Bush and Hitler

[TNRighty]

Rarely a day passes that I don't hear a liberal try to compare Bush to Hitler. A lot of times their comments are prefaced by the phrase, "Hitler was a Christian, too, and look what he did," as if to say Bush is capable of the same because he is also a Christian. Prior to the last week or so, I had never studied Hitler's mind, only his actions. What studies I've done of WWII and Hitler have revolved around the politics and military end of it. I have never delved into Hitler's religious mind. With liberals using the religious commonalities to link Hitler and Bush I thought it was worth exploring further. What I learned was extraordinary.

In my crash course study of Naziism, the only man mentioned more often than Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels was Nietzsche, as in Frederick Nietzsche. What John Locke's philosophy was to America, Nietzsche's was to Naziism.

Nietzsche had written about man, "There is no such thing as the right to live, the right to work, or the right to be happy; in respect, man is no different from the meanest worm." That comes from William T Shirers book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Shirer says in his book that Nazis could quote Neitzsche on demand.

Neitzsche spoke of the "absolute power", a power that rested with the state and the "superman", a man who is above God. He said that the higher moral order should be determined at the states's convenience.

While liberals have reluctantly accepted communism as an extreme far left ideology, they have attempted to defend themselves with the argument that Naziism is the extreme right, thus the comparisons between Bush and Hitler. A misplaced comparison indeed.

Instead of putting communism and Nazism on separate ends of the political spectrum, perhaps we need to realize just how closely the two are linked. See the quotes below.

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]


"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

Ronald Reagan was one of the first to challenge liberals on this assumption of Naziism being a far right ideology, saying that it is not a matter of right or left, rather up or down, upward toward individualism, or downward toward the tyranny of statism; that from Ronald Reagan, Speaking My Mind.

My end point being, any liberal who tries to compare Bush to Hitler or call Bush a Fascist has no clue whatsoever. Anyone who tells you communism is to the left what Naziism is to the right is just plain ignorant.

[TNRighty]

I didn't want to be the first person to respond to my post, but to continue with what I was saying, read the quotes below:

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

Sound familiar?

I'm not at all calling Bill or Hillary communists or Nazis, but their ideologies and that of liberals in general much more resemble statism than the conservative viewpoint. As innocent or ignorant as their views may be, it is that ideology that invites tyranny.

Bottom line, if you do not recognize the individual as a sovreign being within himself, you do not understand what freedom means. If you believe the good of the state is more important than the good of the individual you don't understand the essence of our own contstitution. Our country became the envy of the world because free people fought not for their government, but for the freedoms they enjoy under our form of government. That's why we defeated Fascism and Communism.

People will not fight for a nation or a government that does not respect the rights of its citizens. Reagan knew this. He knew that the Soviet people would not risk their lives and die for a country that oppresses their individual freedom. Reagan knew that, faced with the threat of death, Americans would fight, Soviets would not. Reagan understood what freedom is worth. We didn't win the Cold War with our guns; we never fired a shot. Our freedom won the Cold War, backed with our military and the will to use it.

If Russia had attacked us in 1979, they would have wiped the globe with American blood. In Jimmy Carter they saw weakness, and they were emboldened by it. By 1980 they had the strongest military the world has ever seen and had America in the crosshairs. Reagan renewed our dedication to military strength and reassociated America with the individual freedoms we were founded upon. He slashed taxes and made Americans subject to themselves not their government. He revived the economy and American pride. He gave us something to fight for. Russians had no individual freedom for which to fight, and faced with the threat of death, they dropped their guns and went home. To reiterate, we won with our freedom. It is the single greatest weapon we have.

A state can only be free when its people are free. A state that is made up of individuals who are subject to the state cannot be free.

In more conventional terms, when you rely upon the state to provide for you your health care, retirement, food, transportation, jobs, etc., you are not free. If you like that idea it isn't freedom you desire, rather security and a benevolent dictator. May your chains rest lightly upon your chest.

Am I the only one who sees the trends here? History is on Bush's side.

[GregoryA]

It is an often used ploy to equate the opposing political side with the most outragous and hideous example. It is a total and utter exaggeration.

After awhile the usefulness of such hyperbole wears thin.

[midcan5]

Rhetoric is rhetoric whether it is the right comparing everyone on the left with Stalin or the left calling everyone on the right Fascist. It isn't very difficult to pick out sentences here or there from speeches and to assign some meaning that may have nothing to do with the content of the speech. I'm sure we can find same for Bush and you ever hear Coulter, Limbaugh or Charan. They live off criticism, most of it with very little value. Nietzsche's ideas are complex and sometimes seem harsh but he is a great thinker and you really need to read him. And if you are seriously interested in a misuse of language check out this piece on Limbaugh. www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php

N sites

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html

[TNRighty]

One of the reasons for my post is that many people toss out the word "fascist" when they don't really understand what it means aside from the fact that it has a negative connotation and anyone labeled as such is thus evil.

