Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Nazi in the White House

[ 227 ] February 15, 2017 |


I know, you are asking which one. In this case, Stephen Miller. Not only does he look like Joseph Goebbels, but he holds the same worldview. Or at least the same worldview of David Duke, who he follows on Twitter and who he approvingly liked a tweet from about Pizzagate yesterday.



Comments (227)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. C.V. Danes says:

    Damn, and I thought Bannon was Goebbels.

  2. humanoid.panda says:

    It’s not that I want to defend Miller, but do we know this is an authentic account? It’s not verified, and has a tiny number of followers.
    I’m asking because there is a fake Mike Flynn account that misled a lot of people in the last few days- including the excellent Elijah Cummings.

    • wjts says:

      This is a very good question.

    • TexRipples says:

      if you go to the account and look closely at all the likes, a bunch of them are really odd choices, including likes of negative comments about Stephen Miller and Trump

      I’m guessing this isn’t really his account

      (going to the lengths of impersonating Stephen Miller starting in May of 2016 seems a little wild tho, even for the internet)

      • humanoid.panda says:

        NOTHING is too wild for the internet..

      • David Hunt says:

        Whether the account is legitimate or not, “liking” a Twitter comment is not evidence of actually liking or agreeing with something. I occasionally hit the like of various tweets to make it easy for me to find them later as they are neatly grouped in the Likes. I also use it so that I can show interesting comments to my best friend who refuses to have anything to do with social media. Note that my own social media skills are so poor that this is the best way I’ve come up with to find those tweets later.

        So, Miller’s a horrible human being and it wouldn’t surprise me if he agreed with everything that David Duke said, but that’s at best circumstantial evidence of his horribleness even if the account’s really his.

      • Origami Isopod says:

        (going to the lengths of impersonating Stephen Miller starting in May of 2016 seems a little wild tho, even for the internet)

        Without weighing in on this particular situation, that’s not really wild. The phrase “long game” comes to mind, and >1 year isn’t all that long, either. Someone could have had some knowledge that Miller would wind up in his current position or one like it.

    • q-tip says:

      Yeah, this is iffy. I have a soft spot for The Other Chuck Johnson since he turned, but he’s still got the sensationalist thing going on.

  3. LeeEsq says:

    Steven Miller is a deeply amoral and immoral who believes in person who believes and does abhorrent things. He is also a Jew and calling a Jew, even a racist Jews, a Nazi is wrong. Its like calling an African-American a KKK member.

    There is a long debate about whether Jews are white or not. Many Jews believe that we are classified as white or not depending on depending on whatever is to our biggest dis-advantage at the time. Its similar to how Jews can be simultaneous parasitically capitalists and dangerous communists revolutionaries. Calling a Jew a Nazi turns Jews as a whole into something more akin to a prop to be used for whatever side’s purpose than an actual people with a real history.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      What if I call the state of Israel a racist imperialist nation that has put the Palestinians into ghettos?

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        What does Israel have to do with this discussion?

      • Crusty says:

        That’s not the same as calling a Jew a nazi. Though using the word ghetto come close to the same idea.

        • The usual term is “apartheid”. Even many Israelis use the term, and I don’t really have a problem with non-Jews using it. WWII-era terminology strikes me as a bit more questionable, though, but Erik’s use at least isn’t full-on Godwin’s Law.

          • daves09 says:

            Gee thanks, in your enormous magnanimity you are willing to let non-Jews use the word apartheid. Perhaps you can give us a more acceptable-to you-word for the shenanigans the Israeli gov’t. and West Bank settlers get up to.

            • Crusty says:

              Go fuck yourself.

            • What’s with the attitude? I’m not entirely sure I disagree with Crusty’s response.

              Anyway, “apartheid” seems to cover all of that pretty accurately. It’s not as if the apartheid government of South Africa wasn’t notorious about mass removals of black citizens from their property into segregated communities or systematic violence against them, either.

              • Colin Day says:

                Perhaps daves09 agrees with you that “apartheid” is appropriate, but found your granting of permission off-putting.

              • Ithaqua says:

                Agree with Colin – nice of the Jewish community to grant the rest of us permission to use the word in this context… Not that I think this was really what you intended to convey, though, so it didn’t bother me.

                • The “permission” was because of the use of the word “ghetto”, which has a Nazi Germany-era context. Really, I need to point this out? Use of Nazi Germany-era terminology by non-Jews is probably going to make some Jews uneasy.

                • Ymmv, but I think that’s an awfully narrow context for ghetto, even as applied to Jews.

                • I’m not really that bothered by it either because it’s commonly used in non-WWII contexts, but I can see why others might be and would advise some caution using it. Then again, “apartheid” shouldn’t be used lightly either, but as a comparison to present-day Israel, I consider it appropriate. (And while it’s not my place to endorse its usage as such a metaphor, I believe both Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu have said they’re OK with it and may have used it themselves.)

            • Origami Isopod says:

              Yeah, you know, given that antisemitism is still very much a thing, you can lose the fucking attitude. And I am not a Zionist.

      • rhino says:

        Imperialist seems inaccurate. To me that implies a lot more expansionist policy. I suppose you could call the settlement expansionism, but not really imperialism per se.

        The rest of it is if anything too mild a description of one of the more vile governments on earth.

        The Israeli voter has much to answer for.

    • Jon_H11 says:

      The post didn’t mention Miller’s being Jewish.

      If a person who happens to have a Jewish mother or goes to temple or in any other way identifies as a Jew also supports Nazis, that’s called being a Nazi.

      • LeeEsq says:

        Well to me, it seems to me that critics of Trump who call Jews who happen to work for Trump a Nazi are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want to call Bannon and Trump out for their anti-Semitism and get us on their side but they don’t want Jews to be entirely classified with the Muslims, Hispanics, or other victims of white racism. That is they don’t want us to be seen as people of color either. So we remain in a limbo.

        • I think I agree with this. I’m having a difficult time articulating everything that makes me uneasy about this, but I think you’ve hit upon the biggest part of it; the fact that we’re in a limbo where we’re looking increasingly likely to be the victims of official discrimination, yet unlikely to get the protection often afforded by being classed as POC and having others recognise and fight for us as such, is a problem that far too few people seem to be talking about right now. Nearly every demographic classification going forward is likely to continue to count us as white, even though a lot of official government sources probably aren’t going to continue seeing us as such. This is likely to become a gigantic problem going forward, and I don’t see many people even talking about it right now.

          I mean, I’m not really seeing us as having anywhere near as many problems as, say, African-Americans in the foreseeable future, but we’re still quite likely to be victims of racism to a certain degree, particularly with Republicans as a whole not really even being shy about embracing antisemitism these days (e.g., shutting down a resolution acknowledging the Jewish victims of the Holocaust). So I share your unease.

          • LeeEsq says:

            To me, its just how many on the Left always treated the Jews.

            • Eh. I mean, at least the Democrats tried to pass a resolution acknowledging us. It might’ve been motivated by scoring political points to show how shitty Republicans are, but it’s better than nothing. Things could still be a hell of a lot better than they are, though; I certainly agree with at least that much.

