Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

The Dem party e we not claim the communist and fascist labels but it is the home of communists, fascists, and other socialists. The DSA is an obvious example. They all ran in Dem primaries and similar groups have been at home in the Dem party for decades. It's more obvious in 2026. Their policies have been about stealing from those who earned it and giving things to others, redistribution. They always want the government to have more power, and thus the people to have less freedom. They are the party of censorship and it is the Leftwing media who have become experts of Goebbels style propaganda. Those are all traits of socialism, etc.

Leftists support all the socialist, etc thugs abroad. "Progressives" praised Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini, & Hitler. Later Leftists praised Stalin and every other communist dictator: Mao, Ho Chi Minh (remember Jane Fonda?), Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc. Congress critters went to Cuba to drool over him 20-30 years ago and a bunch (Hasan Piker, Ilhan's daughter, etc) went earlier this year to aid the commies. The examples go on.

Good points that illustrate how complicated that history is

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

OK, how did they get it so wrong?

---

I'm asking you..

I would guess that taking their cues from those above them in cultural power…constantly being obsessed with race, identity, grievances…that could not have helped them

Example being Baylor and its land acknowledgment grievance mongering and race-DEI-diversity narratives

The kids were taught this stuff

Constantly call up balkanization and the Balkans mentality will eventually answer

---

So in addition to blaming others for our misfortune, we're now blaming others for the fact that we're blaming others for our misfortune.

---

I'm asking a simple question of where the younger generation got their ideas about identify based politics and grievance from

Do you think the kids created this stuff ex nihilo?

Do you have any other ideas or contributions to that discussion?

---

I would suggest that xenophobia might not be entirely an invention of the left.

---

So we are admitting toxic narratives and ideas can be passed down to the kids?

Or are we "now blaming others for the fact that we're blaming others for our misfortune."

---

I'm sick of the response to every problem being "but but they did it fiiiirrsst!" It's one thing to deflect criticism by saying you're just following the left's playbook. It's another thing to actually believe it. I mean let's not get carried away here.

---

Another way to look at it might be just "you should be careful what you are teaching the youth"

The young are actually the one group does get the benefit of pointing out that they are coming into a system as the new humans in the group.

They are being acted on first. Being that they are young and without the power/ability to form their own educational institutions or value systems as mere children.

That not "whataboutism"…that's a biological sociological fact

Someone taught them about race politics, oppressed vs opressed, etc. Because as young kids they had no preconceived political & social beliefs

---

The facts being taught were correct. America has oppressed many groups. That should be taught and many don't want it taught.

The hard parts are whether the context is an excuse or an explanation and wheter the oppression is continuing.

---

And in truth all human groups have oppressed others and vice versa. Any ready of history tells us that.

And what was it ATL telling us about constantly fixating on things of this nature?

"Obsession on the past serves as a nostalgic anchor distracting us from the ways forward and a convenient excuse for unrelated failings.

Whether you feel you are opportunity oppressed by…you're still reveling in the same victimhood"

When you train young people to think in terms of race/group and who oppressed whom….people will grow up thinking in these terms. And then acting on it

Don't blame the kids for drinking the mothers milk of race and grievance that was offered to them constantly.

Not hard to see it's now being embraced by all sides in different forms

---

Three reactions, the first the easiest. It is very convenient for the descendants of the oppressors to say "don't focus on that race stuff-although it was one of our guiding principles for centuries." The just-get-over-it crowd offers a callous position that is not helpful and automatically provokes a negative response.

Second, in my personal experience, fairly virulent racism still exists . I read it here daily and I see it in action in the world. Pretending it doesn't also provokes a negative response.

Third, there is a spectrum between "obesession" and "cover up." I am sure that teaching about historical race relations in this country falls at all points in the spectrum. Racists and race-baiters each pretend that the bulk of the teaching is at the opposite end of the spectrum from where they are. In reality, it is much more centrist.

---

1. Again, no one who is alive in this country today was ever a directly oppressed or oppressor. No one today was a slave or a active horse tribe member drive off their land.

