Odds are, but it is not certain, that the Democratic nominee for next year’s presidential contest will be one of the leading three candidates currently leading in the primary. While it is possible one of them will suddenly self-destruct and be replaced with a lower tier candidate, with each passing debate and fund raising quarter it grows increasingly unlikely. So we’re looking at the nominee being Biden, Warren, or Sanders and each represents a fundamentally different approach to the current political situation.

Biden is the conventional wisdom and ‘return to normalcy’ candidate. His approach is to treat the environment as an aberration and that a return to the past is not only preferable but also possible. Bi-partisanship and norm following would be the focus of his potential administration making him popular with risk adverse and older Democratic voters.

Sanders’ position that that the system itself is corrupt and must be swept aside to make room for the improved and golden future. It’s fitting that Sanders holds that position as he is not even a Democrat but rather officially is a Democratic-Socialist. Sanders is a revolutionary and promises a revolt making him popular among the disaffected, and the young.

Warren stands between these two extremes. The reformer Warren’s position is that the system is broken but that it can be repaired, that the old ways are flawed and that revolution is too extreme. It’s noteworthy that Warren isn’t afraid to label herself a ‘capitalist’ nor does she run from the fact that she was once a Republican. She appeals to those desperate for change but unwilling to commit to revolution.

Three candidates, three very different viewpoints on the troubles and the solutions it will be interesting to see which one prevails.

Recently the San Francisco Board of Supervisors officially proclaimed something that has been a common cry for Gun Control activists that the National Rifle Association is a ‘Domestic Terrorist Organization.’ This is absurd when shouted by protesters and idiotic when made as an official statement from supposedly cooler heads.

Terrorism is the use of force with the principle intent of utilizing fear to affect a political process. Certainly some of the cowardly mass murderers were terrorists, slaughtering helpless people at worship, while shopping because of racist and bigoted ideologies, particularly to ignite a ‘race war’ is terrorism. It is also true that the ideology behind it is a terroristic one, without hopeless odds to induce their twisted bigoted beliefs through the political process, no matter the recent successes of blatantly racist politicians and candidates, the ‘radicalization’ of angry young men continue to generate these cowardly murders.

However, that is a long way from the NRA being itself a terrorist organization.

A player, though its powerhouse days may be behind it, in the American political process, the NRA has never sanctioned, endorsed, or encouraged any of the mass murders. The NRA, its endorsements, and its financial contributions have serous impact on the political landscape seriously undercutting any reasonable attempt to define it as a ‘terrorist’ organization.

Labeling the NRA a terrorist organization is not reasonable but it is understandable.

While the NRA has not in any way encouraged or endorsed these murderous attacks it has displayed a callous indifference. Offering nothing more than the empty phrase ‘thoughts and prayers’ while pointing accusing fingers at video games the NRA stubbornly refuses to take any action to prevent these evil acts giving the impression that no amount of bloodshed or pain can ever matter more than their own narrowly defined self interest.

This heartless inaction, in my opinion, will, in the end, cause greater harm to the organization’s goal and objectives than any minor or modest legislative compromise. As I have argued before eventually a cultural tipping point will be reached, a like a dam bursting, the flood that follows will wash away everything that came before. I think it is instructive that in the 2018 election cycle the Democratic Party did not run and hide from a solid stance in favor of more gun control. The old collations have passed away and in this delicate time new ones are forming. Trump harms the Republican’s ability to reach beyond their core base with the college educated and far less devoted suburbs already fleeing to the Democratic party just new cycle of re-districting is about to be begin. The 2020 election will impact the next decade and the dam may already be bursting.

Often my mind will wander down counter examples when I hear a familiar phrase or explanation. For example many years ago during a conversation when a friend who had been in the US Navy with me discussed a bit of debauchery ashore during liberty in a foreign port he excused his behavior by saying ‘I’m only human.’ It occurred to me that no one ever says that when doing good actions even though altruism is also a very human thing to do.

Recently my mind has tripped over a familiar construction and the missing parallel to it, Judeo-Christian.

The phrase Judeo-Christian is often used as a stand in for Western European, though both elements of the phrase originate from the Middle East. Judeo naturally relates to Judaism, that ancient religion tracing its history back through Genesis and Adam and Eve. Christian of course refers to the religion that sprang up around Jesus, a Jewish holy man from the early Common Era and whose life and teachings represent the fundamental break between the two religions. The two religions have had a quite contentious and violent history as over the centuries followers of the Christian faith have engaged in pogroms, Inquisitions, conspiratorial slander, and murderous hate against the Jewish minority. This recent and mostly fictional welding of the two philosophies in a single Judeo-Christian tradition is really at odds with their history and is primarily propaganda. A propaganda that for the most part the Jewish people are not participants in. Consider this counter construction, Judeo-Islamic.

Islam, just as with Christianity, traces its history and origins through the Jewish faith and traditions. Where Christians believe Jesus was the final prophet from a long line of Jewish holy men and the living god made flesh the Islamic faith views Mohammed as the final Prophet that culminate the linage begat in the Old Testament. Where the Jewish faith traces its origins to Abraham’s son Isaac, the Islamic tradition is to trace their heritage Abraham’s other son, Ishmael. All three religions site Abraham as the man God selected to give birth to a chosen people and the followers of these major religions are often referred to as ‘The people of the Book’ because of their common origin and yet I have never heard any speak of a Judeo-Islam culture or tradition.

It has been brought to my attention recently that there are still, and I imagine going on forever, people insisting that Nazis are actually socialists and by extension left wing politically. The arguments fail to convince me and I’ve laid out in other posts why I think the Nazi fall clearly on the right. What I find fascinating about this argument is contorted logics employed in services of preconceived conclusions; they are rationalizations and not reasons.

Back in 1985 I engaged in the strange habit of renting the worse movies I could possibly locate on VHS. A little mom-and-pop shop just around the corner from where I lived had the most interesting collection of odd movies with titles such as Hitchhike to Hell  and then one night the gem A Certain Sacrifice  appeared on the shelves. This micro-budgeted movie shot in 1979 and 1980 and looking as though the film stock was all of 8 mm wide included an unknown performer, Madonna. By the mid 1980s her stardom had exploded and the filmmaker capitalized on this by releasing his movie on home video. Thought Madonna attempt to stop the release she failed in the courts and I was treated to a truly terrible movie.

What does this have to do with the question if Nazis were or were not socialists?

After watching the film with my roommate one of the games I engaged in was arguing that A Certain Sacrifice  was not in fact a bad movie but a masterpiece of filmmaking rich with metaphor and symbolism. My arguments were artistically sound and of course utterly untrue. The fact that I could spin a consistent narrative that ‘explained’ all the bad film choices as something smart and creative did nothing to change the facts of the matter. The same is true in this political argument.

You can quote from the early years of the Nazi party to prove points, ignoring the uncomfortable truth that those elements were brutally eliminated during the night of long knives. You can construct logical arguments that proceed from a foundation that everything totalitarian is socialist and get to your preferred conclusions, but linguistic dexterity and slippery arguments do not change facts on the ground.

But how can we know the facts on the ground? How can we test this concept?

Easy, watch actual Nazis and see where they place themselves politically.

It is on the right.

People giving Nazi salutes election night 2016 were not bemoaning a loss.

People marching by torchlight and chanting ‘Jews will not Replace Us’ did not organize a ‘United the Left’ protest.

It was not the Democratic Party that found itself represented by an actual Nazi in the 2018 congressional elections.

Nazis nearly always self-sort to the right, their behavior betrays their natural placement on the ideological spectrum.