The Nazi’s thought they were advocating for German interests. Mao thought the cultural revolution was advocating for Chinese interests. I wasn’t making a moral equivalence, just an equivalence in that they are both political movements seeking what it believes to be the best interests of a racial group.

If Bob starts a political party in the name of the green people, which has a platform of policies which are on the extreme left, and Jane starts a political party in the name of the blue people which is on the extreme right, no matter what your particular moral and political compass said, you would not say that both parties were morally equivalent, but the principle of group advocacy would be the same in both cases.

I don’t like pre-judging peoples political opinions, but I assume you support Black Lives Matters.

Now imagine that someone attacked BLM on the regular. On TV, in the newspapers(for the few people who still read those) on the internet, says that it is an evil domestic terrorist organisation etc...

But when asked about why he hates Black people this guy says that he has never really thought about how Black people related to the whole issue, and his views about Black people were very positive. I highly doubt that any liberal who opposes neoconservativism while feeling there is nothing anti-jewish in their actions would accept this man’s reply as legitamite That is what I am trying to get across. And again, I am actually strongly opposed to neo-conservatism, I hate it almost as much as Caitlin does, which is saying a lot, I just want some principled integrity in the way people see group advocacy movements.