Collectors buy militaria at gun shows. Some of it is Nazi memorabilia. What better way to conflate patriots who believe in the government of limited enumeration of powers established “to secure the Blessings of Liberty” with “the extremist far-right”?
To emphasize the point, they call on a former “leader of the National Socialist Movement,” apparently oblivious to the reality that being a national socialist has nothing to do with what the freedom-minded are about. And as much as latter-day collectivists try to distance themselves and project their hatred onto those who emphasize the rights of individuals over the powers of a centralized violence monopoly, they can only ignore and misdirect from the truth, they cannot obliterate it.
UK Liberal Party supporter George Watson definitively debunked those in his landmark Hitler and the Socialist Dream, documenting:
“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.”
The attack piece goes on to use Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule and dismiss as unfounded “the fear that the government is intent on taking Americans’ guns away,” conveniently not exploring, let alone even mentioning, the numerous and publicized calls from prominent gun-grabbers to do just that (and don’t tell us, moron, tell Beto). It also fails to inform readers that the cited “authority” for making that claim, described merely as “an activist who has tracked white supremacists since the 1990s,” is also known as “the father” of doxing.
But the point is made. Second Amendment activists have been linked with Nazis and white supremacists, just like Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray, “leading” Democrats, and the DSM, all of whom echo and amplify a self-serving “greatest threat” meme, want.
That’s what USA Today and other Gannett Publication holdings do, from “outing” gun owners to teaming with Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun “media project,” to calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, declaring the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization, and for prying their guns from the “cold dead hands” of NRA members.
Equally shameful, and many still don’t realize this (and so treat it as an impartial chronicler of factual, data-based conclusions), is Scientific American.
“Citizen Militias in the U.S. Are Moving toward More Violent Extremism,” a hit piece in the January issue proclaims. Why such groups give such writers the time of day, like they’ll get a fair shake as opposed to made to look like dangerous, racist paranoids, is something I don’t get. It’s not like the target readership will be persuaded to reconsider its biases, and these things always seem to end up more like a Borat bit than anything else.
This time out we find that even if you present yourself as otherwise peaceful and tolerant, longing for the good old days is racist because discrimination existed. Well, we do note that we didn’t have so many school shootings, abortions, fatherless and broken homes, drug overdoses, encampments under bridges, poop on the sidewalk, and the like, but of course, unacceptable race-based inequality existed, and no rational person argues otherwise. In fact, it is Second Amendment advocates who have been at the forefront – for decades – of documenting and sharing “the racist roots of gun control” and encouraging minorities to discover and then claim their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
But here’s where this is going:
“Members of militias, in my analysis, show what sociologists call ‘modern racism,’ where they endorse ideas of cultural inferiority rather than biological deficiency.”
“The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.”
So now you’re a racist if you observe some cultures have proven better at creating conditions for the freedom and advancement of all human beings than others? Where are all the “refugees” heading to and why?
And while “our side” is advancing the unalienable right of all peaceable people to keep and bear arms, “theirs” is the one demanding that any but their enforcement functionaries be disarmed. The centralized government cultists are the ones floating special rules to disarm minorities and attacking any who dare deviate from the narrative. And they further endanger the most at-risk communities.
To be a “progressive” means you demand more control and the destruction of anyone who wants less. They do that by smearing anyone who is not on board with that as a domestic extremist and supremacist, whether they be a gun owner, a Republican, or just plain white.
What a steaming load. And we’re the haters?
They’re counting on most being too intimidated to fight back lest they be singled out for “cancellation.” I propose instead to point and laugh at their impotent rage, triggered more than anything by a solemn vow a critical mass of us have made to ourselves, to those we love and protect, and especially to the hive-minded who think it ultimately depends on how many traitors they can get elected:
And there’s not a damn thing they can do about it without bringing it all down upon their own heads. Unless we let them.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.