Who is more like the Nazi Party?

 

Nazi Propaganda Poster

Nazi Propaganda Poster

Godwin’s law states (paraphrased) that the longer an argument ensues, the probability of one side accusing the other of behaving like Nazis reaches 1 (a perfect probability). Despite its humorous pretenses, this law has certainly been proven in the recent debate over health care reform. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused protestors of carrying swastikas; Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) compared their actions to “Brown Shirt tactics.” Prominent conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, in turn made similarities between Obama’s health care logo and Nazi propaganda, and even made comparisons between the Nazi party and the Democratic party.

 

 

What makes the argument confusing is when most of us learned about the political spectrum in a publicly funded educational institution, we were taught that Communists are on the far left of the spectrum and Fascists/Nazis are on the far right. This is not accurate by any means if one accepts a more modern definition of the spectrum that puts increased government involvement on the left and less government involvement on the right. In other words, Communists would still be on the far left, but Anarchists would be on the extreme right.

 

 

But which party is more like the Nazis? Is it the left-wing Democrats or the right-wing Republicans. Where does fascism really lie? To shed light on this argument, I have listed the 25 point program adopted by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party, and compared them with modern-day viewpoints from mainstream political affiliations. Scores are tabulated at the end of each point.

 

 

 

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

 

            Principles of self-determination is a very right-wing mindset, as is American Exceptionalism. However, the word “demand” (fordern in German) is a very authoritarian verb and would require a large-scale government to enforce, which is typically a left-wing idea. Nevertheless, the principle is right-wing. RW-1, LW-0

 

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.

            This assertion is politically benign, as it is only demanding the basic rights of a state. Its demand that the treaties of Versaille and St.Germain-en-laye be rescinded was an attempt to regain its standing as a legitimate country. Those treaties broke up the German Empire—which is important in the next point—and redrew the map of Europe; they forced Germany to accept guilt in starting World War I, a highly debatable attestation at best; they also limited the size of the army Germany was allowed to maintain. Point number two does not reflect any specific view on the political spectrum; it only wished to remove the implication of international subservience that Germany was currently under. RW-1, LW-0

 

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

            This appears to be a right-wing attitude, as that spectrum recently has been viewed as imperial and expansionist. However, this demand was an extension of the previous point. Germany wanted its land that was hers prior to World War I in order to feed (Ger. Ernährung) its outlying loyalists. Be that as it may, its smack of neo-conservatism forces a score. RW-2, LW-0

 

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.

            Irrelevant in American politics. Some would argue that racism and anti-Semitism is a right-wing characteristic, but they do so on the assumption that Nazism and fascism are right-wing philosophies. Stalin’s Soviet Union killed more Jews than Hitler did, but that does not mean a left-wing Communist philosophy is racist. Despite common portrayals in mainstream media, no American political party can claim they have conquered racism nor accuse the other of harboring it. RW-2, LW-0

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

 

           Allowing non-citizens to live within the political boundaries of a state is generally a left-wing position, as the seemingly popular opinion among the right is to deport all those who are in the country illegally. In regards to aliens with visas, neither spectrum in America holds any prominent posits on a different rule of law to which they must subject themselves. RW-2, LW-1

(more…)

Academic Indoctrination in the Scholastic Empire

My wife is now nine weeks pregnant. According to a baby-information website my wife uses, he is a little bigger than a kumquat. I was not sure what a kumquat was, so I had to do a Google Image Search. Considering that I grew up in the Orange/Citrus Belt in California, I was somewhat embarrassed when I saw the “gem of the citrus family.” However, I think the website my wife used could have been a little more ecumenical in its description of the baby; perhaps it could have said “about the same size as a large mouse, or half a rat.” That not only gives an interesting visual, but it also keeps my progeny and the description in the same general family and kingdom.

Speaking of fetal development, my professor recently brought up the tired old demonstration of evolution by comparing a human’s fetal development to that of a lizard’s and chicken’s, also known as Ernst Haeckel’s “Ontology recapitulates Phylogeny.” I couldn’t believe a college-level class was still using this, and undoubtedly students were accepting it as fact.

Lizards, Chickens, and Humans

Lizards, Chickens, and Humans

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Gorthar, Orwell, and a Malthusian Irony

Things seem to be progressing along nicely. We seem to have somehow adopted “Gorthar” as the womb name for our offspring, who, if you are unfamiliar with the name in the Schwartz lore, is King of the Universe.

