides of the issue, the ideological picture becomes much more clear. Conservatives push for the ideas of smaller government. Libertarians, using this model, would be farther on the right, advocating as little government interference in their lives as possible.
Taking these ideas to their extreme, the ultimate end of conservatism, or, to use the DHS terminology, right-wing extremism, would be anarchy. No government interference. Logically, a movement that wants little government would, in its extreme, want none.
On the left, liberals advocate the continued growth of government. Those who doubt this need only review the federal government’s actions of the past year. Banks, automakers, and, soon, the health care industry will be directly influenced by Washington. Liberals in Congress are already advocating more control–over companies through environmental regulations, over individuals through a myriad of taxes–thereby expanding the influence of the federal government.
What is the ultimate end of growing control? There have been several forms of government oppression throughout history: absolute monarchy, Communism, fascism, Nazism, and Islamofascism (such as the Taliban), to name some of the more infamous examples.
So an accurate view of the modern positions of Right and Left would place anarchy at the extreme right, totalitarianism at the extreme left. In the years following the American Revolution, the Founders of this nation desired to create a system of government that was a perfect balance between these two extremes. Their desire was to create a federalist republic that would protect the rights of its citizens without getting in the way. The result was a government that restricted itself through a system of checks and balances, and the American experiment granted nearly unprecedented freedom and representation to the people of the United States.
In modern politicospeak, the idea of “moderate” can represent many things. At times, it is used to represent those forward-thinking Americans who don’t submit to dogma of a Party, instead thinking for themselves. At times, it is used to represent those who are undecided between two sides of an issue–the lukewarm citizen, neither hot nor cold.
Using the correct ideological model, however, the Constitution is moderate. That document is the perfect balance between tyranny and anarchy, protecting its citizenry while limiting the influence of government.
In this way, Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, was a right-wing extremist, attacking the government in general. James Von Brunn, the neo-Nazi, was not attacking the government. He was anti-Semitic, but not a right-wing extremist. A nut, not a conservative.
Using this model, Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin would be left-wing extremists, attempting to assert the power of government in each of their societies. bin Laden, as an Islamofascist, wishes for the dominance of a religious order. Hitler, with his National Socialist German Workers Party, wished for the dominance of his oligarchy and eliminated all those who opposed his rule. Stalin went so far as to remake the Soviet State, killing millions in the process.
Barack Obama has, on many occasions, expressed his desire to remake the United States. This is not to say he is another Hitler, or Mussolini, or Mao. However, his actions of the past several months have prompted even overt socialists, such as Hugo Chavez, to marvel at the speed at which the United States is being subverted by government.
If any group in today’s America resembles the Nazi ideal, it is the liberal movement represented by the Democrat Party. They are the ones who advocate killing children who don’t meet societal expectations. They are the ones who train the children that manage to escape the abortion doctors to love the government, rather than the nation which houses it. They are the ones who oppose the idea of a Creator God as often as possible. They are the ones who seek to control your habits, your preferences, and your future.
The vast majority of those who are writing frustrated e-mails to Shepard Smith are not right-wing extremists. Rather, they are Constitutionalists, seeking to move our government back to the Founders’ compromise, where the rule of law is honored and the Constitution, including the requirements for those wishing to be president of the United States, is followed.
I wasted no time offering my feelings to Shepard Smith whom I think has become a bit full of himself.
Shepard Smith Thurs, June 11, 2009 4:22 PM
From: “Ron Teidel” im2byteme
To: foxreport@foxnews.com
I am an avid follower of Fox news and appreciate how for the most part they report news and keep their personal opinions in their back pockets where they belong, thus reporting all news in spite of political leanings . More networks should follow suit. I am also what many would refer to as a very politically minded conservative, father, grandfather, and Vietnam vet. I am very patriotic and am rigidly opposed to any violation of our Constitution.
It was always my common sense that lead me to believe that I was a traditional God fearing American with strong moral values that didn’t compromise the law of the land and was free to defend those principles. In the last ninety days I’ve found out a lot about myself from the display in lack of wisdom from fringe elements that just don’t like who I am or what I believe in. First the DHS labeled me “a far-right extremist” because of a religious or moral belief that was instilled in me from the day I was born. You see I happen to subscribe to the belief that the spirit of God is in us all as well as the innate understanding of right from wrong. Then the GLBTA gives me a label of “homophobe” and “bigot” because I am adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. The Bible is clear on homosexuality and I am no more a bigot for my homosexuality beliefs than that of lying, cheating, stealing, killing et al.
Today I inherited a new label “crazies” because I have an earnest doubt that Barack Hussein Obama can produce bonafide proof of his birth in Hawaii making him eligible to be president of the United States. It is an issue that he has been side-stepping since his campaign. Nobody is interested in seeing the certificate that was on the Internet.
You know Shepard you may be able to put this whole thing to rest by doing a show that proves to everyone once and for all that any suspicions they have are unwarranted. For example do you have Barack’s long form birth certificate? You must because there is no way you would label people “crazies” unless you had empirical evidence.
