Hitler's Respect for "My Lord & Savior" Jesus

It is not pleasant to study the face of evil, but it seems good that some of us be aware of its common habits, intentions, and techniques, and spread our findings around a bit. I've been browsing again in the speeches of Adolf Hitler*. There are several patterns of manipulation and verbal violence that quickly stand out to me.

   

• Deliberate misuse of Christian terms and references to make himself sound like a true and devoted Christian - at least he would appear so to those who were not paying close attention, and unfortunately many Christians and church leaders do not pay close attention to such things.

           

  "L ... said ... that his feeling `as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an Anti-Semite. I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were ... As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

           

  His comments a few minutes later in the same speech carry the flavor of Jesus' concern about the "sheep without a shepherd". "...the mightiest thing which our Movement must create: for these widespread, seeking, and straying masses a new Faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts."

           

  Well, there you have it. A new Messiah, offering to do the job Jesus nobly tried to do, but this time successfully. This is a brilliant capitalizing on the Christian feeling in many Germans while he explicitly subverts that religious loyalty and shifts it to the nation and its (deeply Christian?) Leader. As I said above, this often works because Christian people are not paying close attention. They sometimes seem to think it is disrespectful or unbelieving to pay close attention. They are certainly wrong about that.

   

• Constant lying about sub-groups of the German people, including Jews, liberals, government officials, artists, authors, and many others. I don't mean political campaigning; I mean deliberate, vigorous, extensive, sustained deadly lying (sometimes linked with a few morsels of truth to make it go down easier).

   
• Constant distortion of historical events. Again, not just occasional accidental misstatement or slight exaggeration, but deliberate, extensive, public lying.

   
• Deliberate incitement to invasion and war on false pretenses.

   
• Mocking of and non-cooperation with other nations and with international agencies, and abrogation of treaties.

     

All these things occur and recur in his speeches. To me all these behaviors - and those who practice them - are profoundly cowardly, because they flee from and camouflage reality instead of dealing with it intelligently and effectively. But that's beside the point, and it makes these evil behaviors no less effective or deadly. Whether he actually said it or not, Hitler certainly practiced this concept: If you make the lies big enough, and say them often enough and loud enough, the people will believe and act on them.

     

Now the unpleasant question: Do you see ways in which any of these practices have been present in America in recent years?

     

(From my site, publicchristian.com. See a prior post with quotes from Hitler on morality and family values.)

     

* Quotations are from The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, ed. N H Baynes, Oxford University Press 1942, Howard Fertig Inc. 1969, p19 - 21

•  Banging head on desk

  Please.

  Stop.

  With.

  The.

  "America is the next Nazi Germany" stuff.

  It is not, in any way, a useful comparison.  At all.

  Please read this and look at this before you continue to make such irresponsible comparisons.

  When a European friend of mine read some of the comments on the diary I posted on Sachsenhausen, he just shook his head and said "some people on that site really need to get some historical perspective."

  So please do.

  by Plutonium Page on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:13:10 PM PDT

  •  Don't be so sure about this

    My husband, a lifelong Republican and very conservative person is extremely turned off by
    the Bush Administration.  After the Republican Convention, he said he was very disturbed by the
    adulation shown George W. Bush.  He said it seemed like what he saw in the Heil Hitler
    rallies.  While we are not Nazi Germany now, we must be very careful to monitor this and not let it happen to us.  It is subtle and insidious.
    

    by linnie on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:23:25 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      that it is subtle, insidious, and that we need to keep an eye on things, but it is not even close to being the same thing, and I truly believe that to make the comparison right now is ignorant, and at the worst, disrespectful to the people Hitler murdered in cold blood.

      The only thing I will say is that the sadists involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons around Iraq, as well as Guantanamo Bay, would make very good SS officers.

      And if things do look like they're going to get really bad in the United States, FBI monitors be damned:  I'll fight, and it will involve projectiles.