 

Amanda has been very tired recently. Gorthar has successfully learned how to sap the energy out of his host. Last night he was demanding vegetables. I suppose the pickles and ice cream will soon follow; but if he has inherited my expensive palate, Amanda’s cravings will likely consist of lobster, caviar, and coffee that is made from the coffee beans that are digested and pooped out by Indonesian cats.

 

On a more somber note, my wife and I are apparently on track to being “irresponsible,” since we would like to have three children. Jonathan Porritt, a chairman of the Optimum Population Trust and highly influential environmentalist in the United Kingdom, recently stated, “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.” He believes that government intervention is necessary to curb the population growth, and that abortion and contraception are the way to do that.

 

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Obama will save the Planet (The Liberal Paradox)

President-elect Obama affirmed his commitment to stop anthropogenic global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions eighty percent by 2050. Furthermore, he plans to spend an additional $150 billion in energy-saving technology, the New York Times reported in a recent article. According to this article, Obama promises to “reverse the warming of the atmosphere.”

 

Obama is also quoted as saying, “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.”

 

Environmentalists have found a friend in the new President-elect. He will contribute to the global hysteria that the concern over climate change has caused, which fits in perfectly with his idea of change. Despite the growing evidence that man-made global warming is false, politicians continue to tout their support of that theory. Rather than attempt to discuss the global warming hoax, we need to understand why the hoax has been successful. (James A. Peden provides a great analysis of global warming at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html.)

 

Generally, those who support the anthropogenic global warming theory lean left on the political spectrum. It’s easy to understand why when we examine their fundamental—although paradoxical—ideologies of governmental involvement and their advocacy of the importance of individualism.

 

This may sound overly simplistic and conspirative, but the general induction from foundational motivations are sound.

 

GOVERNMENT GROWTH AND GLOBALIZATION

 

According to the left, government involvement is a good thing. It should not only help to preserve law and order, it should help to regulate business, banking, social fluidity, and, of course, the environment. But National Government has fallen short of their expectations. They recognize the ultimate governmental limitations that are inherent with sovereignty, namely other sovereign nations. So the answer to this problem, in their altruistic quest toward world peace, is a form of world government capable of regulating sovereignty.

 

Global warming offers a solution to this case, much as an alien invasion would. It provides a problem that poses a threat not just to one or two countries, but to the entire world. Because of this imminent threat of self-destruction the World must come together in order to provide for the common defense.  Global regulation is needed in order to insure global tranquility and promote the global welfare. And without a worldwide crisis, there will never be a prospect of a one-world leader. I don’t doubt liberals believe global warming is legitimate, but they may be more skeptical if it was suddenly proven that government regulation caused excessive CO2 emissions…

 

INDIVIDUALISM

 

Since the popularization of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, man has adopted an increasingly egocentric attitude. The idea that humans exist only by the process of elimination, rather than divine providence, puts us in a mode of self-preservation and eliminates the plausible notion of accountability to a higher power. Also, with this paradigm comes the desideration for individual importance. If we are the masters of our own destiny, if there is no supernatural intervention, we theoretically have the power to accomplish anything, and we theoretically have the power to prevent anything.

 

Ultimately, in order to demonstrate this theoretical power this philosophy enables, a magnificent consequence needs to be manifested along with an equally magnificent solution. Global warming provides a perfect stage on which proponents of this theory can play their part. By saying the actions of humans have caused a cataclysmic, earth-destroying scenario empowers us with a sort of supernatural omnipotence. By saying humans can prevent a cataclysmic, earth-destroying scenario empowers us with a sort of supernatural omniscience. In other words, with the individualistic philosophy that Darwinism provides, man has rejected God and replaced Him with egocentricism.

 

CONCLUSION

 

With Obama’s liberal ideology, it is no surprise that he has adhered to this notion that man is all-powerful, and that government is the answer to every problem. He will spend whatever he can to further this ideology, and he will become the biggest proponent of Climate Change becasue it fits his agenda of global unity.

 

Even if, in the remotest of possibilities, antrhopogenic global warming is true, and we are slowly creating our own demise, the hypothesis is still moot for most people. If you are a creationist, who are you to say you can undo God’s creation? If you are an evolutionist, who are you to say our ability to live in a warmer climate with more CO2 isn’t a necessary step in our natural evolution? Either way, you claim to be more powerful than the fundamental mechanism that perpetuates life.