Much has been made about the European Union allowing parts of Belgium to ban stunless slaughter of animals, specifically because stunning animals before slaughtering them is banned if the slaughter is to be Kosher — or allowed under Jewish dietary law. Truth be told, the European Union likely saw itself in a lose-lose scenario, as one can easily imagine the cries of a globalist organization cracking down on national sovereignty in the name of multi-culturalism if the EU overturned Belgium’s ruling. As was once said on Chapo’s Trap House, the only true divide on the right these days is what is to be done with the Jews.
To argue the law is government overreach is not difficult, although to argue it’s pointless is even less so as the law did not ban imports of meat slaughtered without being stunned, just the practice of doing within the borders of two regions in Belgium. Much of the European Union still allows this practice, although the fact that it is done without the little mercy we give slaughtered animals should raise questions about if it should be.
With that said, even in spite of my disagreements with government having this power, I would never compare it to one of the most infamous genocides in human history. This is where Melissa Braunstein and I differ, as she opened an article about this in The Washington Examiner with the following:
What a way to bookend a year. In January, the world marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. World leaders gathered and solemnly promised, “Never again.”
The article never outright ties this minor regulation to Hitler’s Germany, but it does imply it one more time, ending by saying “this ruling is likely to encourage political extremists who would relish making life inhospitable for their countries’ Jewish and Muslim minorities.” (It seems Belgium is trying to take the place of China as the country that suddenly makes American conservatives care about Muslims.) The article also ends by noting “Europe’s hostility toward religious outsiders is a centuries-old tradition. It appears that it will always find a way to justify bigotry.”
Mosaic took it one step further, writing on 12/22/2020:
In 1933, shortly after Hitler came to power, Germany enacted a law forbidding Jewish ritual slaughter. Three years later, the Polish legislature passed a similar bill, supposedly on humanitarian grounds — but the actual motivations of a government that was increasingly hostile toward Jews, in an era before animal-rights groups, were no mystery.
For those curious, Hitler’s banning of Kosher slaughter appeared more to be him killing two birds with one stone (or feeding two with one scone, if you will). Hitler was a firm believer in animal rights, as well as a well known vegetarian. That’s one weird theme about the genocidal of that era, many of them viewed animal life as more important than they did human life. Across the pond, Hitler’s American friend Madison Grant called for genocide against all non-Nordic’s while also being responsible for the preservation of various endangered species.
One thing I have repeatedly noted throughout my writings is the fact that the right is allowed to make comparisons to fascism while the left is not. In a 2003 column criticizing PETA’s “Holocaust On Your Plate” campaign, Ben Shapiro wrote the following:
Human life and animal life are not comparable. While cruelty toward animals is reprehensible and damnable, it is certainly not on a par with genocide. Only a Nazi could equate the two. The Nazis equated Jews with animals. In its Holocaust On Your Plate exhibit, PETA picks up where the Nazis left off.
Of course, one could criticize the campaign as tasteless, as I would have had I been writing at the time. However, Shapiro has never thrown the same criticism towards his good friend Lila Rose, who has compared abortion to the Holocaust, as has her organization Live Action. Mind you, tenderness regarding the pre-born is understandable, especially regarding a pro-life live conservative like Ben Shapiro, but if comparing a chicken to a Jew makes you a Nazi, what does it makes someone to compare the Jewish population of Nazi Germany to a creature who has not even been born yet?
This same week, The Washington Post got into controversy for a political cartoon which showed Republicans as rats — just as their were Nazi propaganda cartoons that showed Jews as rats. Of course, Donald Trump has also said he calls the Democratic Party the “Democrats” (with specific empathizes on “rats”) because it makes them sound more unappealing. One would think the most likely option here is that rats are just seen as disgusting and the Nazis capitalized on that, as have many other skilled propagandists throughout history.
Seriously take a minute and think of the major anti-Semitic controversies of the past couple of years: Rep. Omar saying an Israeli lobby exists, Bill De Blasio putting Jews under the same lockdown orders he did every other citizen of New York City, and The New York Times running a comic that shows a blind Donald Trump being led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who bragged about being the reason Trump pulled out of the Iran Deal). In all three of these cases, the people crying anti-Semitism had to jump through massive hoops in order to prove these actions were on the same level as the Nazis. But this creates a very dangerous white-washing of history, where the horrors of Hitler’s Germany go from a pre-planned evil to something that just kind of happened.
A survey from back in September found that many young Americans lack even basic knowledge about The Holocaust, and with how many small events are compared to it, it’s not hard to see how that happened. As a general rule, anyone arguing about “dogwhistles” (or secret messages that only alert people in an in-group) in relation to Nazism have no idea what they’re talking about. Hitler did not use dogwhistles, Hitler was always direct in his goals, and Hitler was always blunt about how those goals would be achieved. This is because his opinions were not uncommon in Europe, especially among more radical groups, and as such he had no need to censor them.
As long as anti-Semites still need to use “dogwhistles”, the odds of another Holocaust are zero. Hitler rose to power through showing the people of Germany their worst side and telling them to embrace it, if the message needs to be diluted even slightly, then a Holocaust will not happen.