It looks like everything is still about Nazis, even today, the greater part of a century after the ideology was wiped out, and the memory of it so distorted by the mists of history that almost nobody today has any idea what Adolf Hitler actually stood for.

According to J.J. Abrams, the director of the upcoming Star Wars film, The Rise of Skywalker, Star Wars will still be about Nazism. The use of the word “still” carries the implication that Star Wars was ever about Nazism. Maybe it counts that Armitage Hux Hitlered it up before firing up Starkiller Base, because how many heads of state in the history of mankind ever gave an impassioned speech before firing weapons on an enemy that they’ve declared war on?

While we’re discussing Nazis, I think the time is ripe for a confession. Are you ready? Here it is:

I’ve never taken Nazism seriously, and have never viewed them as a serious ideological threat.

Yes, I’m being serious. At their most significant, Nazism lost the only war they had ever fought, within years of having started it. In fact, Nazism was defeated so quickly that the bulk of World War II became about staving off Japanese imperialism. Hitler became viewed so unfavorably that his name became an insult, and any idea that he put into practice became grossly unpopular. People today hate eugenics, and relate the idea to Hitler, even though he didn’t come up with it. He pretty much took the idea from the United States, because he saw that it was popular there. Which it was, especially with the super-wealthy family of Rockefellers feeding into it, and the then-popular idea that criminals and the poor were genetically inferior. It took Hitler taking eugenics to its conclusion for people to realize how disgusting it was. He was the leader where everything he touched turned to crap.

Hitler was slow-witted to the point that he believed that military victories would be inevitable due to the virtues he perceived in the ideology his soldiers were fighting for, and his own generals feared he would derail any strategy they could come up with with his sheer, naive idealism. What’s more, he believed that we lived on the inside of a hollow earth, and could therefore spy on the British by aiming telescopes upward at an angle.

See what I mean? Nazism is way too stupid for anyone to take seriously. Today, most people who claim to be a Nazi do so as a joke for shock value. Not my cup of tea, and a rancid cup of tea at that, but I understand the humor of it.

Nazis are viewed so poorly, that when someone wants to tear someone down in as few words as possible, “Nazi” is usually the go-to insult. It’s gotten to the point where a rule for debate was made called “Godwin’s Law”, which states that the longer an argument continues, the likelihood of one side comparing the other to Hitler approaches one. The implication is that in an exchange that wasn’t originally about Nazism, the side that calls the other a Nazi is considered to have lost the argument, because that will be considered the point where they have exhausted any reasonable argument that they could have alternatively made.

I’ve made the point before that it’s super-easy for anyone to read into a fictional narrative a political movement that’s not intended, such as the Separatist movement from the Star Wars prequels as a close equivalent to the SJWs of today. But it’s hard to argue that a point is not there when the director of the film himself states that a comparison was intentional.

One point that I found interesting in the Newsweek article that I’m referencing is that George Lucas had intended for Star Wars to make comparisons with the Vietnam War, which is a comparison that I had not noticed when I had previously seen the original trilogy. While one can get carried away and call it “subtle”, I think it can be credited to a failure to properly articulate the social commentary that was intended. Having said that, that’s not as bad a crime against creativity as being so on-the-nose about one’s point that the director takes it upon himself to point it out months before the film is even released, expressing no faith in the viewer’s ability to interpret the film for themselves.

Personally, I think the case can be made from the first ever Star Wars film, A New Hope, that it’s intended as a commentary on how religion will always play a role in human affairs, even if it were to come to the point that humans were to dwell primarily in space, which would be a time that secular types seem to like to imagine as a time where humanity would have long since given up on religion.

A few obvious points can be made for this from the original film, such as:

• The prolific use of Biblical names such as Luke, Ben, Leah, and even Anakin, which sounds like Anakim, the race of people that Goliath originated from.
• Speaking of Goliath, Luke’s attack on the Death Star seems like a type of David vs. Goliath. When Luke points out that hitting the target was like hitting a target he was familiar with, one can easily think of how David pointed out that he had slain a lion and a bear when making the case to Saul that he could take on Goliath. Then there’s the obvious point that a single, well-placed shot took down something big.
• Imperial officers seemed to make a point of referring to Darth Vader’s ideology as his “religion”, even after he had demonstrated his capacity to strangle someone from across the room.

Even considering this, it’s still possible that no such point was intended, which goes to show (again) how simple it is to read into something a message that wasn’t intended.

Now, one can imagine that a Newsweek article about Star Wars would have gotten a lot of attention. However…

Hours into its publication, and no comments. It’s almost as though no one cares what Newsweek has to write about Star Wars, Nazism, or Social Justice, even when the topics are rolled into the same article. But when some guy with a blog trashposts about Digimon, something far different happens.

But the question that remains is, what is the relevance of Nazis today that they’re still used in films to make a point? What political ideology can be accurately compared to Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s Party?

