Hate Mail Response to my Hate Mail! (and I Godwin the hell out of this post)

Warning, there will be bad language. Because you simply can’t talk about people this willfully ignorant without using the f word.

One of the cool things about whenever I post a Hate Mail post, within a day or so I get to post a Hate Mail Response to the Hate Mail Post. Fisking one moron inevitably attracts more morons, in a sort of perpetual moron cycle. (I am secretly hoping to someday learn to harness the friction energy created by liberal handwringing, which I will then sell for billions because I am a capitalist, which will cause even more liberal handwringing friction, as they demand the profits from my liberal handwringing machine to pay off their student loans).


After clubbing Hanna like a baby seal, Borgese felt the need to send me this piece of illogical tripe. Our special guest nematode is in italics. My response is in bold.

Larry, I hate to say this, but you’re an idiot.

Yes. I am sure you simply *hate* to call people who dare to disagree from the accepted groupthink names.

I mean, seriously, calling the Nazis socialist is just dumb.

He means it. Seriously. Because calling the socialist German political party that proudly proclaimed that they were socialists, and named themselves the National Socialists, socialists is simply absurd!  

There’s just so much evidence to the contrary it makes me think you’re actually not talking about history, just about what you’d like history to be.

You will be happy to note that Borges didn’t bother to post all of this prolific evidence to the contrary.

In fact, in the comments section of the last Hate Mail post several of my readers went through a bunch of facts about how the Nazis were socialists, just like they said that they were. The response by Hanna was to link to Wikipedia where somebody said they were like totally not. Because if you read it some place on the internet then it totally must be true. Especially Wikipedia, which as everyone knows is never biased or wrong.

This Nazis are right wing is something that needs to get put to bed once and for all.

Okay, so let’s look at this Hanna cited Wiki article. It says that “a majority of scholars identify Nazism as being a far right form of politics” (Not that modern leftist academics would try to sweep the idea that their fellow travelers were embarrassing horrific murder machines under the rug or anything biased like that). Okay. So the academics agree!

So let’s take a look at some more things from this very same article.

The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core and stressed the need for the party to emphasize both a proletarian and national character, these views were shared by Otto Strasser who later left the Nazi Party in the belief that Hitler had betrayed the party’s socialist goals by allegedly endorsing capitalism.[31] Large segments of the Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and economic revolution upon the Party gaining power in Germany in 1933.[33] Of the million members of the SA, many were committed to the Party’s official socialist program.[33] The leader of the Party’s paramilitary organization the SA, Ernst Röhm, supported a “second revolution” (the “first revolution” being the Nazis’ seizure of power) that would entrench the Party’s official socialist program and demanded the replacement of the nonpolitical German army with a Nazi-led army.[33]

Well. Huh.  Ain’t that something?

But it says right there that Hitler changed his mind and decided to keep capitalism around! (surely that had nothing to do with the fact that socialism is a stupid economic failure and you can’t really build a super war machine with a broke ass economic system). I do believe I said repeatedly in that last post about how useful idiot idealist movements like OWS are always historically coopted by jerkoffs looking for more power.

Prior to becoming an anti-Semite and a Nazi, Adolf Hitler had previously served the Bavarian Soviet Republic from 1918 to 1919 where Hitler was elected Deputy Battalion Representative of his communist-led battalion and attended the funeral of communist Kurt Eisner – who was a German Jew – where Hitler wore a black mourning armband on one arm and a red communist armband on his other arm.[34

Wait a second… The National Socialists aren’t supposed to be on the left! Liberal academics said so!

As a Nazi, Hitler both in public and in private, opposed capitalism, Hitler regarded capitalism as having Jewish origins and accused capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[36]

Holy crap. That reads like an OWS manifesto. It’s like my hate mailers can’t even bother to check the links that they stick on here to show how smart they are!

However Hitler tactically took a pragmatic in-between position between the conservative and radical factions, in that he accepted private property and allowed capitalist private enterprises to exist as long as they obeyed the goals of the Nazi state but if a capitalist private enterprise resisted Nazi goals, he sought to destroy it.[31]

Let’s see, a socialist leader that punishes business that goes against his wishes and rewards those that do his bidding. Hmmm… Sound familiar? Want to drill for oil? Go screw yourself. Oh? Solyndra? Here’s another half a billion dollars. How much did GE pay in taxes recently?

Hanna said something to the effect that the socialist part of National Socialists was just a name, and it didn’t have anything to do with what they actually did. She went so far as to use the Democratic People’s Republic, i.e. North Korea as an example that a name doesn’t always fit the reality… However that is one dumbass argument when you realize that she’s talking about a communist dictatorship of a country where the people have no say, as opposed to the name of a political party, that was ELECTED.  So they named themselves socialist, ran as socialists, campaigned as socialists, in the birthplace of the philosophy of socialism, where the highly educated populace was familiar with socialism, won as socialists, and then implemented socialist policies. But they were sooooo not socialist.

Hookay then.

But let’s just say that socialist is just a label. And you know how much modern liberals hate labels! So instead of the hateful label of socialist, let’s take a look at what their platform says! They ran on 25 concise points. Once again, let’s go to the source of all absolute correct knowledge in the world! WIKIPEDIA!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Let’s see… Aryan race blah blah blah. Bunch of racist nonsense… Not that we could ever possibly correlate racism with the left, except for the Black Panthers, the KKK, and the American Nazis all pitching in with OWS. Ah here we go. Let’s see how totally not socialist the National Socialists are. Because as I was told, there is soooooooo much evidence.

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

So the state owes everybody a living… Never seen that on an OWS sign before.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.


Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

Pay my student loans! I bought a house I can’t afford! Bail me out!

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Evil military industrial complex. Take their stuff! BOOOOO!

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Nationalizing private assets? That sure sounds like capitalism to me.

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

It isn’t fair that some percentage of something controls some other percentage of something! We are the 99%. Take their stuff! Woot!

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

At age 68 Julia can retire and live without worry because Barack Obama like totally saved social security.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions.

Free education. Sound familiar?

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Michelle Obama thinks it is her business you are fat and we need a national health program. And they just tried to ban kids working on family farms.

All of those things sound eerily similar to things that my Hate Mailers post as being ideals.

To be fair, the Nazis had plenty of other points too, including a lot of crazy eugenic racist garbage. I’m sure the academics will cite that as the right wing part, ignoring that the eugenics movement was universally loved by left wing politicians around the world during the early part of the century. All of the pro-big government, total control types thought eugenics was awesome.

The eugenics movement was one of the most hideously evil things to ever exist. The communist/socialists/progressives ate it up. It gave them the “scientific” excuse they needed to implement controls on their populations. It was the global warming of the 1930s. But I digress.

So in conclusion the National Socialists totally weren’t socialists because modern socialist academics said they aren’t, even though their party platform and policies were distinctly socialist. Does that much cognitive dissonance hurt?

Wait, but I forgot about Borgs! Let’s get back to our latest Hate Mail.

The fact is, a tiny number of people control a huge amount of american resources. Poverty kills more people, even in america, than any other cause.

No, actually according to the CDC, heart disease in the number one killer, followed by cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke, and accidents.  But don’t let reality hold you back.

The statistical violence in this situation is obviously about wealth distribution.

Wha huh pseudo academic made up sentence of what?

Politic how you like, but it’s a brute fact that 1.) Wealth is incredibly unequally distributed in America, leading to a rich nation with many poor citizens.

And so what? Some people have more stuff than you do, big freaking deal. Capitalism is such a horrible system that our poor people live better than the rich in most of the rest of the world.

2) Through many vectors, poverty causes death and distress to all involved.

Not really. The quality of living in America has gone up continuously. Most of the impoverished in America live in houses, have running water, heat, refrigeration, and their greatest health problem is that they can eat too much food and get fat. (a health issue almost unheard of in all of human history)

And even then if you consider yourself poor, because we live in America, there is no reason that you can’t improve your situation. There are plenty of people on here who have been poor who now are considered rich. I’ve been poor, then middle class, then back to poor, and now Barack Obama says I’m rich. We don’t have a caste system. Nearly everyone can improve their situation through effort.

But that’s soooo hard…

Also I assume when you say “100,000,000”, you’re referring to Stalin’s regime, right?

