Tag: Nazi Germany

Bernie Sanders Joins Eric Swalwell in Being a Gun Grabber

James Sweet III | @jsweetIII

Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Presidential Candidate that believes he can survive the stress of the Presidency at the young age of 77, just made enemies with gun-wielding Americans. Previously, Bernie Sanders only wanted to ban the next generations from owning “military-style assault weapons”. Now, he wants to take away your guns. It shouldn’t come as a shock to many. After all, bad ideas need a disarmed populace to take effect as the majority of Americans dislike “democratic socialist” policies. After three mass shootings within the past week, Bernie seems to have been pushed further towards authoritarian policies. On Twitter, Bernie Sanders expressed his support for a national gun buyback program.

Sound familiar? It should, because Californian Congressman and former Democratic Presidential Candidate, Eric Swalwell, proposed the same program. Swalwell also took the astounding position that the United States government would just nuke any American that attempted to resist the federal ban and buyback of “assault weapons”, so perhaps this program isn’t what’s best for the American people if all-out war is necessary to squash any dissent.

Continue reading “Bernie Sanders Joins Eric Swalwell in Being a Gun Grabber”


The USA Cannot Let Turkey and Saudi Arabia Fall

Daniel Szewc | Poland

Many question the morality of the USA’s decision to maintain a strong relationship with the Republic of Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. How can the bastion of global democracy associate itself with a well-established theocracy, as well as what seems like one that poised to adopt a similar model? Geostrategy isn’t as simple as it may seem- one cannot only ally with whomever they deem as morally correct. This is most apparent during the geopolitical equivalents of tectonic shifts, ie wars- when new realities rise and fall so often. If ideology were the only factor, it is almost certain that the USSR and the Third Reich would never sign the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Thus, ideological barriers crumble even in cases of the most confirmed enemies, under the unstoppable forces that garner geopolitical interests of nations, in this case, the German and Soviet ones.

In the case of America and Turkey, there are two major reasons as to why they maintain a love-hate relationship. One of these reasons was what caused Russia to annex the Crimean peninsula- that is, the strategic advantages of holding the straits of Bosforus and Dardanelle, with Istanbul/historical Constantinople as the epicenter of political control of the region. If Turkey was to lose control of the city, Russia would fulfill its historical dream of becoming a naval AND Orthodox Christian supreme power by annexing Constantinople. Why? There are two reasons. The first is that Russia feels the moral obligation of restoring it’s religious capital, as the title of Tsar came from Imperial Russia roots are based in the tradition of Eastern Rome. Securing Constantinople would create a complete monopoly on Orthodoxy for Russia, which perfectly fits in with their pan-Slavic aspirations of the 19th century. It was this time in which Russia fought an exceptionally underestimated war with Turkey. The outcome of this war proved that Russia was for the first time capable of being taken down by a European power. Surprisingly, Turkey, being foreign in its culture and civilization to Europe received the support of Sardinia, the UK, and France during the Crimean war of 1853. A new threat to European imperialism emerged for with Constantinople, Russia would be able to partake in the colonization of Africa, having finally gained access to the Mediterranean, as well as potentially conquer Greece. Russian influence in the Mediterranean would allow them to control not only Austria’s trade through the Black Sea but also its access to trade in the Adriatic Sea. After crushing what was then the only strong Germanic state, Russia was uninhibited in its path to becoming the sole power of Europe… except for the Poles.

In contrast to Slovaks, Czechs, and Croats, Poles were the only people who felt even more violated by Russia than by Germanic nations. Of course, Russia tried to loosen its grip on the Poles after the Vienna Congress, thinking that stirring up pro-Russian sentiment was possible. Yet the Poles resisted, causing Russia to act self detrimentally, crushing rebellions and with them Russia’s chances of peacefully uniting all Slavs under one banner. The goal of uniting Slavic groups was becoming less and less possible, considering that what later became Austria-Hungary gave Galicia, a region which is now part of both Poland and Ukraine, extreme autonomy. This could have been done with the goal of dismantling Russia’s plans. While Poles fought against the potential threat of Russian dominance, Prussia grew in power, and with it, grew the UK’s safety from another invasion by France. At their own disadvantage, the British failed to consider that the Prussian identity was inherently against the last factor keeping Russia away from hegemony- the Second Reich also had an extreme anti-Polish set of policies. Although it seemed like a stronger Prussia was a potential safeguard against Russia.

