The New York Times Is Now a Nazi Paper. Wait, What?

If everything problematic is evil, silencing and punishing everything problematic becomes a social necessity.


modified from Jaap Arriens/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Over the weekend, St. Louis writer and "scholar of authoritarian states" Sarah Kendzior caused a stir by asserting that it was no longer possible to deny that The New York Times is "now a white supremacist paper." Kendzior herself had shared an article from the Times just a few hours earlier, but in light of a Saturday op-ed by columnist Ross Douthat she was now urging people to "#Unsubscribe".

Douthat's piece argued that maybe it was time for establishment lawmakers to bargain with people like White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller, since trying to shut immigration restrictionists out of the conversation hadn't worked. "The present view of many liberals seems to be that restrictionists can eventually be steamrolled—that the same ethnic transformations that have made white anxiety acute will eventually bury white-identity politics with sheer multiethnic numbers," wrote Douthat. "But liberals have been waiting 12 years for that 'eventually' to arrive, and instead Trump is president and the illegal immigrants they want to protect are still in limbo."

Kendzior labeled this "praise for Miller," which—in conjunction with the Times' "multiple Nazi puff pieces" and "constant pro-Trump PR"—made it clear that anyone who has "a conscience" or "value[s] the truth" must cancel their Times' subscriptions. Together, Kendzior's two anti-Times tweets had garnered around 3,000 retweets and more than 6,000 likes by Monday.

The Times will be fine, of course, and Douthat too. Reasonable people can concede that even if Douthat is wrong about the value of including Miller in immigration talks, he is not personally championing Miller's mindset; that a lot of people who want to limit immigration are not Nazis or white supremacists; and that the Times airing these ideas in an op-ed is not tantamount to the paper endorsing them. But Kendzior's denunciation of the paper—an outlet routinely accused by the right of being too liberal—highlights precisely how hyperbolic and silly some high-profile "resistance" figures can be these days, and how much of a performative witch-hunt slinging "white nationalist" accusations has become.

For those with less clout than The New York Times (i.e., most of us), the consequences of these tendencies can be dire—especially when combined with what's become widespread and bipartisan acceptance for doxxing (outing people's identities or personal information), for trying to get people fired over online speech or associations unrelated to their jobs, for tagging people's employers into online disagreements, and for using old and out-of-context content to score points in current and unrelated arguments.

All of these trends were on display last week in a dust-up involving a D.C. public employee who was identified in a Facebook photo posted by Escape The Room DC. The photo featured activist Chelsea Manning hanging out with notable right-wing provocateurs like Cassandra Fairbanks, Lucian Wintrich, and Jack Posobiec. Also tagged was someone identified as both John Goldman and Jack Murphy.

In his non-digital life, Goldman serves as a senior manager of finance, analysis, and strategy with the D.C. Public Charter School Board. We met once, in 2016, and have followed each other digitally ever since. Online, he manages a blog and active Twitter account as Murphy, detailing his experiences as a former Democrat who jumped on the Trump train and offering advice on things like bread baking and BDSM relationships.

On January 22, Antifa activist Lacy MacAuley tweeted "CONFIRMED. John Goldman is a white supremacist working for DC public schools @dcpcsb as a finance manager. Goldman, aka 'Jack Murphy,' frequently publishes white supremacist blog posts. He was also with Nazi Richard Spencer at @whitehouse in April." When Goldman pointed out that he is Jewish and accused her of libel, MacAuley responded that she believed "DC parents and children have a right to know if someone who is a senior employee in their school system is an ally to white supremacists and Nazis."

There's ample evidence online that this is untrue—that in fact, Goldman tried to steer the alt-right away from associating with white supremacist figures like Richard Spencer and his tiki-torch mafia, and to claim the label for a new kind of conservatism: one that liked Steve Bannon's immigration ideas but had fewer social-conservative hangups than previous iterations, and most definitely did not want to create a white ethno-state. When this failed—when it became clear that those throwing up Nazi salutes had "won" the label, as The New Yorker put it—Goldman both ditched the alt-right label and actively confronted Spencer at events.

But the allegation of being a white nationalist was all it took for the D.C. Public Charter School Board to begin investigating and for progressive media to dig through Goldman's Twitter history and deleted blog posts to find unsavory content. Not things linking him to white nationalism or Nazism mind you—in fact, a ThinkProgress hit piece explicitly notes that there's no evidence of this. Yet once Goldman was outed as someone on the Wrong Side, his actual beliefs hardly seemed to matter. Now this man—whose initial offense was simply to visit an escape room with Chelsea Manning and some #MAGA hucksters—was fair game for public destruction anyway.

A few days after MacAuley's initial tweets, Goldman was put on administrative leave from his job with the city.

Art Spitzer of the American Civil Liberties Union of DC told WAMU that firing Goldman would be unwise, from a constitutional perspective. "He's expressing his personal views about political issues. Yes, he's got a First Amendment right to do that, same as every other government employee," said Spitzer.

The charter school board should explain that this is America, people have a right to express their political opinions. Liberals shouldn't want the charter school board to fire people because they have conservative views.

The blog Crooks and Liars countered that Goldman's "are not merely conservative views" but "vile, ugly hateful views." Even if so, that wouldn't make them speech exempted from First Amendment protections.

Part of the reason why we shouldn't have "hate" exemptions to the First Amendment is because of situations exactly like what's happening now in our discourse. One person's impermissably hateful view is someone else's fairly mainstream policy belief. One person's "Nazi" is another's nationally respected newspaper. One side's "terrorist groups" are another's anti-racism movements. No one wins when the loser of these semantic battles (a variable which will always shift with who's in political and cultural power) can be caged by the winners, or have their livelihoods shattered.

In sociology, the phenomenon we're seeing is sometimes called "exploitation creep"—a persistent ramping up of the terms used to describe some negative thing, and the stakes involved, in an attempt to ensure continued attention and funding (i.e., from forced prostitution to sex trafficking to modern slavery). A real and important complaint becomes a caricature of itself through a combination of well-meaning and self-serving advocates repeatedly raising the rhetorical stakes.

We've seen a similar thing recently when it comes to calling out racism, sexism, and all sorts of bigotry. Calling people racist, misogynist, homophobic, and similarly serious allegations grew passé in some progressive and lefty circles. Now folks with problematic views must be labeled Nazis, abusers, white supremacists, etc., in order for the condemnation to carry the same weight a simple "racist!" or sexist pig!" may once have.

This creates problems that go far beyond bad consequences for those targeted. Which is to say that concern for curbing this tendency needn't be predicated on caring one whit for what happens to anyone who disagrees with you, if that's not your thing. (To be clear, I don't think that's a helpful attitude, but I'm just saying—there are self-serving reasons why progressives should give a damn.)

The larger issue is reactions like Kendzior's and MacAuley's don't do service to the side they claim to care about. In fact, tactics like these are how a lot of young folks got sucked into the alt-right vortex originally.

When terms like "white nationalist" and "Nazi" mean nothing, it's very easy for folks like Spencer and his ilk to gain traction. If everyone who favors less-than-libertarian immigration policies or says something ignorant or offensive online is branded as such, it's easy for these folks to buy into the idea that the actual white nationalists and Nazis have just been unfairly maligned, too. It's easy for them to think that "ironic Nazism" a la what we saw in 2016-2017 is a funny and appropriate response.

Many mainstream views on the right reflect plenty of authoritarianism, xenophobia, and intolerance. Treating the messengers of them like special cases—and holding them up as avatars for public shaming and punishment—obscures the underlying prevalence and normality of these beliefs, and prevents us from true attempts to undermine them.

NEXT: Ohio Deputy Shoots and Kills Unarmed 16-Year-Old Outside Courtroom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In fairness to the NYT, they are the closets thing we have to a state run propaganda rag.

    1. More like the armoires, am I right?

        1. The “intellectual space to be wrong”? We’re willing to talk about it, as long as you understand from the outset that there is no space, we repeat, no space, to engage in inappropriately deadpan “parody” when certain friends of ours are involved. “Liberals” who argue the contrary will be excluded from the negotiations. It is, in fact, recommended that articles such as the one linked here:

          be blocked from view on any computers available to the public in libraries or elsewhere.

          1. You’re going to have to give me more than a tease before you get my contact info.
            And your comments above leave a lot to be desired for clarity.