Nope. I was talking about left wing assholes in general, but I’ll break it down for you in a minute because you’re too stupid and apathetic to punch it into Google yourself.

That’s usually how that figure is bandied around. It’s actually larger than the entire population of Russia was at the time, so it’s got an amusing dimension to it. Obviously, Stalin was not only killing all his own people including himself, but also some invented ones too.

Actually the population of the Soviet Union was about actually 191 million in 1940. And actually you’ve already demonstrated no actual ability to look things up. And actually you are one dumb son of a bitch… Actually.

You know, it’s one thing to attribute every death that happened in the USSR over a given period to communists (that’s usually how you get these insane figures), but to add people to the population pool?

The problem with political movements based upon making people into assets of the states to be managed, is that sometimes you need to manage them to death. Marxist philosophy inevitably ends up with purges, camps, terror, mass killings, and genocide. Sure, there are some socialist places where it hasn’t happened… Yet.

But you are right about one thing. Sadly, these figures are insane. The insane part is that fools like you don’t know them, yet you are eager to turn your freedom over to the exact same types.

And since you guys love you some Wikipedia, let’s look at just those murdered, purposefully starved, or shipped off to camps to die of exposure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

The Soviets take the cake, right off the bat having official records of executing over 800,000, with about 3 million dead after being sent to gulags and forced relocation. Deaths from purposeful famine are harder to track, with Stalin’s apologists saying that it was ONLY around 6 million with some estimates being way higher. However you lib bastards love you some Ivy League academics, and Yale puts that around 20 million.

However there aren’t good records for right around when the Bolsheviks murdered their way into power around 1917, but we’re talking small time there. The reds only executed something like 12,000 Cossacks. They called it decossackization.

The Great Purge had about 700K get bullets in the back of head. The numbers are fuzzy on how many died during torture or in NKVD custody. Stalin, being an overachiever, also executed around 100,000 priests and nuns. One time he took a vacation into Mongolia to kill another 30K Mongolians. This is all before the biggest war in history where Stalin really got his murder on. He let 150,000 Poles die in captivity.

Oh, but wait. There’s more. We can’t forget China! Now things get a little fuzzy here, because Mao really didn’t have time to slow down and record every single dead peasant. Officially, he was prepared to kill 50 MILLION people to institute his “reforms” but that was just boasting. The actual number was only a couple of million… Hey, sometimes you’ve got to break a few eggs.

But then Mao decided to get down to business and had the Great Leap Forward. Since you are all about having a government strong enough to maintain the redistribution of wealth, Mao decided to redistribute all of the food from the people he didn’t like to the people he did. Some people didn’t like this, so he executed two and a half million of them. 40 million dead later, China was on the road to the future, so Mao chilled out and only killed another couple million people who dared disagree after that.

Those are the big two, but some of the little guys punched above their weight class. Cambodia killed and starved a third of their population. There were mass killings by communists in Vietnam, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany, but those guys were just icing on a murder sundae.

But of course this sort of thing is just symptomatic of any state that is powerful enough to own its own people. If they own you, they can do what they want with you. If they provide you with food, housing, and healthcare, they can also take those things from you if they feel like. And you stupid fuckers keep on begging for them to do it.

Still, if you consider the distribution of wealth, and the consequences of poverty, capitalist nations outstrip any regime in terms of statistical suffering.

Really? Fascinating. Who? You lying quisling sack of shit.

Worldwide today, 9.7 milion children die every year. So, if we extrapolate that back, we can say that capitalism has killed more *children* in the last ten years than Stalin could have killed if he’d set out to murder every person in Russia.

So when I said that communists have murdered 100,000,000 people in the last century by starving, executing, or freezing them to death in gulags, that doesn’t actually count, but when an African kid dies of malaria because angsty urban American liberals got DDT banned to protect bird’s eggs, that’s the fault of capitalism… Gotcha.

I know you believe it might economically go badly if you started doling out some of the money of the top 1%.

I’ve stated my philosophy clearly. Any government big enough to take everything away, will eventually take everything away. Your philosophy is screw them, I’m a greedy little lazy idiot, motivated by shame, so gimmie free stuff.

But to be honest, I think it would be hard to do worse than nearly ten million kids dying of easily preventable causes every year.

Would you like to compare the infant and child mortality rates of capitalist countries vs. socialist/communist/Marxist countries?

Let me get this right… If we forcibly confiscate the assets of the wealthy, and build the statist machine necessary to do it, that all powerful state won’t turn totally evil like all of the other ones before it, and they’ll take those rich guys money to give to a bunch of lazy OWS douchebags to pay off their student loans, so automatically 10 million children in 3rd world hellholes run by statist thugs, who are currently backed by the lefty socialists in the UN, will suddenly be cured by magic unicorns…

Borgie, even if OWS got every single thing on their wish list, and every single rich dude in America got shaken down tomorrow, and the government confiscated all of their assets, and before the economy imploded (because all of our rich guys said why bother?), it still wouldn’t do dick to help dying children in 3rd world hellholes.

Because you apathetic little parasites would just gobble up the 1 percent’s stuff with your free houses, and your free education, and your free internet access, and your free health care, and your free bullshit… Briefly, but then the money would be gone, and you’d still be an apathetic little parasite. But now since you’ve installed a government amoral and powerful enough to truly not give a shit, this time when you take to the streets they will just kill your ass.

You bitch about America at the protests, where our police handle you with kid gloves. You pose like little anarchist douchebags in your Guy Fawkes masks (my GOD! These people are ignorant of history!) throw bricks at the cops and destroy other people’s property, and then scream and cry about your civil rights being violated, all while demanding to be more like other countries that would just machinegun you in the streets and be done with it.



New book out in a couple of weeks
Hate mail time!

167 thoughts on “Hate Mail Response to my Hate Mail! (and I Godwin the hell out of this post)”

  1. Using liberal shitbags’ own liberal shitbag figures:


    World as a whole: .804 (Whew. Glad we’re better than someone, like, say, everyone)
    Denmark: .808
    Switzerland: .803
    USA: .801
    Nicaragua: .755 (wait, we’re worse than Nicaragua?)

    Romania: .651
    New Zealand: .651 (wait, NZ is just as bad as Romania???)
    Yemen: .613
    China: .550

    In fact, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia, Vietnam, Algeria and Bangladesh are better places to live than the US! Just ask the liberals!

    And thank god we don’t live in Denmark or Switzerland.

    Do yourself a favor, Borgese…well, no, do me a favor: Get your ass back in the kitchen and cook my fries. I need a ready supply of ignorant, underpaid labor to keep me where I’ve worked hard to be: The middle class.

    Because when you pretend to be smart you just look like a fucking retard.

  2. Larry I was raised by a liberal hippy mom “please don’t hold against me I’m also a proud Military vet that served in the first gulf war”. I don’t trust any party and I don’t trust anybody that want something for nothing. I read their manifesto and it made me sick.
    Ok I took up professional photography about 2 years ago I worked very hard to get to the skill level that I’m at. I took out a loan on my 401k to get better equipment to continue to develop my skill. They want to smash my camera if I decided to take pictures on public property of their idiocy because I can afford an expensive camera. A camera I’m still paying off and working for and developing my skill. I choose not to have a social life because I’m a working capitalist I have some very big plans and I won’t make them a reality unless I make the sacrifices to earn my fortune. I might have a few liberal tendency but these idiots have no f’in clue about life.

    Can I ask you a question about Monster hunter Alpha? Since Earl and her were turned after the Amulet of Kashay Does that mean they are both immune to silver?

    1. Jason, obviously you need to do all your photography with an iPhone, they’ll think you’re one of “them.” Esepcially if you wear Nikes & North Face.

  3. Tell ’em what you really think Larry! Don’t hold back just left fly..;)

    Someone should send this to Rush so he he can read it to millions (well minus some of the more spicey words). Well done.

    I agree with freedom of speech and everyone is entitled to an opinion but if you want to argue a point have the facts straight and a position other than “it is just not fair” or “you have money..you suck”.

    Thanks for a entertaining AND informative blog entry.

