I'm Out: What It All Means Is Now Left For U To Decide

Jonah Goldberg blew big chunks a few days ago. Conor Friedersdorf finger wags today. 

Might be related.

And I found 12 Years A Slave online for free. 

Completely unrelated - maybe.

 

Bush II: Obama The Idiot (Winning From Losing Logic)

On the campaign trail, Obama's job was to "be Barack Obama," to sound smart and charismatic and rev up the crowds. He's still playing that part rather than fulfilling the job description.

And no one will tell him. That's why, I suspect, when he went to check on the progress of the site's development he had no idea how to ask questions that would get at the reality of the situation. Bureaucrats, apparatchiks, and contractors blow smoke. That's what they do. Obama has no idea how to cut through the smoke. He thinks being president involves constantly going out and giving speeches to crowds that love him about how hard he's working rather than actually, you know, working. It's all very meta. He's playing president Obama because he doesn't know how to be president Obama. I think that when he went out on Monday and did his infomercial schtick in the Rose Garden -- Operators are standing by! It's not just a website; it's a floorwax! etc. -- he honestly thought he was fixing the problem. Well, I've done my part!

National Review: Two Conservative Magazines In One!

THOMAS SOWELL:

  Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people — most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant. A talented con man or a slick politician does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.

JONAH GOLDBERG:

Ted Cruz, the GOP’s Barack Obama

Were We Sure, When We Said, "It Can't Happen Here?"

Finding these memes can be amazing sometimes:

"Many of the progressive and holistic ideas that lie at the heart of today’s lifestyle Left, the environmental Left, and the New Age movement share numerous unquestioned philosophical, emotional, and practical similarities with the intellectual and cultural currents that fed into and sustained Nazism."

- JONAH GOLDBERG

  "Thank You!" everybody for the donations!

Taking Two Steps Back (For That One Step Forward,...)

I still don’t like compassionate conservatism or its conception of the role of government. But given the election results, I have to acknowledge that Bush was more prescient than I appreciated at the time.

-- Jonah Goldberg, learning political lessons the hard way - which is better than not learning - and finally giving my boy his due. 

And then there's this - Hey GOP, Take The Palin Cure. 

Sigh. It may be too late for Palin now - she endorsed Romney - but, also, it's sad to see folks are only coming to my positions years later, and only after a defeat of this magnitude.

Why do people have to be so difficult? And what is it about self-enforced ignorance that's ever been so attractive? Sure, it made everybody feel good before, but how does it feel now? And how much more work do we have on our plates because of everyone insisting it be this way? I feel like a damned grief counselor:

 Doesn't anyone else understand being wrong isn't worth it?

 

Mittbot 3000 Re-Calibrates After Another Unforced Error

I've put the accuracies within this Jonah Goldberg excerpt in bold, so the Romney cheerleaders can fully appreciate exactly what they've been supporting - and I've known to steer clear of:

What bothers me about Romney’s statement isn’t the faulty analysis — though it is faulty — but the reliance on “analysis” like this at all. What I mean is, Romney comes across as a guy who thinks elections are simply a numbers game (and for a numbers guy, it’s pretty infuriating he botched the numbers). 

According to his analysis, the folks in Obama’s camp are just write-offs, except for a few silly, “emotional” people in the middle who he hopes to sway with appeals that are less than wholly rational. I understand that Romney is speaking in shorthand, and for all we know he was just keying off premises laid out by the questioner. But even so, Romney’s remarks reinforce the overriding problem with his campaign: It is bloodlessly non-ideological. And that is by design. Stewart Stevens, Romney’s top strategist has made it abundantly clear he doesn’t much care about ideas or philosophy. That showed in his convention strategy and in Romney’s speech, which he apparently wrote. Responding to complaints about his stewardship, Stevens told Politico: “Politics is like sports. A lot of people have ideas, and there’s no right or wrong. You just have to chart a course, and stay on that course.” Not only is that not true of politics, as best I can tell it’s not even true of sports either.   

Even the campaign’s ostensibly ideological ads and soundbites seem offered not as statements of conviction but as carefully — and sometimes not so carefully — crafted slogans aimed at telling the silly swing-voters what they most want to hear. I’m not naive; focus groups and poll data are part of politics, like it or not. But when conviction politicians use such tools it’s often as a way to make what they believe more salable. With the Romney campaign, all too often it seems like they’ve got it reversed. They’re trying to sell the voters on the idea that Romney believes something. 

