There’s a multiplayer game out there called “Secret Hitler,” where players try to guess who the fascist in the group is. From the game description: “Secret Hitler is a social deduction game for 5-10 people about finding and stopping the Secret Hitler. Players are secretly divided into two teams: the liberals, who have a majority, and the fascists, who are hidden to everyone but each other.”

See what they did there? Liberals and Fascists. It’s an either/or choice. And this sort of subtle phraseology feeds into a narrative promoted by world communists that has been around since 1936. It’s the basis of the ideology behind groups like Antifa and it colors the rhetoric on the left. By sneaking this sort of dichotomy into a seemingly innocent game, it subtly colors the worldview of those who accept it unquestioningly. As a result, it becomes a matter of course to many young people that the Right/Conservative/Republicans (henceforth referred to as the Right) are Nazis/Fascists, and the Left/Liberal/Democrats (henceforth referred to as the Left) are the last bastions against the barbarism of the Nazi movement.

This is dead wrong.

This dichotomy originated with the Anti-Comintern act of 1936, which was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Japan to resist International Communism. Nazism and Fascism justifiably developed a bad rap after the horrors of WWII, and the international communist party used that for their own propaganda purposes by establishing a false dichotomy: Nazis/Fascists were against the International Communist Movement. Therefore, if you do not support International Communism, you are a Nazi/Fascist. Capitalists and conservatives are against International Communism, ergo they are Nazis/Fascists. We all know that Nazis and Fascists are evil, therefore Capitalists and conservatives are evil. This either/or narrative is promoted by predominantly leftist university professors across the country.

This bit of simplistic thinking seems to have caught fire in the minds of today’s youth, who are politically naïve and historically ignorant. The lack of an informed counterargument on today’s campuses validates the idea in the minds of the youth, who usually haven’t been exposed to a contrary opinion.

To understand this, you have to first look at the roots of Fascism. The word “Fascist” comes from the word “fascia” which is a bundle of sticks. The analogy is that a stick by itself is easily broken, but when collected and tied in a bundle with other sticks, it’s nearly unbreakable. In the Early 20^th century, the world was still coming to terms with the industrial revolution, and how it would manifest itself in terms of economics and politics. Benito Mussolini differentiated Fascism from Communism and Capitalism as a “third way” that was neither Communist nor Capitalist, but drew from what he felt were the best features of both. Adolph Hitler, who was at heart a socialist, was intrigued by Mussolini’s ideas, and adopted many of them as his own.

Since Fascism borrows from both the Capitalist and Communist ideologies, proponents of the Liberal/Fascist dichotomy are quick to point out the similarities between Fascism and modern Conservative thought, and in a fit of confirmation bias seem to be blissfully unaware that the argument can easily cut the other way. To properly address this, we need to look at the foundational principles of Fascism and the Nazis and compare them to our modern political spectrum.

We start out with a name. What is a Nazi? What does it stand for? Nazi is short for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or in English, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. As if the word “Socialist” in the name wasn’t enough, one needs to look at the party intent. It self-bills as the “worker’s party.” Which ideology today bills itself as a champion of the workers, and upholds things like union laws? Liberal or Conservatives?

World Communism in the 1930’s was a relatively unknown quantity, and an attractive idea. The details of Stalin’s Great Terror hadn’t found their way out of the Soviet Union, and the mass murders of millions in China, Cambodia and elsewhere were still in the future. Around the world, the goals of the industrialist capitalist seemed to be at odds with the labor that was necessary to drive the engines of industrialization. The Great Depression coupled with the punitive war reparations from WWI had caused the German economy to collapse, discrediting the idea of conservatism and capitalism in the eyes of the rank and file German citizen. In 1930’s Germany, Hitler’s Nazi Party’s primary competition was with the Communist party, funded by the International Communist movement. Hitler believed that some sort of socialism with a strong central authority was the answer, but he was an ardent nationalist, and couldn’t abide being answerable to an international political movement. In his xenophobic racism, he proclaimed that Germans should rightfully only answer to German authority, and thus painted the International Communist Movement as his arch-rival.