It’s long been a difficult thing for those outside of leftism to understand: the political left of the western world has a close relationship with Islam. On the surface, it doesn’t appear to make any sense, as the left prides itself as being tolerant and free of mysticism, while at the same time championing what is easily the most mystical religion, and the religion that plays the least nicely with any of the other religions.

What explanation is there for the left’s close relationship with Islam?

Nearly any political ideology that exists today has an image to maintain. The political right is embodied by conservative principles and believes in limited government, among other things, and is usually represented by the Republican party. The Green party is characterized largely by environmental responsibility and various socialist principles. We’d be dealing in some pretty broad generalities in describing these political ideologies with such few words, but these descriptions are pretty accurate.

So then, what does the political left and liberalism in general have a reputation for? Helping the little guy. The left’s positive image hinges largely in helping the disadvantaged and downtrodden, which includes religious and racial minorities. Because Islam is a religious minority in the western world, they’re a natural choice for those looking for groups to stand up for to maintain a helping-the-little-guy image. What’s more, the left’s traditional political adversaries have a history of being critical of the actions of Muslims, the adherents of Islam. Because of this, it would be easier for the left to cast themselves as coming to the little guy’s defense.

Let’s be honest here: Anywhere that Islam is in establishment control, they are not about helping religious minorities. Under Sharia law, the law of the Islamic world, Christians and Jews are treated as second-class citizens or worse, other religious groups are treated poorly and sometimes singled out for death, atheists are nearly always singled out for death, and so are homosexuals, in spite of the fact that they are another group that the left champions.

This being the case, it would seem to make even less sense for the left to come to Islam’s defense. For the left to continue to defend Islam in spite of its abuse of non-Muslims, they would have to overlook not only these abuses, but also the fundamental tenets of Islam that call for these abuses.

That’s exactly what happens.

But why? Why did the left get behind Islam to begin with if what Islam is about is diametrically opposed to the principles of western civilization?

Simply put, it’s because back when the left started to get behind Islam, the abuses of Sharia law were pretty much unknown to the western world, and as religious minorities, there was more incentive for Muslims to live in relative non-belligerence with the community around them as an alternative religion. As it appeared in the public eye, the Islamic religion was just another religious identity that was capable of living at peace with the people around them. Thus, they were “little guys”, and it would have been very easy to cast anyone who objected to them as religiously-intolerant oppressors.

But, that was then, this is now. Islam currently has a reputation for being a volatile ideology that doesn’t play well with the other religions, especially anywhere that they exist in sizable numbers. In fact, it would appear as though their belligerence is directly proportional with their representation in a population.

One would think that making the choice to prop up a violent ideology as an underdog was a mistake. This being the case, it would seem productive for the left to go back on it’s choice to do so. So, why aren’t they doing this? Why does the western political left so insist on continuing to defend the Islamic ideology?

The thing is, mistakes are not easy to admit having made. This especially holds true for political ideologies, which must maintain the image that they stand for, but also must maintain that they won’t make terrible mistakes against their own values, and in so doing, betray the trust of the people who view them as leaders. To this end, the left continues to insist that treating Islam as an underdog wasn’t a mistake.

Another aspect of this matter is that the left would otherwise be wanting for a religion associated with their image. This is very important, as most people in the western world are religious, and have historically been leery of those who do not identify as having a religious identity. This holds especially true in the United States, which is sometimes referred to as the most religious country in the world. Religious affiliation is so important to the electorate that, to this very day, there has not been a US president that has not professed Christianity.

Generally speaking, the western right has historically professed Christian values, a fact that makes Christians have a very easy time identifying with the right, and those on the right usually identify as being Christian. While those on the left do identify as being Christian, it’s hard to reconcile many of the values of Christianity with the liberalism that the left embraces. When the left expresses a religious identity, while it may be in many cases sincere, it’s often a nominal profession.

The left’s relationship with Islam is in large part due to the fact that, without an expressed acceptance for the practice of a religious ideology, they’d appear non-religious, which would alienate a population that is mostly religious.

So then, why Islam? When there are so many other religious identities out there, why does the left continue to defend what would be, if left to its own devices, the bully of the playground?

In a sense, it was the right that provoked it. While the right has good reason to be critical of the Islamic ideology, that criticism provokes a response from those who traditionally serve as their check. Because the left has an image of being the defender of the little guy, it’s easy to come to the defense of a minority group that appears misunderstood, especially when it’s one’s political opponents that are supplying the criticism.

But there’s more to it. The left doesn’t just defend Islam, it respects it. It respects it like it respects no other religion out there. The left could get behind Jews, and historically, they tried. But the right has a great deal of sympathy for the Jews by nature of their own Christian background and the theology that the two share. In the American south, Jewish job applicants have been trusted more than any other religious group. As for other religious groups such as Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus, they’re still relatively obscure in the western religious landscape, and the right doesn’t as largely criticize these groups in the same manner as they do Islam.

What is behind the left’s respect for Muslims and the Islamic religion?

