Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did, and How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did
III. How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
IV. Post-Script

Content

I. Introduction

     I have decided to publish this written, expanded version of my 2018 video for YouTube which is entitled ""Stalin Killed More Than Hitler" Borders on Holocaust Denial". That video was written, filmed, and published in October 2018.
     What piqued my interest in this topic was the research which followed the production of my video "Ben Shapiro's 'Socialism is Theft' Ignores WWII, NATO, Corporate Privilege", which can be viewed at the following address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8kQcpvDFIE. In that video, I criticized Ben Shapiro's erroneous attribution of millions of Eastern European deaths to Stalin rather than Hitler. That video can be viewed at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y1Md5zEG8k
     I have decided to publish this written version, because the video ""Stalin Killed More Than Hitler" Borders on Holocaust Denial" has been categorized as "controversial" by YouTube, and risks being taken down. What follows is an expanded version of that eight-minute video which I improvised on October 18th, 2018. That video can be viewed here:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Frkru0Dcs&t=1s&bpctr=1556707612

II. Stalin Killed Fewer People Than Hitler Did

     I spent the first half of October 2018 researching World War II, the short-lived Nazi-Soviet pact (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), and Hitler vs. Stalin death totals, and I found out some really disturbing things. Most importantly, that the U.S. has been engaging in a 75-year-long propaganda campaign against its own citizens, to make them think that the U.S. was the most important and primary actor in World War II on the Allied side, when it was really the U.S.S.R., which lost 20 to 27 million people.

     The number of deaths attributed to Hitler in Eastern Europe are deliberately downplayed in Western media, in order to get Hitler's numbers lower, and Stalin's numbers higher, than they actually were. I believe that this is being done in order to lead people to think that America single-handedly defeated the Nazis, instead of that it was Stalin's brilliant diplomatic and manufacturing maneuvers which saved the world from Hitler.
     Contrary to popular American belief, America was not the most important victor, nor victim, of the Allied participants in World War II; that title goes to the U.S.S.R. (both because it was attacked before the United States was, and because it suffered between 50 and 75 times as many deaths as the Americans did).
     In a 2011 interview with RussiaToday, British historian Geoffrey Roberts says that "it was primarily the Soviet Union that won the Second World War, made the greatest sacrifices, was the greatest victor of the war. It didn't win the war on its own by any means - it won it in association with Britain, the United States, and other countries - but nevertheless... the Soviet Union was the key to victory over the Nazis in the Second World War." Roberts also concluded that, without American help, the Soviet Union would have eventually won the war by itself; it just would have taken longer. (Note: that interview is available at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U).

     Furthermore, few Americans are aware that American businesses financed the death camps of the Nazis. This occurred through the actions of Nazi financier and industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Brown Brothers Harriman, the Union Banking Corporation, the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, and other agents. Prescott Bush - the patriarch of the Bush American political dynasty - handled Thyssen's American accounts, resulting in the construction of a network of forced labor camps centered in Oswiecim, Poland; which were eventually converted into extermination operations. But we forget about that, and we forget that the Soviet army liberated that same extermination camp; whose Polish name Oswiecim was Germanized to "Auschwitz".

     The consequence of misremembering history in this way, is that we have allowed ourselves to be led to believe that America and the U.K. deserve all the credit for winning World War II.
     Moreover, Hitler is beginning to look good in comparison to Stalin in the eyes of many Americans. Days dedicated to the remembrance of Holocaust victims and victims of fascism - and now, even May Day (which in 2019 occurs on the same day that Holocaust Remembrance Day begins in Israel)- are being perverted by anti-communist opportunists, by being turned into events dedicated to the remembrance of "victims of communism". That's a problem because "victims of communism" is a group of people which would logically include Nazi and fascists collaborators, because they were murdered by communists too.
     Additionally, Stalin, Communism (and socialism, in all their forms), and Vladimir Putin are routinely demonized in the West, as if they were all in the same category, all one and the same, and all equally deserving of the charge of having killed some 80 to 100 million people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
     Ironically, those who pretend that anarcho-communism and totalitarian socialist autocracy are exactly the same thing, are often the same people who enthusiastically admit that infighting amongst leftists is a common cause of lack of socialist resolve in decision-making and in fighting back against fascists. Anti-communists thus acknowledge leftist infighting, while pretending that all leftists are the same.
     Many even claim that the Nazis were socialist simply because they labeled themselves as such (Note: I have addressed this topic thoroughly, in my September 2017 article "Debunking the Top Six Claims that the Nazis Were Socialist"; which can be viewed at the following link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/09/debunking-top-six-claims-that-nazis.html). The ludicrous idea that the National Socialists were merely nationalist versions of the Soviet Communists, practically reduces World War II to nothing more than a bout of socialist infighting. The idea that the Nazis were socialists, is one of the lies that anti-communists use to deliberately inflate the death tolls of socialist regimes (that is, by adding Nazi victim counts to socialist death tolls).
     If we want the Cold War, and American military belligerence and intervention, to end, then the record regarding U.S. and European relations with the Nazis and the Soviets during World War II must be set straight.

     Stalin perhaps deserves some credit for saving the world from Hitler, so I would not blame anyone for being appreciative of this fact (especially not the 50 to 70 percent of modern Russians who today still view Stalin as an admirable defender of the nation). But on the other hand, Stalin once said that  “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs”. So even by Stalin's standards, we don't have to be appreciative towards Stalin for defeating the Nazis if we don't want to.

     But even if we are not completely prepared to accept the idea that a world with Stalin and without Hitler is better than a world with Hitler and without Stalin (which is the choice that the people of Europe had to make), we can still examine fairly which of these men actually caused the deaths of more people (whether through direct orders, or through willfully or misguided decisions that caused destruction and affected millions). And that is what I intend to examine throughout the remainder of this essay.

     Many people died at the hands of the Nazis, and during Stalin's regime; there is no doubt about that. Getting a consistent and reliable death total, however, can often be difficult when studying atrocities, or when studying regimes that lasted twelve or thirty years. But why is there such a big discrepancy between the totals usually offered in regards to Stalin and Hitler? Some say that each killed about 20 million, but other sources say that Stalin killed 60 million or more. But what are the facts?

     Hitler is remembered for having killed six million Jews. But he also killed five million people who weren't Jewish in Germany, like Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people. But there were also the nine million German political dissidents, many of whom were Christian. So that's twenty million right there. And then you throw in the military deaths – the Battle of Stalingrad alone saw the death of nearly a million people, and about half a million Soviet troops – and you add the 20 to 27 million Soviet citizens who died during World War II to the Nazis' murders of 20 million people inside Germany, you've got a total of 40 to 47 million killed by the Nazis.

     Some say that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. First of all, that's not conclusively true. Second, do you remember who Stalin was killing? He was killing Nazis. If Stalin was killing Nazis – while cooperating with the U.S. and U.K. against Hitler, no less - then I hope Stalin killed more people, if it means that more Nazis would be dead.

     Some claim that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimated, in his book The Gulag Archipelago, that 66.7 million deaths were caused by Stalin. As far as an accurate death total caused by Stalin goes - or even just occuring during Stalin's rule - that number is bogusly inflated, and could only have been arrived at if you got confused and added together either: 1) all deaths caused by Stalin and Hitler put together; 2) all deaths that occurred in the U.S.S.R. during Stalin's 30-year-long regime, whether their death had to do with Stalin or not; and/or 3) all Soviet subjects who ever entered the gulag system once, while reasoning that since they all eventually died, it must have been Stalin's fault. None of these are appropriate ways to arrive at an accurate count of the number of people Stalin killed or ordered killed.

     Only about 830,000 people were formally ordered killed by Stalin. Capital punishment is terrible, but it is not as though none of these executions had any cause. Some people in Poland today still claim that the Katyn Forest Massacre was an act of attempted genocide against the Polish people. To claim that the Katyn Forest Massacre was an act of genocide trivializes the fact that Poland was housing German death camps, and diminishes the ethnic cleansing character of the Holocaust against the Jewish people. That's because the 18,000 Polish officers who were executed had refused to cooperate with Russians after being captured, when doing so would have allowed the Poles and Russians to join forces against the Nazis (although, of course, Poland would have to agree to be a protectorate and satellite of the U.S.S.R., which it eventually did).
     (Additional note on Poland: The Soviet Union may have played a role in the destruction of the Polish government, but it also arguably helped save the Polish people from the hubris of its military command structure, which foolishly thought itself strong enough to fend off the Nazi threat by itself, without Soviet assistance).

