The Hitler-Wallace Test.

Godwin's Law. The longer an internet conversation develops, the more likely somebody's going to be compared to Hitler.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. The logical fallacy that if Hitler supported something, then that something is inherently bad. An example is vegetarianisn; Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore it's bad.

Loosely based on these ideas, I've created the Hitler test. It's simple. If you think a person's beliefs genuinely emulate elements of Nazism, replace the subject of the said person's controversial beliefs with Judaism. Then, you will see what their beliefs are like.

Naturally, there are exceptions to these cases-in which you supply proper evidence. For example, I would state that Hitler and Phelps (leader of the Westboro Baptist Church) are extremely similar, in part because Phelps advocates the genocide of gays. Therefore, the two are genuinely similar. The same applies for cultures. I would argue that the Taliban and al Qaeda, and neo-Nazism share a number of common characteristics; a love of violence, extreme misogyny and an unwavering belief in their own supremacism (whether religious or racial). Hence, the Hitler test doesn't need to be applied to these groups.

But in other cases, the Hitler test is required. Take, for example, the Victorian CDP

Arch Bevis says the Coalition is confused over national security, where Muslims are concerned. Labor is as confused – and as naïve. Terrorism is not always violent. Often it is quite ‘soft’ and politically subtle.

While most Muslims are peaceful and decent people, they are still Muslims. Their culture is alien to ours. It is totalitarian and imperialistic. For that reason they will agitate for sharia-compliant laws to be introduced and condoned, as British Labor has done in the UK.

This is ‘soft’ terrorism. It seeks a dual law system, permitting them to ‘do their own thing.’ The situation in Europe is similar, if not worse.

Western society is profoundly challenged, not by hard, violent terrorism, but soft, political terrorism. This demands that host countries must adapt to Islamic ways, not Islam to Western culture. It’s about time Australia recognised that the clash of civilisations has reached our shores. Australia needs a moratorium on Muslim immigration, rather than African, in order to evaluate where Australia is going.

And to Hitlerise the text:

Arch Bevis says the Coalition is confused over national security, where Jews are concerned. Labor is as confused – and as naïve. Terrorism is not always violent. Often it is quite ‘soft’ and politically subtle.

While most Jews are peaceful and decent people, they are still Jews. Their culture is alien to ours. It is totalitarian and imperialistic. For that reason they will agitate for Torah-compliant laws to be introduced and condoned, as British Labor has done in the UK.

This is ‘soft’ terrorism. It seeks a dual law system, permitting them to ‘do their own thing.’ The situation in Europe is similar, if not worse.

Western society is profoundly challenged, not by hard, violent terrorism, but soft, political terrorism. This demands that host countries must adapt to Jewish ways, not Judaism to Western culture. It’s about time Australia recognised that the clash of civilisations has reached our shores. Australia needs a moratorium on Jewish immigration, rather than Middle-Eastern, in order to evaluate where Australia is going.

Sounds eerily familiar, no? If you don't like that, I've also created the Wallace test, named after one of America's most infamous segregationists (to be fair though, he did recant his racist views). Instead of replacing certain minority words with "Jew", the Wallace test uses the terms 'Negro', 'Communist' and 'race-mixer.' This is because Lefties, African-Americans and interracial couples were strongest in campaigning against segregation and Jim Crow laws. The Wallace test is more complex, as you have to correctly use the aforementioned words properly. I used the Wallace test in a previous post to compare FOTF's hatred of gays to past views on racial integration.

So there we have it. Next time you see something that sound just a little harsh against a particular group (most commonly Muslims or gays), try using the Hitler or Wallace tests, and see how they sound. Because as much as people try to justify their bigotry*-if it looks like hate and it sounds like hate, then chances are, it's hate.

*Usually by the justifications of "it's traditional," "my religion says I can do it" or "I'm being persecuted otherwise."