The burgeoning Fourth Reich in America

One of the greatest threats to American liberty is the abject socio-political myopia and amnesia that pervades the populace. I learned a long time ago that the most important epistemological endeavor a man can undertake is the study of history, and why it's deliberately one of the most deemphasized subjects in education. Those who forget the past, as goes the old adage, are doomed to repeat it. And thus, if you're an aspiring tyrannical Socialist movement, you have a vested interest in people forgetting the past which necessarily, to a large degree, renders them incapable of foresight.

And to that end I'd like to introduce you all to Alfred Flatow. Alfred was a Jew, and former Olympian, who died in Theresienstadt Concentration Camp in 1942. Many people, most I would assume, are aware of the Nazi concentration camps and what happened in them. But few if any would be aware of how Alfred Flatow got there. And that's a problem, because the events that preceded the outcome, are no less important than the outcome itself. And it begins in this instance on October 3, 1938, when according to a police report signed by First Sergeant Colisle, Alfred Flatow was arrested for possession of firearms.

"The Jew Alfred Flatow was found to be in possession of one revolver with twenty-two rounds of ammunition, two pocket pistols, one dagger, and thirty-one knuckledusters. Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety."

The truth is that armed Jews were a danger, not to public safety, but to the Nazi state's plans to ultimately eradicate them. So long before it engaged in genocide it went about disarming Jews, to prevent the sort of resistance seen in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, in which a few hundred Jewish fighters, vastly outnumbered and outgunned, fended off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a pittance of small arms. It should be noted this real life event, utterly obliterates the commonly dispensed leftist assertion, that Americans armed merely with rifles would stand no chance against a military armed with tanks and fighter planes, etc. The German military had all these things, and the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto had none of them, and yet it took a vastly numerically superior force with far superior firepower at its disposal nearly a month to finally put them down. One may easily speculate based upon such that had the Jewish population not erstwhile been systematically disarmed, and every Jew had a rifle at their disposal, the Holocaust almost certainly would have been profoundly diminished in scope if not impossible to perpetrate at all. But they were, and it wasn't, and now it's history. 

There's something else, all too familiar, about Flatow's arrest report on which I cannot pass in silence. That the members and servants of a party responsible for the calculated murder of millions, would accuse others of being a "danger to public safety," is an irony all too familiar to those of us who deal with American Socialists and their hatred of gun rights but ardent fondness for "abortion;" a genocide initiative pioneered in the U.S. by racist Nazi sympathizers.

Equally important to understand is that the policies that allowed for the systematic disarming of the Jews, were derived not from the Nazis, but from the defunct Weimar Republic which Hitler's National Socialist government supplanted. It was they, for ostensibly laudable purposes (as always) that imposed laws requiring the registration of firearms, hoping that gun control would quell the violent clashes between Communist and Nazi party supporters that had been occurring for years, resulting in the deaths of scores of Nazis, Communists, and police officers caught in the middle. In an effort to disarm these violent rioters and thugs they limited firearm ownership to "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit." When Hitler's National Socialists later assumed control of the German government, they obtained access to the registry and used it to selectively target and disarm enemies of the state (e.g., Jews like Alfred). Basically the Weimer Republic, through its gun control policies, handed the Nazis the means to disarm its victims and perpetrate an almost perfect genocide. The centralized health care system established under the Weimar Republic would likewise be exploited to nefarious ends by the Nazis. The German health care apparatus, under the auspices of the government, was among the first parties complicit in the Nazi genocide initiative. It's essentially completely forgotten today that physicians were "the most highly Nazified professional group in Germany," and that the protocols for mass murder, later exercised by German soldiers, were initially devised by German doctors like Socialist Karl Brandt.

"Doctors were encouraged to decide on their own who should live or die. Killing became part of hospital routine as infants, children, and adults were put to death by starvation, poisoning, and injections." - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

I've spoken of this in the past in regard to health care and net neutrality. Under no circumstances should health care be subsumed by the federal (national) government and controlled by unelected federally appointed panels.

"If you're opposed to the federal government managing health care, because it's not within its Constitutional power to do so, you just don't want to help people at all. You're heartless, cruel, cold, etc.; you want people to die. So goes the commie drivel. [....] What manner of moron believes that health care will not become politicized, and become a weapon of partisan prejudice wielded by two parties who regard each other with utter enmity, and consequently allow the interests of the patient to fall by the wayside in their interminable war against each other? The Affordable Care Act was signed only 7 years ago and this is already the case. They care more about who controls it, and can therefore campaign on it in election/reelection cycles, than helping anyone through it. [....] The federal govenrment should not be involved in health care, for the same reason it was prohibited from regulating the nuances of religion. Such was better left in the hands of the states and municipalities, a matter between a man and his pastor unmolested and unabridged by the general government, and the same is true of health care. It should be between a man and his doctor, and none of the federal government's business." - Me, November 1, 2017.