            1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do…

    2. That’s “Closets Closets Closets Closets”.

    3. The state doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job running it right now.

      I think it’s too partisan at this point for that description to really work.

    4. During a Democratic Administration yes, but Fox News serves that purpose during the Trump Administration.

    5. ………I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details…..

  2. But it used to be such a nice Communist paper! They have Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer as evidence. What happened to those nice chaps?

    1. Don’t worry. They have as many communists as they ever did, and that’s their right. But they also have a couple of people to the right of Pol Pot, which in the postmodernist world means Nazi.

    2. Progressivism is just Communism with better propaganda!

  3. Yeah, sounds like this guy got a raw deal.

    But, y’know, that’s Free Speech and Free Association for you. You’re free to speak, and others (including your employer) are fee to disassociate.

    1. But his employer is (was?) the government. The government does not have the right to disassociate based on activity protected under the First Amendment, even when it is acting as employer.

      1. The government does not have the right to disassociate based on activity protected under the First Amendment, even when it is acting as employer.
        Right. You’re telling me that if a DMV employee went off on an anti-whatever rant on YouTube, and that video was spread all around the internet, that DMV employee would have a job on Monday?

        There’s a reason Equal Employer statements enumerate categories for which they (supposedly) can’t fire you. ’cause everything else is fair game.

    2. Nope. Government has no such freedom.

      1. You folks are funny. Suddenly coming down on the side of “it should be hard to fire government employees”. But I suppose I can always count on you to forget your so-called principles the moment it’s one of your own that’s threatened.

    3. So you think government agencies should be allowed to fire you for being gay? And you firmly object to the fact that they can’t? What 180 you’ve done.

      1. So you think government agencies should be allowed to fire you for being gay?

        Actually, there’s no law against it. There are policies against it, but those can be easily changed. Hell, if President Trump rescinded Clinton’s Executive Order 12968, every gay person with a security clearance could be out of their job (including private-sector jobs that require security clearences) in a week.

        So sure, it’s against their own policies to not fire folks for being gay. But there ain’t no law.

        And you firmly object to the fact that they can’t?

        Actually, I’m satisfied that the bans on employing gay folk were overturned. No DADT, no making “straight” a requirement for a security clearance. But it’s not like an EEO is going to stop a boss that really wants to fire you. Kind of the reason I’ve never bothered giving “firm” support to ENDA.

        What 180 you’ve done.

        Only if you ignore what I’ve actually said and assume my positions. Fact is, you’ve probably never read my views on employment protections because ENDA has been dead for years and so it doesn’t come up in the news. And even if you tried to extrapolate based on my public accommodation views, what you would get is “if I can’t fire someone for thinking sodomy is a sin, then they shouldn’t be able to fire me because they think sodomy is a sin”.

  4. “Exploitation creep” was my nickname in college.

    1. I saw Exploitation Creep open for Ted Nugent once.

  5. Kendzior’s two anti-Times tweets had garnered around 3,000 retweets and more than 6,000 likes by Monday.

    The fuck? I’ve moved out of actual racist shitholes where more people read actual whole newspapers than that! Fuckin’ High School basketball upsets and corn futures have caused bigger “stirs” than that.

    1. And it would have stayed in obscurity except that ‘journalists’ with bigger soapboxes needed an easy article to write. And not much is easier to write than discussion other people talking about things.

  6. I think Hitler would approve of much of the Times‘s Israel coverage, so fair game.

    1. Also promotion of government control over much of the economy.

      1. Shouting down opposing viewpoints…

    2. As well as its strong edtorial stance against smoking.

    3. What about the Times’ art critic’s review of Hitler’s watercolors?

  7. Many mainstream views on the right reflect plenty of authoritarianism, xenophobia, and intolerance.

    There’s a name for mainstream views that reflect plenty of authoritarianism, xenophobia and intolerance:


    1. Thumbs up for the Douglas Adams reference.

    2. Swap xenophobia for oikophobia and you have the DNC party platform.

  8. Does she really refer to herself as a “scholar of authoritarian states?”

      1. Funny how these nuts completely miss the authoritarianism of the left they so righteously champion.

        Almost like they have no idea what they are talking about.

      2. You’d think that such a scholar would have a firmer grip on what actually makes someone a Nazi.

        1. Oh in her mind it’s quite clear, basically anyone who is white and has a right of center view. Pretty much conventional wisdom for progs

          1. Or just right of their position.

        2. A scholar would, yes. A pseudo-intellectual attention whore, not so much.


      3. TIL that “scholar of authoritarian states” means “nutjob”.


        1. Jordan Peterson doesn’t claim to be a “scholar of authoritarian states” but he does state how closely he has been watching and studying them. I’d think he might have a better claim to that scholarly label.

          1. He’s keenly focused on the communists and marxist and not much interested in any other sort of authoritarianism on the right. Sure, he denounce the nazis who are marching in the streets and try to have their pictures taken with him, but it’s those invisible lefties he’s got his eye out for. They’re the real threat, according to Peterson. And they’re out there, somewhere, on their communes with muddy bare feet and hippy beards and illicit herb gardens… they’re out there and they’re plotting the ruin of all that is good and right (and Right)… Beware!

            1. Maybe it’s the fact that ANTIFA has shown up in far greater numbers, and assaulted far greater numbers of people, destroyed far more private property, etc than the “far right” people that has him worried? They’re very much not invisible or imaginary. They’re clearly NOT the majority of the left or anything, but they’re a far larger contingent on the left than white nationalists are on the right. Anyone with eyes to see knows that.

            2. “invisible leftie authoritarianism”
              You’ve never read Huffpo or Buzzfeed, been on Twitter or visited a university I take it.

    1. One can be a scholar on almost anything these days.

        1. Embarrassment really only affects those that are self-aware and think what they did was a mistake.

          1. One of you two spelled it wrong.
            – a grammar scholar

            1. Crusty’s usage is actually the past participle of a verb meaning “to show one’s ass.”

      1. Scholar rhymes with collar. Just sayin’.

      2. On one hand, she has a PhD in Anthropology and has done scholarly work about the governments of Dagestan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan

        Wer her commentary were about those subjects, she’d have every claim to authority

        On the other hand, she writes for Raw Story and Daily Kos about topics like “Net Neutrality” and the finer details of whether the Executive Branch is allowed to fire people without it being “obstruction of justice’

        Like Paul Krugman, she seems to be someone who trades on their academic credentials in order to make authoritative pronouncements about things she doesn’t necessarily know any more about than you or I

        1. I won’t quibble with the second part of your comment, but the first half, I have a quibble or two.

          A researcher with a PhD in anthropology and a history of study in authoritarianism, even if the cultures she studied are middle eastern authoritarians, can still speak about authoritarianism in general with some weight. The swing towards authoritarianism in Turkey, for example, isn’t without some lessons for Americans should our leaders decide to follow a similar path.

          People like Paul Krugman and Jordan Peterson use their academic credentials to give themselves a taller soap box at their own risk. Both are smart men, though, so discounting them entirely is foolish.

          As for Sarah… calling the NYT a “nazi” newspaper is the sort of hyperbolic gaff that should diminish the value of anything she says following, up until she apologizes for being an idiot.

  9. Now folks with problematic views must be labeled Nazis, abusers, white supremacists, etc., in order for the condemnation to carry the same weight a simple “racist!” or sexist pig!” may once have.

    Which is why I stick with cosmotarian, yokeltarian, and leftie lib Dem cuck.

    1. Crusty is being quite literal here.

  10. a lot of people who want to limit immigration are not Nazis or white supremacists;

    That doesn’t seem to be the belief of a lot of the commenters.

    1. That’s possible. I can say I consider most anti-immigrant zealots to be economically ignorant dumbasses. But some are definitively white supremacists.

      1. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

      2. I support Americans of all colors and creeds over non-Americans of all colors and creeds.

        Yeah that’s racist.

        1. Lovecon89 supports Charles Manson over Mother Theresa! You heard it here first.

          1. Hahaha!!!

            1. True story, Mother Teresa has been accused of human rights violations for withholding medication from patients and instead insisting they feel the healing power of pain.

              1. I’ve heard this. Somebody I knew had a list of all of these flaws in many of our moral heroes. Ghandi was off the pedestal, too. Sexual harassment, I believe. It’s actually a poignant reminder that we’re all imperfect humans, but she was also a proud communist. She desperately wants to give unlimited power to people even when she knows they’re going to abuse it.

