The Leftist Tactic of Labeling Opponents as Nazis or Fascists(selsey.substack.com)
selsey.substack.com
The Leftist Tactic of Labeling Opponents as Nazis or Fascists
https://selsey.substack.com/p/the-leftist-tactic-of-labeling-opponents
33 comments
The Nazi tactic of labeling those who call them out at leftists.
Fascists should be fought everywhere all the time, even for "jokes".
People are quick to forget but history isn't, and the death count speaks for itself.
A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, lest it gets destroyed by it.
From the kind of folks who brought you “islamofascism”, “death panels”, and “Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a card-carrying Nigerian communist!”.
Well the accusation was that he would have been born in Kenya, which you may want to research a bit further. The birth certificate he presented was reviewed by two independent people, and both came to the same conclusion which was ...
also: ISIS did nothing wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_beheadings
nothing to see here...
also: ISIS did nothing wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_beheadings
nothing to see here...
He was a natural-born American, from birth, with less colorable questions than applied to John McCain, who was also a natural-born American from birth, even though he was born on the occupied territory of another country… the only sort of person that thinks otherwise is the one who thinks the ends justify the means.
And sure, ISIS, did plenty wrong, just not one tiny bit of it in the pursuit of anything resembling fascism.
Calling Salafist/Wahhabist Islamist extremism “islamofascist” is as idiotic as calling adherents to the prosperity gospel “christotrotskyites”… it’s just a propaganda tool without discernible meaning to anyone but the (idiot) choir.
And sure, ISIS, did plenty wrong, just not one tiny bit of it in the pursuit of anything resembling fascism.
Calling Salafist/Wahhabist Islamist extremism “islamofascist” is as idiotic as calling adherents to the prosperity gospel “christotrotskyites”… it’s just a propaganda tool without discernible meaning to anyone but the (idiot) choir.
The article has interesting historical references, and is corroborated by a growing trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/10/22/nx-s1-5565134/amid-claims-tha...
"Byman and his co-author found something remarkable. Their tally showed that in the first half of 2025, far-left terrorist activity had overtaken that from the far right. It's a departure from the pattern of the last 30 years. "
lol this website is full of fascists that don't like to be called fascists
Would you like it if people started calling you fascist? Honestly?
At some point we have to look at reality. One political party in the US is explicitly toying with fascism.
> Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology emphasizing extreme nationalism, a strong central government led by a dictator, suppression of opposition, militarism, and the subordination of individual rights to the state's perceived needs, often with state control of the economy and a belief in national rebirth and strength.
MAGA is fascist or at the very least fascist adjacent. If they don’t like the accuracy of the label, they should stop being authoritarian assholes.
> Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology emphasizing extreme nationalism, a strong central government led by a dictator, suppression of opposition, militarism, and the subordination of individual rights to the state's perceived needs, often with state control of the economy and a belief in national rebirth and strength.
MAGA is fascist or at the very least fascist adjacent. If they don’t like the accuracy of the label, they should stop being authoritarian assholes.
The Nazi doth protest too much?
I abhor ideologies related to racial or ethnic supremacy, how am I a Nazi?
If your ideology has differential effects on people by race, then you may well be participating in a racist ideology even if you detest it.
Most notably: current policies are addressed at punishing illegal immigrants, but it's clear that it's being targeted at non-white and mostly Spanish-speaking people. There are numerous incidents of people being racially profiled despite being American citizens, and no steps are being taken to minimize that. The policy is popular with those who are explicit about their racial supremacy.
If you support programs that hurt people of a different race, then calling you a "Nazi" is not inapt, regardless of what you think of the actual Nazis.
Most notably: current policies are addressed at punishing illegal immigrants, but it's clear that it's being targeted at non-white and mostly Spanish-speaking people. There are numerous incidents of people being racially profiled despite being American citizens, and no steps are being taken to minimize that. The policy is popular with those who are explicit about their racial supremacy.
If you support programs that hurt people of a different race, then calling you a "Nazi" is not inapt, regardless of what you think of the actual Nazis.
> If your ideology has differential effects on people by race, then you may well be participating in a racist ideology even if you detest it.
Mine don’t, I don’t like that people are being unfairly targeted if they’re citizens or have legal rights to be in the country. That said, I don’t want illegal immigrants to be harmed or mistreated. And it’s not just me, many Americans feel the same way.
The issue is more complex than simply a humanitarian cause. The effect of letting in hundreds of people is something you can balance over time, but letting in millions over a relatively short period has both economic and geopolitical ramifications. Besides that, borders exist for more than security, their permeability has implications for national sovereignty as well. For Americans who aren’t racist, the issue is multifaceted and just as important as the plight of an economic immigrant or asylum seeker.
If you look at who is entering the U.S. illegally, it includes people from strong economic powerhouses with healthy growth projections and competitive GDP, like Brazil, Mexico, China, India and so on.
When you just absorb the economic or political issues of other countries by taking in their poor, then you don’t ever let those societies reflect on what they’re doing wrong or right for their people. Countries should be responsible for their people, and if they’re unable to be that way for one reason or another, their people need to examine why and ask their leaders some tough questions. Immigrating to other countries, for jobs, safety, or education, is not a good or sustainable way of doing things, which is why we’re currently having the issues that we’re having.