 Nor the internet.

My question to the supporters of net neutrality is the same as that to supporters of Socialist medicine. What is more likely? That the government will protect the consumer with efficiency and objectivity, or that the internet will be politically weaponized by a hopelessly corrupt and inept two party system, that exploits it to their own benefit and to the detriment of their political rivals and dissidents? What has been the case with everything else illegitimately placed under the purview of the federal government? Has it prospered or suffered, if not been mismanaged to the point of implosion? The example of experience has taught us that government amplifies, as opposed to diminishes, error; that government vitiates as opposed to sublimates. - Me, Dec 08, 2017.

It should go without saying that the state only wants to disarm those it views as a threat to its own security, dominion, and/or existence. It has no problem arming those who would sustain such however. Britain wanted to disarm its American subjects in the colonies when they began to strain against their yoke. The Nazis wanted to disarm the Jews. And the left in America, whether Democrat or Republican, wants to disarm anyone not a functionary of those agencies directly under their control, in a flagrant agenda the goal of which is to incrementally consign the "right" to bear arms to an ever smaller cabal of social and political elites, who bestow the privilege of firearm ownership/use exclusively to those loyal to them. This also occurred in Germany through the banning of private shooting clubs under the Nazis, who formed the "Deutscher Schiesssportverband" (German Shooting Sports Federation) in their place, which allowed the Nazis to ensure only those loyal to the party/state would be in possession of and using firearms. 

It's because of retrospection that Conservatives staunchly oppose a national gun registry database and the subsumption of health care by the federal (national) government. And it's because of this that leftists support it. The leftist leadership is fully cognizant of the utility of such systems in repressing and/or eliminating dissidents. The Germans in the Weimar Republic, when these systems were first proposed and implemented, were perhaps not concerned because they observed no immediate threat. No doubt they could not have conceived to what insidious ends these measures would be perverted by a cabal of malevolent men who assumed control of their government later on down the road. And likewise present day Americans, being ignorant of the Weimar Germans and what befell them, are not concerned when such systems are proposed and implemented here because they likewise observe no immediate threat. Their amnesia induced myopia obscures the dangers such systems represent should unscrupulous men ascend to prominence. Their ignorance of the past blinds them to the future.

But back to Alfred and how he ended up in Theresienstadt Concentration Camp. In 1933 the Reichstag was burned sparking national outrage in Germany, which the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) promptly exploited to their advantage. Marinus Van der Lubbe, a 24 year old Dutch Communist allegedly "known by Dutch psychiatrists to be mentally unstable" and a former "patient in a mental institution in Holland," confessed to being the sole perpetrator (and was eventually executed). President Hindenburg, at the behest of Chancellor Adolf Hitler issued the "Decree for the Protection of People and the Reich," AKA the "Reichstag Fire Decree," in response. The decree, which was integral in the rise of Hitler and the Nazi's to power, (pay attention to this part) suspended individual liberties and due process under the pretext of preventing further Communist violence. It would become the basis for "Schutzhaft," or "protective detention," and "Vorbeugende Verhaftung," or "preventative arrest," under the Third Reich. 

"Protective detention meant the arrest -- without judicial review -- of potential and real opponents of the regime and their incarceration in concentration camps without specific charge or trial. The police alone judged whether an arrest was necessary because of some 'potential' danger to the security of the Reich. [....] 'Preventive arrest' permitted criminal police detectives to take persons suspected of participating in criminal activities into custody without warrant or judicial review of any kind." - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 

People were "taken into protective custody in the interest of public security and order," and denied due process, based upon "suspicion of activities" adverse to the state/society. "Protective" detention being that sort of insidious euphemism endemic to all leftist appellation, as "both 'protective detention' and 'preventive arrest' meant indefinite internment in a concentration camp." Initially the primary targets of such detentions/arrests were political opponents, but over time the reticulating and arbitrary criteria for what constituted a "potential" criminal that required "protective" detention and "preventative" arrest, grew to encompass "racial" enemies (e.g., Alfred) and "asocials" and/or people "perceived not to be maintaining a healthy standard of social behavior."

In case you haven't figured it out yet, they took Alfred's guns first, and worried about due process second. After being arrested for legally possessing a firearm Alfred was turned over to the Gestapo (Secret State Police), the sole agency with discretionary power over "protective detention" by 1938 when Alfred was arrested, and as we learn above "protective detention" meant "indefinite internment in a concentration camp;" e.g., Theresienstadt, where he died in 1942.

