Out of respect for the reader, I am providing this warning as a spoiler alert. What follows details the opening minutes of Quentin Tarantino’s World War II film, “Inglorious Basterds.” 

It is a haunting, memorable scene in which SS-Standartenführer Hans Landa visits a small, isolated farmhouse in Nazi-occupied France. The rustic home is presented in an idyllic, rolling pasture, bathed in sunlight and seemingly unsullied by war or invading forces. The Nazis suspect that a family of Jews is hiding out at the farm, and so they have dispatched Landa, their chief  “Jew Finder,” to investigate. 

Following an exchange of pleasantries, Landa invites the farmer to sit with him at a table. The officer compliments the farmer on the beauty of his three daughters, as well as the deliciousness of the glass of milk he has been provided. The farmer stoically thanks his visitor for the compliments. He is hospitable, but clearly unenthusiastic about receiving the Nazi into his home. 

Having dispensed with houseguest niceties, the officer then requests that the farmer ask his daughters wait outside. Landa explains that what they have to discuss would best be done in private. The farmer agrees and instructs his daughters to comply with the request.

Satisfied with their privacy, Landa informs the man that he is looking for a family of Jews. He explains that his inquiry is a mere formality and that he would soon be on his way. The farmer is cooperative and maintains a relaxed, respectful demeanor as he responds to his visitor’s polite, but probative questions. After meticulously recording the farmer’s answers in his binder, Landa concludes that the man is harboring enemies of the state. 

The officer affords the weary farmer an opportunity to confess to the crime. He explains matter-of-factly that it would be less laborious if the man were to simply acknowledge his complicity in hiding Jews and reveal to him where they are stowed. If the farmer complies, the man and his family would be left in peace. If not, and Jews were found on his property, however, the farmer and his daughters would suffer punishment.

Faced with such a cruel dilemma, the farmer reluctantly confirms the officer’s suspicion that the family of Jews is hiding beneath the floorboards of his home. 

With the family’s presence beneath their feet confirmed, Landa summons his soldiers into the room. At the officer’s direction, the men shoot through the floorboards with their machine guns, brutally murdering the group where they lie. 

One girl manages to scurry through a vent and escape to the bright, expansive pasture surrounding the house. Raising his gun, a smug Landa allows his prey to flee, yelling taunts at her as she runs from the carnage. Crying through gasps for air and sprinting to nowhere in particular, the bloodied, mud-clad girl disappears into the horizon. She would be the officer’s messenger—yet another chilling testament to Landa’s superior Jew-finding skills. Furthermore, Landa is confident that he will have another opportunity to murder the girl at some point in the near future. Ultimately, a Jew Finder can no longer play his twisted game if all of his prey has been eradicated.

The message of the farmhouse scene is clear: no matter where you run, no matter where you hide, the Socialist will find you, and he will destroy you. You cannot outsmart him. He is focused, determined, and lacks empathy. He cannot be reasoned with, nor can he be enlightened. Not unlike James Cameron’s fictitious Terminator, the Socialist is truly the perfect antagonist for this story.

But, sadly, the Socialist antagonist is not a fictitious enemy confined to film and book. Incidents such as “Basterd’s” farmhouse scene were familiar to those living under Nazi tyranny. Likely inspired by biographical records such as those penned by Anne Frank and Władysław Szpilman, the scene is representative of many such incidents which occurred throughout Europe under Nazi occupation. 

To put this in context, it must be understood that the Socialist is a very real enemy. He is consolidating his power in America today. He is coming for you, and he will continue to come for you with unyielding persistence. You need only look to Tarantino’s film or countless recorded testimonials from throughout history to gain insight into the depth of Socialist malevolence.

The Good German

It is difficult to watch the “Basterds” farmhouse scene without imagining yourself in this situation. What if you were the farmer? What if you were the Jew? What would you do? You might even ponder how you might act if you were one of the soldiers commanded by your superior to murder a family, including women and children, in cold blood.

As I contemplate these questions, I begin to consider the role of  “the good German” of the time and her culpability in the evolution of events such as these. 

The good German was a passive citizen. He looked the other way as his neighbor was dragged from her family for expressing subversive political beliefs. She went about her business as the systematic roundup and extermination of fellow citizens took place on an industrial scale. Brutality and injustice continued largely unabated by a populous focused on self-preservation.

At the outset, most Germans supported the Nazi regime. Following WW I, the country was thrust into a period of economic crisis and national despair. Hitler had promised Germans a brighter future through Socialism. He had offered hope and a restoration of pride, and a plurality of Germans were eager to embrace the charismatic leader’s nationalist message. 

But not all Germans stood in agreement with Hitler’s rhetoric. Certainly, most of the country’s 318,000 Jews were wary of the Nazi Party (there were actually some who endorsed Hitler in the nascent years of his regime). However, the many naysayers were very much intimidated into silence through a campaign of terror and brutality. Compliant Germans had calculated that the only thing worse than being a good German was to be a dead German. 