This is a critical thing to understand. Hitler was not an ideological enemy of International Communism, he was a political opponent, vying with the Communist movement for the same demographic as a means to gain power: the disaffected worker.

So let’s take a look and compare the Nazi/Fascist ideology to today’s political climate and see how it lines up, both in its stated objectives, ideas and actions. We’ll start with the 25 points of the Nazi party, outlined by Hitler in the first mass meeting of the German Worker’s Party on February 24, 1920 in Munich.

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

These is an echo of the mantra professed by the victorious powers in WWI, where they paid lip service to self-determination as they redrew national boundaries after the war. It was a publicity sentiment on the part of the victorious Allies, ignored for all intents and purposes when it came to Basques, Irish, Kurdish, Ruthenian Poles and others. Hitler was playing off that to demand that Germans, too, had the right to self-determination, and as such is pandering to the German identity. As an ideology, neither today’s Right or Left has an authoritative claim or rejection of the concept. These three points are irrelevant to today’s tension between Right and Left.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

This incoherent and xenophobic rant strikes a chord with the immigration debates today and is a trigger in the minds of the Left. The Left believes in open borders, and that there is no downside to unrestricted immigration. Since the dangers of unrestricted immigration without assimilation are easily observable in those communities which have been most impacted by these policies to date, one can only see this as an irresponsible policy to consolidate political power, since it’s generally believed that immigrants from underdeveloped nations will predominantly vote for the Left.

Unlike the narrative the Left would like to paint about the Right, there is no xenophobic sentiment to halt all immigration, and keep America only for Americans. The Right, however, insists that immigration be controlled, that immigrants be screened for contagious diseases and criminal backgrounds, and that immigrants can be self-sufficient after entering America and will not become wards of the State. These reasons are encoded in American immigration law. The Right further believes that the strength of America lies in the love of American values, American culture, and the adherence to American law. Immigrants must assimilate into American society, not form foreign enclaves separate from American society. In this regard they differ greatly from the Left, who believe in Cultural Relativism and Diversity, and do not see America as culturally superior or exceptional, in spite of historical and economic evidence to the contrary.

Although the Left would try to make the case that the Right equates to Hitler’s fourth point, neither side has any real resemblance to Hitler on this point.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

Neither the Left or the Right overtly proposes that non-citizens abide by a different legal framework than that enjoyed by citizens. In a strange twist, though, the Left seems to be a champion of exempting aliens from certain laws. The Left has obstructed the deportation of known felons who are in the country illegally. Certain felony activities, including rape, polygamy and female genital mutilation are tolerated by Leftist judges on the insane legal theory that their culture is superior to US law. In a roundabout way, the left has in fact allowed non-citizens a more relaxed legal framework than the average citizen enjoys. The Right insists that all laws apply to all persons equally, and that you don’t get a pass or leniency for being an immigrant, legal or illegal.

In this way the Left is actually more like Hitler’s point than the Right.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

The US Constitution makes citizenship a requirement for the Office of the President. This requirement was established long before the ideas of Communism/Fascism/Capitalism were vying for power. While only the office of President has a citizenship requirement, the basic sentiment is echoed throughout our governmental structure: to represent a body politic, one nearly always has to actually reside in the region to be represented.

Recently, Leftist governments seem to feel that the non-citizen should enjoy the right to vote, ostensibly in the interest of Democracy. Of course, if the non-citizens were known to vote predominantly conservative, the Left would be burning the country down at the very suggestion, so this is little more than pandering for political gain, and not an ideological stance that the Left is inextricably wedded to.