In fairness to Romney, I do think he believes things. The problem is he doesn’t have an organic understanding for politics or conservatism  — I think I was the first to say a while back, he speaks conservatism as a second language. So when he tries to express his ideas he either sounds too detached or as if he’s parroting the idiom of a language he doesn’t fully understand. 

That’s the problem with what he says in that video. It’s not that everything he says is wrong, it’s just that it’s wrong enough to both hurt him and make it hard to defend what he’s saying. Ironically, I think if he were less articulate (like George W. Bush) or even spoke with a foreign accent, this would be more clear. But it is precisely because he is such a precise speaker that he gets himself in so much trouble.

 Yep - whether it's Mitt Romney's own words, those of his wife, or those of his cult - a listener actually understanding what's being said is the most destructive thing that can occur to his campaign. Or, I should say, self-destructive. I don't really mess with the "less than rational," and this campaign has had that element from the start (because of you-know-what,....) despite the best efforts of the desperate Obama haters to keep it under wraps.

You guys did good - you scared me there for a while - but I told you five months was too long to keep Mittens under wraps, and now HE'S the one who's desperate:

That's not a situation ol' Deer-In-The-Headlights-And-Voice-Getting-Shakey excels in.

Really:

I'm preparing for what possibly could be one of the greatest unravelings in political history,...

 

Romney's In The Movie "Election" Instead Of A Real One

O.K., just a few days ago I asked if Jonah Goldberg had lost his touch, but today, as he riffed on Romney's campaign, I think I got my answer - nope:

Right now, it looks like a contest between people with the wrong ideas against people without any.

And let's remember how we know that's true - does this ring a bell?

A hilarious and proud Republican moment, reduced to dust,…

 

And The Text Extolls The Virtues Of MInd/Body/Spirit,...

What a nightmare. 

Is there no editor in America who looks at something like this and thinks, "Probably not a good idea?" Have we simply lost the ability to recognize the iconography and symbolism of that which we not only want to avoid, but need to? Here, let's let reader PW sum it up since she brought it to my attention - and notice the shock and pleading:

Speaking of Nazis and other assorted totalitarian bastards that like to brainwash people into their sick occult riddled reindeer games, did you happen to check out the cover for the new National Review?

There's a picture worth a thousand words in a shrink ward. It's like the product of a Norman Rockwell and Leni Riefenstahl deranged love tryst on the planet Xenu or something. wtf Nat'l. Review, wtf?!?

Between it and the '08 Obama as Che poster (which should have tipped anybody who isn't a retarded hipster off that something just wasn't quite right, oh wait, forgot his primary voting base)...wow, a person could write a paper about the course of American socio-politico-cultural downfall right there.

And the question, as I see it, is "Why?" Why would they go there? Did it strike them as "fresh"? Is this really the best they can do? What they aspire to? What they think I should aspire to? Where's Jonah "Liberal Fascism" Goldberg's keen eye for this kind of thing? He can see Naziism in NewAge but not in this?

Did the National Review forget the Mormons admired Hitler? Did they think I'd forget it, considering he and Ann Romney's interests and proclivities? Or was the assumption that - since everybody's whitewashing who and what Romney's cult's been about - no one would make the connection? Were they trying to remind us? Get the Democrats fired up? What?

You know, I spent a lot of time on Facebook yesterday, defending Romney (yes, you read it right) against the Democrats' bogus charges he was covertly playing the race card. And if there was one feeling it left me with it was this:

Everybody's fucking crazy. 

Because the Democrats would rather run with bullshit claims, than hit Romney for his very-real weaknesses, and the Republicans would rather attack anyone who tells the truth about their cult candidate than assume their flag-waving role as citizens with an obligation to protect the nation from such a candidate. No one - but no one - wants to tell the truth:

That both parties will say and do absolutely anything in their lust for power and, by today's values, that renders them both unworthy to hold it.

I don't know about you but, to me, this cover illustration says all that, and then some,...

