Harvard conservative magazine is suspended by its own board after publishing article laced with Nazi rhetoric

[durangodawood]

Off the top of your head, can you name many socialist/communist revolutions that didn't involve violence or significant coercion under the threat of violence?
In terms of symbolism, a lot more people died under the hammer & sickle flag than any other flag.

Dunno...they wear masks (aka Black Bloc) as to conceal their identities when they're out making trouble so that they don't face consequences.

I'm assuming at least a few of them involved in those events are part of their school newspapers.

Its all super vague. Some random pictures of people we dont know in circumstances not available for examination, and responses to those people from "the left" that you conjure from your imagination.

Its too much. More specific reality and less supposition and assumptions please.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its all super vague. Some random pictures of people we dont know in circumstances not available for examination, and responses to those people from "the left" that you conjure from your imagination.

Its too much. More specific reality and less supposition and assumptions please.

It's not all that vague if you know the history of Antifa.

It's the modern day incarnation (based on the symbolism and slogans) of the 1930's Communist party in Germany (the KPD) who waved the banner of "Antifaschistische Aktion"

(picture from 1932)

...they later folded into the Soviet-backed SED party in the days of East Germany.

East Germany's name for the Berlin Wall was the "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall" (drawing off of their KPD comrades' "lingo" to try to gain some public support among the young people -- ironically, the guards faced inward at that wall)

The SED was also pretty deep into the "Anti-Zionist" movement. As they viewed Israel as "fascists" along side the United States and West Germany... East Germany (along with several other soviet counterparts) were antagonizers in stirring up trouble between Israel and Arab states in the 60's making use of the Stasi to advise Arab states on how to conjure up misinformation PR campaigns.

Even the more modern day off-shoots list everything you want to know about them on their chapter websites (except their identities of course...they wouldn't want to get harassed at the coffee shop on "smash capitalism" poetry open-mic night)


You can draw a direct line from what they believe today, back to what their predecessors in East Germany believed, and the ideas, values, tactics, etc... aren't all that different.

 

[BCP1928]

It's not all that vague if you know the history of Antifa.

It's the modern day incarnation (based on the symbolism and slogans) of the 1930's Communist party in Germany (the KPD) who waved the banner of "Antifaschistische Aktion"

View attachment 372680
(picture from 1932)

...they later folded into the Soviet-backed SED party in the days of East Germany.

East Germany's name for the Berlin Wall was the "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall" (drawing off of their KPD comrades' "lingo" to try to gain some public support among the young people -- ironically, the guards faced inward at that wall)

The SED was also pretty deep into the "Anti-Zionist" movement. As they viewed Israel as "fascists" along side the United States and West Germany... East Germany (along with several other soviet counterparts) were antagonizers in stirring up trouble between Israel and Arab states in the 60's making use of the Stasi to advise Arab states on how to conjure up misinformation PR campaigns.

Even the more modern day off-shoots list everything you want to know about them on their chapter websites (except their identities of course...they wouldn't want to get harassed at the coffee shop on "smash capitalism" poetry open-mic night)


You can draw a direct line from what they believe today, back to what their predecessors in East Germany believed, and the ideas, values, tactics, etc... aren't all that different.

What do you suppose it is that makes them want to perpetuate that ideology?

 

[Chesterton]

There were million of Africans here too.

They were purchased property, not settlers.

I dont care about the intent for this point of the argument.

I don't know what that means.

The fact is the die was cast.

No, it played out over a long period of time.

The USA was destined to be multicultural. Similar with former Spanish territories we annexed. Hispanics may be "white", but the language was different and has never really left.

Mexico gave away land in the place now called Texas. There were only two requirements to get free land: learn and speak Spanish, and become Roman Catholic. Why? Because Mexicans were "insular" and whatever that other word was that you used. I.E., racist, by today's standards. The people who would later be called Texans came, accepted free land, but didn't learn a different language or change religion. Why? Same reason.

I think tribalism was certainly necessary as a matter of human evolution. But its shadow side has loomed catastrophically large since the start of the 20th c.

How so?

Yeah people hang out with their own when its a matter of choice. Thats a challenge for our multicultural country. How to layer an American identity over peoples natural tribal identities.

Briefly, I see two layers to what culture is. The superficial and the deep. The superficial is stuff like food, clothing, music, etc. The deeper involves different core values such as one has about religion, political philosophy, morals, etc. I'm fine if my neighbor eats hummus. I'm not so fine if he wants to impose a non-believer tax on me.