And of course why do we only define only some groups as "oppressors" and some as "oppressed"....based on recent history

Almost every Indian tribe we can define was responsible for atrocities & stealing other Indian tribes land....along with slavery and taking slaves. Go back to West Africa and all Black Americans have ancestors who participated in slavery and endless slaver raids. Slavery being a many thousand year old part of African culture * history.

Why do we conveniently stop at the most recent period of human failing and when it was the White-European that can easily be moved into the "villain" role?

That gets us back to ATL's words: "Obsession on the past serves as a nostalgic anchor distracting us from the ways forward and a convenient excuse for unrelated failings.

Whether you feel you are opportunity oppressed by…you're still reveling in the same victimhood"

2. You can not legislate the private human heart and you can't build a totalitarian system around "anti-racism". All you can do is defend the idea that being racist and discriminating against others is wrong. And not put those kinds of things in policy, law, or education.

And we have increasing data that talking about race all the time and racial programs does the opposite of that....its creates bad outcomes for everyone. "oppressed" and "oppressor"

[high levels of preparation for bias are frequently associated with lower self-esteem, increased perceived stress, and a diminished sense of personal control (mastery beliefs) among youth.
Overemphasizing potential bias can inadvertently lead young people to interpret ambiguous social interactions as intentionally discriminatory, fostering an environment of chronic stress and hyper-vigilance]

[Another documented dimension of racial socialization is the "promotion of mistrust"-coaching children to be wary of other racial groups or institutions due to historical or systemic oppression.
Empirical studies show that promotion of mistrust is consistently linked to negative psychological outcomes, including higher rates of anxiety, lower public regard (the belief that society views one's group positively), and lower self-esteem in adolescents. This framing primes youth to perceive malice, division, or oppression in ordinary, non-racialized daily encounters] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12649170/
[Some psychologists compare intensive oppression-focused education to cognitive distortions identified in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), such as catastrophizing (expecting worst-case scenarios) and mind-reading (assuming negative intent behind someone's actions). By training youth to look for hidden biases in every interaction, it can lead to a cognitive habit of fixating on grievance.]

historian said:

---

You do realize that it's generally considered racist to compare people to monkeys, right?

I know you were joking but it wasn't funny.

---

I'm quite sure I did not compare anyone to a monkey. As it's not quoted, I believe I responded to someone's reference to a deity as a "Monkey God." It was not my term.

<y response is "it depends on how she looks." Fairly or unfairly, attractive people get latitude that us uglies don't get. If she's hot? Her deity is my deity.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists. I could talk about the socialist tendencies of today's woke right as well, but watch what happens when Antifa and the Proud Boys get together. They simply aren't the same thing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists.

---

Well no one forgets the Eastern theatre of WWII...but they fought because they wanted their land and resources....they had similar viewpoints.

Stalin & the Communists actually wanted a long term alliance with the Nazis

Hitler and many Nazi high command began to move toward a more Stalinist idea of economic development.

[Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who-as adjutant to Hitler's "representative for military history" Walther Scherff and a member of the Fhrer Headquarters group-had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a "conversion to Bolshevism." From Hitler's remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: "Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organization."]

https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/

My apologies if I misunderstood. The discussion was about a monkey god and you posted a photo of an attractive woman in response. I reached an obvious conclusion even if unintended.

historian said:

---

My apologies if I misunderstood. The discussion was about a monkey god and you posted a photo of an attractive woman in response. I reached an obvious conclusion even if unintended.

---

I appreciate you holding me accountable. We should be better.

We all should be. I think it was an honest misunderstanding.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists.

---

Well no one forgets the Eastern theatre of WWII...but they fought because they wanted their land and resources....they had similar viewpoints.

Stalin & the Communists actually wanted a long term alliance with the Nazis

Hitler and many Nazi high command began to move toward a more Stalinist idea of economic development.

[Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who-as adjutant to Hitler's "representative for military history" Walther Scherff and a member of the Fhrer Headquarters group-had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a "conversion to Bolshevism." From Hitler's remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: "Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organization."]

https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/

---

The religious wars in Europe had a lot to do with land and property too. As Christians, the Catholics and Protestants had much in common. The differences were nonetheless real. If you ever hear someone going off on the evils of the Roman Baptist Church, you should probably take their historical claims with a grain of salt.

Hitler obviously didn't share Russia's desire for a long-term alliance. If he'd had similar views, he would have been less interested in territorial expansion and more interested in spreading the workers' revolution to the nations of the world, beginning with his own. Your article misrepresents him as a reluctant statist. The truth is that he always hated capitalism at least as much as Bolshevism. It's just that the idea of Germans rising up against Germans was anathema to him as a nationalist. He may have come to admire some of Stalin's tactics, but that doesn't make him a communist any more than his emulation of America's brutality against the Indian tribes made him an economic liberal.

My point, which I hope will help put the thread back on topic, is that racist and fascist tendencies are a genuine problem in today's GOP. Fear of the extreme left does contribute to it, just as it did in 1930s Germany, but that's no excuse. Sloppy use of language is unhelpful and only obscures the truth.

Racist and fascist tendencies are far more prevalent in the Dems than the GOP. The best examples of such attitudes on the "right" are turncoats like Candace & Tucker who cannot honestly be labeled conservative anymore, if they ever really were.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists.

---

Well no one forgets the Eastern theatre of WWII...but they fought because they wanted their land and resources....they had similar viewpoints.

Stalin & the Communists actually wanted a long term alliance with the Nazis

Hitler and many Nazi high command began to move toward a more Stalinist idea of economic development.

[Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who-as adjutant to Hitler's "representative for military history" Walther Scherff and a member of the Fhrer Headquarters group-had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a "conversion to Bolshevism." From Hitler's remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: "Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organization."]

https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/

---

The religious wars in Europe had a lot to do with land and property too. As Christians, the Catholics and Protestants had much in common. The differences were nonetheless real. If you ever hear someone going off on the evils of the Roman Baptist Church, you should probably take their historical claims with a grain of salt.

---

No one said they did not have differences. You arguing with your own self created points...apparently because you dislike the accurate info given.

Fascism and Communism did have many similarities....

Such similarities that many communists & social democrats easily joined the Nazi movement.

[the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin]

And many of the Intelligentsia embraced Nazism as a more likely path to Socialism. And the Nazim movement grew closer to Stalinism economic philosophy (even while making war on the USSR)

[While Adolf Hitler was driven to destroy the Soviet Union, he increasingly admired and sought to replicate Joseph Stalin's command economy, viewing it as vastly superior to Western capitalism.]
https://mises.org/mises-wire/hitlers-views-private-property-and-nationalization

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

I was about to lament that this illuminating thread was going to wander into a civil war tangent, until I realized Bo French and Historian are still fighting that war.

---

I agree with you more than muddy when it comes to the Civil War. I don't understand how any modern Texan or southerner can be bitter about a war their ancestors lost 160 years ago. We don't know what would have happened had some event had occurred differently. Such speculation is a waste of time.

---

Its not Texans adn Southerners tearing down statues today.

The most bitter people today about that war are the ones that actually won it.

Its the strangest phenomena.

What I think you are descripting is that most Southerners &Texans are not willing to buying into political narratives about the war. One side the distillation of Goodness the other side Evil.

The war waged for the Union was not a abolitionist crusade to end slavery. The States having the right to seceded in 1860 was very much in debate. Indeed the North was not sure they did not have that right at the beginning. And Lincoln's call for force against these States was very much see as a horrible Constitutional crime that send more States out the door. And the Southern soldiers did in fact fight hard and long against a much better equipped and far larger numerical opponent...most being extremely poor farm boys.

Its these same Southerners today who see no contradiction in flying the USA's flag and the Confederate battle flag together.

Because they are the ones who have moved on from bitter to brotherhood. They are just not willing to spit on their ancestors.

The other side has not apparently gotten over it. And that side is increasingly taking on a leftwing orientation.

(heck it just got the statue of one of Baylor's major Presidents taken down and shoved in a box because he was a Confederate Chaplin...talk about bitter bitter horrid people)

---

The Frank Galvin's of the world want to genocide all white Americans and have to be met with equal force.

historian said:

---

Racist and fascist tendencies are far more prevalent in the Dems than the GOP. The best examples of such attitudes on the "right" are turncoats like Candace & Tucker who cannot honestly be labeled conservative anymore, if they ever really were.

---

I've made my case as to the Republican Party based on leading scholars, judges, and journalists, including Jonah Goldberg, who popularized your thesis that fascism was a progressive phenomenon. They were all extremely hesitant to label the GOP in that way, but the evidence finally drove them to it. I was curious whether you had an actual case regarding the Democratic Party or you were just making partisan noises. It's pretty clearly the latter at this point. You heard Dems using the term and thought it would be a cute tactic to mimic. Meanwhile your party keeps embracing policies and politicians so repugnant that even many conservatives can't stomach them. I guess that's what MAGA calls "winning."

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists.

---

Well no one forgets the Eastern theatre of WWII...but they fought because they wanted their land and resources....they had similar viewpoints.

Stalin & the Communists actually wanted a long term alliance with the Nazis

Hitler and many Nazi high command began to move toward a more Stalinist idea of economic development.

[Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who-as adjutant to Hitler's "representative for military history" Walther Scherff and a member of the Fhrer Headquarters group-had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a "conversion to Bolshevism." From Hitler's remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: "Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organization."]

https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/

---

The religious wars in Europe had a lot to do with land and property too. As Christians, the Catholics and Protestants had much in common. The differences were nonetheless real. If you ever hear someone going off on the evils of the Roman Baptist Church, you should probably take their historical claims with a grain of salt.

---

No one said they did not have differences. You arguing with your own self created points...apparently because you dislike the accurate info given.

Fascism and Communism did have many similarities....

Such similarities that many communists & social democrats easily joined the Nazi movement.

[the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin]

And many of the Intelligentsia embraced Nazism as a more likely path to Socialism. And the Nazim movement grew closer to Stalinism economic philosophy (even while making war on the USSR)

[While Adolf Hitler was driven to destroy the Soviet Union, he increasingly admired and sought to replicate Joseph Stalin's command economy, viewing it as vastly superior to Western capitalism.]
https://mises.org/mises-wire/hitlers-views-private-property-and-nationalization

---

Some of it's accurate, and some isn't. None of it is to the point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists.

---

Well no one forgets the Eastern theatre of WWII...but they fought because they wanted their land and resources....they had similar viewpoints.

Stalin & the Communists actually wanted a long term alliance with the Nazis

Hitler and many Nazi high command began to move toward a more Stalinist idea of economic development.

[Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who-as adjutant to Hitler's "representative for military history" Walther Scherff and a member of the Fhrer Headquarters group-had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a "conversion to Bolshevism." From Hitler's remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: "Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organization."]

https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/

---

The religious wars in Europe had a lot to do with land and property too. As Christians, the Catholics and Protestants had much in common. The differences were nonetheless real. If you ever hear someone going off on the evils of the Roman Baptist Church, you should probably take their historical claims with a grain of salt.

---

No one said they did not have differences. You arguing with your own self created points...apparently because you dislike the accurate info given.

Fascism and Communism did have many similarities....

Such similarities that many communists & social democrats easily joined the Nazi movement.

[the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin]

And many of the Intelligentsia embraced Nazism as a more likely path to Socialism. And the Nazim movement grew closer to Stalinism economic philosophy (even while making war on the USSR)

[While Adolf Hitler was driven to destroy the Soviet Union, he increasingly admired and sought to replicate Joseph Stalin's command economy, viewing it as vastly superior to Western capitalism.]
https://mises.org/mises-wire/hitlers-views-private-property-and-nationalization

---

Some of it's accurate, and some isn't. None of it is to the point.