     Not every single death that happened in the U.S.S.R. between 1924 and 1953 is attributable to Stalin. The 20 to 27 million deaths of Soviet citizens in World War II are not attributable to Stalin. Some say that they are attributable to Stalin; supposedly for the large number of Red Army troops which Stalin "threw wave after wave of, at the Nazis", owing to Stalin's alleged shortfalls as a military general.
     Well, when your army's main strength is that you have a lot of men, what are you going to do? Resist the urge to "throw your men at them", and instead wait patiently for the enemy to show up at your door? If you expect the Soviet army to have waited for the Nazis to show up at their doorstep, I have some bad news for you: they tried that. Operation Barbarossa happened, the Nazis showed up right outside Moscow, and the Soviets didn't begin to regain territories lost in Operation Barbarossa until after the Nazis had already begun to encircle Moscow.

     The Soviet army was, unfortunately, ill-prepared technologically for the Nazis' onslaught. Those deaths are regrettable and to be mourned, but the fact that these people died fighting for Stalin doesn't mean that Stalin caused their deaths. The blame for their deaths should go to the officers who commanded Nazi troops (or Italian, Romanian, etc.) to shoot at them.

     To believe that the 10 to 20 million Soviets who died of disease, starvation, and natural disasters during Stalin's nearly 30-year-reign are all attributable to Stalin, is equally fallacious. Natural disasters, mechanical errors, distribution inefficiencies (like mass concentrations of wealth), and government failures, can all cause significant increases in rates of starvation, disease, and death. But that doesn't mean that Stalin, or the Soviet government, were capable of saving all their subjects from death, given these many manmade and natural odds against them.

     To suggest that Stalin should have done something more to alleviate the starvation in Ukraine which caused the Holodomor, is to ignore history; and it is to ignore, once again, that Stalin did do something to try to alleviate the starvation; he collectivized farms, confiscated grain, and redistributed it. Stalin did not cause that episode of mass starvation in Ukraine; the famine did. Stalin was trying to fix it. The farmers were making the famine worse; by slaughtering their livestock, and refusing to turn food over to authorities, choosing instead to try to profit off of the desperation of starving people.
     And in case you'd like to criticize Stalin for doing something instead of nothing, Stalin did wait several years before undertaking any direct measures to relieve the effects of the famine.

     To expect a government to be responsible for saving the lives of all its citizens – to the point where you blame whomever is nominally in charge of the government for any and all disasters, manmade and natural alike, that result in people's deaths – is ridiculous. It is to expect government to be able to completely subvert nature to human control. It is to expect government to be as powerful as God, and as much in charge of whether and when we die as God is.

     Historians acknowledge three main sources of mass deaths which occurred under Stalin: 1) deaths from forced collectivization; 2) deaths in the gulags; 3) deaths in purges and show trials.

     Low estimates for deaths from forced collectivization under Stalin was 3 million. The medium estimate is 5 million. The high estimate, by historian John Heidenrich, is 7 million.

     For the gulags, the low estimate is 2.3 million, but John Heidenrich's estimate is 12 million. This wide discrepancy will make a reliable average estimate all but impossible.

     For the purges, John Heidenrich makes a high estimate of 1.2 million killed by Stalin, while low ranges run from 600,000 to 750,000.
     While Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 66.7 million claim is the highest, John Heidenrich's totals come out to 20.2 million, while mid-range estimates have Stalin's death totals at 8 million, and low range estimates are 5.3 million. [Note: Solzhenitsyn's estimate refers to the total number of executions ordered by the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1959].

     The Soviets did not kill sixty million people or more. The population of the Soviet Union increased during Stalin's reign. Maybe Stalin directly or indirectly caused the deaths of 20 million people, maybe that figure is 5 or 8 million; we could probably debate that all day. But this much is for sure: if you're looking for someone who killed 60 million people, then look no further than the fascists. If you add together the 40 to 47 million people killed by the Nazis, to the deaths caused by their allies (Franco in Spain; Mussolini in Italy; Hungary, Romania, and others), it adds up to nearly 60 million dead in Europe at the hands of the fascist, imperialist Axis Powers.

     The 20 to 27 million Soviet citizens who died during World War II – as well as another 8 million Slavs outside of the U.S.S.R. who died – were nearly all attributable to the Nazis, not Stalin.

     Up until 1939, Stalin killed more people than Hitler did, and more quickly. But during the time period that matters most – World War II – it was Hitler who killed more people more quickly. And he also killed more people; at least twice as many people, in fact. If Stalin's death tolls amount to only 5.3 or 8 million, then it's possible that Hitler may have killed even as many as six to ten times as many people as Stalin did.

     If it upsets you that I’m appearing to defend forced labor, and the many deaths that it caused, just remember what the costs would have been - while fighting the Nazis - to allow people to go days or weeks at a time without working.

     First off, they would starve to death, because working was necessary for them to survive, even independently. Remember that survival is the main objective here, which requires both material sustenance and physical protection. And in that spirit, secondly, in the face of impending Nazi invasion, some of these people’s labor would have to benefit the state, and its war effort, if the Soviet citizens were to expect adequate protection by the Red Army, and/or to expect to be able to perform effectively as a soldier in it.

     This idea helps explain why the Soviets treated people who refused to work as if they were Nazi collaborators. People who refused to work were not only harming themselves by avoiding the efforts necessary to be self-sustaining; they were deemed to be effectively cooperating with the Nazis, because they refused to let the product of at least some of their labor go to fund the armament of the nearest armed agency that was willing and able to physically protect them from Nazi aggression (i.e., the army of the U.S.S.R.).

     The deaths which resulted from forced labor which occurred under Soviet control are not horrors of Stalinist totalitarianism; they are sacrifices which should and must always be remembered and mourned. Keep in mind that Stalin embarked upon the Five Year Plan to rapidly industrialize the U.S.S.R. knowing that Germany would eventually find itself in war with Russia, war with itself, or both. Much of the product of people’s labor did indeed end up in the hands of the state, and to some extent that is a betrayal of Marxist principles. However, the strength of the Soviet war machine – technologically flawed though it may well have been – turned out to be the source of the strength and protection of the Soviet people (if we’re talking about the moment it mattered most).

     Whether they liked it or not, people who died from being worked to death under the Soviet regime, gave their lives to the cause of producing enough armaments and produce to help a hundred million Soviets survive in the face of Nazis’ threats of death. The Nazis, whom – by the way – attacked the Soviet Union first; and initiated the conflict in the first place.
     In order to protect large numbers of people from grave threats to life and limb during wartime, it is sometimes necessary for some people to die without wanting to, so that others may live. It’s not something that has an ethical resolution, but then again it’s not something that we ought to expect to be able to resolve ethically.
     Maybe it’s not so crazy to suggest that, if the cause of a war is just, and if people must die in it besides the enemy, the allies who contributed the least to defeating the enemy, are at least an acceptable (if not preferable) loss, compared to the costs we would incur in failing to defeat that enemy.

     [Note: You can read more about my views on forced labor in my articles “Reflection Upon the Use of Forced Labor Camps by Anarchists and Communists”, and “The Gulags Were Less Harsh Than American Prisons Are”, which can be found at the following links: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/02/reflection-upon-use-of-forced-labor.html and http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-gulags-were-less-harsh-than.html

III. How Stalin Tricked Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

     By most any and all measures, what Stalin did to protect his people and hang onto power, was not as bad as – and, in many cases, was both necessary and objectively better – than what Hitler did in order to achieve those same goals for himself.

     Not only did Stalin succeed in commanding his army to occupy most of Berlin and Western Germany, and in forcing a Nazi surrender; he also succeeded in tricking Hitler with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which allowed Stalin to lead Hitler into this trap in the first place. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was also known as the “Nazi-Soviet pact” to “carve up Poland” between Germany and Russia.

     However, this pact was not a military alliance (at least not explicitly), although many people believe that it was. The pact was merely an agreement establishing friendly trade, and non-aggression and non-intervention concerning one another's military affairs. Additionally, the idea that any formal, explicit military alliance took place between Hitler and Stalin is false. The only remotely “military” aspect of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, pertained to establishing a state of non-aggression between the two countries, and to preventing each country from working with each other's enemies. The Soviet Army did train German military units; but this stopped in 1933, the year Hitler took power, so the idea that the Soviets provided direct military assistance to the Nazis is also false.

     True; Poland was practically reduced to the status of a Soviet buffer zone against Nazi aggression in the process of its occupation. And true, the boundaries which were delineated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement did serve to mark the maximum extent of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. in Polish territory (and, in that sense, allowed the Soviets to move troops in). But this was at least as much a blessing for the Polish people as it was a curse.
     The Polish had recently been at war with each Germany and the Soviet Union, and thus were not initially prepared to accept Soviet orders even if it meant better protection from the Nazis - did benefit, on the whole, from the protection afforded by Soviet occupation.

     What Stalin did, objectively served a more protective and peaceful purpose than what Hitler did.

     We hear horror stories of people sent to work in the cold, far east of Siberia. Why do you think Stalin sent people to Siberia? Yes, to sentence them to several years of harsh labor. But that labor served to support the war effort in part. Additionally, sending people far to the east in Russia, also served the purpose of getting those people physically far away from the front line so the Nazis can't hurt them; to a place where the Nazis couldn't reach them unless they attempted a full-scale invasion of all of Russia. Stalin even authorized the creation of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast region in Siberia. Relocating people to the East was strategic, in the same way that relocating factories had been strategic; protecting them from the Nazis.

     While the Soviet Union's occupation of Poland was not initially welcome, it served not only a “buffer zone” purpose for the Soviets; it allowed the Poles cover from the Nazis. Furthermore, the Soviets protected the Polish people from their own hubristic government, which thought its army capable of protecting against the Nazi armies' advance. They needed the Red Army's help and were ashamed to admit it.

     Don't forget, though; all of this happened immediately after - and as a result of – mass attempts at Nazi appeasement. Not just by the U.K. and France, regarding Czechoslovakia. Nearly every country in Europe attempted to appease the Nazis. The King of Belgium even gave his troops an order to stand down as the Nazis drove through his country, bypassing the Maginot Line in the northeast of France.

     So blame Stalin for bargaining with Hitler if you must; the Soviet Union was the last significant player in World War II to attempt to bargain with Hitler. Moreover, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact allayed Hitler's concerns about a possible Eastern Front building up between Germany and Russia, which allowed Hitler to prepare for his attacks against the U.K. and France.

     Don't get me wrong – Britain and France were American allies, and fought Hitler alongside the U.S. – but agents in Britain and France had both attempted to appease fascists. France had just recently been governed by the fascist Daladier, the racist Churchill made attempts to cooperate with Mussolini and Franco (albeit against Hitler), and Wallis Simpson was eyeing the British throne while at the same time having an affair with Nazi diplomat Joachim von Ribbentrop.

     Americans attempted to appease fascists too. I have already addressed above, the role which American business interests played in the construction of the forced-labor-camps-turned-death-camps in and around Auschwitz. But moreover, American authorities allowed the Nazi-sympathetic German-American Bund to march in Grafton, Wisconsin; and even to hold a rally at Madison Square Garden on February 20th, 1939.
     Franklin D. Roosevelt repeated his “I hate war” slogan that got him elected. At this time, 84% of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the war. The 1938 Evian Conference to address the global refugee crisis (which F.D.R. called for) failed to provide for an adequate accommodation to mass displacement of Jews. Additionally, Roosevelt's mother, his vice president Harry Truman, and his advisor Henry Stimson, were all anti-Semites. Henry Stimson, in fact, advised F.D.R. to refuse to allow a ship full of Jewish refugees, the M.S. St. Louis, to dock on American shores in 1939. They had been sold fraudulent disembarking passes by people in Cuba. Canada accepted some refugees, but 300 of the 900 passengers returned to Nazi-occupied Europe.

     The Americans, the British, the French, and the Soviets could all be said to have attempted either appeasement, non-aggression, and/or friendly trade with Nazi Germany; and/or to have attempted to cooperate with the Nazis' fascist allies, evidently in order to try to work with some fascists to destroy others. But given Germany's size and industrial output, it was inevitable that the Soviet Union would make Germany into its trading partner, at least temporarily (and moreover, the U.S.-German volume of trade was higher than the Soviet-German volume of trade in 1940).
     But also, it was inevitable that Germany and the Soviet Union would go to war with another, after trading peacefully for a time. The large border between Germany and the U.S.S.R. which existed only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact went into effect, allowed Stalin to create a war front where there needed to be one (because Stalin knew that Hitler was up to no good), while before the pact went into effect, there was no border between Germany and the Soviet Union.
     Unfortunately for Poland, however, the creation of a battle front between Germany and the Soviet Union meant that Poland would temporarily disappear from the map. But Poland stood in the way of the Soviet destruction of the Nazis. And fortunately for the Soviet Union and its protectorates (which includes Poland), the Molotov-Ribbentrop allowed Stalin to maintain an air of neutrality concerning Germany's military affairs, while the Soviet Union continued to benefit from Germany's sale of resources to it, which were crucial to the maintenance of the Soviet war machine. Which was essential to the destruction of the Nazis.

     The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact thus allowed the Soviets to buy time to prepare for Hitler's eventual betrayal of the pact. In the meantime, vital industrial operations which could not be allowed to fall into the hands of the Nazis, were moved East. We are told in the West that Stalin was taken off guard by Hitler's betrayal, but it is quite possible that the Molotov-Ribbentrop was an ingenious ploy by Stalin that he was counting on Hitler to eventually betray. Which could allow Stalin to trap him.

     And so, perhaps it was worth it for Stalin to buy his large number of Soviet subjects a little temporary safety, while through little fault of Stalin's own, Hitler would shake the relatively smaller populations of Britain and France like a hornet's nest, in a tragic act of payback for their attempts at appeasement of the Nazis (which were more enthusiastic and consequential than the Soviets', and not intended as tricks). Maybe that was the only way that Western Europe could have been stirred into action, could have resolved to end their appeasement attempts and start fighting, could have accepted Stalin's help despite their fear of Communism, in the name of defeating their mutual enemy, the Nazis.

     Maybe that's the only way that such a united front could ever have been built up against Hitler in the first place. Maybe Stalin knew exactly what he was doing by making the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The “Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up Poland” should not scare us anywhere near as much as the fact that nearly 20 European countries attempted some form of non-aggression, trade, or appeasement policy towards the Nazis and/or their allies. Not just Russia, not just Britain and France, not just America; eighteen or more European countries and the U.S..

     Regarding the aftermath of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Woody Guthrie sang that if he were a Polish farmer, he would have been glad if the Red Army came in. In my opinion, Poland should have agreed to become a protectorate of the U.S.S.R. as soon as possible. Why should it have formed an alliance with the U.K., which was much farther away from Poland than Russia is? From a purely logistical perspective, that arrangement could not have been effective.

     Guthrie also said at the time that Stalin was trying to figure out whether the Nazis or the liberal democracies of Western Europe were going to try to devour the Soviet Union first; and whether Fascism or democratic capitalism was a bigger threat to Communism. After all, they were both equally hostile to the Communists.

     Recently, conservative American viewers of Fox News were wrongly told that the Japanese imperialists who allied themselves with Hitler were “communists”. Americans are told to be fearful of Communists and Nazis, almost as if they were the exact same thing. This, of course, neglects the fact that during the most recent major world war, they were enemies to the death, and also the fact that the conflict between them is continuing; just in other forms.

     Americans are told that Stalin killed on the basis of nationality, just like Hitler. That is not true; Stalin may have ordered killed military officers on the basis of what country they fought for (and refused to stop fighting for when captured), and also prominent people who were leading nationalist uprisings within the Soviet Union, thus undermining it and risking collaboration with the Nazis. But those executions had a purpose; protecting the Soviet people from political influence from the outside world.

     It may seem cruel and totalitarian to us to shield your people from outside political influence, but remember that this occurred at the time of the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Soviet Union was, at that time, surrounded by sixteen different capitalist enemies (in Eastern Europe, Japan and the U.S., as well as neighbors in the Middle East, etc.).
     Outside political influence on the Soviet Union would have meant the collapse of the U.S.S.R., and the deaths of many Soviet subjects as a result. But deaths increase after any regime ends; when the U.S.S.R. collapsed (and submitted to capitalism), caloric intake declined, and alcoholism and suicide rates increased. Additionally, the Soviet Union had a larger population than any other country in Europe at the time (and still does), so there were a lot of people who need protecting; particularly including in comparison to those in Western Europe who were targeted by the Nazis while the Soviets were preparing for the Nazi invasion.
     The deaths of Britons, Frenchmen, Czechs, and others at the hands of the Nazis are regrettable, but the alternative would have been that the Soviets would have had to fight the Nazis on their own. Not that the Soviets wouldn't have won that war eventually; it just might have taken much longer without help from the British, French, and Americans.

     Moreover - without American, British, and French assistance to the defense of the U.S.S.R. - it's possible that those three powers might have even joined the fascist against the Soviets. It may sound dubious, but the British and French handing Czechoslovakia over to Hitler - and other appeasement moves, as well as Churchill's arguably genocidal actions in Bengal and Kenya, and attempts to reach out to Mussolini and Franco, whom were at times allied with Hitler - should suffice as ample evidence showing how far Britain and France were willing to go to keep Hitler happy (or at least for the first year or two of the war).
     And can you imagine what would have happened, if Stalin had tried to demonstrate his resolve against the Nazis, by having the Red Army attack the Nazis first? What makes you so sure that the U.K. and France wouldn't have treated such an attack as an initiation of aggression against the Nazis? Until such an attack by the Soviet Union were to happen (and it didn't), a British-French-Nazi pact would not have been out of the question. That is, provided that the Nazis would have been able to make their case to the British and French that the U.S.S.R. had attacked Germany without provocation.
     But the fact of European appeasement of Nazis, should not be construed to excuse the Americans' relentless self-congratulation for helping to win World War II. That's because this self-congratulation is mainly done to applaud the imperialist, fascistic, pro-capitalist, and anti-communist aims which have been pursued by the United States and the United Kingdom since the very day the Allies celebrated victory over the Nazis.
     Once the Nazis surrendered, Churchill immediately began conspiring to order the killing of Stalin, the hero of World War II who commanded the Red Army to march towards Eastern Germany while Hitler cowered in his bunker contemplating suicide. Stalin, having won World War II almost single-handedly, was reduced right back to persona non grata, the moment that the European front of the war was over.

