The Left's dislike of the Jew and of Israel.

I have gained a wonderful lesson in the past few days. As I wrote several posts in support of Israel, I began to get heat, heavy heat, from, of all places, the Left, including the American Left and the European Left.

The hypocrisy of it all was stunning. The lesson I learned… nothing much has changed. The Left is still anti-Jew and anti-Israel.

Now, before you explode all over my blog here… understand, the Nazis were Leftists. They were Socialists… the Nationalist Socialist party… to be exact.

Over the decades, the American Left has become adept at changing the meaning of words, especially inflammatory words, to fit anyone, or anything, they do not like. Therefore in the lexicon of the Left, Nazi stands for Conservative, you see. But then, truth has never been much of a stumbling block to those bent on establishing the rule of the few, over the many, as does socialism. As any mediocre student of history knows the Nazis were socialists. Hitler was a socialist… a Leftist. I mean… I don’t have to try to prove it. It simply IS the truth! Uncomfortable, I imagine, for out Leftist friends, but there it is.

We have another presidential election coming up in 2008. Both conservatives and liberals are casting their eye in the “round about” hoping to spy a likely candidate to carry the emblem of their party.

Well, we stumbled across an article written by Edward Feser back in 2004. He put forth the idea that maybe the Democrats should look for a candidate in the mold of a former winning candidate who seemed to embody everything the Democrat party stands for today.

Here’s what Mr. Feser said:

"A solution for the Leftist might lie in turning one's historical eye back before either Clinton or McGovern, to find a model who was both genuinely radical and a solid electoral success. Then the task will be to find a modern politician who fits this paradigm as closely as possible. Who might serve as such a model?

One example stands out.

Who was he?

He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend "lived together" for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.

He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: "As Christ proclaimed 'love one another'," he said, "so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings out...! This call will echo throughout the world!"

The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people's ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one's ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one's ethnic group.

Who was he? He certainly sounds like the ideal presidential candidate of a Pacifica Radio Network listener or Mother Jones subscriber -- or, to make a more timely reference, a contributor to MoveOn.org. It can only add to his appeal for such people that he was a target of American and British bombing raids and had to flee to the safety of an underground hide-out.

And he was none other than Time magazine's Man of the Year for 1938:

Adolf Hitler."

Stunning isn’t it?

We urge you to read the entire article. You’ll find it at:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010804A

Why do I bring all this to the forefront today? Well, after months of being plastered with every racial epithet and called every hated name in the book, and some which were just made up on the spur of the moment, I thought I’d shed a little truth on who Hitler really was and... possibly poke an elbow in the ribs of the Left as a not-so- subtle-reminder that they ought not be describing conservatives in terms which, more truthfully, describe leftists/socialists.

Longstreet