Whew! (I'm Not The Only One Who Calls Us "Stupid")

And here I was, thinking I could never work for the National Review,...

TMR's Christmas Gift To You - An Extended Explanation With Links: (Just Like) Starting Over

The links in this post will tell you the whoooole story of this blog:

We want you to consider an alternate universe, where John Lennon was a passionate black artist, living in San Francisco, and Yoko Ono was his French NewAge bride and actually liked.

And, instead of John cheating on Yoko at a New York party and she sends him away to California, Yoko cheated on John while in France and, upon discovery, ran back to that country to join her lover - a Dr. Timothy Leary/Charles Manson type.

And finally - rather than this change of events leading eventually to Mark David Chapman killing John - this new trajectory led Leary/Manson and Yoko Ono to killing others.

What do you think John's reaction would've been? Do you think he would've taken the advice of most NewAgers and just "moved on", or do you think he would've gone the primal scream route to exorcise his pain and call attention to the murders?

Do you think he would've attacked the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/NewAge hippie culture that led to this turn of events? (For instance, do you think he would've stayed shy, or become emboldened enough to call the song "Sexy Sadie" by it's real name, "Maharishi"?)

And how virulent would've been the reaction of the hippies - now siding with Dr. Timothy Leary/Charles Manson and the likable Yoko - if John had done so?

This is kind of the situation TMR found itself in, not long after it started in 2005. (The blog did not begin in 2007, as it appears now, but was sabotaged - twice - by NewAge "friends" upset with the direction it had taken, and the attention it had garnered.)

And just as we're surprised that - in this universe - even Charlie Manson has supporters after all he's done, and everything he (apparently) is, we're even more surprised at the level of hostility we've received over the years for suggesting there's something wrong with the culture that produced him - and a coming reckoning for the many crimes that culture's bestowed on the rest of us.

We've admitted, many times, that we know we're probably not the best representative for our position.

But honestly - because of a cultural acceptance of the views and positions that's produced the many crimes we've documented - there are very few attempting to bring these issues to the public, and even they don't have the up-close-and-personal experience (or insight) that someone who's been intimate with a believer - or been a believer themselves - carries.

So we're kind of stuck.

Fortunately for us (if not our readers) the immediate problems we face in this work are pretty self-evident.

We think The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle sums it up nicely in his review of the new (former Scientologist) Nicole Kidman movie, "Rabbit Hole":

The movie's area of inquiry is essentially undramatic, a tale told in a minor key, but it's sensitive and illuminates areas of experience that usually go unexplored. What happens to the couple, each one grieving separately, each one associating the other with loss? How do friends talk to them? It's easy to console people when you don't think their misfortune is all that bad, but what do you say to somebody experiencing your own worst nightmare? "Rabbit Hole" depicts the isolating nature of grief, a self-isolation that is also, to some degree, community enforced.

In other words, no matter what you may think of us, divorced and/or broken - or how we're choosing to alert others to the dangers of cultism in general, and NewAge culture in particular - like those Charlie Manson fans, many of you are part of the problem as well.

Believe it or not, despite our apparent glee at saying something is cultish (or someone is in a cult) it still tears us up, as much as the accused, to discover this is the situation we live currently in; realizing it's the Western World's 21st century. The difference is only in our comprehension of it all.

You have to understand, though we knew nothing of cultism, homeopathy, quackery, or numerology, or any other such things, we do remember what life was like before our wife's murders and we were forced to grapple with them.

We remember what it's like to think of NewAge, and it's many tentacles, as "harmless".

We remember what it was like to unabashedly admire Oprah Winfrey, and her many accomplishments, including the legion of women who listen to, and "follow" her.

We remember what it was like to vote Democrat, to side with environmentalists, feminists, and gays.

We remember what it was like to admire aspects of socialism, and communism, and multiculturalism, and to reject sexism, and racism, and all the other "isms" that have been brought to our attention from our first days growing up in the ghettos of South Central, Los Angeles.

But now - since replacing all of that with the glory of being an un-hypenated American - we just can't stomach any of it any longer.

Now, eschewing conspiracy theories (and conspiracy theorists) and all those words imply, we stand with those who have examined this entire social phenomena anew - Christopher Locke, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Whittle, Neil Davenport, Barbara Ehrenreich, and others - and who have found a sinister threat to all we hold dear.