I also think asylum seekers should be sent to countries that most match their cultural backgrounds, and repatriated when conflict is resolved, or sent somewhere where they have family ties. There needs to be a better way to bring normalcy into the lives of people affected by war or conflict other than turning them away, or indefinitely opening your doors to anyone who claims asylum, where there is a non-zero occurrence of fraud.
Good and responsible governance is the only way to ensure better outcomes for people. Political extremism isn’t going to enable good governance.
Mine don’t, I don’t like that people are being unfairly targeted if they’re citizens or have legal rights to be in the country. That said, I don’t want illegal immigrants to be harmed or mistreated. And it’s not just me, many Americans feel the same way.
The issue is more complex than simply a humanitarian cause. The effect of letting in hundreds of people is something you can balance over time, but letting in millions over a relatively short period has both economic and geopolitical ramifications. Besides that, borders exist for more than security, their permeability has implications for national sovereignty as well. For Americans who aren’t racist, the issue is multifaceted and just as important as the plight of an economic immigrant or asylum seeker.
If you look at who is entering the U.S. illegally, it includes people from strong economic powerhouses with healthy growth projections and competitive GDP, like Brazil, Mexico, China, India and so on.
When you just absorb the economic or political issues of other countries by taking in their poor, then you don’t ever let those societies reflect on what they’re doing wrong or right for their people. Countries should be responsible for their people, and if they’re unable to be that way for one reason or another, their people need to examine why and ask their leaders some tough questions. Immigrating to other countries, for jobs, safety, or education, is not a good or sustainable way of doing things, which is why we’re currently having the issues that we’re having.
I also think asylum seekers should be sent to countries that most match their cultural backgrounds, and repatriated when conflict is resolved, or sent somewhere where they have family ties. There needs to be a better way to bring normalcy into the lives of people affected by war or conflict other than turning them away, or indefinitely opening your doors to anyone who claims asylum, where there is a non-zero occurrence of fraud.
Good and responsible governance is the only way to ensure better outcomes for people. Political extremism isn’t going to enable good governance.
> The effect of letting in hundreds of people is something you can balance over time, but letting in millions over a relatively short period has both economic and geopolitical ramifications.
Which specific ramifications? It is interesting how often people stop here.
Which specific ramifications? It is interesting how often people stop here.
There’s a lot of information available already, feel free to look it up. No one reasonable says that (legal) immigration is bad, what becomes concerning is mass, unsanctioned movement. I don’t discount the humanitarian crises, which is why I think there needs to be a good faith effort to resolve the issues for people who are impacted by such crises. Sadly, the problem is realpolitikal, and that’s why there is no good faith solution which presents itself.
See here for why immigration can be a net positive force, https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/do-immigrants-and-immigrati...
And here https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27075/w270...
See here for why illegal immigration (everywhere, not just the U.S.) can be a destabilizing force,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
https://www.irli.org/human-trafficking-is-proof-that-illegal...
https://www.unodc.org/documents/toc/factsheets/TOC12_fs_migr...
Some people don’t want to leave their homelands and are forced into it
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot%20Spots/Docume...
So the issue isn’t about racism, mass migration from a country is not a healthy indication of state of affairs, and in some way countries tacitly sanction bad governance by others when they absorb the problems of others. No one should have to leave their homelands for economic or safety reasons.
See here for why immigration can be a net positive force, https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/do-immigrants-and-immigrati...
And here https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27075/w270...
See here for why illegal immigration (everywhere, not just the U.S.) can be a destabilizing force,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
https://www.irli.org/human-trafficking-is-proof-that-illegal...
https://www.unodc.org/documents/toc/factsheets/TOC12_fs_migr...
Some people don’t want to leave their homelands and are forced into it
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot%20Spots/Docume...
So the issue isn’t about racism, mass migration from a country is not a healthy indication of state of affairs, and in some way countries tacitly sanction bad governance by others when they absorb the problems of others. No one should have to leave their homelands for economic or safety reasons.
(Not American)
But don't you think letting people from third world countries like mine with corrupt institutions will no way harm institutions in America ?
But don't you think letting people from third world countries like mine with corrupt institutions will no way harm institutions in America ?
More specific, please.
A "corrupt institutions" bound to people from various nations?
A "corrupt institutions" bound to people from various nations?
Recent news about fraudsters from Minnesota[0] comes to mind.
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-fraud-spent-millions-...
(Yet another disclaimer that I am not an American or ever been to America)
[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-fraud-spent-millions-...
(Yet another disclaimer that I am not an American or ever been to America)
So let me just be clear. You are saying that Somalians are predisposed to commit fraud in ways that Americans are not such that having any Somalians immigrate to the US will increase the amount of fraud here and overall make society worse?
And you want me to believe that this isn't bigoted garbage?
And you want me to believe that this isn't bigoted garbage?
So you don't believe that immigration of millions of people from let's say India (my country) which has corrupt institutions and people generally lack civic sense (littering etc.) will not cause issues to America and Americans ?
No. Believing that Indians are all corrupt people without any civic sense who ruin places that they live in is bigoted trash.
rijoja(2)