Posted on 06/26/2008 6:06:44 PM PDT by Uncle Ralph
Being a truly advanced white person means being able to speak with authority about pretty much any field of conversation- especially politics. In order for white people to streamline the process of knowing everything, all human beings can be neatly filed into one of two categories: People I Agree With, and People Who are Just Like Adolf Hitler.
Comparing people to Hitler is an easy way for white people to get a strong point across to the less enlightened, or the insufficiently white. Everyone knows who Adolf Hitler was. And everyone knows that Hitler was very, very bad. Therefore, if a white person really, REALLY, doesn't like something or someone, he or she may angrily say something to the effect of, "This is exactly the same kind of thing that Hitler used to do!" accompanied by varying levels of profanity based on blood-alcohol content. No matter what your gut reaction may be at that point, do not disagree with that white person. Otherwise, well, you love Hitler.
This time-tested white-person maneuver may seem so awesomely useful to you that you are tempted to go out and try it right now. Not so fast. White people have spent the last 30 years perfecting this technique. There are cultural guidelines.
It's also critical that you avoid the fatal mistake of getting creative and comparing people you don't like to other evil dictators, such as Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro. With few exceptions, white people are actually fond of almost any dictator not named Hitler, and your remark that "this is just like something Mao Zedong would do" will be met with blank stares and possible social alienation. This is because, with the exception of Hitler, oppressive dictators share a passion for many of the things white people love- such as universal health care, conspiracy theories, caring about poor people while being filthy rich, and cool hats. Stick to the script and compare things you don't like to Hitler, and Hitler alone.
Now, like most reasonable people, you might find this strategy distasteful, and even a bit disrespectful, since after all, Hitler was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, and probably doesn't have that much in common with Pat Robertson, in perspective. If you prefer to avoid hearing or using the Hitler technique, we recommend you speak in soothing, affirming tones around angry white people to prevent the phenomenon from manifesting, and change the subject tactfully. To something that doesn't involve George W. Bush.
h/t: Instapundit
well, he was lucky his grandfather didn’t stick with the name Schicklegruber — Heil Schicklegruber doesn’t quite have the same snappy ring as Heil Hitler
This is how white people will do you.
A poor and unwell peasant woman, as Cronos has mentioned, had an illegitimate child, baptised as Alois Schicklgruber.(1837-1903). Later a man called Hiedler married her.
Alois, who became Hitler's father, aspired to be a customs official. The Board of examiners, asked for his birth certificate on his application for officer. The parish priest possibly, or someone else, created a more "respectable" birth certificate. The original parish entry declared Maria Schicklgruber as unmarried when Alois was born.
They(who drew up a new document) then named Alois as Alois Hitler, not Alois Hiedler, son of his now dead step-father. He went on to marry Klara Pozl and father Adolf Hitler.
The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler.
Robert Payne.
Praeger Publishers.
New York. 1973.
Could be a mistake by using the dialect of that area.
In modern usage the word “Nazi” describes a conservative winning an argument with a liberal. There is more than a little irony in this, as the term comes from the German acronym for “National Socialist”. For the most part, the NSDAP, (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ) embraced pretty much the same grab bag of policies as the modern progressive politicians in the Western countries today. The one exception is in the matter of race relations. The NS policy was “kill the Jews and steal their money, enslave the rest.” They differ in this matter, however, not in principle but in application.
Unlike conservatives, who embrace the outmoded and abhorrent policy of treating people as individuals rather than as the embodiment of ethnic, racial, sexual and class stereotypes, today’s progressive politician will find a grievance for almost any constituent, inventing evermore novel and innovative aggrieved categories. Each of the aggrieved classes is entitled to steal from and enslave the rest, with a few exceptions. One exception is made for American Blacks who as group enjoy a higher standard of living than Swedes. Under this theory they are uniquely victimized and cannot be held accountable for any action and are owed deference and money from all White people for all time. Another exception is made for White heterosexual religiously observant Christian males, whose status is exactly the opposite that of Blacks. Despite that fact that nearly every advance in human freedom, in science, culture, technology, economics, art, literature, medicine or politics in the last 500 years has come from this tiny minority, (with almost all of the balance attributable to ethnic Jewish males) they are held in grave disrepute, their accomplishments being seen as evidence of their poor character and selfishness. (Manifestly hypocritically observant Christians, those who hide behind the Bible when trapped in a web of lies for instance, are spared this opprobrium.)
Being an idealist excuses nothing.
Hitler was an “idealist”. He was also a socialist, a vegetarian, a teatotaller, an antichristian who espoused a preverse, self-serving form of Christianity, a non-smoker, a drug abuser, a hypochondriac, childishly sentimental, a dilettante and a sexual deviant. He was enthralled by a superficial and superstitious naturalism. If he were alive today and living in Wisconsin, he’d be on the liberal arts faculty of a third rate community college.
The Fascists and the Communists were competing for the same “constituency” of totalitarian collectivists, and Stalin developed the tactic of referring to everything and everyone that opposed the communists as Fascist.
The communist/left/liberals still use this tactic.
If he’d put “liberal” in front of “white people”, he’d be accurate.
Don’t call them “Hitler”,
just call them fascists. It’s accurate.
Fascists are collectivists who support centralized control, and the “Progressives” of the 30’s were BIG fascist fans.
I have to confess that I am as bad with Pol Pot as liberals are with Hitler. So many leftist goals are exactly the same as Pol Pot's. To see what I mean, look at the lyric's of John Lennon's "Imagine" sometime, and you'll see that almost all the things he wanted were attained in Pol Pot's Cambodia. (No possessions, no religion, etc.)
Pol Pot was a far more interesting critter anyway. With Hitler or Stalin, one could convince themselves (if they try real hard) that they might acheive a workable goal.
Pol Pot on the other hand didn’t appear to have any goal beyond the total destruction of the country and elimination of it’s people.
I suggest that from now on, every Cons. call every liberal Dem a Stalinist. There. And never apologize. After all, liberals never apologize after each policy failure over the last 60 years. On they go, calling their enemies , Hitler, Fascists. So, now let us call them Stalinists. The youth will know nothing about this but then that is how liberals want our youth: brainwashed, stupid and fawning.
Case in point, Pierre Trudeau, who was a Nazi youth whom after the war easily segued into Marxism and devastated Canada during his reign of terror.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.