              (We certainly haven’t always been served well by liberals and the left, though; certainly, way more of us could have been granted asylum in the 1930s and the 1940s, in particular.)

              • Erik Loomis says:

                (We certainly haven’t always been served well by liberals and the left, though; certainly, way more of us could have been granted in the asylum in the 1930s and the 1940s, in particular.)

                That was largely an issue of conservatives refusing to bend the immigration laws, not liberals.

                • I somewhat suspected as much (it’s been awhile since I read detailed histories of the period), but I do question whether the Roosevelt administration did everything they could to combat this. Certainly I suspect they could have issued some more executive orders, or could have used public addresses to shame the conservatives who were trying to keep refugees out. Given that some historians believe that the Holocaust was ramped up in response to the United States’ entering WWII, I do wish that offering refuge had been a much higher priority for our country than it apparently was.

                • Erik Loomis says:

                  You are probably right. I can say that the one thing I know much about on this is the incident with the immigrants on the St. Louis and it was congressional conservatives freaking out about letting Jews into the country that stopped it.

                • That does not surprise me. The parallels with Syrian refugees are also difficult to miss.

                • daves09 says:

                  We too easily forget how common and unquestioningly accepted US anti-semitism was in those days-and, as in Britain, it was very much an upper class thing. The notorious story of FDR responding to a report about what was happening in Germany by saying that he didn’t want to hear any more Jew wailing comes to mind.

                • The Dark God of Time says:

                  F.D.R. cemented the Chinese-American votes for the Democratic Party when he removed extraterritoriality for Americans, and did other things to get Chinese cooperation during WWII. Something like 20% of the Chinese-American population in the US served in the military, IIRC.

                • ExpatJK says:

                  Eh, FDR and likely much of the Democratic party were not exactly friendly to Jews during that time.


                  Here’s some specific points on FDR:

                  In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”

                • daves09 says:

                  Actually Mr Loomis thimblerigging by the State Dept., encouraged by the WH, meant that Jewish quotas went unfilled all during the thirties. If they had been entirely filled 190,000 more Jews would have been admitted to the US.
                  It’s sad but true, FDR just didn’t like Jews.

            • JL says:

              It’s true that the left is not free of antisemitism (nowhere is). But Jews are also an important and reasonably large part of the left. There’s a larger problem that hardly anyone seems to know what antisemitism actually is, beyond Nazis, or how to talk about it, anymore.

              I encourage everyone on the left to read this excellent by-a-leftist-for-leftists antisemitism explainer. It’s not perfect, but it’s by far the best piece of writing in this genre that I’ve come across.

        • Jon_H11 says:

          I assume Stephen Miller is a morally autonomous individual.

          If he supports policies similar to the Nazi party, or supports and enables people with sympathies to Nazism, does that fact stop being a fact just because he also happens to be ethnically Jewish?

          I guess I can see how the actual side-by-side with him and Geobbles is provocative and unsettling, especially if you’re Jewish, and such images could degrade into anti-Semitism pretty fast, especially on the internet. But liking a Neo-Nazi’s tweet is liking a Neo-Nazi’s tweet, Jewish or not. (But I tend to agree with the upthread, it doesn’t look very legit to me).

          • efgoldman says:

            I love this blog (or a I wouldn’t hang around here so much) but sometimes it makes me FUCKING CRAZY!
            This is not a talmudic exercise, people. We are (at least I’m not) spending a Shabbat afternoon arguing how many angels fit under the rabbi’s yarmulke.
            Sometimes (more often than some of you allow) SIMPLE QUESTIONS HAVE SIMPLE ANSWERS.
            If it walks like a Nazi, quacks like a Nazi….
            If Miller and his buddies (all of whom read this blog, I’m sure) get offended, too fucking bad.

            • My biggest qualms here are that people have pointed out above that the account may not even be Miller’s, and that liking a tweet does not necessarily mean that a person agrees with it (people sometimes like tweets for all sorts of reason). Even retweeting may not necessarily be a sign of agreement, especially considering many people on Twitter actually put “RTs do not mean agreement” or something along those lines in their profiles.

              If it’s confirmed that Miller’s full-on endorsing Duke’s positions, then sure, he’s fair game to be called a neo-Nazi. But I’m not really comfortable having non-Jews label him such merely on suspicions, particularly given some of the other issues I’ve outlined elsewhere.

              • efgoldman says:

                My biggest qualms here are that people have pointed out above that the account may not even be Miller’s, and that liking a tweet does not necessarily mean that a person agrees with it

                It isn’t like he and president Bannonazi haven’t made their feelings known elsewhere.

                • Miller has openly embraced authoritarianism, sure. When he’s openly embracing genocidal antisemitism in particular, or really even any overt antisemitism, then I’ll be comfortable having non-Jews call him a Nazi. Before then, I’m… still kind of ambivalent about that.

                  I’m also not prepared to conflate him with Bannon, even though they do have awfully similar views on a lot of things.

                • JL says:

                  Miller was buddies with/organized with Richard Spencer in college. Not around antisemitism, so I’m not sure it makes him a Nazi per se, but (as a Jew who is the same age that he is) it creeps me the fuck out and pushes him into “Most genuinely puzzling person in the Trump admin” territory for me.

            • Abbey Bartlet says:

              And if you want to say that, Mr. Goldman, fine. But it’s a well-settled principle that sometimes things that are okay for members of a group to say are not okay for non-members to say. I think this is one of those things.

              • Jon_H11 says:

                What if it was unambiguously true? Not a liking of a KKK member’s tweet by a profile that may or may not be his, but if his literal official profile started embracing neo-nazism, then fuck it, whether I’m Jew or not I’m calling him a Nazi.

            • Origami Isopod says:

              It’s not about Miller and his buddies. It’s about what kinds of terminology can and cannot be applied to Jews, any Jews, without handing antisemites ammunition against us.

          • rea says:

            supports and enables people with sympathies to Nazism

            Note that Miller is a long-time close friend of Richard Spencer. To quote Miller’s friend,”Hail Trump! Hail our People! Hail Victory!”

            Can’t get much more Nazi than that . . .

        • The Dark God of Time says:

          Military service

          Burros expressed a desire to enter the United States Military Academy at West Point (which never came to fruition). However, he enlisted in the National Guard while still in high school and wore his uniform to class on drill days. He enlisted in the United States Army in 1955, but he was later discharged after a series of failed suicide attempts involving the ingestion of large amounts of aspirin and non-fatal cuts on his wrists. He praised Adolf Hitler in a suicide note. His discharge was ascribed to “reasons of unsuitability, character, and behavior disorder”.[4]

          Political activity

          Burros eventually joined the American Nazi Party. Burros’ Jewish heritage had been suspected by a number of fellow American Nazi Party members. Many of Rockwell’s stormtroopers distrusted Burros not only for being Jewish, but also a self-hating Jew, and for his bizarre behavior. Burros would sometimes bring a knish to the American Nazi Party headquarters and make such statements as “Let’s eat this good Jew food!” Burros also frequently spent time with Jewish women. In one incident, described in William H. Schmaltz’ 1999 book, Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, Burros once publicly described a lurid fantasy in which the keys of a piano were modified to deliver electric shocks via wires attached to the Jewish victim of their choice. He believed that the combination of music from the piano and the electric shocks would cause them to convulse in rhythm to the piano and provide entertainment. Another example is the fact that he owned a bar of soap wrapped in paper with the words “made from the finest Jewish fat” imprinted on it.[4]

        • delazeur says:

          They want to call Bannon and Trump out for their anti-Semitism and get us on their side but they don’t want Jews to be entirely classified with the Muslims, Hispanics, or other victims of white racism.