While one could make the case that the Right and Left differ on this and that the Right is aligned with Hitler’s point, it’s pretty clear that the Left’s position on this is opportunistic, malleable and not based on an inviolate ideology. If the majority of immigrants were ideologically conservative, the Left would be screaming to close the borders, deport the aliens and that strict citizenship laws be enacted.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

Remember that this was just after WWI, and food shortages were a reality. Neither the Left or the Right is proposing deportations to increase the survivability of the citizenry. However, the first part of this, “ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood,” is decidedly a policy of the Left. The Left routinely panders to the low-wage earner by promising a higher wage, regardless of whether it’s earned or not, with seeming complete disregard for the economic consequences of this policy and the subsequent devaluation of all types of skilled labor. In this point, the Left is decidedly in step with Hitler.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

Neither today’s Left nor Right proposes to stop immigration. The Left would like you to think this with their shrill rhetoric, but there a wide difference between stopping immigration and controlling it to vet who we let in. The Left would also like to you to think that the Right wants to remove all immigrants, which is also a lie. Illegal immigrants are a special class of immigrant who have broken 8 US Code 1182 (a).(9).(B).(ii). No one is seriously pursuing legislation to hunt down and deport the millions of illegal aliens to which this applies, although the Right would like to see laws enforced that would remove the attraction of these people to stay here and encourage them to self-deport.

The difference is that Hitler’s policy was based on a racist idea of German superiority, and a desire to avoid diluting the German culture and blood with foreign peoples. The policy on the Right is to simply exert the sovereign right to control our borders and immigration in exactly the same way that every other country in the world does. As I have stated before, this would also be the policy of the Left, except for political opportunism that unrestricted immigration offers the Left.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

This seems like a “well, duh” point. Who honestly doesn’t think that this isn’t a reasonable political position? Well, believe it or not, the Left doesn’t. The left believes that we should observe a number of inequities in our legal system. According to the Left, certain citizens should have the right to exclusive colleges, government aid programs and social clubs based solely on the color of their skin. If this litmus test was applied to whites where minorities were excluded based on race, there would be literal hell to pay, and there was. But the Left is fine when it’s the other way around and whites are excluded. They make up all sorts of nonsense to justify this, but the bottom line is that it’s not equal. Hate crimes are established to increase the punishment for a crime if it’s determined to be driven by racial bigotry. Except that it never seems to apply when the victim is white. So, in the eyes of the law, is a white victim worth less than a minority victim of the same crime? The Left champions affirmative action laws that give an unearned advantage to minorities that they deem to be disadvantaged. This is insulting because it suggests that these minorities are incapable of achieving success on their own without a legal thumb on the scale. Once upon a time this may have been appropriate, but in today’s economy a minority doesn’t have to rely on the white man to give him a job or an education, and probably wouldn’t want to work or go to school there anyway if racial discrimination really was a factor.

The left is also inconstant about duties. In their Marxist world of, “to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities,” the Left is the champion of a progressive tax rate, and a soak the rich mentality to punish economic success. The duties of the rich are far more financially onerous than those of the poor, according to the Left, no matter what the economic consequences of this sort of silly thinking are.

So we’re going to have to say that the Right is in step with Hitler on this one, and not apologetic about it in the least. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

This sounds pretty totalitarian, doesn’t it? I can’t imagine anyone from today’s Left or Right owning this one. But let’s cast our nets a bit wider, shall we? In human history, this has happened before. Under a communist dictatorship, people are compelled to perform the labor required of the State. The State dictates what you will study, what you will work at, what you will produce, and in what quantities. There is, and never has been, any such compulsion in a capitalist, free market society. So in this regard, is Hitler more like the Communists that despise him, or the Capitalists that the communists want to equate him with?

The Left makes a lot of noise about people's "right" to health care, and "right" to a certain standard of housing. Health care and construction are the product of people's labor. When you make that product a "right" and regulate what those who produce these can ask for their services, you are making that person a slave of the state, unable to derive the true worth from their labor, and unable to derate their labor to equal the value they're actually receiving.

Sorry, but the Left has to own this one.