      But it won't get that bad.  51% of the U.S. is brainwashed, but there are some of us who did vote for Kerry and do have minds of our own.

      by Plutonium Page on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:27:22 PM PDT

      •  I hope you are right

        I think we only have the beginning of fascism here, and that, if we monitor it and fight it, it will not develop.  But we cannot take our eye off of it.  And we can only hope that our leaders (Democrats) are monitoring it also.

        by linnie on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:35:49 PM PDT

      •  a German reader of mine

        whose grandparents were Nazis, and this is something she and her family wrestle with personally, is very troubled by what is going on in our country right now.

        "Been there, done that, got the rubble," was a recent comment of hers on our imperial ventures.

        by bellatrys on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:01:42 PM PDT

    •  Hitler was an effective public speaker

      Bush is not.  Hitler could move masses who were not laready committed to him.   Bush cannot.

      Bush apparently really believes he is a Christian.   Hitler may have made use of rhetoric, but it is pretty hard to make the case that he thought of himself as a Christian.

      Now, if you want a more accurate comparison   --- Bush believes and spme of his foolowers agree that he was singled out to do "God's work" at this time.  Now look at how Rev. Sun Myung Moon is viewed within the Unification Church.  Oh, and remember that much of Moon's money comes from the armaments industry in Korea, and I understand there were real strong connections with the Koreagate scandal of several decades ago [that one was quite bipartisan, as I remember].

      by teacherken on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:44:09 PM PDT

      •  Bush doesn't need to be an effective speaker

        He has Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity et al to do it for him.

        I doubt very much if George W. Bush has even read the Bible.  He doesn't even go to church every week. Religion is merely a tool for him and his ilk. Christianity has been a tool of power since Paul created the church. The only thing this guy believes in is one upping his Dad in the eyes of his mom.

        by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:51:11 PM PDT

      •  The adoration of his followers is disturbing.

        I was appalled at the adoration of his followers at his rallies and at the Repub Convention.
        It was scary.  He does not deserve it.
        He is a phony

        by linnie on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

  •  Yes, please.

    Not that it's irrelevant, but it's just well-trod territory by now. We get the crypto-fascism thing already. Now what are we going to do about it?

    by Omar on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:40:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm curious

    How long was Hitler in office before the concentration camps made their debut? Aren't there enough signs out there to be concerned that George Bush is just getting started?

    I wonder if there were people in 1930's Germany who were correcting those who were calling Hitler the next Ghengis Khan...

    by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:43:08 PM PDT

    •  Mein Kampf

      was published in 1925/1926. Hitler spelled things out quite clearly. Not many took him seriously at the time though.

      by mimi9 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:00:03 PM PDT

      •  I refer you to

        The Project for a New American Century

        Read between the lines. Fascism goes subliminal...

        by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:17:25 PM PDT

        •  Oh and

          these guys were laughed at in the 90's as well...

          by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:18:15 PM PDT

          •  yes

            They are on the record for as neo-imperialists. But what I can't figure out is, is why they are so damn incompetent at it. I mean, if you're going to be an imperialist, do it right. Don't invade a county without enough troops to secure the place.
            

            by mimi9 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:28:50 PM PDT

            •  Iraq could have been secured easily

              but Bushco was insistent on making it a petri dish for unbridled capitalism. They fired everyone in an effort to "Un-nationalize" the businesses in Iraq and make them attractive to foreign investors. The people left out in the cold joined the insurgency.

              It's not incompetence, it's stubborn arrogance. I don't think they mind. The idea here at home is to bankrupt the treasury enough to get at the social security money. This war has acted like the perfect ciphon. No matter what, they win.

              by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:20:16 PM PDT

        •  PNaC = Bush Policy

          They've told us what they're planning to do. They're counting on us not believing that they're really that bad - not believing that comparing them to Nazi Germany is meaningful - to get away with it.

          by RHunter on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:21:59 PM PDT

    •  The camps

      Hitler was sworn in as Reich Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenberg on January 30, 1933.  They had Dachau, the first conentration camp, up by March.

      by TLS66 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:41:58 PM PDT

      •  But we didn't find out

        that he was mass murdering the Jews until the end of the war correct?

        by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:25:21 PM PDT

        •  there was quite

          a lot of evidence long before the war ended that the Nazis had plans to exterminate the Jews:

          http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/index_before_change_table.asp?gate=5-27

          by mimi9 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:43:03 PM PDT

          •  At first

            The camps only held political dissidents...mostly communists.  I think they started rounding up the Jews after WWII started, around 1940 or 41.  The official policy of extermination was adopted in 1942 at the Wansee conference.  Details of the conference got out, and by December of that year, the British government was well aware of the Nazis plans.

            by TLS66 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:02:13 PM PDT

  •  that's right...