                I don’t understand.

          2. Did I forget to include the caveat: alive Americans?

            Since you are being so funny, I see you would choose Hitler over Thomas Jefferson though. You heard it here first!

          3. Seeing as how both are dead….

        2. I support Americans of all colors and creeds over non-Americans of all colors and creeds.

          Yeah that’s racist.

          Nationalist too.

          I’ll take a libertarian-leaning Mexican over an abject Socialist Brit, Chinaman, or Indian any day of the week. Unfortunately, with open borders, we don’t get to make the distinctions and the Socialists win by default.

          1. Being American is not a race…yet. You cannot be a racist American if you don’t chose one race over other races.

            I could provide you the definitions if you need it.

            1. You?re right, you can?t be a racist American, or any other racist, if you don?t choose the race to the bottom.

          2. Then it’s quite fortunate that we don’t have open borders and haven’t had them in over a century.

            Why do the socialists win be default, even if we *had* open borders? Immigrant’s children go to public schools, filled with mostly American kids, who help share the American culture (good and bad) with their classmates. Since the vast majority of America’s kids go to public schools, this successfully folds immigrants into American society over a generation or two. (The effects of racism and ghettoism likely push in opposition to this effect.) What about that would lead the descendants of immigrants to call for the government ownership of all production? It hasn’t happened in the past with the influx of various immigrant groups, both legal and illegal. Even vast numbers of Mexican and Central Americans hasn’t done that.

            Perhaps your use of “Socialists” is an example of the article’s “exploitation creep.”

            1. shawn_dude

              It’s mainly just history and facts? No group in America votes center right other than white Americans. That’s just a fact. Cubans are the only exception I know, and that was a HEAVILY self selected group that bailed from a communist regime.

              Also tribalism. All these non white groups are clearly behaving in super tribal ways. They’re acting as monolithic voting blocks for the most part. Like how 90% of blacks vote Democrat. Other groups aren’t quite as extreme, but when you’re talking 60-70%+ consistently voting left, over periods of decades, it’s pretty easy to imagine that things will continue to be the same into the future.

              I don’t see it changing anytime soon either. Why Asians, Indians, etc don’t go conservative or libertarian more is beyond me. They’re high achieving, high income people that are getting fucked by high taxes etc. Maybe they’ll come around someday when they realize the lynch mob is coming for their property along with white folks. Asians are already being discriminated against in higher ed, and starting to be bad mouthed by other minorities, so it could force them into a coalition with the right, which has ended up being the defacto white party for some reason.

              So whatever the reasons, white Americans are the only ones that really seem to believe in the founding principles of limited government. It just is what it is.

          3. “I’ll take a libertarian-leaning Mexican over an abject Socialist Brit, Chinaman, or Indian any day of the week. Unfortunately, with open borders, we don’t get to make the distinctions and the Socialists win by default.”

            Problem is the percentage of Mexicans, or anybody else that is foreign, is far more likely to be left leaning.

            We would have to have a hardcore ideological test to allow in ANY immigrants, including from Europe, that weren’t far to the left of where the center lies in America. All that said, I would say Europeans seem to be more likely to be libertarian/right leaning than people from Mexico, China etc because their institutions and whatnot are a lot more functional, and they at least have general expectations of no corruption, some amount of freedoms, etc. And most of northern Europe does have powerful center right parties as well, whereas most of the rest of the world it’s outright communists arguing with socialists. Euro center right would be more center left by American standards, but we’re talking Bill Clinton levels of left, not Bernie Sanders…

      3. You’re too generous. In the United States, ALL advocates of restricting immigration are card-carrying white supremacists. There is simply no legitimate thought process that could lead anybody to oppose open borders. Only a mind poisoned by racial hatred could fail to grasp the benefits of unlimited immigration.

        Anti-immigration people don’t even deserve to be debated. They’re on the wrong side of history, Drumpf is their last gasp, and they’re going to lose.

        1. Time for a new routine, dude. This shit is getting tired.

          1. He gets Reason more web traffic money and that is all that matters.

            1. That’s an interesting new theory you have there.

          2. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian is the most entertaining writer on the site


          3. This post is so out there that it seems like sarcasm.

        2. OBL is one of the better trolls here. Agreed.

    2. It’s not a belief. It’s a fact. White supremacy is the only reason anybody could possibly oppose open borders for the US.

      1. Baiting and bating. Masterful baiting.

      2. No fair then. I oppose open borders and I STILL haven’t gotten my white supremacy membership card and decoder ring in the mail yet.

        1. Have you grown your pencil moustache?

          1. Yes, and I wear a black cape. I mean come on, how much more “evil” do I need to be to get my white supremacy membership card.

      3. Really? Please explain how that works.
        I would note that White race category includes various ethnic classifications including European, Hispanic/Latino, Arab, Jew,

      4. Other than not wanting to destroy our entire culture and system of government, I GUESS there’s no reason to not support open borders other than being a white nationalist… But isn’t being a white nationalist a good enough reason??? Why stop there, we should deport all the brownies already here too! That’s the only way to REALLY be white nationalisty enough.

        I mean if we came up for a “final solution to the brown people question” (I mean deport them, not gas them guys. Gassing people is sooooo 20th century and also mean) in the USA we would reduce the murder rate by about 70%+ IIRC. Blacks alone account for 50% of murders, despite only being 12% of the population, but once you toss them Mexicans in there it adds another 20 something percent I believe.

        Reduce welfare spending by about the same IIRC.

        We would almost instantly have a balanced budget, because whites and Asians are the only ones that when statistically averaged out are actually net positive tax payers after accounting for per capita spending.

        We would have a far smaller and more limited government since that’s what whites continually vote for.

        Lower unemployment.

        Lower divorce rates.

        Higher percentage of college grads, and higher average test scores.

        Higher average national income.

        1. But I guess I’ll stop there because all of the facts about how “enriching” minority groups are in the USA are not actually all that kind to minorities… Keep in mind I AM kidding about deporting them all, but all of that stuff is ALSO actually true if you look into the numbers. White Americans are a powerful and prosperous group, and almost every other minority is a huge drag on the country on a per capita basis.

          If those factually correct statements make you think “Wow this is great! We need more of this!” then there’s something wrong with you.

          I’m all about high value immigrants from wherever, because they won’t have the problems our low rent immigrants in recent decades have caused us. But the fact is that basically every immigrant group that isn’t Asians or Indians has been a huge detriment to the well being of this country… If we’d had better standards, and only allowed in smart immigrants from around the world, it would have been a very different outcome. The reason Indians are so successful is because almost every one of them got here based on merits, not because they illegally jumped the border, or won a “diversity lottery” visa. Those are the kind of immigrants we need.

    3. It also does seem to be the belief of a lot of commenters.

    4. Starting with Shakia Dalmia.

    Isn’t news

    1. Authoritarian SIV, determining what is and isn’t news.

      1. SIV is still pissed that isn’t, as he initially assumed, a bird porn site.

        1. Try

      2. 3,000 retweets CJ.!

        1. If something is discussed enough, it becomes true.

          1. Works for the Catholics.

  12. Remember when ENB said that Ben Shapiro should be punched in the face for his “smug” views on transgrender people? People don’t forget!

    With that said, she is spot on with this piece.

    1. Remember when ENB said that Ben Shapiro should be punched in the face for his “smug” views on transgrender people? People Snowflakes don’t forget!

      1. Objecting to threats of violence isn’t snow-flakery. Wanting to punch someone because they hold an opinion you don’t is snow=flakery

        1. FWIW Snowflake Punch would be a good band name

          1. Snowflake Enema would be a better band name

          2. Snowflake Meltdown?

        2. “Should” and “I am going to” have a vast chasm between them.

      2. You sound triggered by a simple fact. Maybe you should reconsider what a snowflake is and who out of us two is acting like one…

        1. It’s the guy still whining about a tweet.

      3. I won’t. Just like real snow, I never forget, and last forever.

        1. Ya know there’s a wet spot on my lawn that says otherwise.

          1. Yeah, that’s where I banged your mom last night.

    2. You have to admit, Shapiro does have a very punchable face.

    3. “Remember when ENB said that Ben Shapiro should be punched in the face for his “smug” views on transgrender people?”

