Wednesday, October 26, 2011

American Nazi Party Supports the OWS

Racial Comrades: I am going to address the issue of this "Occupy Wall Street" fervor that has been sweeping the land like a breath of cleansing air!


"Racial Comrades"?

In any case, the American Nazi Party has endorsed the Occupy Wall Street nonsense.

Why does this seem entirely fitting?


  1. So if a Nazi likes puppies, will you also suggest that Jew's abandon puppies?


  2. Ridiculous, "S."

    The American Nazi Party has endorsed the OWS because they see it as a response to "ZOG," precisely as they say.

    They endorse it because your movement, the progressive-left, has made a home for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.

    Your whole movement, in fact, is entirely corrupt and represents nothing.

    Once you guys threw away notions of universal human rights, you threw away the very heart of the progressive-left.

    Now all you are left with are a few morons in the streets screaming to the heavens about the evils of capitalism.

    It is the final pathetic death rattle of the left.

    {Or so I sincerely hope.}

  3. I tend to agree with Curm, there is no "movement". Nothing I signed up for. No membership card. Nothing requires me to support an entire platform. I can pick and choose both ideas and candidates that best match my ideals.

    OWS appears to be only slightly better organized. But yet as far as I've seen, they haven't endorsed any anti-sememtic narratives, and no thank you notes to the American Nazi Party for their support.

    I think it's unfair to project a small handful of haters upon all of OWS. I think the puppy analogy is perfect.

    And we've talked about what you see as an insurmountable conflict between universal human rights and multi-culturalism. I can't deny that there is an intersection where they conflict. I just don't see it as insurmountable. I can live quite comfortably supporting both. And neither is absolute.

  4. btw, that's quite a name that you chose for yourself.

    Sorry if my previous comment came off a bit harsh, but you understand that I used to consider myself, until fairly recently, a person of the left so, in part, I am simply expressing my disappointment in a political movement that I used to consider home.

  5. Interesting what the left sees as "evil." Wall Street. Meantime back in many Islamic countries, well.....let me count the ways. Now I could buy it if someone said they should worry about home first but then there's the tiny lil' problem of a constant focus on Israel.

  6. I didn't actually choose that name (I would have gone with a few special characters, carrots and tildes.). I don't know where it came from. If I could figure out how to choose my own name I would. I think maybe La'Thor.

    Maybe the difference is that I never considered it home. There have always been elements on that left I'm uncomfortable with, not the least of which is your target. Ideologically, I'm somewhere to the left and south of Gandhi, though I don't live in a world of moral imperatives. Having different or even opposing views of someone down in my quadrant doesn't shoot me to the opposite end of the spectrum. It doesn't move me at all.


  7. Human rights treaties generally provide for the inability of individual states to comply with universal norms.

    For example, Article 2 of the ICESCR says that each party must act:

    "to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights ... by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures."

    This policy of flexibility with respect to the obligation of states to respect, protect and fulfill universal rights does not mean that states must adopt policies of strict multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is just a tool while universal human rights are the objective, as set forth in the treaties.

    Multiculturalism actually seems to have made matters worse. Europe is segregated. Overall, my guess is that it is not practiced except by a minority of states parties. The OIC, over 50 states, have now made the UDHR subject to Islamic principles and interpretations set forth in the Cairo Declaration.

    One abuse concerns the attempt to call blasphemy, which we do not recognize, defamation of religion, which we will recognize. The latter is just a Westernized label for what is blasphemy, under the guise of universal human rights, in order to install a cultural and religious norm that does not protect free exercise of religion, but violates the linchpin of Western values, free expression, upon which post-WWII international community is arguably based.

    I therefore stand as a liberal in favor of universal rights, not afraid to say that relative rights are peripheral. Universal rights are not absolute, and should always be given the strong presumption when in conflict with cultural rights, when looking at state conduct.

    This does not mean that discrimination by the state should not be tolerated, but there is no way possible to make a society free from discrimination either.

    All this does not even consider the aspect of intentional action not to assimilate, llustrated by an Erdogan's message to German Turks. This helps show that it is not only one side that is responsible to make multiculturalism work within the confines of universality.

  8. Red-Brown alliance. Been going on a long long time.