Simple psychology tells us that people have more respect for other people when there is a connotation of consequence with upsetting them. Most religions teach principles like patience and forgiveness. This is especially true of Christianity. There isn’t much expectation of an immediate backlash for disappointing a person whose religion emphasizes mercy, patience and forgiveness. When one understands this, they have a pretty sound explanation for why Christians are singled out for mistreatment in many places where they’re a minority.

When it comes to Muslims, the expectation is far different. If someone is going to come at you in an angry fit because you put bacon in their chicken sandwich, you’d be more likely to keep the bacon far from their chicken sandwich. If someone wants you to keep alcohol away from your gathering because their religion forbids it, most would respect his request if his religion says it’s incumbent on believers to fight non-believers. If someone complains about your music and dancing because their religion forbids both, you’d wonder what’s wrong with their religion. But if that person can make you sorry that you decided to smart-mouth them, you’d be considerably less daring.

Again, people tend to have more respect for those with whom there is a connotation of consequence with upsetting them. This being the case, it’s easy to see why people are more reluctant to step on a Muslim’s toes than those of a Christian.

Considering all this, it’s much easier to understand why the western political left is sympathetic to Muslims in spite of the fact that, if Muslims were to call the shots, their policies would stand in opposition to many, if not most, of the values of liberalism, and of western civilization.

Leftists are enabling a great danger to western civilization and the world at large. The sooner they understand this and take the necessary corrective actions, the better.

What is with the timeline we are in? I ask this because there is a clinic in the UK which has been performing experimental hormone therapy on children as young as three that is designed to prevent the onset of puberty.

An NHS clinic has been determining children to be “transgender”, then performing hormone therapy on them. Five employees of the NHS have called it quits over the experiments, with some of them saying that they felt pressured to prescribe the treatment against their better judgement, and that the transgender status of the children had not been properly ascertained.

No kidding.

At least one clinician stayed in their position by reason that they’d be in a position to protect children from inappropriate therapy. Here’s an idea: don’t diagnose children as transgender. They’re too young to know what’s going on, and are obviously being preyed upon by being introduced to terrible ideas, the full implications of which they don’t fully comprehend. And while you’re at it, don’t perform unethical human experiments of any sort. I know that there’s money involved, but giving yourself up is too high a cost.

Once the subjects reached the age of 16, they would then be put on a hormone regimen to help them develop the characteristics of the gender they have been deluded into identifying with by people they were supposed to be able to trust.

If you’ve wondered what things would look like when those who are more concerned with profit than your physical and mental well-being are put in establishment control, that’s where we’re at right now. This is the kind of thing that happens when we allow into positions of authority those who propagate obvious delusions to the detriment of even children.

And there’s likely a lot more going on that we don’t yet know about.

There comes a time when you have to admit that good intentions aren’t what it takes to solve a problem. The UK’s intention was to solve the problem of knife crimes. The solution that they came up with? It was pretty much “We’ll just leave this box here, you put your knives in, and then things will be peachy-keen.”

How do you think that went?

No prize for guessing that criminals stole the knives. That was exactly what happened. If you have to be brought to the finish line, then let’s go over a couple points; go over them as slowly as you need to:

• Criminals seldom surrender the implements they use to commit crimes,
• Criminals steal things.

Therefore, the main people who deposited their knives into the boxes were those whose heartstrings were tugged by the good intentions of the deposit boxes, and they put them right where criminals could steal them, which they did. The end result is fewer knives in the hands of people who wouldn’t commit crimes with them, and more in the hands of those who would.

Here in the US, we got it right. We made guns legal for ordinary members of the population to possess, and it was so important to us that we made it the second amendment of our Bill of Rights. Because of this, criminals are terrified to commit crimes. Someone who thinks of threatening a random person on the street with a gun is hesitant on the chance that they might be carrying one, too.

One who has never been to the US might imagine that the US is riddled with gun violence. But, on the contrary, most Americans have never witnessed a shooting. There’s relatively little gun control, and gun violence is scarce. That pretty much demolishes the misconception that gun rights breed gun violence.

Anywhere that gun ownership is restricted, if someone manages to get their hands on a gun, they have an advantage over the rest of the population. Gangsters don’t give a care about a “criminal” moniker, and if there’s a possibility that they may be armed, the unarmed population is terrified to so much as gainsay them, and they can exercise control over entire neighborhoods, effectively becoming a form of underground government.

The obvious solution to knife violence is to give the general population license to fight back, as it has been with gun violence. However, the leftist ideal of weapon control is so dominated by fairyland happy thoughts that they actually believed that a surrender box would work. Again, the only people who would have surrendered their knives to these boxes would have been the ones whose heartstrings were tugged by the good intentions, which sadly would have contributed to a false sense of progress in the event that these boxes filled up.

From my observations, it appears as though a certain ideology is predisposed to encouraging acts of fanaticism with sharp objects. I know that correlation does not equal causation, but it’s interesting that Britain’s recent spike in knife crimes coincides with a recent increase in the ideology described. Wouldn’t it be far more productive to acknowledge and address the ideology that bears primary responsibility for the recent surge in armed crime?