          Has it occurred to you that some of us might dislike having an openly anti-Semitic White House entirely independently of any scheme to “get Jews on our side?”

          Once again, not everything is about you.

          • I dislike having a WH that openly embraces anti-African-American racism despite not having a drop of African blood, but I still wouldn’t think of calling a black man an “Uncle Tom”, because I’m not black. This seems similar.

            • delazeur says:

              If Loomis had referred to Miller as a “Nazi k***,” then you would have a point.

              • Abbey Bartlet says:

                Um, I wouldn’t say Uncle Tom is the correct parallel here.

                • Well, I think “house n*****” may be even more inflammatory. It’s probably somewhere in between the two in terms of how inflammatory it is.

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  I mean, I think kike is more like the Jewish version of the n-word, a sort of general slur.

                • Oh. I thought he might have been censoring “kapo”. If you’re correct about what he meant, that’s comparable to “house n*****”. (I’m also on my phone & couldn’t see the comment depth so I think I might’ve thought you were responding to me)

                • delazeur says:

                  Um, I wouldn’t say Uncle Tom is the correct parallel here.

                  That’s fair. We’ll never find a one-to-one correspondence between slurs, and I don’t have a very thorough knowledge of anti-Semitic slurs, but feel free to replace the above with “Nazi kapo” and my comment still stands.

                • My only issue with the term “kapo” being used to describe people like Miller is the one I described below: the kapos were tragic figures trying to save themselves/their families in a horrible situation. I would have far less issue with “kapo-wannabe” being used by non-Jews to describe a Jewish person than “Nazi”, though. The latter implies he wants to kill his entire race. I’m not really sure I can explain how extreme an accusation that is any more succinctly than that. Unless a Jewish person is on record calling for the genocide of their entire race, or engaging in Nazi cosplay or similar acts, I’m not entirely comfortable with non-Jews making such an accusation.

          • Origami Isopod says:

            Once again, not everything is about you.

            I generally disagree with Lee and agree with that sentiment, but I think he is articulating some reasonable concerns here.

        • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial says:

          That is they don’t want us to be seen as people of color either.

          Do you consider us people of color? Do you think others treat us like people of color? Ridiculous!

          • Ronan says:

            It is ridiculous. I think People of colour is a nonsensical concept to begin with (the idea that there is some sort of non trivial connection, based on skin colour, between groups of varying ethnicity/culture/classes, that transcends and is more important than those divisions, is an empirical nonsense) The position of the working class African American is not the position of the high caste Indian American etc, and the only way you get there(ie imagine a group solidarity based on skin colour) is by ignoring the way people actually identify and form group bonds.*

            But Lee wants to reduce this to even further absurdity. Even if you accept Jews (and other European immigrant groups) were ‘not white’ (I dont really, they were not WASPs, and were racialized but still white) in the past, today, in all(?)places in the world, LeeEsq *is* ‘white.’ This is not to say there’s not such a thing as anti semitism (of course there is) or a hell of a lot of Jew hatred (of course) but this is not reducible to a lack of ‘whiteness.’

            Put it like this, imagine there is something called ‘whiteness’ that various European immigrant groups were able to ‘become’, but that this identity of white is not, and never will be, open to, for example, African Americans. How does this explain anything? Does it not imply that these boundaries are not as fluid as we believe, and that perhaps what European immigrants were becoming was not ‘white’ but just part of the dominant ethnic group (ie a reimagining of WASPness) or American.

            I don’t see why Lee insists on using these concepts when we have much better, more sensible, ones for understanding anti Jewish bigotry. Does anyone really believe that as a real world reality one day Lee goes to sleep as a white man, and the next awakes as a ‘person of colour’? Is this really how others categorise Lee? It’s a logical nonsense.

            *I understand the more plausible argument is the group solidarity based on colour is a reaction to white racism, so it’s being categorised by white racism that forms the group identity. But still this doesnt explain (1) intra group discrimination and differences among people of colour (2) the different kinds of white racism different groups face (3) the way people actually identify in general, which is not as ‘POCs’. (afaict by most polling)

            But this is Lee’s speil, endlessly. That the left are never doing enough to acknowledge anti semitism (which I think is true to some extent, but really this stuff gets old)

      • Crusty says:

        Well, there’s a lot of conflating and mixing going on here and some of it isn’t useful. The OP refers to Miller liking a David Duke tweet. David Duke is more of an American klansman type than a nazi. There’s some overlap there to be sure, but they are different. And one of the differences is the overall significance of hatred of Jews within the broader ideology. I’m sure David Duke hates Jews, but more important to David Duke’s “ideology” is something relating to blacks and whites and their relationship in the United States. If the issue with someone is that they’re liking David Duke tweets (I know that isn’t the only issue with him) why not entitle the post “The Klansman in the White House.” After all, it would be more accurate and more specific.

        Put another way, Jew hatred is pretty central to nazism, and especially the nazism of Goebbels. And to use it when referring to some other aspect of nazism isn’t particularly useful. Eventually, you just turn into Trump saying what is this, nazi Germany? And it becomes a euphemism for anything you don’t like. Traffic jam on the way to work? What is this, nazi Germany? Did they have bad traffic? I don’t know, but they sucked, and this sucks too, so nazis.

    • ΧΤΠΔ says:

      What’s the Jewish equivalent to the “other” other c-bomb that shares its name with a certain procyonid?

      ‘Cause Miller is, at the very least, significantly worse than said equivalent.

    • efgoldman says:

      He is also a Jew and calling a Jew, even a racist Jews, a Nazi is wrong.

      No it isn’t. Fuck him.
      And I say that as a Jew.

      • CrunchyFrog says:

        As far as I’m concerned, Israel is run by a bunch of Jewish Supremacists. And if someone wants to call them Jewish Nazis, I’m fine with that. “Never Again” doesn’t mean “Never again to Jews”.

        Racial bigots are horrible no matter what race. And the thing is, even though they look down on other races they always seem to find camaraderie with the racial bigots of those other races. Thus why Nazi Germany’s leaders were sympatico with the leaders or Imperial Japan. Or Israel’s own strong alliance with the leaders of apartheid South Africa (not to mention of Cheney’s America).

    • delazeur says:

      He is also a Jew and calling a Jew, even a racist Jews, a Nazi is wrong. Its like calling an African-American a KKK member.

