Sunday, October 10, 2010

Southern = Nazi?

Behold Sebesta's latest righteous rant:

A historical group of Nazi re-enactors, claim not to be pro-Nazi

It turns out that one of the GOP's congressional candidates is a member of a group that does re-enactments of Nazi's and white washes their history.

The link is here:

Read the article. Does it remind you of any "heritage" groups that you know?

As with all Sebesta posts, this one raises many tantalizing questions. Why is there a comma after "re-enactors" in the title? Why is there an apostrophe after "Nazi"? Why is the word "whitewash" cut in half? And which "heritage groups" is he referring to?

The first three questions are easy: Sebesta's command of the English language is almost as good as his knowledge of history. The last question is even easier: It's another jab at his own personal Moby Dick, "neo-Confederates" (note the name of his blog). He's implying that Southern heritage is just like Nazism.

No matter that the Southern Cause is the opposite of Nazism. The South fought for local self-government, not the big, centralized, authoritarian government that Hitler believed in. As Tom DiLorenzo has pointed out:

On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler clearly expresses the Lincoln/Jaffa view: "[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states." ...

Hitler (p. 567) mocked what he called "so-called sovereign states" in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich with their "impotence" and "fragmentation." Such impotence and fragmentation of government was purposely designed by some of the American founders precisely because they wanted to limit the powers of the central government.

To understand why Sebesta keeps making mistakes like this, you have to understand the hatreds and half-baked notions that squirm through his brain. He is so malignantly obsessed with a hatred of all things Southern that he associates all that he detests with the South. So when he encounters the words "Southern" or "Confederate," he thinks "Nazi," "racist," and "broccoli."

Genuine hate is an irrational association of evil things with others, including people and symbols, no matter the context or intent. As the Lolcats would say, Hates? Ed has it.


Anonymous said...

I acknowledge the point that you're making regarding the Third Reich desire for centralization rather than the Southern belief in local government. However, given that you (rightly) consider it injust for Southern causes to be summarily dismissed in this manner, isn't it therefore also possible that the Third Reich need not be simplistically dismissed as "evil"? After all, the national socialists were very much concerned with traditional German values of the family; they were very obviously against the homosexual agenda, very obviously against all forms of Marxism and communism. Above all, and here is where there is a particular kinship to the South, they absolutely prioritized traditional agrarian communities over the modern urban world. They valued the farm, the soil, the village over the city. So just as one must admit that the South is injustly painted in a negative light, isn't it honest to acknowledge that the Third Reich too has its commendable aspects? It is by no means the "opposite" of the traditional South.

Nick Ryker said...

Anonymous #1:

Here's the problem with what you say: It is simply a fact that Hitler cleverly associated himself with massively and widely popular ideas and beliefs (he was OFTEN pictured with the Christian flag, when he himself was actually a Wotan worshipper) in order to promote himself and his Party of Satanic Evil. B.O. and the 'Democrats' DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING (e.g. B.O. is actually a Muslim deliberately masquerading as a "Christian").

The Truth is that the reality of Hitler and The South are diametrically OPPOSITE: Hitler wanted - AND ACHIEVED - centralization of POWER, ALL POWER, and then used THAT to enable his Global Totalitarian Expansion. NO ONE, NO "THING" can behave in that manner and achieve those things without THE POWER enabled by the centralization and then concentration of the MEANS of power - people, economies and esp. the military (especially via "The Media" - the CORPORATE Media).

Indeed, CORPORATE Capitalism, with its highly visible and CONCENTRATED power in a few hands (the founder/s, CEO, CFO, etc, the Board of Directors, Management) is an EASILY and readily IDENTIFIABLE form of economic organization, and thus TARGETABLE legally, politically and "socially" (Jesse Jackson and the NAACP, of the Budweiser "takeover" just a few years ago) and thus USED and MANIPULATED - for "good" OR EVIL (e.g. homosexual groups, Black "Civil Rights" groups, etc).

The South stood for just the OPPOSITE - the DISSEMINATION of ALL forms of power, i.e. political, legal (LOCAL Courts and juries), MILITARY (totally widespread possession of firearms, and LOCAL militia organization of the military) and perhaps the most important of all, ECONOMIC power (Agrarianism/Distributivism).

Your points are "good," but "the Devil's in the details" - and sometimes the Angels.


Anonymous said...

Dear Anon:
The Nazis also "valued the farms, soils, villages, and even the cities" rightly belonging to a lot of other folks. Whatever analogies you choose to draw, please note THAT distinction! The South has through all times asked to just be let alone. It has NEVER been in the conquering business. - Dutchy

Chris Mallory said...

This is really just more overblown hysteria by the jabbering collective class. The politician in question has also been in WW2 re-enactment units playing American and British soldiers. Switching sides and playing a German does not mean he wants to invade Poland. It isn't much different than an actor playing a role.

Joe said...

While not an expert in German history, the Third Reich was very much for industrialization and a far reaching empire under socialist values. The word reich literally means rich in German, but often is used as empire, something the South has no desire to be.

While the average German citizen may have been more interested in working the land, governmental policy was nothing to that effect and the Germans led themselves to their demise twice by being aggressors who shared nothing in common with the American South.

So did the Third Reich have any commendable aspects? Socialism? Violent warfare? Massive industrial complex aimed at weapon development?

So here is where you are wrong Anonymous. Nazi Germany has no kinship the American South. Traditional agrarian society was not their aim. Do "family values" include euthanasia, abortion and forced labor on members of society who are deemed unneeded?

So wise up and stop hurting your own cause by vindicating Sebesta's nonsensical comments. While Nazi Germany may have had a few commendable aspects, they are buried in a sea of wickedness.

On a side note, as far as the GOP candidate goes, if he had an ancestor who fought and/or died (I didn't read the article) in WII in the Germany army, he can still honer his life and military service and be anti-Nazi at the same time. I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the war from the US and Italy. I have no contempt for either.

HaroldC said...

As far as the 'good' aspects of Nazi Germany. Undoubtedly there were a few. But they were hardly the core tenants of Nazism. Racial superiority, centralised power and Darwinism/eugenics were. Current Nazis advocate much of those same things.

Contrast this to the core tenants of we Confederates. Most of the main stream posit that racial superiority and slavery were the core tenants of the Confederate cause despite evidence to the contrary. We however disprove the alleged parallels between the South/Confederacy and Nazi Germany. We who identify ourselves as Southrons/Confederates (except a very small negligible minority) oppose racial supremacy and slavery. I've been to the meetings of many Southron organisations and out of the hundreds of people I've met have encountered maybe two people who held such views.

Anonymous said...

What might we call Ed's perverted thinking? Maybe "Sebestiality."

Old Rebel said...


We have a winner! (see latest post!)