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

I double-dare anyone to say that this is a policy or position of the Right/Conservative/Republicans. This one belongs to the Left, lock stock and barrel.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Profiteering is outlawed. This is definitely the policy of the Left. What Hitler – and the Left -- doesn’t say here is what happens to the confiscated proceeds.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

Left, Left and Left again. No one stops to think how these demands are going to be paid for, or why companies will continue to conduct business with the profit incentive removed.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

Government interference and control in the marketplace is a position dominated by the Left.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Government confiscation of property without compensation, rent controls, and real estate price controls. All of these seem perfectly reasonable to the Left and are anathema to the Right. A fundamental tenet of the Right is that private property is sacrosanct.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

Punish the profit makers. Punish the bankers. This is the clarion call of the modern communist/socialist movement.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

The Roman law that Hitler is referring to here is the code of statutes that was observed in Germany at the time. To understand this, you have to understand the difference between statutory law and common law. Statutory law is legislated prohibitions and requirements, with performance and punishments defined in the statute. Common law is normally civil law and is based entirely on precedent. How judges ruled in previous similar cases informs how they should rule in any given case. Hitler sought to abolish statutory law and replace it all with common law, removing any shred of objectivity to enforcing the law, and allowing it to be molded as the powers that be saw fit.

This is very similar to the Left’s insistence that the US constitution is a living, breathing document, subject to the whim of the moment in interpretation, as opposed to the Right’s understanding that it’s an immutable standard that should only be interpreted in the frame of reference of the intention of those who drafted it. This point of Hitler’s leans to the Left, I’m afraid.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

It was this platform that established compulsory public schools for all German children until the age of 18. Hitler was unapologetic that these schools would be used for cultural indoctrination. In today’s society, the Right insists that public education be restricted to the objective teaching of mathematics, history, reading, writing, science and languages. The Left, however, sees nothing wrong with adding political indoctrination, social re-engineering, and teaching value systems that may be at odds with those practiced at home. Since parents are required to send their children to these schools, they’re for the most part helpless to stop the schools from usurping their role as teachers of values and morals. Therefore, the Right prefers that the schools be privatized, with some sort of voucher system that would allow the parents the ability to choose from the available accredited schools, to be able to avoid the Leftist indoctrination and social engineering that’s happening at the schools at all levels. The Left resists the privatization movement with every fiber of its being, not because of any concern for the children, but because it will remove their ability to indoctrinate the population at an impressionable age.

In this way, Hitler’s education policy is in step with that of the Left.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

Universal health care. Is that a policy of the Left, or the Right? As someone on the right who believes the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, can someone show me this bit in the Constitution?

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

The Left always seeks cuts to the military. Then I’m reminded that Obama wanted to form a people’s army to promote his vision. The parallel is chilling. The Left owns this one.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

At first blush, the Left will jump up and down with glee, because this sounds just like Trump’s “fake news” dismissals. Trump is obviously waging a “campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press.” That’s the Right! Right?

Key word here is “legal.” Trump has taken no legal action to silence his political detractors from telling the lies that they do. He simply ridicules them and makes them look silly, which they are. The position on the Right is, and has always been, for a free and unfettered press. However, the Left has introduced many legislative acts to restrict opinions with which they disagree. The foremost of these was the fairness doctrine, which required that if a political viewpoint was given airtime on TV or radio, that equal time be given for the opposition view. Due to the cost and administrative overhead required for this to work, most broadcasters chose to just avoid political content altogether. This gave the networks a virtual monopoly on what news reached the public, because there was no venue for any opinions except those of the broadcasters. For example, it would have been unlikely that Nixon would have been impeached if there had been a right-wing news source that could call the Left out on the numerous lies they told during Watergate, and who could have explained the issue in its full context.

The Fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987, and shortly thereafter a young fellow named Rush Limbaugh changed the political discussion in this country forever. The Left has repeatedly tried to legislate the fairness doctrine back into broadcast law, because the damage that independent talk-show hosts wreak on their agenda is the biggest threat to them. The Left has tried to counter this with a talk-show format of their own, but it just lacks the financial attractiveness, because it doesn’t draw an audience. The reasons for this are pretty interesting, and worthy of a blog article in their own right.

