There is an argument raging, between Nazi-types (blind, loyal obedience to the needs of an infallible Leader) and those to the left of Nazis over who are the actual Nazis at this perilous moment in history.   Read any history of the Nazi era and you will find not only historical rhymes, but direct one-on-one correlations between the America First movement during Hitler’s time and the one marching for MAGA today.   Here are four:  

1) the Leader is infallible and essential to protection from inhuman enemies; 2) personal loyalty to the Leader is the single most important value in the nation; 3) lies useful to the Leader, especially demonstrable ones, must be repeated with utter conviction, those who call them out angrily demonized and eliminated; 4) the Leader gets to decide who to attack, even kill, and he is always right to do so.

I don’t use the N-word word lightly as a mere insult, it is accurately descriptive of the fascistic regime we are facing now. These Nazis are always in a rage when faced with facts they hate. Check out FBI director Kashyap Patel’s torrent of rage at Adam Schiff, denouncing the senator as a coward and buffoon, for constantly “lying” about Russian electoral interference in 2016 and the Day of Love on January 6, 2021, as Schiff probed into the Trump cover up of the Epstein files and its recent preferential treatment of Epstein’s lying accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell [1].

Nazi logic is instrumental, transactional, designed to beat down your adversary by any means necessary, including inverting cause and effect and lying outright, then indignantly lying about the lie, with rage, more often than not. It is not strictly logic at all, because it is all based on the irrational will of psychopathic leadership whose every crazed word is law, enforced by terror and violence, but Nazi intellectuals will wrap it in a framework that makes it sound, to those unwary, unsophisticated or inclined to the same worldview, irrefutably logical.

Think of John Roberts needing only one lie, that the Senators who voted 98-0 to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act were relying on forty year-old data showing outdated forty year-old racist voting patterns in many states. The rest of his argument (if you lie, as he did, claiming that the Senators hadn’t studied thousands of pages of current voting data at numerous hearings [2]) sounds entirely reasonable. After reading his calm, logical ruling, before you get to the dissent, it seems plausible that the guy’s just calling balls and strikes and fairly ruling on the facts and the law. Check that shit out.

Here comes fellow Federalist Society stalwart Boof Kavanaugh, who denied, during his tantrum laden confirmation hearing, that the “boof” under his photo in the Georgetown Prep yearbook was a reference to having hard alcohol poured into his colon through a tube (it was a reference to his flatulence, he lied, sheepishly), making a particularly incoherent restatement of the demands of justice and the constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Neither, according to this supremely entitled mama’s boy and five other Federalists, is a brown, Spanish speaking or day laboring person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search, seizure, detention and extrajudicial rendition to foreign countries for the “crime” of displaying traits of a “non-white” culture an “especially weighty legal interest.” Nazi Logic 101.

Notice how Nazi logic twists the question under review: he turns it not into an innocent person’s right to go about their life in peace, protected by the Constitution, but a question of a guilty person using our law to “evade arrest”. Smug motherfucker, too, Boof Kavanaugh.

[1] Ladies and gentlemen, Kashyap Pramod Patel, from earlier today, fed up with being questioned about the concealment of the Epstein files and preferential treatment for sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell (note tepid gavel use by MAGA Senate Judiciary committee chairman, 91 year-old Chuck Grassley, during Patel’s outburst, and his idiotic “both of you be quiet” at the end):

[2] Only when you read Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent (another magnificent piece of clear, precise legal and moral logic) do you realize the audacity of the Roberts majority’s legal sleight of hand. You learn that the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was passed, after 21 hearings and 15,000 pages of evidence of ongoing discrimination in the states under preclearance, by a vote of 390-33 in the House and, after further debate, 98 to 0 in the Senate. Reading the John Roberts decision you’d have no reason to suspect that President George W. Bush called a news conference to sign the reauthorization into law a week later, as Ginsburg writes (quoting Dubya):

recognizing the need for “further work . . . in the fight against injustice,” and calling the reauthorization “an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.”