      Shapiro is a deep cover Nazi! Don’t let the yarmulke fool you!

  13. When terms like “white nationalist” and “Nazi” mean nothing

    AKA – the New Normal.

    1. Nazi means National Socialist German Workers Party.

      Socialist being the key word that applies to lefties today.

      1. Yet all NAZIs self identify with the right.

        1. “Yet all NAZIs self identify with the right.”

          So they’re as stupid as you are.

        2. Where are “all” of these Nazis?
          They are so fringe, they matter not.

          1. UNITE THE RIGHT!

            (a self titled movement to unite the Klan, New-Nazis, Confederates, conservatives, Trump supporters, and White Supremacists)

            1. Or as Trump calls them, “fine people”.

              1. i believe trump called communists in that march fine people too. he was wrong both times

                1. I believe in both cases he said there were “some” fine people on both sides. He never claimed either side consisted entirely of fine people.

              2. Palin’s Buttplug|1.29.18 @ 3:37PM|#
                “Or as Trump calls them, “fine people”.”

                Or as turd lies “something or other”
                Way to go turd! One more lie to ad to your total!

            2. Slander them as you will, they really do not need to unite as long as leftists do not actually wield any power.

            3. Democrats on the left started the Klan.

              Nazis, neo-Nazis, and New Nazis are socialists – so lefties.

              Democrats were Confederates.

              Conservatives are on the right and vary in their conservativism.

              Trump supporters are in the middle of the left-right spectrum somewhere.

              White supremacists can be left or right. Many Democrats are racist to keep blacks, asians, and hispanics in their place among the chosen socialist TOP MEN. There are Republican white supremacists too.

              1. Give it up, you idiot. Save it for

                The Unite the Right rally (also known as the Charlottesville rally) was a far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States, from August 11?12, 2017.[4][5] Its stated goal was to oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park.[6][7] Protesters included white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and various militias. Some of the marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried semi-automatic rifles, swastikas, Confederate battle flags, anti-Muslim and antisemitic banners, and “Trump/Pence” signs.[7][8][9]

                1. What are you talking about? Charlottesville was a staged government propaganda film.

                2. Are you half-ass citing incorrect media again as if what they say is fact.

                  Robert E. Lee was a Southern Democrat.

                  Democrats tend to be socialists. Nazis are Socialists. The KKK was started by Democrats. Confederates were Democrats.

                  I never heard of a single monarch or religious leader present at Charlottesville, so there were no far-right persons there that I saw.

                  Besides, keeping civil war historical markers from being taken down by dumb-dumb socialists should be important to everyone. it keeps the left-wing nutjobs from trying to change history like separating themselves from slave owning Democrats and Socialist Nazis.

                  1. The Democrats who started the KKK were not liberals. Neither were the Nazis. They were some of history’s most notable racists and authoritarians.

                    Never mind, I’m going to find a brick wall to pound my head into.

                    1. Tony, the National Socialist Worker’s Party in Germany was as left wing as you get. All industries were nationalized. The economy was fully centralized. They used personal attacks to silence their opposition within and without the party. They fully deployed propaganda to mislead and deceive the population. They invented differing enemies to deflect the blame for their failing policies. They were racists as hell.

                      The principal tenet of fascism is central control of the economy while allowing private ‘ownership of the means of production.

                    2. What does any of that have to do with liberalism?

                    3. I think TOny’s got a point here. Yes, Nazis were left wing in their embrace of socialist policies. They were also authoritarian and conservative in many ways.

                      Too many people seem to be conflating a lot of things just because they happen to be what Democrats tend to favor these days. Liberal, socialist, progressive, left-wing are all distinct and largely independent things.

                    4. Nothing. The folks you follow haven’t been liberal in a long, long time.

                    5. Except for the master-race bullshit, it’s hard to find any tenet of Hitler’s Nazi Party that does not sound like a plank from the Democrat Party platform.

                    6. Not to mention Goebbels admired and used the methods of propaganda started by Progressive Americans Bernays and Lippmann to help Progressive Democrat President Wilson segregate the federal government.

                    7. Tony, modern progressives aren’t liberals either. They are collectivists, like the Nazis and the Klan; they share many particulars as well, such as favoring a centrally managed economy and opposition to freedom of speech.

                      You’re like a French nationalist pointing at a German nationalist and shouting ‘they’re nothing like us!’ But yeah, they are like you.

          2. This. The left runs the whole show now, and they still have to find an “other” to project all their nastiness on.

            1. Scapegoating the left, which controls no levers of power in this country, is a pretty aggrieved, Nazi-ish move.

              1. I am not referring to political offices.

                1. Just (((Hollywood))) and the like, right?

              2. Lefties control a Senate seat in Alabama after 50% of the Republicans didn’t vote for Moore.

                I can’t wait until lefties have to defend Jones in Alabama after Democrats talk so much shit about the Deplorables.

              3. The left controls most of the powerful institutions in this country, including most federal courts and government agencies.

                If controlling Congress and the White House meant total power the GOP would have already run roughshod over the left’s agenda; instead they’re struggling to get a single bill past, thanks to federal judges, center-left Republicans, a hostile media, and state governments thwarting then at every step.

                Stop pretending to be a martyr. It’s pathetic.

        3. Pretty dumb socialists like Sevo said.

          On a left-right spectrum, far right is monarchies and oligarchies because they rarely change their conservative positions. Support for change is usually overwhelming. Far right tends to be authoritarian. Socially conservative.

          On the left side we have socialism which changes their positions on a daily basis and even have a group called progressives because “progress”. Socially liberal. The left tends to not have overwhelming support and typically use revolution to seize power from a majority. This extreme is also authoritarian. Nazis are socialist who never had majority support even when they controlled the military and killed dissidents.

          Libertarians are somewhere in the middle. Conservative and sometimes use revolution to overthrow tyrannies that threaten that maximum Liberty possible under a conservative and liberal non-authoritarian government.

          1. You might as well label darts and throw them at a Left-Right spinning board.

            1. Its real easy which is why lefties always try and make up new charts.

              Lefties will do anything to distance themselves from their fellow socialists- Nazis.

            1. That chart does not work. Liberals don’t care about personal rights and freedom.

              Libertarianism is not the opposite of authoritarianism but is centrist. The opposite of authoritarianism is anarchy.

              That’s why Libertarianism is so great, is centrist and in the middle.

              1. Why is the middle automatically the best?

                And liberals invented personal rights and freedom, dipshit.

                1. ….You got the dipshit part right but applied it to the wrong person.

                2. Liberals like Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Frederic Bastiat, and James Madison?

                  Your ilk hate all of them. Modern leftists take more from Marx, Veblen, Marcuse, and other illiberal authoritarians. They’re your intellectual forebears, Tony, not the classical liberals that invented modern civilization: their intellectual descendants are today called ‘libertarians.’

              2. The chart does work, and you know that “liberal” is a confusing term, because it’s held multiple meanings/connotations over the years. I think the application that you’re looking for is communist, socialist, or collectivist (as examples)

                There are authoritarian collectivists (Lenin, Mao, etc) and there are libertarian collectivists (Ghandi, Chomsky). It’s hard to argue that Lenin and Ghandi belong in the same place on a spectrum because one is clearly more authoritarian than the other.

                Similarly on the right (capitalist) there are different levels of authoritarianism… For instance, Thatcher or even Trump are much more authoritarian than say Friedman or Rand. Yet they all agree with capitalism.

                A two dimensional axis doesn’t describe these differences. Although clearly American mainstream politicians fit pretty nicely along an axis, it would account for the fact that Stalin on the left would have been against most civil rights that Democrats are for, and Friedman on the right would be for more social liberty than today’s Republicans.

          2. I’d argue that they really eschew the Right-Left label. They are Right-wing being nationalists. They are right wing being paternalistic and also pro-private property ownership. They are left-wing in their opposition to capitalism/commercialism and for advancing policies like not being able to fire employees, and not being able to quit your job.

        4. Actually, they don’t.

          Spencer said in an interview that his positions aligned more with Sanders than anyone in the GOP.

          The alt-lite folks interviewing him were in shock.

          But he’s a leftist, just like all Nazis–just like you, Shrike.

