Truth is the First Casualty of Politics: If Communists Support the Democrats and Nazis Support Republicans, Where Does that Leave the Rest of Us?

If it is true, as per the old maxim, that war is politics carried out by other means, then it stands to reason that the converse is also true, namely, that politics is war carried out by other means. Even a superficial glance at the language of our politics would bear this out. Intra-party disputes are framed as "civil wars," while inter-party debates are framed as "trading shots," where one side "blasts" the other, and the other "fires back." From this state of affairs we can deduce any number of trivial corollaries, among them that the first casualty of politics is the truth. As an example, take a non-troversy being stoked by Georgia's Paulding Pundit. The headline there reads: "Operations Director of GA Libertarian Party Equates [GOP gubernatorial candidate] Nathan Deal and GA GOP to White Supremacists." (Link via Red Phillips at IPR.) What follows, however, is nothing more than a screenshot of an offhand comment the Libertarian, Brett Bittner, posted on his Facebook page. Bittner had written:

"Don’t worry, GA GOP… @VoteDeal is in good company. http://bit.ly/dqNI4v"

The link takes you to a story I had posted at IPR excerpting a Los Angeles Times report on a raucous rally and demonstration against illegal immigration held by members of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement. Paulding Pundit comments on Bittner's statement:

So in essence, Nathan Deal and everyone associated with the Georgia Republican Party are white supremacist Naizs because they’re against illegal immigration. Needless to say, Mr. Bittner’s post is extremely offensive and inappropriate. I encourage my fellow Republican friends, who are entertaining the thought of supporting Chuck Donovan, John Monds, or any of the other state-wide Libertarian candidate, to do their homework and thoroughly research the Libertarian Party and its leadership. I trust that you’ll find out what I’ve discovered about the Libertarian Party, they’re led by a bunch of crazy nuts.

Obviously, all sides in this spat are engaged in nothing but "sleazy drive-by innuendo," as Red Phillips put in our discussion in the comments at IPR. That is almost the very definition of politics under the conditions of Democrat-Republican party government. But there is a difference that is worth pointing out here. The Libertarian Bittner's ironic innuendo has the virtue of being true: both the Nazi group and Nathan Deal are against illegal immigration. Indeed, Nathan Deal is a vocal and active opponent of illegal immigration. As a member of the House of Representatives, the Democrat-turned-Republican introduced a bill to rework the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in order to eliminate birthright citizenship. However, from the statement that the white supremacists and the Deal campaign are on the same side of the given issue, it simply does not follow that "Nathan Deal and everyone associated with the Georgia Republican Party are white supremacist Naizs because they’re against illegal immigration." That is just a false inference drawn by the Republican pundit, who then attributes it to the Libertarian, calling it "offensive and inappropriate," even though the statement he made does not even imply it.

We know that logic and truth have little value to the ideologues of the Democratic and Republican parties, except insofar as they can be manipulated to score political points in the interests of maintaining the ruling political class and implementing their common corporatist agenda. But why go to such lengths to take offense at an offhand comment made by Bittner on a Facebook page? It must have stung. Or maybe not. Clearly, Georgia Republicans fear that rational voters will cast their ballots for Libertarians rather than reproduce the corruption and misrule so many Americans have come to expect from the stooges of the Republican and Democratic parties. They are right to be worried. Libertarian gubernatorial candidate John Monds is currently polling 5%, but the Republican Deal only has a 4% advantage over the Democrat.

Final Note: Though it does not follow from Bittner's comment that "Nathan Deal and everyone associated with the Georgia Republican Party are white supremacist Naizs because they’re against illegal immigration," in the present context it is worth noting that white supremacists and Nazis do support Nathan Deal because he is against illegal immigration. If, as I've documented before, the Communist Party and Communist Party front groups support the Democrats, does not a "fair and balanced" assessment of the major parties demand investigation of Nazi support for Republicans? A search of the web forum Stormfront demonstrates longtime support for Nathan Deal in the white supremacist and Nazi community. A post from 2005 carries an "Urgent" announcement regarding the bill introduced by Deal mentioned above, urging readers to pressure their representatives to support it or else:

A bill has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican; this bill would deny US citizenship to the offspring of illegals and other non-citizen parents. Call , e-mail, fax, your elected officials as this is a very important piece of legislation. Tancredo, Rorbacher and others have already pledged support; let you Reps. know that if they oppose this bill there will be consequences!

Others in the forum voiced support, saying, for instance: "This sounds good to me! This would get rid of the "Anchor baby" that all Illegal aliens try to foist on us as "They are Americans" Baloney!" Deal's bill has received fairly regular attention, and an almost wholly positive reception, at Stormfront over the years. From 2007: "I like this mans thinking. Anchor babies must go to. I concider them illegal as well." More recently, Deal received an "Amen" for advocating that Georgia adopt an immigration policy modeled on Arizona's controversial new law. Contributors to Stormfront have also greatly appreciated Nathan Deal's efforts to obtain a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. From January 2009:

"Nathan Deal says he’ll ask for Barack Obama’s birth certificate . . . U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, now a Republican candidate for governor, this morning declared himself in sympathy with those questioning whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. . . . This ought to be good!"