Then we look at the behavior of Leftist students on college campuses. If a conservative speaker is invited to address the student body, the Left just lose their friggin’ minds. They demonstrate, riot, protest, boycott, chant and do everything possible to disrupt the presentation. That this behavior is tolerated and even condoned by the faculty on these universities just shows that the inmates are running the asylum. College is supposed to teach you to think independently, to listen to and acknowledge dissenting opinions, and to challenge those opinions in the public marketplace of ideas. If the Left was so confident of their position, they would easily be able to demonstrate why the Right’s arguments are flawed. But they don’t. They do everything possible to silence the Right, to ensure that the student body has no exposure to the Right’s ideas, and in so doing remove the right of the students to examine both sides of the political spectrum. The Left has placed itself in the position of defining the Right, instead of allowing the Right to define itself, and by doing this, the Left ensures that it can control the narrative.

The very act of equating those on the Right with Nazis and racists is one of the prime tactics to silence the opinion of the Right. Physical violence is used against people who wear conservative clothing, like a MAGA hat, even at the grade school level. Against welfare because you think it encourages people not to work? You must hate black people. We need to cut wasteful government programs? You despise poor people. You weren’t in love with Trump, but really didn’t like Hillary, so you voted for him? You obviously want to turn America into Nazi Germany AND you hate women. If a local Conservative prayer group want to have a public rally, show up and be violent, and then condemn the conservatives as violent if they defend themselves.

These acts against free speech are completely the tactics of the Left. You rarely if ever hear about anyone on the right proposing legislation to silence dissent, rioting to stop someone from speaking, or physically attacking people for an opposing viewpoint.

This point of Hitler’s is owned by the Left.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The Right demands religious freedom, as long as they don’t violate the law. If your religion requires human sacrifice, it’s probably not going to be tolerated. But the Left is far more militant. The Left is offended by any portrayal of Christianity or Christian values, and actively seeks to silence Christian voices and remove them from the public. The Left has condemned and banned overt expressions of Judeo-Christian values on our coins, in our courtrooms, in our schools, on our streets and in our day to day speech. We’re not allowed to wish someone a merry Christmas, lest they be offended. Nativity scenes may not be erected on public grounds. Crosses have to be removed from public memorials.

Hitler’s caveat that religious freedom not “offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race” can easily be rewritten to match the Left’s to say, “offend the moral and ethical sense of the Progressive Movement.” The Left owns this one.

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The Left is constantly promoting restrictions and Regulations and governmental oversight. Nothing happens in America that the Left can’t find fault with in some way, and to which it doesn’t seek to insinuate itself. It demands a strong central authority, whether it be in the field of education, transportation, commerce, energy, trade or anything else. The Right on the other hand, believes that problems are best solved at the lowest possible levels, where the stakeholders are actively involved in the decision making. Central Authoritarianism is the hallmark of the Left.

----------------------

That’s the 25 points of the Nazi platform, but we can draw additional conclusions from the behavior of the Nazis. They routinely engaged in marches and protests as the Nazis rose to power. Their protests frequently turned violent, and they built up a paramilitary organization to engage in such street violence in an organized fashion. Dissenters were beaten and their shops vandalized.

Which political movement today is engaging in this sort of behavior? It’s ironic that the “anti-Fascist” groups are acting just like the fascists they abhor.

Hitler did not accept the free market economy. Businesses continued to be privately owned, but they were prevented by law from making more than a modest profit, and their production and operations were directed by the State. All raw materials were distributed as the State saw fit. Minimum wage laws dictated what employers would pay their workers. The German government and not the nominal private owners exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive.

Which political movement today advocates for tight control of industry, and interferes with the employment contract between an employer and a worker? It certainly isn’t the Right.

