Connect with us

Conservatism

Proving once again that the Nazis were Leftists

Published

on

Proving once again that the Nazis were Leftists

The Nazis had the basic principles of the Left, proving once and for all they were Leftists.

Most people would agree that the Conservative-Right has the basic principles of Limited government, Decentralized Economic Liberty, Property rights and maximum Freedom under the general philosophy of Individualism. This is contrasted with the Socialist-Left having contrary principles of Unlimited government, Centralized Economic Control, Wealth redistribution, and minimal Liberty under the general philosophy of Collectivism.

Since that National Socialist German Workers’ Party [Nazis] had the same basic principles of the Socialist-Left, they were clearly on the Left side of the political spectrum. Somehow the Left still persists in perpetuating the lie that they were somehow ‘Far-Right’, despite this direct correlation. Therefore, we will outline these basic principles to prove the historically obvious fact that a socialist workers’ party belonged on the Left.

The basic principles of the Conservative-Right contrasted with the Socialist-Left.

In general terms, theses are principles of the Conservative-Right contrasted with those of the Socialist-Left, finalizing the case that the Nazis were imbued with basic principles of the Left:

The basic principles of the Conservative-Right:

  • Limited government
  • Decentralized Economic Liberty
  • Property rights
  • Maximum Freedom
  • The general philosophy of Individualism

Contrast this with the basic principles of the Socialist-Left:

  • Unlimited government
  • Centralized Economic Control
  • Wealth redistribution
  • Minimal Liberty
  • The general philosophy of Collectivism.

Those trying to argue that the Nazis were somehow ‘far-right’ need to explain how the Nazis favored the principles of Limited government, Decentralized Economic Liberty, Property rights and Maximum Freedom of the Conservative-Right under the general philosophy of Individualism. While also factually explaining away their labeling as a socialist worker’s party as well as the admonition to Collectivist philosophy in the motto they put on their coinage: ’Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz’ which translates to Common Good Before Individual Good.

We could go into much deeper detail on this point – and perhaps we will at some future time – but it should be clear that in general terms, the Nazis shared the same basic principles as the national socialist Left, proving the point once and for all.

Once again proving that the Nazis were Leftists

We have previously eviscerated this Leftist mythology based on presumed correctness. With special emphasis on taking on the Socialist-Left’s more pernicious assertions. Such as the easily disproven rivalry talking point or that the Left doesn’t have a factual explanation for the Nazis having a Leftist moniker, that being a socialist worker’s party.

Whole books have been written debunking one of the biggest lies of the Socialist-Left and yet the myth still persists. We will set out why it’s important that this has to be proven repeatedly. Beginning with the fact that it was the prototypical construct of the ‘that wasn’t really socialism’ lie and that it purports to balance out the butcher’s bill of 100 million deliberately murdered by socialist national governments. With socialism is raising it’s ugly head once again while socialist nations are imploding, it is important that we set forth the basic facts in demolishing Leftist lies beginning with the source of the contagion.

Why is this important?

With the Conservative-Right in ascendancy around the world as reported in Bloomberg opinion: From Australia to Europe, the signs are multiplying that conservative populism is on the rise, exemplified by the win of the Liberal party in Australia. The nation’s Socialist-Left party is moving further Left and into moral and intellectual bankruptcy with a virtual civil war breaking out in their ranks. So with their fracturing and falling apart, they have reacted by lashing out at the Pro-Liberty Right. Casting anyone who ‘resists’ their precepts and principles as ‘right-wing’ with a barely veiled implication that they are somehow ‘Nazis’ or something. For example, admitted socialist Bernie Sanders tried to invoke the memory of Martin Niemöller. We are also witnessing the Leftists trying to cast the failed socialist nation of Venezuela as .. Wait for it.. ‘right wing’.

It is always important to remember the facts of history, since there are those of the Socialist-Left who try to continuously rewrite them, while projecting this on the Conservative-Right, such as those trying to perpetuate the ‘conversion therapy’ on the socialist nation of Venezuela. Even worse, there are ‘main stream’ news sources who are using this mythology to whitewash the blood soaked history of socialism.