          1. Anyone who has truly looked into the alt-right and Spencer was already fully aware that they are mostly socialist. The biggest difference between the democrat (or progressive) version of socialism and that of the alt-right is which demographics they seek to prop up.

            1. The Democrats/Progressives seek to set the white race up as the leader of all peoples, making sure that everything is ‘fair’ for everyone.

              The Alt Right seeks to set the white race up as the patriarch of all peoples, making sure that all know their place.

              The Democrats/Progressives are willing to encourage the other races to abort themselves into extinction as well as encouraging lawlessness.

              The Alt Right wants to isolate them and let them kill themselves off.

              They don’t seem too different to me.

          2. Anyone who has REALLY looked into the Alt-Right knows it’s a mix of self identified leftists, and right/libertarian leaners. I would say the right/libertarian side is the vast majority though.

            You seem to believe that people can’t hold an opinion that overrides other broader principles they hold when compared to typical left/right paradigm. People can, and do, all the time. “Pragmatism” is usually the stated reason.

            The right leaning alt-right people are mostly conservative/libertarian in most ways, but have come to the conclusion that ignoring racial aspects of a society poses an existential threat to our civilization. Many of them aren’t even traditionally racist, in that they don’t “hate” people from other groups, they just think there are more problems trying to live with them, and it’s not worth it.

            They see race and IQ issues, general cultural compatibility issues, how they vote issues, and general FUCK YOU BROWNIES THIS IS OUR COUNTRY issues.

            Frankly I think they’re pretty much right that America as we know it is done for if we continue with mass immigration. Anyone who thinks this isn’t going to devolve into tribal warfare between different groups doesn’t know history very well. It’s already started, and will only get worse from here on out until war, secession, or an authoritarian regime comes along to enforce order. That’s my guess.

            1. The whole cult of multiculturalism thing IMO is just as insane and detached from reality as communism. It’s utopian nonsense. They both have to completely ignore fundamental aspects of human nature to make their “model” function in their dream world. People prefer to be around others that are similar to themselves. Not exclusively, but as a general rule. People whose looks/views/opinions/religions/etc differ too far from their own are seen as undesirable. This is ALWAYS how it has worked. Everywhere. All the time. Period. There is no example of it ever functioning any differently. All nations that had differences in these fundamental areas had CONSTANT problems having to hold the thing together by state force.

              I don’t expect this experiment to go any differently. Even if there are no genetic IQ differences, the fact is that peoples self identification will be enough to tear the USA and Europe apart and fundamentally change them forever. Here we’ll be endlessly fighting between a dozen different racial interest groups, politicians staking out their favored groups via government largess. The government will only get bigger and more authoritarian. Europe will possibly be even worse because their populations individually are easier to overwhelm, and the immigrant populations are more concentrated to Muslims and Africans.

            2. Will Germany still be Germany when it’s 40% ethnic Germans and the rest is Arabs/Africans in a few decades? No, it won’t be Germany anymore. Germany will no longer exist. You can be assured they won’t care as much about German history, culture, they will change laws to better suit their opinions, maybe change the language even, and so on. Polygamy and wife beating will probably be legal before the century is out, so it has that going for it!

              Same for Sweden, France, Italy, Britain… Basically everywhere but Eastern Europe is on that track already today if you look at the numbers.

              Alt-Right folks don’t want to see that happen. Frankly I don’t want to see that happen either. But they vary greatly in how mean they want to be to achieve that end. Most want to be 100% peaceful and simply slow/eliminate immigration. Some are down for violence IF it can’t be done peacefully. Many don’t even advocate throwing out existing non whites, just not taking any more in.

              The thought of America and Europe not existing anymore, and all European peoples of the world (but not any other ethnic group, because nobody else is stupid enough to open the flood gates because of guilt) literally not having a homeland to call theirs anymore is a horribly sad thing to think about. And the native people of these countries don’t want to do it, as polling data shows, but their libtard utopian politicians are literally forcing it on them. It’s not right.

              1. You really shouldn’t babble on so much. It makes you look as stupid as Hank.

                1. Maybe… But am I actually wrong??? I don’t think so. I’m a big history buff. 90% of history is wars because of race, religion, or resources. The more of those you can avoid within a single country, the more smoothly it functions. We have all three of them in overdrive mode right now. Class warfare, racial issues out the ass, and the “culture war” between traditionally religious people and the equally zealous secular inquisition in the form of SJWs.

                  America is done for if we don’t make massive changes. The name of the country may or may not change, but it WILL NOT be “America” in the sense that most people mean it now, or that everyone meant it in the past. It will just be a bloated authoritarian socialist government with a dozen ethno-religious groups endlessly warring with each other for power. It’s gonna fucking suck, and I’m going to be pissed since I, along with millions of others, saw it coming decades in advance.

        5. The Nazis aren?t socialists because of what their party name says or because of how they identify themselves. Democratic people?s republic of Korea- or any other country with “democratic” in the name- is a good example of why not take self- imposed labels seriously.. Nazis are socialists because they favor and always try to implement socialist policies.

          1. Nazis are right-wing authoritarians. Socialists are left-wing. Note that Monarchies, a right-wing political ideology, believe the monarch (aka: the government) owns everything just as communists do.

        6. What’s your next guess?

          The right wing in Weimar Germany were the people who wanted to restore the Kaiser to power. They had nothing to do with the Nazis.

          Hitler was a leftard.


          1. Hitler allied with the right against Socialists since fascists and socialists were competing for the same political niche. He had nothing to fear from the right. “Conservatives” of the day allied with him because they viewed him as the lesser of two evils. Remember, this was not that long after the Russian Revolution and the rise of Communism.

        7. “Yet all NAZIs self identify with the right.”

          Except the originals

          1. Clearly, we need more history in school curriculum.

        8. Which explains the alliance between Hitler and Muslim princes during WWII.

      2. Oh, no not this again.

        Not everything fits neatly into our contemporary categories of left and right.

        1. Honestly, very little seems to.

          1. But various idiots of the left and right are going to make it fit, dammit!

        2. Maybe we should start an abortion thread. Should be able to work out all out.

  14. Andrew McCabe fired. Interesting times.

    1. It really makes you think.

      1. Stormy Daniels being vetted as new FBI Director.

        You heard it here first.

    2. Andrew McCabe fired.

      Fired? I didn’t even know he was sick!

  15. Thank God I don’t read the NYT. The last thing I need is a socialist influence in my life.

  16. To be fair, the NYT has supported Nazis for decades. Nazis are socialists too.

    1. I’d ask if you struggled with category problems in your schooling, but I may be assuming too much by mentioning schooling at all.

      1. Aw Tony, even in crappy public school they taught me about those socialist Nazis and how FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

      2. Could you please explain why “national socialism” belongs in a different category than “socialism”?

        1. Nazis were never socialist, you idiot.

          Tell me what is “equal stuff” about killing Jews, blacks, Poles, and gypsies (among others).

          The definition of left wing is “equal or egalitarian” and right wing means “favored class, race, or ethnic group”.

          1. Nazis were big on socialism for white people. That doesn’t mean they were egalitarians, but they absolutely were in favor of mixed economy soft-socialism.

            I think where you go retarded is your definitions of words. Socialism means the violation of private property, such as taxing and spending. Nazis did a lot of that, and Hitler personally hated capitalism.

            1. I think where you go retarded is your definitions of words.

              I use the generally accepted academic definition.

              Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[footnotes


              Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.

              1. In other words, you’re using the definition propagated by leftist commies. Funny how what they say never matches reality.

              2. But if you just leave out all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled, Nazi Germany was a perfectly egalitarian society!

                1. Equal for all Germans who are no jews, gypsies, homos, and disabled. That is why the socialist Nazis killed all those they didn’t want to be part of the Third Reich.

                  All other Germans were equally owned by the state of Germany. All equal to die for a greater Germany.

                  1. This is literally the most absurd thing I’ve heard in my life.

                    1. Collectors who eschew ‘colorblindness?’ Now who today does that sound like?

                      The Nazis were central planners who opposed individual freedom. The closest thing to a Nazi the US has seen was FDR (his New Deal was partly inspired by Italian Fascism; his adviser Redford Tugwell was an admirer of fascism).

                      Progressivism has much in common with fascism; laissez fairs classical liberalism, on the other hand, is the antithesis of fascism. Deal with it.

                    2. *collectivists, not collectors

                    3. So the closest thing the US has seen to Nazism is the guy who defeated Nazism.

                      Your media diet is going to give you a fucking stroke dude.

              3. Except, of course, when leftists venerate Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Che … the list goes on. Every country they claim as a model for their views in fact practices the worst of what leftists claim to oppose. Anyone care to tell me what the “equality and egalitarianism” is in Obama’s multi-million vacations? I don’t particularly mind that he took vacations (in fact I think it would have made for a distinct improvement the last 8 years had he made vacationing a permanent lifestyle), but the hypocrisy is overwhelming.

                Leftists may as well just say “left-wing politics makes you an admirable person while right-wing politics makes you a scum-sucking pig”. It would have as much intellectual validity

          2. Nazis were never socialist, you idiot.


          3. Of course they were socialist.

            Left-socialists took the means of production away from business, and ran it (into the ground, mostly.) themselves.

            Right socialists left the businesses in nominal control of the means of production, (Because they knew how it worked.) and settled for making them de facto government employees who could be shot if they didn’t produce what they were told, at the price they were told.

            The end was socialism in both cases, it was just executed slightly differently.

          4. So when leftists elevate the interests of blacks, or lesbian cattle farmers, or the God-given right of transsexuals to enter the military so they can get reassignment surgery for free, they are favoring certain classes or ethnic groups and are therefore now right wing?

            Inquiring minds want to know

        2. Because socialism wasn’t exactly the definitive trait.

          As everyone here is aware, you idiots like to pretend that what modern American Democrats advocate is socialism (it’s not), that it’s precisely the same kind of economy practiced in 1940s Germany (nope), and that anyone who doesn’t buy your laissez-faire horseshit is thus a Nazi.

          Meanwhile you think you’re in step with the premise of this article. Ha!

          1. Sorry, but your definitions are wrong too. Doesn’t matter if you advocate a 100% income tax (abolition of private property) or 50%. You favor taking private property that someone else produced for your own ends. You are a socialist.

            1. Even the most libertarian of societies will have a mixed economy. Especially if you want all those armed thugs protecting your right to own property. (Thus, libertarians are Nazis?)

              Bernie calls himself a socialist because he doesn’t want Democrats to win any elections, but it doesn’t technically refer to a mixed economy, which, again, almost every society on earth has.

              Your other options are a full command economy like North Korea or no economy like Antarctica.

              1. Antarctica = Libertopia!

              2. If you control the means of production, you are a socialist country. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are socialist countries. They have state companies.

                ObamaCare makes the USA as socialist as we have ever been. Social security, Medicare, etc were pretty socialist but they called them a tax.

          2. Fascist economies have more in common with modern leftist economic policy ideals than with free market ones. You’re more of a fascist than we are. Again, own it.

            And forgive me for not seeing a substantive difference in wanting the state to control 80% of the economy (which is necessitated by all the free shit programs your party platform calls for) and wanting it to control 100%. At 80% you may as well be a communist, you’re almost there anyway.

        3. DPRK has democratic and republic in it, so obviously that means that every country has words in their name that don’t actually mean what the country is. Or something like that.

        4. Who the fuck cares? Do you really think that if you can convince the left to agree that Nazis were socialists, they will give up on the whole socialism thing?

          Nazis were a political party that ran Gerrmany for a while. Socialists want the state to own the means of production.

          Most of what is happening in US politics today is neither of those things. How about we try actually describing what’s going on today, rather than argue about which historical labels that don’t fit very well best apply to the situation?

          1. ^^this. The terms are only useful in being divisive. I would prefer people talk about issues and possible solutions instead…..but I suppose that would mean they would actually have to try to formulate a defensible position.

  17. Damn nazissists everywhere.

  18. If America votes Nazis into power, you gotta deal with Nazis being in power. Good luck, Jews!

    1. You are the epitome of the purpose of this article.
      You and palin make everyone on this site so much smarter…as in you are so goddamn predictable and stupid, we all feel smarter except when we have to read your zombie hog wash.

      How does it feel to sit around in sweatpants all day?

      1. I’m sure I wouldn’t know. What are sweatpants?

        1. Since you only get off your futon to masturbate in a puddle of your own tears, I’m quite sure you know what sweatpants are.
          Or are you that much of a smug douche?

            1. I don’t know what that is either, Past Me.

              1. Sounds French. I do love French things.

            2. Definitive proof that Tony was born after the 1980s

          1. Silly timbo: they don’t use futons in Oklahoma.

            They stuff hay into sacks, thrown over pallets and cinder blocks.

            Stop talking over Tony’s head.

    2. The Nazis are not in power. Obama left office after being the Fuhrer for 8 years.

      Trump’s administration is in power now.

    3. FDR hasn’t been President for decades, Tony.

  19. “NYT is now a white supremacist paper.”

    The sheer ridiculousness of this statement is breathtaking. I can’t imagine what kind of upside-down brain these people have.

    1. Says Rhyw?n.

      /NYT commenter

      1. Ooo, I like how you Trumped up my handle. I might steal that.

        1. Umlaut

    2. Hard to find a better example of the old saw that “we see what we want to see”.

  20. Yup, “white nationalist” and “Nazi” are incredibly overused. So is the term “Communist” which is thrown around so much referring to anyone from insufficiently right-wing Republicans to middle-of-the-road Capitalist Democrats to European Social Democrats (e.g. Swiss Bankers or the Swedish CEO of Ikea) to U.S. Social Democrats (Bernie Sanders says he is one as do a lot of millenials) to actual Socialists and real Communists who believe the state should control all means of production (North Korea, Laos, Cuba etc.) The only place that really adheres strictly to Communism is North Korea.

    If you ask the average progressive if they think the state should own all means of production they won’t say “yes”. Yet that Communist tarball gets thrown around at anyone to the left of Breitbart.

    1. Bernie Sanders certainly called for government control of certain businesses. He might not have said that the deodorant industry should have its means of production controlled, but he did call for controlling their amount of production via product types. Potato, potato I guess.
      The difference is that smart people don’t dismiss rhetoric like that when this guy is an avowed socialist.
      There is free market capitalism and then there is everything else. all of the other things are simply the beginnings or ultimate end of the slippery slope away from liberty and capitalism.

      What the leftist don’t understand is that fascism, socialism and communism are the same thing ultimately. They simply happen in that order of succession marked every time by massive government corruption and debt.
      Some people are smart enough to know there is no difference in political parties or their supposed ideologies. They all want massive government and debt to fund their schemes until they get out of office. Calling someone a Marxist idiot is not an overused term when so many politicians(dems and repubs) are so far left that it is hard to tell the difference.

      1. The Marxist label fits quite literally when people use language about “power” and “privilege” to dismiss arguments. They believe the same theory about class struggle, just the battle lines are drawn differently today.

        1. Cultural Marxism was developed specifically to address the apparent shortcomings of (mostly economic) Marxism.

          1. I couldn’t convince a self-proclaimed communist that it’s both a political system and an economic system and can’t replace our government or markets exclusively. It’s a pedantic gripe, but it highlights the terrifying level of ignorance that some folks have regarding the things they’re advocating. I just don’t understand how they can find no problem with this.

    2. That’s because communists typically call themselves anarchists. You know, the whole withering away of the state, new soviet man, and other such fantasies. They believe private property only exists because the state has laws against theft. They refer to North Korea as “state capitalism” because using the word socialism makes socialism look bad.

      And then you have the feminists who believe women should be payed the same as men even if they don’t do as much work. “Gender communism” is the most accurate description of this belief.

      1. That’s because communists typically call themselves anarchists.

        This sounds ludicrous and contradictory, but I’ve actually known someone who used the terms interchangeably. Madness.

        1. Communism and anarchy are both ideologies of the left. They aren’t interchangeable but they aren’t dissimilar either. Communism is supposed to lead to a peaceful sort of anarchy if you believe the propaganda.

      2. The phrase “state capitalism” was not coined to keep from making socialism look bad but to highlight the fact that even though the state had taken over the means of production, the “people” (proletariat, if you prefer) were as far removed from power over those means of production as they always had been.

    3. The mayor of my city honeymooned in Cuba and is on record as saying he wishes he could decide the exact place and function of every parcel of land in the city. You’re damn right I call him a Communist even if he doesn’t govern as one. The only reason for that is because he can’t get away with it.

