Learning about the Rise of Nazism in Germany (part 15)

For the first post in this series, please click here.  

The next section on The Holocaust Explained is about President Hindenburg dying. 

This happened on August 2, 1934.

Hitler announced that the offices of the President and the Chancellor would be combined into one position.  And the man fulfilling that position would be him.

A few weeks later, they held a vote on the plan.

95.7% of the population voted.  89.93% voted yes.

That's a lot of yeses. 

Did people feel threatened into voting?

Or did Goebbels do such a fantastic job with the propaganda?

Maybe it was a combination of both things.  

* * *

I'm consulting Lord Wiki to get a better idea about things.

He says there was intimidation of voters.

This included having storm troopers at polling stations and pressure to vote without secrecy.  

Some ballots were pre-marked yes.

Voting numbers sometimes outweighed the number of people voting.

Jewish people, and others deemed undesirable, faced less voting fraud and intimidation. Because then the Nazis could point to those communities and label them as disloyal.

* * *

In my last post, I neglected to do my new tradition of looking at other Holocaust sites to see if they label Nazis as being lefties or righties.

So in this post, I'm going to make up for that by looking at two sites.

* * *

I'm on the CANDLES Holocaust Museum.

It's purpose is to shine a light on the twins who were medically abused by Dr. Mengele.

Interestingly, the one tourist in the website's front page photo, is a Black woman. If I was going to picture a person who was medically abused, a Black woman might be the first person to come to mind.  And of course, Black men have been victims of notorious experiments as well.

* * *

CANDLES is in Indiana...in Terre Haute.

I don't really picture a big Jewish population in Indiana.

But...sometimes what we picture and expect fails to match with reality.

* * *

Well...here's something interesting.

CANDLES Holocaust Museum is a three minute walk from a Church called Pentecostal House of Prayer Bnai Shalom. 

Is this Holocaust museum a Jewish project or is it a Christian project?

Well....the town does have a synagogue.  

I was wondering if Terre Haute might be the kind of town with Evangelical Christians who obsess about Jewish people...not because they truly care about Jewish people but because the Jews play a part in their mythology.

* * *

The synagogue is an 18 minute walk from CANDLES.

Maybe I was being a bit too suspicious about CANDLES being so closed to a Messianic-Jewish church.

For those who don't know....

Usually Messianic-Jewish churches and Jews for Jesus are usually predominately Christian and have the goal of using manipulative language to try to trick Jews into becoming Christian.  

* * *

CANDLES is using yellow and blue coloring on their website.  They talk about standing with the Ukraine and give links to various organizations to help refugees.

That's good.

I'm starting to feel more and more guilty about my suspicions.

Also...I felt a sort of relief when I clicked on a link offering more organizations, and it took me to The Guardian.  I mean instead of taking me to somewhere like...Conservapedia. 

* * *

I'm looking at a glossary of Holocaust terms on the CANDLES website.  I searched for the word "left".  One of the results is under Baum Gruppe. 

Baum Gruppe was an anti-Nazi group made up mostly of young Jewish communists and left-wing Zionists.

I wonder.

How many anti-Nazi groups were right-wing?

I feel like I keep seeing left-wing/communist groups rather than right-wing ones.

* * *

I searched for "right" and found something.

Note: There are multiple cases of "left" and "right" in the document.  But all except two (one right and one left) have the usual meanings of the word...(outside the context of political ideology)  

Under Treaty of Versailles, the website says, The war guilt clause was particularly onerous to most Germans, and revision of the Versailles Treaty represented one of the platforms that gave radical right wing parties in Germany, including Hitler's Nazi Party, such credibility to mainstream voters in the 1920s and early 1930s. 

* * *

Keeping score with the Nazis are left vs Nazis are right:

Now I have six for Nazis being right-wing: CANDLES along with The Budapest Holocaust Memorial Museum, The Holocaust Explained, United Holocaust Memorial Museum, Snopes, and The Political Compass.

and two for Nazis being left-wing: Dinesh D'Souza and Conservapedia 

* * *

For anyone wondering why I'm so into this whole Nazis were right-wing vs Nazis were left-wing.

It pretty much comes down to...

Daddy issues.

* * *

I'm going to go down a bit of a CANDLES rabbit hole.

They have a blog which looks interesting to me.

I want to read a few posts.  

From the titles and photos, I get the idea that they're don't just passionately support helping Jewish people but also passionately support helping all refugees and/or targeted people.

I think left-wing Jews tend to be more interested in preventing all genocide and persecution while right-wing Jews concentrate more heavily on what's happening to Jews.

* * *

I'm going to read a post by Beth Nairn entitled "Send her Back! Send him Back!"

The title refers to chanting that happens at certain type of political rallies. Nairn talks about how hard it is to become an immigrant and imagines how it might feel to know that certain sections of the population might prefer for you to leave.

Nairn says about Ilhan Omar:  Her time in office has been clouded by some controversial personal and political statements and this piece is in no way an endorsement of those words nor a statement of support for Omar.  This is, however, a testimony of my belief as to how the quest for the American Dream, when it collides and clashes with the politics of the majority can become a dangerous challenge to the “light” and hope this country symbolizes for millions of people each and every day. 

Would a white Christian immigrant making controversial statements be pushed to go back to where they came from?

Would a brown immigrant who supported a right-wing Christian agenda be encouraged to go back to where they came from?

Maybe? By the left? 

I don't know.  Do left-wing people push the you-don't-belong-here message as much as the right?

Nairn also talks about Melania Trump being an immigrant.  I can imagine there were people on the left who pushed her to leave.  

Nairn's overall message is that immigrants should have as much rights as natural-born citizens to hold and share controversial opinions without being told they don't belong and should leave.

I think it's an important thing to remember.

 * * *

Now I'm going to read a post by Charles Moman entitled "None of this was on my Radar"

Well....

It turns out to be a special-interest origin story!

The "this" in the title refers to the Holocaust.  Moman didn't know much about it.  He just knew the number of six million.  

He was at a conference for teachers and one of the options was visiting CANDLES and listening to a lecture by Eva Mozes Kor (who was a victim of Dr. Mengele AND the founder of the Museum).

The special interest in the Holocaust didn't begin then for Moman.  It was more like a prologue, perhaps.

Two years later, he was hit by a drunk driver. During his painful recovery from intensive injuries, he ended up watching a Netflix documentary called Forgiving Dr. Mengele.  And then Netflix pushed him down a Holocaust rabbit hole.  

My response to that documentary title = the title of Jordan Peele's most recent movie.

Though I haven't seen the documentary.  Maybe it would change my mind.

I doubt it, though.

I don't forgive those who aren't sorry.

And I'm pretty sure Mengele never showed regret.

If I'm wrong...I'm fascinated.

* * *

Here's a 1985 article from The Orlando Sentinel.  

His son Rolf Mengele was against what his father did, but he helped his father hide, because he didn't want to deal with the fall out.

The evil doctor was never captured and prosecuted.  He lived a long peaceful life and then drowned. 

Back to Rolf Mengele.  He only saw his father twice in his life...so it's not like he literally hid him...like in the attic or something. 

The first time, he didn't know the man he met was his father.  He was told it was his uncle.

