Are Conservatives Nazis?

Editors Note:
Many years ago I wrote this piece concerning the poor excuse that some liberals use to calling conservatives, neocons, comparing us with Nazis. As you can seem that has been a very poor excuse and outright lie. The sad thing is must of the people who claim that are themselves Representative of National socialist than any conservative. So here goes:


Back in August 1996 when In the last two weeks of February, conservatives were shocked to see the onslaught the media mounted against Pat Buchanan and his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Even with all the distortion that conservatives have come to expect from the liberal biases of the newspaper and Television, the attacks on Buchanan seemed to go well beyond what most could remember or imagine.

Major newspapers, magazines, and columnists all piled on Buchanan to insinuate or claim outright that he is a "fascist," an "extremist," a "Nazi," a "racist," an "anti-Semite," a "xenophobe," a "sexist," a "homophobe," and a "nativist," not to mention half a dozen other epithets typical of left-wing demonology.


Many insisted on calling Conservatives, Nazis who they disagree with and it’s not just some that do it! Linda Ronstadt, who said of the 2004 election, ''Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers.'' And then there is Harry Belafonte who to used the same Hitler analogy when asked what impact prominent blacks such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had on the Bush administration's relations with minorities.

"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," Belafonte said


1 A Director of Holocaust studies would describes This is Incorrect: "The fact is that there were no Jews in Hitler's hierarchy; the policies of America and Israel are not similar to those of Hitler; and African-American conservatives are not comparable to Nazis."

And so many other personalities like David Hoffman, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), novelist/priest Andrew Greeley, former Vice-President Al Gore, and multi-billionaire anti-American George Soros (founder of MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups) have all destroyed their own arguments by invoking Nazi comparisons, as have many other politicians, artists, pundits, and garden-variety liberals.

That right, you all are Nazis, capital N with a.z.i.s. at the end, a pet insult that many liberals use for people too stupid to whole- hardheartedly embrace the liberal or progressive nightmare of policies. Why, they must all be mind-controlled. They must all be... Nazis!

Their is even a slur to describe Conservatives as “Neo-con”, my guess with this term they are using Nazis and conservatives in the same breath. This reaction comes from the conservatives use of the “liberal” a title conservatives use for them. The liberal term has become such a problem for the democrat party that they started to run away from it for a time. The “Neo con” label is something liberals would believe that conservatives would run away in the same fashion. They think that the public would embrace the title and compare conservatives with Nazis.

So Many liberals like to taunt conservatives with the term Nazi without understanding what it really means, the same way a three-year-old will endlessly repeat any four-letter words someone might happen to drop in front of him or her. The more you say, ''Don't say that; it's a bad word'' the more likely you are to hear it.

The Nazi slander is so over-abused that there's even a rule concerning it on the Internet, called Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Sooner or later, someone's going to resurrect the Nazis... and whoever does so is generally understood to have lost the argument.

Comparing someone to a Nazi involves far more of an emotional appeal than a factual argument, unless the person is, in fact, a card-carrying Nazi. If you're not actually discussing genocide and brutal world domination, the Nazi comparison is just plain offensive. What confuses most people is its frequent application to pretty much anybody to the ideological right of Lenin.

In fact, the Nazis were actually socialists by nature, not capitalists. In a 1927 speech, Hitler said, ''We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.''

The word ''Nazi'' is short for Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, or National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler came to power by turning the unemployed, the working class, and the academic elitists against the rather conservative German republic. In fact, once he gain power, anyone who questioned his policies was branded a ''conservative reactionary'' by the state press.

In a widely distributed 1932 pamphlet, Joseph Goebbels addressed the question of Socialism. ''We are socialists,'' he wrote, ''because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces.''

The Nazi Party platform contained 25 demands, adopted in 1920 and essentially unaltered at the time Hitler took power. Many of those socialist demands resonate far better with modern-day American liberals than Conservatives. Consider the following examples:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

Does this sound more akin to the liberal belief that the government is responsible for job losses or gains, or the conservative position that jobs are created by private enterprise (though helped or hindered by current economic policies)? Does it sound like a demand for welfare?

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

This is aimed directly at landlords and large business owners. It hardly seems likely that capitalists and conservatives would insist that no one receive any money unless he personally earn it by doing the actual work themselves.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

If that doesn't sound like today's standard liberal hate speech against Halliburton, nothing ever will.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Nationalization of industries is hardly in line with the conservative aim of privatization of industries. It's liberals, in general, who want to nationalize industries (starting with healthcare).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

Wealth redistribution? Does that sound like a particularly right-wing ideal?

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Republicans and conservatives are accused of wanting to halt Medicare and steal Social Security in every election cycle, so this demand for expansion could hardly be a part of any conservative agenda.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.

Conservatives, who favor more limited government with lower taxes (in order to restrict its growth), would directly oppose a strong central government with unlimited authority (possibly resisting with guns, which German citizens first had to register, then surrender).

Despite the historical facts, liberals frequently insist on equating conservatives and Republicans to Nazis. This is only done to stir up feelings of hate, of course. If Democrats want to know why they keep losing elections, it's because they allow the left-wing politics of hatred to be their public face. Until the Democrats relegate liberals to the minority fringe where they belong, we will continue to see the country slide towards a one-party system, which would be detrimental to us all.

Editors note: I do believe that in someways Obama will have to get as far away from the Left wing reactionaries as possible.