Like most right-wingers, she plays the race card when embarrassed. Why is it always about race for those guys?
“When we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. He was a national socialist.” she said.
“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine,” Owens continued, while standing next to Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
“The problem is he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize, he wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way. To me, that’s not nationalism. So in thinking about how it could go bad down the line, I don’t really have an issue with nationalism, I really don’t.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/candace-owens-hitler-was-ok-until-he-tried-to-go-global
I'm thinking that she's probably completely ignorant of the things Hitler did in Germany,and blurted that stuff out because she didn't know any better. I sure hope so.
Come on. Hitler did not recognize anybody's inalienable right, which has been variously called the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to religious freedom from harassment, the right to bear arms, the right to defend innocent people being victimized by attempted murderers and rapists. He didn't believe in any of those. He did not recognize rights. He thought Jews did not possess the right, the same way he believed 'aryans' did not possess it either, since he'd happily dispatch any of them who disagreed with him. He was happy about taking care of those people, and that means he didn't believe in the right, objectively, because he objectively infringed the right plenty of times, even when it conflicted with his otherwise accurately diagnosed but obviously wrongly diagnosed Antisemitism.
He was not primarily a nationalist or white supremacist or Antisemite. His own actions defy that explanation. The guy was just a greatly successful murderous suicide. At some point the man decided to end it, he carried around a poison pill for precisely that purpose, when he actually did the deed, he used the poison pill already on himself, which confirms that he'd been thinking of doing it from at latest the time he decided to get himself the poison pill to have on his person.
Do we somehow think this was rational, on his part, to carry around a poison pill on his person? It's not. The guy was just a future and inevitable suicide, and he was one of these 666 ones who wants to murder as many innocent people as possible on the way out. idk why we think he's any sort of example of anything but a Kamikaze. The US fought Kamikazes in both Europe (Hitler himself) and in the Pacific (Japan at the end, leading up to the US dropping the Bomb) in that conflict, and our greatest generation prevailed against them both, probably your own parents' generation, I'm guessing?
Kamikazes are 666, there's no doubt about that. Nuclear is on the table, if it's possible for it to be the most rational choice. I'm not suggesting that it is ever the most rational choice, but I'm making a conditional statement, that in the case that I'm wrong, which is obviously possible, I cannot rule out unconditionally nuclear weapons.
But I really don't think that it's possible for nuclear weapons to be the most rational choice, even against Kamikazes, but then again, the greatest generation of the US succeeded against a whole bunch of them in WWII, and I'm not prepared to just dismiss their choice to go nuclear. I could be wrong, and in such case, probably the stupidest thing any human could ever do is ban the one thing that could actually work, to save us from otherwise inevitable extinction.
And that does extrapolate from the species level right on down to the individual level, which is this 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' thing that I mentioned earlier. Hitler didn't recognize THE RIGHT that we believe SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That's all he was. It's typical of someone who's decided to murder as many people as possible before offing his own miserable self.
