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 20th
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?
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 are 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 was 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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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 an unapologetic 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.
Additional reading:
Dinesh D'Souza explains the philosophical origins of Fascism
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
The Nazis Were Leftists, Deal With It
