Posted on 12/10/2012 6:24:09 AM PST by Sallyven
In 1941, Harpers Magazine published a fascinating article by writer Dorothy Thompson titled: "Who Goes Nazi?"
Seventy years later, we're asking the question: "Who goes Obama?"
(Before the reader is shocked that this article dares mention "Nazi" and "Obama" on the same page, don't worry -- there will be no comparison of Obama to Nazis here. I will only mention that both fascism and modern liberalism are, at heart, ideologies that fall at the statist end of the political spectrum. So bear with me a moment.)
In "Who Goes Nazi?" Ms. Thompson thoughtfully described and evaluated the personalities of each of the various attendees at a gathering at which she was a guest. She explained:
It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one's acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi... I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis. (snip)
... She answered: "Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them....Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work...[snip] He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Cultural decadence follows when individuals lose their virtue. Widespread drug use, fornication, and a lack of personal responsibility are now the norm. The popular culture and and political outcomes simply follow. Obama is no accident or fluke. He sadly does reflect the “values” of the majority.
Atlas Shrugged........nuf said
Yep...Why act responsibly, why work and play by the rules, when you can act irresponsibly, sit on your ass and break the law, and get REWARDED for it?
BFL
The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. The Nazis wanted to grab everyone’s guns.
Socialism, gun grabbing. No parallels with Obama here. Not at all.
Do I need a “sarc” tag?
“What can we do to win your vote?”
I just wonder what the answers will be to that question as I begin this parlor game in my town.
Its a messianic cult of personality.
I'm afraid the only thing that would convince all these malcontents and ignoramuses to ditch King Baractacus is living in the fully socialist country which Emperor Obama wants all Americans to live. After about two to five years, most of the malcontents would be screaming to get out of The Socialist States of America.
We like to think otherwise, but our species, Homo sapiens, is not that long out of the trees and the same laws of nature that affect all of God’s creatures apply equally to us. If we were to observe any other species that had been allowed to reproduce without limitations, we would know immediately what the consequences will be.
Whenever the weak; lazy; and stupid of a species is allowed to reproduce unimpeded by predators that feed off the weak; lazy; and stupid, they soon outnumber the strong, quick, and intelligent. After a while, the entire population becomes weak; lazy; stupid, and then the population collapses. When this collapse occurs within human populations, it’s referred to as a “Malthusian Collapse.”
These collapses have occurred at frequent intervals throughout human history, and Western Civilization is, in my humble opinion, currently on the cusp of one of these collapses.
Correct! Most Americans mistakenly think of Nazis as far right, but they’re actually far left.
Democrats have always been the party of slavery and fascism. Today it’s no different.
For those interested in what Thompson had to say, I would (very highly) recommend her book “Dorothy Thompson’s Political Guide”. In this short, well-written effort, she distinguishes true liberal thought from collectivism in any of its manifestations.
Dare I say it would make a fine Christmas gift for students, perhaps especially those prone to confusing Obama’s spirit-crushing, soul-draining, idiocy with actual social progress?
Exactly. As Thompson points out, those who "go Nazi" have "underdeveloped souls." That is, they have never become fully individualized persons who have an internalized ethical and moral code and live in a mental cosmology where individual actions are important and where goodness and absolutes really do exist. So why not "go Nazi" and let the state make all your decisions for you (based on what is expedient for the state)?
The Right/Left thing is probably less meaningful than a Statist/Non-statist spectrum.
Worth printing out and studying.
Every fanaticism is dangerous, even for people who know them to be fanatical and who reject them.
Our President lacks humility altogether. He recognizes the power of nothing and no one outside or above himself. He is an arrogant and small-minded person.
“There is no respect for others without humility in one’s self.” Henri Frederic Amiel
These people are very dangerous ‘leaders’, if they can be said to ‘lead’ at all.
“What can we do to win your vote?”
Good point. This should be the focal question going forward for any political party.
At present, I don’t see the R party’s plan for answering this question. The focus of the R party seems to be, “How can we rid ourselves of some of our voters?” instead of “How can we retain and grow our voter numbers?” Despite that, it is useful to consider the individual’s motivation to vote. It is an individual activity, done in secret. Therefore, the major psych theories that explain the translation of an attitude into a vote aren’t entirely useful—I am referring, for example, to those theories that have a social norms component. If we look at Expectancy Theory, we might learn some things about secret voter motivation. Expectancy says a person must believe they can vote for your party (that was enhanced by the Dem’s when they pushed early voting and motor voter registrations). The voter must then believe their is a positive vote outcome—This means they get their student loan paid off, welfare payments, free phones, etc., while not having to pay for any of it. The Dem’s are good at that but an opposition party can also do these things but in a different way. If the opposition party (let’s call them “R”) emphasizes the personal cost of voting being higher with a vote for the other guy and lower if the vote is case for R, then the motivation can change. Ridicule of people who vote for the opposition is a useful tool, too. Everyone wants to think they are smart, despite how they act or how educated they are. Make voting for the opposition look stupid and make opposition voters look stupid. Make voting for your team look smart. That is easy to do and is low cost. There is lots more you can do but mild, no offense, tactics are uninspiring and won’t motivate a voter. Simple, catchy messages that signal voting for you is the smart thing to do, personally and as a citizen, are good to repeat.
Just my 2 cents of recommendations.
I am concerned by a number of people who seem to believe that giving the left what it wants in sky-high taxes and laws supporting bad behavior will result in the left being shocked to their senses and lead them to a sane, conservative way of life. History doesn’t provide evidence for that. More likely is that, even in the event of a societal collapse due to their own choices, the left would simply continue in that path or bounce from one messy government to another. Centuries of miserable existence are typical of such societies and there are many nations that provide evidence of this.
The author can't do that fairly, and still escape the clutches of Godwin's Law. Which last was invented by liberals to keep themselves from being appraised fairly.
[Art.] I will only mention that both fascism and modern liberalism are, at heart, ideologies that fall at the statist end of the political spectrum. So bear with me a moment.
***
Obama is a National Socialist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2116981/posts
Skip to comments. Obama is a National Socialist · www.freerepublic.com ^ | October 27, 2008 | Kevmo. Posted on 10/27/2008 5:19:47 PM PDT by Kevmo ...
I've heard it said the other way around: that only people who do not respect themselves, disrespect and abuse other people.
At which point the liberal leaps to his feet, cries "Godwin's Law! Game Over!" and leaves to go have a beer before things get really interesting.
Humility and pathological self-loathing aren’t the same
“Obama is no accident or fluke.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Exactly! He may flatter himself that he is a great mover and shaker but in reality he is a puppet and is only the SYMPTOM of what is wrong in the same way that a fever is a symptom of a bad case of influenza or a bloated belly is a symptom of an addiction to sitting on the couch drinking beer, eating pizza and watching TV at every single opportunity. Obama is a symptom of a national electorate which has become willfully ignorant, lazy and very foolish. We have a country full of pathetic dullards who imagine themselves to be brilliant and well educated thinkers. Many of them sport high school diplomas, undergraduate degrees and even, in some cases, graduate degrees but a large percentage would be laughed out of a public school eighth grade classroom circa 1960 or earlier.
Some people who were very much against Obama still said after the 2008 election that they didn’t think he should be compared to Hitler or Mussolini, it just was not a valid comparison. Even then I said that in my opinion it IS a valid comparison. I suspect that most of those may have changed their opinion now that we are farther down the road.
I cannot imagine the "Obama-phone lady" attending any kind of dinner party.
Not even one where Eddie Murphy was a guest.
And I guess whoever wrote this article can't tell Eddie Murphy from Will Smith.
She must have massive boulders between her ears.
Godwin's Law -- "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- was an empirical observation of Internet discussions. Later on, it was taken as implying that any discussion was finished when comparisons to Hitler were made, but that wasn't Godwin's original intent.
You may be thinking of the Reductio ad Hitlerum -- trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. When that phrase was coined (by Leo Strauss of all people) comparisons with Hitler were far more common on the left, and directed against conservatives. Have you really forgotten those days?
Whatever you call it, avoiding gratuitous comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis is a wise policy. What's objectionable in this article is that she tries to have it both ways, implying a comparison and then backing out, saying in effect "Oh, of course I wouldn't do that, heh-heh." She doesn't have the guts to go with the comparison if it expresses her thinking or the good sense to avoid using it if it's not what she means.
What is fascinating about these exercizes put out by American Thinker and ilk like it seeking to prove that Obama is a socialist is like having your dog barking after the thief has left your premises empty ....We already know Obama is a socialist ...what the public must be made aware of is what disasters await US now ....AND HOW ANY WHY OBAMA GOT TO THIS POINT....
What
Too bad we’re so short of patriots. If citizens voted for what is best for the country instead of what they feel is best for themselves things would be different.
Of course, this human frailty is the same reason the coming communism won’t work either.
That’s fine with me. Let him have his beer and lose the debate.
Did you read the original article? It does not support an invocation of Godwin’s law.
That’s fine with me. Let him have his beer and lose the debate.
Did you read the original article? It does not support an invocation of Godwin’s law.
That’s fine with me. Let him have his beer and lose the debate.
Did you read the original article? It does not support an invocation of Godwin’s law.
A triple post? Something’s really been wrong with FR software lately. I only hit ‘post’ once.
You've supplied the correct quotation; but I was referring to the explanatory scholia appended thereto, in what I believe is an authoritative source, here:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Linked at that site is an archived Wired article by Mike Godwin in which he discusses his development and utterance of the Law, which for convenience is here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
...comparisons with Hitler were far more common on the left, and directed against conservatives. Have you really forgotten those days?
No. Godwin's intent was to invent a counter to the Nazi meme (Reductio ad Hitlerum which you cited). His intention was to resolemnize the Nazi Holocaust by driving out what he regarded as a trivializing, and therefore bad, meme.
I regard Godwin as a liberal, but in retrospect I shouldn't have overspecified that Godwin's Law is a liberal project, since Godwin intended it to be used for a slightly different purpose than that to which online liberals have put it, viz., another discussion-limiting gimmick, just as they used the reductionist argument Godwin wanted to abate, in the way you reference.
The problem with Godwin's project is that, while his intention was benevolent, nevertheless in an age of megalomania and mass slaughters, it is often necessary to discuss and compare various political systems with the Nazi system they consciously ape.
Hitlerism is, quite simply, the gold standard of monstrosity and unintended consequences.
Re the triple post, you can send a private FReepmail to "Sidebar Administrator" and request the extra posts be deleted. I usually do.
Actually, I wasn't replying directly to the article, but to a comment by another FReeper, q.v. above.
Obama got the Good German Vote, no doubt about it. Republicans and Conservatives are the “new” Jews circa 1936.
They have been emboldened with the Reelection of Obama. Things will only get progressively worse as the second Obama Term drones on.
The Democrats would rather have Republicans and Conservatives destroyed before they would wish the same on Jihadists and the Taliban.
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.