      If an African American started spouting KKK dogma it would be perfectly acceptable to call them a KKK member. Similarly, Miller is spouting Nazi dogma. His Jewishness doesn’t change that.

      (Not that I’m surprised to see special snowflake bullshit coming from LeeEsq.)

      • Crusty says:

        When he’s liking David Duke tweets, he’s liking David Duke and American klan dogma. When he starts quoting Hitler or liking Hitler quotes on social media, nazi might be apt.

      • Crusty says:

        How about calling an African-American an uncle tom or a house-N? When can a white person assess that an African-American is an uncle tom? The parallel isn’t perfect and maybe not even close, but I think that’s one that white people should stay away from.

        • delazeur says:

          “Nazi” isn’t a slur, obviously.

          Short answers to stupid questions.

        • efgoldman says:

          How about calling an African-American an uncle tom or a house-N?

          I’ve never done that, and I wouldn’t for the reason you said. Nothing to do with Miller and Bannonazi.

        • rhino says:

          But I have no problem calling Ben Carson an Uncle Tom, and I’m so white I fucking glow.

          Nazi, Uncle Tom, these are terms which carry a great deal of meaning. Calling Bannon a nazi calls up precise images of what that piece of shit is and does. It links him to the worst villains in our cultural memory, and it links him deservedly.

          I am not willing to give up ammunition that powerful in a fight against fascism. I am sorry if it triggers (some) jewish people, but I have read their words here and I simply do not think their arguments convincing enough to put down a hugely powerful weapon against an existential threat to the western world.

          • Bannon isn’t, to my knowledge, Jewish, nor does he have much Jewish ancestry. Miller does. There is a reason some Jews have been objecting to non-Jews calling one a Nazi and not the other, and it doesn’t have much to do with the difference between their political positions, which is not particularly noticeable.

            • rhino says:

              But, as I think is pretty obvious, being a Jew does not mean you cannot *be* a Nazi. It arguably makes you an even worse sort of nazi, in fact.

              Now, I do have some sympathy for the argument that miller can’t actually be shown to be a neo-nazi. I don’t agree, as it seems obvious he shares many if not all of their values, but I can see an argument that no person should be called a nazi without proof.

              I simply cannot see a reasonable argument here that we should voluntarily give up an enormously powerful word, ammunition in an existential fight against an old and very recognizable evil, because it makes (some) jewish people uncomfortable.

              Honestly, I said this elsewhere, in your shoes I’d be much more offended by people calling this piece of filth a jew, than a nazi.

              • Abbey Bartlet says:

                Would you (if you’re white, which I think you’ve said you are) call a black person a house n*****?

                • rhino says:

                  No, but I might call them an Uncle Tom, if I felt they were an embodiment of what that phrase signifies.

                  Nazi, Like Uncle Tom, is a word that carries freight. It embodies a constellation of evil in a recognizable and very powerful small rhetorical warhead.

                  ‘House Nigger’ is just a slur. It’s merely insulting, and does not have the same concentrated power to label evil as evil.

                • Anna in PDX says:

                  I can see a white person using the term “uncle tom” or “oreo” but never “house n**” because the n word is seriously taboo for white people (who don’t identify as white supremacists that is).

                  Personally, though (white person here) I’d probably avoid all that terminology as I generally try not to tell people of color how well they are performing as people of color.

                  Calling a Jew a Nazi is slightly different because it’s not exactly about race, but I can see that there is a lot of disagreement about this among both Jews and non-Jews in this thread. I guess if I knew the person was Jewish I’d avoid the term Nazi given this controversy (I think it is totally OK to call a Jew a white supremacist if they make racist statements or approve of racist statements, though).

              • I generally see “Nazi” as being acceptable for people whose ideologies are flat-out genocidal. Miller is a shitbird, but I don’t see evidence that his ideology is flat-out genocidal; just incredibly racist. I don’t really object when people call non-Jews who are racist but not genocidal Nazis, but I have a bit of a higher standard for applying the term to people of Jewish descent.

                And I’m certainly bothered to share an ethnic background with this asshat, but I’m also not entirely sure how I feel about having outsiders comment on his being a disgrace to the tribe, or doing us a disservice. I mean, he is, but I wouldn’t deign to tell an African-American that a member of their race was doing them a disservice or should no longer get to call themselves black, either. I’m not as bothered by it as some others here are, but a lot of these, I feel, are judgements that are probably best left to us if people don’t want to piss some of us off.

                • rhino says:

                  That’s a position I understand, but don’t agree with. I’m afraid I reserve the right to judge evil whether it shares my ethnic background or not.

                  Maybe it helps to know that I think the Nazis in this world should no longer be able to claim humanity let alone an ethnicity.

                  Some things, not many, are so evil.

                • Jon_H11 says:

                  This is rough, but if Bannon and Miller have the exact same ideology, and it’s okay to call Bannon a Nazi, but not Miller… something is off here.

                  Nazi is an ideological signifier, not a racial or ethnic signifier, like the analogies that have been brought up for black people or others. So calling a Jew who professes Nazi beliefs a Nazi is particularly biting because of the historical irony, but that’s on the person professing the ideological beliefs, not the person who correctly identifies them (regardless of their specific ethnicity).

                • I don’t agree. “Self-hating Jew” has been a trope used by antisemites for decades, maybe even centuries. There’s a reason people might think accusing someone of being the ultimate self-hating Jew should be reserved only for the most egregious violations.

                • Jon_H11 says:

                  Fair enough on that account. But I do think that for if it isn’t bad enough a case of Nazism for a non-Jew to be able to call it what it is, then it’s not bad enough Nazism for anyone to be able to call it what it is, whatever their ethnicity. In this case I think it’s ambiguous enough whether it’s true or not that even if Erik Loomis was Jewish (I honestly don’t know) it wasn’t a good comparison, and his having been Jewish wouldn’t make it an appropriate usage without further info.

                • Well, like I’ve said elsewhere, if someone is on record as making public statements endorsing genocide or other particularly virulent forms of antisemitism, then I have no issue with outsiders making the accusation. Guilt by association isn’t quite enough for me, though. I mean, yes, if he’s friends with David Duke or Richard Spencer, that means he’s palling around with Nazis, and I have no problem with non-Jews pointing that out. But until he actually explicitly endorses such things himself, goyim calling him a Nazi is going to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

                  I believe Erik has confirmed that his ancestry is Nordic.

        • Abbey Bartlet says:

          When can a white person assess that an African-American is an uncle tom?

          Fucking never?

          • rhino says:

            Bullshit. It’s a term that should be used with considerable sensitivity by anyone who employs it because it’s an incredibly serious accusation, but people of any colour are capable of identifying someone who takes cause with an oppressor against their own people.

            As with Nazi, if you don’t want people calling you Uncle Tom, don’t be one.

            • busker type says:

              This metaphor is not useful to me. Uncle Tom is a term that can only describe a black person. Nazi can describe anyone who holds specific views. As a white gentile I would not use the term Uncle Tom, but I don’t really have a problem calling a Nazi a Nazi, even if they are Jewish.