Now, Turkey will have an even greater potential impact on Russia- the construction of the Istanbul Canal will finally make it possible for large navy vessels to enter the Black Sea, letting Russia’s soft underbelly to the East of Ukraine become an easy target for an American offensive. To be clear, it is not that America favors Turkey and its regime, which controls the straits, but just like it’s predecessors in marine power, France and the UK, it must secure access to the straits for its own gain. It is for this reason that the US is seeking to maintain a partnership with Turkey.

Yet how does America make sure that Turkey doesn’t become too strong? Using Saudi Arabia. With the house of Saud controlling what was formerly much of the South-East of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is kept strong enough to disrupt Russia’s Mediterranean trade if necessary, whilst too weak to control the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. This, in turn, explains why the USA cannot let Saudi Arabia fail. If Saudi Arabia lost influence, Turkey would become too strong and could monopolise the West’s counter-influence to Iran and Russia.

For an insight into the struggle for world dominance between Russia, China, and the USA, I suggest these works:

Learn from China: How to Beat America

Cheating Destiny: The USA Can Beat China Using Russia

How China Overtook the USA Where The USSR Couldn’t

The Upcoming Revolution in Russian Geopolics

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

The Fight for Speech is a Fight for Liberty

Ashton J. Barwick | USA

The topic of free speech has once again reentered the public debate arena. However, it is not a debate that operates on an established consensus of natural rights. Groups on the right and the left have devolved into using their identity as a means of achieving their respective goals. Those that don’t utilize their immutable characteristics to advance their positions are then concerned about the motivations hidden within these identitarian movements. Rational people ought to remain concerned with the preservation of individual liberty because it will ensure that everyone is free from coercion. Negative rights are contingent on the notion that individuals own themselves. Humans have negative rights because all people have contrasting ideas and unique desires. Individuals are sovereign and not tools for an arbitrary greater good.

Governments throughout history have attempted to legislate against ideas they found distasteful. The printing press was first invented in China, and then the famous Gutenberg printing press was introduced in Europe in the 15th century. Consequently, the proliferation of knowledge and ideas resulted in an explosion of scientific discovery. Institutions such as the church would seek to utilize the state to ensure their ideas remained infallible, and they prohibited the use of the printing press by those not approved by the state. Subsequently, philosophers and thinkers published their work in countries that had liberal speech and printing regulations. Rene Descartes had his philosophical writings published in Holland anonymously to ensure his own safety. The ideas of the enlightenment influenced governments across Europe to finally ensure the protection of speech because the consequences of doing otherwise resulted in anguish and stagnation.

Freedom of the press was prohibited in Germany until the early 20th century, and it seems to be evident that this inhibited their ability to have a civil discussion.  The national socialists and the communists frequently engaged in street fighting prior to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. Thus, this marked the beginning of the “anti-fascists,” and their violent tactics are still utilized today in order to silence those that they disagree with. They justify violence by obfuscating the political identity of their dissenters and claiming that they are fascists.

European countries are again legislating against speech that is abhorrent. In Britain, saying something the government determines to be offensive can result in a six-month prison term or a fine of up to £5000. China’s communist party has maintained its hegemony over the media since it assumed power. State officials are contemplating implementing a system that monitors an individual’s social development and removes or adds points depending on what course of action was chosen. The state then becomes the arbiter of morality and enforces it with the threat of social ostracization.

Once prominent universities and institutions were committed to engendering critical thinking and promoting free and open dialogue between competing ideas. UC Berkeley was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement. In a rather ironic twist, the hostility towards freedom of expression erupted there when the conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak. Members of Antifa and other leftist students organized to protest the speaker. Their intentions were not to debate or have civil discourse, but to create a volatile environment where it was not safe to have an open dialogue. Antifa uses “whatever means necessary” to achieve their collective goals even if the “means” are violating rights of individuals. They form what they call “black blocks” where they shroud their personal identities with black clothes and masks. They act as a collective unit in order to cause enough destruction to render the environment too dangerous for an event to take place. They feel that debate can be won by simply shouting louder than the opposition, and people have to be protected from certain ideas as if they are infectious diseases.

There is a strong correlation between a thriving society and individual liberty. When certain ideas warrant a use of violence or state sanction then any idea that someone finds atrocious can be prohibited if the power to do so is available. Arguments compete in a peaceful and productive manner to benefit humanity with the truth. If you introduce force into the process, truth becomes irrelevant. Ideas do not have to be right; they just have to have power over the opposition.