---

Those are all accurate historical statements

And they are relevant to the point that both socialist movements had similarities

So much so that members of one group could easily move over to another…including one of its most violent militia factions.

Now if you have better figures to refute Rudolf Diels, (very first chief of the Gestapo), estimate that in 1933 Berlin, roughly 70 percent of new SA (Sturmabteilung) recruits were former communists…then we can debate the percentage

But it's not inaccurate that he made that assessment.

[In some instances, entire local communist paramilitary units (the Rotfrontkmpferbund) joined the SA together.]

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Racist and fascist tendencies are far more prevalent in the Dems than the GOP. The best examples of such attitudes on the "right" are turncoats like Candace & Tucker who cannot honestly be labeled conservative anymore, if they ever really were.

---

I've made my case as to the Republican Party based on leading scholars, judges, and journalists, including Jonah Goldberg, who popularized your thesis that fascism was a progressive phenomenon. They were all extremely hesitant to label the GOP in that way, but the evidence finally drove them to it. I was curious whether you had an actual case regarding the Democratic Party or you were just making partisan noises. It's pretty clearly the latter at this point. You heard Dems using the term and thought it would be a cute tactic to mimic. Meanwhile your party keeps embracing policies and politicians so repugnant that even many conservatives can't stomach them. I guess that's what MAGA calls "winning."

---

You clearly do not understand me at all. My analysis is based on history and the realization that the Dems lie (& project) all the time.

The earliest progressives included Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, & Herbert Hoover but since then it's been almost exclusively for Democrats. Probably the most infamous example of fascism in American politics is Woodrow Wilson, actually proto-fascist since his administration predated Mussolini.

Texas Schools Like UT Austin Use This Rule To Artificially Boost 'Diversity' Instead Of Merit

https://thefederalist.com/2026/09/17/texas-schools-like-ut-austin-use-this-rule-to-artificially-boost-diversity-instead-of-merit/

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Simple question

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/bo-french-faces-backlash-over-posts-criticizing-ut-students.amp

---

Do we need a DEI program at the University of Texas to ensure more whites are getting accepted?

---

No…we need to get away from DEI style racial discrimination

And have actual neutral standards based meritocracy for the USA to survive long term. In admissions, Jobs's, and everywhere else

If in a fair admissions system at UT-Austin if certain groups become over represented (say Asians) then so be it.

But if we are going to continue down the path of DEI (and Baylor and most other universities seem determined to continue this toxic idea). Then yes….Whites would have to organize and start seeing themselves as a group and demanding DEI style policies to help/protect themselves from discrimination

---

The classic "showing up to a gunfight w/ a knife" scenario.

No one else is going to play by these rules but Americans are expected to.

Life never has been nor ever will be a meritocracy but gullible fools love these fantasy, utopian ideas.

---

Then you are for race-based or ethnically-based quotas?

---

I'm for deportations.

---

Of US citizens, just like your boy French?

---

Are you against Marco Rubio denaturalizing over citicism of Israel?

Congressman Brian Mast has introduced a bill that would allow the State Department to revoke the passports of Americans who oppose Israel.

Under the legislation, anyone the State Department determines has “knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material… pic.twitter.com/1ogy1zq7oy

— AF Post (@AFpost) September 13, 2025

---

That's insane.

---

but what if you have a Trump Gold Plated Passport? Seriously. Eff Isreal and anyone and I mean anyone who supports their govt. Ever since these freaking Isrealis started with the settlement BS here in Thailand . The top Govt official went to several site of settlements and was greeted with.."This is Isreally Territory". This is only a fraction of the story. Ironically, you cannot own property in Thailand unless you are Thai (I can build a 75ft Office tower and own it, but a Thai must own the dirts. Eff those blood suckers. Theybeat up a Thai couple who had a "Free Palestine" flag (Muslims are about 5% Thai population). Ironically, again, these are the most peaceful people on the planet and have the Isrealis invade the country and not follow the lows. Just bust 35 Isreally companies as illiegal. A Thai must own 51% of a company. They need to be deported back to Isreal. We don't want them here.