  4. Nice to see the guy wearing the mask. You know, that mask of a right wing jihadist who attempted to blow up a legitimate government in order to bring England back to the Catholic Church. That mask made by slave labor in China, using toxic chemicals. That mask of which 80% of the profit goes to a multibillion dollar media conglomerate. That’s totally the way to protest capitalism and inequality.

    If you’re a total fucking moron.

    1. You almost lost me when you anachronistically labeled Guy Fawkes “a right wing jihadist”.Wanna see a moron? Look in your mirror.

      1. Look up the definition of “right wing.” Then go look in a mirror.

        That the modern “left” has co-opted the term doesn’t change its meaning.

        Hint: Fawkes was not any kind of socialist. He wanted a repressive central state suppressing all dissent.

        FYI, there is no “right wing” in the US. Except in the minds of “liberals.”

      2. Hey dumbass, do you even know who Guy Fawkes was? Do you know what he was trying to accomplish?

        I laugh when I see asshats like the ones in the picture wearing the mask because I know my history. I know what Guy Fawkes was trying to accomplish.

        It is as bad as the idiots who were Che Guevera shirts without an inkling of the monster that he was.

      3. He’s right, Micha. You are a moron. Enough of a moron to believe that someone trying to overthrow the legitimate government of England to install a Catholic regime was a ‘freedom fighter’. Enjoy your slave labor mask, though. It fits you.

    1. Or if any of them had been taught to read for comprehension/

      From the movie “A fish called Wanda” remember the character Otto read Nietzsche..The above blog post -fisking the liberal lemming reminded me of this dialog.

      Otto: Don’t call me stupid.

      Wendy: Why on earth not?

      Wanda: [after Otto breaks in on Wanda and Archie in Archie’s flat and hangs him out the window] I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I’m setting up a guy who’s incredibly important to us, who’s going to tell me where the loot is and if they’re going to come and arrest you. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?

      Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.

      Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

      Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

      Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.


  5. I have personally stood in the mass grave yards in what was then the Soviet Union. The graveyard was broken down into plots that went on as far as the eyes could see. As I remember (and could be wrong) the plots appeared to be about a 100 feet long by 50 feet wide. Each plot was estimated to hold 25,000 bodies which where dumped on top of each other then filled in with dirt. A plaque was placed on each plot with the year and either the hammer and sickle or the military emblem to tell you if it was civilians or military. Standing there in the middle of that graveyard was one of the biggest eye openers and sickest feeling I have ever had.

    The year was 1991 and I was an exchange student during the heart of Perestroika. I left just before the coup attempt and was one of the last Americans out of Georgia. I saw so many things there like disproportionate wealth (the mob had it all, everyone else was starving), people starving, homeless, police brutality, drugs, black markets in the open and a mafia running wild.

    Communism doesn’t work. Socialism is Communism’s ugly step sister.

    1. Did the same at Bergen-Belsen. Some days I think it’s too bad the Nazis surrendered before we could turn them to ash. like all those who went before them. And as the Persians have been a PITA to Western Civ for millenia I think it’s only fair to make them has-beens.as a favor to everyone else of the f’n planet.

  6. Larry, I laughed so hard that I peed a little. And that last paragraph needs to go viral, if such wisdom can do so.

  7. They do get so bent out of shape when you start quoting the Nazis themselves on their economic policies. Here was what they did about people who wanted to flee their socialist utopia with their assets:

    MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then on the first day of 12/1936, you promulgated an act making it a death penalty for Germans to transfer property abroad or leave it abroad; the property of a culprit to be forfeited to the State, and the People’s Court given jurisdiction to prosecute, did you not?

    GOERING: That is correct; the “Decree Governing Restriction on Foreign Currency.” That is to say, whoever had an account in a foreign country without permission of the government.

    1. Of course, the Nazi officials themselves all had Swiss bank accounts. It’s one of the main reasons Germany didn’t invade Switzerland. It would have been SO embarrassing.

  8. I find it endlessly amusing that the National Socialists are always described a “right wing” when in fact, they were socialists.

    But most leftists are idiots, and I repeat myself.

  9. Once the Goodwining is done, it’s time for “WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1”

    First, when American children are hungry, it is most often because Mommy spends all the food money on meth, crack, booze, and cigs, and can’t keep a job because of same.

    Second, regarding the Pore and Starvin of the Third World, the problem is too MUCH foreign aid! Why do you think pretty much every 3rd world country is a corrupt kelptocratic nightmare? Why should they invest in agriculture when their goods are only going to be undercut by food aid supplies? How do you overcome the mindset of “we don’t have to take care of it, some other country will build us a new one” as hospitals, schools, and other infastructure rots away from a lack of maintenance?

    1. You take the words right out of my mouth. I am so sick and tired of the whole “what about the children” garbage. It is a huge leftist trick to whine about the kids, or claim that the right wants to kill Grandma and Grandpa. The left doesn’t care about EARNING anything. They are concerned with whether or not they get a “fair share” of the pie that they never worked to create. That is why so many sheeple get behind this sort of craziness, because everyone wants something for nothing. Of course when you point out that you should work hard for something in order to attain it, you get the above spiel. We’re starving children, we’re killing Grandma. Yes, we–the right–are the bogeyman. Here to take away your free ride and make you work for something. I’m just a horrible person. Perhaps I’m a little jaded insofaras I go to school at night, on my dime. I work a full time job, and also run our household. I did things right. I married, and had no out of wedlock children. HOWEVER, I go to a PRIVATE COLLEGE, that I pay PREMIUM tuition for, and the girl sitting next to me has two kids, with two different fathers, no husband (not divorced, just no husband) and lives with her parents. I’m also paying her tuition. Not in total, but she is going to college on taxpayer handouts because she couldn’t say no to some horny guy–twice–and is on the public dole because of it. Now, I have absolutely no problem with someone trying to better themselves, but I get to listen to her bitch and moan because her welfare check should be bigger, and her child support payments are late (perhaps a guy who couldn’t bother with protection is not the responsible bill payer that he should be?), and also listen to her complain because her Mother thinks that she should apply for assistance with childcare and housing (which I can’t blame her for, I wouldn’t want to be caring for my grandchildren 24-7 either) Maybe instead of blaming everyone else for the outcome of childrens’ lives, we should, I don’t know, blame the irresponsible parents? Naw.

    2. Two Biggest Damn Heroes in Africa today are George W Bush and Bill Gates. Those two have done more to fight the various diseases that continent is prone to than all the Hollywood douche bags lining up to perform unspeakable acts for the pleasure of His Imperial Majesty Barack Hussein Obama I.

      1. Africa? Let it die. We’ll move in later to build low cost nursing homes. My grandkids will dance with effalumps out on the patio right after having barbecue’d wildebeest burgers, with cheese. Just before they launch to help build mining colonies on the asteroids.

      2. jsallison, actually, China is probably going to move into Africa, lots of natural resources to be exploited. I agree that we should just cut off all aid monies and let the continent implode.

  10. MY Oponion here folks…OWS is the natural result of the FBI moving +70% of its budget from policing white collar crime to terrorism. There is a reason tech folks lead this movement, who do you think automates sociopathic plunder of an existing distribution system. Listen, most are not plundering sociopaths, but it only takes one to gain a large enough marketshare to spoil the whole system. Heck, the press and colleagues typically praise these a-holes on their way up. Then write flashy stories on their way down.

    Not all sociopaths have a taste for human flesh, in fact, most go into either politics, religion and business. One of the factors in the hatred of the Jews I

    the dems are trying to claim it, and the pubs are trying to demonize it.

    1. Trying to type on smartphone stinks.

      One of the reasons the Jews became such an easy target in WWII, is because Christians used them for money lending because lending at interest was a sin. When the economy busted, it was easier to demonize those holding you accountable. If we spend all our effort demonizing each other, we will misplace our focus and feed right into the pattern of easily manipulated masses repeated so often in history.

  11. Thank you, Mr. Correia, Sir!

    I’ve started to wonder if there should be a Wiki History corollary to Godwin’s Law, something about “if you only cite the first line, you lose the argument” or “if you cite Wiki without multiple supporting sources, you lose the argument.” Pop culture would be more OK, but on science and history, you gotta back up your Wiki call or it doesn’t count.

  12. >Yes. I am sure you simply *hate* to call people who dare to disagree from the accepted groupthink names.
    No, seriously, I like your books.
    >The leader of the Party’s paramilitary organization the SA, Ernst Röhm
    You know, I’m not usually one to say ‘trust the experts’, but in this case, you should really trust the experts, and this is a case in point. The thing about Rohm was he did represent a relatively ‘socialist’ subgroup of the Nazi party. In the night of the long knives, this faction were all executed.
    I think actually there’s a reason why both left and right identify Nazis as their opponents: both left and right see what they’re trying to prevent as a kind of absolutist corporatism, where the individual is subordinated to the state. Corporatism is where both private and public endeavors are, to put it simply, subjected to one ‘totalitarian’ ideal, whether it be economic growth or social welfare.
    You see, the Nazis were a corporatist, capitalist state, with a strong absolutist discourse. That’s always going to look leftwing to rightwingers, and rightwing to leftwingers.
    The thing is, right-llibertarianism is based on a truncated notion of the state. Left wing theory generally holds that the state, since it is in cohesion with many of the largest businesses, and in general cohesion with business in general, can be extended in definition. So, the state is not only the group of legistlators, but also an army of civil servants, officeworkers, and businessmen who all work in relative collusion.
    > The quality of living in America has gone up continuously.
    Look up ‘real wages’. Typically, the trend in the last 40 years has been ‘real wages’ have stayed level, and households have taken on extra jobs to sustain rising costs of living, and to a lesser extent, rising expectations.
    >that doesn’t actually count,
    On the issue of mass killing, I’m not actually interested in defending communist regimes. As far as I’m concerned, Stalin was an asshole and Pol pot was a nutjob. Further, they’ve been a consistent strawman for right-wing attacks on fairly reasonable demands for wellfare (‘you want disability benefits for blind people? Stalinist! First this, then the gulags!’) All I’m pointing out is they generally get these figures by counting every death in a given territory by a preventable cause (famine, etc), and if we do the same to capitalist nations, you’d get similar results.
    And, 3rd world hellholes are not statist. You see, the world bank usually demands that they sign up to free-trade agreements in order to get loans. You can check this out in regard to Haiti or Mexico, but I think it’s a pattern that has happened all over the world.
    To be honest, Larry, I really don’t understand your logic. You’re a smart guy. On the one hand, you’re discrediting accademic work which is literally the product of years of rigorous attention to the facts. On the other, you’re claiming that lefties are ignorant of the facts.
    I think there’s actually a pretty good quote about this issue in Coriolanus, (good action movie, good shakespeare), which is all about Martius wanting to ‘machinegun’ ungrateful lefties in the streets. Menenius says, about a famine, ‘this dearth is caused by the gods, not the patricians’. And this line has been the same one that has been trotted out, time and time again, to explain every famine, every poverty-struck wasteland ever since. ‘It’s not the fault of the wealthy that you’re hungry, this world is rough, and we don’t control economics.’ Except, the thing is, these days we have statistics. Now we know how much food there is in the world. When in Shakespeare’s time they’d say it was just Gods will that you starved, now they say it’s economics. Both are examples of people refusing to admit moral responsibility for things ultimately under their control.

    PS: I enjoy commenting to this blog. You have now, to this date, posted a point-by-point refutal to me twice out of four posts submited.

    1. “Larry, I don’t understand your logic.” Well, considering that you respond to his long list of specific examples, exact reasons _why_ the Nazi party was socialist giving explicit reasons from their platforms and their programs with appeal to authority (“academics say…” and proof by repeated assertion, I think you can simply remove the word “your” from that statement.

      1. That’s not what I did at all. You see, I gave an explicit example, in the case of Rohm, why some parts of the story of the Nazi party can cloud the general picture.

        I think the assertion that the Nazis are socialist is based on a misconception of what socialism actually means (I’ve honestly never met a right-winger who could point out the basic feature of socialism), and a taking of Nazi propaganda at face-value. Because right wing ideologues don’t tend to talk in terms of capitalism, but rather identify capitalism with all forms of free-trade extending into the prehistory of mankind, the debate becomes hopelessly confused.

        I’m not actually a massive fan of Chomsky or Zin, but I think Chomsky does pay meticulous attention to sourcing in his research, even if I think his conclusions are sometimes simplistic.

        1. Well, then, why don’t you define socialism for us poor little right wingers, so we’ll all be on the same page?

          Meanwhile I’m going to laugh hysterically at the concept of me being a right-winger.

          I will state tautologically that you clearly have no fucking idea what “right wing” really means.

          The profanity is necessary. I’m just not believing these depths of idiocy aren’t some complicated trolling.

          But go ahead. Definition of socialism, please.

        2. “I gave an explicit example” which, at best, demonstrates that the Nazi’s weren’t a _pure_ socialist movement. And then you go on with “academics say” and “they’re not socialist, they’re not, they’re not, they’re not” while not addressing their actual _policies_ and _positions_.

          “I’ve actually never met a right winger who could point out the basic features of socialism” Well what do you expect? Whenever they point to failed examples of socialism the response is “but that’s not socialism.” Apparently the “basic feature” is that everything goes well and there are no problems for which it could be criticized–if such problems exist, then it’s not socialism by definition.” IOW, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy (look it up).

      2. @Borgese

        “(I’ve honestly never met a right-winger who could point out the basic feature of socialism),”

        I’m not a right winger – but the basic feature is theft, same as any form of statism.

    2. ” Kind sir, would you like the word salad with your naked lunch?
      …Or would you prefer the jalapeno poppers?”

      1. Sean (for some reason it wont let me reply directly) Why would you want Ranch with Jalapeno poppers? Ranch is Nasty.
        Blue Cheese all the way man,

        1. Bleu Cheese is for French socialists attempting to relive the glory days of peasantry by eating cheese with visible mold in it. Ranch is an American invention and inherently superior.

    3. Your assertion that Hitler was not a true Scotsman is noted and ignored.

      Albert Speer fucking nationalized ALL of industry in Nazi Germany. How in the bloody fucking hell can you claim that the Nazis were not socialists?

      Apparently your whole argument consists of “They weren’t socialist enough, and are therefor corporate tools.”

      How socialist is socialist enough for you? Would you feel better if they were putting factory owners up against walls with the Jews while they nationalized all heavy industry?

      1. I seriously think that the thought process is that the Nazis weren’t Socialists because true Socialists obsess about Class and the Nazis obsessed about Race.

        As we all know, no True Leftist gives a fat damn about Race.

    4. Have you even done any research? I think I just lost a few IQ points no thanks to you. I don’t know if you’re that heavily biased or that ignorant (or stupid, or lazy. Whichever works).

      Yeah, I would have to agree with the other guys here. Find some legitimate research before you make stupid comments like this.

      You’re just wasting everyone’s time.

    5. “That’s always going to look leftwing to rightwingers, and rightwing to leftwingers.”

      Except at the time Nazis, Fascists, and Stalinists all looked left wing to left wingers. All were praised at the time by various left wing groups and politicians both foreign and domestic. To the point were guys like you later claim that leftists were tricked despite all the bonafides these authoritarian leftists had. Oh, and so what if the Nazi’s did some internal cleansing since that was all the rage with leftist of all stripes back then. Also so what if they were “corporativists”. Take a lot around you at what Obama and the Social Democrats do.

      1. The funny thing is; The National Socialists didn’t become “right wing” until after Stalin got butt-hurt over Barbarossa, and the German Workers Party declared war on FDR.

    6. Why debate back and forth with our own opinions, why not go straight to the source? Here are quotes directly from Mein Kampf – which I have read a few times:
      “Chapter VII:
      In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water. ”
      “Chapter 4:
      The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 

      If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.”
      Or directly from the monsters mouth, Hitler to Otto Strasser, in Berlin, on May 21, 1930:
      “I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.”
      OR Gregor Strasser, who was the theologian of National Socialism – i.e. the dude who came up with the philosophy of that madness with Hitler’s direct blessing:
      “We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.”
      How about F.A. Hayek, in his book Road to Serfdom, (pg. 168):
      “The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.”
      Why is it that Hitler ordered the SS to put Capitalists in the camps if he was a capitalist? “Corporatism” is simply another form of Socialism, which is defined as a political-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command or fiat for the greater good, however that greater good or end is defined or achieved. By nearly every definition, the United States is a socialist, teetering and flirting with fascist, government. The only difference historians and political scientists distinguish between Fascism and Nazism is that Nazism places its authority and drive for political power in a racist light, while Fascism aims for a Socialist economy for the good of the people as a whole. Both Hitler and Stalin claimed political descendence from Marx, in their own words, and in their own writings, whether it be speeches, books, or journals.
      The link between Nazism and Socialism is plainly evident, to anyone who is willing to spend the time to actually look and research, and not listen to their communist teacher trying to sell them on the idea that Nazi’s are “far right wing conservatives”.