      1. You’re damn right I call him a Communist even if he doesn’t govern as one. The only reason for that is because he can’t get away with it.

        Pretty much this.

    4. In fairness, we have actual white nationalists and neo-nazis, espousing actual white racist, nationalist, and fascist ideologies, marching in our streets. It’s okay to call actual nazis “Nazis.” The Richard Spencers of the world are actual white nationalists.

      I’m not sure these terms are currently over-used insofar as the groups accurately labeled by them are current news again.

      The reason the “Communist tarball” (This makes my inner unix nerd cringe…) is being thrown around is because actual white nationalists and neo-nazis, and people with similar beliefs, don’t like being called “white nationalist” and “nazi.” You see the same sort of “I know you are but what am I” childish retort in the recent retort of “identity politics.” It’s effective at deflecting valid charges of bigotry because it turns the aggressor into the victim.

  21. less-than-libertarian immigration policies “?

    When did Mises and Hayek become “open borders” proponents?

    (I mean, Hayek might have, I suppose; he wrote a lot, and it’s not all trivially accessible, though I don’t recall any mention of it in his Big Popular Works.

    I don’t recall Mises ever talking about anything but raw economic theory.)

    My point being, as every time Reason does this, to point out that there is not any particular libertarian position on immigration and borders, not from first principles nor common agreement, any more than there’s a “the libertarian position” on abortion, for instance.

    (I mean, I’m a “strict border controls and lots of legal immigration” guy, myself, and see no problem at all with reconciling that with libertarian principles and philosophical priors.

    But then, I also don’t see any reason either “totally open borders” or “utterly closed borders with minefields and machineguns”* are incompatible with libertarian ideals.

    * I mean, in the latter one, you obviously have to let people leave the country if they want, and I think it’d be awful policy and a bad idea for normal borders, but it’s not inconsistent with first principles of libertarian theory, to my knowledge.)

    1. Many Reason writers likes to pretend they are the gate keeps of “libertarianism” and only their brand of being a libertarian is pure. They rather end debate within libertarian circles by outing libertarians engaged in wrongthink. How can you be pro-life and libertarian? How can you support secure boarders and be libertarian? How can you be annoyed by NFL anthem protests and be libertarian?! It is an ironic position for a libertarian to take.

      1. Sounds like the position most libertarians take.

        I am the one true libertarian and anyone who disagrees with me is a goddamn communist.

        1. For any N group of libertarians there are N+1 forms of libertarianism.

          1. A terse and thorough summary of the community.

    2. Seems to me that there is a very clear “pure” libertarian take on immigration. If a person is moving from one place to another in such a way that it violates no one else’s individual rights, there is no basis to use force to stop them.

      That said, there are obvious practical considerations that lead most libertarians to accept that there must be some kind of controls on the border. And there is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had on how exactly the border should be controlled to practically maximize liberty. But there is really nothing inherently or essentially libertarian about any kind of border restrictions.

      1. Close.

        There is really nothing inherently or essentially libertarian about any concept of border. Borders are, by definition, concepts that require some sort of group. In that sense they are a lot like elections or even property rights.

        There being no need for the concept of property absent the presence of another.

        1. But let me just cut to the chase – having accepted that these are matters of group interaction, so can never be covered under any notion of “pure” libertarianism, the ‘right’ to create borders is an inevitable consequence of the right to free association.

          If you cannot restrict borders then you cannot effectively limit your chosen group.

          (This is the dirty secret the Reason people don’t want you to know about them.)

          1. And if all the people in a certain jurisdiction (bordered area under one government) are to some degree a coherent entity capable of collective decision making, the entire welfare state follows (if that’s what they want). ?-la-carte libertarianism is the same as ?-la-carte collectivism.

            1. There’s some logical hoops you have to jump through to go from Borders exist therefore Welfare State.

          2. Why should I be able to effectively limit my chosen group? Particularly when the group is something as incredibly large and diverse as the population of the USA? Thinking that way quickly gets you to the point of effectively arguing that the whole country is the collective property of it’s citizens and that a majority gets to decide how to control it.

            Our borders don’t exist because of some collective decision of the population. They exist because of wars and treaties between governments.
            I would agree with you about the right to create borders in a free association of people. If a group of people who own a collection of contiguous property wanted to decide to exclude everyone else, or selectively admit people by whatever criteria they choose, that’s fine. But that is nothing like the situation with almost any nation state that exists.

            1. In a sense, in a democratically elected representative republic, the people DO kind of voice their opinion. Hence Donald Trump. The majority of the country has said for years somewhat consistently:

              1. Control the borders, no more illegals coming in.
              2. End low skill immigration.
              3. Slow immigration overall.

              And then a number of other complaints, like make sure they speak English etc. Those things have ebbed and flowed a bit over the years, but for the most part most people have been in favor of those three things as a general principle.

              I think if one is trying to derive the concept of a nation with borders from pure libertarian philosophy the only sensible way to do it is as a “social contract” type thing. We theoretically have that, it’s just that it gets ignored most of the time. LOL

              Pure philosophy is bullshit anyway. The extreme ends of libertarian theory are never going to happen, and wouldn’t even be practical if they could in many respects. We just need to go about 90% more libertarian than we are now and everything will be well enough.

      2. ” If a person is moving from one place to another in such a way that it violates no one else’s individual rights”

        When they vote for big government, they violate my rights.

    3. “less-than-libertarian immigration policies”

      Progressitarianism means importing enough statists so Big Government has a permanent electoral majority.

    4. I was bothered by the “less-than-libertarian,” too. I understand both the theoretical ideal of open borders and the pragmatic reality of secured ones because folks are able to debate it. ENB is certainly allowed to express her own opinion. I’m not too agitated by her own definition of libertarianism because this site is for a magazine, not a newspaper. It’s essentially a bunch of OP/ED pieces about current events. I think your comparisons to von Mises and Hayek are compelling. Keeping their unrelated beliefs from their works makes them more widely acceptable. The somber fact is that we’re prone to rejecting entire arguments because of a single disagreeable statement. I’m very guilty of this. Constantly being bombarded by bias is exhausting, so I just stop consuming tiring content.

    5. The “open borders” crowd is more nihilistic than anything.

  22. NYT; God says World to End Next Week. Woman and White Supremacists Affected Most.

  23. How is this not the salem witch trials all over again? These far left goons just call everyone they don’t like a white nationalist now

    1. Bannon and Miller actually are white nationalists.

      1. They are white and they are nationalists. Nationalism s a bad political tool Works for lefties and righties. Class warfare and nationalism are the vestiges of failed politics/ultimately failing governments.

        And everyone is racists and homophobic and transphobic and antisemite, and …….

        That is the purpose of the article. The nuts, like you, have exhausted any rational discourse because you are all so fragile that when you get confused in any intelligent conversation, you resort to calling people racists because you are just dumb. That is the leftists’ overriding consistency. You cannot grasp simple economics yet you were brainwashed to think that your confusion must be at the hands of an evil greedy capitalist.

        1. Sometimes there really are Nazis in the White House.

          Don’t look at me, I didn’t vote for them.

          1. Well, it?s the WHITE house.

          2. You can be a white nationalist and not be a nazi– and vice versa.

            1. It’s important that we get it right when talking about who’s advising the president of the US.

          3. But there aren’t. You just made it up. You’re worse than people people saying Obama was a Muslim.

          4. But there aren’t. You just made it up. You’re worse than people people saying Obama was a Muslim.

          5. But there aren’t. You just made it up. You’re worse than people people saying Obama was a Muslim.

            1. In that there’s nothing inherently wrong with being Muslim like there is being a Nazi?

              1. Says who? I’d probably rather go put back a few brews with a Nazi than a jihadi nutter.

                The truth is the Nazis weren’t any worse than all of the other asshole governments throughout history. The Brits wasted tons of people. So did the Turks. The Japs. The Mongols. On and on. They all committed mass murder. The only reason Hitler is held up as such a bad ass (and evil!) guy is because it was the biggest war in history, it was very recent, and we have tons of film. If they had film of Ghengis Khan killing people he’d probably be remembered as more evil than just plain bad ass like he is now.

                Oh and the Nazis had awesome uniforms. You as a homosexual can appreciate how important good fashion sense is I’m sure!

