Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.

Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with “the Right”.

I’ve not run up against this problem personally, but we’ve all seen the regressives’ attempts to hijack the holidays:

The Left’s Unending Fascination With Scripts to Browbeat Relatives on Thanksgiving Strongly Resemble… Scripts for Religious Conversion

Supposedly progressives are super-informed and Love Science. Indeed, that’s the main “political” argument they’re actually arguing for.

So why is it so many of them seem to need these bluffer’s guides to explain to them why they believe the things they believe?

It doesn’t really make sense, does it? They’re anxious because they’re going to a Thanksgiving dinner where they won’t have an Automatic Affirmation Clap Circle applauding their poses and posturings, but instead might be asked things like “Where are you getting that claim from?”

What they want is tyranny:

We Free Men | According To Hoyt.

I don’t care how noble a side sounds, how profoundly urgent its benevolent message, if they say “this you cannot think. This you cannot read. This you cannot even consider” they are a tyranny in the making. If they get power over you and yours soon you’ll find that it’s “This air you cannot breathe.”

They are also unsure of their logical appeal and their ability to withstand the market place of ideas. Otherwise, why ban certain thoughts and ideas and points of view?

This is why “political correctness” is a bad thing, because it takes away your tools to think of things properly. If you can’t even express that men and women might be different, you surely can’t think about it.

It is also why progressivism with its ever growing list of “forbidden terms and words” because of racist sexist and imperialist bad thought (brown bag, really?) is a tyranny in the making.

They’d best STFU about southerners and incest after this:

But, Remember, Accepting all of the Arguments in Favor of Same Sex Marriage Would Never Lead to Anything Worse

The state’s (New York’s) highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.
While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages … are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed … there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.

Worth a read, given recent events:

Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me – and Our Children

It’s the true story of a family in which the husband decides his vows to his wife aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, comes out, and gets a sympathetic judge to let him bring the kids into his new relationship:

Every time a new state redefines marriage, the news is full of happy stories of gay and lesbian couples and their new families. But behind those big smiles and sunny photographs are other, more painful stories. These are left to secret, dark places. They are suppressed, and those who would tell them are silenced in the name of “marriage equality.”

But I refuse to be silent.

I represent one of those real life stories that are kept in the shadows. I have personally felt the pain and devastation wrought by the propaganda that destroys natural families.

(h/t: American Thinker, which chronicles some of the disturbing fallout from the first link)