Thread: Religion in America
12-10-2004, 09:27 PM #1
Religion in America
"God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"
by Maureen Farrell
"God does not make cowardly nations free." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
A couple weeks ago, while asserting that the Founding Founders intended for the U.S. government to be infused with Christianity, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Holocaust was able to flourish in Germany because of Europe's secular ways. "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" Scalia asked a congregation at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue. "I don't think so."
One might expect regular citizens to be ignorant of history, but a Supreme Court Justice? Does he imagine that the phrase "Gott mit Uns" was a German clothier's interpretation of "Got Milk"?
If photographic evidence of the Third Reich's Christian leanings were not enough, Hitler's own speeches and writings prove, at the very least, that he presented many of the same faith-based arguments heard in America today. Religion in the schools? Hitler was for it. Intellectuals who practiced "anti-Christian, smug individualism"? According to Hitler, their days were numbered. Divine Providence's role in shaping Germany's ultimate victory? Who could argue? In other words, there is enough historical evidence to color Scalia deluded. Writing for Free Inquiry, John Patrick Michael Murphy explained:
"Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
Hitler, like some of the today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it."
For anyone wanting even more proof, Mein Kampf is chock full of the Fuhrer's musings on God. ("I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler wrote). But anti-Semitic rants aside, some of Hitler's religious musings are interchangeable with Mr. Bush's.
Hitler was raised a Catholic and spoke of his faith in God, yet, singling out his rants against religion, politicians and pastors continue to characterize him as a pagan barbarian. Such distortions are convenient -- particularly in an age where propaganda concerning "moral values" is readily gobbled up and Christian nation legislation waits in the wings -- but, to paraphrase the Bible, overlooking the truth will not make us free.
Scalia, who also cited the Bible to claim that government "derives its moral authority from God," is hardly alone in his assertions. Leo Strauss, the philosopher who has influenced neoconservativism, and by proxy, George Bush's America, felt that religion, like deception, was crucial to maintaining social order. Meanwhile, neoconservative kingpin Irving Kristol has argued similar points -- bragging about how easy it is to fool the public into accepting the government's actions while arguing that America's Founding Fathers were wrong to insist on the separation of church and state. Why? According to Jim Lobe, it's because religion, as Strauss and his disciples see it, is "absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control."
Saying that neoconservatives believe that secular society is undesirable "because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats," Lobe explained why Kristol and other neocons have "allied themselves with the Christian Right" and, in some cases, have also denounced Darwin's theory of evolution. "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers," Reason magazine's Ronald Bailey explained, pointing to publications like Commentary which has espoused the virtues of religious fundamentalism and has questioned evolutionary science.
(Hitler did the same. The book The German Churches Under Hitler includes his assertion that secular schools should not be tolerated while Hitler's Table Talk quotes him questioning the wisdom in teaching children both creationism and the theory of evolution. "The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution,"he said. "Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall.")
Professor Shadia B. Drury also noted the similarities between the methods endorsed by Hitler and neoconservatives' favorite philosopher. She explained:
"Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behooves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fuhrer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses. Anyone who wants to avoid the horrors of the Nazi past is well advised not to accept Strauss's version of ancient wisdom uncritically. But this is exactly what Strauss encouraged his students to do."
Although several others, including the legendary Seymour Hersh, have noted the neoconservatives' belief that deception is essential, the religious aspect of their philosophy is especially unnerving. Religion may be the opium of the masses, but when zealots become so certain of their own righteousness that they ignore their own humanity, horror is the natural consequence. Islamic extremism offers the most glaring recent example, and now that Osama bin Laden has been granted permission to nuke America, the most extreme changes within the U.S. could very well come from the outside world.
In the meantime, however, for those who have not yet noticed, our own homegrown zealots -- those who advocate hatred in the name of the Lord -- have made considerable headway, with gays and lesbians currently at the center of legislation which, should it pass, will alter this country forever.
When the Marriage Protection Act passed the House in July, the New York Times called it "a radical assault on the Constitution. "If it passes in the Senate, the bill could obliterate the separation of powers and wipe out Constitutional protections for all minorities, stripping the courts and possibly paving the way for Christian nationhood. Other pieces of court stripping legislation bills designed to topple the wall between church and state are also in play.
This encroaching infusion of church and state, combined with recent decrees concerning moral values, doesn't resonate with inclusive tolerance. "When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side? If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct," Bob Fitrakis wrote. "Nothing can be more misleading than to categorize Hitler as a barbaric pagan or Godless totalitarian, like Stalin."
