Moron, asshole or Hitler?

by Kevin Wed Nov 27, 2002 04:48

well, we know who HE is, and it's all the above!

by MG Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:13

It seems the brave aide to Jean Chretien who dared speak her mind and tell the truth about Bush has now been forced to resign. So much for free speech.

First, we had Cherie Blair being forced to grovel before the terrorist Israeli state after telling the truth about the Palestinian situation. Then we had the German politician who stated an undeniable fact that Bush's political tactics are reminiscent of Hitler's being forced to step down. Bush - immature moron that he is - is still refusing to even talk to Gerhard Schroeder because of that perfectly valid comparison. To make matters worse, according to the above article, the Japanese Foreign Minister was forced out of office after describing Bush as "totally an asshole".

Does anyone else notice a trend?

by Terry Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:52

Indeed, I think many are noticing the trend. The trend from what I can see
of it, is that we are entering a period like the 30's in Europe of fascism,
although this period is of course unique in it's own way.

It's amazing how when he used to watch all those war documentaries about the
Nazis, how hard we used to find it that we would ever be duped into such a regime.
Alas here we are. The silence and obedience of the population has brought us
to this point. The global neoliberal fascist cabal have put their own grab for
power above everything, including survial of the environment and all of it's
diversity.

The present situation is a dictator's wet dream, what with all that technology
to monitor every aspect of our lives, listen to our phones, read our email etc,
if so desired, have available a high tech army, with the ability to deploy
rapidly anywhere throughout the world, and access to most of the world's resources,
technologies, industry and knowledge.

And since this bunch control most of the world's media, its heard to see how
the rest of us can link up rapidly enough to oppose them. This would explain
why the repression has already begun and has to get a lot worse, of anti-globalisation
and anti-capitalists protestors, so that they can 'stamp' out the 'fire' before
it spreads and put in an effective 'sprinkler' (Big Brother) system to damp down
any sparks in the future.

by Chris Wed Nov 27, 2002 12:38

Bush is definitely moron, but i think to call him Hitler is extreme, Michael Moore is right calling all of them in the white house stupid white men (and in the case of condolezza Rice, a black women in the tow of stupid white men, who's stupider the fool or the
person who follows the fool!!??).
just a question though for terry why is it like the 30's in europe? true i agree that the rise of the far right is a big danger but it's in the future fascism could come back on the agenda properly, Le Pen is not a facist he come from a fascist background and his political and ideological ideas are coming from a fascist perspective. but to call le pen and his type fascists is wrong i think.

by Terry Wed Nov 27, 2002 13:05

When I said: 'we are entering a period like the 30's in Europe of fascism', I meant
that as a reference to the US govt, although elements of European governments
are heading that way too, like Italy in particular.

The comparison is with Europe of the 30's was to show that they way patriotism and flag
waving is being stirred up and all sorts of laws curtailing civil liberties are being passed
in the name of security and also the way the media is involved in whipping up the fear and
the hype. In the case of Germany in the 30's the blame figures were the Jews, while today
in the US and elsewhere it is terrorists and by implication Arabs. In fact practically all
of the Western governments are trying their best to attach the label of terrorist to
anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist and pro-environment protestors. See for example the
recent arrests in Italy of I think up to 30 people who were involved in the Genoa protests.

Regarding Le Pen, I never mentioned him and I wouldn't just point at him or his party in
particular. I see these trends more as a result of the way the corporate/pro-right/fascist
types are in the ascendency and through domination of the media have enabled their 'world view'
to be the prevailing force in society (or at least imposed). The changes occuring which are
as far as I am concerned towards a corporate/fascist takeover of real power is the result of
the dynamics of all these effects driving the system to this particular (stable?) state, much
as in any physical system. An analogy might be the way the laws of fluid dynamics, solar radiation
and the geography of the land and sea results in the climate in settling into a particular
long term pattern. So for example if you rearranged the oceans, you would probably change the
climate. Likewise with particular political forces and laws. Individuals are just that -individuals.