Fact Check Failures

There are two recent examples of this, one being of the ‘Fact Check’ variety from the Washington Post that shamelessly display its bias in the headline of the piece: Brazil’s president resurrects the zombie claim that Nazism was a leftist movement. One would expect that a ‘Fact Check’ would dwell in facts, but in this and other cases, one would be wrong. As usual, the piece was long on Leftist opinion and short on historical data.

Then there was the even more pernicious example, with Associated-Press casually pushing out this mythology in the middle of a news story entitled: Europe’s far-right parties hunt down the youth vote.

With this pithy little opinion buried deep in the story:

The far right has also succeeded at picking up on existing grievances and fears among young people and at using their language and cultural reference points, she said.

It’s a significant change from where the far right found itself in Europe’s postwar era: identified with the Nazis and a Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews, marginalized by governments and eclipsed by a unifying Europe.

[Our Emphasis]
Never mind that this opinion fails to correlate to the historic facts in the differentiation of the Conservative-Right and the Socialist-Left. This of course follows in the fine tradition of the Left in using presumption when sort on facts. Finally, there is the fact that the nation’s Socialist-Left is trying to keep up this incessant drumbeat that the Conservative-Right and Trump in particular are somehow ‘authoritarian’ without evidence so as to cast them as being ‘Nazis’ by extension.

Ray Fava made this point in this report: HBO’s Chernobyl was intended to compare Soviet Union to Trump (and failed).

The Chernobyl disaster was clearly a failure of socialism, but that isn’t going to stop the Left from trying to rewrite history to somehow make it a condemnation of President Trump and to a larger extent the Conservative-Right.

As the ideology of socialism crumbles before our very eyes, the Left is desperate to protect to protect it at any cost. This consists of efforts to propagandise any of its inevitable failures as ‘not really being socialism’. While falsely claiming non-socialist Scandinavian countries to be successful experiments in their base ideology. This was exemplified by the red herring/ad hoc rescue arguments applied to the Venezuela previously mentioned.

The Leftist game of rewriting history illustrates their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Leftists love to play the game of rewriting history – while at the same time accusing others of rewriting history. Each inevitable failure of socialism is gradually morphed into something else and then blamed on the Conservative-Right. Then they simply presume that their version of history is ‘politically correct’ as exemplified by the ‘zombie claim’ term used by the Washington Post repeating the lie until they think it’s the truth.

They never explain how a socialist national government of unlimited power was somehow of the limited variety of Decentralised Economic Liberty, Property Rights and Maximum Liberty. Perhaps they can try to explain this away as a function of the Gestapo when they weren’t arresting people and shipping them off to Auschwitz.

Leftists try to make the case with vague allusions to voting patterns or collusion between the government and industrialists while ignoring the historic facts that conclusively peg the Nazis as Leftists. A pitifully weak case such as that is part of the reason they like to begin the argument as though they are automatically correct. It also speaks volumes when most ‘debunking’ articles begin with ad hominem attacks at those who cite the facts of history.

The takeaway.

The fact that the Left shares the same general principles as the Nazis and other Collectivist organisations should settle the argument once and for all. But it won’t because they have vested interest in obscuring the facts of history. Continuing the fine Leftist tradition of claiming failed socialist regimes weren’t really socialist. They also like to pretend this is the case to balance out the butcher’s bill of their side of the political spectrum.

It is very important to remember that no matter what games the Left plays with historic facts in talk of ‘privatisation’, or ‘collusion’ of German businesses with the government or even vague and ultimately meaningless assertions on voting patterns. These pale in comparison to the correlation of Socialist-Left principles with the Nazis. The Left keeps on trying to play the ‘that wasn’t really socialism’ game with lies or ad hoc rescue admonitions, and this began with the denial of the obvious with a socialist worker’s party in Germany and continues to the present with Venezuela.

Socialism always fails to work, so the Left tries to rewrite history to absurdly claim it is ‘far-Right’ instead.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Published

on

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted to kill a resolution to pursue impeachment against President Trump. The vote followed a resolution to condemn Trump following his tweets that enraged the left. The House got to vote on impeachment and this time 95 members all voted against killing the resolution, all 95 members in this 322-95 vote were Democrats. Not among them was Justin Amash who actually called for impeachment back in May in a 13 tweet thread.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.” Justin Amash May 20th

If you recall these tweet came weeks before he decided to name a single of the several instances of impeachable activity, instead reverting to vague tweets about the nature of impeachment. Yet since May 18th, it has become increasingly obvious Justin Amash has no intentions on following through on his calls to impeachment. As a Representative in the US Congress, he has the power only 435 people in the country have. If he feels that it is his duty to pursue impeachment, which is a view he pontificated on Twitter, then anything short of bringing forward impeachment on the specific charges he eventually laid out is grandstanding. With so few Congressmen having read the Mueller Report, his words, Democrats would defer to him on this issue if he would only do what he said he would do. But Justin Amash was only grandstanding on impeachment. Otherwise why would he have voted to kill a resolution on pursuing impeachment, the very thing he called for?

What has Justin Amash done since May 18th?

He voted for a resolution condemning Trump, but the real answer is, he’s taken some time to brand himself. After support in his own district plummeted, on July 4th, he declared his independence from the Republican Party in an op ed in the Washington Post. Seeing as Independence Day is about America’s history not a day for politicians to politicize for their own endgame, this is perhaps the most egotistical way do just that. Maybe doing it on 9/11 is worse. As he all but comes out of the closet on a 2020 Libertarian or Independent Presidential Run, Justin Amash looks to rebrand Libertarianism, removing the populism Rand Paul embraced. Daniel McCarthy at Spectator wrote a really good piece on Amash illustrating this point.

What Ron Paul did was to counteract neoconservatism in the Republican party with libertarianism and populism. Populism proved to be more potent, but libertarianism itself contributed important elements to populism, including an articulate anti-interventionist foreign policy and a sense of class warfare as about power, not just wealth. Amash was never comfortable with populism, but libertarianism without it has no market at all. The Washington Post and the NeverTrump neocons share Amash’s animosity toward Trump and the populist right, but they share even fewer of his professed principles than Trump does. Ron Paul won despite losing; Amash teaches libertarians simply how to lose by losing.

In not even fighting for the very thing he parted from the Republicans over, Trump, he has already lost. His district has likely turned on him and his best political prospect is being a below average 3rd party candidate. All he’s left with politically are his principles which his grandstanding calls into question.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because she’s not a wartime leader

Published

on

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because shes not a wartime leader

Some leaders are meant to bring people together. Others are made to get from one point in an organization’s development to the next stage. On occasion, an organization needs to go to war, and that’s what Planned Parenthood believes it needs to do right now. Their former president, Dr. Leana Wen, believes she is a combination of the first two types of leader – bringing people together and transitioning Planned Parenthood. She believes this is why she was pushed out the door by the board.

They want to go to war and Wen is not a wartime leader.

This may sound like a bad thing for pro-life organizations as their top nemesis is clearly positioning to be more of a political organization willing to play dirty and force the issue of abortion on as many people as possible. But an astute examination of the way things are today reveals one truth: America is polarized, so it’s better to go to fight ideology versus ideology rather than attack an organization trying to build bridges.

It may have been difficult for Wen to truly coax moderate pro-lifers, liberty-minded ant-government folks, and people on the fence on the abortion issue, but she was laying the groundwork for such things. This is why I’m glad to see her go. I know the threat of a proper radical progressive who hates pro-lifers to the core is worrisome to some, including our top pro-life writer. But the writing is on the wall: war is on. Planned Parenthood is looking for a battle-hardened fighter to shame people in Alabama, scare people in Georgia, and celebrate progressives in New York. They want someone who will push the feminine healthcare aspect of Planned Parenthood to the backburner and focus solely on advancing pro-abortion laws and planting more abortion clinics around the country.

