The Hydratic Equation

As I’ve stated in the past, arguing with leftists is an interesting challenge. Since their intellectual foundation built on conceptual sand, their arguments are constantly shifting and mutating. Not only do they abjure and outright mock the very notion of logical consistency – the inevitable hobgoblin quote is one of about ten common to every leftist – but they tend to be far more interested in scoring momentary style points than they are in actually winning any debate. My theory is that this is because they so seldom actually win debates with any but a completely overmatched opponent.

Thus, arguing with even the most educated leftist is rather like fighting a hydra, and like Hercules, requires one to be prepared to cauterize each tangential argument by destroying it entirely instead of merely lopping it off with a quick dismissal. I hope this Left-Wing Nazi debate with AA has been instructive, in that it has revealed many of the petty dishonesties and devious maneuvers to which even the most honest and well-meaning leftist is forced to resort in order to maintain a semblance of his base position. Please note that this is nothing personal; I am no more personally involved in this than I was when physically beating down a lesser belt in the dojo, and I very much admire AA’s unusual willingness to examine the relevant facts of the matter in this and other cases.

Consider how much ground has shifted under AA’s feet since he first took issue with my assertion that the National Socialists were of the Left. He made some hasty assertions and after being shown how they pointed to a contrary conclusion, has tried to shift the argument from easily verifiable platforms and policies to nebulous generalizations. In the process, he attempted to conflate Republican policies with contradictory conservative philosophy while simultaneously separating extant Democratic policies from parallel left-liberal concepts, and tried to use modern Republican support to obscure to the fundamentally left-wing nature of specific programs. He has tried to completely redefine the political spectrum in such a manner as to render it utterly meaningless – how does one measure pluralism on an idealistic-pragmatic scale? – and either revealed a total ignorance of libertarianism or been shamefully dishonest in his characterization of it.

Finally, and apparently aware of the complete failure of his rapidly mutating argument to hold any water, AA retreats to the usual left-liberal ground of claiming that the issue is inane and irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I must point out that I have not shifted my positions or definitions one iota, nor altered my argument in the least. The National Socialists were left-wing extremists, with platform and policies that predominantly fall in between the Communists to the left, and the American Democratic party to the right. In the event that anyone regards the numerous flaws in AA’s meta-argument as insufficient proof, later today, I will provide a detailed analysis of the Munich Manifesto and the ten pillars of the Communist Manifesto and compare them to Democratic, Republican and Libertarian policies and philosophy.