IV. Post-Script


     To find evidence supporting the above assertions, please visit the following link, to find a list of links that will help illuminate the goals of Stalin, and the worldwide refugee crisis which preceded World War II in the 1940s, and followed the wave of nationalist sentiments which overtook Europe in the 1930s:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/02/60-links-that-will-change-way-you-think.html

(not an original meme)

Based on an Improvised October 18^th, 2018 YouTube video

entitled ““Stalin Killed More Than Hitler” Borders on Holocaust Denial”

Edited and Expanded Version Published on April 30^th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on May 1st, 2019
Links Added on May 1st, 2019
Edited on May 2nd, 2019
Edited and Expanded on May 10th, 2019

Meme Added on May 10th, 2019

Regarding the Surviving Royal Families of Europe

     The Soviet Union and Germany didn't achieve socialism. But fortunately, what they did achieve was throw off their country's royal families:

     - The USSR in 1917-1918,

     - Germany in 1918 when social democrat Friedrich Ebert took over after Wilhelm II died,

     - (and also Greece in 1973).

     I wrote "families", but they were the same family (in both the previous three countries named, and the next seven countries named). Eleven European countries still have monarchies; 1) an absolutist monarchy in the Vatican; 2-4) constitutional monarchies in Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Sweden; and 5-11) seven other constitutional monarchies. Those seven constitutional monarchies are the primary focus of this article.

     Those seven European countries - the U.K./Wales/Scotland (Edinburgh), the Netherlands (through William of Orange, of Danish origin), Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, and Norway - all still have royal families. Sure, they are monarchies which are "limited by a constitutional republic", but the fact that seven European countries' royal families are related ought to concern us. Is  a constitutional republic really enough limitation on a royal family that rules a third of the countries on the continent?

King George V of England (right) with his first cousin Czar Nicholas II of Russia (left).

Both men shared a grandmother, Queen Victoria of England.

     The Russian and English royal families, the German and English royal families, as well as the Spanish and Dutch royal families, have all been intertwined at times. The last German king, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia, was the son of a German king, and Victoria, Princess Royal, the daughter of Queen Victoria of England. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was married to Alexandra of Hesse, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria; this means Nicholas went to war with his own wife's first cousin. Nicholas and Alexandra married in 1894; thirty-one years after Nicholas's cousin George's parents, Albert and Alexandra, had already gotten married to each other. Nicholas's wife Alexandra's mother Alice, and Nicholas's aunt Alexandra's husband Albert, were both children of Queen Victoria.

     Have you ever heard of King Christian IX of Denmark (1818-1906), of the House of Glucksburg (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg)? He was born in Denmark, but moved to Norway, and founded the branch of the Carlist monarchical dynasty that rules most of the surviving European constitutional monarchies.

     King Christian IX is known as the "father-in-law of Europe". His children and grandchildren of King Christian IX have included kings, queens, princes, and princesses of nine countries, six or seven of which still have the same royal family running them (Note: I say "six or seven" because I think the issue of whether the Netherlands should be included, should stay open for debate. That's because the Danish-Dutch-British ties (which the relations of King Wilhelm I of the Netherlands brought to the monarchy) were formed before King Christian was born).
     The countries in which King Christian's direct descendants remain in power today, are the U.K., Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Denmark, and Norway.

     Below is a partial list of the most powerful of Christian's descendants, broken down by country. The first six countries still have Carlist kings descended from Charlemagne and Christian IX. Some names appear twice, in order to reflect the descendants' ties to multiple countries.

     The Netherlands do not appear here, because - to reiterate - the ties between the Danish, Dutch, and British monarchies which were brought to the Carlist royal family by the Dutch King Wilhelm I were formed before King Christian IX of Denmark lived. Wilhelm I of the Netherlands was neither a descendant nor an ancestor of King Christian IX.
     I have also included Greece, Russia, and Germany below. Although the Carlist monarchy has no official power in those countries anymore, I have decided to include them in order to show the full extent of the family's relations in the two countries mentioned at the beginning of the article (i.e., Russia and Germany) as well as Greece (because it abolished the monarchy so recently; in 1973).
     [Note: This is not intended to be a complete list of all descendants of King Christian IX of Denmark; additional research is needed, and may be added below in subsequent edits of this article.]

- United Kingdom:
     - King Christian's daughter Queen Alexandra of the U.K., Denmark, etc. (1844-1925)
     - Grandson King George V (1865-1936)
     - Great-grandson King George VI (1895-1952)
     - Great-great-granddaughter Queen Elizabeth II of England (1926-)

- Scotland / Edinburgh:
     - King Christian's great-grandson Philip Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of the United Kingdom (born in Greece to Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)

- Belgium:
     - Phillippe

- Luxembourg:
     - Grand Duke Henri

- Spain:

     - King Felipe VI (1968-)
     - Queen Sofia of Greece and Denmark (mother of King Felipe VI of Spain) (1938-)

- Denmark:

     - Margarethe II

     - King Frederick VII

     - King Christian's daughter Queen Maria Feodorovna, princess of Denmark and Empress of Russia (1844-1925)

     - Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh (born into Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)

     - Queen Sofia of Greece and Denmark (1938-)
- Norway:
     - King Harald V of Norway

- Germany:
     - King Christian's daughter Princess Thyra (had German ties)
     - King Christian's son Valdemar of Denmark (had German ties)

- Russia:
     - Nicholas II
     - King Christian's daughter Queen Maria Feodorovna, princess of Denmark and Empress of Russia (1844-1925)

- Greece:
     - King Christian's son King George I of Greece (1845-1913)
     - King Christian's grandson Prince Andrew of Greece  (1882-1944)
     - King Christian's great-grandson Philip Duke of Edinburgh and Prince of the United Kingdom (born in Greece to Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)

     - Queen Sofia of Greece and Denmark (mother of King Felipe VI of Spain) (1938-)

     - Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh (born in Greece to Greek and Danish royal families) (1921-)     - Constantine II
     - Queen Anne-Marie

     By the way...

     All of those countries, in some way, attempted to appease Hitler. Many of those appeasement attempts would have had the effect of preserving their monarchies, and in many cases those attempts were done in order to preserve their monarchies. The King of Belgium even gave troops orders to stand down as the Nazis swept through his country.

     Limiting the monarchy is one thing, but abolishing it is another. One monarchy governing six or ten countries is not sovereignty, and it is certainly not populism, nor democracy, nor liberty. Conservative monarchism is fascism; it is the Divine Right of Kings. And it will not hesitate to feed populaces to fascists.
     Conservative monarchists - most notably Franco, Mussolini, and even Churchill - all attempted to appease and/or cooperate with powers that were more fascist, racist, and brutal than they were themselves. Each made the mistake of thinking that they could work with regimes much more brutal than they.

     It is true that nearly all monarchists are brutal and fascistic, but that does not mean that all fascist or fascistic regimes support monarchies. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean that fascists, and the monarchies with whom they compete for power, won't collaborate when outside forces pressure them to choose sides.
     I hope I have not given the impression that I appreciate the regimes which abolished the monarchy in Germany and Russia, more than I appreciate the abolition of the monarchy in those countries in general. I believe that the U.S.S.R. was a milder replacement for the monarchy in Russia, than the Nazi regime was for the monarchy in Germany.
     Additionally, it was not Hitler who initially replaced the monarchy in Germany; Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia abdicated in 1918, leaving Germany devoid of any kings. The Nazi regime did not take power until 15 years later. If Wilhelm had not abdicated, Hitler may well have had more of an impetus to cooperate with the monarchy and rule in their favor. And in their mutual opposition of the Soviet Union, the Nazis had a natural ally in the countries that wanted to preserve their monarchies. All the Nazis had to do was convince those countries to accept Nazi occupation.
   

[Note:

     This article previously contained some inaccurate information regarding the family relationships between Nicholas II, Wilhelm II, George V, Alexandra of Hesse, Queen Victoria, and Christian IX. The author regrets the error.]