Whats your explanation for why there has been so much legal immigration from former colonies into their European counterparts?

Why the immigration, or why they make it legal?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What do you suppose it is that makes them want to perpetuate that ideology?

Combination of factors...

-Economic stressors make people more sympathetic to bad ideas
(it should be noted that both the KPD and the Nazi Party in Germany during that era started off with "less-threatening sounding" economic appeals to the sorry state of post-WW1 affairs they were in...neither came right out of the gate with "capitalism need to be abolished" or "we need to eradicate the Jews who are hoarding all the money via usury" that came later in more gradual increments)

-University education (specifically the humanities) is a culprit (though I expect a pushback on that if I know your style as well I think I do lol)
Instructors and professors in those fields, whose main offering to society are things that aren't organically monetizable in a quantifiable sense are naturally going to tend to have opinions that come down on the side that's against the concept of "capital". In other words, people whose value is derived solely from the fact that they're "teaching ideas to someone else" when those ideas wouldn't be economically viable on the free market to put a roof over there head, are going to have more critiques about the free market that your average person.

-The general rebelliousness of youth. There's a reason why you don't see many 50+ year old at Antifa gatherings. There is that rebellious aspect of youth that will grasp at anything that puts them on the opposing side of the "boring old fuddy duddies" that raised them.

- Shallow associative reasoning. "Nazis are bad, when the Nazis were around before, this was the group that opposed them the hardest, therefore, this group association shows everyone else how anti-Nazi I am" -- the obvious problem with that one being, that term gets tossed around far too casually.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I found out there was a kind of book burning. Because of the suspension, the article was never posted online. I don't question that the quotes are probably accurate, but I don't think it does any of us any good to talk at length about a couple of phrases with no surrounding context.

I'm not sure what context you could add to change the significance of using those specific turns of phrase given that even the explanations that the author/editor have provided don't dispute the fact that they were being used in a nationalist context (as opposed to ironically, or merely talking about someone else's views).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Wouldn't some of the slogans and symbolism that some on the more extreme left use have the same (or even larger) degree of overlap as some of the troubling left-wing movements?

Ah, right on cue, it's Rob with a "both sides"ism.

 

[Gene2memE]

Combination of factors...

-Economic stressors make people more sympathetic to bad ideas
(it should be noted that both the KPD and the Nazi Party in Germany during that era started off with "less-threatening sounding" economic appeals to the sorry state of post-WW1 affairs they were in...neither came right out of the gate with "capitalism need to be abolished" or "we need to eradicate the Jews who are hoarding all the money via usury" that came later in more gradual increments)

In the case of the DAP/NSDAP, that's not true.

The DAP was profoundly ethnonationalist, anti-Semitic, anti-Marxist/anti-Bolshevist, anti-Capitalist/anti-materialist and centred around volkish notions of racial hierarchy from the outset. The "less-threatening sounding" parts of its platform were mostly added as window dressing to make it more appealing. In some ways, the NSDAP of the late 1920s and 1930s was a lot less overtly extreme than it was at its founding.

The NSDAP 25-point platform of 1920 included:

Demand for land and colonies to "feed our people and to settle our surplus population"
Citizenship exclusively those of "German blood, whatever their creed". Explicitly, "no Jew may be a member of the nation".
Non-citizens to be subject to "laws for aliens" and may not become nationals
All "non-German" immigration to be prevented
Expulsion of "non-Germans" in times of famine
The "abolition of incomes unearned by work"
Confiscation of all war profits
Nationalisation of all corporations and trusts
Laws permitting expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation
Abolition of "ground rent"
Prohibition on land speculation
Death penalties for "common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc"
Formation of a people’s army
Legal prohibition of "non-Germans" from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers
Outlawing the publication of material that is "not conducive to the national welfare" including legal prosecution of "all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life" and the suppression of cultural events.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not sure what context you could add...

Yeah I'm not sure either. That's why I think it wise to get the context and find out.

 

[Chesterton]

Ah, right on cue, it's Rob with a "both sides"ism.

He's coming along, he's coming along. If he'd ever talk to me I'll have him wearing a MAGA hat in under half an hour.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

(it should be noted that both the KPD and the Nazi Party in Germany during that era started off with "less-threatening sounding" economic appeals to the sorry state of post-WW1 affairs they were in...neither came right out of the gate with "capitalism need to be abolished" or "we need to eradicate the Jews who are hoarding all the money via usury" that came later in more gradual increments)

No, the KPD was founded in 1918, in 1919 they were part of the spartacist uprising, intending to create council republics (soviets) in Germany. They were always clear about their intent of abolishing capitalism.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Isn't "blood and soil" a nazi dog whistle (more like a foghorn), or an outright statement that the speaker/writer is a nazi in the US?

