I think we can all agree that in order to be Hitler, one must first have all or most of the following traits.
- Meglomaniacal view of oneself as savior to the world, leading a Master Race
- Demand central control over all aspects of a society
- Control the flow of information through a Propaganda Ministry
- Abhor all "non Pure" persons to the point of murdering them
- Fervent Nationalism
- Be Emotionally Unbalanced (aka Funny in the Head) given to fits of extreme paranoia
I'm sure there are smaller traits but these are the main ones which are an easy and simple Hitler checklist. Let's run through them, one by one, and see if either Bush or Obama meet the criteria.
In watching W for eight years, it's quite obvious he was not intelligent enough to have a meglomanaical view of himself nor did he view himself as a savior. He did say that God told him to run for president but that's ceding authority to a higher power. In Hitler's mind, there was only one higher power: him. Contrary to the left's rants, George W. Bush is not a racist. The man had Mexican in-laws and was fluent in Spanish. He also had one of the most diverse cabinets in the history of our country so that knocks out number four and any talk of a Master race.
He did, however, stick his toe into the "control of our society" pond but only in the name of national security. (see:wire taps and throwing people in jail without charging them with anything). He jumped completely into the "control information" lake in the form of a propaganda ministry which was essentially run by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. In fact, this is exactly where the similarity between the Cult and the Reich meet complete with a crowd that would make Leni Riefenstahl proud. Just like Hitler, their chief enemies are the media and educators. Not surprising, considering that these are the two main outlets of information for our country. And they succeeded in creating a very large segment of country's population who will not listen to either of these outlets and ONLY listen to their pre-approved information sources.
Those information sources, like President Bush, have a fervent sense of nationalism. Anyone who does not adhere to their exact definition of nationalism is a traitor. One need only look at what Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity say on a daily basis to see strong evidence for this fact. I can't turn on Fox News for more than 10 seconds without hearing that liberals are "America haters and weak."
But Bush was completely hands off-probably too much-when it came to the regulation of our private industry. Hitler never would've done that. In fact, President Bush was a big proponent, as most conservatives are, of states' rights. So, other than the national security and information, Bush was the exact opposite of Hitler when it came to control of the basic foundations of our society.
The left also gets it wrong when they say that Bush was emotionally unbalanced and/or funny in the head. The Cult certainly is both of these things but Bush never was at all. So, to say that Bush was Hitler is wrong. Certain aspects of his policies bore resemblance to those used by Hitler but such a general statement is simply wrong.
President Obama does not view himself as the savior to the world although some of his followers certainly do. If you actually listen to what he says, he views himself as a man capable of mistakes. He also encourages others to join in and help out. Hitler wanted people helping but more like cattle help farmers make money. In addition, I think it's quite obvious that President Obama does not want a Master race nor does he abhor "non pure" people and murder them. In fact, his critics are quick to point out that he is at fault for many of his views on equality in the sense that he is too sensitive to cultural diversity.
Last time I checked, President Obama has done nothing to stop the Cult from saying whatever they want. Federal troops have not stormed Fox News and Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than the nightly news. The Cult says the "MSM is liberal" yet I see plenty of conservative outlets everywhere and readily available...to take anyone's money. In fact, the left's outlets of information (MSNBC, Air America) don't really do all that well. So, there really is no left version of a propaganda ministry. Making matters worse, President Obama admits when he makes mistakes. Hitler NEVER would have done that.
President Obama's harshest critics say he cow tows too much to the rest of the world so there goes nationalist fervor out the window. They say he's not enough of a patriot so that is definitely not Hitler like...although that means his critics would share that trait with the Fuhrer:) And he's not emotionally unbalanced or paranoid. In fact, I think it would be fair to criticize him as being too sedate at times. So, all this really leaves is the question of state control which is the real reason why the Tea Partiers have painted a small moustache on the current Oval Office occupant.
Setting aside the hilarious comparison (note to Cult: Hitler did not like black people), I would be remiss in my duties if I did not point out that President Obama has, indeed, used his executive authority and bailed out private industry. The thing is, though, Congress voted on it to make it happen. Hitler was the one and only ultimate power. Obama had to go through Congress which is the representative of you and I. Private industry also asked for the money and, contrary to the ravings of Michael Savage, it was not forced upon them. The argument that President Obama is a fascist and like Hitler because "the state has taken over" is extremely paranoid and highly delusional. It simply isn't factual. Just because the federal government is actually regulating things now doesn't mean they are fascist.
The Tea Partiers could make an argument that FDR was similar to Hitler back in the 1930s when he took over much of our private industry and we essentially had a democratic-socialist system. But that was back in a time when the government was not viewed as a satanic entity whose central mission was to take away our guns, enslave us all, and send us to re-education camps. The result of the nationalizing of GM, for example, resulted in the defeat of Hitler himself and the greatest army the world had ever seen. No one complained and our country went on to enjoy the biggest boom in private industry in our history.
And the argument that Obama is coming for our guns has really been shown to be insanely paranoid considering that he has done nothing on gun control. As I have shown previously, it has been the exact opposite. Even Kevin Baker has been happy, enjoying what will soon be conceal and carry without a permit in Arizona.
Despite all the anger and yelling President Obama is not like Hitler either. If one had to choose, I guess one could say that Bush is more like Hitler but that's like saying I'm more like Albert Pujols than my son because I can hit a fly ball to the outfield on a regular basis and my son can't.