Originally Written and Published on April 12th, 2019

Edited and Expanded between April 30th and May 2nd, 2019

Images Added on April 27th and September 18th, 2019

Edited on April 16th, 2021

Forty-Seven Reasons Why I'm Concerned About a Resurgence of Nazism in America (Incomplete)

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. Most Americans Don't Mind Sacrificing Liberty or Privacy in Exchange for the Illusion of Security
2. The T.S.A. Confiscates Our Things and Sells Them on the Cheap, Like the Nazis Did to the Jews
3. Both I.C.E. and the Nazis Used the Promise of Showers to Deceive Their Prisoners

4. Most Americans Don't Mind Spending too Much, Working too Hard, to Earn Special Treatment
5. Unpaid Prison Labor and For-Profit Prisons Are on the Rise
6. Fear-Mongering About Disease-Carrying Immigrants Prompts Calls for Ethnic Cleansing
7. U.S. Immigration Authorities Sprayed Immigrants with Zyklon-B, Once Used to Gas Jews
8. Authorities Are Spraying People with Noxious Gas at the Border Right Now
9. Calling Welfare Recipients and Immigrants “Parasites” Normalizes Dehumanization
10. Americans of Both Major Parties Justify Abortion if it's of “the Right Race”
11. Immigrants Are Depicted as Invading Hordes of Barbarians, Like the Jews Were

12. Immigrants Are Depicted as Both “Lazy” and “Taking Your Jobs”, Like the Jews Were
13. President Trump Has Promulgated Stereotypes About Hispanics, Muslims, and Jews
14. President Trump Said He'd Consider Creating a Database of Muslim-Americans
15. President Trump Encourages His Supporters to Harm Protesters and Dissidents
16. Trump's Ex-Wife Claims He Reads and Admires the Fascist Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini
17. President Trump Wants to Amend or Repeal the Birthright Citizenship Clause
18. The President Wants Dictatorial Power, and Congress Has Historically Given it to Him
19. The 2020 Census Could Be Used as an Excuse to Arrest and Deport Undocumented Immigrants
20. The U.S. Already Practices Internment of “Undesirables” and Maintains Concentration Camps
21. People Still Excuse F.D.R. for Refusing to Let Undocumented Jewish Refugees In
22. The Democratic Party's Love of Big Government Makes Authoritarianism Unavoidable
23. An I.C.E. Official Said They're “Just Following Orders”, Like the Nazi Adolf Eichmann Did
24. Trump's Former Press Correspondent Claimed That the Nazis Never Used Chemical Weapons
25. Ultra-Nationalism, Nativism, and Extreme Anti-Immigration Policies Are the New Normal

26. American Citizens in Good Standing Are Already Losing Their Citizenship Without Cause

27. Right-Wingers in Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. Hope to Form an "Axis" to Solve Immigration
28. Democrats' Enthusiastic Support for Assimilation Plays Right into Republicans' Hands

29. Americans of Both Major Parties Demonize the Far Left, Communism, and All Things Foreign
30. Obama Democrats Made it Difficult to Get Away with Calling the President Racist or Fascist

31. Strong Anti-Fascism is Virtually Non-Existent in Libertarian Circles, the One Place it Matters
32. I.C.E. Separates People by Age and Sex, Like the Nazis Did
33. I.C.E. Confiscates Religious Items, Like the Nazis and Communists Did
34. Post-9/11 Fear of Foreigners and Middle Easterners Threatens the Safety of Jewish People
35. A Growing Number of Americans Want to Silence Discussion of Israel
36. All Criticism of the State of Israel is Deemed Anti-Semitic, and This Silences Jewish Voices
37. Promoting Jewish Stereotypes is Publicly Acceptable in America Nowadays
38. Many Jewish-Americans Have Been Legally, and Voluntarily, Disarmed
39. Israeli Ultra-Nationalism is on the Rise, and Gaza is Already a Concentration Camp
40. George W. Bush's Grandfather Was a War Profiteer, and Bush Loyalists Are Still in Office
41. American Companies That Financed Nazis and the Holocaust Are Still Around, and Popular
42. Americans and Soviets Imported Nazi Scientists As Part of Operation Paperclip
43. Americans Call for More Non-White Police, While Nazis Rewarded Loyalty with Police Posts
44. Many Americans Are Desensitized to Violence, and See Mass Murder as Something Funny
45. A Literal Nazi Ran for U.S. House of Representatives and Won His Nomination Uncontested
46. American Culture is Awash in Alcohol, Which Was Given to Jews to Cope with Their Conditions
47. American Culture Values Competitiveness in Sports, the Economy, and Even Survival

Conclusion

Content

Introduction

     The October 27^th Tree of Life Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh – in which 11 Jewish-Americans were shot to death in the midst of their morning prayer¹ – confirmed many Americans' fears that the threat of violent anti-Semitism is real. Many are beginning to wonder whether actual Nazism itself is on the rise in America today² (as opposed to just plain American imperialism and authoritarianism, like we're used to seeing every day).³

     On November 19^th, a video was uploaded to the YouTube channel youthleadermagazine, entitled “Jeremy Ornstein Sunrise Movement 1: Adults – Face Harsh Reality – GROW UP!”.⁴ In the video, an 18-year-old Jewish-American student from Massachusetts named Jeremy Ornstein, speaks outside of once and future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's office in Washington, D.C.. Accompanied by scores of students holding signs reading “Green New Deal”, Mr. Ornstein described his brother finding the Holocaust memoirs of their grandparent who had immigrated from Hungary.

     According to Ornstein, “I walked in, and almost immediately to my right, I saw a book on the table, and read that the Nazis pretended the gas chambers were showers to kill the Jews. And I remembered that I was devastated by that fact, and all of my resolve fell from my shoulders. And before I left that room, I had to grow up. So many times in the past few years, I have had to grow up. Like the first, second, and third time I read about kids being shot in schools. And when we all learned about the lead in the water in Flint. And every time that I read or see about the aftermath of climate-fueled disasters.”⁴

     Mr. Ornstein then described being on the phone with his father while the shooter in Pittsburgh was still active, and went on to challenge Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to “grow up” like he did.

     In his speech – perhaps intentionally, perhaps unwittingly - Ornstein seemed to be drawing a parallel between the Nazis' deceptive promise of showers for the Jews in their custody, and the government's failed promise of clean, potable drinking water to the people of Flint, Michigan.⁵ Each involved a promise of water and cleanliness, and neither promise was fulfilled.

     Ornstein is right to call his government out for failing to deliver on its promise, and to challenge the Democratic Party leadership to stand up to the opposition party. While it would be difficult to argue that Jeremy Ornstein and his ancestors were not victimized by their governments, it is hard to ignore the tragic irony of his situation: he is coerced into trusting a government which has already deceived him many times before. Moreover, he is begging one party to protect him from the other.

     Ornstein described repeatedly being let down by the Democratic leadership, albeit while wearing a T-shirt bearing the words “we have a right to good jobs and a livable future”, and while admitting that the Nazis baited their Jewish victims with promises that they'd take care of them and give them showers. It would be unfair to blame the victims in these situations, but I'm compelled to admit that Ornstein's message is, sadly, not as self-aware as it could be.

     In my opinion, one of the main lessons of the fact that Nazis pretended that gas chambers were showers - and gave the Jews soap to wash up with as they were being unwittingly led to their deaths (although some knew, or at least suspected, what was happening)⁶ - is that governments are willing to tempt their people with promises of care, riches, jobs, and other nice things, even if those governments eventually want those very same people dead.

     The use of showers as an excuse to “exterminate” people, is just one small example in a long line of policies influenced by the “ethnic cleansing” mindset.^{7, 8} A nation which adopts this mindset will posit that the nation, its moral culture, and the human gene pool need to be “cleansed” of “alien” and “sub-human” elements, and takes this as an ideology of “racial hygiene”, to underlie and inform its public health policy.⁹ This idea – and the idea that we're all being fattened-up, and made to surrender all sorts of measures of privacy, independence, and even security, for the sake of the illusion of security, and a little special treatment – is what I intend to explore in the remainder of this essay.

     I see many reasons why the administration of President Donald Trump could, should, and must be described as imperialistic and authoritarian, and even as dictatorial, fascistic, and Naziesque. This essay is intended as a precise enumeration of the forty-five reasons why I feel that way, and what parallels I see between the current treatment of immigrants to the United States by I.C.E., and the treatment of Jewish prisoners by the Nazi S.S. (schutzstaffel; “storm troopers”) before and during the Holocaust.

1. Most Americans Don't Mind Sacrificing Liberty or Privacy in Exchange for the Illusion of Security

     Regarding a tax dispute in Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”¹⁰ Although Franklin made that statement in favor of taxation for the purposes of funding collective defense,¹¹ the statement has been characterized as one in favor of greater privacy and less government intrusion in our lives.¹²

     Franklin's point is well taken; the political ramifications of the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 – in particular, the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act,¹³ and the 2012 N.D.A.A. (National Defense Authorization Act)^{14, 15} – have demonstrated just how much privacy, independence, integrity, and peace Americans have been willing to put up with paying, in order for the illusions of safety and security,¹⁶ and in exchange for a little bit of convenience^{17, 18} and special treatment.

     As a result of the Patriot Act, omnibus defense budgets whose riders affirmed the policies of the Patriot Act, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions; the Bill of Rights,¹⁹ habeas corpus,²⁰ the principles of the Magna Carta,²¹ and the rule of law,²² are effectively null and void.