In a letter, Josef Mengele (the evil doctor) wrote, On one hand I cannot hope for your understanding and compassion for my life's course; on the other, I do not have the minutest inner desire to justify or even excuse any decisions, actions or behavior regarding my life.

When I read that part, I started thinking...oh...maybe he is expressing some level of regret.  It sounds kind of like he's saying he's not going to try to make excuses for what he did.

BUT...

The next part says, when it comes to indisputable, traditional values, where I sense danger to those close to me or the unity of my people, my tolerance has its limits.

Fuck him.  

I mean if someone else said that, I might find it...

Well, depending on who said it..my reaction might range from being inspired to rolling my eyes. 

But knowing that "my people" probably refers to the Aryan race and danger probably refers to Jews.

And knowing what he did to Jewish people.

Fuck him.

He deserves zero forgiveness.

* * *

In 1977, Rolf Mengele traveled to Sao Paulo to confront his father.

Evil Doctor Mengele lived in what his son described as a poor area.

That's good.

At least he wasn't living a life of luxury.

The article gives Mengele's address: Rua Missuri 7.  

Of course, I had to look on Google Maps.

It may have been Just a dirt road, potholes and dust back in the 70's.  But now it has asphalt. Or stone?  Some kind of brick.

I wonder who lives at Rua Missuri 7 now.  Do they know that Josef Mengele lived there?  

* * *

Rolf Mengele says that his father was depressed, afraid, and suicidal.

I'd like to think that it was guilt and regret that made him feel that way.

But it was likely more a fear of being caught; a dislike of how his life turned out; and a feeling that he was unfairly persecuted.

* * *

I don't forgive Mengele.

Nor do I forgive the friends he had in San Paulo.

If I'm understanding the article correctly, Liselotte and Wolfram Bossert witnessed Mengele's stroke and death at sea and were also the ones to inform Mengele's other friends of his death.

They wrote: It is with deep sorrow that I fulfill the painful duty of informing you and all relatives of the death of our common friend.

YUCK.

And down further in the letter they say, Heroically struggling until his very last breath, as he had been doing throughout his long life of chaos, our friend passed away on a subtropical beach.

YUCK.

Fuck the Bosserts.

And though I have some pity for Rolf Mengele...for the most part, I say Fuck him as well.

He is quoted as saying, The trial...whatever the outcome would have been, would have taken years. And the injuries it would have inflicted upon me and my family are beyond comprehension.

Yeah. Give me a break.

Inge Byhan, the writer for the piece in The Orlando Sentinel sums up Josef Mengele's later years very well:  He was insensitive, uninstructive, self-righteous all the way to his undeserved peaceful end.

* * *

Here's something awful.  

Karl Mengele, the father of Josef, was the founder of a company called Karl Mengele and Sons. Back in 1985, when the article was written, the company was 110 years old and was Europe's biggest freight car manufacture.  The company did 90 million dollars of business back in 1984.

Please tell me that by now the company is gone...or has been bought out and the name has been changed.

I kind of skimmed the rest of the article.

In the end, though, I learned that Inge Byhan is actually from Germany.  The article was reprinted from a German magazine called Bunte.

* * *

I Googled the company. 

It doesn't seem to exist.

There was a 1986 article in the Los Angeles Times saying the company suffered financial challenges, and the government bailed them out,

The Orlando Sentinel article said the company worked in freight cars. The Los Angeles one says farm equipment.

Maybe it was both?

I'm confused.

* * *

For anyone sitting there thinking I shouldn't have a grudge against the family; It's not their fault their son was evil....

The family sent Josef an allowance of $100-175 a month during his thirty-five years of hiding.

* * *

I'm looking at Gunzburg in Bavaria Germany where the company was/is located.

There is still something on the map called Karl-Mengele-Straße.

It's a seven minute drive from Legoland.

* * *

I think I need to go down a massive Mengele rabbit hole.

But I already promised myself I would look at two Holocaust websites for this post.  And this post is already very long.

So I'm going to fulfill my promise.

And then I think I'm going to do a detour post dedicated solely to a Mengele rabbit hole.

* * *

The  Holocaust site I'm going to look at now is The Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum.  It's close to me.  I think I should probably go there someday.

Now I'm looking to see if they have any online education on their site.

They have an online archive.  

I searched for "left-wing" and "right-wing" and got around 800 results for both...with just "wing" or the other words.   I don't know how to do it so it will include only the full terms.

Their archive does look like it's a great resource for finding primary sources.  

* * *

I looked a bit through other places on the site and then searched in their main search thing for "left-wing" and "right-wing".  I didn't get anything.  So I'm not going to add them to either side.

Hopefully, I will visit the museum in the near future, and hopefully I will write about it in a post.  

Also...I might come back to their archives if I'm wanting to find some primary sources for some other reason.

I guess what I'm saying is the museum is not useful to me at this moment in terms of my left vs right quest.  BUT I know left vs right is not the most important function of a Holocaust Museum.

Learning about the Rise of Nazism in Germany (Part 14)

To read the first part of this series, click here.  

I'm distracted this afternoon by an infuriating conversation I had, on Instagram, with one of my favorite podcasters.  

It was in response to their Instagram rant about how media and politicians push an agenda, and we should use critical thinking instead of getting fooled by their agenda.  

I got the sense he was talking about the hearings. Though I hoped I was wrong.

I asked him.

He said he hasn't been paying attention (to the hearings). He called it "political circus".

Uh...how can you have critical thinking about something you're not even paying attention to?

I'm kind of hoping we got our wires crossed.  Like he was ranting about something else going on in politics. I don't expect everyone to be fully engaged in every current event out there.  

Well...still...the fact that he called the hearings "political circus" kind of makes me think...even if he was talking about something else, he's still making a harsh judgement about something he's not paying attention to.  

I would have been much happier if he said something like, To be honest, I haven't been paying much attention to them. So...don't have an opinion about it at this point.  

The other thing that was hard for me to tolerate is he said that even though what happened was bad, it's  distracting from more important things.

Yeah. Domestic terrorist attacks, attempted coups...secret service workers fearing for their lives....

Not that important.  

He's not the first person I've seen push the idea that Congress is letting the world fall apart, because they're too busy bullying Donald Trump.

It's as if Congress would shake Donald Trump's hand and say,  Awww...let's let bygones be bygones; then suddenly abortion rights would be restored, gas prices would be lowered, Israel and Palestine would be BFF's, Russia would leave Ukraine, Covid would disappear, mass shootings would stop, the glaciers would stop melting, the plastic in the ocean would vanish....

Congress is made up of many people.

The day is made up of many hours.

There is plenty of time for the investigation and the hearings.

* * *

In my experience, when someone says there is no time for something...what is really means is they don't want to hear criticism. They don't want to know why you're mad at them. Or they don't want to hear negative things about something they love or support. They don't want accountability.  

* * *

On a more positive/hopeful note....

This person did say that they planned to read an analysis from a variety of sources when it was all over.  

I wonder if they were planning to do that all along...or if in the midst of our conversation, they realized they were maybe being a bit contradictory and/or hypocritical.  

* * *

In my fantasies, he reads from a variety of sources and comes out feeling a bit ashamed that he called the hearings a circus.  He then jumps off the trump train (whether it's my first kind of Trump train or the second).