We stand with those who have called for a new Nuremberg Trial for it's ringleaders - and for many of it's fellow travelers.

And we stand with those who have called for a new emphasis in our schools (and especially our media) on real science, critical thinking, and common sense, for the common good.

We embrace the American Founder's "enlightenment" - and no one else's.

We have stood before you, for five long years, as merely a betrayed artist with a certain insight - and, yes, a lot of anger and resentment - that we've refused to abandon until it's acknowledged as accurate, right, and good.

We are John Lennon - across the universe - declaring, "the dream is over".

And "Merry Christmas" from The Crack Emcee.

Now'a'days Having More Than Two Years Of College Is Enough To Embarrass Yourself

Man, the longer we glance at Glenn Reynolds' little collective the more we understand Shakespeare's directive to "first, kill all the lawyers." Actually that's not true, but our image of lawyers - and especially those who also hold the title of "professor" - has definitely come down sharply. Sharp enough we're almost glad we didn't finish college.

See, we know we're smart but (contrary to what others think) we've never considered ourselves "all that". We've always known there are others out there who are supposed to be much, much smarter than any rock and roll artist with a hang-up for reading. But, now that we've met some of these top-of-their-class types online, we're not always so sure.

We expected brilliance and we get "meh". We wanted fighters for the American way and we get Reynolds' repeated woe-is-me interjections about trying to buy a Nissan Leaf and his fetish for the whores at Frisky. Ann Althouse's various unhinged NewAge observations in favor of feminism, special privileges for gays, and "Dancing With The Stars". And now this from Classical Values' Eric Scheie:

Perhaps I came across as being too fair to Andrew Sullivan.

Perhaps? Perhaps? Jesus, for lawyers you guys can be s-l-o-w.

We were asking back in 2008 how it was possible Sullivan even held a writing job - a fact we still don't understand. Well we do, kinda, now that we're familiar with the mindset of those who hold the unique position in American business known both as "management" and/or "Human Resources", but - other than that - no, we don't get it.

If we're losing you here (as we're also feeling kind of lost) then let's get this puppy back-on-track:

Attempting to be fair to Andrew Sullivan is wrong.

Why? Because Andrew Sullivan is a NewAger (What else?) and, as Glenn Reynolds' friends Jonah Goldberg and Bill Whittle have noticed, NewAgers are old wine in new bottle Nazis.

By the way, we can also add Neil Davenport of Spiked Magazine for writing:

"There is a peculiar paradox that while Nazi Germany is held up as a symbol of evil today, many of the core ideas and beliefs associated with Nazism, such as the mystical worship of nature and hostility towards Enlightenment modernity, are increasingly commonplace amongst today’s radical middle classes."

Fascinating, huh? Especially when you consider Reynolds' recent comment that:

Communists are as bad as Nazis, and their defenders and apologists are as bad as Nazis’ defenders, but far more common. When you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest. They should not enjoy the consequences of their behavior.

We should point out, here, that it was this comment that brought Andrew Sullivan to Eric Scheie's attention, because Sullivan answered Reynolds' quote by asking, "What does that last sentence mean? Is it some kind of threat?"

Only to you, Andy, only to you.

Now we get that, for some, this NewAge = Nazi thing might seem to be a bit much, but we think we're on pretty firm ground with it, and the illustrious group of names supporting it (Goldberg, Whittle, Davenport) makes us think we're right, though we came to the conclusion on our own. The problem for most, we think, is the fact that when Naziism is mentioned, their minds go immediately to The Holocaust - the mechanized mass slaughter of the Jews - and not to what led up to that horrible event.

Let's back up a little bit and we'll show you what we mean:

After Eric Scheie considers that playing nice with Sullivan might not have a been a good idea, he tells us he's treated Andrew in such a manner because his commenters (rightly) wanted The Macho Response:

What would people have me do? Indignantly level personal attacks on Sullivan? He is a blogger, and even though he is a lot more prominent and influential than I am, it seems like a cheap shot for me to hurl insults his way. (As regular readers know, hurling insults is not my style.) But it seems that now that I am being criticized for mentioning him at all, by someone who thinks I am being a weenie for treating him as if he is sane.

