We enter the age of "…or else"

Rich Matarese: “If this marks the former Democratic Party as identical in key regards to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (which flourished in Germany from 1919 to 1945), one must simply grasp the fact and work with it.”
The issue here is a double standard, whereby WUWT allows accusations of Nazism to be directed against its opponents, while forbidding certain terms that are said to have connotations of Holocaust […].
So we can compare two claims:
– That one’s opponents are “identical in key regards” to Germany’s Nazis, (ie they are identical to people who perpetrated the Holocaust)
– That one’s opponents are like Holocaust […].
One claim is allowed, the other forbidden. That strikes me as a double standard.
[Reply: The “opponent” you commented on is a political party, not skeptics of runaway global warming. Please read and follow the site policy, which is explicit regarding unacceptable terms. Other sites have other policies, if this is too onerous to accept. ~dbs, mod.]

—
At 11:58 AM on 6 August, Brendan H had written:
“The issue here is a double standard, whereby WUWT allows accusations of Nazism to be directed against its opponents, while forbidding certain terms that are said to have connotations of Holocaust […].
“So we can compare two claims:
“- That one’s opponents are “identical in key regards” to Germany’s Nazis, (ie they are identical to people who perpetrated the Holocaust)
“- That one’s opponents are like Holocaust […].”
No, the issue is not as Mr. H avers.
For the modern American “Liberal” – who has been characterized as a species of “milk and water socialist” – the distinguishing characteristics of other socialist political system are always those which the “Liberal” can explain away as differentiating him from his collectivist forebears of the same intellectual, moral, and political heritage.
To the methodological individualist – the intellectual proponent of individual rights, who treats the dignity and worth of the individual human being as the touchstone of moral value and for the benefit of whom we come out of the “state of nature” and into society – it is the common characteristics of all socialists which must be identified.
It’s very much like the art of diagnosis. We look for the common features in disparate patients in order to discern, from case to case, the qualities which identify the pathology, and thus we look to the different kinds of socialism to read the common thread in each of these, which is always the abnegation of individual human rights.
If this is found in the modern American “Liberal” – who understands full well that he and his predecessors over the past half-century have made the term “Liberal” so odious that today he falls back upon the antique euphemism “progressive” (which was the guise under which socialism was advanced in America during the early decades of the 20th Century) – then let it be discerned, and discerned clearly.
Socialism is a doctrine which has resulted in death and destruction wherever and whenever it has been given full rein. The 20th Century was the century of socialism, and socialism made of the world a blood bath because socialism denies that the individual human being has any reason whatsoever to exist as an individual, and the denial of individuality is hostile to the human being’s nature as a creature capable of reason.
That the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to complete power in Germany is perhaps the most clearly appreciable example of socialist butchery is due to the fact that the government of Germany was totally defeated in war, their records opened to dissection, their surviving leaders put in the dock and tried as criminals. No similar complete exposure of Soviet Communism or the murderous actions of the Chinese Communists has yet been effected, and historians may not for some many decades get access to the primary information required to make a proper assessment of the murderous effects of collectivist policies carried out in these polities.
Socialists know to bury the evidence. Socialists know that they are criminals, that what they do to their neighbors is always a violation of their neighbors’ rights, that their neighbors – if clearly appraised of the socialists’ intentions – would kill them like rabid animals. Thus socialists tend to conceal themselves.
Oh, true. They publish the occasional Communist Manifesto, the odd Mein Kampf, the episodic Rules for Radicals. Commonly enough, they “out” themselves from time to time, counting on their victims to react too sluggishly, so that the socialists can spin illusions to blunt the response that would result in effective opposition. Look into the ways in which Germany’s NSDAP and the Italian fascists and the Soviet Communists suckered Western intellectuals in the early decades of the 20th Century.
Socialists have gotten good at “spin.”
The modern American socialist is less interested in the extermination of “life unworthy of living” than their NSDAP brethren, true.
Though as “progressives,” they were big on eugenics and euthanasia, weren’t they? Hm. That’ll be coming back courtesy of Obamacare, won’t it?
But today’s American socialist – the “Liberal,” the progressive, or under whatever other false flag they choose to fly – is still striving to do away with the concept of individual rights, emphasizing the good of the collective at the expense of the “uncooperative,” the recalcitrant, the “reactionary,” scoffing at the doctrine of restraint of civil government under the rule of law, stressing – in this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) fraudulence, for example – the good of Mother Earth and the vileness of humanity.
If the objective of today’s American “milk-and-water socialist” does not drive directly at the death camps of Communist China, Soviet Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and the NSDAP’s reign in the Greater German Reich, it should be suspected that it’s only because the modern American “Liberal” is aware that there are still plenty of people in these United States who retain the ability – in terms of both mental preparation and material resources – to kill him.
Why else would one of the top “Liberal” priorities be the violation of the individual right to keep and bear arms?
After all, who is it that fears the law-abiding private citizen – who neither sets fire to his neighbors’ houses nor runs down children in the street with his car nor even kicks a dog on the sidewalk – with lethal weapons in his hands?
Clearly, only someone with criminal intention to violate that citizen’s rights to life, to liberty, and to property.
The American “Liberal” and his political party.
The National Socialists.
–