Recently I made a couple of statements that got me in serious trouble in some very high places. It’s because I made these same statements behind some closed doors with several people who have Secret Service protection.
I also made those same statements, anonymously, here on this blog as well.
The people who have Secret Service protection (doesn’t look like what you think it looks like) urged me to retract what I said, and I did not. In fact, I doubled down on it.
Here’s statement #1. In that statement I compared Bernie Sanders to a Nazi. It was a studied remark, and I thought about it before I made it. Sanders is of Jewish origin(1), and I knew that there would be many who would go purple with apoplexy when I said it. That’s precisely what happened. Doesn’t change the fact that the comparison is valid.
Here’s what I said in statement #1:
Avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders is an out and proud socialist, which is the same thing as saying an out and proud Nazi, an out and proud adherent to an ideology of mass murder, despair, devastation and misery. Obama’s a kook; Bernie Sanders is a kook’s kook. And he wants to be your President.
I’m not the only one to have made that statement. The great Kevin Williamson of National Review has also made the same comparison — and backed it up in detail. Here.
Williamson’s essay — entitled “National Fronts” — is extremely eye-opening, as is everything Williamson writes. I have made it a point to demonstrate how Hitler, Mussolini, et al were really left-wingers, and not right-wingers, as leftists who dominate the “community” of historians would have you believe. As leftists, why would historians want to be honest with history, an honest recounting of which would show the left to have been very big admirers of Mussolini?
Anyway — revenons à nos moutons(2): In his essay, Williamson makes the same point as I made, only better (I’ve added emphasis):
In The Duel, his account of the confrontation between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill, the great historian John Lukacs explores one of modern history’s terrible ironies: that even as the national socialists were defeated in Germany, national socialism became the world’s predominant political philosophy, albeit stripped of the cruelty and hatred that animated its German expression. “We are all national socialists now,” he writes. Some models are a little more nationalist (Trump) and some are a little more socialist (Sanders), but both reject laissez-faire categorically. [Emphasis added] “Hitler was not the founder of National Socialism, not even in Germany,” Lukacs writes, “but he recognized the potential marriage of nationalism with socialism, and also the practical — and not merely rhetorical — primacy of nationalism within that marriage. . . . He also knew that old-fashioned capitalism was gone; that belonged to the 19th century.” [Emphasis added] Lukacs relates an episode in which Hitler was asked whether he would nationalize German industry. Hitler insisted there was no need: “I shall nationalize the people.” Senator Sanders has a rather wordier version of the same agenda, describing the goal of his campaign as inspiring mass political movement in which “millions of people stand up and loudly proclaim that this nation belongs to all of us.” (Scott Olson/Getty) There is a lot going on here. Part of this is traditional xenophobia, the habit of finding aliens to blame during times of political and economic anxiety, which is doubly attractive if those aliens are ethnically distinctive: When was the last time you heard Senator Sanders screaming about our trade deficit with Germany or Pat Buchanan bemoaning the thousands of illegal immigrants from Ireland residing in the United States? Part of it is legitimate concern about immigration that is excessive and chaotic, and detestation of politicians who are so easily mau-maued by suggestions of prejudice that they either refuse to touch the issue or pursue precisely the wrong policies.
But part of it is that John Lukacs was right, though we seem to be haunted less by the ghost of Adolf Hitler than by that of Benito Mussolini, whose economic ideas and executive-centered political model were so attractive to Franklin Roosevelt and to progressives of his era. [Emphasis added. The ghost, the ideas, of Benito Mussolini are popular to progressives in this era too.] It is not the case, as some libertarians suggest, that free trade implies free immigration, that laissez-faire implies open borders; that is a mistake made by those who neglect the fact that human beings have economic value but are not economic goods.
This last red highlight is Williamson’s excellent summation of the difference between socialist thinking, of the National Socialist/Sanders variety, and laissez-faire thinking. To socialists, like Sanders, individuals are nothing more than goods to be used or discarded depending on their value, their utility, to the collective.
To the believer in laissez-faire, free markets, the individual has intrinsic value, whether he can produce for the collective or not.
You will note: even though I’ve never once heard him pronounce on the subjects, I would bet my life and considerable fortune that Sanders is both pro-abortion, and pro-“right-to-die.” A believer in humans as commodities, as property — aka a socialist, or a top member of the Democrat Party — would be.
Here’s my statement #2:
The Nazis, simmering in their pools of lava in the bad place, must be wondering why everyone’s so irritated with them. Their “vision,” of superiors and inferiors, of Übermenschen and Untermenschen, is alive and well and thriving in the 21st Century’s equivalent of the gas chambers, right there at Planned Parenthood.
I got in big trouble for that one too. And, again, I doubled down on it. “Go ahead,” I said, “prove me wrong, and if you can, I’ll retract, and even apologize.” Needless to say, there was a whole bunch of harrumphing and hemmmming and hawwwwing and “be reasonable’s” and “but, can’t you see’s” — to which my response was, “I sure can see, and I’m really, really ticked off. And you would be too, if you had any semblance of a conscience.”
Planned Parenthood is a minion of the left. There’s not a Republican in sight who supports the idea of giving one more thin dime to this grotesque organization. However, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are out-and-proud supporters of the PP ghouls.
In both cases, with the Secret Service present, I calmly told those who were begging me to “tone down my rhetoric” to take a hike. In both cases, I had facts and history to draw on, and in both cases, I allowed the confidence of my convictions to govern my tone.
The arguments, such as they were, lasted about five minutes apiece. I had made my point, and those in attendance knew that I knew my stuff, and was not going to back down without a superior argument from them. That was something they were unwilling, and unable, to present.
We parted ways, with those who have Secret Service protection nervously shaking hands with me, and muttering the constant refrain of the left when they’ve been routed in debate: “Let’s agree to disagree and discuss it later.” To which I gave no quarter. “Nope,” I said, “you’re wrong, you all know it, and you all are on the side [I had saved my haymaker for last] supporting abortion and socialism, both of which will be regarded, in years to come, the same way we regard slavery now.” And I closed the door.
It happened approximately that way. Paraphrasing here and there, but the essence of the story — the arguments, the pleas to tone down my rhetoric, the rejection of those pleas, and the final rhetorical spanking administered to my interlocutors — all happened pretty much as I recounted.
I can tell you here and now that the minions of the left have nothing of substance with which to buttress their arguments, and when you bring actual substance to bear against them, they fold faster than a poker player with a pair of two’s.
I can tell you here and now that the left has only emotion, a desire for power, and the fervent hope that you won’t investigate more deeply than what you hear on ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC-NPR-PBS.
When it becomes evident that you are more informed than those on the left — it’s not hard: a lemon is generally more informed than a leftist — then you can defeat a leftist in debate.
And you can set the agenda for a major media presentation coming to a media market near you very soon. 🙂
(1) Sanders’ Jewishness means nothing to him. He’s as secular as can be, which is why I had no qualms about making the accurate comparison between Sanders and a National Socialist — a Nazi.
(2) – Let’s get back to the subject at hand.