What is the lesson here? To either launch a vituperative attack or just remain silent? That would leave me with nothing to say at all. 

If I see something that strikes me as worthy of criticism, I will try to address it logically.

Ooh, bad form, dude.

Trying to be logical is a major problem when confronting either NewAgers or NewAge itself. As a matter of fact, the more one tries to be logical, the more NewAgers take it as a sign you're weak and willing to be taken advantage of. They're fascists who only respect power, and (because of the peculiar make-up of their mental state) the only way they understand opposition is when it's directed at them in the some illogical manner - i.e. you must "indignantly level personal attacks", take "a cheap shot", and "hurl insults", or else you are "a weenie" for treating them as if they are sane.

How do you think we got this gig?

Sorry but it's the only way:

We didn't make the (kooky) rules.

For an example of how logical Scheie can be, he then takes on American Family Association leader Bryan Fischer, saying "Fischer is one of those 'Hitler was gay' believers, and he has gone to great lengths to tie homosexuality to Nazism." Scheie follows that by saying:

I hate to be a party pooper, but the above is not accurate. While there was a homosexual clique in the early days of the brownshirts, Hitler (using Himmler as his henchman) had them uprooted and killed in the notorious Night of the Long Knives. That was in 1934 -- years before the savagery and brutality that the Nazis inflicted on the world, and on the Jews.

Now, we think we should add that we agree with Scheie here - we don't think Hitler was gay or that gays were responsible for the Holocaust - but we would like to use this quote to suggest there were various forces put into play that came into being "years before the savagery and brutality that the Nazis inflicted on the world, and on the Jews." And, as Goldberg, Whittle and Davenport have noticed, all of them are popular in today's NewAge/Leftist/Progressive culture.

We've mentioned before that, when our ex-wife's murders happened and we were shunned by the other NewAgers around us, it was mostly our Jewish friends who stuck by us. Except for the "progressive" sorts, the Jews didn't question our ravings about cults and the like, as others do. They said this was old news to them because - specifically mentioning WWII - they had seen this all before, and have been keeping an eye on it since, as these influences continue to crawl through Western culture.

As far as the rest of you, in our opinion it's only those already under it's influence (Ann Althouse) or those too "sophisticated" to entertain that NewAge is anything but "harmless" (Glenn Reynolds) that are the biggest problem to stamping out this threat. They don't understand what a race-based government, the spread of environmentalism, the occult, divorce, quackery, etc., actually means. They appear to think these are all signs of some new liberated post-60s ideal of "progress." Nonsense.

This is where democracies go to die.

Call TMR "Hogan's Raiders Of The Lost Heroes"

We swear - we're going to stop this at some point - but that "dead end" of a "New Age witch hunt" Ann Althouse's (second) husband, Meade, says we're on never seems to actually come to a cul-de-sak.

Like today, Ann and Meade's friend, Glenn Reynolds (above) has a long (for Instapundit) and fascinating discussion of the resemblances between Communists and Nazis. Reynolds ends his first section of the discussion with these words:

Communists are as bad as Nazis, and their defenders and apologists are as bad as Nazis’ defenders, but far more common. When you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest. They should not enjoy the consequences of their behavior.

Got that? Communists are as bad as Nazis. Nazis and their defenders are bad, and "when you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest."

Well, we couldn't agree more! That's why we find it weird that we're considered crazy for attacking NewAge when it was Glenn Reynolds' other friend, Jonah Goldberg (above) who wrote:

Many of the progressive and holistic ideas that lie at the heart of today’s lifestyle Left, the environmental Left, and the New Age movement share numerous unquestioned philosophical, emotional, and practical similarities with the intellectual and cultural currents that fed into and sustained Nazism.

Seems to us, this means we should all be treating NewAgers as Reynolds says and "when you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest", right?

Yet we can barely compel Reynolds or Althouse (or Meade) to take the subject seriously.