While many of us reserve a soft spot for true Christian generosity and the warm teachings of Jesus, it's important to remember that Christianity can be (and has been) distorted for darker purposes. Whether you're talking about Nazi Germany, the pre-Civil War American South, or the atmosphere in the U.S. these past few years, whenever questions of conscience are vigorously denounced, you can bet there is trouble ahead -- and the hijacking of faith and the manipulation of religion should always arouse suspicion. Moral values as a mandate? What better way to foster civil obedience and "One nation Under God" unity in a time of preventative war, suppressed liberty and sanctioned torture.
So, yes, despite tales of Hitler's atheism and Germany's Godlessness, the list of Hitler's religious assertions and Nazi Christian affiliations is long, and before Americans swallow more WMD-type baloney, it's best to comprehend this history and understand that no nation, including our own, is immune to faith-based fascism.
Substituting "America" for "Germany," many of Hitler's religious assertions could have been uttered by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson -- with Hitler even asserting that God punished Germany for turning away from Him -- before promising that renewed piety would protect the Fatherland and make it prosperous and successful once more. "Once the mercy of God shown upon us, but we were not worthy of His mercy. Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learned to pray," Hitler said in 1936, sixty-five years before Falwell and Robertson blamed abortionists and feminists for the tragedies of Sept. 11.
Hitler's religious phrases could have also come from the lips of George W. Bush. "Our prayer is: Lord God, let us never hesitate, let us never play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us,"Hitler said in March, 1933, sounding much like our president, who believes that God wants him to liberate the people in Middle East -- even if he has to torture, maim and kill tens of thousands in the process. "I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told Bob Woodward. "I would hope we wouldn't have to do it militarily, but we have a duty.. . . Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . ."
Speaking in Berlin in March, 1936, Hitler said something remarkably similar. "I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany," he said, before launching the preventive war heard round the world.
Both leaders also promised peace while planning for war. "We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended," Bush said, in his State of the Union address in Jan. 2003, two months before launching a preventative war in Iraq. "Never in these long years have we offered any other prayer but this: Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from the foreign foe!"Hitler said in Nuremberg on Sept. 13, 1936.
Yes, many of Hitler's faith-based comments could have come from George Bush himself, and are undoubtedly the kinds of sentiments many Americans not only agree with -- but take comfort in. This is not to say that Bush is Hitler or that religion is evil, but to serve as a reminder that things are not always what they seem. Christianity was used to justify everything from the Salem witch trials to slavery in America, and facilitated group-think in Germany -- when individuality and questions of conscience were needed the most. These are but a few of the Fuhrer's assertions:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith." (The German Churches Under Hitler, p.241)
"We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, with loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts." (Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, page 140)
"It will be the Government's care to maintain honest cooperation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith." (At the Reichstag, March 23, 1933)
"Without pledging ourselves to any particular Confession [Protestantism or Catholicism], we have restored to faith its prerequisites because we were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (Berlin, Oct. 24, 1933)
"But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." (Munich, Feb. 24, 1940)
"You [blue-collar workers] represent the most noble of slogans known to us: "God helps those who help themselves!' (Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, Vol. 2, page 1147)
"Fifteen years ago I had nothing save my faith and my will. Today the Movement is Germany, today this Movement has won the German nation and formed the Reich. Would that have been possible without the blessing of the Almighty? Or do they who ruined Germany wish to maintain that they have had God's blessing? What we are we are, not against but with the will of Providence. And so long as we are loyal, honest, and ready to fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall also in the future have the blessing of Providence." (Rosenheim, Aug. 11, 1935)
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. . . As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." (Munich, April 12, 1922)
"If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbor, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians. For in these spheres the community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished a prodigious work." (Feb. 24, 1939)
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (Berlin, Oct. 24, 1933)
"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An educated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)." (Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, page 59)
In his book, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer interviewed Germans who discussed how their society changed right before their eyes, and how, despite Hitler's rhetoric, God was nowhere to be found. As one interviewee put it:
"The world you live in -- "your nation, your people" -- is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way."
Of course, America has hardly "gone all the way" and is unlikely to become as psychotic as Nazi Germany any time soon. But what do you suppose God thinks of preventative war based upon deception? Or about the use of depleted uranium? Or about dropping napalm on civilians? Are Iraqi insurgents are any less certain that God is on their side than our own Evangelical Marines?
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug, but why do so many insist on forgetting that the U.S. helped him to power in the first place? Does God see our role in all of this as lightly as we do? And how many U.S. citizens do you know, who, mired in fear, readily dismiss America's use of torture and rationalize our disregard for international law? What else might they overlook?