Update: At SWGA Politics, Jeff cuts down professional partisan Republican Erick Erickson, who has also criticized Bittner on this issue:

Last night, elected Republican City Councilman Erick Erickson took issue with appointed LP-Georgia Operations Director Brett Bittner’s Facebook post saying that Republican Governor candidate Nathan Deal was “in good company” with Neo-Nazis.

This is the same Erick Erickson who once tied another group of Neo-Nazis, StormFront, around Ron Paul’s neck. (This is also the same Erick Erickson who, as GriftDrift likes to point out, once called a sitting Supreme Court Justice a “goat f*cking child molester“.) . . .

What is going on here is simple: Erick is seeking to discredit the Libertarian Party of Georgia because he sees that it is entirely possible that John Monds could get 20% of the vote on November 2, thereby earning LP-Ga the same ballot access that is currently enjoyed by only the Democrats and Republicans in Georgia. Erick doesn’t want that to happen, because it would threaten his Party’s deathgrip on this State – even though Republicans over the last 8 years have shown themselves to be little better than the Democrats before them or their National counterparts when it comes to fiscal conservatism and individual liberty.

Are African Americans Abandoning the Major Parties in Favor of Superior Third Party and Independent Alternatives? Shouldn't We All?

Earlier this month, I relayed a report stating that African Americans in Illinois were supporting third party or independent candidates in relatively high numbers, with over 20% favoring an alternative to the corporatist shills of the Democratic and Republican parties. Unfortunately, it was impossible to determine just who those individuals were supporting because the polling outfit, Rasmussen, did not inquire as to which third party and independent candidates respondents favored, but rather subsumed everyone aside from the Democrat and Republican under the category "some other candidate." A similar situation may well be developing in Georgia. Jack Wagner writes at the Free Independent Sun:

I noticed something quite disturbing when studying recent polling for elections around the country. Rasmussen Reports will include upwards of 6 or 7 candidates in the Democrat and Republican Primaries, sometimes with candidates that only receive 1% of the vote, yet when it comes to the General Election they will only include the two Democrat-Republican candidates despite there being sometime upwards of 3 or 4 other candidates from Third Party Nominations or Independent Nominations. This case is most present and most dangerous in a particular Governor’s election in Georgia, where the African-American Libertarian Candidate John Monds is left out of General Election polls despite having won 33.4% in a statewide election in 2008, and apparently the most likely winner of the 15- 20% of unaccounted votes in Rasmussen Polls.

Though it likely stakes out familiar territory to Poli-Tea readers, the piece is well worth a read, and goes on to document the pollster's bias against third party candidates in Georgia, South Carolina and Illinois. Nonetheless, there seems to be significant movement afoot within the African American community away from the Democrats and in the direction of rational alternatives to Democrat-Republican party government. A column by Frederick Alexander Meade published at Akiit.com over the weekend argues that African Americans should support third party candidates for office:

In the face of a two party political system, in which neither entity holds any significant measure of deference for a socially ailing African-American body, the construction of a party in which the group may call its own, may serve as the only reasonable approach, by which this population may be afforded any degree of leverage.

The function of a third party, in its greatest capacity, would serve to conceivably eclipse the position of the Democratic Party in its perceived station, as institution of choice, for the socially dispossessed and of those seemingly concerned with the welfare of the masses.

A less speculative and perhaps more pragmatic conception of such a party, would maintain it function – in the short term – to erode a segment of the black Democratic voting base. An evolvement the Democrats can ill afford to experience, as the black vote often serves as the critical force this band relies upon, in securing electoral triumphs over political rivals in highly contested races.

A viable third party would not have to siphon twenty to thirty percent of the black Democratic voting base. Rather a ten to fifteen percent decline in this group’s support of the party would function to compromise its political strength in numerous municipalities as well as on the national level.

In politically disarming the Democratic Party, in regard to its African-American voting arsenal, a direct message would then be sent to this institution. The message delivered to this purported liberal body would boldly declare: black Americans have evolved into an electoral entity determined to observe its agenda honored and subsequently pursued by any political institution claiming to represent the interests of the group . . .

In pursuing this course of action, enough members of the African-American public must overcome the fear of perceived social loss the group may sustain in the short run, as the Republican Party would manifestly assume power within some domains presently controlled by its prime opposition.

In overcoming this fear, the African-American public must remain assured, its collective plight essentially experiences little nuance irrespective of the party that assumes office, as the masses have invariably suffered under the rule of all governing bodies.

This line of argument may be reasonably generalized, and would likely hold for the large majority of the American populace. Who is served by the tyranny of the two-party state, by Democrat-Republican party government as such, aside from the self-serving and self-entitled elites in the ruling criminal political class?