In reality, he'll probably read a variety of editorials on Fox News and The Wall Street Journal plus a couple of right-winged editorials in the Washington Post and then conclude he was totally right about it being a circus.  

* * *

I've not done any research today.

It's close to 6 pm.

I'm trying to decide if I should start....

or just wait until tomorrow.

Though tomorrow we're going to see Nope.  

So there may not be much time.

I also didn't do research yesterday.

I should do at least a little today.

I don't want to lose the momentum. 

* * *

I'm going to start learning about Gleichschaltung via The Holocaust Explained.

* * *

Maybe when he said the hearings were distracting from more important things...he wasn't talking about congress work.  

Maybe he was saying that if people are watching the hearings, they'll have less time to listen to his podcast or watch his YouTube videos.

Hey...maybe if the hearings weren't on, I'd have thousands of hits on these posts...instead of like only 13.

* * *

Gleichschaltung is the process of the Nazis taken over "all aspects of Germany".

Interesting word there.

Did it exist before Nazism?

Or is it Nazi specific?

I put it into Google Translate.

It means synchronization.

The sentence example they give is die Gleichschaltung der Verwaltung war den Nazis wichtig which means the synchronization of the administration was important to the Nazis.

I'm guessing it's a word that's associated mostly with Nazism. 

* * *

I just tried to get more information on which websites I should italicize.

This grammar website says there are different approaches.

Speaking of...in my past research posts, I usually didn't even name the sources.  I would just put links to them.  (as above).  

But these days, I'm feeling the names of sources are more important.  

I mean not that names of sources are more important these days than they were in those days.

It's more like my feelings about it have changed.  

* * *

I'm thinking maybe I will italicize the name of publications...such as The New York Times or The Holocaust Explained but not italicize the names of places such as The Weiner Holocaust Library or companies such as Amazon or organizations like The Heritage Foundation.  

Shit. Now I feel obligated to go back and fix all the old posts in this series.

I might not.

At least not today.

Or tomorrow.  

* * *

Etymology Geek says that Gleichschaltung is: The forced standardization of political and social institutions under an authoritarian regime, originally with reference to Nazi Germany.The forced standardization of political and social institutions under an authoritarian regime, originally with reference to Nazi Germany.

So I guess it started with Nazism.

I'm wondering about the breakdown of the word.

Looking back at Google Translate.  

Gleich means same.

Schaltung means circuit.

Same circuit.

That's pretty cool.

Too bad it's about Nazis.

I wonder if it's used in other circumstances these days.  

* * *

It's two days later.

We saw Nope.

When we finished with the movie and going to the theater bathroom, Jack asked me if I liked the movie.

I said, Nope.

But I was sort of joking.

I did like it less then Get Out and a lot less than Us.  

But Nope is one of those movies where the more you read about it and talk about it...the more you like it.

I did question whether liking it more after seeing/hearing other responses meant that peer pressure pushed me to like it.

And actually, I think peer pressure played a part.  BUT I think the reason why I felt that pressure is Us is one of my favorite movies.  When I went on Twitter and saw the positive reactions to Nope, I felt jealous and left out.  If the movie was from a director I wasn't into, I don't think I'd care.  

My growing like, though, wasn't all due to peer pressure.  I didn't understand the full point of Steven Yeun's storyline and felt he was either unnecessary or underused.  (more the latter since I like him).  But once I understood more about how his storyline connected to the main themes, I was able to like the movie much more.  

* * *

This morning I read an editorial in The Washington Post that talked about the United States flirting with ideas of a dictatorship back in the 1930's.

I didn't really understand the editorial.  A lot of it went over my head.  But maybe one day I'll look into it more.  

* * *

Back to Gleichschaltung.

The Holocaust Explained says the process took place between 1933-1934.

I think it's just a bunch of shit shows happening at once.

There was the Act for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in April 1933.  This was about kicking non-Aryans out of civil service roles.

In the judicial system, they removed judges that didn't side with the Nazis.  

The Supreme Court was replaced by something called The People's Court.  Judges were chosen specifically for their Nazi beliefs.  This reminds me a little bit of American Supreme Court judges being chosen for their anti-abortion/pro-Christian beliefs. But at least, the Republican Party replaced only dead justices and didn't kick out all the justices.

* * *

I've decided to go down a Supreme Court rabbit hole.

I'm wondering how unusual was it for Mitch McConnell to block Obama's nomination?

I have two questions.

A) Has a Senate Leader blocked votes on other nominations.

B) How much did it matter that McConnell blocked voting on the nomination.  If the vote was allowed, would it have passed?  Is it usual that nominated judges are accepted...even when the President's party is not the majority in the Senate? 

One thing that makes me think that McConnell's obstructionism did matter is why would he obstruct if he was certain or close to certain that there wouldn't be enough votes for Merrick Garland?

Anyway....Lord Wiki has a list of unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court. I'm going to skim through it.

The first I saw was a case of the nominee themselves doing the rejection—declining the job.

* * *

Alexander Walcott lost the nomination-9/24.  I guess that was back when there were less states.  

He was part of the Jeffersonian Republican Party, and that party had the majority in the Senate at the time.  So it was more about questioning qualifications than one party trying to come up on top.

* * *

Here's something that seems a bit like what McConnell did to Obama.

John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden.  The Senate voted to postpone the confirmation. Then Andrew Jackson ended up filling the seat.  Though Lord Wiki says they didn't intend to indefinitely postpone the nomination.  

* * *

I had to do some outside-in-the-heatwave work for Tim...which was pretty much standing around, because he forgot to tell me I can leave.

I did some informal research on my phone.

American political parties are confusing.

That's all I'll say about that.

Both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were in multiple political parties. I THINK Andrew Jackson may be the father of the Democrat party?  Back when the party was the party of Racist Shitheads.

It's too deep of a rabbit hole to figure out why the vote on John J. Crittenden was postponed.  Despite Lord Wiki saying it wasn't intended to be indefinite.  I don't really understand what that means, anyway.  But I'm not going to conclude that the postponement wasn't politically motivated.  I'm not going to assume it wasn't an asshole-move.

* * *

If anyone is wondering, I'm not mad at Tim.

I'd feel cheap doing so, since he's been outside in the heatwave, most of the day, doing work.

Also, I was fortunate to be there when the squirrel visited the little restaurant I have set out for him (water and seeds).   

* * *

Looking at more cases of Supreme Court nomination sabotage.

Andrew Jackson himself was a victim.  The Senate voted to postpone his nomination of Roger B. Taney.  But once the Senate composition changed, the new Senate confirmed him.

John Tyler had multiple rejections of his Supreme Court nominations.  But they did do the voting part.

I have to admit, if someone asked me who is John Tyler, I probably would not be able to say, a President of the United States.  Or if I was trying to list the Presidents of the United States, he'd be one that I'd likely forget.

* * *

I think I'm going to speed this up by looking only for ones where the voting itself was not allowed to take place.

So....

Millard Filmore (Another I'd likely forget) was fucked over by the Democrats. They were in the Senate. He was from the Whig Party.  

I think this is still the time of Democrats being the Asshole-Party.  I mean not that any party is free of assholes. But some parties have MORE assholes.  

* * *

James Buchanan's nominee was blocked.  His successor Abraham Lincoln filled the vacancy.

Rutherford Hayes had his nominee blocked with what seems to be the same rational of Mitch McConnell's blocking of Obama's nominee—It was too close to the end of the term.