    7. The Minimum Wage Historian must jump in here. There’s a reason my blog is called that, I’m friggin’ poor. Also, I’m not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But, let me throw my hack historical cred into this fight. Yes, the Nazis were Socialists. They confiscated businesses that were then taken over by the government, the people were there to serve their great society, confiscated guns, went after capitalism because they viewed it as greedy and decadent. etc etc. They were statist socialist. Oh, my extremely liberal history professor said so as well, so I guess there’s the academic cred. To say the Nazi Party wasn’t Socialist is like saying George Bush wasn’t really a Republican.

      1. Are you Democrat? Libertarian? Constitutionalist? Socialist? None of the previous?

        You brought it up, so it must be important.

        I’m South Park Conservative, btw.

    8. “The thing about Rohm was he did represent a relatively ‘socialist’ subgroup of the Nazi party.”

      If you’re one of the “experts” I should “trust”, then I would truly be a bigger fool than you are. Rohm didn’t just “represent” a relatively “socialist” subgroup of the Nazi Party. He was the head of the Party’s street thugs used to intimidate everyone into supporting Hitler and the Nazis. But by 1934, this 2-million strong army was a threat to Hitler himself, so Hitler did what any dictator did; he eliminated the leadership of the threat, in this case with his personal bodyguard, the SS. At that point, the SA was no longer necessary to maintaining Nazi dominance of Germany and Rohm was expendable. But eliminating Rohm did nothing to eliminate the socialist aspect of the Nazis.

      “All I’m pointing out is they generally get these figures by counting every death in a given territory by a preventable cause (famine, etc), and if we do the same to capitalist nations, you’d get similar results.”

      Wanna bet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines )? Take a look at every famine that has occurred since 1900. You will not find one country that had it’s own democratically elected government running it at the time the famine occurred. None. You’ll note that during WWII, there were famines in Greece and the Netherlands, both occupied by the Nazis at the time. What you say isn’t based on any kind of reality. What you say, however, is part of a “community-based reality” of lying leftist propaganda that disregards facts when the facts prove the propaganda as false.

  13. Everytime Larry posts one of these hate mail pieces I hear the theme to Team America playing by the time I’m done reading. I’m not gonna lie, it’s pretty awesome.

  14. Also, PS:
    Being a poor ol’ proletarian, I’m afraid I’m too busy working my shitty job to do a point-by-point and go through all your stuff about history. A general point is, if you want to get a scientific grasp of something, you need to pay attention to autonomy of content. If you find yourself discounting something because its written by a ‘commie scumbag’, you’re basically screwing your attempt to get to the truth of the matter.

    I’ve had to adhere to this principle, because whatever people say about left-wingers and accademia, there really aren’t very many left-wing accademics, and the further you go back in history, the less of them are around. You have to move from data to politics, not the other way around. Even if you’re reading something that’s entirely dominated by one political perspective or another, you can’t just discount it on that basis, especially if it includes empirical research.

    1. “because whatever people say about left-wingers and accademia, there really aren’t very many left-wing accademics,”


      You kill me, you really do.

      Here’s a quick test: Are Zinn and Chomsky relevant and credible?

      If you answer “Yes,” you are left of center and your baseline is skewed.

      Why exactly was Zer0 the Fuckup given a Nobel Peace Prize, again?

      1. You know, I just see a lot of words in good ‘ole Borgese’s response(s). Not a whole lot of sense. But then, as the Scarecrow says in the Wizard of Oz: “But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking… don’t they?”

      2. “there really aren’t very many left-wing accademics[sic]” is just another way of saying “I’m so far to the left that many of these blatant socialists seem ‘right wing.'”

    2. Borgese … W.T.F.?!! You seriously don’t understand? Fight the strings of your puppet master, child. Or at least stop being so smug in your blatant, willful ignorance.

    3. OK, so when we refute your errors, you decide that you are no longer an academic, but rather a working stiff that is being picked on. Looks like you are now trying desperately to claim some kind of victim status, typical lefty behavior when caught with hand in cookie jar.

      Free clue: We don’t deify victims here, and will continue to laugh at you and savage you.

      Don’t post shit on the internet if you don’t know what in the hell you are talking about. Serious factual errors made while insulting people will be rammed back down your own throat.

      1. Moving the Goalposts. Tactic Number Two in the Standard Lefty Playbook. Right after claiming prejudice against whatever the Cause du Jour is. . .

    4. Ironic you wrote that comment applying the antonym of the word that was used to discount the humanity of 100 million victims of Marxist ideology. Talk about willful ignorance. Time was in most communist countries that merely being called bourgeois was enough not only to discount what you had to say and any truth of the matter but even your very life.

    5. “…whatever people say about left-wingers and accademia, there really aren’t very many left-wing accademics, and the further you go back in history, the less of them are around.”

      So, this is the line that proves that you’ve never gone to college.

      I went, i dropped out (proudly and with honors), and the idea that “there aren’t many left-wing academics” (corrected your spelling for ya, chief), made me laugh so hard i made little piddle on my chair.

      Look dude, there’s loss of credibility and then there’s being fucking crazy.

      Consider the difference and write a report, 5 pages, double spaced. And don’t forget to cite your sources (ten bucks says most of them will be left-wing, but we won’t worry about that).

    6. That was the most pretentious, arrogant attempt to sound smart I’ve heard in a long time. You’re spouting off a bunch of big words in long streams in an attempt to impress us. Its kinda embarrassing.

    7. You do realize that you spent two paragraphs basiclly stating that you have no idea what your talking about and that your to busy to do the research.

  15. Larry, the best I’ve gotten out of a liberal is the admission that Nazis are a bastard marriage of capitalism and socialism. To many of them do not seem to understand the inherent danger from corrupt and psychotic individuals taking over socialist governments.

  16. I don’t want to wade into this debate, but I do have a question about the tone of the discussion. Is name-calling really necessary? Regardless of what someone thinks of another position (i.e. dumb, idiotic, misinformed, etc.), when the disparaging terms start to fly this usually indicates that someone is trying to silence another through acidic rhetoric and chastising.

    I really like your books, Larry. And, I usually enjoy your blog posts. The one exception is when you throw out explitives and disparaging remarks about those your disagree with. I would like to see some thoughtful disagreement and even you posting about someone’s position that you might disagree with, but you felt they made some good points.and argued it well even if at the end of the day you still disagree. In the end, this is your blog and you will manage it as you see fit.

    Just my two cents.

    1. As you will notice, whenever anyone posts in the comments with an honest disagreement and wants to debate, I don’t call them names. I’ve got a bunch of regular readers who are on the left.

      However, when they show up and the first thing they do is call me a nazi, the stage is set and the inevitable has been set in motion. For those people I have no patience and even less mercy. I am simply done being nice with the willfully ignorant.

      1. Understood, and appreciated. However, by extending and maintaining patience (not saying a word about mercy – cold hard facts will take care of the disbursement of mercy or the lack thereof!) and self-editing to abstain from the expletives and name-calling, you put yourself solidly on the high road and only magnify your rude opponents’ neanderthal-ish mindset. Verbal self-control demonstrates higher standards, higher intelligence, and higher class (and I’m not talking about wage bracket). But, as AeroHudson pointed out, your blog, your choice. Either way, I appreciate and support your logical, fact supported position.

      2. “I am simply done being nice with the willfully ignorant.”

        Amen to that Mr Corriea.
        Their fever dreams are messing with my bottom line ability to care for my family.

