Why the right is forbidden to defend itself from leftist attacks

Have you ever noticed that the anti-liberty left can only use subjective accusations in their "don't say Nazi" game?

Have you ever noticed that the anti-liberty left barely conceal their authoritarian attitude when they demand that only they are allowed to bring up and discuss this subject?

With the election of Italy's first female prime minister, conservative Giorgia Meloni, and since it's a day ending in Y, the enemies of liberty on the nation's left are spewing their usual fascist and National Socialist German Workers' Party epithets. 

You've got to love how this was encapsulated in this headline from the Washington Post: "Nazi analogies are dangerous. But they are increasingly relevant today."

Translation: It's never "appropriate" for the pro-freedom right to defend itself from the anti-liberty left's biggest historical lie (because they need to keep on gaslighting the public).  But it's entirely appropriate for the enemies of liberty on the left to employ the lie, since it's tactically advantageous for them.

What is truly interesting is that there is a distinct dichotomy between the cases made by both sides.

The pro-freedom right makes an objective case, comparing all the commonalities among the collectivist ideologies on the left.

This is contrasted with the anti-liberty left, whose members make up a subjective ad hoc case, based on what the right happens to be doing at the moment.

The pro-freedom case is based on demonstrable facts, the anti-liberty case on indistinct concepts.  For example, we have the recent clip of Hillary Clinton referring to entirely subjective "ranting and raving" at a political rally — something that could be said of most rallies, rendering her point meaningless.

Then we have the screed from the supposed "conservative" at the Washington Post:

Then came the rise of Donald Trump, replete with racist rhetoric, demonization of immigrants, overt antisemitism, grand conspiracy theories, frightful mass rallies and incitement to violence for political purposes.

Take note of the entirely subjective terms — rhetoric, demonization, overt, frightful, and incitement — that render these claims meaningless.  Like many of the other subjective terms used by the anti-liberty left, they have no factual basis.

In his attempt to "prove" that the term "semi-fascist" fits, Bill Press claimed:

[T]here are traits common to every fascist regime: cult-like loyalty to an autocratic leader; no parliamentary limits on a leader's power; denial of free and fair elections; intolerance of, including violence against, political opposition; and outright racism and anti-Semitism.

Aside from "no parliamentary limits on a leader's power," the rest of those traits are more or less subjective and applicable to several situations.  We see the same thing in most other screeds on the subject: supposedly, someone "admires" dictators and autocrats.  Well, unless we can definitively read someone's mind, there is no way to prove or disprove this assertion or many of the other ways of asserting that someone is a fascist or Nazi type. 

But even when they make a factual case, they walk into more rakes than Sideshow Bob.  Going back to the original Washington Post piece:

Lipstadt's remarks ring true, especially after one watches the first installment of "The U.S. and the Holocaust," the latest documentary from filmmaker Ken Burns. The film strikes disturbingly close to home: the use of street thugs, the false claims of victimhood by a group persecuting others, the abhorrence of democracy, the repression of media in favor of state propaganda, the elimination of independent institutions, the slow and methodical scheme to turn one people into pariahs.

Let's take those one at a time:

The use of street thugs — Has she heard of Antifa and BLM?

The false claims of victimhood by a group persecuting others — As in Biden and the "Democratic" party.

The abhorrence of democracy — Which side is trying to cheat by bringing in millions of extra voters over the open border?  Which side is trying to cheat by eliminating voting safeguards — voter ID, in-person voting?

The repression of media in favor of state propaganda — Perhaps she should look into the activities of the Washington Post and the rest of the nation's socialist media in suppressing competitors with all kinds of "fact checks" on them and having them banned from social media.

The elimination of independent institutions — Is she referring to the government schools that have become indoctrination centers?

The slow and methodical scheme to turn one people into pariahs — see Biden's demonic diatribe against MAGA Republicans.

Doesn't it look as though Ms. Rubin is making our case for us? 

This is why we call them the party of projection.  They are doing everything they accuse the pro-freedom side of doing.

All you have to do is look at how the anti-liberty left have nothing in terms of a factual case and must rely on a firehose of lies and subjective accusations to see that after 80 years of gaslighting, the facts show that the collectivists of the National Socialist German Workers' Party were always on the left side of the political spectrum.

D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a Bill of Rights organization, and a longtime contributor to conservative websites.  Find him on Substack.

Image: Ron Cogswell via Flickr, CC BY 2.0 (cropped).

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com