     F.B.I. agents write their own search warrants.²³ Courts have made it easier for police officers to follow us into our homes,²⁴ and to declare us domestic terrorists,²⁵ deny our right to trial,²⁶ and freeze our assets so that we can't defend ourselves in court.^{27, 28} Citizen and judiciary complacency with “Stop-and-Frisk” laws²⁹ have rendered the decision in Terry v. Ohio practically meaningless,³⁰ all but ignoring our right to resist officers who violate our safety, and even violate the law itself, in the course of their duties.^{31, 32}

     However, 9/11 did not change everything; as many of these restrictive measures were in place long before the attacks. As the result of a Supreme Court decision made in the 1980s (Warren v. D.C.),³³ police are rarely held responsible for their crimes,³⁴ and never held to an expectation that they will protect and serve all the people.³⁵ As the result of a Clinton-era law,³⁶ local police departments all over the country are in possession of weapons of war, from machine guns, to tanks, to drones, etc..³⁷

     Those offenses against the people, as well as the intrusions into our privacy via warrantless wiretaps³⁸ and other forms of domestic surveillance, have been well-documented (of course, not well enough). But those points aside, it should not escape our attention that the Transportation Security Administration posted a whopping 95% failure rate in a 2015 study, catching only 3 out of 70 concealed weapons.³⁹

     The T.S.A. does create what Franklin described; the feeling of “a little temporary safety”. But the T.S.A.'s failure shows that this feeling of safety is just that; a feeling, an illusion. Given this fact, the reckless invasions of privacy, bodily autonomy, and physical comfort which are reflected in its policies concerning pat-downs and body scanners,⁴⁰ should prompt us to question whether there is anything at all in these practices which benefits us (the people paying for it, and the people subjected to it).

     Today, anyone is welcome in America who steadfastly trusts, and is loyal to, the police. Some Americans want to believe so badly that the police are doing the right thing, that they are willing to excuse the unnecessary use of force (and the disproportionate use of that force against non-whites⁴¹) – or an excessively complicated and even conflicting set of directions for surrender⁴² – in order for an officer of the law to subdue an arrestee. Recent years have seen Americans arrested after failing to obey orders due to an inability to hear those orders in the first place, whether it's because they're deaf,⁴³ listening to music on headphones,⁴⁴ mentally disabled,⁴⁵ a legally armed security guard who simply didn't hear the order to drop the weapon,⁴⁶ or even already paralyzed and in a coma.⁴⁷

     This devoted trust of police officers and their commands, have given rise to the idea that “all you have to do is comply, and you won't get hurt.”⁴⁸ American comedian Bill Burr remarked sarcastically, “Look, it's really simple. All you have to do is comply, and you won't get your ass kicked by police. When they tell you to get down, you get down. When they tell you to turn in your gun, you turn in your gun. When they tell you to get in the boxcar, you get in the fucking boxcar. Why in the Hell is this so difficult to understand, people?”⁴⁹ In the words of author Patrick S. Tomlinson, “'Just do what they say and you won't get hurt' is what we tell hostages, not free citizens interacting with police.”⁵⁰

     As the old saying goes, “If you give someone an inch, they will take a mile.” That is, if you let someone tell you what to do, they'll continue doing it. Then, before you know it, you're just doing as you're told, without questioning it, instead of doing what you want to do.

     Although is is not required to think for yourself in our society, it is also not prohibited, and that is for a reason. If you let other people direct your life, eventually you will end up their puppet, and the executor of their will, and you may have to give up your identity, your well-being, or even your life in order to serve out somebody else's sick purposes. It's usually acceptable to refuse to obey orders that seriously violate your conscience and your sense of morality, and having a healthy distrust of authority is not only acceptable; it's part of our heritage as Americans (from the Revolutionary War).⁵¹

     As you read the remainder of this article, when I discuss American policies currently in place – I invite you to ask yourself how this policy affects Jewish-Americans. Set aside how it affects Americans who are not Jewish, and then consider the possibility that non-Jewish Americans' freedoms might be curtailed solely to make curtailments of Jewish citizens' freedoms seem normal, or “not as bad” by comparison.

      Opponents may say, “See, the Jews and the non-Jews both have to do something they don't want to do, that's called sacrifice,⁵² and it's what you do in a society to compromise”.⁵³ But consider the possibility, instead, that two wrongs don't make a right. Also, consider that condemning people to equal misery, is equality, but only equality in suffering.⁵⁴

2. The T.S.A. Confiscates Our Things and Sells Them on the Cheap, Like the Nazis Did to the Jews

     The Transportation Security Administration confiscates more than half a million dollars in spare change alone from travelers every year.⁵⁵ Not only that, they sell the items they confiscate from us on the cheap,⁵⁶ and you can go online^{57, 58} to find out how to buy those items back from them in government-sponsored police auctions.

     After a 1938 Nazi law required Jewish residents to register their wealth and their valuable possessions, the Nazis confiscated many Jews' possessions.⁵⁹ While some Jews were legally ordered to sell their possessions, others were left with no realistic alternative available but to sell their most cherished possessions in order to afford to leave the country, while others were forced to abandon their property in order leave the country. At times, Jews' property was sold to finance the government, and/or in order to finance the Jews' own deportation at the hands of the Nazis.⁶⁰

     American travelers - and sports fans,^{61, 62} and concert-goers - have almost gotten accustomed to abandoning their possessions with little or no notice or thought, when entering public property, or someone else's private property. Perhaps this is, to a large extent, a result of the T.S.A.'s rule banning containers of liquid larger than 3 ounces (in order to decrease the likelihood that a liquid-based plastic explosive or “gel-ignite” could be smuggled aboard an airplane flight).⁶³

     Once in 2012, I myself decided not to attend a speech by President Obama because the online invitation for the event suggested that security would confiscate my bottle of water on the way in.⁶⁴ It's hard to go see a band at a festival, concert, or even a punk bar, without showing your I.D. to prove that you're of legal drinking age, pay too much for the ticket, get your hand stamped and/or let them put a bracelet on you (to signify that you've paid already), and, possibly, be asked to throw away any food and drinks we might have on us. It seems excessive.

     But more importantly, it conditions us to put up with similar treatment by government, and by people who invite us onto their property. People should not have to choose to abandon water and food, - two of our most urgent needs - in order to be allowed onto private or public property. Nursing mothers should not have to throw away breast milk,⁶⁵ and cancer patients should not have to be attacked for not enjoying being grabbed by T.S.A. agents,⁶⁶ solely in order order to fly “safely” across their own country. Yet Americans put up with this sort of treatment every day – enduring all forms of medical torture - simply to get from Point A to Point B. The fact that the T.S.A. is selling our possessions back to us, only adds insult to injury.

     If this is all really “for our protection”, then clearly something is wrong. The right to be secure in our persons, papers, and property includes the rights of bodily autonomy, physical integrity, the right to defend oneself, and the right to possess items including medication, so long as we do not use those possessions to harm others. No government should have the right to force or pressure us to abandon, destroy, nor sell our property in order to cooperate with it, nor in order to cease cooperating with it (by terminating our citizenship).

     The fact that non-Jewish travelers suffer these indignities and deprivations, ought not be any less worrisome than the fact that Jewish travelers suffer them. And the fact that they both suffer, only helps to conceal the facts that 1) Jewish travelers are grossly inconvenienced by these measures, and 2) no traveler, concert-goer, nor sports fan – either Jew or Gentile – need undergo them.

     Those who remember the victims of the Holocaust, and whom have learned its lessons, would do well to consider that if they keep checking their possessions at the door (to the property, or the country, whatever the case may be), then they might eventually be asked, or even expected, to check even more of their property, and their right to privacy, and their identity and heritage, at the door. This is a slippery slope that will lead us to think that privacy, property, and the right to express ourselves are things that have to be earned at grave costs.

     But indeed they are, because so many have fought for them. That is why we must cherish the right to own possessions (as long as we don't use them to hurt others or gain leverage over people), and cherish our right to privacy, and to express ourselves, or else we will lose those rights.

3. Both I.C.E. and the Nazis Used the Promise of Showers as a Way to Deceive Their Prisoners

     According to witnesses, gas chambers at the Dachau extermination facility were disguised as “Brause Bad” (“shower baths”),⁶ and their ceilings were even studded with fake shower heads made of sheet metal.⁶⁷ The German reputation for cleanliness had culminated in an ideology of “racial hygiene”,⁹ wherein inferior races can be washed away from the “body” of the German volk (“the German people”) as diseases and parasites are washed away from pure white Aryan skin along with the dark soot. The disease may be given as typhus, but the “virus” that the Nazis intended to “wash away” was Jewishness.

     The book Crystal Night details how the Nazis allowed Jews to purchase food and cigarettes as a consolation for being deported.⁶⁸ This fact ought to teach us that when all of our "freedoms" are only exercised after paying, and when specifically permitted by government through permits and licensing, government can be made-out to look benevolent for simply removing the obstacles it placed between its employers (we the people) and the things we want. As Ayn Rand said, through her Fountainhead character Howard Roark, who will let me is "not the point. The point is, who will stop me?"⁶⁹

     To Jews arriving in Dachau, the fake shower heads probably provided a brief moment of hope that the Nazis intended to, at least, keep them healthy enough to work themselves half to death. But history shows us that the permissions, allotments, variances, and even gifts that come from government, are merely as a “betrayal with a kiss" (as in the story of Judas's betrayal of Jesus). It is said to “Beware Greeks bearing gifts”, but it is also said not to “look a gift-horse in the mouth”. I prefer the former quotation.

     This is why I have written this article; to caution people about the twin dangers, which always go hand-in-hand: of totalitarianism (the Republicans) and totalitarianism-enablers (Democrats). Of Nazism (the Neo-Nazis and Trump loyalists) and the apathy and neutrality which make it possible. Let no one diminish what horrors the one is capable of inflicting, and the other of excusing, permitting, and being accomplice and accessory.

     Time and time again, the establishment Democrats, under leaders like Nancy Pelosi, have let young men like Jeremy Ornstein down. Democrats betray their own voters – supposedly a party of, by, and for workers and people of color – and turn around and push Republican policies on their own people. Then they try to make up for it by attaching riders to bills, and bargaining for slightly less repression, in order to tempt the left-leaning public with political goodies and treats; special favors intended as bargaining chips so that they'll vote them back into office.

     Democratic Republicanism, even of the Progressive or Democratic Socialist varieties, only serves to make unfulfillable and unaffordable promises to the American people, while using those promises to distract from not just their own impossibility and unaffordability, but also from the horrendous legislation the goodies are attached to. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders voted to support the 1994 crime control bill that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law led to the incarceration of at least a million non-violent offenders, but Sanders decided to support the bill because it included protection against victims of domestic violence.⁷⁰

     Whether it's a robust social safety net as a compromise for having to pay for the military-industrial complex, or compensation to farmers as consolation for getting “punished” by tariffs,⁷¹ the supporters of both major parties have been bought-out. Americans can't tell when they're just being fattened-up for the slaughter. They think they can buy their way out of a system that unabashedly fumbles for excuses to confiscate their property, and rules their lives, and regulates their money, and controls that money's value. The goodies and treats promised in exchange for the welfare-warfare state “compromise” are soaked with blood, and are inedible.

     When we think of Jews being saved from “extermination”, one thing that comes to mind is Nazi Party member Oskar Schindler, who is credited with saving the lives of over a thousand Jewish people by employing them in his factories.⁷² One wonders how many would-be Holocaust victims were saved solely because other people were not saved. I am reminded of the story of Rabbi Chaim Rumkowski, whom the Nazis gave a position as the head of the Council of Elders of the ghetto in Lodz (or Litzmannstadt) ghetto in Poland. Rabbi Rumkowski eventually called on ghetto-dwelling Jews to give up their elderly, their children, and themselves. All the while, Rumkowski performed a role similar to that of Schindler: shape which Jews survive, and which Jews escape the country. As a matter of fact, a 1942 speech⁷³ by Rumkowski shows that he thought of himself as a surgeon, with the collective body of the Jewish people before him on the operating table, believing that he needed to “cut off limbs in order to save the body”.⁷³ Captive Jews knew that it would help them to curry favor with Rumkowski (and with Jewish community leaders in other ghettos, and also with their Nazi captors).

     The sad facts that many Jews tried to ingratiate themselves to their captors through submitting to back-breaking labor, and through assimilating (for example, through their dress and appearance, and through converting to Christianity), and ingratiated themselves to the members of their own communities assigned to represent them, ought not serve as a mark of shame. But the consequences of those actions are felt today; Jews are not alone among the many peoples of America, or of the world, who cower at the feet of those who pledge and pretend to protect, serve, defend, and represent us (military, police, politicians, and bureaucratic special interests alike) whether they follow through on those promises or not.

     I'm disturbed by the contrast between that fact, and the fact that the Jewish tradition is one of peaceful disagreement, civil disobedience, and non-conformity. The shared trauma of the Holocaust and the horrors of police violence and domestic surveillance in post-9/11 America have produced a society wherein Jews and non-Jews alike have been intimidated into submission; into willfully divulging all of their personal information,⁷⁴ and registering many of their valuable possessions instead of insisting upon owning them outright.⁷⁵ America and Israel alike are societies full of people who have experienced Stockholm Syndrome;⁷⁶ if not at the hands of genocidal captors, then at least at the hands of their own tyrannical, imperialist government.

     Cooperation and authority are all well and good. But if it's cooperation with authority, or if you didn't give the authority to the authority figure willingly, or if it's cooperation with people who want you dead, then cooperating would be unwise because it would be submission to tyranny. It is not necessary to negotiate with our captors; not when it is possible to fight back, or when it is possible to prevent ourselves from falling into our captors' control in the first place. We can and must fight back against the demands and expectations that our possessions and privacy should be simply thrown away, so that we can enter someone's property, enter public property for which our taxes paid, or exercise our natural freedom to travel across the Earth.

     This is the condition we find ourselves in today: that we've allowed ourselves to be deceived. We believe that eating and smoking are privileges instead of rights, that do not have to be merely paid for but also permitted by the government. Many of us have been tricked into thinking that access to clean water is a privilege as well. That collecting rain water is not a right (when it can be done safely, and without affecting our neighbors).⁷⁷ That you have to pay taxes in some towns and municipalities – including my own former hometown of Lake Bluff, Illinois (as recently as June 2017) - in order to access its beaches.⁷⁸

     Where people can be tricked into thinking that clean water and showers are a privilege, rather than a right, they can be tricked into being so grateful for those things, that they can be convinced to give up anything and everything in order to receive them; their freedom, their clothing, anything.

     Yet most Americans are willing to give up food and drinks just to get into a movie theater or concert, give up small weapons they might need for self-defense just to get in anywhere, and give up their right to expect privacy wherever they go outside their own home. But most people don't even have “their own home”, because the bank and the government can always take it away.

     Whenever public utilities providers fail to deliver clean water, suitable, for drinking and bathing, to the people who pay their salaries - and whenever government places unnecessary obstructions to solving the problem when water must be delivered to people who need it – we should let our government's failed promises remind us of the Nazis' willful betrayal.

     But most importantly, I.C.E. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) did use the promise of baths – not showers, like the Jews, mind you; but baths - in order to trick immigrant women into allowing officials to take their children away.

     According to Texas-based federal public defender Miguel Nogueres, “Every day we hear that parents are being separated from their children and are given different reasons for the separation. Some are told the truth. Others are told that [their] children are being taken for a break to play, or bathe, or sleep, … little white lies to ameliorate an exploding situation. The parents will realize they were lied to when they meet us before court.”⁷⁹

     In a June 10, 2018 article for the Boston Globe, entitled “'Children are being used as a tool' in Trump's effort to stop border crossings”,⁸⁰ Liz Goodwin reported that “[Azalea] Aleman-Bendiks, the public defender, said several of her clients have told her their children were taken from them by Border Patrol agents who said they were going to give them a bath. As the hours passed, it dawned on the mothers the kids were not coming back.”

     Goodwin continues, “In late May, separated parents in McAllen [Texas] were given a number to call HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] and try to locate their children. It was the wrong number. Last week [early June 2018], parents were given a handwritten note telling them to call ICE – not HHS – if they wanted information about how to reunite with their children. But parents did not have access to phones at the time, rendering the number useless.”

     Supporters of President Trump's immigration policy doubt that the above story has any veracity; they do not believe that there is any truth behind the claim that immigrant children were separated from their parents through promises of baths. But it is the truth, and any student of history should hear serious alarm bells ringing in his head at the similarity between this incident and the Nazis' gassing of Jews after they were told they were about to take showers.

     Sure, this is slightly different, because the Jews were gassed to death, while the immigrant children are merely missing... but to those who would make that argument, I ask: What makes you so certain that many of those immigrant children didn't die too?

