top of page

Communism Vs Fascism, Left Vs Right, right? Wrong! And the Second Amendment

Have you ever wondered why Communist and Fascist regimes have so much in common, even though they are supposed to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum? The answer is rather simple. They are not on opposite sides. They are all products of the Left. They are all products of the same provenance, Marxist Socialism.

The Media, Academia and Entertainment, have much to do with the erroneous perception of what "left" and "right" is in America, but it is also the result of politicians who shared an affinity for those totalitarian governments, but wanted to distance themselves from the horrors exposed towards the end of WW2, particularly, the Nazi extermination camps. Since I already wrote about this previously, we'll move on.

These regimes all share in the basic aspects: a single party, a grand leader, a totalitarian state structure, an internal security apparatus, a vast surveillance program, and a pathological hatred of anything that deviates from the accepted dogma, be it political, cultural or intellectual. Communism and Fascism, are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. The difference is place of origin and other minor technicalities.

Karl Marx, is recognized as the Patriarch of Communism, and his principles are deeply entrenched in all his offsprings: Stalin's Soviet Socialism and the Fascist versions: Mussolini's Corporate National Socialism and Hitler's anti-Semitic National Socialism. Fascism was in fact, born out of Mussolini's dissatisfaction with Communism's economic failures. Hitler's followed years later.

Fascists came to realized that total state ownership of all business and means of production, resulted in abject failure and the misery of deprivation, as efficiency and productivity were suppressed by the lack of ambition and drive, in an otherwise mundane workforce ruled by contagious apathy.

Now, before we continue, allow me make this very important point: Every American leftist was once a liberal but not all liberals are leftists. Let that sink in for a moment. Let's continue.

There are two types of leftists in the world. Those who crave political power to satisfy an insatiable lust for control, and those who will surrender their sovereignty to government in seeking some sort of social justice, economic balance and security. But this in itself, is too simplistic to fully understand the nature of the leftist mindset. We must look at history to fully comprehend what drives the leftist psychic, well, at least to some degree.

The collectivist ideologies of leftism is generally associated with unlimited or maximum governmental control or power, since this is required to administer a centrally planned and controlled economy based upon the Marxist principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The principle refers to access to and distribution of free goods, capital and services.

The term was coined by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme, the draft programme of the United Workers' Party of Germany. Either way, these actions can only be undertaken with an authoritarian regime in place and a complete control of society.

Here in the United States, we have a very poor understanding of the political concepts of "Left" and "Right." No fault of ours for the most part, as most of us are a product of public education, and those institutions of higher learning dominated by leftists since the intellectuals of the Marxist think tank, "The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory," were ran out of Germany in 1933, eventually settling in New York in 1935, in affiliation with Columbia University. From there, hardcore Marxist ideals infected just about every Ivy league University in America, among other institutions.

Now ponder this... What is the polar opposite, of the political "Left"? The ideology of no government, the political "Right," of course, which is known as "Anarchy," from the Greek anarkhos, meaning "without authority." As this concept goes beyond even minimal government, it doesn’t have any place on the left of the political spectrum of maximum government. Leaving the only other choice of no government on the far right of the political spectrum.

Raise your hand if you see a gaping hole the size of Mount Everest in the ‘logic’ of the anti-liberty left's insistence that fascism or Nazism is somehow over on the “Right”? Are we supposed to believe that zero government—Anarchy—resides in the same place as unlimited government, such as Communism or Fascism? IT DOES'NT! That's right, it doesn't, so next time you hear someone say that the KKK or neo-Nazis, or any other groups that they despise are the Right, tell them to shut the _____ up. I've had enough with their lies or blatant ignorance. I've had it. Like the old Southern saying goes: "Don't piss down my back and tell me that it's raining."

But where does the United States reside in the political spectrum matrix? Good question. If you place the big government "isms" of Marx's philosophical fantasies where they belong, to the far left, and the no government concept of Anarchism, to the far right, you will find the ideal government the founders intended slightly to the right of center, the realm of limited government. The founders recognized that, some form of government, albeit restricted, was necessary to foster in economic stability and security, as well as required to negotiate on behalf of the collective states, trade and other treaties with the countries of the world, including England.

Now for all of you worried these days that, the country is turning into a socialist nation, WE'VE BEEN a socialist nation since the

FDR Administration and his New Deal! What do you call food stamps, social security, housing assistance, student meals, welfare checks and a laundry list of other government subsidies we call "government cheese?"Yes that's right, Socialism.

Let's talk now about the 2nd Amendment, the left's other obsession and why it is only "second" to the right to speak your mind. Let me put it in this way. Conversation is desirable above confrontation. Dialogue between opposing forces is critical in reaching a sort of peaceful understanding. But when this is impossible due to one side's monopolized control of the conversation, or it's inability to restrict it's tyrannical impulses, specifically when it comes from a recognizable authority, such as government, then and only then, is the option of violence the only recourse. The founders understood this.

As with any government that begins to exceed it's authority, and which at a minimum, relies on their ever-present exaggerations, downplays, misinformation, and outright lies, sooner rather than later, it will attempt to disarm the citizenry.

Now, I am sure you have seen the bumper stickers at the gun shows that picture the well known dictators with the words "they banned firearms." But did you know that “Hitler didn’t ban guns”? As it turns out, the original laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists, were so sufficiently draconian, that the Nazis, when they came to power, managed to use them against their enemies. In other words, they didn’t need to pass additional laws.

The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for "Jews" and other “non-citizens.”These pro-2A, well meaning folks, are not exactly correct, which opens them up for ridicule or discrediting. Although existing gun control laws helped the Nazis suppress political dissidents in Germany and round up German Jews for extermination, “they weren’t the major part of the process.”

Some say that if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American is today, maybe the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust. I’m not sure I’d go that far, given the fighting abilities of the exceptionally well-trained German army and the tactical prowess of their officers, but it’s certainly difficult to have an uprising without weapons.

In Germany, guns were required to have serial numbers, and anybody owning one without a serial number had to have one stamped on it. Gun permits were mostly left up to the police and were only given to people of “undoubted reliability” who demonstrated a “need” for a gun. The law made it easy for Hitler to make sure his opponents couldn’t get permits and thus had no access to firearms. Ironically, these are some of the proposals floating around from the Democrats. There are curious parallels between the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1938 Nazi weapons control law, but that’s another issue altogether for another day.

Here in America, the rights of Americans were considered natural rights acquired by divine dispensation, and were so well understood by the people of the era, that they did not have to be written down in complex detail. A clear example of this is the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

There are many misinterpretations of the 2A percolating in the pot of misinformation. One common disingenuous argument we hear all the time is that the 2A, was intended for state sanctioned militias not individual citizens. This is wrong. I will address this one misconception today and leave the others for another day. Here is 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights with an explanation of what it meant in the 18th century English language.

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA [trained, competent and disciplined in the use of firearms] BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE [to maintain sovereignty, personal safety and freedom] THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE [individual right just like the First, Fourth, Six, and Seventh Amendments] TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS [individually kept, privately owned firearms, ready for use] SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" [limited or restricted in any form].

This is the true meaning of the 2A. Anything else is either an honest misunderstanding or an intentional misrepresentation, by those with an irrational disdain for firearms, or worse yet, by those who fear weapons on the hands of the citizenry they intent to oppress.

23 views0 comments


bottom of page