The Dark Agenda of the LGBT

That time of year is upon us once again. Pride Month is in full swing as rainbow colors are prominently displayed to inescapable proportions. In recent decades the LGBT has transformed itself into a socio-political movement, exacting tremendous influence in politics, academia, entertainment, and the culture at large. But there is a seedy dark agenda at work that many people are unwittingly supporting. To uncover this, we will take a look at a few LGBT pioneers to discover the common threads that unite them:

Irwin Allen Ginsberg was a gay activist who influenced the counterculture revolution of the 60s and 70s. He was an avowed Communist who admired Fidel Castro and promoted drug use. He was also a supporter and member of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). He said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”

Harvey Milk was a prominent gay activist who has been venerated in the gay community. He challenged activist Gilbert Baker to design a symbol for the 1978 Gay Freedom Day Parade, and the rainbow flag was born. In California Harvey Milk Day is recognized as a day of special significance for public schools. The irony is that Harvey was guilty of statutory rape of teenage boys. It’s no surprise then he was also a supporter of NAMBLA. Harvey himself began having trysts with grown men beginning at the age of eleven. It’s also a little known fact that he associated with cult leader Jim Jones, who later compelled his followers to commit mass suicide.

Larry Kramer is an LGBT rights advocate and author who financed the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies at Yale University from 2001-2006 at a time when such studies were viewed with skepticism by academia. Karmer is also a supporter of NAMBLA. In a 2004 speech he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him”. The implication here is that Kramer may have spread HIV to him, which he discovered he had contracted in 1988.

Henry “Harry” Hay was a prominent American gay rights activists and Founder of the Radical Faeries, which blended new age spiritualism, anarchism, and paganism. He was also an avowed communist, Marxist, and socialist. He supported the inclusion of NAMBLA in gay rights marches.

Emma Goldman is accredited with being one of the first woman to advocate for homosexuals long before the general public. She was also a Communist and anarchist who promoted violence.

Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which first advocated for homosexual and transgender rights. He was a liberal, humanist, and socialist.

David Thorstad is a communist, socialist, and homosexual rights activist. He is also a founding member of NAMBLA.

Alfred Kinsey was a sexologist, among other things, who is accredited with launching the sexual revolution and changing social and cultural values in the United States and abroad. Kinsey was, in a word, a pervert. He wanted to erase all moral boundaries under the guise of pseudo-science, and his personal life reflected this.

Kinsey was a homosexual sado-masochist who “pleasured” himself by ramming large objects (like toothbrushes, bristle-end first) into his urethra while squeezing his testicles with a rope (yes, really). He frequently had sex with his male colleagues, and traded wives. He regularly used his own wife for all manner of deviance for the camera at his Institute for Sex Research, which he founded in 1947.

In one of his reports, he affirms pre-adolescent sexuality using data collected from men who had sexual contact with younger boys. Kinsey was happy to report that his statistics showed babies as young as four to five months had the capacity to achieve repeated orgasms in a limited period of time. He conjectured that if the moral restrictions against pedophilia were dropped, that rapid orgasm rates of pre-adolescents would be over fifty percent.

If you haven’t noticed by now, there are repeated themes of socialism, communism, and in particular pederasty with the founders of the LGBT movement. Recall that among the 45 Communist Goals, as read into the Congressional Record of 1963, were to “Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.” and “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The LGBT distanced themselves from NAMBLA fairly early on, though likely it was only for appearances sake. The time wasn’t right and the public would have never accepted it. However, as former curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles said, “If we reject the boy lovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, [and others]. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.” Note that Walt Whitman wasn’t only gay he was a pederast, and Oscar Wilde wrote about his sexual encounters with young boys. The ancient Greeks were also notorious boy lovers.

The argument to normalize homosexuality was that they were born that way. However, this argument can easily be applied to normalizing pederasty and pedophilia. On May 5 2018, medical student Mirjam Heine essentially gave this argument at a TEDx talked entitled: “Why our perception of pedophilia has to change.” Heine said, “According to current research, pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation, just like for example heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile. No one can cease being one.”