Fascim is defined by Webster as:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

You may disagree with Bush or perhaps think he is truly evil. That's fine, but to call him a fascist is completely off base. Anyone who calls Bush a fascist has no idea what fascism is.

[midcan5]

I would not argue that Bush is a Fascist but I would say that there are elements of Fascism in this administration. Maybe there are elements of it in every administration and the key is to recognize them. Umberto Eco writes in the link below of what he calls eternal Fascism, a set of ideas that constitute Fascism in all it contradictory forms.

www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

[MO]

Hitler was not a Christian. He threw out the word God for public consumption from time to time in the early days, but his writings clearly show that he was atheist and embraced Darwinism as his world view.

The modern left is closer to the Nazi party than the modern right is imo.

[TNRighty]

Beyond debating what is and what is not fascist or communist, a much simpler task is to identify that which is right or wrong, good or evil.

I believe Bush sees things simply, in black and white, and he has often been criticized for it by those who see good and evil, right and wrong, through the goggles of relativism.

Bush is a simple man, and while many people think that makes him stupid, I think it is his gratest gift. People who view our world with moral relativism inhibit their ability to take action. They tend to over-analyze everything. Its like paralysis through analysis. They're not action-takers. A true leader has the guts to get off the fence and make unpopular decisions.

Of course times change, and we must realize when its time for our policies to also change. That requires a form of modernist or forward type thinking, but its not about redefining right or wrong. Its about changing what we do to deal with it. No matter how hard you think or debate, you can't turn wrong into right.

Liberals don't like yes or no questions. Ask a liberal a yes or no question, and they'll answer, "yes, but..., or no, but..." For the most part they don't like subjects like math where there is a right or wrong answer. They like psychology and essay questions. They love to hear someone say, "there is no right or wrong answer, there are no winners or losers."

Liberals don't like anything simple, and that's why they don't like Bush.

[midcan5]

Is it right to attack a country that was no threat to us? But we can debate that forever. Is is right to ruin our economy with deficits? Is it moral to hurt SS with no real plan? Is it right to grant illegal aliens rights because of corporate influence? Is it right to enter into a personal family tragedy with government? Using the relativism label is a cope out of the right. We are all relativists. Next time your wife or girlfriend asked you a tough a question tell the truth. Next time someone at work asked your opinion tell them. I agree Bush is simple but I do not consider that a trait I want in a president. As swift boat O'Neill said Bush is a suit, he has never succeeded at anything he had to do on his own but he is pleasant enough to the American voter to get elected. A great irony I think.

[groucho]

midcan5 said:

I agree Bush is simple but I do not consider that a trait I want in a president. As swift boat O'Neill said Bush is a suit, he has never succeeded at anything he had to do on his own but he is pleasant enough to the American voter to get elected. A great irony I think.

Wrong. The great irony is that despite their "best" efforts, the Dems still couldn't beat W!

[Crash]

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"
--Benito Mussolini

"Today, corporatism or neo-corporatism is used in reference to tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises... The influence by other types of corporations, such as those representing organized labor, is relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Sound familiar? Name one thing that Bush has done that benefits the average middle class American. Hmmm...tough question. Now name 20 things Bush has done to benefit his corporate sponsors. Easy one, just look at ALL of his policies, the war, his env. policies, his tax plans, his plan to rape SS, his bigger more centralized govt. and on and on.


It's fascism in America people. It needs to be recognized as the cancer it is and eradicated. But thats going to be hard to do with the propaganda machine the radical right has in place and the fact that those in power will do ANYTHING to keep their positions.

[TNRighty]

I'm glad you posted that quote by Mussolini.

"merging state and corporate power" means giving corporate power to the government, i.e., the ability to control the private market by seizing power over corporate wealth.

What Bush is doing is the exact opposite. He's not seizing corporate wealth on behalf of the government. That's what Democrats do.

"Raping social security" Nice. The only way government can rape social security is if they control the money. Under Bush's proposals politicians would have less control over retirement funds and thus less chance to "rape" it by spending it on other things.

Bush isn't the first president to suggest investing social security in the private market. Clinton proposed doing the same thing in 1998. The only difference is that Clinton's proposal would have put the money in private funds that would still be owned by the government. Bush's puts it in OUR hands. This isn't about the risk of the private market. Both parties have recognized that the private market will generate a better rate of return. The real debate is about who controls the money in the private accounts. Democrats want government to control it. Bush wants us to control it. You tell me who's the fascist here.

By the way, I'm a middle class citizen, and Bush gave me a tax cut. In fact, any working American who pays income taxes got a tax cut. That's a fact. If you don't pay income taxes (nearly 50 percent of wage earners don't), then you didn't get a tax cut, duh. And frankly, if you're not helping foot the bill, then why do you think you should have a say over what is done with the money. Your argument is rooted in envy, not facts. If you feel bad about getting a tax cut, then go give it to charity.

[A Non Ymous]

TNRighty said:

I'm glad you posted that quote by Mussolini.

"merging state and corporate power" means giving corporate power to the government, i.e., the ability to control the private market by seizing power over corporate wealth.

What Bush is doing is the exact opposite. He's not seizing corporate wealth on behalf of the government. That's what Democrats do.

You fail to understand that it's the opposite of what you say - Corporations and the United States of America INC. are one in the same! Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharmacutical, Big Auto, etc., are all international businesses that control our government. NAFTA and GATT are the result of big corporations dictating to our government. Bush will soon sign another agreement that will merge the USA with Canada and Mexico. We'll all be one big happy socialist family!

"Raping social security" Nice. The only way government can rape social security is if they control the money. Under Bush's proposals politicians would have less control over retirement funds and thus less chance to "rape" it by spending it on other things.

Bush isn't the first president to suggest investing social security in the private market. Clinton proposed doing the same thing in 1998. The only difference is that Clinton's proposal would have put the money in private funds that would still be owned by the government. Bush's puts it in OUR hands. This isn't about the risk of the private market. Both parties have recognized that the private market will generate a better rate of return. The real debate is about who controls the money in the private accounts. Democrats want government to control it. Bush wants us to control it. You tell me who's the fascist here.

So by what Constitutional authority do we have Social Security? I can't seem to find an amendment in my copy of the Constitution that authorizes it. How about SOCIALISM SECURITY? If you are a "conservative" how can you support a socialist program?

By the way, I'm a middle class citizen, and Bush gave me a tax cut. In fact, any working American who pays income taxes got a tax cut. That's a fact. If you don't pay income taxes (nearly 50 percent of wage earners don't), then you didn't get a tax cut, duh. And frankly, if you're not helping foot the bill, then why do you think you should have a say over what is done with the money. Your argument is rooted in envy, not facts. If you feel bad about getting a tax cut, then go give it to charity.

The fact is there is NO law that says anyone has to pay income taxes. www.givemeliberty.org/

[groucho]

A said:

You fail to understand that it's the opposite of what you say - Corporations and the United States of America INC. are one in the same! Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Pharmacutical, Big Auto, etc., are all international businesses that control our government. NAFTA and GATT are the result of big corporations dictating to our government. Bush will soon sign another agreement that will merge the USA with Canada and Mexico. We'll all be one big happy socialist family!

So by what Constitutional authority do we have Social Security? I can't seem to find an amendment in my copy of the Constitution that authorizes it. How about SOCIALISM SECURITY? If you are a "conservative" how can you support a socialist program?


The fact is there is NO law that says anyone has to pay income taxes. www.givemeliberty.org/

Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Auto - who owns them? The US?
WRONG!!!!! Europe and Asia control the purse strings - and the "emerging" Third World countries provide the cheap labor, factories, etc.......

Quite frankly, I'd be one HELL of a lot more worried about "One World Order" (the EU, and the anything-but-stable "Euro" form of singular currency are just the first steps - already taken), than the supposed "power" of Ameirican Industry, these days........

[TNRighty]

A Non Ymous,

First of all, if you think I support social security you grossly misunderstood me. Perhaps you should read my post again. I've been as outspoken against social security as anyone on this board. Let me be clear about this: I think social security is the single biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. Its creation was a colossal error on the part of FDR. I agree with you completely that it would be more aptly named "socialism security." I DO NOT support social insecurity. My point was that I support Bush's plan to reform it, and frankly I think America would be better off if the system as we know it was phased out altogether and buried in the cemetary of shame.

As for the bit about income taxes, I'm right there with you. Again, perhaps you should re-read my post. American's who support high taxes aren't the ones paying the taxes. Americans seem to find it so easy to support taxes as long as other people are paying them.

Anyways, given your responses, I don't know what I said to invite your criticism, but after reading your post I think we would probably agree on a lot of things.

I'm the last person you'd confuse for a socialist, and I think most people on this board would back me up on that.