From French
"The future of Texas and our culture does not depend on capitalism, as some would argue, but by ridding our state of third world foreigners," French wrote on X in November.

historian said:

---

Texas Republicans condemn GOP candidate who noticed the Longhorns look a bit different these days

https://notthebee.com/article/texas-republicans-condemn-gop-candidate-who-noticed-the-longhorns-look-a-bit-different-these-days

Naturally the Dems jump at any opportunity to accuse Republicans of racism.

---

I note you don't say that French is not racist. If the accusation of racism is true BFD.

Also, UT got banned from using race or DEI in admissions. In a merit based environment y'all seem to be upset at the shortage of white folks.

Cracker please.

This is what you voted for.

Hindus are 2% of thevTexas population, Muslims 1.4%.

Cope harder. Pray harder.

But ****ing whine less

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that communists and fascists never coexisted for long, and certainly not within the same party. It's yet another reason to question whether you have proper definitions of the terms, or any real definitions at all.

---

Different groups of socialists often have trouble coexisting, hence the purges and violent clashes among them. The socialists expelled Mussolini so he created the racist party with many of the same ideas (he certainly did not make an ideological 180 over it). Lenin & Trotsky fought a civil war against the Mensheviks, Hitler purged the SA, Stalin purged other Bolsheviks, and so on. You are helping to prove my point that there are more similarities than differences.

---

I didn't ask whether there were more similarities than differences. I asked whether the Democratic Party was communist or fascist. It can't very well be both at the same time.

---

You sure about that?

[Beefsteak Nazi: term used to the describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden- was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' brown outside and red within"

Ernst Rohm, SA co-founder and later commander, developed an "expanding Röhm-cult" within the SA ranks, through which many members sought a revolutionary socialist regime, radicalizing the SA

Röhm's radicalization came to the forefront in 1933-1934 when he sought to have his plebeian SA troopers engage in permanent or "second revolution" after Hitler had become Chancellor. With 2.5 million stormtroopers under his command by late 1933, Röhm envisaged a purging of the conservative faction, the "Reaktion" in Germany that would entail more nationalization of industry, "worker control of the means of production", and the "confiscation and redistribution of property and wealth of the upper classes".

In some cities, the number of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was thought to be significant. Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin...]

---

Yes, I'm sure about it. All of the fascist parties were rooted in some form of Marxism, so it's not surprising that there were converts and holdovers from communism. The fact remains that fascism was its own movement.

---

Bingo

But some new movements can absolutely have elements of both Marxism and Fascism.....I think certain modern Leftwing parties in the West fit that bill.

I mean we have a Democratic party that puts race at the center of everything (fascism), loves surveillance state and secret police type organizations (both fascist and Marxist), and is also really into governmental power over the economy and redistributionism (Marxist).....sounds like a Brown-Red baby to me

---

You're forgetting that this "Brown-Red" Nazi Party fought a war against the actual communists.

---

Well no one forgets the Eastern theatre of WWII...but they fought because they wanted their land and resources....they had similar viewpoints.

Stalin & the Communists actually wanted a long term alliance with the Nazis

Hitler and many Nazi high command began to move toward a more Stalinist idea of economic development.

[Hitler's admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who-as adjutant to Hitler's "representative for military history" Walther Scherff and a member of the Fhrer Headquarters group-had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a "conversion to Bolshevism." From Hitler's remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: "Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organization."]

https://fee.org/articles/how-hitler-became-a-believer-in-the-state-planned-economy/

---

The religious wars in Europe had a lot to do with land and property too. As Christians, the Catholics and Protestants had much in common. The differences were nonetheless real. If you ever hear someone going off on the evils of the Roman Baptist Church, you should probably take their historical claims with a grain of salt.

---

No one said they did not have differences. You arguing with your own self created points...apparently because you dislike the accurate info given.

Fascism and Communism did have many similarities....

Such similarities that many communists & social democrats easily joined the Nazi movement.

[the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, reported that "70 percent" of new SA recruits had been communists in the city of Berlin]

And many of the Intelligentsia embraced Nazism as a more likely path to Socialism. And the Nazim movement grew closer to Stalinism economic philosophy (even while making war on the USSR)

[While Adolf Hitler was driven to destroy the Soviet Union, he increasingly admired and sought to replicate Joseph Stalin's command economy, viewing it as vastly superior to Western capitalism.]
https://mises.org/mises-wire/hitlers-views-private-property-and-nationalization

---

Some of it's accurate, and some isn't. None of it is to the point.

---

Those are all accurate historical statements

And they are relevant to the point that both socialist movements had similarities

So much so that members of one group could easily move over to another…including one of its most violent militia factions.

Now if you have better figures to refute Rudolf Diels, (very first chief of the Gestapo), estimate that in 1933 Berlin, roughly 70 percent of new SA (Sturmabteilung) recruits were former communists…then we can debate the percentage

But it's not inaccurate that he made that assessment.

[In some instances, entire local communist paramilitary units (the Rotfrontkmpferbund) joined the SA together.]

---

The US and Germany had enough similarities that many ex-Nazis worked for the American military and intelligence agencies after the war. Someone will always go where the opportunities are. That doesn't change the fact that one of the SA's main missions was to crush the Bolsheviks and their organizations.

"David French of The New York Times argues that America is “a nation with a culture created by an idea.” But he gets it exactly backwards. The idea did not create the culture but emerged from it..." https://t.co/mYqG5TvgTN

— wanye (@xwanyex) September 18, 2026

quash said:

---

historian said:

---

Texas Republicans condemn GOP candidate who noticed the Longhorns look a bit different these days

https://notthebee.com/article/texas-republicans-condemn-gop-candidate-who-noticed-the-longhorns-look-a-bit-different-these-days

Naturally the Dems jump at any opportunity to accuse Republicans of racism.

---

Also, UT got banned from using race or DEI in admissions. In a merit based environment y'all seem to be upset at the shortage of white folks.

Cracker please.

This is what you voted for.

Hindus are 2% of thevTexas population, Muslims 1.4%.

Cope harder. Pray harder.

But ****ing whine less

---

historian posted the link that addresses this

Did you bother to read it?

[In 1997, the Texas legislature responded to the court decision with an explicit attempt to shoehorn in racial "diversity" to the UT system. The Texas legislature passed the "Top 10 Percent Law," which required that the top 10 percent of each private or public high school graduating class would receive automatic offers of admission into the UT system or any state-funded university.

That wiped merit out of the equation, because the rule does not account for the 10 percent of academic performers in Texas, but rather the top performers at each high school. Doing so allowed lower-income, lower-achieving schools overall (which typically correlate heavily with non-white areas) guaranteed slots because the students were only competing against others at their school, instead of applicants across Texas.

A 2009 decision allowed UT Austin even greater ability to find students from outside the 10 percent framework. Now they are only required to fill 75 percent of Texas resident slots with automatic admissions, and the top 5 percent are guaranteed slots at the Austin flagship campus. That means only 15 percent of UT Austin slots given to Texas high schoolers are truly based on merit, before the 90 percent threshold is met and the last 10 percent can be filled with out-of-state or foreign students.

The result is that the high-performing students attending Texas's top high schools, which are overwhelmingly white and Asian, are being discriminated against by lower-performing students who happen to outperform their low-performing classmates. In other words, a class of 500 students with an average SAT score of 1300 would have the same number of slots for the same size class where the average SAT score is 1050.]

quash said:

---

historian said:

---

Texas Republicans condemn GOP candidate who noticed the Longhorns look a bit different these days

https://notthebee.com/article/texas-republicans-condemn-gop-candidate-who-noticed-the-longhorns-look-a-bit-different-these-days

Naturally the Dems jump at any opportunity to accuse Republicans of racism.

---

Cracker please.

---

None of use know if French is racist

But we know you are….

dropping race slurs likes it's no big deal

The funniest thing about this "controversy" is that is it had been a picture of a bunch of white kids the same people apoplectic about his comments would be apoplectic about so many white people in the stands. We live in Idiocracy. The ones screaming T'RACISM the loudest are always the most racist.

Frank Galvin said:

---

J.R. said:

---

RR Commish is very important to my line of work. I have known most RR comishes over 25yrs. Most all were good, honest, hard working people. This guy seems very Trump like . No freaking way.

---

"This is racism, plain and simple," wrote state Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, who holds great sway in the Texas Legislature as chair of the House Energy Resources Committee. "I have served on the Energy Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Railroad Commission, for most of my tenure in the Texas House, and I have never seen conduct so unbecoming of a Railroad Commissioner or candidate in that time."

"The right thing to do is immediately delete this and issue an apology."

The Railroad Commission is a three-member body that regulates the state's oil and gas industry.
But French, who has scarcely debated the issues the Railroad Commission regulates since launching his campaign last November, vigorously defended his remarks. He said UT-Austin and other institutions have prioritized foreign students and workers, which, without evidence, said has resulted in fraud.


Drew Darby is about as conservative as you can be. Abbott said in private that French could wreck the industry. Dan Patrick called on the French ot resign a GOP position for previous racist tweets. It's not just liberals and RINOS, it is virtually anyone who knows the guy that recognizes him for what he is--a racist, unqualifed scum bag.

Of course, that is why lots of people in this forum like him.

---

great info. Thanks Frank!

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

OK, how did they get it so wrong?

---

I'm asking you..

I would guess that taking their cues from those above them in cultural power…constantly being obsessed with race, identity, grievances…that could not have helped them

Example being Baylor and its land acknowledgment grievance mongering and race-DEI-diversity narratives

The kids were taught this stuff

Constantly call up balkanization and the Balkans mentality will eventually answer

---

So in addition to blaming others for our misfortune, we're now blaming others for the fact that we're blaming others for our misfortune.

---

I'm asking a simple question of where the younger generation got their ideas about identify based politics and grievance from

Do you think the kids created this stuff ex nihilo?

Do you have any other ideas or contributions to that discussion?

---

I would suggest that xenophobia might not be entirely an invention of the left.

---

So we are admitting toxic narratives and ideas can be passed down to the kids?

Or are we "now blaming others for the fact that we're blaming others for our misfortune."

---

I'm sick of the response to every problem being "but but they did it fiiiirrsst!" It's one thing to deflect criticism by saying you're just following the left's playbook. It's another thing to actually believe it. I mean let's not get carried away here.

---

Another way to look at it might be just "you should be careful what you are teaching the youth"

The young are actually the one group does get the benefit of pointing out that they are coming into a system as the new humans in the group.

They are being acted on first. Being that they are young and without the power/ability to form their own educational institutions or value systems as mere children.

That not "whataboutism"…that's a biological sociological fact

Someone taught them about race politics, oppressed vs opressed, etc. Because as young kids they had no preconceived political & social beliefs

---

I just don't buy the idea that people like Heil Harrison and Danny Jackboot are ranting against brown people because they've spent their whole lives being indoctrinated by liberals. There has to be something else going on there.

---

Another way to describe it is that…"American youth are being trained to see race, group, grievance, and oppression"

This will have consequences. (It already has). And both sides youth will embrace it in different ways.

Baylor has scholarships now for kids to discuss race issues.

People might come to far different conclusions than what even those teaching them think they will come to…

"Racial healing" and racial "justice" will not be things easy to define or keep to any set interpretation.

[President Linda Livingstone, Ph.D. announced the establishment of the Trailblazer Scholars Program on July 13, 2020. The scholarship program is designed to recognize the importance of fostering diversity…

Students in the Trailblazer Scholars Program will participate in leadership and opportunities through Baylor's Multicultural Affairs Department and through other groups and programs on Baylor's campus.

Part of Baylor's commitment to listen, learn and take actionable steps regarding racial healing and justice in America….]

---

People are discussing race issues because race issues exist, not the other way around.