Today we see ever increasing attempts to normalize pedophilia. The far-left website Salon has given a pedophile a platform on more than one occasion. Gay activists have called for lowering or even eliminating the age of consent for some time now. The left-wing Washington Post tweeted a post gleefully celebrating a 10 year old drag queen. Vice Magazine has also posted a video celebrating child drag queens. The 2017 movie “Call Me by Your Name” portrays a romance between a 17 year old student and a 24 year old man. These are but a few example of how the needle is slowly being pushed toward normalization. The ultimate goal being to eliminate ALL moral restraints.

If anyone doesn’t think it couldn’t happen, there are people who though the same thing of same sex marriage just a few decades ago. But, if there is any doubt one look at history shows us that pederasty and pedophilia was commonly practiced in ancient (pagan) societies. So if same sex marriage can be accepted, without any historical precedent, how much so pedophilia & pederasty, which does have historical precedent.

It’s time to unmask the LGBT movement for what it is, a Trojan horse painted in bright rainbow colors to introduce and indoctrinate an unsuspecting public into ancient paganism. And rather people who support the LGBT realize it they are being used. They are supporting a very radical leftist agenda whose aim is to destroy all social, cultural, and moral norms. Such a debased society would not endure for long.

Destroying the ethical eating argument

What is ethical eating?
There is a segment among the vegetarian and vegan communities that contend that eating meat is morally wrong, and eating vegetables is not only more ethical, but more environmentally friendly as well. Not all vegetarians and vegans hold this view of course, but those that do believe themselves morally superior to those that don’t. They have essentially turned a diet into an ideology, and an ideology into a quasi-religion.

To preface, I don’t have a problem with vegetarians or vegans. If someone prefers to eat only vegetables, that’s their prerogative. To each their own. However, I do take issue with those who turn it into an ethical argument. These are who this article is aimed at. This may seem like a strange topic to cover at first, but it does tie into environmentalism and climate change.

Ethical vegetarians and vegans will contend the same reasons for not eating animals are the same reasons for not eating humans, i.e. the meat is murder argument. So let’s consider this. Ethics is defined as “a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.”  When ascribing ethics to a diet it becomes a religion of sorts. This explains the religious zeal militant vegans and vegetarians have against meat eaters. So, that begs the question of what makes eating vegetables so ethical. What do they base it upon besides emotion and opinions? Lets first address the issue of killing animals for food.

Is meat murder?
The ethical eaters often confuse killing with murdering, but they are two separate things. Murder always involves killing, but killing does not always involve murder. The distinction is that murder involves malice, which is defined as “a desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.” When humans kill animals for food, there’s no malice or ill will involved. Animals are killed for sustenance and more often in times past, clothing. Therefore, the meat equals murder argument is only a fallacy designed to demonize meat eaters. Incidentally, many of these same people who show such compassion for animals don’t show the same compassion for unborn babies, but that’s another topic altogether.

Another problem with equating killing animals with murder is that human life must, by necessity, become devalued and lowered to that of animals. This is because animals are a lower life form, and can never be anything more than that. They can’t sympathize, emphasize, or show compassion and mercy. They have no moral sense of right and wrong, only instinct. Unlike humans they can’t philosophize and question the nature of reality or ponder the meaning of life. They have no inner desire for a greater purpose or the need to worship a higher being. They have no hopes, dreams or aspirations, but humans do. These are but a few of the vast differences between humans and animals. So the meat is murder argument turns humans into animals, stripping away everything that makes us unique and special, including our ability to ponder topics such as these.

With that in mind, if we run the meat is murder argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, shouldn’t it also be morally wrong for animals to eat other animals? If we are all equal then why are animals held to a different standard than humans? To acknowledge such a contradiction would be to admit that humans and animals are different.