    It is not, in any way, a useful comparison.  At all.

    Um. Why. Not.

    Your say-so?

    by gaspacho on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:16:39 PM PDT

  •  n/s

    Page - I read your diary on your visit to the concentration camp.  I thought it was very well done and very helpful to us who have not had the opportunity to go ourselves.  I first saw the concentration camp images when I was probably about 5 or 6 years old, watching "The World at War" on TV with my dad.  It is vivid to me even now, 30+ years later.

    While I agree that we aren't anywhere close to the same place Nazi Germany ended up, and that calling Bush "Hitler" is counterproductive, I disagree that any historical comparisons to WWII Germany, Italy, and Japan are not useful.  As mentioned further down-thread, it is a slow and insidious process.  While nearly half the voters voted against Bush on Nov. 2, if memory serves me, the Nazi Party never received more than about 40 or so percent in the German parliament (I can't remember the exact number, but it was definitely less than 50%).

    If we ever get to that point, I will be fighting right beside you.  The problem is, I don't know where that point is.  Do you?  Are we safe as long as extermination camps don't appear, or should we be concerned with concentration camps?  Gitmo is a concentration camp, at least in the way that the Nazis initially used them very early on (not an extermination camp, or slave labor camp), just on a smaller scale.

    by kyoders on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:05:56 PM PDT

  •  What I'm trying to say ...

    Lots of good thinking here.  Thank you to all.

    History does not repeat itself in the details or the personalities or the exact sequences.  But evil is still evil, humans are still humans, and Hitler represents to our minds a massive and almost-contemporary evil in a civilized and "Christian" nation.  So he is not to my mind a useless point of reference.

    This (US) government has access to the greatest powers for warmaking and oppression the world has ever seen.  And from what we already know of them they are willing and likely to use them -- unless, as some of us hope, they are just monumentally incompetent.  But that also is a sobering thought.

    "It is not pleasant to study the face of evil, but it seems good [to review] its common habits, intentions, and techniques. I've been browsing again in the speeches of Adolf Hitler*. There are several patterns of manipulation and verbal violence that quickly stand out to me."

    by larryrant on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:39:12 PM PDT

  •  The diary didn't say

    that "America is the next Nazi Germany."  You did.  I think that anyone familiar with history would agree that Bush is a minor bad guy compared to Hitler, but there are certainly some parallels between their personalities and their political tactics (mainly a contemptuous attitude towards the truth and a belief that they are always right, no matter how disastrous their decisions turn out to be).  Why is it off limits to point them out?

    by rsheridan6 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:29:03 PM PDT

•  George Bush and the Repugnants?

  Actually, I see George as more of a John Wayne sort of fella. His life has more than a few parallels with John Wayne. Years of acting in B movies, avoiding service, finding god, right wing reactionary, the texas "walk". Me thinks that perhaps George took as much from the Duke as he took from the evangelicals when he reinvented himself. Anyhoo, just a thought. Yeah, he and his "possee" are fascits. Sigh.

  by Ottawa Guy on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:15:36 PM PDT

  •  fascists.

    spell check. Argh!

    by Ottawa Guy on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:16:34 PM PDT

•  Awesome diary, thanks!

  Hey, Pluto- I think it's a great diary.

  Instead of the Jews, this regime has gays, immigrants, minorities and the poor. And the nationalist rhetoric is basically of the same stripe.

  Recommended.

  by NCYellowDog on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:24:17 PM PDT

  •  Um

    do you know your history at all?

    Hitler didn't just murder Jews.

    He murdered gays, immigrants, minorities, anyone who wasn't what the Nazis thought fit the "master race" mold.