      • NewishLawyer says:

        Oh get off it. He was making a very reasonable point especially because as someone else mentioned above, the veracity of the account is questionable.

    • ExpatJK says:

      He is also a Jew and calling a Jew, even a racist Jews, a Nazi is wrong

      No, I’m sorry, this blanket application here is wrong. As others have indicated, Miller, despite his Jewish heritage, is openly cosying up to anti-Semitic people and people who don’t have a problem with Nazi views. This is why people are calling him a Nazi, and it is deserved.

      Now, if he was just some random guy, or even some random Jewish Congressperson who wasn’t expressing Nazi views, I would agree with you. But this isn’t the case here.

      (And yes, I am Jewish, and well aware of the issues that Jews face)

    • Chip Daniels says:

      I think Americans tend to think of racism solely in black/ white terms, and miss both how common ethnic superiority is around the world, and how it works even among those we consider “white”.
      So if Jews are “white” then they somehow can’t be the victim of racism, or if someone is black they can’t be racist.

      I noticed this in discussions about Milo or Ben Carson, how conservatives consider membership in a minority group some sort of magic cloak that makes accusations of racism void.

    • rhino says:

      Sorry, Lee, but the only way to not get called a fucking nazi is to not act like one.

      I couldn’t give a shit if he’s a jew or not. He’s a fucking nazi.

    • bargal20 says:

      I believe the correct term for miller is “kapo”.

      • As several of us have pointed out, kapos were tragic figures who were mostly trying to save their family members or themselves, and the comparison is unfair to them. He’s more accurately described as a “kapo-wannabe”.

      • Anna in PDX says:

        This (“Kapo”) is a really problematic term if you ask me. Particularly since it is used by right wing assholes against liberal Jews (recently in fact by the Trump appointee for the US Ambassador to Israel).

        • Ronan says:

          yeah, i cant believe people think Kapo is better. Particularly as it’s pretty disrespectful towards the position actual ‘Kapos’ found themselves in. (Calling Miller a Kapo leaves him off the hook by conflating the choices actual ‘Kapos’ had to make with his own)

          • That’s why the “wannabe” part: it implies these people are worse than the historical kapos, who had entirely understandable motivations for these actions. These people want to cause harm to other members of their race without an excuse like being coerced by a genocidal, totalitarian government. That makes them much, much worse, and it’s why we’ve been suggesting the “wannabe” as a distinction.

            • Ronan says:

              Maybe, I dont know. It still kind of demeans the people who filled the role of Kapo imo. Makes it almost an ironic insult. It’s probably not more than a personal preference though.

  4. DamnYankees says:

    Wait – he liked a David Duke tweet yesterday?

    Jesus Christ. The “Gish Gallop” of Trump scandals keep churning and keeps stuff like this off the front pages. This alone would be one of the top 5 scandals of the entire Obama administration.

    • rea says:

      he liked a David Duke tweet yesterday?

      He liked a David Duke tweet (retweeting from the younger Flynn) about how Pizzagate has never been disproven, and Podesta’s emails seemed suspicious in connection with Pizzagate, yesterday.

      • efgoldman says:

        Podesta’s emails seemed suspicious in connection with Pizzagate, yesterday.

        The pizza place made bad risotto? What?

      • DrS says:

        Maybe it’s because I’ve seen the creation of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory sprout up from the beginning, unlike others that I’ve only heard of after they’ve simmered in the fever swamps, but it has to be the dumbest CT I’ve heard of yet.

        Chemtrails and lizardians make more sense.

    • David Hunt says:

      Guys, I sometimes “like” horrible tweets to make it easier to find later. It’s a crude way to bookmark them, for me.

      • so-in-so says:

        Well if you ever run for public office, or plan to hunt for a new job, you might want to rethink your methods. Those who find your “likes” may not bother to inquire about the motivation.

  5. Abbey Bartlet says:

    I realize we haven’t come to an agreement on what the appropriate terminology for Miller and Kushner and Ivanka is (was “kapo wannabe” the winner?), but I’m not wholly comfortable with a non-Jew labeling a Jew a Nazi.

    • I’m not entirely sure where I stand on this either, but retweeting a neo-Nazi is pretty damn Nazi-ish. It might not be quite there yet, but it’s at least Nazi-adjacent.

      I agree with “kapo-wannabe” being the best term I’ve seen.

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        Yes, but I’m still not comfortable with a non-Jew labeling a Jew a Nazi unless the latter is wearing a uniform and heiling.

      • Hells Littlest Angel says:

        “Neo-nazi” works for me. If his anti-Semitism is against Muslims instead of Jews, I don’t feel the need to come up with a completely different label.

        • Abbey Bartlet says:

          If his anti-Semitism is against Muslims instead of Jews

          What are words even do they have meanings or are they just random compilations of letters.

          PS Are *you* Jewish?

          • Hells Littlest Angel says:

            You are now approaching utter incoherence. Take a breath or two.

            • While Muslims are sometimes considered Semitic peoples, the term “antisemitism” has historically been used to refer specifically to discrimination against Jews. Technically it could be used to refer to discrimination against anyone of Semitic background, but that does not match common usage. I would have no problem inventing a new term to describe all forms of discrimination against people of Semitic backgrounds, but this usage certainly makes me more than a bit uneasy.

              • Hells Littlest Angel says:

                Okay, it’s actually Arabs, not Muslims, who are Semites, and I should have said “eliminationist bigotry” rather than “anti-Semitism.” Sorry, (((CassandraLeo))). Now it’s off to the nearest synagogue to convert to Judaism, so I can comment without upsetting Abbey Bartlet.

                • You’re right about the Arab part, though a lot of the people with prejudice against either group just assume all Arabs are Muslims and vice versa, so I doubt they’d even be capable of making the distinction. (For that matter, most of them can’t even tell the difference between Muslims and Sikhs.)

                • Crusty says:

                  Pointing out that arabs are semites is kind of trite. The accepted usage and meaning of anti-semitic is anti-jewish.

                  Its kind of like pointing out that the word aryan has Indian and Iranian origins. Bunch of aryans started a prison riot yesterday and killed some blacks- sure, you’re picturing Indo-Iranians doing it, right?

                • bender says:

                  No rabbi will convert you until you have spent a good long while studying Jewish history, enough to understand why these distinctions matter to the Jewish people.

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  Now it’s off to the nearest synagogue to convert to Judaism, so I can comment without upsetting Abbey Bartlet.

                  Perhaps spending time studying Judaism and undergoing the lengthy conversion process would give you better insight into why I’m “upset” by it.

                  ETA: Ah. I see bender beat me to it.

                • Anna in PDX says:

                  In response to Crusty I would agree except that it’s sloppy and stupid to use the word “anti-Semitic” when talking about Arabs making anti-Jewish statements. Call them anti-Jewish instead because they actually technically are semites and Arabic is a semitic language, and it is just wrong.