The problem with your proposed political spectrum is that many of the people you would describe as “left-wing” (neo-nazis for example) associate themselves with, write for, and/or recommend RIGHT WING groups.
The “neo-nazi” that attacked the Holocaust Museum had extreme hatred for conservative organizations. You are allowing yourself to continue in the right-left fallacy in your argument. Someone toward the extreme right-wing would be, for example, a militia member. Militias have no agenda to possess the country or dictate to others.
Hitler, who liberal academia and the media would call a right-wing extremist, was nothing of the sort. Hitler wanted to maintain policy control over Germany and to expand that control to other lands. One of the thorns in his side was religion. He hated Christian religion–what you would consider “right-wing”–and saw Islam as a much more efficient religion of control. Left-wing philosophy knows its own.
Timothy MCveigh was a leftie who was a radical Islamo-Commie and frutibasket who tagged along with Iraqi intel and “AQ”. He was not a”white supremacist” or any of this other garbage and the fabrications done by the SPLC and others were blatant lies. The rider truck was order the day he took it, there was no “call” from elohim city etc. All of it fabricated by Deess and his crowd of idiots.
hehe… your article is really funny.
I’m sorry you never attended a history class before.
I never like responding to this sort of comment, because to do so gives the appearance that it has made some sort of legitimate point. However, because it gives the opportunity for me to make an additional legitimate point, I’ll jump in.
One of the main reasons liberalism/statism has taken such a hold in the United States is that the government school system on all levels, including colleges and universities, were gradually filled with decidedly leftist teachers and professors. These decidedly leftist teachers and professors preached a decidedly leftist world view to their students. This movement eventually replaced the need for a real education with the need to help children think about things the “correct” way (i.e., the leftist way). We think of this culminating in the 1960s, but the movement began earlier than that and continues today. A recent Forbes article analyzed college students level of real learning, and found that they made little, if any, improvement in their critical thinking and reasoning skills that, coming out of government high schools, is already grossly inadequate. Since this particular commenter mentioned history, I’ll address that specifically. The American Civic Literacy test comes out regularly and proves every year that college students know very little about American history, government, and economics. In fact, the 2010 version of the test was given to lawmakers, who scored, on average, a 49%.
The fact is that students go to school, then to college, and believe they know things. What they are primarily taught is how to feel about certain social “injustices,” but know nothing about real history or facts. These short-changed people then, as is their nature, make asenine statements about others not knowing their history in order to cover their own deficiency. These people also end up voting for baseless platitudes like “Hope” and “Change” without having any evidence as to what sort of change will occur. They will believe other baseless claims by people on television and the Internet… things like “Man is destroying the planet through global warming,” “The United States owes the world for America’s years of exploitation,” and “Hate-filled rhetoric caused the Arizona shootings.”
As a conservative and an educator, I feel compelled to attempt to do what I can to turn the tide of stupidity and naivete, but some nuts slip through the cracks.
The Left-Right model you use ifs from “The 5000 Year Leap” and is Ahistorical gibberish. Monarchy is Left Wing? Sine when?
By this model we have to assume that, in the French Revolution the Jacobins were Right Wing extremists and the forces that sought to secure the Ancin Regeme were Left Wing. But the very terms “Left Wing” and “Right Wing” came from the French Revolution, with those on the Right fighting for the King and the Union of Church and State and the Traditional order, whole the Jacobin Revolutionaries fought to abolish the Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Christianity.
The Left Wing is about creating an Egalitarian Society, in which there are no class Distinctions. The Left is also about abolishing Traditional values, as it finds then oppressive and averse to Human Liberty. The Right Wing is about maintaining Traditional order and preserving Traditional Moral values.
This is why the Left Wing revolutionaries in France overthrew the King and tried to abolish the Christian Faith form all society.
But the way you tell it, Louis the 16th was himself Left Wing by virtue of being an Absolute Monarch.
That’s preposterous.
Then again, its preposterous that you think Communism and Monarchism are the same. Communism is Left Wing not because it’s a Statistic totalitarianism, its Left Wing because the principals Communists uphold is the total Equality of the Human Race, and the abolition of anything that creates distinction between people. They believed in the abolition of Traditional Family structures, Traditional morality, and the Church, too.
The Tzarist Regime before the Communists took over was Right Wing. It believed in the Church being integrated into the State, Traditional Morals and Values to be maintained, and was obviously based on an Aristocracy and social Hierarchy.
The two are polar Opposites.
Skosen simply created his left-Right distinction and projected everything his personal values as an American didn’t like into the label, and everything he believed in became “Right’ or “Conservative” as that’s how he labelled himself. But his claims are utterly wrong, and can be shown as such easily.
What a load of total bullshit. Sorry, but there’s no other way of putting it. Hilarious reading as the author spins, wildly distorts, and exposes himself to be nothing bht a partisan hack.
This article screams “the Author is an IDIOT !!”
Pingback: Head officially straight « Copacabana
Hehe////so please tell us where the Nazis sat in Parliament? On the right ,pal. They say with other conservatives. Nazi conservatives and American ones saw them as such: a monstrosity of conservative values….thats all.You make me ill and sad for my party. Leave.