Sigh... I guess it's up to me to explain what's going on here. Unlike my post about the Eagle's Nest, I will not write it casually. This, I will explain seriously: In short: the most common political scale used globally today is “socialist on the left and Nazi on the right.” Why? In the U.S., the right wing is largely libertarian, while Communists, Nazis, and many “liberals” all sit on the left by American standards. What is going on? The answer starts with the “Great Patriotic War.” That is the term the Soviets used for World War II. The Russians won that war at the cost of over 25 million lives and acquired nearly all of Eastern Europe as a result. It was a costly but grand victory for the communists. Russia and Germany had been rivals for centuries. After World War I, Russia was taken over by the Bolsheviks. The Nazi theory was that a “superior” Germanic elite had previously ruled the Russian Slavs, but that this elite had been murdered, starved, and displaced by a new ruling group: the Jewish Bolsheviks. This made Russia an existential threat to Germany in Nazi eyes. This piece of Nazi fan-fiction is critical. Their basic position was that Germans ruling inferior peoples produce great and powerful civilizations. They now imagined a villainous group had just taken power over their nearby rival. As a result, the Nazis were intensely anti-communist. They were not “right-wing” in any sense that maps cleanly onto American politics, but the “Commie versus Nazi” scale became the defining one because of the war. Russia (the Soviets) won World War II and spread their version of the narrative: anti-fascists versus fascists. After 1945, their story of heroic anti-fascists confronting the pure evil of fascism spread globally into institutions and education systems through activism and propaganda. What resulted was that complex and regionally specific political dynamics were reduced to “antifascist versus fascist.” Thus Pinochet, Franco, Bukele, and Trump are routinely labeled “fascists,” even though the analogy makes little sense. They are often law-and-order authoritarians or populists, but because the antifascist/fascist framework is so universal, it is the only language most people have available. Nazi Germany was a specific German phenomenon under a very particular set of conditions. It is not a universal template for “the right.” There are no “Nazis” anymore. World War II (or the Great Patriotic War) fixed that moral framework into most postwar global institutions, which then spread into individual nations such that the paradigmatic evil is expansionist, racially defined authoritarian nationalism of the German type. Anything that can be analogized to it carries a potent stigma. That is why (I'm potentially overstating this cause but with good reason: it's rarely discussed as a motivation) global and Western institutions have spent decades systematically stripping institutional power from right-wing factions. The explicit or implicit justification is almost always “no future Hitler.” Pinochet, Franco, and various Latin American or European right-wing projects were never Nazis; they were anti-communist authoritarians or nationalists of other kinds. The template still gets applied because the 1941–45 framing is sticky and useful. World War II was genuinely traumatic and devastating for Russia. They also had something of an inferiority complex relative to the West, especially Germany. Their victory over that rival became the central legitimizing myth of the Soviet Union; Victory Day (May 9) is still celebrated today. The defeat of the Nazis catapulted the USSR into second place behind only the United States. That is why the binary was spread with such fervor. It did what Marx could not: it legitimized communism. That binary was never exclusively about pure ideology. It was, at least in part, about Germany versus Russia, with the political labels riding along. Outside those specific historical conditions the map is a poor fit. It did not accurately describe Franco or Pinochet, and it does not describe Trump, Bukele, or most contemporary right-populist or nationalist movements. Applying it anyway converts ordinary political conflict into a reenactment of 1941–45. The practical result is an asymmetry that has outlived its original context and master (the USSR is dead, but the binary narrative lives on). Right-wing projects are routinely tested against the Nazi template and stripped of legitimacy when the analogy can be made to stick. This is not because every right-wing movement is secretly National Socialist. It is because a regional collision that became a global war left a victor’s narrative that proved extremely portable. Soviet losses and propaganda gave the antifascist version unusual weight; Western institutions absorbed enough of it to make “fascist” an unusually potent accusation. The long march through the institutions carried pieces of that framing with it. Interestingly, the roles have even inverted in places. Contemporary Russia now deploys the antifascist charge against its own opponents, while Putin’s Russia more closely fits the fascist narrative, with the EU (often led by Germany) occupying the socialist side. And that is why this lady thinks you cannot have a white Christian nation. As ridiculous as that is, that is the reason. She has so thoroughly accepted the communist narrative of World War II that she cannot see the world any other way. It's worth pointing out that this narrative has so thoroughly saturated global politics that it has caused some on the right to adopt it as well, thus gaining sympathy for the Nazis and reframing them as defenders of Western civilization and Christendom. This is equally absurd. My bottom-line is that the "anti-fascist versus fascist" (socialist versus Nazi) dichotomy is a crude residual myth from WW2 that is unsuited to the task of understanding modern politics.