                  As for white supremacists they are clear on their hate for both Arabs and Jews because they are both semites. Many Arabs and Jews in the US right now have figured this out and are working together to protest such hate (the bigotry of the Muslim ban, for example).

            • Origami Isopod says:

              Take a breath or two.

              IOW, Calm down, dear.

    • Jon_H11 says:

      but I’m not wholly comfortable with a non-Jew labeling a Jew a Nazi

      Seems to me like Miller is labeling himself a Nazi.

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        Are *you* Jewish?

        • rhino says:

          Abbey, people (no people, jewish or otherwise, actually) don’t get to dodge being called nazis when they’re obviously nazis.

          This guy is a neo-nazi. It’s that simple. I’m sorry if it offends you, but unless you can fins an equally concise and accurate word that shares similar power to label him as evil, I and a bunch of people are going to continue to call Nazis Nazis.

          Frankly, in your shoes, I would be a fuck-ton more offended by people calling this human filth a ‘jew’, when it’s pretty obvious that he deserves to be formally stripped of the right to call himself one.

          • Abbey Bartlet says:

            Frankly, in your shoes, I would be a fuck-ton more offended by people calling this human filth a ‘jew’, when it’s pretty obvious that he deserves to be formally stripped of the right to call himself one.


            This is mind-blowing.

            • rhino says:

              What, you are proud of this human shit-stain on the tribe you belong to, which tribe is obviously important to you? Which very obviously informs much of your identity?

              Your position seems incoherent here.

              Trust me, I’m pretty fucking ashamed to share an ethnicity with Bannon, for example.

              • Crusty says:

                You can be deeply ashamed of this human shit stain and still not think it appropriate to call him a nazi. What is so hard about that?

              • Abbey Bartlet says:

                Please stop saying tribe.

                • rhino says:

                  Is there a better word? It applies especially well to ethnic groups who are bound by genetics more than religion. And also to strongly held societal allegiances which are independent of national borders.

                • David Allan Poe says:

                  Non-Jew here, but I’m gonna go ahead and point out that “tribe” often gets used by non-Jews as a sort of knowing wink to each other, as in “You know, such-and-such is a member of the tribe.” Like my brother referring to black people as “the brothers,” it’s a way of being racist while maintaining plausible deniability, because, “It’s what they call themselves!”

                  Not suggesting that’s what you’re up to at all, but those connotations are out there.

                • rhino says:

                  Ah. No that was not what I was doing here, at all.

                  I’m afraid I avoid reading white supremacist and nazi literature because it literally makes me want to start killing people. I guess I was unfamiliar with this sort of usage of the term ‘tribe’.

                  To me, Tribe simply means an association or allegiance that is different from but similar to nationality, and often deeper. Your tribe is ‘your people’, and that’s about it.

                  So, if I gave offence by using it, I’m sorry. It just seems as though ‘religion’ doesn’t work here, since so many irreligious jews still identify strongly as jews, nor does ethnicity, since there are several wildly different jewish ethnicities. Is there perhaps an accepted term used by Jewish people themselves? Something like ‘First Nations’ are used by indians in Canada when the choose to speak formally?

        • vic rattlehead says:

          Serious question: how do people like Lee and Abbey feel about my perspective? I do not identify as Jewish. I was raised Catholic. On the other hand, if we get to a point where they are rounding up Jews and sending them to death camps, there is a very good chance I would be sent too, as I would likely fail a Nazi purity test (grandfather was Jewish). So with all due respect I do not identify as a member of your group. But there is a chance if the shit hits the fan I could be interpolated into your group by Breitshart types. In which case I think I would be entitled to an equal say as any bona fide Jew if I were treated as one by Bannon et al. But hopefully it doesn’t come to that.

          • Abbey Bartlet says:

            My personal take is that if you don’t identify as a Jew and are not considered Jewish by mainstream society, it’s not appropriate for you to be labeling Jews as Nazis. If we got to a point where you were being considered Jewish by mainstream society, then that would be different obviously.

            • vic rattlehead says:

              This is fair. Although I have been told that I look Jewish and was subjected to some anti Semitic bullying as a kid (hook nose, shouted at in German by jackass fellow 14 year olds, etc) but overall I think that’s a fair assessment.

              Either way, I don’t really have any interest in calling Miller a Nazi. He is certainly knowingly enabling Neo-Nazis which is damning enough regardless of whatever nomenclature you want to apply to him personally is where I come down. He is either sympathetic to Bannons views or doesn’t care about furthering them if it means furthering his own aggrandizement. So I have no disagreement I don’t think.

          • This is actually somewhat similar to my experience as well. I was raised Lutheran, though I left the religion about fifteen years ago and considered myself atheist for a long time, but now consider myself agnostic.

            However, this is also complicated by the fact that I look Jewish and my name is also Jewish (both my last name and first name are associated almost exclusively with Jewish identity). As a result, almost everyone who meets me has always assumed I’m Jewish. I’m fine with this, and have honestly been learning more about the religion in my past few years because I want to know more about this part of my heritage. I honestly identify more with my Jewish heritage now than with my Christian heritage. However, I still have fairly large gaps in my knowledge, and I feel like I kind of missed out growing up because they hadn’t been filled in.

            I would not have passed any Nuremberg laws, much less the one-drop rule America used to apply to people of African descent. If they start rounding up Jews, they certainly won’t care that I’m agnostic (especially since I don’t expect the Shitgibbon Administration to be any kinder to unbelievers). I’ll be one of the first ones they come for.

            Judaism is a bit complicated because it’s really both an ethnicity and a religion. I’m unquestionably part of the ethnicity, and I lack any religious beliefs (apart from believing an omnipotent, benevolent deity to be irreconcilable with the world as it exists; I’m completely agnostic on the larger question of deities as a whole, or an afterlife, or any of the other usual questions), but I could see myself getting involved with something like Reconstructionist Judaism, which doesn’t really emphasize the metaphysics much, if at all.

            Anyway, since everyone who meets me is going to assume I’m Jewish anyway, and since it’s the part of my heritage I identify with most, I usually just call myself Jewish and save all this tedious detail that most people undoubtedly won’t care about.

    • ExpatJK says:

      I don’t agree with kapo wannabe. Judenrat wannabe is more suitable I think.

      I would also say that court Jew probably fits the best, for all of them.

      Ymmv, but as a Jewish person I don’t have a huge problem with labelling a Jew a Nazi, if said Jew is retweeting a neo-Nazi and happily working with neo-Nazi supporters and open anti-Semites. On the one hand, it isn’t wholly accurate in the sense that he is not opening death camps, etc, which is generally what people think of when they think of Nazis. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to have a huge problem with their ideology.

      • Right. If he were openly embracing death camps or genocide I don’t think any of us would have a problem with non-Jews labelling him a Nazi. Cosying up to anti-Semites is, as I said, Nazi-adjacent, but most people think “genocide” when they think “Nazi”.

      • efgoldman says:

        it isn’t wholly accurate in the sense that he is not opening death camps, etc

        And no, I don’t really think we’re heading there; not that it’s completely impossible, here or anywhere.