    The problem with many people in the U.S. is that we are not used to having to be "good neighbors" to many other countries, as Europeans do.  An extension of this is that we are mostly only well-versed in our own country's history, and not that of any others... if we know our history at all.

    by Plutonium Page on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:31:58 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I do...

      ...and I am aware that everything that didn't fit the Aryan race mold was slaughtered.

      I firmly believe that we are in a situation which is easily compared with pre-Nazi Germany. And the more we argue about it as loudly as possible, the better.

      Cheers!

      by NCYellowDog on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:32:46 PM PDT

      •  On the contrary

        -I think that, the more and the louder you argue about it, the less seriously will you be taken, and thus, the less are you going to reduce the risk of real fascism actually taking hold.

        by Sirocco on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:59:28 PM PDT

•  Plot Against America

  For those who scoff at the sentiments expressed in this diary, I urge you to read Philip Roth's novel. It is very eerie, since it describes a fictional fascist past, yet it resonates strongly to anyone paying attention to America today.

  by DowneastDem on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:13:12 PM PDT

  •  Charles Lindbergh is a national hero...

    And I resent the efforts to dredge up his Nazi past, they denigrate a great man.

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:15:06 PM PDT

    •  well...

      There isn't much question that Lindbergh had a shameful side. I haven't read the book but from I know about Lindbergh, I doubt that Roth had to exaggerate much at all. Did he throw in Father Coughlin also?

      Lindbergh was a great aviator and suffered greatly when his son was murdered. But he was sympathetic to the Nazis, no getting around it.

      by mimi9 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:33:30 PM PDT

      •  the history

        is here:

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html

        by mimi9 on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:35:10 PM PDT

    •  this is that problem with myth-faith

      you put your trust in an empty shell, and resent learning that he has feet of clay.

      It was Lindbergh who "denigrated a great man" - or how great really was he, IOW?

      Absent any moral nobility, the ability to keep a machine in the air longer than anyone else in personal danger is as moral as being able to ride a bucking bronco longer than another man.

      Being able to do great feats of strength does not alone suffice to make a hero. Or do you think it does?

      That, after all, was the point of contention between those who put their faith in Ubermenschen and the rest of us.

      by bellatrys on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:19:31 AM PDT

•  PLEASE come up with a better comparison...

  This is insulting to everyone, Jewish, gay, Polish, Gypsie, Russian, etc. who died in the Holocaust.  Compare Bush to Nero, Elgabalus,  Louis XIV, Louis XVI, Charles II, anyone but the tyrants of the 20th Century.  Genocide is a particularly heinous crime, and many awful dictatorships stay well clear of genocide.  Actually, Brezhnev would be a pretty good near-modern example of what I think the worst we could get: lack of public expression of dissent with an aged kleptocratic gerontocracy where everyone pledges loyalty to the State.  But that is a far cry from genocide.  And to even bring that up cheapens the reality of what has happened and what is happening AT THIS VERY MOMENT IN THE CONGO!  Get a sense of perspective.  Bush is bad, maybe the worst we've ever had, but it could be a hell of a lot worse.

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:13:42 PM PDT

  •  there is no better comparison.

    people recoil at the likening of Bush to hitler on account of the concentration camps and the overt (rather than codeword-couched) bigotry involved. But leave the extermination out of the equation for a moment; look instead at the methodology for controlling public discourse, controlling information, controlling the behavior of the masses, manipulating popular opinion, manipulating the media, stifling dissent, destroying enemies through whisper campaigns and innuendo, on and on and on... Rove copped half his shit straight out of the Goebbels playbook, no question about it.

    by RabidNation on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 06:45:28 PM PDT

    •  Plenty of dictators and tyrants left and right...

      do the exact same thing.  Hell, look at Putin and Kim Jong Il!  The problem is a Hitler comparison doesn't convey just the mind-controlling propaganda, but genocide and World War.

      by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:18:12 PM PDT

      •  If George Bush did decide to go

        the way of Hitler. What world leaders would play the part of Churchhill and Roosevelt to stop him? Get my point. The fact that there is no opposition to Bush makes him 10 times more dangerous than Hitler.

        by The past is over on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:02:21 PM PDT

    •  Rove and Goebbels

      I'm totally torn on this issue. On the one hand, I want to scream Hysteria! whenever I hear people call the current state of affairs in the US fascism. On the other hand, I'm scared too. FWIW:

      manipulating popular opinion, manipulating the media, stifling dissent, destroying enemies through whisper campaigns and innuendo, on and on and on...