In 1937, Hitler said that because of Germany's belief in God and God's favoritism towards Germany, the country would prevail and prosper. "We, therefore, go our way into the future with the deepest belief in God. Would all we have achieved been possible had Providence not helped us? I know that the fruits of human labor are hard-won and transitory if they are not blessed by the Omnipotent. Work such as ours which has received the blessings of the Omnipotent can never again be undone by mere mortals,"he said.
While attempting to solidify his power, Hitler also denounced those who denounced religion -- as if he were talking about Hollywood or blue states or Noam Chomsky. "For eight months we have been conducting a fearless campaign against that Communism which is threatening our entire nation, our culture, our art, and our public morals, "Hitler said in a speech in Oct. 1933. "We have made an end of denials of the Deity and the crying down of religion."
There will be no more crying down of religion in George Bush's America, either. Though oft-repeated assertions made by the media in the immediate aftermath of the election have proven to be nothing more than myth, propagandists would have you believe that the American people have spoken: "Moral values" reign supreme.
But how can any one of us know God's desires -- especially when our enemies claim to have God on their side as well? And doesn't it seem that religious hubris -- believing that God sanctions one's own inhumane treatment of others -- always invites a fall?
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever," Thomas Jefferson said, of the price America would eventually pay for slavery. "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions," Ulysses S. Grant advised, describing karmic retribution without pointing hateful fingers at lesbians.
And long before that, the poet John Milton tried to "justify the ways of God to Man." But yet, the world, with its conflicting visions of morality, ethics and truth, still struggles to comprehend.
Perhaps Truth, for want of a better definition, is what God sees when he looks at any given situation. And perhaps it is ultimately impossible for us to know God's mind. After all, it's obvious that Hitler wasn't telling the truth when he spoke of God and country -- and by the same token, it's difficult to look at Najaf or Fallujah or Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay and see God's hand in any of it.
After one of Bush's operatives promised to "export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation" Bob Woodward wrote: "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's Master Plan." And sure enough, when Woodward asked Bush if he had discussed the impending invasion of Iraq with his father, President George H.W. Bush (who could have offered sage advice), the President responded: "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."
But, without knowing God's mind, most of us have only History to help us judge. And the fact is, without the benefit of History, some of the "moral values" Hitler embraced sound eerily like those being peddled today.
George Bush is not Hitler. America is not Nazi Germany. But buying into religious assertions or thinking that God is on your side is not wise when it comes to matters of war -- particularly when that war is an aggressive preventative war based on false premises and assumptions.
So, aside from Jerry Falwell, who speaks with hate-filled authority, most of us do not know how God will judge us. We will have to settle for History's imperfect record.
All of this begs the question, however. Given his assertions regarding God's role in helping him decide policy ("I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible" Bush told Woodward. . . "I felt so strongly that [invading Iraq] was the right thing to do") how does Bush view the more mundane, secular implications of his actions? When asked by Woodward how History would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
I challenge anyone to find the moral value in that.
BACK TO TOP
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2004, Maureen Farrell
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Audio
BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions
Maureen Farrell | Gloria LaLumia | P.M. Carpenter | The Daily Buzz | Steven C. Day | Thom Hartmann | Film Fan Man | The Angry Liberal | Letters from Ethan | Tony Peyser
Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Thomas Burns | Eric Harrison | Tony Peyser
About | FAQ | Headlines | Archived Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
12-11-2004, 09:28 AM #2
Badger, I didn't read this whole thing but please don't tell me you are trying to call America Nazi Germany, and President Bush as Hitler. Badger I just don't understand you at all. This is not a flame but please tell me why you dislike your own country so much? And how could you possibly compare our President to Hitler?
Seriously please tell me what single thing you want America to "stand for" and what type of person you believe should be leading our country in these troubled times?
Please tell me what was so much better about our country pre George W?
12-11-2004, 12:41 PM #3
Ads compare Bush to Hitler
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Jewish advocacy groups led an avalanche of sharp criticism yesterday against two potential television ads that compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler and were posted on a Web site run by MoveOn.org.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress said the ads were beyond the pale of political discussion. Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, called them "hate-mongering."
"Certainly myself, as an American and as a Jew, I'm disgusted by the casual use of Hitler by liberal Democrats and groups such as MoveOn.org," said Mr. Cantor, the House chief deputy majority whip.
"To compare any American president, much less George W. Bush, to Adolf Hitler, cheapens the sacrifice of millions of lives that have been lost by this country over its history and really denigrates the efforts by the American military," Mr. Cantor said.