    • Anna in PDX says:

      I don’t like anything involving the term kapo either, for reasons outlined above (already a term used by the right wing against the left, sort of like “self hating Jew”)

  6. One of the tweets referenced in the article:

    “I’ve heard some Canadians are tired of liberal values and their flamboyant PM. Maybe we will see a worldwide #DemExit movement”

    We’re tired of our Prime Minister moving to the right after campaigning on the left. Hardly an abandonment of liberal values.

    • DamnYankees says:

      I don’t think he means liberal as opposed to conservative. I think he means liberal as opposed to authoritarian.

      • I’ve seen no evidence of either. Sure we have both conservatives (both in ideology, as well as members of the Conservative Party of Canada) and authoritarians, but they’re hardly ascendant. And most political opposition to Trudeau is based on him not getting rid of Harper’s authoritarian policies, and not pursuing progressive policies, like electoral reform.

    • rhino says:

      This. My dissatisfaction with Trudeau is that, much as many Americans with Obama, I expected a somewhat more left wing prime minister than I got… It’s arguable Obama campaigned as centrist and was centrist, but I think Trudeau campaigned left and has moved towards center. I still like most of what I see, but it could be better.

      And the electoral reform promise is a biggy. That one may prevent me from voting liberal in the next election. The stated reason for abandoning the idea was that public consultation showed canadians ‘didn’t really care about the issue’. Which may or may not be true, but the promise wasn’t for a referendum or for an inquiry, but to change our stupid system to something more representative.

      The problem, of course, is that FPTP favours incumbents. The classic problem with getting reform done is the party with the power to do it automatically doesn’t want to.

  7. NewishLawyer says:

    Count me as another person who thinks a non-Jewish person calling a Jewish person a Nazi is wrong. Especially because there is reasonable doubt about the veracity of the account.

  8. Simple Mind says:

    Miller has that endearing look of Elliott Abrams, who used to shill for authoritarianism.

  9. M. Bouffant says:

    Hey, at least they’re calling for his head on a pike.

    CBS, NY Times Incite Violence Against Stephen Miller; Show Trump Advisor With Severed Head on Pike

    • efgoldman says:

      Hey, at least they’re calling for his head on a pike.

      Who knew an obscure history professor and blogger from little old Rhode Island had that much influence?

  10. The Stephen Miller tweet everyone thinks is Stephen Miller is not that Stephen Miller. Miller is not on Twitter, White House official says.— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) February 15, 2017

    Does the fact that the White House denies it make it more or less likely to be true?

  11. anonymous says:

    As others have mentioned, Jews are in a *strange” place in the “racial” hierarchy. Most can pass for White and most Jews consider themselves as White. But more often than not, White Supremacists consider Jews non-White.

    One thing though that sets most Jews apart from PoC is that they can easily pass as White and therefore obtain full White privilege benefits. The only other group that comes to mind are some White Hispanics or “White Arabs or Iranians”.

  12. Eh.

    I don’t like seeing non-Jews divide Jews into “good Jews” and “bad Jews.”

    I don’t like criticizing Jews for taking a position by telling them it’s Nazism and they should be ashamed, including for Zionism. It is very easy to do and much too frequently done.

    I’ve never heard anyone other than a commenter on LGM say Jews aren’t white. Not that I wouldn’t drop anything to research a point of view because an anonymous LGM commenter said it.

    I didn’t like “Israel = Apartheid” when I first heard it 25 years ago and less was known about Israeli policies, and I still think that borrows force from equating apartheid and Nazism, which I think is not unfair.

    That said: There were actual Germans of Jewish descent who were literally Nazis, and even some raised Jewish who did everything they could to get into or near the Nazi Party. Let’s not pretend they get a pass. And there is actually a risk with some forms of Zionism (and other reactions to Nazism) of reproducing the ideology, especially if there’s no real recognition that there could be an alternative.

    That said, Stephen Miller is a piece of shit, and I feel no duty to defend him.

    • An awful lot of white supremacists don’t think we’re white, including, apparently, David Duke. So there is that. I personally think we were always conditionally white, and under the Shitgibbon Administration, there’s a chance we may no longer be.

      • I’m not interested in allowing the worst of all white supremacists to get to decide what the conventional wisdom is.

        • Nor am I, but if they’re going to control our government, I don’t think it’s safe to assume we still have white privilege. I’m certainly not making that assumption any longer, what with the spate of bomb threats against synagogues and Jewish community centres and the like, not to mention the Shitgibbon Administration’s complete indifference to them. Or the complete lack of acknowledgement to Jewish victims of the Shoah by both the White House and Congressional Republicans. If actual neo-Nazis are in power in the government, it’s unwise to assume we’re still going to be considered white. These are dangerous times for us.

          • I’ve been hearing this from bloggers and commenters on the left longer than this campaign has been around. We could have cut the alt-right off at the knees a long time ago, maybe, if we hadn’t been preoccupied with convincing allies that only white supremacists know what the score is.

            • I’m not aware of anyone who’s spent much time trying to convince people that “only white supremacists know what the score is”. I certainly wasn’t focusing much on their views of Jewish ethnicity before the election; the only thing I bothered to mention much was that if Twitler won, it’d embolden neo-Nazis. Now that they’re in power in the government, though, their racial views are no longer irrelevant, and ignoring them strikes me as a supremely bad idea.

    • LeeEsq says:

      Concurred. Thank you.

    • Abbey Bartlet says:

      I’ve never heard anyone other than a commenter on LGM say Jews aren’t white.

      Seriously? I thought that was pretty basic, the question of Jews being white or not. There are entire books on the subject.

      We used to be shut out of country clubs and housing developments, too. I’ve heard stories of it happening as recently as the mid-eighties.

      ETA: I believe you, of course, I’m just taken aback.

      • My family wasn’t exactly in the market to join a country club.

        If you say “Northeast” in a sneering tone to someone from Philadelphia, it’s more or less a coin toss whether the understood connotation will be “cultural wasteland,” “white racist,” or “Jewish.” We had a perfectly serviceable conception of “antisemite” and didn’t need to puzzle over why these strange Americans surprisingly might be prejudiced against Jews.

        Never heard that the Catholic schools taught “the blahs killed Jesus,” either.

      • Now I remember, I heard a Jewish liberal or leftist woman in Argentina, once, on PBS, talking about how ridiculous US Jews are because we think we’re white, and that’s why we all support US imperialism instead of trying to help nonwhite people. That’s it until LGM.

    • More like 35 years ago, I guess. Not that that’s important.

  13. humanoid.panda says:

    So, we are at 138 comments, and no correction, on a post that’s based on a fake Twitter account…

    • rhino says:

      a) I must have missed where someone showed it to be fake.

      b) most of the posts discuss whether or not it’s a good thing to call Jews who espouse Nazism ‘Nazis’, or are discussions of whether or not the dude is actually a nazi. I don’t see anyone basing their arguments on what buddy said on twitter, from that account or any other. That particular point isn’t actually germane to any of the debates.