The Senate refused to consider Warren Harding's nomination.

Lord Wiki says that one of Eisenhower's nominees was "not reported out of the judiciary committee".  I'm not sure what that means.

Well, I guess sometimes there's a procedural vote saying we're not going to vote on the confirmation.  And in this one, they didn't even get that far.

* * *

Now I'm getting into the more modern-day Republican vs. Democrat drama.

Republicans fucked with LBJ's nominee.  Democrats retaliated with Nixon's.  

Well...I change my mind.  I mean there may have been retaliation.  But the voting was, at least, allowed.  Nixon's first two nominations were rejected. His third was confirmed.

* * *

Lord Wiki is now explaining to me that the McConnell vs. Obama drama is unique in some ways.

He says that Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination.  He also says it was the longest time for a seat to go unfilled since the end of the Civil War.

I think the nastiest thing about the Merrick Garland situation is the reasoning presented was that a seat shouldn't be filled in an election year.  The voters should choose the president who then will make the nomination.  

Obama made the nomination 8 months before the election.  

Amy Coney Barrett was nominated 38 days before the Biden vs. Trump election.  The vote itself took place on October 26 which was a week and one day before the election.

* * *

That was a pretty huge rabbit hole.

I feel like I've totally neglected Germany.

But I'm not going to feel too bad.  Because the main purpose of me writing these posts is to learn about my own government and what is currently happening in the United States.  

* * *

I was going to end this post here.

But I think I should at least finish with Gleichschaltung.

I'll try not to slide down any more rabbit holes for this post.

If anything catches my eye/brain...I'll try to wait until another post.  

* * *

Fortunately, I've already covered the next part of the Gleichschaltung—Goebbels and propaganda.  Though I think I should definitely go more into that on a later date.

In the second to last paragraph of the Gleichschaltung section, The Holocaust Explained says that the Nazis were not successful at getting everyone onto this same-circut-thing.  Or at least not immediately.

It was a challenge to get local governments onboard.  40% of mayors were not members of the Nazi party.

* * *

I just remembered my plan of looking at a different Holocaust website for each post.

Now I'm torn between following my rule and avoiding making this post way-way too long.

What should I do?

* * *

I think I need to end this here.

But I'll make up for it in the next post by looking at TWO other Holocaust websites.  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

 .  

 

Learning about the Rise of Nazism in Germany (Part 13)

The beginning of this very long series can be found here.

And I've started to slowly work on an Index.

TBH...not many people are reading these posts, so I'm not overly concerned or rushed about the index.  

I did some informal research* last night about Conservapedia.  In my last post, I questioned whether it was actually popular with MAGA people.  Do MAGA's and conservatives actually take it seriously?  

I looked on Twitter to see what people Tweeted about it.  Mostly, I saw left-wing people making fun of it.

I looked on a couple of lists of sites for conservatives.  I think one didn't even mention Conservapedia.  The Alexa web-rating system puts it at #75 in terms of popular conservative websites.  

I talked to Tim and Jack about it. Tim's guess was that it's probably something that's more popular among the left...for comedy.  And it's probably not widely known by actual Conservatives and/or MAGA.

Tim also suggested it might be parody.

From what I gathered, I don't think it started as parody. But I think it's possible that left-wing people could be adding articles for parody.  

*informal research = Research done on my phone instead of my laptop and where I'm not writing things down on my blog as I go. 

The other question I had is even if Conservapedia is rarely taken seriously by MAGA, would the idea that Nazis were left-wing instead right-wing be seen as one of the less ridiculous notions on the site (by MAGA)

One thing I did find is that a book was written by Dinesh D'Souza (who I know of from Twitter) called The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.  

The book has a ranking of 42,000 on Amazon which is not great.  But it's much less obscure than my books.  

It has 2870 ratings, a score of 4.8.  89% of people gave it 5 stars.  

This doesn't prove that this idea of the Nazis being left-wing is widely accepted by MAGA.  But it does make me think that the idea exists outside of pure parody.

Another thing I did was skim through an article on Snopes about Nazis being Socialists.  I might read it more closely at a later date.  But if anyone is looking for a more in-depth explanation than I provided some posts ago, you might want to check this out.

I also spent some time on The Political Compass website.  I read this very interesting piece comparing modern German conservatives with Americans.  

One of the many fascinating lines: Right across the board — minimum wage, trade union rights, generous sick pay, at least 5 weeks paid holiday, free childcare and so on — Germany’s Conservatives have little in common with those of the US. Indeed Angela Merkel has been generally well to the left of Elizabeth Warren and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Somewhere else on the site, I read something along the lines of what Americans see as Conservative: In other countries, it would be seen as far-right fringe and what American Conservatives see as being far left: in other countries, it would be seen as Centrist.

I should look for the quote....

* * *

I looked.  A little.

I can't find it.

You'll just have to trust me.  Or pretend to trust me.

I'm 85% sure that I didn't dream it.  

* * *

One thing very fun and interesting to look at is The Political Compass Crowd chart. 

MAGA folks would probably be thrilled to know that Obama is listed as being equal to Hitler when it comes to the left-right measurement. 

But they are both still in the blue (right-wing) quadrant. 

Hitler is also much higher than Obama in the authoritarian vs libertarian measurement.  He and Stalin are very close to the top.  Obama is pretty close to the bottom of the authoritarian section. Trump and Bush are to the right of Hitler and Obama, but they are more authoritarian than Obama and less authoritarian than Hitler.  

I personally feel, especially looking at the quadrants, that it's less about whether a country or person is left vs right and much more about whether someone is overly authoritarian.

But, based on conversations with my parents and seeing people push the idea that the Nazis were Socialists, I get the idea that for a lot of MAGA, being left-winged is seen as inherently bad.  In other words, if there's a bad country or bad person, it must be because they are left-wing.

I wouldn't go so far to think my parents think all left wing people are evil.  I'm sure they understand that some left-wing people are good.  BUT...when there's violence or extremism, at times (not all the time) they have pushed the idea that the left must be to blame.  

On balance, though, I have felt lately that right-winged movements have been a pox on all of world history and our planet.  

Seeing the people and places on the compass, though...it's probably more the high-levels of right-wing authoritarianism that cause so much heartache and destruction.  And high-level left-wing  authoritarianism isn't any better (Stalin, Mugabe, Mao...).

* * *

I should get to what was on my official agenda today—The Night of the Long Knives.

I'm going to read about it on The Holocaust Explained. 

An alternate name for it was Rohm Putsch.  

What does that translate to?

Well, I just tried Google Translate and didn't get anything...even when I tried "Detect Language" instead of German.  

Well...I tried again.  One word at a time.  And got Roman Coup.

Although it's other name is NIGHT of Long Knives, it lasted from June 30-July 2.  And it was in 1934.  

The Enabling Law was passed in March 1933.  

Reading about these things...it feels like it all happened closer together.  But really.  There's quite a space there.

I wonder if decades from now, when people read about January 6 and the hearings...if it will feel like one thing happened after another.  Like the insurrection happened in January and then five months later, they had the hearings.  But in reality, there's over a year between the event and the subsequent hearings.

* * *

The Nazis had both the SS and the SA.

The purge got rid of all of?  Or most of the SA.