Plants don’t like to be eaten either
Rather one eats meat or vegetables for sustenance, the end result is the same. Something once living is eaten so that something else might live. Such is the cycle of life. And, as it turns out, plants don’t particularly liked to be eaten either. Experiments on the thale cress plant indicate that it knows when it’s being eaten, and releases a mild toxic to deter predators. And this defense mechanism isn’t unique to the thale cress.

Many plants we eat produce anti-nutrients which act as a protective mechanism, and interfere with the absorption of nutrients. They can also cause a host of other problems in the human body. Without going into too much detail, these anti-nutrients include phytic acid, lectins, oxalates, saponins, and phytoestrogens. Phytoestrogens, which are found in flax and soy, mimic human estrogen. Not only do they cause birth control effects in insects, but they cause hormone imbalances in humans. Incidentally, most vegetarian dishes contain soy, which has been shown to lower testosterone in men. Soy is also one of the most genetically modified crops, with copious amounts of pesticides. So, with all that in mind, since plants don’t like to be eaten and they can’t run away like animals, the case could as easily be made that it’s less ethical to eat vegetables. Of course, I'm being facetious to make a point.

Is eating vegetables better for the environment?
Now we get to the crux of the matter. The second issue is the belief that ethical eating is better for the environment. To the contrary, agriculture also contributes greenhouse gases and pollution. For example, rice is the second largest crop in the world, but rice paddies are also a significant source of methane emissions. Then there are the fertilizers we use to grow crops, which contribute greatly to the increase of nitrous oxide in the environment. The runoff from fertilizers also pollute our lakes, rivers, and oceans. The pesticides used to ward off insects to increase crop yields also kills bees, which are important for pollination. Not to mention the negative health effects that pesticides have in humans. All this is to not demonize agriculture, but to make the point that everything humans do will have an impact on the environment. There’s no getting around that.

Not enough farmland to feed the world
There is another consideration. Vegetables alone may not be able to support a world population of seven billion people and counting. We have already cleared an area roughly the size of South America for crops. In order to clear more crop land would require cutting down rain forests, which destroy plant biodiversity, and destroy animal habitats, leading to extinctions.

To compound the issue, not all soil or climate is conducive for growing crops. The World Bank reported in 2010 that only 37.7 percent of the world’s total land area is considered agricultural land. Some climates are too cold, while other climates are too hot. Other factors include soil composition, rockiness, and altitude. Then there is urban development, which limits the amount of available farm land. All this is to say that meat helps to offset global food consumption.

Cows, public enemy number one
Since we’re on this topic, cows have been a big target because of their emissions of methane gas. Direct emissions from cattle represent 2 percent of total U.S. greenhouse emissions. Globally that number increases to 6% when feed production and land usage are factored in. However, there are important considerations that are ignored when it comes to cattle and methane emissions. Cattle that are grain-fed produce fewer emissions than those that are grass-fed. Cattle intended for slaughter typically spend two-thirds of their life grazing, which helps with things like erosion, and the rest is spent grain-fed, which reduce methane emissions. Also, as beef production has gotten more efficient, so too has carbon emissions from cattle declined.

But is methane emissions from cattle really a problem? Contrary to popular belief, methane, like carbon dioxide, is not a poisonous gas. Methane is a natural non-toxic gas that comes from the earth, animals, even humans. Methane is touted as a concern because it absorbs the sun’s heat with even more efficiency than carbon dioxide. However, atmospheric water already absorbs the heat that methane could, and the same heat cannot be absorbed twice. Moreover, the amount of methane that makes up our atmosphere is infinitesimally small, only 0.00017 percent. There’s actually three times more helium in the atmosphere than methane. Plus, methane dissipates after 12 years. In the end there is no evidence that methane or carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the natural forces that are responsible for climate change thought earth’s history.

If anyone thinks that methane from cattle is still a problem, there are viable alternatives to beef without the need to go meatless. The other red meat, ostriches, only have one stomach so their emissions of methane are considerably lower. As an added bonus, their meat is low in fat and cholesterol and high in protein and iron.

Conclusion
To summarize, eating vegetables are no more ethical than eating meat. Nor is it more environmentally friendly to eat vegetables. Rather our food comes from animals or vegetables they both equally have an impact on the environment. But advances in technology are making both more environmentally friendly. And finally, the methane emitted from cows and the danger it poses is largely over-exaggerated. So don’t feel guilty about eating a juicy hamburger once in a while, or if you prefer, an ostrich burger. Bon appetite!

Save the planet?

I keep hearing environmentalists and democrats (i.e. the left in general) talk about saving the planet, but what does that really mean? And why do all their “solutions” to save the planet end up being anti-human? They don’t even try to hide their disdain for people anymore as they seek to curb the population and human activity. When they say they want to eliminate carbon emissions that would mean eliminating you and me because we all breathe out carbon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has even questioned “Is It Still OK to Have Kids in Face of Climate Change?” Ahh yes, it begins as a “suggestion”, then later becomes a mandate. They act as if carbon is a poisonous gas, it’s not. People breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon, while plants take in carbon and give off oxygen. It’s a perfect symbiotic relationship. In reality, if we did everything they wanted we would be back living in caves and eating bugs to survive.

One of the things that really irks is their demonization of plastics. I am old enough to remember in the 1980s they had a campaign to switch from paper to plastic bags to “save the trees”. Well, they saved the trees I guess, and now they want to eliminate plastics because they are not biodegradable. Funny how all their “solutions” end up creating more problems. I especially dislike this push to replace plastic straws with paper straws. I guarantee this will not do anything except make people “feel” good about themselves, like they have actually accomplished something.

The whole thing started because of a 9 year old’s campaign to “Be Straw Free”, started in 2011 by Milo Cress. Yes, people are now taking advice from a 9 year old. In his campaign he says that Americans use more than 500 million drinking straws daily, enough to fill 125 school buses. The media has ran with this number, but it was one big estimation. In truth, no one knows how many straws Americans use daily. Even Cress didn’t know, he called straw manufacturers asking for their “estimates” and just divided it by 365. And just like magic that number has stuck and become an actual statistic.

In terms of human waste, plastic straws would probably not even register. And even if you got rid of every plastic straw in the United States, it still would not stem plastic straws from other countries or plastic consumption in general. In reality, plastics are a wonderful invention. They can be made soft or hard, clear or opaque. They can be molded to any shape and form, and can be more durable than glass. People living hundreds or thousands of years ago would have killed for something as lightweight and versatile as plastic, yet today we have taken it for granted. And guess what, plastics can also be recycled.

Back to the crux of the matter. There is a misnomer that we should be saving the planet, but in reality it is humans who need saving FROM the planet. Anyone who has spent time camping, away from civilization, with only the bare essentials will soon discover how harsh and unforgiving nature can be. Humans have built civilization and technology to help insulate us from nature. We made houses to shield us from the elements. We built air conditioners to cool us off from the scorching heat, and keep us warm during the blistering winters. Even then we are not immune to the wrath of Mother Nature. There are hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hail storms, earthquakes, and so on. All of which take a toll on human life.

So you see, humans are really the vulnerable ones in all this. The earth has been here long before humans, and it will be here even if every human disappeared tomorrow. The planet will take care of itself, it’s humans who need saving from the leftists.

Why conservatives shouldn't use the term "homophobic"

I will occasionally see well meaning conservatives using the Left's vernacular. This is a mistake because the Left manufactures words to create a false narrative. Among these are words like "sexual orientation", "toxic masculinity", "white privilege", etc. The list goes on and on. These words didn't exist a couple of decades ago (sometimes less), but now have suddenly become a part of our lexicon. When we use these words we give legitimacy to them and the narrative behind them. Another word I often see used is homophobia or homophobic. Where did this word come from?

It was coined in the mid-1960s by a psychologist named George Weinberg. And while Weinberg was a clinical psychologist, homophobia was not a clinical term. Basically it was something Weinberg constructed from two separate root languages, Greek and Latin. It was picked up by two homosexual activists, Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke, who were friends of Weinberg, and first printed in a porn magazine called Screw (magazine) in 1969. Yes, a porn magazine. So the first use of this word wasn't in some medical journal or clinical research paper, but in a two-bit porn magazine. It was then picked up by Time Magazine a few months later where it gained more exposure and was eventually adopted by the Left.

Today, this word is used as a pejorative against anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle or the LGBT agenda. It's past-time that we stop using the Left's vocabulary. And if your ever called a homophobe just remind them that it's a made-up word, and pejoratives and ad-hominem attacks are for people who don't have an argument.

Cultural Relativism

I've been reading a book about the Aztecs. They were among the most sophisticated of the mesoamerican tribes. Some aspects of their culture even rivaled that of Europe. And yet, despite this highly advanced society it was a culture of death that revolved around human sacrifice. Their temples were slaughterhouses where human beings were ritually scarified on a daily basis in the most barbaric way possible. Their still-beating hearts were literally ripped from their chests. It wasn't just men who were sacrificed but women, children, and babies too. In one particular ritual they cut the throats of infants. The human skins of their victims were routinely worn like garments. To give you an idea of the magnitude of these human sacrifices, the Aztecs ritually sacrificed 50,000 people per year in a population area of four to five million. That equates to sacrificing one percent of their total population annually. In modern terms it would be considered a genocide. In one particular event, during the coronation of a new temple, an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 people were sacrificed over a four-day period. To the Aztecs killing was as natural as breathing. And it wasn't just human sacrifices but they also feasted on human flesh. They had large outdoor markets where you could buy anything, including human limbs. It was a very debased occultic society.

The reason I bring this up is because it made me think of the notion of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. The Aztecs didn't think of human sacrifice as bad or evil. To them it was just a part of their religion, it was how they pleased their gods. They didn't do it out of malice. To them killing was natural, even necessary.

If we took the cultural relativist view we couldn't judge the Aztecs for what today would be considered atrocities, crimes against humanity. But if we took the cultural relativist view how could we judge anyone? How could we even distinguish between right and wrong? It becomes impossible to base morality on social norms and public consensus because they are forever changing. And what is right for one person may be wrong for another, and vice versa. With that criteria we couldn't judge anyone. We certainly couldn't judge someone like Hitler for the Holocaust. That is why morality must be based on a higher authority (ie. God). A moral standard that is unchanging, and set apart from human opinion. Only then can you have true justice and prosperity for all.

The Aztecs did not think it evil to commit human sacrifice, and yet an evil done out of ignorance is still evil. Those who commit evil acts rarely ever believe they are doing evil. Hitler did not think it was evil to murder six million Jews. He blamed them for the Treaty of Versailles, for their economic situation, and a variety of other things. Hitler believed he was doing Germany a favor by getting rid of the Jews. However, his beliefs did not make him any less of a monster. No, all cultures are not created equal. Some cultures are decisively better than others. A culture that values life is far better for everyone than one that doesn't. Cultural relativism is nothing more than cowardice in calling something evil, evil.

In Defense of Columbus Day

Every year in October, Columbus Day is celebrated in several countries in The Americas as well as in Spain and Italy. However, in more recent decades there’s been increasing opposition to Columbus Day in favor of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. According to the Left’s narrative, Christopher Columbus arrival in the New World marked the beginning of one the largest genocides in human history. But was it really? The major problem with this assertion is that the vast majority of natives, some 75 to 95 percent, were killed by Old World diseases to which they had no immunity. While no less a tragedy, it does not qualify as a genocide. A genocide requires a calculated deliberate intent to exterminate a whole group of people. The Europeans were unaware that the natives had no immunity to Old World diseases, let alone how infectious diseases even worked. Germ Theory was not fully understood until the late nineteenth century. It should also be noted that in the United States, at least, there was never a government policy for extermination. On the contrary, you don’t set up reservations and inoculate the people you are trying to exterminate.

With the call to abolish Columbus Day in favor Indigenous People’s Day, there is an implication that Native Americans are more virtuous, deserving, and noble than their European counterparts. But is that true? The Left tends to romanticize Native Americans when highlighting acts of barbarism committed by Europeans. It’s true there were atrocities done to Native Americans, but that is only one side of the story. Guess what? Nothing the Europeans did was any different from what the natives themselves did. For instance, Native Americans conquered and enslaved other native peoples. Slavery was widely practiced in pre-Columbian America, just as it was universally practiced everywhere at the time. According to the Standard Cross-Cultural Files, at least thirty-nine pre-Columbian societies in North America alone practiced slavery, and it was no different from slavery practiced elsewhere. Indian slave masters had complete control to kill their slaves if they desired. A little known fact is that in the nineteenth century Native Americas also began to acquire black slaves. In fact, the Cherokee Indians took a number of black slaves with them when they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma “Indian” Territory. In short, Native Americans had the same sins and vices as the Europeans, and even some they didn’t have. None more highlights this than the Aztec Indians.

The Aztecs had an occultic bloodlust that was unparalleled. Some historians estimate the Aztecs ritually sacrificed 50,000 people per year in a population area of four to five million. That equates to sacrificing one percent of their total population annually. These people were usually captives taken from neighboring Indian tribes. The manner in which these human sacrifices were done were particularly barbaric. Captives were taken to the top of a temple and laid upon a stone slab. The priest would then take a knife, plunge it into their chest, and pull out their still-beating heart. The bodies would then be dismembered, the torso kicked down the temple steps, and the limbs eaten. Their heads would be placed on a pole, and their skulls kept as trophies. Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who accompanied Cortés, witnessed more than one hundred thousand skulls stacked meticulously on top of each other, to which Aztec texts, frescoes, and archeology have confirmed. Most of the victims were men, but women and children were also sacrificed. Women would also have their hearts ripped out, but more often they were slowly beheaded and then skinned. The priests would often wear the skins while the sacrifices continued. In one event, during the coronation of a new temple, an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 people were sacrificed over a four-day period.

After the arrival of the Spanish and the ensuing conflicts, the Spanish witnessed some of their own being taken captive by the Aztecs. The Spanish prisoners were stripped naked, brought to the temple, and forced to dance naked for an hour. Afterwards, the Aztec high priest sacrificed them alive, ripped out their hearts and dismembered them. Up until that point the Spanish had been fairly mercifully towards the Aztecs, but after witnessing those horrific events the gloves came off. When Cortés finally conquered the Aztecs, much of the slaughter that ensued was done by their Indian allies who hated the Aztecs. Say what you will about the conquistadors, but not even the worst among them engaged in human sacrifice and cannibalism. If there ever were a civilization that deserved to be conquered, it was the Aztecs. The Aztecs were not alone when it came to human sacrifice. The Mayans, Incas, and other tribes also practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice, including sacrificing children and infants.

When Columbus discovered The Americas he encountered good natives, but he also encountered bad natives. Upon his second trip to The Americans, he encountered the Caribs (from which the word “cannibal” is derived, as in Caribbean). According to historian Samuel Eliot Morison, in deserted huts the Spaniards found human limbs and cuts of human flesh partly consumed, as well as young boys who were being fattened to eat. The French explorer Florentine Giovanni da Verrazzano was said to have been eaten on the beaches of Guadeloupe by Caribs while his companions looked on from their ship in horror.

To preface, not all Native Americans were cannibals and practiced human sacrifice. There were good and bad natives just like there are good and bad people in every society. The purpose of this article is not to vilify Native Americans, but to point out the one-sided arguments made by the Left. They paint with a broad bush when vilifying Europeans of that era. Meanwhile, they ignore atrocities committed by the Native Americans themselves. Not once will you hear about the genocides committed by the Aztecs or a condemnation of the Mayans for their human sacrifices. These details do not fit their narratives. Nor will you hear about attacks upon white civilian settlers. During Pontiac’s War, for example, Indian warriors entered a schoolhouse, killed the schoolmaster then tomahawked and scalped eight children. Contrary to popular belief, Europeans did not teach scalping to the Native Americans. Archeological evidence indicates that scalping existed in pre-Columbian America.

Ultimately, the attack on Columbus Day is by association an attack on Western civilization. But rather anyone likes it or not, Columbus did discover America and it did change the course of world history. Ignoring this fact will not change events, nor does it make it any less of an historic event. But let’s suppose Columbus never discovered America. It would be naïve to believe it would remain undiscovered forever. Sooner or later it would be discovered, if not by the Europeans then by somebody else, probably the Chinese. And the outcome would have been the same. The Native Americans would still have died by the scores from diseases which they had no immunity to, there still would have been conflicts, and they still would have lost. It is an unfortunate outcome, but a predicable one. When a more technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a primitive stone-aged civilization, it never fares well for the latter.

Who is a Nazi?

On The Morning Joe show, MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch recently likened Trump voters to Nazis. Speaking in regards to the latest manufactured outrage of separating illegal immigrate children from their parents, Deutsch said:

    I wanna attach what you just said to the question that Carter asked John about; politicizing; I could put an exclamation mark about everything you said. It was particularly reprehensible when Ivanka said, “It looks a certain way.”

    What has to happen now is this can no longer be about who Trump is. It has to be about who we are, if we are working towards November. We can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms. The mistake that we’ve made in the past, is “Look at that bad guy over there. Look at that bad guy.”

    What the Democrats have to do is make the next election a referendum on not who Trump is, but who you are. That’s the big difference. You can no longer now as a voter — because it’s not about taxes, it’s not even about some abstract term of immigration or nationalism; if you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going “You here, you here.”

    And I think we now have to flip it and it’s a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, well he’s okay, but — and I think that gymnastics and I think that jiu-jitsu has to happen.

This is just one example of many of how the Nazi label has been thrown around so casually these days, that it's necessary to define exactly what a Nazi is, and what they believe. For this we look to the National Socialist Program. This was a 25-point plan of the National Socialists German Workers' Party presented by Adolf Hitler in 1920. I wont be going over the whole 25 points verbatim, you can read those for yourself. These, however, are the main points of what it means to be a Nazi:

-You had to be a member of the Nazi Party. This seems like a no-brainer, but the Nazis were a political party.

-You have to be ethnically German.

-You had to be ethnocentric. The Nazis believed only a member of the "race" (someone of German blood) could be citizen.

-You had to be a nationalist. Nationalism is defined as loyalty and devotion to a nation. It should be stressed here that nationalism is not the same as patriotism. In the words of George Orwell, "Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

-You had to be an isolationist. Non-citizens were prevented from immigrating, and all non-Germans already living in Germany were forced to leave the Reich.

-You have to be a socialist. The Nazi party called for the nationalization of all public companies, and a division of profits of all heavy industries. That they were socialists should be obvious, but this fact has often been overlooked by many. It also indicates that contrary to what some have asserted, the Nazis were not right-wing. Socialism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, and it should be remembered that the Nazis had a pact with the Russians until they broke it.

-You have to support national healthcare and nationalized education.

-You have to support control of the press. All writers and employees had to be German. Non-Germans were forbidden by law to exert any influence, or publish material that the government deemed counter to the "general good".

-You have to be a fascist. Execution of the 25-point plan was to be executed with a strong central power, with unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich.

In summary, in order to be a Nazi you had to meet ALL these qualifications. Cherry picking one or two things, misconstruing them, and then using them to mischaracterize someone because you don't like their political beliefs does NOT make them a Nazi. Just Remember this the next time someone calls you a Nazi.