4. Most Americans Don't Mind Spending too Much, Working too Hard, to Earn Special Treatment
5. Unpaid Prison Labor and For-Profit Prisons Are on the Rise
6. Fear-Mongering About Disease-Carrying Immigrants Prompts Calls for Ethnic Cleansing
7. U.S. Immigration Authorities Sprayed Immigrants with Zyklon-B, Once Used to Gas Jews
8. Authorities Are Spraying People with Noxious Gas at the Border Right Now
9. Calling Welfare Recipients and Immigrants “Parasites” Normalizes Dehumanization
10. Americans of Both Major Parties Justify Abortion if it's of “the Right Race”
11. Immigrants Are Depicted as Invading Hordes of Barbarians, Like the Jews Were

12. Immigrants Are Depicted as Both “Lazy” and “Taking Your Jobs”, Like the Jews Were
13. President Trump Has Promulgated Stereotypes About Hispanics, Muslims, and Jews
14. President Trump Said He'd Consider Creating a Database of Muslim-Americans
15. President Trump Encourages His Supporters to Harm Protesters and Dissidents
16. Trump's Ex-Wife Claims He Reads and Admires the Fascist Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini
17. President Trump Wants to Amend or Repeal the Birthright Citizenship Clause
18. The President Wants Dictatorial Power, and Congress Has Historically Given it to Him
19. The 2020 Census Could Be Used as an Excuse to Arrest and Deport Undocumented Immigrants
20. The U.S. Already Practices Internment of “Undesirables” and Maintains Concentration Camps
21. People Still Excuse F.D.R. for Refusing to Let Undocumented Jewish Refugees In
22. The Democratic Party's Love of Big Government Makes Authoritarianism Unavoidable
23. An I.C.E. Official Said They're “Just Following Orders”, Like the Nazi Adolf Eichmann Did
24. Trump's Former Press Correspondent Claimed That the Nazis Never Used Chemical Weapons
25. Ultra-Nationalism, Nativism, and Extreme Anti-Immigration Policies Are the New Normal

26. American Citizens in Good Standing Are Already Losing Their Citizenship Without Cause

27. Right-Wingers in Germany, Austria, Italy, etc. Hope to Form an "Axis" to Solve Immigration
28. Democrats' Enthusiastic Support for Assimilation Plays Right into Republicans' Hands

29. Americans of Both Major Parties Demonize the Far Left, Communism, and All Things Foreign
30. Obama Democrats Made it Difficult to Get Away with Calling the President Racist or Fascist

31. Strong Anti-Fascism is Virtually Non-Existent in Libertarian Circles, the One Place it Matters
32. I.C.E. Separates People by Age and Sex, Like the Nazis Did
33. I.C.E. Confiscates Religious Items, Like the Nazis and Communists Did
34. Post-9/11 Fear of Foreigners and Middle Easterners Threatens the Safety of Jewish People
35. A Growing Number of Americans Want to Silence Discussion of Israel
36. All Criticism of the State of Israel is Deemed Anti-Semitic, and This Silences Jewish Voices
37. Promoting Jewish Stereotypes is Publicly Acceptable in America Nowadays
38. Many Jewish-Americans Have Been Legally, and Voluntarily, Disarmed
39. Israeli Ultra-Nationalism is on the Rise, and Gaza is Already a Concentration Camp
40. George W. Bush's Grandfather Was a War Profiteer, and Bush Loyalists Are Still in Office
41. American Companies That Financed Nazis and the Holocaust Are Still Around, and Popular
42. Americans and Soviets Imported Nazi Scientists As Part of Operation Paperclip
43. Americans Call for More Non-White Police, While Nazis Rewarded Loyalty with Police Posts
44. Many Americans Are Desensitized to Violence, and See Mass Murder as Something Funny
45. A Literal Nazi Ran for U.S. House of Representatives and Won His Nomination Uncontested
46. American Culture is Awash in Alcohol, Which Was Given to Jews to Cope with Their Conditions
47. American Culture Values Competitiveness in Sports, the Economy, and Even Survival

     The explanation for reasons #4-#47 will be posted here soon.

Sources
1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/29/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-what-we-know/1804878002/
2. http://www.dw.com/en/us-neo-nazi-groups-on-the-rise-under-president-donald-trump-report/a-42688331
3. http://www.thenation.com/article/american-imperialism-when-it-all-began/
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2fN67GUrYw
5. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/03/nothing-to-worry-about-the-water-is-fine-how-flint-michigan-poisoned-its-people
6. http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/descriptions.html
7. http://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/ethnic-cleansing
8. http://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/11/20/the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing/
9. http://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939
10. http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/484
11. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
12. http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/
13. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/the-illusion-of-security_b_10864878.html
14. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/17/patriot-act-a-civil-liberties-breach-or-a-foreign-policy-necessity/
15. http://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/indefinite-detention-endless-worldwide-war-and-2012-national
16. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/29/ndaa-danger-american-liberty
17. http://www.vocativ.com/271029/pew-survey-digital-privacy-online/index.html
18. http://time.com/money/2902134/you-say-youd-give-up-online-convenience-for-privacy-but-youre-lying/
19. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/15/bill-of-rights-day-the-founders-vision-is-dead-and-gone/
20. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/12/04/killing-habeas-corpus
21. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/06/23/800-years-after-magna-carta-obama-needs-refresher-course-on-rule-of-law
22. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/06/01/can-the-rule-of-law-survive-trump/
23. http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/fbi-bypasses-denial-in-fisa-court/
24. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-police-in-home-searches-without-objector-present/2014/02/25/7bc1bb6a-9e5a-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html
25. http://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism
26. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/senators-want-be-able-lock-you-forever-without-trial/
27. http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/376961-civil-asset-forfeiture-reform-is-sweeping-the-nation
28. http://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse
29. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2016/voters_show_more_support_for_stop_and_frisk_laws
30. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk
31. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/
32. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions-_b_1596846.html
33. http://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html
34. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-laquan-mcdonald-jason-van-dyke-guilty-20181005-story.html
35. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb3rAglRsqU
36. http://www.dla.mil/DispositionServices/Offers/Reutilization/LawEnforcement/JoinTheProgram.aspx
37. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/13/ferguson-police-michael-brown-militarization-column/14006383/
38. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/10/nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-crime
39. http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881
40. http://www.gatheringspot.net/video/political-activismcover-ups/tsa-groping-you-beyond-airports
41. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html
42. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mesa-arizona-police-shooting-20171208-story.html
43. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/21/552527929/oklahoma-city-police-fatally-shoot-deaf-man-despite-yells-of-he-cant-hear-you
44. http://www.cnet.com/news/controversy-after-cops-aggressive-arrest-of-jogger-wearing-earbuds/
45. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/misunderstanding-disability-leads-to-police-violence/361786/
46. http://www.wsbradio.com/news/national/witness-didn-hear-officer-order-security-guard-drop-gun/G8F1hMGkvDkiyM60cifm4I/
47. http://www.wnd.com/2008/08/71096/
48. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/
49. http://imgur.com/gallery/pDlto
50. http://me.me/i/just-do-what-they-say-and-you-wont-get-hurt-15498980
51. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126028106
52. http://www.nature.com/news/how-human-sacrifice-propped-up-the-social-order-1.19681
53. http://medium.com/the-mission/if-we-want-progress-we-need-to-be-willing-to-compromise-cefb054f60f7
54. http://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/socialism-is-the-philosophy-of-failure-winston-churchill/
55. http://roadwarriorvoices.com/2015/04/06/air-travelers-inadvertently-gave-the-tsa-more-than-638k-in-change-last-year/
56. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2015/07/02/what-does-the-tsa-do-with-the-stuff-it-confiscates-they-sell-it-cheap/83201164/
57. http://www.eyeflare.com/article/where-buy-goods-confiscated-tsa/
58. http://www.rd.com/advice/travel/return-confiscated-items-tsa/
59. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1938-nazi-law-forced-jews-register-their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/
60. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202277.pdf
61. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/08/nfl-fans-purses-stadium-rules
62. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/08/22/nfl-bag-policy-angers-fans-at-redskins-steelers-game/
63. http://www.tsa.gov/videos/travel-tips-3-1-1-liquids-rule

64. http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-happened-when-i-skipped-obamas.html
65. http://www.ajc.com/news/national/tsa-apologizes-for-tossing-out-woman-breast-milk-during-airport-screening/XM717VuyxJLvqRFqptsgSK/
66. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/02/disabled-cancer-patient-tsa-lawsuit-memphis-airport
67. http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/ShowerHeads.html

68. Crystal Night: 9-10 November 1938, Thalmann, Rita and Feinermann, Emmanuel. 1974.
69. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/11/let-me/
70. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/28/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-chuck-todd-debate-crime-bill-vote-a/
71. http://fortune.com/2018/08/28/trump-trade-war-farmer-aid/
72. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/oskar-schindler
73. http://speakola.com/ideas/chaim-rumkowski-give-me-your-children-1942
74. http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130502052254-64875646-how-facebook-exploits-your-private-information

75. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BU_PqLN-ls
76. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2011/8/28/1011451/-Jewish-Stockholm-Syndrome
77. http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/17600/1/why-is-collecting-rainwater-illegal-in-some-states.html
78. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/04/nyregion/what-now-for-beaches-court-tells-towns-allow-access-but-old-ways-die-hard-along.html
79. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-border-patrol-immigrants-family-separation-ice-children-separation-a8394326.html
80. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/06/09/borderseparations/Z95z4eFZjyfqCLG9pyHjAO/story.html

Written on November 20^th through 22nd, 2018

Originally Published on November 22nd, 2018
Ending of Section #3 Added on November 23rd, 2018
Edited and Expanded on November 28th and December 19th, 2018
Edited on November 30th, 2018