  14. Crusty says:

    Too many to respond to each, but a few people have said, its ok to call him a nazi because he is a nazi or acts like a nazi. To say that is, I think, to miss the point on what the actual nazi’s did. Yes, it was/is an ideology, and someone can subscribe to it and believe in it. But for many, the defining thing about the nazi’s is that they actually used the apparatus of the state to round up people and gas them to death or murder them in other ways. Systematically. So when you call someone a nazi who is not involved in systematically acting out on his racial hierarchy beliefs and loading people into cattle cars and sending them off to their death, you’re using something that is perhaps overly broad or missing the point.

    • The actual Nazis believed that Jews were a cultural cancer on the good society. Which to them meant an anti-liberal, reactionary, authoritarian society. That makes them evil in and of itself. But there is also no way they could have carried out that ideology that would not have been evil. It would have to result in genocide in the modern sense (including ethnic cleansing, etc.), whether or not mass industrialized murder was the means ultimately chosen.

      It is really very common, and I think unobjectionable, to criticize critical or political stances by showing that they were integral to Nazism (and in some cases to the Nazi genocides). This does not trivialize the Holocaust. I hope we haven’t reached the point where we’ve left ourselves unable to criticize anything short of mass murder.

      Stephens Miller and Bannon believe Muslims are a cancer on their idea of the good society, which AFAICS is a society in which Jews as such, and all others who don’t pass as white Christians or promise to serve white Christians’ aims, basically no longer exist. Sounds like Nazis to me.

    • rhino says:

      There were Nazis long before there were cattle cars filled with victims. I think maybe waiting until a full blown holocaust is being recreated before we dust off the word Nazi might be a little silly.

      We are supposed to learn from history. The question to me is, are these assholes anything like the assholes in Germany in the 20s and 30s, that ended up conducting the holocaust. That they are not (yet) anything like the people who ran an industrial extermination complex does not mean they may not want to be, or that they may try to be.

      Nipping this shit in the bud is critical.

  15. Abbey Bartlet says:

    Y’know, I have to wonder how many people here would argue strenuously for the right of a white person to call a black person a house n*****.

    • ap77 says:

      Curious about your phrasing – are you saying that there is no right for someone to say that vs. “you shouldn’t say this if you don’t want people to think you’re an asshole?”

      • rhino says:

        There are very very VERY limited circumstances under which a white person can use the word ‘nigger’. One of those contexts is a discussion like this right here, about the word itself. Another is when explicitly allowed status within the black hip hop community (and possibly other black communities), as was for example Eminem. And you can bet that while Mr Mathers has been pretty deeply honoured by that permission, he does NOT assume it applies to people other than a few close friends who have granted that liberty.

        So no, given specific exceptions which are quite rare, no white person may call a black person a ‘nigger’, ever. They do not have that right. In fact, I would not disapprove of violence as a response to a white person using that word.

    • busker type says:

      “House N****” is a term that can only refer to a black person. “Nazi” does not specify any ethnicity. I’m not sure what I think about the larger question, but this analogy is deeply flawed.

      • There’s a difference, yes: “house n*****” contains one of the most notoriously offensive overt racial slurs in the English, while calling a Jew a Nazi implies that they want to kill their entire race. Neither of them strikes me as a particularly pleasant accusation for an outsider to make. If a Jewish person is on record actually endorsing antisemitic or genocidal statements, I have less issue with them being called a Nazi by non-Jews, but otherwise I’m at best… ambivalent about it.

  16. synykyl says:

    I’m Jewish. If any of you non-Jews are uncomfortable calling Miller a Nazi, I’ll be happy to do it for you. That motherfucker Miller, is a motherfucking Nazi.

  17. anonymous says:

    I agree that calling a Jewish person (who still considers himself Jewish as opposed to a renouncer like Chaffetz) a “Nazi” is obviously problematic.

    But what about “neofascist”? That’s probably the most apt word and can be applied to pretty much anyone I think.

    • I’m 100% OK with anyone calling him a fascist or neofascist, since not every fascist state has carried out a genocide against us, whereas that is pretty much the thing everyone thinks about when they hear the word “Nazi”.

    • rhino says:

      My only issue with euphemisms for ‘Nazi’ is it seems as though they dance around the truth. I don’t want to see a situation in which we fail to go hard on Neo-Nazism out of a misplaced sense of propriety.

      To me it seems that the new Nazism is more focused on muslims, which does make it different from the nazism of the 30s, but does anyone think that’s an important difference if their attitudes and policies are similar, but simply directed at a different group? And further, while the Nazis in Germany certainly concentrated on Jews, they didn’t treat any other ethnicities much better. I am certain our Neo-Nazis will find time to murder jews and blacks and hispanics along with their primary muslim targets, if we let things get that far.

  18. bs says:

    Only vaguely relevant: I have taken to referring to myself as an Alt-grammarian.

  19. Rob in CT says:

    So, was this real or bullshit?

  20. Crusty says:

    Consider the following scenarios-

    Black employee has black boss who he perceives as tough- he refers to his boss as a slave master. Objectionable? Why.

    Same but employee is white and boss is still black.

    Employee is black and boss is white.

    If you think there might be a legit objection to calling the boss a slave master, as opposed to an asshole or a jerk or a mean motherfucker, that might explain some of the discomfort with calling a Jew a nazi.

    • I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Jewish discomfort with calling Jews Nazis is less among families that were “anti-fascist” in the 30s and 40s. If you get my drift. There might have also been more sense that the position of blacks in the US was similar to that of Jews in Europe.

      I am also guessing that some of the discomfort, however, stems from the perception that “Jews who won’t forgive turn into evil themselves,” combined with awareness of the stereotype that the Jewish religion lacks the means of forgiveness, that being Christ. This, of course, is at the base of the myth of the “self-hating Jew”: the idea that there are good Jews and bad Jews, the idea that the essence of Jewishness is evil, the idea that the only response to evil is eradication of the people who fail to live up to high standards of perfection.

      (ETA And also, you know, it’s entirely legitimate that a strain in the left that was “pro-American” fell out with Jewish leftists, above and beyond the purges, because of irreconcilable differences of culture, emphasis and so on.)

      In this case, though, you have something more like a Moses who went ahead and joined the Egyptian overseer in beating slaves.

      • Origami Isopod says:

        I am also guessing that some of the discomfort, however, stems from the perception that “Jews who won’t forgive turn into evil themselves,” combined with awareness of the stereotype that the Jewish religion lacks the means of forgiveness, that being Christ.

        The entire emphasis on “forgiveness” as always positive, always necessary, and its lack always an evil, is Christocentric bullshit, especially in the political arena. If I never hear another plea for it it’ll be too soon.

    • LeeEsq says:

      Its a combination of what you and Bianca are saying for me plus the idea that there are only certain things that members of group can say to members of the group.

  21. Dagmar says:

    If an American, who has Jewish ancestors or who professes Judaic religious beliefs, advocates an authoritarian government and disregard for basic human rights in service of an amoral cult leader, is he not acting like a “good Nazi” in Hitler’s Germany?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.