How could the far right ever be equated with Nazism?

Leftists love corrupting basic definitions and logic. But the truth is that Nazism is far-left, and anarchism is far-right.

Anarchism belongs on the far-right, so why does the authoritarian far-left constantly lie about it?

The logical political spectrum places anarchy with the minimum of government control at the far-right.  Why is that so difficult to understand?

It only took a few hours for the far-left national media to morph a nudist hemp jewelry–maker into a far-right "fascist."  Anti-liberty authoritarians of the fascist far left never let a good crisis go to waste.  With the midterms fast approaching, they can no longer deny the reality that the people are pissed.  Gas is going up, their 401(k)s are going down, crime is out of control, and kids are dying from fentanyl.

You can smell their desperation in trying to find anything to distract from their abject failure, and "political violence" fits the bill.  They've already begun trying to use this to justify the suppression of free speech and the monitoring of ballot drop boxes.

The only problem is that the perpetrator was a psychotic homeless addict and was all over the map, but they never let the facts get in the way of exploiting a serious crisis.

They are also busily projecting the political F-bomb, with the brain trust of the Squad asserting that ensuring free and fair elections is fascism, somehow.  As we get closer to their justified trouncing at the polls, we should have no doubt that they will turn up the volume in their projection.

You'll note that when the liberty-deniers can't pin down specifics, they resort to generalities in the hope that the viewer will make the connection to conservatives.  Therefore, they exploit terms like "political violence" and "far right."  They can pretend to be neutral in using unbiased terminology, but they've propagandized these terms to the point that they have sinister, underlying meanings.

This is why it's vitally important to bust the mythology around certain terms such as "far right."

There have been a number of dissertations on the basics of the political spectrum, with one distinct difference between the two types of constructs.  One set is based on factual logic, the other on preconceived and wholly arbitrary notions that could be manipulated to come to any desired conclusion. 

We will rest our case on basic logic, starting from the foundational fact that governmental control levels are the only logical metric for the political spectrum.

We then build our logical case up from this, as detailed in the reference piece "Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum":

Since a spectrum is in fact a continuum, the absolute extremes must be established, so that all variations and deviations from those extremes can be accurately charted.  For example, light and dark, heat and cold, the band of waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, all measure from one extreme to the other. So it is with the political spectrum. Since governments establish order based on the regulation of the activities of the members of their respective societies, the correct extremes for the political spectrum delineate the degree of individual freedom allowed.  And traditionally that has been demarcated as left to right; least freedom, to most freedom; totalitarianism to anarchy.

And because the spectrum is a continuum, from one extreme to the other, it is a straight line.  It doesn't curve around, or circumvent the scale at any point.  It is a continuous, single-dimensional range from one extreme to the other.  And with individual freedom, there are only two absolute points of reference: maximum freedom (anarchy), or no freedom (totalitarianism).  With those absolutes established at the ends of the spectrum, all systems of governance can be effectively placed on the spectrum, and scaled based on the degree or level of individual freedom, or conversely, the degree of state control over the individual.

The extreme far-right minimum for government control is further confirmed by the basic origins of the word anarchy: "absence of government," or "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority."

We all know that the national media and the socialists constantly propagandize the public to make the term "far right" synonymous with the ideology of fascism and Nationalsozialism (based on earlier German sozi, a popular abbreviation of "socialist").

So how would they reconcile anarchy — "having no ruler," absence of government, and absence of order — with the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of Nazism?

[T]he body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.

In particular, take note of the portion of the definition that refers to the "totalitarian principle of government."  That would seem to be at odds with the absence of order and the absence of government. 

Therefore, we have proven that anarchism or minimal government control belongs to the "far right," eviscerating another big lie from the left.  The far right can never be equivalent to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and fascism.

Originally published on the American Thinker