Racism

One of the tactics of the Left is to label the Right as Racist. Hitler was racist, so the Right is like Hitler. Once again, this flies in the face of facts. The Republican party was founded on a platform of abolishing slavery. The Democrats resisted it. From 1869 to 1935, every black elected to congress was a Republican. The KKK was founded in 1865 by Democrats, and in living memory the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was well-known to have been a grand wizard of the KKK. More Democrats opposed the civil rights act than did Republicans. Leftists accuse the Right of racism to fight voter ID laws, ignoring that only a racist would think that only white people are capable of getting an ID. Republicans have placed Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, and have run Colin Powell, Frederick Douglas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Alan Keyes as presidential candidates. Michael Steele was the Republican party leader. Jeanette Núñez, Boyd Rutherford, Jenean Hampton, Evelyn Sanguinetti, Carlos López-Cantera, Jennifer Carroll, John Sanchez, Abel Maldonado, Michael Steele, Jennette Bradley, Bobby Jindahl, Duke Aiona and Joe Rogers are among the many minority Republicans elected as State Governors.

Faced with the historic evidence, the Left likes to say that today’s Republican party is racist, that the roles have reversed since the civil rights movement. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. The Right’s stance on Immigration has nothing to do with race, no matter how much the Left would like to drive that narrative. It has everything to do with the rule of law. It’s not a campaign against brown people, it’s a campaign against drugs, crime and lawlessness. The fact that the threat of uncontrolled immigration comes from Mexico and most people coming across the Mexican border are not white doesn’t logically follow that racism is the motivating factor in trying to control immigration. The Right’s stance on affirmative action refutes the Left’s racist premise that minorities can’t succeed without government assistance.

Is it racist to not acknowledge race, but to treat all people as equal citizens? The only racists in the room are the ones trying to curry special favors and special treatment for people because of their skin color. That’s not the Right.

Gun Control

The history of gun control in Nazi Germany is complex. Hitler didn't start it. Guns were outlawed in Germany in 1920. The upheavals after WWI caused the government to confiscate firearms for pubic safety in 1920. This was repealed in 1928. In 1933, Hitler established a policy to seize all military firearms from anyone who was not a member of the Nazi party to disarm the Jews who were increasingly being targeted. This closely mirrors early gun control laws in the USA, passed by southern democrats to disarm blacks so they couldn't defend themselves. Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews is a comprehensive look at how the Nazis enacted progressively more severe firearms laws that prevented the population from resisting their tyranny.

If the Left were as worried about Trump as Hitler as they seem to be, you would think they wouldn't be trying to enact so many firearms laws, so they could resist him when it became necessary. Which party wants to enact firearms restrictions, the way Hitler did? The Left.

So let’s see the scorecard:

Fascist/Nazi	Communist/Socialist/Liberal	Capitalist/Conservative
1,2,3: German self determination	No	No
4. Citizenship and race	No	No
5. Different laws for aliens	Yes	No
6. Citizenship and public office	No	No
7. Welfare and labor	Yes	No
8. Deportation of aliens	No	No
9. Equal rights	No	Yes
10. Labor Controls by Government	Yes	No
11. Abolish unearned income	Yes	No
12. Confiscate profiteering proceeds	Yes	No
13. Nationalization of Trusts	Yes	No
14. Industry profit-sharing	Yes	No
15. Mandatory pension increase	Yes	No
16. Redistribute Large merchant enterprises	Yes	No
17. Nationalize production land	Yes	No
18. Punish profit and banking	Yes	No
19. Abolish statutory law	Yes	No
20. Public education and social indoctrination	Yes	No
21. Nationalized health care	Yes	No
22. Reduce the military, replace with civil force	Yes	No
23. Government control of the press	Yes	No
24. Freedom of religion, with caveats	Yes	No
25. Centralize government authority and control	Yes	No
Gun control	Yes	No

Nazism, Socialism and Capitalism are three completely different things. To say that one is a Nazi simply because one is not a Communist/Socialist is disingenuous and nothing but a propaganda tool promoted by the Communist International since Hitler effectively declared war on international Communism in 1936. To equate the Nazis or Hitler to the modern Conservative movement completely ignores the facts of history, and the glaringly obvious fact that Nazi Germany had far more in common with the stated goals of Socialism and the modern Left, and almost nothing in common with today’s Right.

The basic premise and fundamental assumption of “Secret Hitler” is deeply offensive to conservatives, and does nothing but demonstrate the historical, political and sociological ignorance of people who accept it without question.

And stop equating Trump to Hitler. That’s just stupid.