That might be why, until recently, I had heard of the SS but not the SA.

Wait...

It wasn't the SA that was purged but its leadership.

That actually makes more sense.

I had Lord Wiki remind me of what the SA were, and he said they were a paramilitary group.  I wondered why Hitler would have wanted to get rid of them.

The leader of the SA was Ernst Rohm.

Oh!!!

So the Rohm in Rohm Putsch probably referred to him and not the Romans.

And no. I did not think there were any literal Romans involved with the event. I was thinking it was more symbolic.

There were rumors that Mr. Rohm was planning a coup.

This gets complicated.

So...

Rohm wanted to get rid of the connections to the Conservative Elite.  He wanted to take a more radical approach.  Hitler and the other Nazis wanted to appear more moderate.

Here's an alternate history analogy:  

Let's say Mike Pence went along with Trump's plan to overthrow the election. 

Trump becomes the president.

Then let's say the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers wanted to use violent force to get things done, but Trump wanted to give the illusion that everything was normal...that he truly had won the election and things were all normal and Democratic.

The analogy isn't a perfect fit, though.  Even though the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are fanboys of Trump, and he seems to be a fanboy of them...there isn't an official connection.

I think it's kind of like the difference between being dedicated groupies and bouncers.

* * *

On June 30, Rohm and other SA leaders were ordered to attend a meeting at a hotel.

Hitler came to the meeting and arrested Rohm and other leaders.

I think this is the kind of thing Trump fantasizes about when he gets people to chant Lock her up at rallies. 

The arrest was not an imprisonment kind of arrest...it was a death penalty one.  And there was no alternative of taking a ship to Australia.

Rohm was given the choice of suicide or murder.  Yikes.  

That's probably just pure sadism there.

* * *

Goebbels the propaganda guy did his propaganda magic and presented The Knight of Long Knives as a needed preventative measure.  

In my alternate history analogy, it would be somewhat like Trump turning around and having leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys executed.  People would probably be horrified. But there might also be a feeling of protection and relief.  Here we thought Trump was buddies with these violent people, but he must not like them that much if he's decided they're a big enough threat that they need to be executed.

The killing of the SA leaders probably had an element of the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend...especially for Germans who might have been on the fence about Hitler.

* * *

Lord Wiki has a list of some of the victims of The Night of Long Knives.  Not all of them were SA leaders.

The person most familiar to me is Kurt von Schleicher.  He was one of Hindenburg's four advisors; the one who became a Chancellor for a short time.  He and his wife were both shot in their home.

The victims range from a journalist of a Catholic Newspaper; a former co-prisoner of Hitler that helped him edit Mein Kampf, Rohm's chauffer; a Jewish doctor; the headwaiter at Rohm's favorite tavern; the director of the Catholic Youth Sport's Association....

I wonder which of the victims were actually part of the resistance and which were loyal to Hitler...just not loyal enough.

Eventually...for these posts, I want to look at people who resisted.  I want to look at people who never got on the Hitler train and fought back from the beginning.  I also want to look at those who were on the Hitler train but then got off at some point....I mean BEFORE they were murdered.  

* * *

The other thing on my official agenda today is looking at another Holocaust website to see whether they are on  the same team as The Holocaust Explained and believe that the Nazis were right-wing.  OR will the website agree with Conservapedia and believe the Nazis were left-wing.

* * *

I'm looking at the Budapest Holocaust Memorial Center.

Now...I've been hearing that Hungary is going a bit right-wing.  So they might side with Conservapedia.  

There's also the chance that they talk about the Holocaust but not the events leading to the Holocaust.

Well...it turns out they talk about what led up to the Holocaust.  But they also talk about it from their perspective as another European country.

* * *

I am SO confused about what websites need to be italicized.  Because I've learned you're supposed to italicize websites. And I've been doing that.  But a lot of places and businesses have websites, so do I italicize those as well?

* * *

The website says that in 1920 Hungary became the first country in post World War I Europe to have an antisemitic law.  

Oh!  So a minute ago, I was surprised and kind of comforted to see that the Budapest website admitted to having this antisemitic law.  Countries that are willing to admit their past mistakes don't often lean too far to the right.

Then I reminded myself that A) countries are not made up of a hive mind  B) It's probably Jewish people who are running this Holocaust site.

So then I looked up more about this antisemitic law and ended up on this website.  It's called Autocracy Analyst: Reporting on the Rise of Authoritarian Rule in Hungary. 

The website is in English, though.  So it might not actually be Hungarian.

Also...who knows.  Maybe it's run by right-wing people who imagine the left authoritarians are taking over.

Well...it turns out to be pretty Hungarian.  They're part of the Rights Reporter Foundation which was founded by Hungarian Activists.

As for the English they say: This blog provides you English news updates, articles, and videos about rising authoritarian rule in Hungary.

I think they're using English to reach a wider audience?  

Statista says 25.9% of people online use English.

Hungarian is not on their chart.  But I'm guessing it's a smaller percentage than English.

Also.  If your country has become very authoritarian, I think you kind of want to also reach people outside your country.

* * *

Taking a step out of the Hungarian resistance rabbit hole....

Back to the antisemitic law.  It was about having Jewish quotas at universities.

Now getting back to whether the other Hungarian website, the Holocaust one, believes the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing.  They did mention something right-wing...but I think it was Hungarian related not German/Nazi. 

I haven't found that yet....but I'm seeing from the Budapest website that between The Enabling Law and the Night of Long Knives, there WAS a lot of anti-Jewish action that I didn't see on The Holocaust Explained website.

I don't think it's a matter of The Holocaust Explained downplaying the antisemitism.  I think it's probably that they have that stuff on a separate page.

That being said, it did confuse me.  In my last post, I had the idea that the Nazis waited to fully show off their antisemitism.

* * *

I left their chronological area and am now looking at their Encyclopedia.  They have a section on the Nazis...or as they remind us National SOCIALISM.

Or they had a section.

It's gone.

Or the link might be broken.

It feels a bit ominous, though.

* * *

They do have a page on Hitler.

They don't say whether Hitler was left or right.

I'm going to keep looking for something about the Nazi party.

Though I will say that while looking for Hitler, I did run across some descriptions of people who were anti-Nazi and/or Zionists. They were all described as being left-wing.

* * *

Found it!

On their page about National Socialism, the Budapest Holocaust Memorial Center says they were a Far-right political ideology, way of thinking and political system.

They also say: German National Socialism served as a model for right-wing parties and dictatorships established in other countries between the two world wars.

It would be interesting to know how many right-wing Hungarians disagree with the Holocaust Center's statement.  

* * *

I'm going to end here.  I probably won't be editing and posting this until Friday or later.  Tomorrow we have another day of apartment packing and in the evening, we have the Jan 6 hearings to watch.  

In my next post, I will probably be reading the next section of The Holocaust Explained.  It's about something called Gleichschaltung.

And I will be looking at another Holocaust website to see if they are on Team Nazis-are-right-wing or on Team Nazis-are-left-wing.

The score so far:

Two for the left—Dinesh D'Souza and Conservapedia.

And...

Five for the right- The Budapest Holocaust Memorial Center, The Holocaust Explained (Wiener Holocaust Library), USHMM (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum), Snopes, and The Political Compass. 

