First of all, a side note. Without reference to my stance on the various political philosophies, left or right, mainstream, radical or otherwise, your approval or disdain is of trivial relevance to me. Of course, your reference to 'neo-Nazis' is a traditional example of argument by intimidation; I offend your sensibilities, refuse to 'stroke your ego' in the socially accepted manner, and thus must be the 'Son of Satan' (or the appropriate secular metaphor - in this case, a 'Hitlerite'). To which my response is, of course, 'Whatever'.Incidentally, as it is painfully obvious that race is not the determining factor for intellectual capacity (the "Bell Curve" nonwithstanding"), nor is there an international conspiracy of Jewry out to steal the world from Aryan ubermench (again, despite what Leftists might have to say about Mr. Kissinger), then no, I am of course not a 'neo-Nazi'. Unlike those on the Left, I have a difficulty in advocating political philosophical ideas that I know to be obviously wrong.
To make this as simple as possible, I will explain this again. People who are racists do not necessarily believe what they believe because they have low self-esteem. They hold such beliefs for a variety of reasons, one of which might be an honest error in thought. If this were not so, the present attitude held by left-wing activists towards corporate acivity would be inexcusable (i.e. thus, activists hate corporate leaders out of a fear, born of low self-esteem. They feel inferior to those capable of engaging in complex business processes, and in their mindless hatred, attack them).
I would ask you to become familiar with the film "Shoah", in which the motives for the actions of the Nazis (and many of their sympathizers) becomes clear. So also, the behavior of the Bolsheviks makes far more sense; simply put, a group with a low social standing, in posession of significant assets, frequently might find themselves the victim of unscrupulous individuals who would have these assets for a smidgeon of creative rhetoric and a dab of the old ultra-violence. This was the motivation behind Nazism, and goes a long way to explain the inordinate zeal of the Cheka under the Lenin/Stalin administration. It is not out of fear, nor in the name of the people, but of selfish greed that motivated the SS to run slave industries - not only with Jews, but with Poles, Frenchmen, Russians, Italians, the occasional German dissident, etc. The same sort of thought guides the actions of the old KGB in the modern day, who literally run organized crime in the former USSR. It is this motivation, and not some pseudo-Freudian insult, that is behind this sort of thing. My impression is that, being too similar to the selfsame motivations of many who are in the politics game today, which makes discussing it with too much candor somewhat dangerous.
As for Mr. Hitler, it is true that he was a bit shy. He was something of a scatterbrain. It might also be news to you that he never killed a Jew; he was a runner in the First World War, and did no actual shooting in the Second One. He issued quite a few directives and orders to that effect, but likely wouldn't have been able to stomach doing the deed himself. For many in the Polish, German and Ukrainian community, this was far less of an impediment - some of these 'volk' had had practice pre-war in the pograms. Nor do I wish to imply that some monolithic ethnic group was responsible for these mass murders. The fact of the matter was that many people in Europe envied wealthy Jews, and when the Nazis advocated robbing and killing them, they were all for the lucrative idea. If this brings up some nasty questions about similar attitudes amongst the Bolsheviks (or some on the ultra-radical left in this country), well that's just too bad.
As to homosexuality, I think of the acts associated with it as a rather unsavory set of practices (to be fair, in much the same way as I feel towards the more conventional behavior of heterosexuality). I practice neither, being a flaming celibate (to repeat an epithet of one Mr. Huey Long). I have had to suffer 'passes' of both sorts and, while being repulsed by them, have never felt the need to resort to either corporal or lethal violence. The idea of 'hate-crimes' is repugnant to me, and smacks of the sort of thing fought against in the Revolutionary War. As I recollect, it is illegal to slay American citizens, whatever the motive; I should think that the exhaustive legal statutes on murder suffice to provide more than sufficient legal remedy for such transgressions.
I expect that this should clear up any legitimate confusion you might have on my own thoughts in this particular regard. Those 'confusions', however, that are held specifically in regards to maintaining a presumed moral superiority only reveal a juvenile mind at best, an unscrupulous opportunist at worst. At my age, I have little patience for either.