      3. I kinda have to agree. While their inital posts were pretty bad, they’ve toned down the level of insults in the more recent ones. It might be a good idea to match the deescalation before we start looking like the assholes.

        On the other hand, I’m still waiting for you to call someone an ignorant slut.

    2. The Western Intellectual Left is all about civility … to them. Anybody they disagree with better get used to being vilified. Yes, Bill Buckley had a WONDERFUL ‘let’s eviscerate them while being oh-so-polite’ schtick, but complaining about name calling is essentially saying “You’re being as rude to them as they are to anybody they disagree with.”

  17. > The thing is, right-llibertarianism is based on a truncated notion of the state.

    Ummmm… what? Libertarianism is the exact opposite of The State. We don’t want the state in anything but a minimalist fashion. The State seems to be the opposite of a free market. We want a free market. The State wants to control the market (removing ‘free’ from the description). Free as in speech, not free as in beer.

  18. Outstanding, Larry. I’m sending all of these posts, beginning with the OWS pics to friends and family. If Instapundit wasn’t on vacation I’d send it to him too. This is a masterpiece of a take-down. Honest history. What a concept.

    1. Eugenics in and of itself isnt a bad idea. The implimentation is wrong I havent the foggiest way of seeing how to do it RIGHT. but the idea is solid. We can improve chickens dogs and cows by selective breeding can we breed out the gene that makes some people Stupid a$$holes? Being the son of at least 3 generations of A$$holes and crazy people I have decided pretty thoroughly I dont want and shouldnt have kids. This is at least trying theoreticly to have a benificial effect.

      1. You know what happens when we “improve” domestic animal breeds too much? They become inbred and start developing various health problems. Variety is the spice of life.

      2. Well Rob termites are extremely inbred and their method of reproduction (generational inbreeding) actually leads to less problems with genetic disease by exposing and eliminating unhealthy recessives. One could do the same with domestic breeds to make them healthy.

        Eugene, like with many things it is the involuntary not voluntary eugenics that is the problem.

      3. Question is, who makes the decisions? I’m kinda unwilling to leave something that important up to the “don’t question my unfounded political jive about global warming, I’m a scientist in a completely unrelated field” crowd.

      4. Sorry, but having someone else deciding what is and isn’t a desirable trait, and telling you who you must mate with or if you can even have children at all is about as far from a good idea as you can get. it removes free will and self-determination from society (not to mention all that nonsense about love).

      5. problem is joe Im neither a chicken or a cow and if you tell me who I need to breed with(for the good of the human race of course)your taking a good chance of me kicking your tender bits hard enough to require surgery to make them drop again. :/

        1. “Methuselah’s Children.” (paraphrased) “We aren’t going to tell you who to marry of course, that’s your own decision, but if you should happen to marry one of the people on this list we will pay you X number dollars for every child produced by that union.”

      6. Eugenics would take the choice out of your hand, friend. The cow can’t choose to not breed when the farmer decides.

  19. The real shame is that Borgese’s comments are echoed the world ’round. I live in Canada and he’s mild compared to some of the marching morons we have here.

  20. The true shame of Borgese’s comments is that they are heard the world ’round. Here in Canada, he’s a very tame example of the marching morons who are convinced of the superiority of both their intellect and socialism.

  21. Trying to argue with a leftist is about as productive as trying to pick up a pile of dog shit with a weed whacker.

  22. “a majority of scholars identify Nazism as being a far right form of politics”
    And “a thousand uninformed opinions count as one.”
    Mussolini was also a socialist and a journalist (but in 21st century America I repeat myself) before he dressed socialism in new clothes to sell to the Italians.
    Fascism was “the third way”, allegedly neither Capitalism nor Socialism. It was/is a system where, unlike Socialism and Communism, in which the actual ownership of the means of production was in the state, ownership remained in the people but the state arrogated the power to regulate the hell out of property, so that a Fascist state was socialist except for the veneer of ownership.

  23. So here’s the problem… it’s a matter of perspective. The right vs left in the United States political spectrum are NOT the same right/left of Nazi Germany. They *ARE* the right side in Germany. Why? They’re the right side of politics on their scale. EVERYTHING on the German scale at the time was to the left of our central point.

    Think of it this way. 1 is on the far left side of a scale, 100 on the far right. Think of our politics as sitting around the 80 mark. Libertarians (with a capital L) are up about 95. The Statists in this country are near 65-70 for argument’s sake. 80 is that central mark. if you are 81, 82, or 83 you’re obviously right-leaning politically. If you are 77, 78, or 79 you’re left leaning.

    Nazi German would be somewhere in the area of 40. These are numbers I’m pulling out of my rear… however, to us YES they were leftists. To other cultures who might have been centered around 30 means that yes, 40 was to the right of 30 so they WERE right-wingers to them.

    Who is right? Both sides of this argument because they’re both correct from that person’s particular point of view. However, our Liberal friends here assume that by ‘right’ they mean right along side of us. No. No no no no no.

    In the United States, those on the right are usually considered conservative or libertarian. We want small government. The left of our central (relatively) mark are those that believe the Government should be able to regulate everything to maintain a peaceful coexistence with everybody.

    That doesn’t NOT make them rightists to our point of view. They most definitely are not. Socialists very much believe that pretty much everything needs to be regulated by the government, even the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. And for those nations that are going to mandate that, they will kill the populace that doesn’t abide by their ruling.

    By our relative political spectrum, that is very very much LEFT.

    L2Politic, liberals.

        1. Yeah, but the 2D scale only covers statism vs statism.

          To cover spectra these days, one needs liberal conservative, libertarian statist, restrictive permissive and probably several others.

          Otherwise we’re arguing whether the unions or the owners should be in charge, and I’m saying, “a pox on both their houses.”

        1. How do you figure it’s “clear”? What about libertarianism is possibly “right wing”? We do not support a strong central authority, elimination of opposition, control of resources.

      1. Good God, man… you’re digging too far into it. If you want to be called a leftie, go for it. It’s for comparison purposes in regards to the Godwinistic discussion.

        1. I don’t want to be called “left” or “right.”

          Hypothetical comparison: Would you rather be called a cocksucker or a dickblower?
          (If you’re actually gay, then let’s go with “puppy raper” or “kitten stomper.”)

        1. Liberty is far more right wing than left wing at the present time. While the social conservatives would like to tell everyone how to live they lack the power. The leftists on the other hand are infringing our liberties on a daily basis with the power of Big Government, from regulations on child farm labor, gun control, foreign banking, healthcare, etc… the left is creating a much less free and prosperous nation.

          My biggest objection however is the $1.3+ Trillion per year the left is sucking out of the fuel tank, borrowing that crowds consumers and businesses out of the capital market, raising the cost of capital and killing the jobs that $1.3+ Trillion in consumers and businesses hands would have created. From the moment the Democrats took over in 2007 they began sucking the life out of the economy, they have now drained over $6 Trillion from the capital needed for our economy to trive, and it isn’t coincidence that we entered Great Depression 2.0 (although no one wants to recognize it as such yet) with the Democrats rise to power and that their continued looting of the economy has prevented a normal recovery.

          This is socialism, the robber barron Government Monopoly takes all the seed corn, leaving only what the peasants (that’s us) have managed to hide for next year’s planting, is it any wonder our harvest’s are now so meager?

          1. “Liberty is far more right wing than left wing at the present time. While the social conservatives would like to tell everyone how to live they lack the power. The leftists on the other hand are infringing our liberties on a daily basis…”

            Exactly. I don’t vote for Republicans (the “right wing”, or at least “less left wing” of the two major parties). I vote against Democrats. I use the primaries (and yay for Indiana for having open primaries) to try to put more liberty minded Republicans on the slate (more chance there than on the Democrat side) in the hope that maybe, somehow, we’ll put off the slide to abject tyranny at least long enough for my daughter to have a taste of liberty before it’s shut down.

            (Cynic? Who? Me?)

      2. I don’t know Mike. Sometimes the “horizontal slider scale” as I call it, in regards to politics can be mighty entertaining. Took one back in the early 90’s it used famous and infamous people from history as examples of “left vs right” on the political scale. When I took it at the time I slid to the far right of the scale. Right of Atilla the Hun and left of Genghis Khan. I admit to being more than a little insulted at the time. Over the years though..I’ve come to find it vastly amusing.