Do you know what does remind me a lot of Hitler? Goodwin's Law.
Goodwin's Law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." This law is evoked constantly on blogs and discussion boards acting as a perfect deterrent even to ideas and action that are quite Hitler-like. Essentially, no one can mention Hitler anymore with Goodwin's Law being brought up. As soon as it is, regardless of the evidence, the person that brought up Hitler is vilified, disgraced, and dispatched with lighting like efficiency...all of which reminds me of....
Well....:)
7 comments:
I'll call you out on two things.
1. Re: Gun Control 'As I have shown previously'.... You may want to reread that thread and explain just exactly what you proved.
2. I don't believe you can hit a fly ball to the outfield on a regular basis.
As for the rest, meh. In fact, as I reread it, I disagree with at least half of what you've said. Except for Goodwin's Law, which isn't your idea.
Additionally, whenever you mention The Cult without mentioning the crisp guitar riffs of 'Fire Woman', I pretty much stop taking you seriously.
p.s. I believe it is "kowtow".
dw
1. I proved that President Obama has not restricted any gun rights and it has, in fact, been quite the opposite.
2. It's true:)
I proved that President Obama has not restricted any gun rights and it has, in fact, been quite the opposite.
Well, I don't know what you thought he was going to do - unilaterally, but obviously he has NOT made it a priority, nor have the Dems in Congress. That is great. Do I TRUST him (or them) to not push something eventually, not especially. Nor did he have a DAMN thing to do with the decision in Arizona.
You really should be more careful with your words - you never know which ones you are going to have to eat.
You're missing perhaps the most important personality factor that made Hitler what he was: a psychopath. From the Huffington Post:
"A psychopath or sociopath--the terms are practically interchangeable--exhibits behavior that reflects a lack of empathy or conscience, poor control of his impulses, and is manipulative of others around them. He or she has no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. Not surprisingly, then, someone with this illness is egocentric, lack insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Finally, their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow."
Bush never seemed emotionally sincere when he expressed compassion for others. He was only true when he was in angry mode. When he visited areas struck by tragedy he was always so phony. It was as if he'd just gone through the following exchange with an aide:
Bush (whisper): "Why are are we here again?"
Aide (whisper): "To tell them how bad you feel for them."
Bush (to crowd): "I'm here to tell you that I feel bad for you."
Again, the Hitler comparisons are almost always wide of the mark because the people involved haven't done anything remotely similar to what the Nazis did.
However it is more apropos to compare the tactics employed by the political party to those used by the Nazis. In particular, the Republican party:
* Makes constant appeals to patriotism (when they came up with "Homeland Security" an Orwellian shiver went down my spine).
* Uses strident, emotional, violent language.
* Plays to fear incessantly.
* Calls their opponents traitors, communists, atheists, fascists, Muslims; in short, anything that conjures up negative images.
* Claims to be somehow innately morally superior (while their members -- Sanford, Gingrich, Ensign, Craig, Palin and on and on -- constantly fall prey to moral failings and cowardice).
* Constantly perpetuates the Big Lie (Obama is a socialist, Obama wasn't born in the US, government takeover of health care).
* Uses overt or covert racist messages and code words. For example, "Real Americans" = "conservative white americans", "welfare queens" = "unwed black mothers", "illegal immigrant" = "any mexican", and "states rights" = "we should be able to segregate blacks into inferior schools, discriminate against anyone we want and not pay federal taxes".
The Democrats are no angels, but they are pikers in every one of these categories. And no, complaining that someone who makes racist remarks is a racist does not make you a racist.
Excellent reference there blk to a quasi-intellectual-vagabond-activist on the left's answer to Free Republic.
That is really going deep.
I especially like this one:
>Uses overt or covert racist messages and code words. For example, "Real Americans" = "conservative white americans", "welfare queens" = "unwed black mothers", "illegal immigrant" = "any mexican", and "states rights" = "we should be able to segregate blacks into inferior schools, discriminate against anyone we want and not pay federal taxes".
I bet it's awfully easy to keep that halo of moral superiority around you when you get to pick your own meaning of what someone else may (or may not) have said. Surprisingly, when clowns like blk pick their own definition of words, the people he picks them for don't end up looking good. Fancy that. Mark gets hammered for this very thing seemingly every time he posts at TSM, and for good reason - he's just arguing against this made up bogeyman in his head. Blk, you are following in the footsteps of a giant named Mark. Unfortunately, not an intellectual giant.
The states rights one is especially good - the whole concept of federalism must just window dressing on what those Repubs *really mean*.
Do you really believe the nonsense you wrote?
It's not a matter of belief, anon, what he wrote is fact. That is how the current form of the GOP operates.
While I don't agree that Bush was a psychopath, no doubt Cheney certainly fits the definition above.
Blk's tactics paragraph is dead on right and is proven completely by the words and actions of those mentioned. There doesn't have to be any spin...it's what they actually say all the time. It is YOU who chooses not to believe for whatever reason you do.
The question is...does it work anymore? Clearly, it failed in 2006 and 2008. If the GOP fails to gain any significant numbers in Congress in 2010, will you admit that these tactics and the way they identify themselves are complete failures?
Post a Comment