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

Learning about the Rise of Nazism in Germany (part 12)

 For the first post in my Nazi-Germany series, please click here.  

So....

My agenda for this post is to continue reading about the Nazis consolidating power on the Weiner Holocaust Library's website: The Holocaust Explained.

And I want to start looking at other Holocaust-related websites to see if they agree with The Weiner Holocaust Library's assertion that Nazis were right-winged.

That all being said, I will probably go off on various tangents and fall down various rabbit holes.  So who knows where we will end up.

* * *

On March 23, 1933 brought up the idea of The Enabling Law to the Reichstag.  

Edited to add: 11/25/2023:  Rereading this old post and have no idea what I meant by the above sentence.  Sorry to anyone trying to read this! 

* * *

Just remembered something.

I talked to Tim about this last night.

Sometimes when we talk about politics, Tim goes on a rant about how right-wing Jews will start caring about all the MAGA shit when MAGA starts going after the Jews.

I respond with skepticism.

Oh!  Now I remember.  I actually wrote about my feelings about this in one of these posts.  

Yeah. I know there are antisemitic MAGA people.  But I didn't feel antisemitism was one of their main themes.

Yesterday, I started rethinking things.

Because I suddenly realized that, with my reading lately about the takeover of the government by Nazis, I'm not hearing a lot about the Jews.  I'm hearing mostly about anti-communism. 

Tim asked something along the lines of was the anti-communism kind of a code for anti-Jewish?  Kind of like today, antisemitism can hide behind anti-Zionism or anti-Globalism (depending on whether the antisemite leans left or right).

I think that probably there was actual hate for communists, because of Russia...and not simply because communism was associated with Jewishness.

I know Hitler was antisemitic, and I read that the pre-Hitler Nazi group was antisemitic as well.

I'm thinking, though, that maybe they downplayed their antisemitism until they were in power and campaigned more on anti-communism.

After I started thinking this, I went to look at the dates of the big antisemitic movies.  Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew came out in 1940.  

When I was doing my research, I had wanted to concentrate on the RISE of Nazism.  Then I ended up on Propaganda and realized I had jumped ahead.  But I rechecked the dates just in case.  

None of this means that MAGA is going to definitely go full-force antisemitic.  I think they have their hate-hands full with homophobia, transphobia, and anti-socialism.  But....who knows.  

EDITED TO ADD: It turns out I was wrong about the Nazis not targeting the Jews during the rise-to-power days.  Spoiler alert: I learn this in the next post. 

* * *

Back to the Enabling Law.

Oh...it's just a minor thing. No big deal. 

It says only that Hitler could make decrees without getting the stamp of approval from the Reichstag OR the President.

I don't see how that might be a problem.....

The kind of funny thing is, 

Hitler had to get the Reichstag to vote to approve the Enabling Law.  That's a kind of poetic mix of democracy and dictatorship.

The DNVP (German National People's Party) a conservative party, supported the plan.  

I'm sure most of the Nazis voted yes.

The KDP (Communist Party) said no way!  But they had been banned from the Reichstag and couldn't vote.

The Nazi SS and SA put some of their opponents in Dachau, which I've heard of...but I did not realize it was the first concentration camp.  I mean I knew it was a concentration camp...just didn't know it was the first.  

Is Dachau in Poland or Germany?  

Just Googled.

It's in Germany.

I looked on Google Maps.  There are no Street Views, but there are photographs.

Hopefully, they won't decide to film Stranger Things part 5 there. 

 

* * *

There were more parties involved in the vote.

The Centre party supported Hitler after he promised to protect Catholic interests.  It's kind of like how Protestant Christians are willing to support Trump, because of their dreams of overturning Roe vs Wade  and how some Jewish people were willing to hold their nose and support Trump, because he promised to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

* * *

I just started thinking....

Did anyone consider that there might be Israeli's living in Tel Avis who were attached to the embassy?

I'm imagining this autistic Israeli who has a special interest in the United States and loved going to visit the embassy. And now Trump and his supporters messed all that up.

* * *

The Holocaust Explained says that the SPD (Social Democratic Party) were the only ones who voted against the Enabling Law.

The vote was 444 to 94.

I'm confused, because I thought the SPD had been kicked out.  

Or maybe their power was reduced in some other way?

Or maybe they were kicked out at a later time?

Okay. I had a talk with Lord Wiki.

He was helpful.  He says the SPD was banned in June.  That's a few months after the vote.  

* * *

Lord Wiki has a table of all the votes.

I don't usually link to Lord Wiki, but I will here, because it's interesting to look at the table.  

The Nazi Party...otherwise known as The National Socialist German Worker's Party gave 284 Yeses.

The Communist Party had 81 absences. I wonder why....

The Centre Party provided 72 yeses.

The DNVP gave 52 yeses.

The Bavarian People's Party gave 19 yeses.

The German State Party gave 5 yeses.

The Christian Social People's Service gave 4 yeses.  

The German People's Party gave 2 yeses.

The German Farmer's Party gave 2 yeses.  

The Imperial Agricultural League gave 1 yes.

The Social Democratic Party gave 92...NO'S.

* * *

I just went back to Conservapedia to see what they wrote about the Hitler documentary.  There was something about political parties that I don't think I transcribed yesterday.

Okay...but I just ended up reading their take on The Office. And it's pretty hilarious.

They say: Mockery of liberal ideology and political correctness in an office setting, without a liberal laugh track. The main character repeatedly encounters contradictions and absurdities as he tries to conform to liberal expectations. The show was most popular when its humor was conservative, and has declined in quality and popularity as its conservative humor has been diluted. Its later seasons were notably more liberal and offensive towards religion. Steve Carell played the main character for six years and was denied an Emmy Award by liberals every time despite being by far the funniest actor on television.

Anyway...I mean maybe it's all about perception. But I thought the main point of the show was mocking Michael Scott (Steve Carell).  I thought most of the humor came from him being well-intentioned but also a sexist and racist buffoon.  

* * *

As for what they say about the Nazi documentary.

I quoted some of it in the last post.  But what I saw and left out is part of this: 

[Left Wing Propagandists] claiming the Nazis were a "far-Right" political party when in reality they belonged to the far-Left (and only being slightly to the right of German Communists/Red Front at most).

How does that work?

Lord Wiki labels all the yes-voting political groups ( except the farming-related ones) as conservative.

The group kicked out were the Communists.

And the group voting no were the Social Democratic Party. 

Lord Wiki says the Social Democratic Party has Marxist origins. I think Marxist origins sounds pretty far-left.

It seems one would have to do a lot of cognitive gymnastics to be able to believe that a left-wing Party (The Nazis) kicked out another left wing party (the Communist Party) and was denied support from a third left-wing party (Social Democratic Party) but then was supported by several right-wing parties?

I guess one of the ways to do that is to say Lord Wiki is lying and to create your own island called Conservapedia.

* * *

Instead of getting into the next section on The Holocaust Explained which is about The Night of the Long Knives, I'm going to take a look at another Holocaust site or two and see what they say about the Nazis being left-wing or right-wing.

I'm looking at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum now. I've looked at it a little for an earlier post.  But I don't remember seeing their political take on it.

So far, I'm not seeing much on the rise of Nazism.  They have a timeline but they don't go into details about the politics.  

* * *

Ah!

I think I found it.  They have a section entitled "Hitler Comes to Power".

The USSHM says, The Nazis were radically right-wing, antisemitic, anticommunist, and antidemocratic.

That's two against one.

So far.....

* * *

I'm looking for websites that will provide me a good list of other websites.

This New York Jewish school, Touro University, has a list of international Holocaust sites.  

Oh! Actually they have multiple lists, and it looks pretty extensive.

So, I think I can rely on them for this little side project.  

* * *

In the next post, I plan to look at more Holocaust websites while also reading about the Night of Long Knives on The Holocaust Explained.

To be continued.....

* * *

Ha.  You thought I meant in the next post.  Didn't you?

Well, I did too.

BUT....

I started thinking that I shouldn't assume that Conservapedia is trusted and respected by all MAGA people...or at least not all Republicans and Conservatives.

It could be something that even most MAGA people laugh at.

So, now I have two new questions in my head.  

A) What percentage of MAGA people see Conservapedia as a valid, respectable source?

B) For those MAGA who see Conservapedia as a bit nutty for even their taste, would the viewpoint that Nazis-were-left-wing be seen as one of the less outlandish theories on Conservapedia?  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

The Rise of Nazism in Germany (part 11)

 To read the first part in this series, please click here!

I'm going to start reading The Holocaust's Explained's page entitled "How Did the Nazi Consolidate their Power".

Shouldn't Nazi be plural there?

I wonder if it's a proofreading error or a grammar thing I don't understand.

Anyway....

I skimmed through a little bit...mostly the paragraph headings.  Some of this stuff, I've already encountered.  But I think I need to read things multiple times to understand them...and to have any ounce of hope in remembering them.

* * *

When Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he didn't have full power right away.  

The Holocaust Explained says there was a three party coalition. So the Nazis were just one of those parties.  

And now we're going to learn how Hitler and his minions got rid of the opposition.

First there was the fire.  

The Reichstag Fire.

The fire happened on February 23, 1933.

A communist named Van der Lubbe was arrested for the fire.

Was he guilty?

I kind of want to go down a Van der Lubbe rabbit hole—mainly because I want to understand communists more.

* * *

Falling down the rabbit hole of Marinus Van der Lubbe....

First of all, Lord Wiki says, in his intro part, that Van der Lubbe was given a pardon 75 years after the fire. So I assume that means they determined he was NOT guilty after all.

Unfortunately, 1933 Germany had a different verdict. Marinus Van der Lubbe was executed for the crime.

Rewinding to his childhood in South Holland.

He was born in 1909.  

His parents were divorced.  His mother died. He went to live with his half-sister.  He worked as a brick-layer.

Because of his physical strength, he was nicknamed Dempsey after the boxer Jack Dempsey.

I don't know much about boxing.

I just know Jack Dempsey from The Twilight Zone movie.

At least I think that's the boxer they mentioned.

My sister and I used to do the dialogue from that scene.

All I remember fully is: I'm Cold. Where we going to spend the night?  Who's going to take care of us?

Found the dialogue about Jack Dempsey.  

-Oh, that was a boys' game. -My late husband, Jack Dempsey--

-Not the fighter? Oh, oh, not the fighter, not the fighter. Jack Dempsey was the most gentle man

who ever walked on the earth. Jack Dempsey loved that game. -He absolutely loved--

Now I'm totally distracted reading through the scene.

I was too young to see Haley's comet.

Birdie with the yellow bill hopped upon my window sill

Cocked his shy eye and said....

Maybe one day I should do a post about the movie lines I memorized as a child/teen that are still floating around a bit in my head. 

They're kind of random...like not the main lines from a movie.

Here's one.  I'll be excited if anyone can guess what it is.  

Security. Security from what?

Not from what.  From whom.

Ah....

Rabbit holes have rabbit holes.  Don't they?

* * *  

Back to Martinus van der Lubbe, the guy who probably did not start the Reichstag fire.  

When he was 16, he joined the Communist Party of the Netherlands.  

He became disabled (almost blind)  from a work-place accident. That left him unemployed.

Van der Lubbe wanted to move to the Soviet Union...probably because they were big into the communism thing.  But he didn't have the funds for that move.

Instead he ended up moving to Germany.  

Lord Wiki says that he thinks that Van der Lubbe had a criminal record for multiple arson attacks, but he says he doesn't have actual proof of this...yet.  He's waiting for someone to verify the rumor.

Lord Wiki says that Van der Lubbe took responsibility for the fire.

Was it a false confession?

Lord Wiki believes that, in the past, van der Lubbe took false blame/credit for starting a strike.

Okay....

So what I'm getting from Lord Wiki is that van der Lubbe might very well have been guilty. It wasn't a pardon, because innocence was proven. The pardon was because the Nazi Party was seen as "unjust," and the verdict was seen as politically motivated.  

In another page, Lord Wiki says it's believed by historians that Van der Lubbe was guilty, but it was a stroke of luck for the Nazis.  

It's like Van der Lubbe to the Nazis was what 9/11 was to George W. Bush and the Republicans.

And I'm guessing there are examples of times where left-wing Americans benefitted politically from someone doing something bad.

* * *

Getting back to the fire...which van der Lubbe probably started.

The Nazis used it to their advantage. 

They whipped up hysteria and ended up imprisoning 4000 people. Also, Hindenburg signed something called the "Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People". 

From what I read from Lord Wiki, there's a chance that van der Lubbe acted alone and that his actions were more about being a pyromaniac and not someone with the talents needed to get thousands of Communists to rise up against the German government.  

* * *

The Holocaust Explained talks about the day after the fire which was February 28, 1933.

President Hindenburg signed something called "The Emergency Decree For the Protection of the German People".

I think this decree intended to protect the German people as much as Desantis intended to protect Florida school children with HB1557.

The decree gave the Nazis the ability to imprison anyone that they saw as traitors. It also removed the right to free speech, the right to own property, and the right to a trial.  

Yikes.

* * *

There was an election on March 5, 1933.  

The Holocaust Explained says, The SA also ran a violent campaign of terror against any and all opponents of the Nazi regime. Many were terrified of voting of at all, and many turned to voting for the Nazi Party out of fear for their own safety. The elections were neither free or fair.

I hope this doesn't happen to us.

But I think it will in some form.

It will probably happen much less to white people, especially wealthy white people.

I think here, though, it's going to be less about scaring people into voting for the GOP and more about making it very difficult to vote and making it possible for votes of certain populations to be tossed out.  

The March 5, 1933 election had HIGH turnout—89%.

I think it's easier to have a low turn-out of certain populations rather than having a high turn out of people who feel very forced to vote a certain way.

Even with their campaign of terror, The Nazis didn't have supreme success.

They got 43.9% of the votes which meant they still did not have a majority in the Reichstag.  

* * *

I've decided to read a bit about a scary term I've heard of but don't know much about.

Poll-watchers. 

The Brennan Center for Justice has an editorial about it.

Or it might be an article.

But judging from the title of the organization and the title of the piece: "Who Watches the Poll Watchers", I'm thinking it's going to have some bias in it.  

Skimming through...I'm concluding it's more of an article.

It says that poll watchers are people from political parties and/or candidates who watch over the election process.  And each state has varying laws on what these poll watchers can and can't do.

Most states have laws protecting the voters from intimidation, saying the watchers have to stay a distance away and/or cannot interact with the voters.

The article looks at laws that are trying to give more freedom to the watchers which in many cases would probably give less freedom to the voters.

There was a bill in Nevada (NV AB 248), that if I'm understanding it right, was written to PROTECT the voters. It's purpose was to require partisan watchers to be accompanied by election officials.

That bill died.

In Texas, there's a bill (TX HB 6) that gives watchers permission to stand close enough to hear voters and election officials...but they can't get close enough to the-casting-a-ballot part.

A lot of the bills are saying the same things.

To be honest, it sounds kind of...not scary to me.

But I don't know how intimidating these watchers are.

One question I have is: are these watchers allowed to carry guns.

Another question:  Are there going to be an equal number of watchers in all polling places?  Will upper class and upper middle class white people find as many poll watchers in their neighborhood as Black and Hispanic people will in their neighborhoods?  

If white GOP watchers are able to stand watch in Black Democratic areas, will Black Democrats have as much ability to stand watch in white GOP polling places?  

A lot of these bills seem less about securing elections and more about pushing the message that our elections are NOT secure and not trustworthy.

But some of them seem more dangerous...more ominous.

Such as TX HB 2601 which allows watchers to take pictures and videos of people in the voting area...though fortunately they are not allowed to take pictures of people actually voting.  

Is that a huge threat?

I'm not sure.

It could make it harder for people in hiding to vote.

For example, people who are hiding from their abuser. 

But that's probably a risk anytime someone goes out...with all these people videotaping for social media these days.

On the surface, these bills don't seem too dangerous to me.  But I feel it's probably one of those things where if I read more, I'd understand why it would be harmful.

* * *

I'm imagining going to vote and how I'd feel if I knew people were watching. Or how would I feel if I was an election worker and there was someone watching me work...watching me count.

No matter what, I'd probably feel somewhat intimidated.  Because I'm self-conscious that way.

It would be much worse if the watchers acted and looked intimidating.  There'd be a difference between a friendly, easygoing person vs. someone who purposely dresses in an intimidating way and glares at me.  Or stares. Or glares AND stares.

Could watchers pretend to be there to watch but instead be there to make you feel like you're in high school again...being ridiculed, laughed at.

If you're Black, could they give you the idea that if you make one wrong step...they're going to find a way to arrest you and send you to prison.  For life?  Or shoot you and then say they thought your phone was a gun.

* * *

I'm concluding that The Brennan Center for Justice article was NOT written with a lot of bias, because I feel I should be more worried than I am.  

So I'm going to read more to find out why I need to be fretting over poll watchers.

Another pro-democracy organization called Let Texas Vote has an article entitled "Alarming Video reveals discriminatory poll watcher program in Harris Count".

I just watched the video.

And 

HOLY FUCK.

It's this guy pointing to white areas of Harris County and saying we need people from these areas to go down to these areas (apparently Black/Brown areas of Harris county) to be poll watchers.

If these bills get passed, what we need is an organization that has Black and Brown people (guarded and protected by white allies) to go and watch over white polling places.  

Also the video talks about the poll watchers needing to have confidence and courage to go in these areas.  

The article talks about intimidation techniques that have been employed...such as standing too close to a voter or video-taping them.

Anyway, my feeling in all of this is we should work less on fighting these laws and more on making sure the pain is felt equally.  

Democrats need to send as many poll watchers to Republican polling places that Republicans send to Democratic polling places.

* * *

This afternoon, I was suddenly curious about TV shows that conservatives consider conservative-friendly.

I Googled and ended up on Conservapedia. 

There's some pretty funny stuff.

Such as Family Ties: In this dramedy series, hardworking conservative children, e.g. Alex P. Keaton (played by Michael J. Fox in his breakout role), outsmart their liberal, ex-hippie, underachieving parents.

For House of Cards: This popular series exposes Democrats for what they really are—corrupt frauds and atheists, and conservative Christians are shown in a positive light.

For Sabrina (old school version) In this live-action sitcom adaptation of the Archie Comic, Sabrina Spellman may be a witch, but the show does not glorify witchcraft. Instead, it celebrates family and teaches such Christian morals as honesty and individualism.  

(Why, where, and how does Christianity teach individualism?  If you're a Christian and can explain that to me, please do!)

Then there's a category of things that are labeled as "Debatable Whether Conservative".

Brooklyn 99: Main character Captain Holt is an open homosexual in charge of the fictitious 99th police precinct in Brooklyn, New York City. However, his sexuality is downplayed for the most part, and this sitcom seems to humanize the police in an era when liberal news media does everything it can to dehumanize the authorities.

Friends:  The sitcom is about six young adults living in New York City. It often promotes alcoholism and sex outside marriage. But on a conservative note, the show condemns smoking and drug usage, and somewhat a condemnation of the homosexual agenda, as Ross’s life was negatively affected by his wife being lesbian, as well as Chandler's childhood being effected by his dad becoming a transgender

Kim Possible: Although it was feminist due to the titular character Kim Possible tending to save the world and her sidekick Ron Stoppable generally being comic relief, it also was pro-family values, as it was notably one of the few Disney Channel shows where the fathers of the main characters (Kim and Ron) were not depicted as bumbling, buffoonish, childish, or as a jerk, and in many cases the fathers actually helped significantly to save the day

Okay.  That's all funny in an infuriating kind of way.

But what I really wanted to talk about is their take on a BBC documentary called The Nazis: A Warning From History.

Conservapedia says, the documentary, or at least the first episode, repeats leftist propaganda made post-World War II of claiming the Nazis were a "far-Right" political party when in reality they belonged to the far-Left (and only being slightly to the right of German Communists/Red Front at most.

So are they saying the Weiner Holocaust Library in London, the source I've mainly been using, is leftist propaganda?  

I asked in my first post if perhaps the Weiner Holocaust Library was leftist.

I don't think they are.

I am wondering, though, if other big Holocaust museums say what Conservapedia says...that the Nazis were left-wing and not right-wing.

Maybe in one of my posts, I will go through various Holocaust websites and see if most of them promote this so-called leftist propaganda.  Will any of them agree with Conservapedia?  

* * *

I got to thinking that Jewish people themselves...we tend to have a left-wing bias.

Looking at a Pew study.  

It looks at Christians and Jews and their political leanings.  

Black Protestants are the most likely to support the Democratic Party (86%)

But Jews aren't far behind (71%). They have the highest percentage of Democrats besides Black Protestants.

In my flavor of Judaism...Reform, 80% lean Democrat. 

And THAT is all by party.

In terms of liberal vs conservative... Jews are the group that's most likely to be Liberal.  

Again...just a reminder, this deals only with Judeo-Christian religion.  It leaves out Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. 

There's one group of Jews who very much lean Republican and support Trump.  The Orthodox Jews.  Only 9% of them consider themselves liberal and 60% of them consider themselves conservative (politically not religiously)

It will be interesting to see if Holocaust museums, programs, or websites run by Orthodox Jews will label the Nazis as being left-wing rather than right wing.  

* * *

I'm going to get back to consolidation of power stuff on The Holocaust Explained website in my next post.  But I might also start looking at various Holocaust websites.  IF not, I'll get to that in a post further down the line.  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online