        1. There’s a reason the British equivalent of the LP is called the Liberal Party (as opposed to the Labour Party).

          Granted, the definitions have changed over the years, but the founding fathers were classical liberals. The term “liberal” has been stolen and perverted by socialists for their statist agenda.

          As to the other, when you hear me endorse monarchy and a class of nobility, you can call me “right wing.”

          1. That’s why you should always call them Leftists, don’t let them steal any cover at all that would allow them to camoflage themselves with liberty or freedom.

      3. Well Mike, I for one support the reinstatement of the French Monarchy.

        I mean, it’s not like I have to live there.

        (Am I a right wing anarchist now?)

        1. Oh, no, there’s a guy out there who has “adopted” it, changed the questions, morphed them so you must choose an extreme (“if you are to be executed, it would be by throat cutting or decapitation,” choose one, type questions) to push everyone into IDing as “liberal,” and has an entire page of cocksuckery from fellow “liberals” about how great it is. Interestingly, there are no negative feedbacks shown, but there is a comment in the FAQ that he’s never seen a negative feedback that was “properly phrased” for inclusion.

          Exactly what you’d expect from the left.

  24. First thing I said to Unkle Musket when I saw him today was…”Unkle, Larry is my freak’n hero,”

  25. You know what I love about an online fight like this? You can tell the side with the argument based on who (if) they site. The side with the stronger argument sites primary sources and the weaker side sites academics who interrupt the sources.

  26. “There is a reason why it’s called Capitalism; it’s because Capital is what Fuels it.” Jacksonian Libertarian

    Arguing with leftists is a waste of time; they never argue facts, figures, or historical example. Instead they argue credentials, and actively seek to discredit their critic’s, so they don’t have to provide evidence to support their stupid opinions. (Because there isn’t any)

    I happen to be a seeker of Truth, and believe that the Scientific Method is the only way to be sure that you have found the Truth.

    The Scientific Method
    1. Observation/Data collection
    2. Hypothesis
    3. Prediction
    4. Experiment

    Leftists skip all four steps, and go directly to pulling theories out of their ass, getting credentialed political and academic support for their ass pull, and somehow when they have enough support it makes it true. Socialism is a perfect example, it has never worked anywhere it has ever been tried (experimental evidence) but they all think it is just because they weren’t the ones to implement it, and this time they would do it right, if we just give them the power. (Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time)

    “The Government Monopoly can never be the efficient organ that Leftists desire, because it suffers from the same problem all Monopolies suffer from; the lack of feedback from competition that forces continuous improvements in Quality, Service, and Price, in the Capitalist System.” Jacksonian Libertarian

    The Government Monopoly cannot be fixed; the only useful solution is to limit the damage it does, by limiting its size and scope to only those functions that only the Government can perform. The US Constitution does this, and with the 10th Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” it tried to prevent the Government from assuming any more power than was specifically given to it. It has failed with Departments like Education, EPA, and Energy, to name just a few, clear examples of unconstitutional Government over-reach.

    1. It’s worth noting that if you want to join the Official Leftie religon- anthro global climate change- you first have to throw the scientific methoid out the window.

    2. @Jacksonian Libertarian:”Arguing with leftists is a waste of time”

      No, it is a very good use of time. The point isn’t to convince the LeftBag of anything.

      It’s to show the world watching how stupid the LeftBag is. That is why Larry posts his favorite hate mail for the world to see, complete with 4 letter word commentary.

  27. Living in Windsor, Ontario, looking across the river at the utter disaster that is Detroit and listening to the ‘gimme-gimme” morons supposedly running a once great city, I am terrified by what you Americans are doing. What the hell happened to you people? I know your education system sucks, I know the MSM feeds you bullshit on toast but WTF? Isn’t there anybody in charge with the intelligence of Larry or Micheal? When are the voters going to wake up and realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train?

    It is truly frightening being your neighbour, I think I’ll move back to Israel where at least the battle lines make sense.

    1. I can’t speak for anyone but myself. But in my experience, the smart Americans are preparing for when, not if, it all goes kerblooie.

  28. Syril, most of the Detroit type asshattery is in the cities.

    I was driving into work, and I saw a couple people out shooting shotguns. They weren’t shooting across the road, so, *shrug*

  29. Larry, This was great. Thanks for making my day. I run into this type of ignorance all the time. I really don’t know what they teach people nowadays in school. I had the fortunate experience of a private school education, and they tended to get most of the facts right. I’m also inquisitive by nature – spent 5 years in the Navy, working in intel before I got pushed out on a medical discharge – and am very political as well. When people fail to understand the nature of Socialist political theory – the twin bastards of Fascism and Communism, both being Socialist economies – just astounds me. The failure also of the “right vs. left” political line saddens me as well. Reagan got it right when he described the line as an “up vs down” up being toward human dignity and freedom, down being the descent into human degradation and tyranny, he got it right. Almost all political parties today are “down” political parties, seeking power and command over their population of would be serfs. The modern American Republican party is a “down” party in that it pushes for state control, the same as the Democrat party. How they achieve that end may be different, but the end goal, state control of the individual, is the same. When fools like Borg don’t understand that – and most of the sheep we call our fellow citizens don’t – and go vote, well that scares the hell out of me. Often makes me question the entire concept of universal suffrage, if I want to be totally honest. How can someone who doesn’t even have the brain power, nor the desire, to spend more than the 5 seconds of processing power to understand that Socialist policies have killed MORE than 100,000,000 in the last 100 years – I say more because Nazi’s were, and remain, Socialist as well – and still claim their vote is as valuable as a person who researches and makes themselves knowledgeable on the subject shocks me. If you took two people, one an ignorant hayseed hick who believes one way because he wants to – say Borgie is our hick – and put him next to an individual who really sat down and researched and worked at their beliefs and conclusions…well, the two just aren’t equal, the person who put work into their beliefs is of more value – even if they came to the same conclusion! I’m having a harder and harder time supporting “one voice, one vote” philosophies. My wife and I were reading about this project in New Hampshire, where a small community is pushing for more freedoms. The idea that if you want to have a socialist dicatorship, fine, just do it over there, and let me live free over here, kinda thing. Isn’t that somewhat what our Republic was supposed to be? If you didn’t like the policies of State A you could move, unhindered to State B? But now, with the all controlling and enveloping power of the centralized, and ever more Socialist, Federal government, we can’t even do that. I am a Constitutional Libertarian. I believe that a man should be free to do as he wishes, so long as he does not harm another person, free from government oversight. My dream world would be Mr. Williamson’s Freehold, with a few minor twists, extremely minor twists. And so far in my life, I have been able to pick and choose which State better fit my desired lifestyle. I grew up in California, and left there as soon as I could for freer pastures. Yet now, I find I am becoming trapped in a box. If our Federal government falls to Socialists, and imposes uniform laws across our land which curtail our freedoms, where can we go from here? Europeans of the 19th and 20th centuries had America to flee to as a beacon of freedom from the tyrannies of their homelands. Where do Americans flee to when we fall? Australia, a land considering the regulation and registration of knives and swords because they hurt people? New Zealand? Mars? America is the last bastion of even limited freedoms in the world, and we are teetering on the brink of the abyss, and it is reaching out for us. In 2012, our choice for leaders are an closeted Socialist and Barack Obama! Where is our hope, where is our “American Dream?”
    I contend it was – to use a Soviet term – given a “noodle” in the back of the neck by men like Borg.
    God bless you, Larry, and keep you safe. Truly, you are a voice of Freedom. Thank you for your books, and for your blog.

    1. “Where do Americans flee to when we fall? Australia, a land considering the regulation and registration of knives and swords because they hurt people? New Zealand? Mars”

      We don’t flee. We organize. We prepare. We take over the local political machines We Sun Tzu their asses and put ourselves beyond defeat. We must forever give up the luxury of pulling the “R” lever and assuming that the “R” means that they are like us and hold our values. Mostly, they do not.

      From here on it’s hard work just to avoid sinking and if that fails, then Ms. Wolfe’s words hold true and we leave that awkward stage.

      A great man said this.

      “The era of procrastination, of half-measures,
      of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close.
      In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
      — Winston Churchill

      Consequences, indeed.