      You don't think Goebbels invented any of this do you? I'm damned sure all of this is as old as politics itself. What reached new heights in the 20th century, thanks to Goebbels and others, is this part:

      controlling public discourse, controlling information, controlling the behavior of the masses

      Now, Rove doesn't have the kind of power necessary to implement these kinds of things. But then, he doesn't need it. The corporate media has reached - to use Goebbel's very own term here - gleichschaltung (falling in line) all by itself. And so has Congress. That's what's so scary about the current situation.

      by brainwave on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:22:50 PM PDT

      •  Did I SAY I thought goebbels

        ...invented any of it? don't be stupid and "assume."

        What I DO say is that Goebbels perfected a methodology linking multiple individual practices for attaining and holding power, consolidating same into a workable (and nearly unstoppable) strategy. Others have used many of the same individual methods, but Goebbels-Rove have been the best at using all of them.

        As to what you say rove "doesn't have the power" to do: you haven't been paying attention, have you? They've already DONE it. It's over, and it's been over since the ascendence of fox news. The range of "acceptable" public discourse is entirely defined by the mainstream media, fox and its followers (the other networks, Gannett, Cox, Knight-Ridder in print) and anything outside this nice, narrow range is marginalized, vilified, ignored, or squashed. We'd been trending in that direction since year 1 of King Ronald Reagan's reign of tyranny, accelerating through the Limbaugh 90s, and it came to full fruition with the amerika-lovin' histrionics following 9/11. "Oh, but what about what we're saying here on dkos (or on blogs, or on air america, or...)" you might say. Marginalia in light of the Fox death-ray.

        by RabidNation on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:33:49 PM PDT

        •  hey, sorry

          that came out snarkier than I meant to. I don't mean disrespect. I'm just pretty pissed about all this, and I do think the parallels between the Bush reich and the third one are more than transparently obvious. gets very frustrating sometimes.

          my new year's resolution: be less pissy to people.

          by RabidNation on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:39:40 PM PDT

          •  no sweat

            But desnarkification appreciated nonetheless! You're right, I missed the word method in your original post (meaning the one I responded to). I wasn't really assuming, just reading too fast (frantically finishing a grant proposal here). Sorry 'bout that. On the media front - I'm not sure why you think I haven't been paying attention? It seems to me I'm actually saying the exact same thing as you do on that issue. Lots more to be said on all of this - maybe one of these days I'm going to post a diary on this stuff myself (as soon as I return to sanity? Ahaha - arrrrgghhh ;-)

            by brainwave on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:15:41 PM PDT

  •  Aren't there secret

    Guantanamos set up all around the world where thousands of "suspected terrorists" have been taken to?

    by The past is over on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:23:41 PM PDT

  •  History repeats

    We didn't do much about the genocide in WWII, even though it was known to be happening long before the first camps were "liberated."  Maybe there wasn't much else we could do, and concentrating on ending the war in Europe as quickly as possible was the best course of action available.  I've read good arguments for both sides, and I won't pretend to know the answer.

    We have insulted the memory of all those killed during WWII every time we ignore genocide.  It has happened several times since WWII, and it is still going on today.  But comparing Bush to Hitler and the Nazis (in appropriate ways) is not the same as ignoring genocide.  It is ignoring the lessons of history.

    Politically, Bush (and Rove, et al) appear to have learned a lot from Hitler and the Nazi Party (maybe they came up with it on their own, but I've never thought Bush, or Rove for that matter, was much on original thinking).  I think it is very unlikely that the US would ever reach the point that Hitler did, and I seriously doubt Bush has any intention of going down the road to genocide.  So the ends are different, but the means are very similar.  Should differences in the ends excuse the means?

    by kyoders on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 07:45:05 PM PDT

    •  Nobody thought that AH would get to ...