The two 30-second ads were submitted as part of a contest MoveOn.org sponsored. The organization invited submissions of spots criticizing Mr. Bush's record. Two of the submissions compared Mr. Bush to the Nazi dictator of Germany, whose regime killed 6 million Jews during World War II.
One ad used computer effects to morph a picture of Hitler into one of Mr. Bush.
Another ad compared Mr. Bush's push for war to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq to Hitler's push for Nazi domination in Europe and said Hitler's war crimes are "2003's foreign policy."
Jack Rosen, president of the AJC, writing in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, said the comparison is "not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous."
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the ADL, said posting the ads "cheapens the level of political discourse in America."
MoveOn.org's posted rules for the contest said it would not "post anything that would be inappropriate for television, but other than that, what you put in your ads is up to you."
Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the fact that the organization allowed two ads with the Hitler comparison shows that MoveOn.org thought the images were acceptable for television and called on the organization to apologize.
The two Hitler ads are no longer on MoveOn.org's site since the contest ended at the end of 2003. But the Republican National Committee is making copies available on its own site.
Yesterday, MoveOn.org officials said they don't believe featuring the ads was an endorsement, and they also said they repudiated the two ads themselves.
Wes Boyd, president of the group's Voter Fund, said in a statement the ad was one of more than 1,500 submissions that were posted on the Web site www.bushin30seconds.org for the public to view and comment on.
"None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund," he said. "They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions."
But he also said the ads should be contrasted with the 2002 Senate elections and the Republican use of images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to attack incumbent Democratic senators.
For example, Republican Saxby Chambliss ran an ad against Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat who lost three limbs serving in Vietnam, that used bin Laden's and Saddam's faces to criticize a Cleland vote on homeland security. The ad was later edited to remove their visages.
Mr. Boyd did promise to create "a more effective filtering system" if MoveOn.org runs any similar contests.
But Republicans and the advocacy groups yesterday said that should have happened the first time around.
"Those responsible for this contest at MoveOn.org should have immediately identified this advertisement as one going far beyond legitimate criticism and rejected it out of hand," Mr. Foxman said.
The two Hitler ads were not selected to be part of the 15 finalists, which have been sent to a panel of judges including liberal film director Michael Moore, Michael Stipe of the rock band R.E.M. and Democratic consultant Donna Brazile.
The finalists range from humorous to biting attacks on the first three years of the Bush administration.
It's not the first time MoveOn.org has had to promise to change its procedures after facing public criticism.
MoveOn.org is a combination of a political action committee and two separate political-education funds defined as a 527 and a 501(c)(4) because of the part of the tax code that governs them.
It is illegal for the political action committee and the 527 organization to receive contributions from foreign nationals, but several foreign Web sites were referring potential donors to the MoveOn.org Web site.
After the situation was reported, Mr. Boyd said the organization would no longer accept any foreign contributions.
12-11-2004, 12:45 PM #4
Comparing Bush to Hitler no longer confined to loonies
John Leo (archive)
June 28, 2004 | Print | Send
Federal appeals court Judge Guido Calabresi got in hot water the other day, or perhaps we should say, he will be in hot water if the mainstream press ever gets around to mentioning his outburst of June 19. Calabresi, former dean of the Yale Law School and a moderate liberal, became the 3,267th Democrat to compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler. As Bush-is-Hitler rhetoric goes, the judge's effort was comparatively mild. He said Bush's rise to power was strikingly similar to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, with the Supreme Court (in Gore v. Bush) illegitimately propelling him into a damaging presidency.
Bloggers have been debating Calabresi's remarks, mostly whether a federal judge should be denouncing the Supreme Court and calling for a sitting president to he thrown out of office (no), and whether a judge has the free-speech right to do so (maybe). Law professor Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit said the judge's remarks "will serve to further encourage those who call the federal courts politicized and overwhelmingly liberal."
I am more interested in the judge's remarks as an example of how Bush=Hitler rhetoric is going mainstream. The Hitler insults started with the Communist press, the pro-Communist "peace" organizers of the anti-war marches and assorted free-lance crazies of the hard left. Some months ago I did a column showing how almost every prominent member of the Bush administration had been identified with some Nazi or other. (This process continues -- Karen Hughes is said to be the new Goebbels.) At the time, some readers complained that I had filled out the column by citing a few weird and marginal Internet lefties. There was some truth in that, but now it appears that the loonies have succeeded in pushing previously rational and stable Democrats toward sputtering Bushies-are-Nazis insults. Either Bush's critics are starting to come apart, or they believe that calling people Nazis is a good way to contend for the votes of undecided moderates.
Senator Robert Byrd, for example, says George Bush reminds him of Hermann Goering, thus forfeiting much of his heralded reputation for political seriousness. There are many strong reasons for opposing the president, but connecting him to Goering is not one of them.