  30. Yeah Borgese, somehow leftist professors have decided and “proved” that NAZI’s were not socialists using much scholarship:

    Despite their Name
    Despite their social policies
    Despite their platform
    Despite their stated goals and actions
    Despite their leaders explicit comments and actions
    Despite their contemporary opponents, internal and external, judgement of them
    Despite there was a serious war on and consequently that tended to skew things toward practicality of fighting a war over the glorious theory of socialism
    Despite their were other strains of thought like the “national” part which brought in the racialist and Women must be at home to raise kids stuff…

    Oh never mind… it wasn’t PURE socialism, i guess, you are right.

    Reminds me of watching Yeltsin on up the tank haranguing the crowd to reverse the attempted putsch by the communists, and having the adoring journalist breathlessly explaining how “liberal” Yeltsin was fighting the “conservatives” yep, the hard line communists had become conservatives.

    Hey I GET were he was coming from (conservative in the sense of people who wanted to conserve the corrupt and moribund communist state), but it was so telling that conservative = bad, and liberal = good and that the journalist couldn’t come up with more accurate language. (e.g Socialist hardliners vs socialist reformers)

  31. Wow. Just discovered Larry’s Grimnoir books, found this site and now I think this guy is my new Favorite Person on Earth.

    1. Savor them…. They have literally been 2 of the best books Ive ever read.

  32. I’d laugh, except that every time I see Larry chew up some ignorant scum-sucking freeloading hippie dirtbag I’m just made angry by the fact that these entitled scumbag socialist hand-having-out bullshit artists are out there, and nothing even Larry could light them up with will make any dent at all.

    The only comfort I can take is that it these left-wing boot-licking statist barnacles ever get their way, they’ll be lined up against the wall right next to me. And just before the bullets come, I’ll look over and grin with sincerity and say, “You did this you liberal OWS ratfuck parasite quisling leach fuck. Congratulations.”

      1. Yup. Except for the one true [American] Revolution, that’s pretty much been the standard revolutionary MO when they manage to seize power.

        Then it’s “Up against the wall comrade!” …Because good old comrade true believer is very likely to join the ranks of dissenters when they find out what the utopian revolution was really about. The more “equaler” tend to not tolerate dissent so well…It suddenly becomes not patriotic anymore.

      2. Even Trotsky talked about the “men in leather jerkins” (i.e. bandits and racketeers) who tended to take over from the True Believers given any chance at all… and then the most sucessful bandit of all did exactly that, and eventually kicked Trotsky completely out of that hemisphere.

      3. Kris: eventually… when he wasn’t useful anymore.
        If you have time, find a copy of ‘Viktor Suvorov’ ‘s book “The Chief Culprit”. Well worth the reading.

  33. Mr. Correia,

    I have this discussion all the time on a martial arts site that I go to. Yeah, it’s martial arts but they have a place called the study for political topics. I quote you every once in a while because I really enjoy how you frame your arguments. In my debates I also get told I don’t know what I am talking about. Okay, I’m just a guy posting on a martial arts forum. Then I link to Friedrich Hayek, Ludwing von Mises, Thomas Sowell, R.J. Rummel, all men with Ph.D’s in their fields of study, economics and Rummel with one in political science. Hayek even has a Nobel Prize in economics, yeah, I know, so does Krugman, but Hayek recieved his when they actually meant something. What do I get…the one guy, a british economist tells me they don’t count because they come from the Austrian school of economics, and the other people simply ignore it by saying “Oh, anyone can get a Ph.D.” Another Brit on the site said that one famous british historian said that they were “Right wing,” backed by captiatlists, and that I should quote someone who lived during the period. Of course Hayek wrote an article on the socialist nature of the nazis in the 1930’s. She then attacked me as being insensitive because her jewish family members were socialists who were killed by the nazis. I tried to explain to her that the nazis and the communists tried to recruit in the same circles, and I cited Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Facism” where he discussed a German socialist who became a nazi because he didn’t like the international aspect of the communists. It is interesting to see that this historical distortion of who the nazis actually were goes on all over the place. Thanks for your post. It gives me encouragement to fight on for the truth.

    1. Take heart and endeavor to be as prepared as you can be so that you and your own can ride out the consequences reality inevitably imposes upon the mob of credentialed geniuses.

      It’s a real shame that we all have to deal with their consequences and I really wish ‘karma’ was more instantly selective…But;

      “If wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.”
      – Jayne Cobb

  34. @Larry and anyone who is interested:

    I recommend reading “The Vampire Economy”, available from Mises.org. There is some discussion of fascist Italy but it’s mostly about Nazi Germany, there’s a very valuable illustration in the beginning that shows that the Nazi’s were anything but capitalists.

  35. “Evil military industrial complex. Take their stuff! BOOOOO! ”

    That’s not right, but the evil military-industrial complex did steal ALL of it’s resources to begin with.

  36. Has anyone noticed that the same liberals who insist “right wingers don’t know what socialism is” will then turn around and claim, “Interstate highways are socialism” as an argument?

    1. Yeah; and socialism can’t have done any of that bad stuff since socialism is self evidently good. Classic circular argument.

  37. “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

    (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

  38. Still waiting for that definition of socialism. And we will likely be waiting until the heat death of the universe.

    Standard tactics of these pseudo-academics is to never define anything, just to say that if you don’t agree with them, then you’re wrong.

    1. The answer is there is not one answer. There were socialist schools of thought / movements before Marx . There were socialist schools of thought after Marx (many of which were not so big on public ownership of resources since it looked like Capitalism was not failing as predicted). There was also a pre German national socialist movement …in France…. Another fun historical tid bit is that despite the left’s insistence on being secular that the idea of a communal society without ownership or money was something they got from the Christian churches… there were many Christian communistic revolts in the middle ages. Anglo revolts often went a different direction which is why we don’t much about those.

      So; yeah, when they want to deflect a question without answering then all socialism is Marxism (public ownership is required to be socialism). As soon as you leave the room; they go back to regulation and tax based redistribution being ok instead.

  39. I do not know if you have read the book I am Adolf Hitler but it is fascinating. Hitler recorded a diary and the book is the transcripts of the final 6 diary entries. They were smuggled out of Germany by Hitler’s secretary. In one of the entries he talks about why he hated the Jews so much. He claimed that one day he saw an old Jewish man begging on the streets. The man was knocked over and the hat he was wearing broke open and several gold coins rolled out. Hitler claims that this incident showed the greed of the Jewish people. The description of the section says Hitler was in a bit of a rant at that point in time. It was never confirmed if the incident described truly happened or if it was a fantasy cooked up in Hitler’s mind to justify his hate. Interesting read.

  40. I’ve long fought to correct the ridiculous notion that NAZI’s were right wing. I’m grateful that other folks are out there trying to correct the damage that’s been done to our history by the left.

  41. I’m with you man. The Nazi’s were socialists. But I think they were right wing. Wait 🙂 the rub is that WE are not right wing by Euro standards.That is the head game the left played on us. Telling us we were right wing so long we picked up the term. In most of Europe the right wing hates capitalism, American influence, et cetera just like the left…

  42. Bravo Larry but I gotta say you wasted your time on these worthless slugs. You might as well have talked in Klingon as said anything they would possibly digest as reality .

  43. Mention Guy Fawkes to an OWS type and you get a blank stare. They attribute the mask to the movie V for Vendetta or if they have a bit more intellectual depth the graphic novel it was based on by Alan Moore and David Lloyd

  44. There’s nothing like proclaiming yourself the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” to make you *not* a socialist.

  45. Loved the 9 May response. It’s difficult dealing with Luddites when crossed with Malthusian bed wetters whose source for information is Chris Mathews and his fat associate Lardass Ed Schultz. (Ed is not quite of the high level of intellect offerd by Sgt. Schultz of Stalag 17).

  46. “However [Chavez] tactically took a pragmatic in-between position between the conservative and radical factions, in that he accepted private property and allowed capitalist private enterprises to exist as long as they obeyed the goals of the [Bolivarian] state but if a capitalist private enterprise resisted [Bolivarian] goals, he sought to [nationalize] it.”

    Such a gulf of difference between fascism and socialism…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *