![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mbarrick
The psychology of the masses as whole is not susceptible to anything hesitant or weak... their feelings are not swayed so much by abstract reason as by a longing after strength... and thus would sooner be dominated than supplicated. The masses, in fact, feel themselves to have been abandoned by a weak government and prefer one which brooks no rival to one which gives them a liberal choice. |  |
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-25 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-25 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-25 11:48 pm (UTC)here's a passage that seems all to familiar...
Hitler had indeed cause to be grateful to his Propaganda Leader, who was the true creator and organizer of the Fuhrer myth, of the image of the Messiah-redeemer, feeding the theatrical element in the Nazi leader while at the same time inducing the self-surrender of the German masses through skilful stage management and manipulation. A cynic, devoid of genuine inner convictions, Goebbels found his mission in selling Hitler to the German public, in projecting himself as his most faithful shield-bearer and orchestrating a pseudo-religious cult of the Fuhrer as the saviour of Germany from Jews, profiteers and Marxists.
a little more polished than the neocons but throw in words like terrorists, axis of evil and french and you have the makings of a presidential speech...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 07:38 am (UTC)The comparison is completely unfounded. Bush has done nothing to warrent the comparison, Saddam on the other hand, well he and Hitler do seem to have a penchant for gassing people and invating neighbouring countries for Leibenstrom.
The removal of freedoms associated to Nazism - National SOCIALISM, are in no way shape or form comprable to the minimal freedoms which have been imposed on by the Bush administration.
Secondly, as a Jew, it is incredibly insulting to compare the President which has been the most in support of Jewish issues with the man most in support of murdering all Jews.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 08:16 am (UTC)And the Nazis were "socialist" in name only. Consider these few points from the Nazi manifesto:
11. The abolition of unearned income
16. We demand the setting up and maintenance of a heathy middle class...
20. There must be a thorough overhaul of the state education system in order that every capable and dilligent German receives a good education, enabling them to obtain leading positions of employment... ["no child left behind"]
24. We demand religious freedom throughout the Reich so long as it does not endanger the postition of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race...
The Nazis were literally violently opposed to the Communist party.
No one I know who was alive when Hitler was gaining power fails to see the similarities between Bush and Hitler's early days in power, including a concentration-camp survior that I work with.
Look deeper, Ziv. Just because it is a different Semetic people getting the short stick this time, doesn't make it better.
And, while I am at it, spend a few minutes wondering why a nation with 1000 years of crusading history that still has active organizations directly descended from the crusading military orders (England) and a state so voiciferously Christian they have "In God We Trust" on all their money would create a Jewish state and support Zionism? Ever read Sun Tsu? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - supporting Israel is a convenient way to continue the crusading agenda and with one "heathen" people pitted against the other: the Christians win no matter what. Now you know why I've always said Zionism as it stands is not a good thing for the Jewish people.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 09:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 10:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 11:07 am (UTC)I know my politics can be hard to grasp because they defy the easy pigeon-holes. I am neither Left, Right, or Centrist. I'm an old-school economic conservative (which is quite different than neocon economics, a.k.a. "Reaganomics"), and still a social liberal. I support free enterprise but deplore capitalism. These aren't contradictions.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 12:46 pm (UTC)from what i've read the u.s. interest in a jewish state has absolutely nothing to do with the fate of the jewish people...it is more to keep their military presence in an economically important, and resource laden, area...not to mention they often use the israelis to carry out their questionable policies to remain at arm's length...such as supporting apartheid in south africa, which seems very hypocritical of them...as such they are ones to talk about terrorism because they themselves are a terrorist state...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 01:06 am (UTC)I too could never figure out why Israel were so cozy with the Zuid-Afrikaaners - the most neo-nazi group of people this side of Hitler.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 09:28 am (UTC)I too have to agree with Ziv there. A devout Hoxhaist, I am as an extreme leftist as they come, but even I can tell the freaking difference between Bush and Saddam/Hitler... which is why I bit the ideological bullet and supported the invasion of Iraq.
The only way one could even start to make the comparisons is if Bush refuses to leave office in four years - a mistake I cannot see him making no matter how stupid he appears to be.
Ziv seems to equate socialism with national socialism - which is a msitake; much like how we get ultra-nationalist and anti-semetic parties in Russian going by the name of "Liberial Democratic party" and other obfuscated monikers. But at the same time, the Left cannot equate Bush with fascism - granted, he is moving in the country in that general direction, but a huge number of changes would have to occur before there was a true fascist regieme in Washington. Consider first and foremost that fascism requires a huge amount of government control - and the American people by and large oppose 'big government' which facism requires to survive.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 12:00 pm (UTC)I'm waiting for that Rubicon to be crossed. The 22nd Ammendment has only been in place since 1951 - prior to that presidents only servered two terms as a matter of tradition and good faith. There is a lot of support in both the Rebublican and Democratic parties for the removal of term limits. Bill Clinton has expressed a desire to run for a third term - an incredibly stupid move that opens the door to Bush getting a third term without Democratic opposition.
Failing the removal of the 22nd Ammendment the general feeling is that Jeb Bush will run in George's stead.
http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html
http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dave300019.htm
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dave300020.htm
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dave300021.htm
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm
etc., etc.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 02:49 pm (UTC)Didn't FDR serve something like three and a half terms?
With the 22nd Amendment in place, I don't see that being changed anytime soon... or at least soon enough so that Dubya could benefit from it. If the two-term limit was ever removed, I figure that it would be grandfathered so that if the incumbant was already in their second term it would apply with them, but only taking effect with a new president and a clean slate.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-28 01:09 pm (UTC)http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9946777.htm?1c
That's not saying 2012 or 2016 is out of the question...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-28 03:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 06:15 pm (UTC)I swear, the three of us are an odd bunch to put together.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-27 06:55 pm (UTC)