Another of Glenn Reynold's friends, Bill Whittle (above) did a talk that got this response from a commenter:

[Bill Whittle’s] attacking a whole group association think-set. I had been an uber New Agey leftist for many years and his caricatured characterization is right on. He could have also put in adjectival terms such as 'homeopathic', 'Buddhistic', 'yoga posturing', Indigenous peoples loving’, or 'meditating'. Any of those fits the group although none on their own would be considered insulting — except for perhaps, homeopathic — if you don’t like invisible, non-existent medicines. There is definitely a personality grouping of the New Agey hip, cool, enlightened, pacifistic Earth warrior. I think that ignoring the hard core paganistic tendencies of the New Agey left is to be in denial.

We hope Meade remembers this the next time Ann does a post about the gobs of money the two of them spend at Whole Foods, where they had to have passed the various sections devoted to Buddhist statues, homeopathic medicines, yoga mats, the sale of items by Indigenous peoples, fraudulent environmentalist items, and the like.

Moving along through Instapundit's Communist/Nazi conversation, in the next section Reynolds reminds us:

The [communists] “good intentions” argument has long been an excuse for mass murder.

"Good intentions" and "mass murder", you say?

Well, on that note, we'd like to point you to a post we did - about Geoff Gilpin (above) author of the book The Maharishi Effect - which we called "Good Intentions Can't Help The Occultists". Don't forget - according to Glenn Reynolds' own friends, Goldberg and Whittle - the NewAgers are Nazis and, according to Reynolds, "when you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest".

So who are the Nazis Gilpin's referring to? He calls them "the "left wing occult" which, by some remarkable coincidence, is exactly what we call them too! Small world, huh?

Communists, Nazis, The Left, and NewAge, all wrapped up together like that. Remarkable!

So what's our proof there's a connection between all these influences Reynolds has labeled "evil"? How about a New York Times Magazine interview with Louise Hay (above with Oprah Winfrey) - AKA "The Queen of New Age" - where she agrees that "with a situation like the Holocaust, the victims deserved what they got"?

Or how about that slip-up film director David Lynch (above) made in Germany?

Lynch ("whose new-age beliefs are sometimes as quirky as his movies") was trying to establish "a network of so-called 'invincible universities' to teach the philosophy of transcendental meditation", when his partner in the effort to build a school on "Devil's Mountain", Emanuel Schiffgens, took the podium and this happened:

"What do you mean by this concept of invincibility," asked an onlooker from the audience, made up mainly of film students with a smattering of meditation devotees. "An invincible Germany is a Germany that's invincible," replied a Delphic Schiffgens, who was dressed in a long white robe and gold crown. Adolf Hitler wanted that too!," shouted out one man. "Yes," countered Schiffgens. "But unfortunately he didn't succeed."

Nice, huh?

By the way, the connection between NewAge and Naziism has also been pointed out by Bronte Baxter of the Transcendental Meditation Free blog, and Chris Locke (author of the internet marketing bible "The Cluetrain Manifesto") has repeatedly been banging that drum (and hitting all the same major themes and players we do) to almost no recognition.

What's important for Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and Meade, to understand here is we are (all) trapped in a NewAge culture - it's the Baby Boomer's true legacy to America - and, being Baby Boomers themselves, we can see how easily it can be for them to ignore or dismiss it rather than fight:

They (all) grew up in it.

What Geoff Gilpin called the Maharishi's "create your own reality" philosophy is the same one mentioned by "Brightsided" author Barbara Ehrenreich (above) as she's been explaining the reasons our economy crashed.

It's the same one that provided the fuel for the Bernie Madoff scandal. And it's the same one that caused my ex-wife, Karine Ann Brunck (a Boomer) to kill three people, for Penelope Dingle's husband to kill her, for Thomas Sam to kill his daughter, for Oprah Winfrey to help kill Kim Tinkham (as well as getting girls raped at her NewAge "school" in Africa) for Homeopath Frank Shallenberger to kill two people, and for NewAgers the world over to kill countless others - especially in Africa.

NewAge is Naziism, and this is Glenn Reynolds' "mass murder" - happening right under everyone's nose because they claim to have "good intentions" - and we think it's a shame so many truly smart people can find nothing better to do than attack the messenger for utilizing the only style available that's been proven to work.

Honestly, we're sorry - we don't necessarily mean to offend - but, as Glenn Reynolds himself also says:

Communists are as bad as Nazis, and their defenders and apologists are as bad as Nazis’ defenders, but far more common. When you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest. They should not enjoy the consequences of their behavior.