Monday, March 21, 2005
Regarding the Hitler slur (2)
Hanson's article (see post below) chronicles the astounding audacity of various elites, and their contemptuous disregard for fact, in making cheap comparisons of Bush, his administration, and his allies to Hitler's Nazis.
All in order to slur: perhaps to throw lots of mud in order that some may stick (the Goebbels formula); or perhaps to project one's own ills upon an enemy and then blame them for it (the Stalin formula).
Whichever pole the tactic may lie at, it's essentially a totalitarian favourite.
Beyond the elites, what of the targets in today's populace, the bleating sheep who accept and repeat the smeer (1,350,000 references on Google, Hanson says!)?
For those who might entertain the possibility, if only to themselves, that ignorance on the subject of Nazism might help fuel this phenomenon, here's a prescription*.
Try comparing Nazism to fanatical Islam, for example as follows (present tense is used for ease of elaboration):
1) Both Nazism and Fanatical Islam (FI) idealise forms of totalitarianism;
2) Both despise and denigrate democracy, free speech, human rights and western values;
3) Through the sponsorship of Wahabi Islam, Arabic versions of Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have become best sellers in the Middle East;
4) Both target a range of identificants, but target Jews as the central and natural enemy, and both propagate the most extreme prejudicial chauvinism toward Jews;
5) Both advocate viloence as an essential and legitimate means of achieving their political aims. Both try to galvanise militants via symbolic violent acts (cf. Hitler's 1923 putsch and 9/11, for example), and both actively recruit, train and dispatch as many agents as possible for the purpose;
6) Both ideologies draw motivation from cultural chauvinism towards outsiders (not only Jews), and both have zero tolerance for cultural "misfits" in their midst.
7) Both ideologies arose following a period of massive social upheaval involving perceived military loss to outsiders (and consequent loss of collective pride), redrawn and shrunken borders (again, made by outsiders), collapse of ruling elites, mistrust of elites who took over and the systems they represent, fluctuating economic fortunes (mainly very negative for most of the populace);
8} (In response largely to 7)) Both promise galvanisation and attainment of natural-right-leibensraum at the expense of the hated outsider, and both work actively and energetically towards their aims;
9) Both make innovative and concentrated use of media and mass gatherings to achieve their aims. Hitler pioneered such use centered on technological media; Al-Jazeera and Hezbollah TV, for example, are recognized leaders and innovators in this area in the Arab world, where mass pro-Islamist gatherings are well known to be common, for example at funerals and in mosques;
10) Both FI and Nazism receive(d) support from wary custodian governments they implacably oppose(d) (like in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Saddam's Iraq, in the case of FI; and Weimar Germany's various elites and parties, in the case of the Nazis). Those governments, in both cases, reasoned that the extremists might be "tamed", or tapped, or diverted so as not to disturb the political status quo (except to suit their own ends). Both FI and Nazism use(d) a combination of violent threat and negotiation to secure such support.
11) At an international level, the Nazis co-operated with implacable ideological enemies to achieve short-term gains: with the Soviets on several occasions, most famously in the Nazi-Soviet pact, not to mention with the German communists. There seems to be a parallel in FI synchronisation with the international and leftist milieu (including and most particularly the UN, the leftist media, and pan-European politicos) at the moment.
Regarding the last two points, we don't know, of course, where fellow traveling with Islamists may head, but it's a historical fact that Hitler was grossly underestimated.
The really scary part is that the above is probably only a partial list.
Best to heed demonstrable historical correspondence, in my humble opinion, rather than reaching grimly for all kinds of obtuse sub-text, simply because it suits one's own bias or emotions.
If you still disagree with me, perhaps because the Bush Christmas video (the one starring the family pet) was really a devilishly subtle equivalent to Mein Kampf, do drop me a line and let me know.
* Regarding the prescription, see my next post (above).