So yes I think these times are rather similar, but it is more global than regional.

by MG Wed Nov 27, 2002 13:59

The German minister said that Bush's use of war to avoid domestic criticisms was reminiscent of how Hitler used war to avoid the problems festering in German society. This is a perfectly valid comparison. She did not "call Bush Hitler", as you seem to think.

Also, Hitler's ultimate aim was global domination through military power. This is also the aim of the current US administration, as is clear from their many policy documents calling for pre-emptive strikes against any nation that could potentially rival the US militarily. Therefore, in my view, Bush and Hitler have a lot in common. Just because the US has no concentration camps doesn't invalidate this argument.

by cier dunlop Wed Nov 27, 2002 15:44

Bush's Grandfather, laundered money for the bundesbank and nazis, during the second world war. Treasures stolen from jewish concentration camp inmates, were sequestered into the vaults of these banks.

by Macker Wed Nov 27, 2002 16:30

Am I alone in thinking that comparisons between George Bush and Hitler are utterly counterproductive to the anti-war cause ?

Surely the point of all this is not to preach to the converted in some kind of leftish coffee club but to actually persuade the public that what Bush and his White House are engaged in is wrong.

Any parallels between the two are superficial at best, certainly offensive and completely disingenuous. Don't you want people to listen to you rather than being able to dismiss your inaccurate, ignorant and emotive rantings ?

As Nick Cohen has pointed out, when the Americans were cooperating with Saddam in the early Eighties the left were screaming that he was a Stalinist dictator with whom we should stop trading and cut all ties. Now it's the left who want sanctions lifted and the democratic imperialist cabal around Bush are suddenly elevated to murderous, lunatic, dark lords of global domination.

I mean come on, I'm as against this war and Bush Jr as anybody. And am willing to debate the reasons and motivations for it in a sensible way. But don't turn "Hitlerian" into another part of our cultural language that has been stripped of all resonance by misuse. Like "Dylanesque". Or "F**k". For example.

by Macker Wed Nov 27, 2002 16:35

Dick Cheney might be Satan.

Does anyone know if it's true he voted against a motion calling for the release of Mandela ?

by cier dunlop Wed Nov 27, 2002 17:00

you've offered no evidence to contradict me, which means you know there is evidence/proof of Bush's family involvment with the nazis during the second world war.

by Macker Wed Nov 27, 2002 18:16

I wasn't addressing your point specifically but since you asked : Bush's grandfather laundered money for the Nazi's. So what ? That doesn't make George W comparable to Hitler anymore so than the grandsons of Swiss bankers or the descendents of the Vichy government participants.

The common thread between all the comments in the orignal article is that they were spoken out of frustration and emotion. Supporting them only suggests a desire to demonise Bush and his administration because we'd all feel better fighting a "great evil" rather than a complex of political and economic interests.

Is Bush a threat ? Yes. Is he a Hitler ? Oh no. And there's a universe of difference.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Nov 28, 2002 20:44

asks a good question about how different Nixon, Ford, Reagan etc are from Bush2 and Hitler.

Suppose there aren't that many differences? The main ones I can see are:
1. Hitler concentrated on Jews, Slavs, Gypsies while modern capitalists concentrate upon anyone that threatens their profits.

2. Hitler was motivated by an irrational hatred while modern capitalists are motivated by a rational desire to maximise profit.

3. Hitler threatened other capitalists in a world in which he was one of many roughly equal powers, modern capitalists have single world-power to contend with.

4. Hitler's holocaust was concentrated in a short period of time and a localised space. Modern capitalists spread their killing over time and space ( a sort of distributed holocaust).

Apart from that they're all people that are willing to see their minions kill, torture, starve, humiliate, subjugate, rape and deprive millions for their own reasons.

Your position, Macker, stems from the liberal centrist belief that Hitler was a special case. He wasn't. He was deeply embedded in the modern Capitalist State. That's why so much of his apparatus was subsumed quickly into "the West".