There has perhaps been no other tyrannical state in history about which we have more detailed information, and have studied in greater detail, than Nazi Germany. Which makes the average American's abject dearth of knowledge about such, and their consequent inability to recognize what this represents...

Completely inexcusable.

Trump supporters will say "it's not the same." How is it not exactly? I've never been a conspiracy theory enthusiast, but the similarities between this and what happened in Germany, are both remarkable and undeniable. Sure, the racial element (among other things) is absent, but the basic paradigm is the same. You have two instances in which repeated acts of public violence and events perpetrated by a man allegedly mentally unstable or disturbed, sparked (in our case manufactured) national outrage and a clamor for gun control, resulting in executive decrees seeking the suspension of due process for the ostensible purpose of "protecting" the people, and preventing subsequent acts of violence, by keeping guns out of the hands of individuals or groups of people deemed "a danger to public safety." Hearing his rhetoric it sounds like Donald Trump, not unlike Adolf Hitler, wants our nation's police to perform "preventative arrests" that place people in "protective custody" until the state can figure out what to do with them, under the pretext of preventing further violence. And what is the purpose of "improved background checks," and raising the age requirements to purchase a firearm exactly, if not to keep firearms out of the hands of people "perceived not to be maintaining a healthy standard of social behavior" and reserve them for "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question?"

Granted, these shootings are pounced upon by leftists (just as the burning of the Reichstag was the Nazis) every time they occur. But rarely, if ever, has a self-professed NRA supporting "Republican" done so in such spectacularly leftist fashion specifically calling for due process to be suspended. Something's not right here. This cannot be mere coincidence or chance completely independent of intelligent design. Either Trump is a dimwitted pawn, being manipulated by far more adroit subversives, or he's complicit. Which is irrelevant; he's a threat to our freedoms either way. 

And we need not speculate as to who's responsible for this Republican attack on our liberties, as his supporters seek at every opportunity to remind us by donning their MAGA hats and shirts, and taking great pains to emphasize that this tyrant who would strip people of due process is "my president." When you see someone wearing the MAGA slogan remember what it really means; I vote for Democrats who call themselves Republicans because I can't tell the difference.

Trump obviously isn't arresting people without due process, yet, but Hitler wasn't gassing millions of Jews to death in his first year as Chancellor either. Maybe it's not the same today, but what it might be tomorrow is what should concern you. Because the point being made above is that laws passed today for your "protection," by bureaucrats with good intentions, may tomorrow in the hands of different bureaucrats become the instruments of your destruction. And so we must ask ourselves are these the ramblings of a moron, or is this is a preliminary step in a process that could very well culminate in the same thing it did in Germany farther down the road? I don't know; that's the problem. Regardless, whether it be idle banter or lucid stratagem, now is the time to squelch it. Before you find yourself under "preventative arrest." Not after. You have to look beyond this, beyond him, and consider what the next guy will do with the precedent Trump is establishing today.

I can see why Trump doesn't want to go through all the hassles of due process, warrants, and trials and whatnot at least. Those things are profound impediments to autocratic governance. But what excuse do his supporters have? Apparently the GoP, just like the DNC, is thronged with unabashed tyranny apologists in a state of interminable prostration to their despot. No Trump voter would have accepted a president Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, saying take the guns first and worry about due process second. But they're doing just that under Donald Trump.

Again I refer to Hamilton's admonition.

"It is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Federalist #25.

Our Second Amendment (2A) liberties have never been in greater danger than they are right now under Donald Trump, precisely because the vast preponderance of his supporters simply take it for granted that their liberties will be secure when their guy is in office. This penchant to support whatever he says and does, based purely upon the assumption he will invariably have their best interests at heart, is on constant display from Trump voters.

The sentiment above is utterly emblematic of Trumpcult members. He acknowledges that Trump is behaving like a "dictator," has no understanding of the Constitutional "limits" of presidential power which he is violating by seeking to exercise authority he doesn't have, and has a history and habit of saying things he doesn't mean (i.e., lying to people to garner support)... and yet still defends him.

Why? Because my despotic Constitution trashing liar (Republican) is better than your despotic Constitution trashing liar (Democrat).

Obama too was always "taken out of context" according to his supporters. Like Obama,  Trump never has to say what he means, or mean what he says. There's always some excuse for why he routinely says the wrong things. As if it mattered if he was "taken out of context." Show me in the Constitution where the 2A and due process may be suspended by the president in "very specific circumstances." Being that Madison in Federalist #45 explicitly states "the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," the Constitution should define what constitutes a "very specific exception" and who is arbiter of such if not the document itself. So where is it?

I agree with this poster's sentiment. Deeds carry more weight than words. I made this same assertion during Trump's campaign, referencing Washington's motto, "deeds not words." But in my own posts I used it to illustrate precisely how Trump supporters place greater emphasis upon the latter than they do the former; evinced by the fact they chose a man (Trump) with no proven record of Conservatism, based purely upon rhetoric (words), over two other candidates with exceptional and verifiable records (deeds) of Conservatism. If deeds mattered more than words to Trump voters, then surely Trump issuing Hillary Clinton a de facto pardon upon being elected after explicitly stating he'd have her investigated and jailed during his campaign, would matter to them a great deal. Right? His actions, or inaction in that instance, spoke louder than his words. Not to Trump voters. They simply ignored this inconvenient contradiction, as they have so many others, and continued to defend and support the man. (Just as they are now, in regard to yet another betrayal, pertaining to 2A rights.)

This is merely another asinine and woefully trite suggestion that we can't have, and shouldn't even bother trying, to appoint representatives whose words and deeds are in conformity. Which is rhetoric identical to that I've heard from Democrats for years. If I wanted a disingenuous, duplicitous demagogue that says one thing and does another for president, I'd have voted for Hillary. So again I ask. With Republicans like this, who the hell needs Democrats?  

As you can see, far from defending our liberty, they defend the attacker of liberty when he's in their party. I could literally spend my entire day providing illustration after illustration of this. But I won't. If this doesn't get the point across nothing will; you're simply lost causes. The dreadful reality is much of the pro-2A movement have been lulled into a false sense of security by Trump, and has through mindless partisan loyalty even been rendered complicit in undermining that liberty, placing it in greater danger than it otherwise would have been under a Hillary administration (in which such measures would have been significantly stifled by sheer partisan enmity).

We need merely look to the Florida senate, which just passed gun control legislation, to see the tactile consequences of this Trump induced political lassitude and discombobulation manifest.

16 of the 20 votes in favor of this bill (SB 7026) were from Republicans. Why? Because if you want to win an election as a Republican in 2018 you'd better be pro-Trump. Both Trump and his supporters have made this abundantly, and repeatedly, clear. This is why I saw GoP candidates literally run on being pro-Trump as opposed to pro-Constitution/limited government.

The converse of Rick's statement is also true. If Trump's not in your corner how can you win? Because the primary loyalty of Trump voters lies with the party and/or its leader, a significant portion of GoP politicians seeking election/reelection necessarily does also. If Trump and the Constitution disagree, in the eyes of Trump voters Trump is right, making siding with the latter as opposed to the former requisite for political viability. So there is tremendous pressure upon GoP legislators of lesser stature to side with the president and adopt his positions on issues, given the profound (and largely baseless) predilection his supporters have for the man and anything he says (no matter how senseless, erroneous, or outright fallacious), and consequently the impact a negative Trump Tweet could have upon their election/reelection campaign with a constituency who views his personage as inviolable and his every word as sacred writ.

Trump wanted to raise the age to buy a rifle to 21, so the 16 Republicans above voted to raise the age to 21, knowing their reelection depends far more on staying in the good graces of Trump supporters than defending the liberties of their constituents. Never mind the fact that most gun crime is committed with hand guns, which already require being 21 to purchase, and that homicide perpetrated with AR-15s is a minuscule sliver within a minuscule sliver of causes of death in the United States.

I said long ago (during his campaign) Donald Trump was made the Republican nominee, by the Democrats, because he was the candidate that would most allow the Democrats to advance their agenda (e.g., gun control) under a Republican administration in the event of a Hilary loss. That's exactly what's happening right now. The deluded GoP faithful are puzzled because they operate under the false assumption Trump is on their side, and thus think he's simply misguided or confused. The truth is he was never on their side. Far from being confused, I see a man engaging in a calculated demoralization campaign against the Republican base, in order to deliberately damage their chances of winning the next election. What he's doing will split the GoP vote between disgruntled GoP voters, who respond to his betrayal by voting third party or not at all, and Trump loyalists who continue to support him thereby aiding and abetting him in advancing the leftist agenda. Either way it benefits the Democrats. Either Donald Trump is the most politically inept man to hold public office in America or he's a Democrat agent. In either instance, whether a facile nitwit easily manipulated by the left or a deliberate subversive in collusion with them, the left's interests are served.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Donald Trump ran on the GoP ticket purely to keep a bona fide Conservative like Cruz or Paul out of the White House. By the time it's all said and done, Donald Trump may well have done more to advance the leftist agenda in one term than Obama did in two, because he's the man against which his supporters "entertain the least suspicion" of being a danger to their rights. And is, therefore, the greatest.