Have a look at this ugly but viral meme…















We’ve probably all seen this before… I know I have – enough to where I feel compelled to explain a few things for the sake of preserving our language and our national sanity…

First of all, let me just say that no one should be educating themselves with memes… This one in particular is a sock puppet denial of a traditional perspective. Which isn’t so much a problem in itself until you start using it to bash people who identify with the left because those people are using the traditional perspective not this viral nonsense.

The fact is, your teacher had it right (at least in the traditional sense) but they probably failed to explain it, so I’ll do that now. The big thing to note is that it’s not a question of how much government… It’s a question of how much representation. The sentiment on the left is that everyone should be represented, where on the right there is always a push to exclude people from representation. In fact, it’s the harsh exclusion of non-Aryan people that puts the Nazis on the hard right.

If you’re not so sure about this, here’s a fail-safe litmus test you can do with respect to a person’s attitude toward diversity. See how they feel about Jews, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, atheists, homosexuals, immigrants or transgenders, for instance. If a person’s politics feature any kind of resentment or repression toward any of these unfamiliar demographics, it’s almost a guarantee that they identify with the right. Go ahead and try it. It’s pretty easy and of course the amount of government has nothing to do with that. In fact it can be argued that Republicans have created more government than Democrats as indicated by the massive debts the government incurs under Republican management. And when it’s the people who identify with the right that are trying to pass laws to exclude gay people from marriage or empower law enforcement to coral immigrants, it’s hard to imagine them as advocates of little government and big freedom.

So, I suppose I need to address the fact that the Nazis were socialists. Fine, but lets also remember that during the end of the Weimar Republic when the Nazis were rising to power though a democratic process, every opposition party in Germany was also socialist, if not communist. Bear in mind, this was the 1930’s when socialism was extremely popular among the working classes. Even in the U.S. it was difficult for any political faction to gain any traction without some homage to socialism. So it’s dishonest (or ignorant) to cite socialism as a difference when it was much more of a constant. The more significant difference was indeed the militant repression of non-Aryan people and again, that’s what puts the Nazis clearly on the right.

Another point to make about this idiot meme is that the top part erroneously implies that the left is more “liberal” while the right is more “conservative”. The terms, “liberal” and “conservative” refer specifically to the attitudes regarding change, not ideology. Whether or not one side is more liberal or conservative than the other depends on context, which is why the alignment is different in so many other countries. Some political analysts are pointing out that in today’s context, at least in America, the Democrats are actually more conservative than what we are currently calling the alt-right. No where is this more obvious than the alt-right’s attack on Democrats for supposedly defending the “deep state”. In this context, the alt-right is the liberal, even radical side. We can also look back on history and find the first Republicans referred to themselves as “Radical Republicans”.






As an anti-Zionist, I often find myself confronted with extremely popular but unfounded claims such as the idea that Arab nations are always attacking Israel and loosing. Here’s a particular quote from an online discussion… “The Arabs were defeated every time and still provoke war..” This is part of the culture war, where an entire race of people are portrayed as being weak and stupid. So I decided to look into the history of conflicts between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

First of all, “Arab” is a reference to a race. “Israel” is a reference to a country. The U.S. fought the Filipinos, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese and the Vietnamese but if I were to use the same semantics (and tone) I would just be saying it was the same dumb-ass Asians that keep coming at us.

If the statement is in reference to the Arab League of Nations, they’ve been chill since 1974. All the attacks since then were from stateless entities like Hamas and Hezbollah… the only two Arab nations to attack Israel since 1974 was Syria (once) and Lebanon (twice). In none of these cases will you find a situation where Israel didn’t have a ridiculous advantage in terms of weapons and funding.

The wars with the Arab nations that stretch from 1947 to 1974 are often described as the Arab-Israeli Wars and they don’t all fit into this popular myth…

The First Arab-Israeli War, 1947-49, did not start with an attack on the State of Israel because the State of Israel wasn’t recognized by ANYONE as a sovereign nation yet. “Israel” was literally a stateless terrorist organization that did the same thing ISIS was trying to do by declaring a “rightful” domain. In fact the U.S. and Britain imposed restrictions on arms coming into Palestine (which is what the place was called then) BECAUSE they were… terrorists. So… the terrorists snagged a deal with Czechoslovakia  for smuggled shipments of weapons that were intended for the Nazis (including brand new Messerschmitts) then they declared their independence and yeah, they basically kicked ass. (I guess that’s terrorism done right).

The Second Arab-Israeli War in 1956 did not start with an attack on Israel either. This time Israel attacked the Arabs… specifically, Egypt and Israel was joined by the British and the French. So not only was Israel the aggressor but they had two super-powers on their side while Egypt was alone defending it’s borders. What was happening here is that Nasser had just nationalized the Suez Canal. So the British and French basically tried to do what the U.S. did in Iraq and change the regime. But then the UN stepped in to say the invasion was a violation of international law, which of course they did during our invasion of Iraq but the difference is the British, French and Israelis complied. Bush went ahead anyway, which is what G.W.Bush is officially registered as a war criminal.

The Third Arab-Israeli War, 1967… Incredibly, this is yet another one where Israel attacked first. They launched air strikes on Egyptian airbases. Israel justified their attacks by saying that Egypt closed the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which they did, but that’s not the same thing as attacking their country. The surprise air strikes just about destroyed the entire Egyptian airforce, then Israeli ground forces invaded the Sinai and took Gaza. That’s when Nassar induced Syria and Jordan to attack Israel. Israel won mostly because none of the Arab nations had a plan because they weren’t expecting a fight. Israel DID have a plan because they WERE expecting to fight because THEY were planning on taking the Sinai! They also took the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan. The UN, (probably regretting by now that they recognized the State of Israel in the first place) said you have to give those territories back and Israel basically told the UN to **** off.

The Fourth Arab-Israeli War, 1973 (Yom Kippur War) technically, this war did not start with an attack on Israel either because the territories the Arabs attacked technically belonged to them, not Israel. Egypt moved forces into the Sinai, which according to the UN still rightfully belonged to Egypt and Syria moved into the Golan Heights which according to the UN still rightfully belonged to Syria. So these countries were simply trying to get their territory back. There were no plans to attack the recognized State of Israel.