Tuesday, June 30, 2009


As the Zionists of Israel drift further to the right and increasingly demonstrate how their racial and expansionist policies for Israel are parallel to the policies of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the extreme right-wing in the blogosphere seems to have become confused and increasingly unable to distinguish their left from their right.

The main cause of their confusion is rooted essentially in the irony of history whereby those peoples who suffered most at the hands of the Nazis are the same people that are now causing the most suffering – and for exactly the same reasons – to others.

The extreme right-wing is quite happy to call themselves right-wing because, even if for no other reason, it distinguishes them from their mortal enemies, the ‘Left’. The problem arises however, when it is realised that in calling themselves ‘right-wing’ they share the same ‘right-wing’ label as Hitler does and, because most of today’s modern right-wing are actually Zionists or Zionist supporters, they don’t, for obvious reasons, want to be associated with Hitler and the Nazis. Because there are still some on the outer fringes of the far right who really are Nazis inasmuch that they are white-supremacist style anti-Semites with an intense hatred of Jews – and, indeed, anyone else who isn’t white – today’s modern Zionists and their extreme right-wing supporters have constructed a new propaganda strategy to distinguish themselves from their Nazi look-alikes.

This new construct is designed for the rank and file dumb and gullible of the right. It argues that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t actually ‘right-wing’ because they were called ‘National Socialists’ and, according to the Zionist propagandists and their supporters, they had socialist ideals. The new propaganda further argues, because the name of Hitler’s party also included the word ‘Workers’ in it, (the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party), that this was further proof of the Nazis ‘left-wing’ roots. There is also certain convenience in this new construct for the Zionists and their supporters because, not only do they think it disassociates them as right-wingers from the rather embarrassing and similarly labelled Nazis, but it now allows them to cast anti-Zionists, most of whom have a tendency to lean to the political left and who Zionists attempt to demonise as anti-Semites, into the newly constructed ‘Nazi is left-wing’ mould.

The new ‘Nazis were left-wing’ propaganda construct is currently being pushed via the right-wing blogs. Andrew Bolt, a Murdoch propagandist and blogger at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper, a couple of weeks ago highlighted the new propaganda in his column in which he argues that Jewish groups in Europe who worry about the recent gains the anti-Semitic right made in European elections should be far more concerned about the left-wing anti-Zionists in Europe and that the right-wing that are not anti-Semitic are the ‘Jews real friends’. Bolt then allows his bloggies to launch into the ‘Nazis were left-wing’ propaganda. Here are a few examples:

Bolt Bloggie ‘larrikin’ writes:
“it [sic] was the German socialists who formed the Nazi party that instigated the holocaust and it is the left that now demonise Israelis and act as apologist for the islamists [sic] threatening to annihilate Israel. own [sic] it, leftard [sic].” ‘larrikin’ goes on to comment elsewhere:
“…you can’t be ‘right’ and neo-Nazi because Nazism is a creature of the left. If by ‘right’ you mean the opposite of leftism then you are referring to someone who is, essentially, a supporter of the classic republic as a legal and political model. Therefore the ‘right’ is always opposed to dictators and oligarchs, whatever they call themselves and regardless of the form of goose stepping they practice. the left on the other hand ultimately and invariably support dictators and oligarchs.”

While another Bolt bloggie, Alan Mears, writes:
“Hitler was actually from the left, the NAZI party was the Workers Nationalist Socialist Party. What is it with the left? They always attribute the evils deeds committed by their own by using the word “Extreme” with the word Right.”

Regular Bolt bloggie ‘Verax’ responded to Mears’ remark that “Hitler was from the left” saying:
“You are wasting your time with this one, Alan. I have posted that there are two kinds of socialism, national socialism (often called fascism) and Marxian socialism (communism), here ad nauseam.”

And so it goes on.

The new right-wing propaganda has two aims; first, it attempts to cast them as the true right-wing by implying that the Nazis were really ‘left-wing’, and, secondly, in doing so, they think they have created a bin into which the left, because of their anti-Zionism, can now be thrown.

As most true German socialists of the day would attest, or would if there were any actually left, there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up most of the socialists in Germany, and wherever else he could find them, before trying to exterminate them along with everyone else that didn’t fit their political, cultural and racial mould of his Greater Germany.

In the early days there were some Germans deluded enough to actually believe that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity. The delusion was shattered and the myth was dispelled in July 1934 when Hitler and his SS and Gestapo purged the ranks of the massive Brownshirt movement which was the SA. In part this was done more than anything else to appease the extremely un-socialist German military that were beginning to see the SA rabble as a rival to their own power. In short, for Hitler, the SA had fulfilled their role and what few ‘socialists’ had found their way into the Nazi party soon found themselves purged from it or converted to Nazism.

But here’s where the propaganda really back-fires on the right-wing Zionists and their supporters in the West. This early history of the Nazi party to which some deluded socialists, and even communists, initially flocked to, actually reflects much of the early history of Zionism as it established itself in Israel. The early rank and file Kibbutzim movement was made up predominately of those that thought of themselves as socialists, communists and generally left-wing. Many leftish Europeans and Americans, both Gentile and Jewish, made the ‘pilgrimage’ to a Kibbutz in Israel for a year to experience a taste of socialist life. Israel’s early economic and domestic and social policies were essentially left-wing and, indeed, to a certain extent, still are.

Essentially, the new propaganda is really just another attempt to prop up the ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism’ meme which the Zionists have been trying to push with vigour in an effort to counter the influence that Mearsheimer and Walt’s best-selling book ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ had on the anti-Zionist movement since it was published.

The new propaganda, in the end, does nothing except demonstrate how desperate the right-wing have become in trying to protect Zionism from its inevitable collapse.


  1. I know you wrote this a long time ago, but I would like to take it up for discussion as this question has been vexing me lately.

    Right from the start let me state that I consider myself broadly a socialist and deplore Zionism.

    But I believe that the Nazis CAN best be described as left wing. It does depend however on whether you think left-right wing is analagous to socialist-capitalist or democrat-totalitarian, or multiculturalist-apartheidist. I'm a believer in the former and it is clear to me that Nazis were more socialist (for those in the club) than capitalist.

    There is no reason to my mind why totalitarianism should always be attached to either capitalism or socialism, or why apartheidist should be attached to either capitalism or socialism (possibly more likely to be socialist in fact, given that capitalism is more concerned with profit than people).

    In this sense the moniker left or right wing becomes essentially meaningless because there is more than one axis on which to plot the character of the Nazis.

    I would say they were totalitarian socialist apartheidists.

    What do you think?

  2. It's very simple.
    Socialists don't go around invading countries and committing genocide. People that do are right-wing.
    Capitalism can exist without Nazism but Nazism could not have existed without capitalism.

    1. Damian, while I'm not at all sympathetic to the argument that Nazis are left-wing, this comment (yeah, I know it's from 2 years ago...) is way too simplistic. Communist regimes throughout the 20th century invaded other countries and committed mass murder - in some cases, genocide (Khmer Rouge). Neither right nor left has a lock on crimes against humanity. They are defined, to my thinking, by the values they hold and the ends they pursue not the means by which they pursue them.

    2. Joel, no 'communist' country ever invaded another country, and no ‘communist’ government ever committed genocide on its own people.
      However, there have been several countries that have called themselves ‘communist’ that have invaded other countries and there have also been several governments that have called themselves ‘communist’ that have committed genocide on its own people.
      Just because some entities call themselves ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ or ‘Left-wing’ or ‘democratic’, or whatever, it doesn’t mean to say they actually are. They may practice what some may consider being a few leftish ideologies such as welfare or centralised economies etc., but that doesn’t in itself make them truly Left-wing.
      To be truly ‘Left-wing’ precludes invading other people’s countries and precludes committing genocide on ones own people. As soon as a government commits anyone of these or any other crime against any people they stop being ‘Left-wing’.
      Invading other people’s countries and committing genocide are not at all Left-wing characteristics no matter what they may otherwise call themselves.

    3. Damian, to move forward we'd have to define "left" and "right." Remember that the very terms arose in the wake of the French Revolution and monarchist restoration, and they revolved around aims rather than means. Leftists generally opposed older institutions, and sought to create a more egalitarian society. Rightists sought preservation of institutions, and a curb on transformative politics - usually disparaging the idea that equality was desirable and/or achievable.

      Both left and right have been violent and nonviolent, democratic and anti-democratic, state-based and anti-state because none of these factors are central to their identity. This is my own take on it, anyway, based on the history of the terms and self-identification of various political groups over time.

      How would you define the terms?

      Thanks for the speedy reply, btw. I'm also of the mind that old posts never die, and would rather they didn't find away either...

    4. Joel, it’s not so much about Left and Right; it’s far more about right and wrong. For me it’s pretty straight forward and is universal (as against state based).
      Killing people is wrong. Depriving people of their rights is wrong. Depriving people of life and sustenance in order to profit oneself is wrong. To impose a religion on people who do not wish to be a part of that religion is wrong. Invading and killing the citizens of other lands is wrong. To impose values on people who have a different value system is wrong. To profit at the expense of others is wrong. To bomb and maim is wrong. (I could go on as you can imagine. The list is endless.)
      People on the right have a strong tendency to do all or most of the above and then attempt to justify it as being ‘human nature’.
      People on the Left don’t. As I said, it’s pretty straight forward.
      While we sit around discussing the philosophical pros and cons of the Left and the Right, the Right carries on doing the stuff outlined above.
      That’s wrong. It’s why I regard myself as ‘Left’ and not a ‘socialist’ or a ‘communist’.

    5. If so, than why use the terminology at all? These definitions seem tautological.

    6. In other words, why not criticize Zionists here, neocons there, Communists, fascists, anarchists, corporations, terrorists here & there, instead of lumping them together into the "Right" - particularly when the term will just confuse people who don't know you're defining it in terms of violence/nonviolence? It just seems to create an unnecessary distraction and muddy the waters.

    7. Most people know right from wrong, Joel; that's really all that needs to be known.

  3. Damian - sorry, but the Nazis were in fact Socialists, albeit very radical Socialists. Last time I checked they invaded quite a few countries.

    1. You should RTFA. The Nazis were socialist in name only and repeatedly destroyed socialists. This is historic fact.

      I see the Fox "News" propaganda machine has gotten to you.

    2. Socialists kill socialists - very common in the history. This historic fact does not make either of them non-socialists.

  4. The Nazis were Nazis. Just because you attach a label to yourself doesn't make you one. There was absolutely nothing at all 'socialist' about the Nazis.

  5. I find quite mind boggling that Right wing nationals are trying to label Nazis left wing just because of socialist tag in their name in recent years.

    Considering how many trade unionists, true socialists , liberals ended up in the camps with Jewish and other so called undesirables as degreed by survival of fittest master race

    While right wing flag flying patriots , militarists, captialists industrialists and atriscoracy all jumped into bed with Nazis

    Scary times indeed