American Politics Journal

Left-Wing Hate?
Right wingers are missing the most obvious "left wing" target of all!
By Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Wednesday, August 29, 2001 (ZeppNews) -- One of the more enduring myths among the far right in America is that Hitler's National Socialist Party was, because it had the name "Socialist" in it, leftist. This is a bit like arguing that the Republican Party and Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard are the same thing because they are both Republicans.

The notion was invented by some hack GOP writer in the 1980s, and is often pushed, not just by the John Birchers, but by Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and everyone else who has a vested interest in trying to blame "the other side" for Hitler, and the intellectual dishonesty to make the attempt.

Of course, a part of this disinformation campaign is the deliberate effort by the right to confuse socialism-such as exists in Canada and throughout much of Europe-with communism, the failed totalitarian regime that held Russia captive for 75 years and eastern Europe for 45. Communism gave the state complete control of the economy, and while the owner of title was the people, the reality was that a relatively small cadre at the top of the Community Party had effective control, not just of the economy, but all aspects of life.

In socialist countries, you can own your own home, and open your own business. This was not the case in communist countries.

In Hitler's fascistic regime, big business and government formed an impenetrable partnership, and wielded that power to create one of the most comprehensive totalitarian states in the history of humanity. German citizens "of pure blood" had some freedoms, but said freedoms were entirely at the disposal of the state, and subject to the needs of the state.

We have a similar partnership in the United States, with the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against essentially taking over government. The military, almost by definition, is authoritarian, and big business isn't interested in sharing power with employees and customers unless they absolutely have to.

So the "Nazis are leftists" canard goes pretty much unchallenged by the more powerful segments of society. Even the ones who are disgusted by it find that disgust tempered by the notion that as lies go, it's a fairly useful one, and no more dishonest than is the claim that liberals are socialists and socialists are communists and therefore anyone to the right of Rush Limbaugh is a communist. But like most really stupid lies, it gets tripped up by its own absurdity.

The far right has hit on mimicking pages like Hatewatch, which exposes the racists and Nazis that infest the net, and has started exposing "left wing hate speech," using their own definitions.

The trouble is, liberals and leftists don't, as a rule, say things like "Let's string that nigra up!" or "Hitler knew what to do about the Jews". In fact, when right wingers aren't accusing liberals of hate speech they are accusing them of being politically correct -- which is kind of, er, the opposite of hate speech.

So they had to extend the definition of hate speech considerably. Calling Putsch a liar and a cheat is hate speech under their expanded definition.

It's not clear to me what ethnic or racial group these right wingers think I'm attacking by calling Putsch such things (my use of the word "Putsch" is considered hate speech too, it seems), but the upshot is that they feel much safer and on more solid ground when the subject is Clarence "Slappy" Thomas.

If I should, for some reason, take it into my head to say Thomas is dishonest, unqualified, and unfit for his office, right-wingers will leap on this with loud cries of joy and cite my low opinion of Thomas as proof that I secretly don't think any black person is fit to sit on the Supreme Court.

Whereupon I rest my chin in my hand and grin a wolfish grin (I own a wolf, and while I have never mistreated that animal, he whines and moves out of my way when he sees that grin) and I say "Thurgood Marshall".

Thurgood Marshall, the man Clarence Thomas replaced on the Court, was one of the greatest jurists in American history. He was, incidentally, black.

The problem is that most right-wingers aren't a particularly knowledgeable or intelligent lot, and the most common response is "Who's Thurgood Marshall?" For all I know, some of them think I'm trying to demonstrate my liberalism by saying I like watching the claymation series, "The PJs".

Nah. I just think Slappy is dishonest, unqualified, and unfit for office. Of course, I feel that way about several other members of the Court, too, which the Republicans have packed with corrupt thieves.

Two other phrases right-wingers love to target as examples of left wing "hate" are the terms "Bible bangers" and "fundies". This, I'm told, is proof that I hate every single Christian in the whole wide world. Given that my mother, about half of my family, and many of my friends are Christian, this would make me a most reprehensible creature, pretending to love dear old mum like that!

Bible bangers like to say that they are the only group that it's politically correct to hate. Given that they often go out of their way to be annoying, there's something to be said for that, but by "group" they mean every Christian in the whole wide world. Most Christians wish they would stop doing that.

Saying you hate Christians because Bible bangers are annoying is a bit like saying that you hate all Norwegians because you think Eric Dickerson acted like a spoiled brat and Dickerson had a Norwegian surname.

I don't even hate Bible bangers. I just find them annoying. If they stop hitting people over the head with that religion stick, we'll probably get along just fine. All they have to do is drop the pretense that America - and the rest of us - is there to service their particular view of the universe, and there's no problem.

But in the eyes of the far right, eager to deflect scrutiny from themselves, this is all "hate speech".

I thought I would test the premise of "left wing hate speech" to see just how sound it was. One of the Weasels passed along a news story about a concert put on by the National Alliance and other neo-Nazi groups, using rock music to promote their views to a younger audience.

The music covered a variety of such subjects as Jews (they advocated "finishing them off"), Blacks ("back to Africa" was one of the milder sentiments, and the word they used to describe African-Americans definitely was not "black") and praise for Hitler.

The price we pay for the First Amendment and all that. I think they're potentially dangerous scum, too, but shutting them up is more dangerous.

So I posted the news story on Usenet, and posed the question, "Is this hate speech?"

None of the right-wingers responded. I was surprised, since if calling someone who is howling that I an obliged to support his religion a Bible banger is hate speech, then "kill the niggers" is certainly hate speech.

So I asked if these were Nazis. The participants at this concert were cheerfully referring to themselves as such, so this seemed an easy question.

None of the right-wingers responded.

I asked if Nazis were still left-wingers.

By now they saw it coming. None of them responded.

I asked if this was an example of left-wing hate speech.

There are various "left-wing hate" sites doing their strange parody of the Wiesenthal center and Hatewatch and various other fine organizations. They aren't hard to find.

You can visit these sites, and you will quickly notice that for all the out-of-context quotes from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, there's nothing from William Pierce or his ilk.

But they tell us this is hate speech from left wingers, and Nazis are left wingers.

And yet the vilest and most flagrant example of hate speech, from people they insist are the epitome of the left, is missing.

Perhaps they just forgot.