Everyone I don't like is literally a Nazi

Mark Twain once said "History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes" Now as quotes go, this is one of the better ones used on social media these days. There is more than a hint of truth in these 7 words. The path to an authoritarian/totalitarian regime does echo hauntingly through mankind's long and very often turbulent past.

Godwin's law (an informal internet rule by which the first person to mention the Nazi's loses the debate and thus ends the discussion)  has been around since the very birth of the internet. While it's an interesting "law" to invoke it does also stifle discourse however. Sometimes its more than reasonable to introduce such a terrible regime by want of backing up your argument. To put it bluntly, making analogy to the Nazi's is not always a lesson in hyperbole.

Now most of my posts by my own admission have not been related to something I have decades of knowledge in. Things such as CRT and intersectionality barely scrape a decade, the second world war however, is very much my wheelhouse, so now that it looks as though Britain is finally making positive steps toward sorting out it's immigration problem after announcing plans to process asylum seekers in Rwanda, I just knew the Nazi comparisons would be vomiting all over Twitter and other social media platforms.

But how correct are they? Well the answer is not very correct at all, in fact, some of the assumptions are the finest proponents of Godwin's law you are ever likely to see.

The first comment that caught my eye was a typical Nazi comparison by some lefty type which drew a response of "that's not what the Nazi's did at all" which was perfectly reasonable and usual fayre. But it was the response to that which really got my typing fingers twitching

"Not true, google Madagascar plan"

Now, I know what the Madagascar plan was. But for the life of me I can't perform enough mental gymnastics to link it to Britain's plan to use Rwanda to process applicants seeking asylum.

In short, the Nazi's wanted to relocate native people in Europe (in this instance Jews) from their homes to the island of Madagascar. How this is similar to offshore processing of asylum claims is utterly beyond me. We're not removing anyone from their homeland, to suggest there is even a hint of history rhyming here is absurd.

But it was just one off the cuff comment. So I dug a bit deeper and eventually found the motherlode of Nazi Hysteria, started by someone who has over 20k followers on Twitter. This is what they kicked off with.

"Straight out of the Nazi handbook"

What followed was quite sickening. Linking Britain's Home Secretary Priti Patel to Joseph Goebbels is not an unusual move by your average lefty, neither are the countless memes of her photoshopped in an SS uniform, its standard fayre to be honest. Now I could be pedantic and point out that Goebbels was never in the SS, or I could add that neither was he the Home Secretary of Germany (a closer comparison would be Wilhelm Frick) but most people wouldn't be too familiar with Frick so they go with a name that instantly evokes fear and anger (even though they are wrong).

One of the commenters even made a comparison to the Windrush story such is the level of hysteria.

And it went on, the label of "fascist" "Nazi" "evil" were just strewn all over the thread, it was pretty sickening to be honest and some of the meme's were disgraceful. But to sum it up, someone even dared to come out with this banger of a comment.

"I don't think Nazi comparisons should be used lightly, but here they have become entirely appropriate"

A staggering comment and a damning indictment of just how brainwashed the far left have become.

Britain has left the EU, now whatever your opinion on that might be, the simple fact is that we have left. In doing so, we needed to make our own plans for a whole host of things including the thorny issue of immigration.

For Britain to unveil a plan that's actually very similar to that of Australia and indeed the EU itself regarding it's use of Turkey is not an unreasonable decision.

For the left though, nothing other than an open border policy will suffice.

Let me get one thing straight, if the whole world shared the same values as we do, supported a liberal, democratically elected government which leaves it's people to follow whatever religion they want (or none if they so choose) then I might support an open border policy. If the whole world guaranteed free speech as a fundamental right then I would be even more inclined to agree with open borders.

But the World is a bad place, it's full of regimes and religious fanaticism I do not care for. Liberal democracy is a delicate and fragile thing and needs protecting.

A nationality and borders bill is as vital as off shore processing to the integrity of a sovereign nation. If you fight that, you risk an uprising the likes of which hasn't been seen in Europe since those dark times of WWII. And if that happens, then the people in the thread I read denouncing Priti Patel will very quickly learn what "fascism" actually is and what something like a "Madagascar plan" would truly look like.

So lets finish with a bit of fun at the expense of Britain biggest race baiter shouty shola. Here's the thing, as a general rule of thumb, the more shola hates something, you know that the something she hates is good. Likewise if she likes something, you know its really bad. Its a quick and easy way to measure something without having to study something at all.

Shouty shola really hates the Rwanda idea.