      ... the point he did either.  And Adolf did not think he was starting a World War either.  He thought that people would still appease him like they had before.

      That is why the Dem 'Appease and Cringe' strategy is so dangerous.  Ever notice how many Dems have been dying in office lately?  Especially ones that might 'block progress' as the thugs might view it?  

      I don't want the historians of the 22nd century to be discussing how America let an amoral bunch of thugs take over the US government and the world conflagration it took to bring them down.  

      I am hoping the Asians will not have to completely bankrupt us to get rid of these knuckleheads.  Maybe a combination of economic bleeding and the Iraq blunder bleeding our military might save us all from the Bushiter's imperialistic arrogance.  

      LL

      by LeftyLimblog on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:52:07 PM PDT

•  US is becoming a fascist state

  "that it is subtle, insidious, and that we need to keep an eye on things, but it is not even close to being the same thing, and I truly believe that to make the comparison right now is ignorant, and at the worst, disrespectful to the people Hitler murdered in cold blood."

  Nazism as a form of fascism that is and will be attached to the killing fields of Treblinka, Sachenhausen, Aushwitz and others. Must also be seen with the unilateral force of political and corporate power of pre-war Germany.

  The times of the Great Depression of the thirties, Germany was admired by many individuals, but mostly by other states, the business community and people of influence.  Just look at the story: diary of Anne Frank, where the family left Germany to live in Amsterdam, yet his business depended on trade with his relations in Germany. During his stay in Holland he kept and build on his profession. After he retuned from the death camps and losing his family, he had to pick up that trade once again for his livelihood.

  The death toll of the World War that followed Hitler's push for power and building the mighty German military and industrial complex, led to the millions of deaths. First and foremost the slaughter of innocent civilians in death camps 6,000,000.
  In comparison what took place:
  20th Century massacres and/or genocides
  1917-1989 61,900,000 USSR
  1949-1989 35,200,000 China Peoples Republic
  1933-1945 21,000,000 Germany
  1928-1949 10,100,000 China KMT
  Post World War II in a number of countries deaths have resulted:
  (est.) 2,000,000 each for Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam war, Pakistan, Ruanda and South America's dictators vs. communist rebels.

  To refer to the death camps as an argument not to keep open a discussion on fascism and how it is changing America today and its impact on the world community is an affront I personally find appalling.

  That argument is used to occupy Palestinian land for 37 years and commit atrocities against a people of millions.

  Applying the argument as an instrument not to confront fellow americans with the horror and effects of a white extremist right-wing evangelical movement that is ignorant of the facts that led us to Iraq, Fallujah, Abu Graib and torture; is false! To avoid future manslaughter on a scale of war, americans must act today, at least by acceptance to discuss and compare the most obnoxious regimes of recent history.

  In 2005 - Be Liberal, Be Free Especially Amongst Family And Friends

  by creve coeur on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:20:48 AM PDT

  •  Thanks

    An impressive and important comment, creve coeur.

    by larryrant on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:35:01 PM PDT

•  Does no one remember "Anonymous" saying

  that we must be ready to commit genocide against the Arab world for our own safety, in his interviews, back before his identity was revealed?

  And how almost no one in the media freaked out about this?

  Not mind you because he thought it was a good thing, but because he thought we had made the world so dangerous that it was necessary for our safety to start a genocidal war in the East.

  Such a nice, bland guy, too, Mr. Mike Anonymous - the sort of guy who runs the spaghetti supper for old folks or helps a kid with their kite--

  When the Third Reich got started, they ran on a platform of Faith and Family, Moral Values, Law and Order.

  Almost nobody believed the naysayers who said they were on the road to barbarism - I met one of those people once, a scorned dissident teacher who was blacklisted by them for calling them on their unChristian behavior.

  But at the time, during the 20s, when they ran on their anti-Communism, Virtue platform, nice, normal people bought it in spades.

  They never expected to end up where they did, any more than those who prospered by slavery expected it to end as it did and not by a black uprising.

  by bellatrys on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:30:36 AM PDT