 

[Chesterton]

Isn't "blood and soil" a nazi dog whistle (more like a foghorn), or an outright statement that the speaker/writer is a nazi in the US?

If it's a dog whistle I don't think it's a very good one. I could hear it, and I'm neither a Nazi nor a dog.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

If it's a dog whistle I don't think it's a very good one. I could hear it, and I'm neither a Nazi nor a dog.

You're going with the foghorn then, I guess That was what I thought. At this point it should be as known as 1488.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, the KPD was founded in 1918, in 1919 they were part of the spartacist uprising, intending to create council republics (soviets) in Germany. They were always clear about their intent of abolishing capitalism.

It was my understanding that initially, they presented a somewhat "softer" approach initially aligning with the SPD (their social democratic party), but then later turning on them once they saw them as a "vote-splitting" threat, is that not the case?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ah, right on cue, it's Rob with a "both sides"ism.

In this case, would it not apply perfectly?

Are there not protestors out in the streets that have used Communist slogans and symbolism?


And I still don't understand why looking at things with a balanced, honest lens is such a bad thing. As it provides an understanding for why people are voting against Democrats. That's far more comprehensive than trying to always keep exclusive focus on "how bad the conservatives are" with any counterbalance points being dismissed as "both sides'ing" or "whataboutism".

Ideally, that should be the goal for the Democrats, yes? To figure out what issues republicans have with them, and attempt to turn republican voters into democratic ones. If the goal for the two parties is to just keep trading off narrow victories ever couple years then exclusively bash the other side, then they're doing it wrong.


It was a completely fair example of a double standard to point out. When people use Nationalist rhetoric, people invoke the most extreme, evil example of Nationalism that ever existed in Modern history (IE: Hitler). Yet, people can espouse the communist rhetoric, and people on the left take umbrage to any Mao or Stalin comparisons.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It was my understanding that initially, they presented a somewhat "softer" approach initially aligning with the SPD (their social democratic party), but then later turning on them once they saw them as a "vote-splitting" threat, is that not the case?

To my understanding they were a splinter party from Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, USPD which it self was splinter party from SPD. Back then I believe all three wanted to "abolish capitalism" but SPD through reforms, USPD balancing between the more revolutionary and reformary(?) ways. When they had reached KPD in 1918, they were full on Soviet-style communists wanting revolution (but not yet loyal to the Soviet Union).

It is funny because even though socialdemocracy achieved many of their goal, modern day social democratic parties are ok with working within the capitalistic system across northern Europe (and perhaps western, I don't follow what happens in France, Spain and Portugal too closely). So they themselves got reformed in the process.

 

[Chesterton]

You're going with the foghorn then, I guess That was what I thought. At this point it should be as known as 1488.

I had to Google 1488. Seems like you're more in touch with neos than I am. By the way, minutes before you posted to me, I had just posted three of my favorite reggae songs in another CF thread. Not a white dude amongst them.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I had to Google 1488. Seems like you're more in touch with neos than I am. By the way, minutes before you posted to me, I had just posted three of my favorite reggae songs in another CF thread. Not a white dude amongst them.

They spent the 1990s trying to beat me up. I try to keep tabs on them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

In this case, would it not apply perfectly?

No, because the phrases called out in the Harvard article have specific connotations. Comparing that to generalized Communist slogans is disingenuous. Moreover, there's a clear distinction between an article published by an established media organization with an editorial staff and some random guy at a protest with a sign.

A lot of the controversy also stems from the response. As a direct comparison, a couple years ago, a left-wing student organization at Harvard published an antisemitic cartoon. They were immediately condemned for it from all sides (including the university administration), took it down, and apologized. With the current situation, the administration has said they're staying out of it unless forced, and the editor of the magazine is lamenting that "ordinary conservative thought is one headline away from criminality."

The fact that this made it through editorial review, and that it's being explicitly defended, I think, sets people off even more than just the simple use of those phrases.

It was a completely fair example of a double standard to point out. When people use Nationalist rhetoric, people invoke the most extreme, evil example of Nationalism that ever existed in Modern history (IE: Hitler). Yet, people can espouse the communist rhetoric, and people on the left take umbrage to any Mao or Stalin comparisons.

Maybe if we had the Yale newspaper calling for a Cultural Revolution or something, you might have a point.