We’re not just fighting for the lives of preborn babies, though that is plenty of incentive to fight. But we’re also fighting for the soul of the nation. For the pro-life, conservative, and Judeo-Christian worldviews to regain prominence in America, it’s important that we stake our claim to unambiguous differences between our beliefs and their’s. Some will tell me we need more unity, but the only unity that’s possible in today’s polarized society is if the left gets their way and enough on the right accept it. The left will not accept our perspectives. Therefore, we must force the issue. We must get into an ideological war. Most importantly, we need to put our truths up against their best lies.

The best lies they tell are that abortion is a right, pre-born babies aren’t people, and killing the “lump of cells” in the mother is somehow considered healthcare.

In an article posted today by the NY Times, Wen explains why she was ousted and gives hints about the direction Planned Parenthood wants to go without her:

With high-quality, affordable health care out of reach for so many, Planned Parenthood has a duty to maximize its reach. I began efforts to increase care for women before, during and after pregnancies, and to enhance critically-needed services like mental health and addiction treatment.

But the team that I brought in, experts in public health and health policy, faced daily internal opposition from those who saw my goalsas mission creep. There was even more criticism as we worked to change the perception that Planned Parenthood was just a progressive political entity to show that it was first and foremost a mainstream health care organization.

Perhaps the greatest area of tension was over our work to be inclusive of those with nuanced views about abortion. I reached out to people who wrestle with abortion’s moral complexities, but who will speak out against government interference in personal medical decisions. I engaged those who identify as being pro-life, but who support safe, legal abortion access because they don’t want women to die from back-alley abortions. I even worked with people who oppose abortion but support Planned Parenthood because of the preventive services we provide — we share the desire to reduce the need for abortion through sex education and birth control.

The Planned Parenthood of the near future is one that doesn’t worry about reproductive health or the safety of babies. They simply want more abortions. There’s an evil at the heart of the organization that is actually darker than we’ve seen in the past, if that can be imagined. We need to fight this darkness, and Wen was in the way trying to make Planned Parenthood inclusive and acceptable. That went against their new goal. They want the issue forced.

Our truths are able to shine brightest when the opposition is at its darkest. A kindler, gentler, inclusive agenda isn’t as dark as Planned Parenthood’s desired goal of advancing as many abortions as possible. I’m glad to see Wen removed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because she’s a conservative

Published

on

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because shes a conservative

It’s okay to be “woke” if you’re participating in Miss World America. Several contestants have expressed radical political, cultural, and religious views that would be considered offensive to many conservatives, including support for dismemberment of preborn children, anti-law-enforcement sentiments, and one instance of clear racism against Caucasians. But it was the outspoken conservative beauty queen, Kathy Zhu, who was stripped of her title and forced to disassociate herself from the competition immediately.

She posted her conversation with Miss World America Michigan state director Laurie DeJack as well as the email correspondence with the organization regarding her ousting:

Some news outlets are reporting the ousting had to do with her controversial response to being asked to “try a hijab” in 2018, but the text messages do not reflect that. It could have been cited during a phone conversation, which apparently happened in the midst of the text conversation.

But the directly attributed reason was a Tweet in which Zhu addressed an unknown person or group who was apparently complaining about African-American deaths. In response, she noted that black-on-black violence is the most prevalent circumstance in African-American homicides.

She worded it a bit differently:

“Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others.”

Zhu quote-Tweeted a post sent to Vice President Pence:

Yes, her post was controversial. Was it racist? No, not in context. As she noted in her letter to the pageant, she was referring to statistical facts. Is that grounds for removal? Perhaps it is… as long as they’re being consistent. But Zhu isn’t the only contestant posting very controversial statements on social media. As of now, there seems to be no others who have indicated they were removed for similar reasons even though some have social media posts that should be considered even worse relative to the rules of decorum set forth by the pageant. Of course, the posts that should be considered worse than Zhu’s are generally progressive.

It’s a shame that Zhu had her title and future participation banned, but she has an opportunity to highlight the anti-conservative bias in such organizations. She may not be competing, but she can be even more influential now within the conservative movement than she was before. She’s currently studying political science. Maybe that will translate into a life in politics.

If Miss World America were fair, they’d strip crowns from several of the contestants over their controversial social media posts. But they won’t. They located the lone controversial conservative in the group. They’ll only remove MAGA deplorable Kathy Zhu.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending