"What is a "Nazi?"
That's a good question. There's alot of wisdom in the maxim, "WHAT is a 'Nazi?' It's someone who is winning an argument with a 'liberal'."
Essentially, the term has no definitive meaning. It's a plastic cliche of no factual substance, applied to an opponent to divert discussion and debate into the emotional, impulsive arena, out of the realm of rational, meaningful dialogue.
"Nazi" is a pejorative invented by the opposition of the German National Socialists. . . It is no more legitimate and accurate to use "Nazi" to describe a National Socialist, than it is to use "Christ killer" to accurately describe a Jew, or to use "rag head" to accurately describe an East Indian.
The illiberal "liberals" vocally decry dehumanization and objectification of human beings, but it is they who most often fail to practice what they preach.
The illiberal "liberals" prefer to deal with caricatures, rather than people, for caricatures are easier to confront. Caricatures don't need to be debated.
The illiberal "liberals" refrain from substantive discussion with those they objectify mainly for two reasons: fear and sloth. They fear that cherished leftist concepts and myths will be debunked via genuine debate. Since most "liberals" lack self-discipline (an earthly extension of their philosophy), sustained substantive debate is a pursuit they'd rather not engage in, regardless of the stakes -- it's just too much work. Dishonest, distorted caricatures generated by Hollywood serve to shield the illiberal "liberal" from the need to construct an intelligent argument based on _factual_ data.
The illiberal "liberal" would like to pretend that "Nazis" deserve special abuse. We all know they're BAD, and we don't need to consider their arguments or their humanity.
But never mind the fact that the illiberal "liberal" reviles the use of the term "Commie" applied to a Marxist -- even though _Communists_, and not "Nazis," are responsible for the greatest mass murders of history. Don't mind the fact the illiberal "liberal" would never even _think_ of using the racial epithet "vicious niggers" to describe Black Africans who perform clitorectomy on little girls and enslave their neighbors even today. Never mind that the illiberal "liberal" is incensed when the term "Jap" is used to describe the originators of the Bataan Death March.
When I am asked, "are you a Nazi?," I will continue to say "no," and it will be an earnest reply.
However, if I am asked, "are you a National Socialist?," the answer must be, because I believe in the body of philosophy which endeavors to apply all the immutable laws of the natural Order to human affairs and promotes a truly progressive social order: "yes."
If asked, "are you a racist?," the answer must be, because I recognize the unique qualities, shortcomings, and needs of each human race, and incorporate these realities into my world-view: "yes."
If asked, "do you admire Adolf Hitler?," the answer must be, because I acknowledge the triumphs and struggles of the most notable figure of the 20th Century, the greatest German statesman, who, in the Rousseauian tradition, represented the Will of his People, and directed the miraculous transformation of a broken society into the most progressive and advanced Nation of its time: "yes!"
That's Milton Kleim. He said it; not I. He said it well, however.
Last time I published something Milton wrote, I left his name out, thinking
I was doing him a favor.
He chided me for that. This time I let you know.
I want also to let you know that recently he quit the struggle for reasons
that are personal, which is a sad development.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Every virtuous man would rather meet an open foe than a pretended friend who is a traitor at heart."
(H. F. Kletzing)