The Rev. Andrew Greeley, a Chicagoan with three careers (Catholic priest, sociologist, soft-porn novelist), depicts Bush as a demagogic Hitler figure who has carried America over to "the dark side." George Soros, the eccentric billionaire Bush-hater, says Bush's rhetoric reminds him of the Third Reich. Last week Al Gore, in a speech denouncing Bush, used the term "Brownshirts" (i.e., Nazi street thugs) to refer to Republican computer teams who respond to criticisms of the president and the war in Iraq.
One hallmark of the new mainstream Hitler rhetoric is that the speakers typically try to soften the accusation right after making it. Greeley said, "He is not another Hitler. Yet there is a certain parallelism." Calabresi said he was "not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler." No, course not. That was probably the furthest thing from his mind when he decided to link Bush with Hitler. In his heyday, Joe McCarthy used the same rhetorical device. If he wanted to plant the idea that someone was a traitor without quite saying it, he would announce that somebody or other "is a traitor to America's highest principles," which is not exactly an accusation of treason.
As a test of the state of "Bush the Nazi" rhetoric, I went to Google and typed in "Bush is a Nazi" and got 420,000 hits, well behind "Hitler was a Nazi" (654,000 hits) but then Hitler WAS a Nazi and had a 75-year head start. (Computer searches like this are very crude instruments. They sweep up many references that cannot fairly be listed as slurs. But they do offer a rough idea of the amount of name-calling.)
President Clinton did fairly well in the Nazi sweepstakes (158,000 hits, but that's only 20,000 references for each presidential year, compared to 120,000 annually for the 3 1/2 year incumbency of George Bush.) The odd thing is that I typed in the names of every Nazi I ever heard of, excluding only Hitler himself, and the group total was still less than George Bush gets alone. This might indicate that either that George Bush is by far the second most important Nazi of all time, or that the Democrats and the left now require some sedation.
A modest suggestion: Democrats might want to ease up on the Nazi rhetoric and stick to actual arguments. Our politics are poisonous enough already.
12-11-2004, 01:50 PM #5
Yes.. President Bush is a nazi.. that is why he has such good ties with israel , yes ? badger - according to your other posts , and posts made by ( people I am presuming to be ) your friends Bush and the U.S government funds the israel , yet now you're calling Bush a nazi.
Hitler was not a christain - he was heavily involved in the Occult - infact all of his military flaws came from the guidance of his " Occult advisors " - Hitler supposedly consulted with spirits ( Demons to some ) and he supposedly possessed the Spear of Longinus ( the spear that pierced the side of Christ as he hung on the cross ) among other strange relics .
Hitler persecuted Catholics as well as jews - basically anything that went against his ideals was slaughtered . At first the catholic church actually endorsed hitler , once hitler was in power , that is when he started taking out catholics , disabled/retarded people and homosexuals .
In hitler's " christainity " Jesus was actually a german , or aryan like person who was butchered by the " evil jews " and God hates the jews in Hitler's form of christainity and that is why they've been " repeatedly punished " throughout history ( The jews were enslaved by the babylonians , assyrians , egyptains , repeatedly beaten by several arabic groups , broken by the romans , persecuted heavily in England and Spain , disliked all throughout Europe and even america )
12-12-2004, 10:42 AM #6Originally Posted by Gorgoroth_
12-12-2004, 12:35 PM #7Originally Posted by Badgerman
fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
No, he is a C O N S E R V A T I V E... There is a huge difference. He is also a capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with that.
1. He was ELECTED by the people of the United States. He did not take control by force (Say what you will about 2K- Which he won fair and square btw oh yea FLA state law says 2 recounts... end of story, but that is history bro, he whooped ass in 2K4)
2. He is not a dictator. Say what you will the there are plenty of checks and balances in our Republic bud.
3.Censorship? I'm sure you have something to say about that, you can maybe name a few tiny examples (which during time of war are perfectly logical to keep the troops safe), but as a whole, we are talking on this board, in the media, and all across america without the fear of being killed or jailed.
4.Stringent economic controls... well talk to the socialist in our government about that and the tax increases they want.. oh yea Dubya has lowerd taxes several times.
5. Opressive dictatorial control? Give me you best shot. Site some specific examples.
6, Opposed to Democracy.... Well If I'm not mistaken He's trying to spread democracy.
I'm dying for your rebuttle on this one badgerman....
12-13-2004, 11:10 AM #8Originally Posted by Gorgoroth_
Couldn't have said it better myself!! Great post Bro.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)