        2. Timbo, you’re right on.

      2. No, they’re not. No more than Barack Obama’s is a black supremacist for shaking hands with Louis Farrakhan.

    2. “These far left goons”

      Hyperbole abounds on all sides…

  24. “We’ve seen a similar thing recently when it comes to calling out racism, sexism, and all sorts of bigotry.”

    “Recently”? Excuse me, but have you been living in a cave for the last several decades?

    1. * see recorded history

    2. I know, right? It’s like the 90s never happened.

  25. Kendzior’s two anti-Times tweets had garnered around 3,000 retweets and more than 6,000 likes by Monday.

    As an experienced professional twitter user surely you know “retweets do not equal endorsements”. You didn’t “find” her tweet because someone you follow was agreeing with it (I hope).

  26. The Times isn’t Nazi it’s just the most antisemitic major press in America. Whether it’s important to scream that it’s not also hysterically psychotically anti Trump enough is a different issue.

    1. What’s worst is the shadowy anti-Semite who runs the company!

  27. A slightly different opinion than the one you had with Google and James Damore, I think. Though it underscores that it is a complicated situation where perhaps it ought to be legal for an employer to fire someone for these reasons, but employers should be slow to do so. Then there’s the secondary effects of how threats of Title IX and other Civil Rights Act investigations can force companies to have to fire someone to avoid a hostile environment claim, especially if already being investigated.

    Since the situation is so complicated, it’s rarely worth making an absolutist position statement on one case since they’re difficult to hold consistently (other than the absolutist positions of many that “anyone I agree with shouldn’t be fired, whereas I’ll overlook firing anyone with whom I disagree.) Even opinions on the Damore case shift depending on whether his missive is framed as a quasi-official “memo” or as a post on an internal open message board designed for debate, etc.

  28. If everything problematic is evil, silencing and punishing everything problematic becomes a social necessity.

    This would be clever if the subject in question was actually “problematic”

    Its not.

    The term “problematic” is itself part of the problem.

    When you call something ‘a problem’, you have to explain why it is a problem.

    when you call something problematic, you don’t, really. or what follows is mostly a bunch of feels-based handwaving, having little in the way of fact or objective criteria involved.

  29. So if they have a blue checkmark, does that make their Tweets more tweetable?

    1. It means their tweets are pre-approved by the Twitter social justice compliance committee and require no review.

  30. Reasonable people can concede that even if Douthat is wrong about the value of including Miller in immigration talks, he is not personally championing Miller’s mindset

    Reasonable people wouldn’t necessarily assume he was wrong w/o saying why.

    If you want to convince people you disagree with of something, you need to first acknowledge them as legitimate interlocutors.

    That is the very essence of the complaint by the left (and, apparently, some at this magazine); they think there’s only allowed to be one legitimate side of any ‘argument’, and that all others are to be demonized and declared ‘racist’ w/o even giving the people the chance to make their own case.

    I might think Miller is wrong. He probably is. but you’d never know w/o giving him the opportunity to demonstrate it.

    he’s getting what i’d call the “milo treatment”. Milo is/was probably wrong about a lot of things; but the endless ‘declaring him so in advance’ by people in the media (like Reason) is part of the reason he’s been as popular as he has. Treating people like ‘untouchables’ is to inadvertently legitimize them in the eyes of others who feel their side is constantly being misconstrued.

    1. This is really at the heart of our current issues. Nobody wants to have any discourse or entertain new ideas. Why should they? It’s uncomfortable, and with the internet it’s perfectly easy to find somebody you agree with. If you’re not always actively trying to stay out of the echo chamber, it will engulf you, and you won’t even know it. The incessant slinging of ad hominems whenever you disagree with somebody is massively unproductive. That’s the type of stuff that got Trump elected. It was almost like an act of spite.

      “If you think that I’m a bigot just because I have a different opinion than you, then I’ll do exactly what you expect me to do. I’m going to be vilified anyway.”

      People just need to shut up and sit down for a chat. Suppress the ego and open the mind.

      How is this not obvious to everyone? Keep preaching the only real truth, GILMORE. Maybe somebody will listen to us telling them to listen.

  31. I think Ms Kendzior is looking at a Pulitizer. No?

    Her scholarship dovetails with Patrice Maniglier’s ‘What is a problematic?’

    Gaston Bachelard’s 1949 book, Le Rationalisme appliqu? (RA; best translated as Reason Applied), is essential to an understanding of his work, and Bachelard is essential to an understanding of twentieth-century French philosophy. That this book has never been translated into English shows how little the anglophone world is yet acquainted with some key aspects of this corpus. Bachelard, like Bergson, is one of those authors that we now need to rediscover. The extract translated below addresses a central concept in his work, one that came to play an important role not only in French thought, but also in general culture: the concept of problematic.*

    I was fortunate enough to hear Ms Kendzior speak at a recent Derrida forum in which she showed this video:

    Donald Trump Introduces and Endorses “Slim Shady” Eminem at 2004 MTV Awards Show

    These are the notes I took from her lecture – My iPhone was busted.

    — Trump’s endorsement of a ‘white rapper,’ who them comes out looking like a nazi, no, no is a nazi,…

    — Trump is a nazi and so is this ‘Slim Shady’ white nazi rapper.

    1. Ceci n’est pas une probl?me

      1. The French handled anti-semitism very coyly in WWII. They refused to exterminate any jews; they handed them over to the krauts and let them do the dirty work!
        See? No blood on our hands!

        1. They read Machiavelli. Always make somebody else do the stuff that’ll make you look bad.

  32. When do we reach peak Anti-Nazi?

    1. I swear, if you ask that one more time, I’m going to pull this Sherman over!

  33. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

  34. What really made the NY Times a dominant newspaper was their coverage of the sinking of the Titanic. What will finish off the Gray Lady newspaper-of-record all-the-news-fit-to-print legacy will be when the Democrats fail to win back the House (they likely will be kinda close) and lose 7-10 seats in the Senate this Fall.

    Then probably several grand juries will start returning indictments on people who used to be high in the Resistance at the FBI and the DOJ. (Robert Mueller will still be wandering in the wilderness holding up his lantern seeking a dishonest man as he and his team realize that being “protected” means you can nurse this cushy gig forever and never have to issue a final report!)

    Remember maybe a decade ago there was a crazy lady who drowned her 5 or 6 kids in the bathtub? She never was criminally charged and even her husband forgave her. You just gotta respect the truly insane, which is kinda where I am with all the Democrats in my family.

    It is likely that in a thousand years when you hyper-google the term “oracle” you will get a history of ladies who inhaled vapors in smoky caves at Delphi in Greece while uttering vague prophecies. Next will come up ancient photos of Sean Hannity throwing little rubber footballs.

    1. For the left, the exposure of all these corrupt bureaucrats in the federal government is their worst nightmares coming true.

      This stuff helps Americans see the government for what it is and that is a win. Trump is making this happen but mainly by trolling the lefties into exposing themselves as corrupt bureaucrats.

    2. I believe that the correct motto is “All the news that fits, we print”.

      You can forgive the insane, but it is still better to restrict the potential for damage.
      (although, to me, they have not ‘done’ anything requiring forgiveness. It is just what they are.)

      Technical note: your hyper-google will return many hits on a certain software company.

  35. It’s kind of funny that everything has a name or a term these days. Like people need those words to use them to argue or to fight.

  36. Oh @nadinevanderVelde and @SarahKendzior, how pissed you would be if you ever found out that the neo-Marxist and progressive crap you’re promoting is right there in the fascist family tree.

  37. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    HERE? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  38. The Gray Lady ain’t white supremest, but she sure is fascist.

  39. When I saw Goldman’s comment that “feminists need rape”, I thought he must be talking about the issue of rape, that feminists need it to remain an issue that they can rally around. But no, he really meant that feminists need to be raped. He is an utter sleaze, and shouldn’t be in a responsible position in a school system. That doesn’t mean that a paper which publishes his opinions (on other matters) is a “Nazi paper”. Yeah, using a phrase like that devalues the term “Nazi”. It is thrown around so much, I can almost see why Yahoo now censors the term when it is used in comments on its site. Almost. But Goldman/Murphy is a nasty piece of work.

  40. Well the Nazis were a totalitarian state that favored crony capitalism, controlled the media and had a party line that you followed or else. Seems like a good fit with the NYT.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.