But what would have happened if the good German stopped being good? What if opposition took meaningful action early on, before the Nazi regime was able to consolidate its power? What if  Germans became defiant and emphatically declared that they were not going to surrender their liberties so easily? What if, for example, the populous had taken a dramatic stand before their speech was squelched and their guns confiscated? Perhaps today we would be recounting a very different historical record. Perhaps Anne Frank would not have been murdered in a concentration camp at age fifteen.

The Good American

We are at a time in history in which the good American must decide whether the prize of good standing among Socialists is worth the price of his liberties and freedom. She must calculate at what point, if any, the prize is no longer worth the price. It is a very personal decision, and one that must be made with extreme reflection and sobriety.

 To populations living under Nazi rule, cancellation meant incarceration, detention in a concentration camp, forced labor, and even death. Cancellation for Americans today may result in offenders being shunned by family and friends, loss of business and banishment from social media. While incarceration of political opponents is certainly also being practiced in America today, the wholesale slaughter of citizens is not yet on the horizon. 

But the longer the American remains good, the higher the price she can expect to pay for her inaction in the future. To quote an Arabian proverb, “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” 

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot—they mastered media censorship and manipulation, went on to confiscate firearms, and from there it became easy enough to harass, jail and execute their unarmed opponents. It doesn’t matter if the tyrant is a Socialist, Communist or even a Democrat. The seeker of absolute power descends a predictable slope into the pit of brutality. It is a path has been well-worn by countless autocrats and dictators throughout history.

Democrats have not yet consolidated their power, but are working diligently to establish single party rule under a globalist form of government. To achieve that end, the Democrats have stolen a national election and, via HR1, are paving the way to disenfranchise honest, legitimate American voters well into the future. 

Democrats have colluded with big tech, big business, and mainstream media. They have censored, silenced and imprisoned Conservatives under dubious charges. They are flooding our country with a transformative population, an invading horde that will ostensibly reward Democrats for their largess with the votes needed to achieve Uniparty rule. 

To state that we are being robbed of our country is being kind. We are being mugged.

The Bad AR

Democrats now seek to remove our last line of defense against tyranny—the firearm. They have begun with the introduction of HR 127, a proposal for, among other things, compulsory gun registration. In effect, this legislation will build a database of gun owners’ names and addresses, as well as the number and types of firearms owned by those individuals. At that point, officials need only print a list to identify targets of engagement in a predictable and well-coordinated, door-to-door gun seizure effort. 

HR 8 has been introduced in an attempt to ban AR-style rifles. More recently, following tragic shootings in Boulder and Atlanta, Biden has suggested that he might very well bypass Congress and take executive action on gun control. His argument is that it’s too important of a matter to wait on as resolutions wind through the legislative process. 

In fact, the Presidential Branch does not have the authority to create and pass laws. But if there is one thing Democrats excel at, it is exploiting crisis and emotion as a means to an end. You need only review the many COVID-inspired mandates created outside of state legislatures to review this familiar strategy in practice. It is an effort that helped Democrats “win” a national election.

Proponents of  gun control bills and actions argue that the AR is a military weapon, inappropriate for hunting and recreational use. They contend that the AR is a tool whose only intended use is to kill people. An appropriate counter-argument to this is to simply reply, “Yes, I’ll take two, please.”

My intention is not to sound blasé about people being shot with a formidable weapon. Rather, the statement reflects an understanding of our basic right to defend family, friends and self. The Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect Americans from deer and antelope, nor was it adopted to grant us the right to shoot at paper targets.

The Second Amendment was penned because our founding fathers understood that an armed populous stood a better chance of defying tyranny than citizens clutching rock and stick. High power weapons are force multipliers in any battle, and the larger armament typically wins the day. Politics aside, ask Native Americans about the Gatling gun if you think this is merely theory.

I’m not arguing that everyone should have access to a rocket launcher. Clearly, there are and should be limits to a civilian’s arsenal. However, while an AR may not be an appropriate weapon for hunting, it may certainly be an effective countermeasure against those intent on dragging you kicking and screaming down into the pit of brutality. 

Would you be satisfied to lie defenseless with your family beneath the dusty floorboards of an isolated farmhouse? Would you be content to spend your days in fear, waiting for the MAGA Finder to uncover you and yours? We are quickly approaching an era during which such scenarios may come to fruition. The camel’s body is already halfway into the tent. 

If passed into law, HR 127 and HR 8 will ultimately lead to the declared illegality and confiscation of all weapons. The disarmament of a population is a key objective to be executed in support of a weightier goal. Our voice is a weapon. It has already been largely neutralized through censorship, deletion and deplatforming. Radical gun control will further compel the citizen to be “good” by depriving him of his last resort option to be “bad.” 

At the beginning of this piece, I provided a spoiler alert before recounting the harrowing farmhouse scene from “Inglorious Basterds.” If we’re not careful, if we remain good, look to the farmhouse scene as a spoiler alert for America’s future. 

Notify of
0 Community Musings
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments