Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

1

Toblerone

on Jun 19, 2005

What do you think?

2

ParaTed2k

on Jun 19, 2005

Well, considering this war was approved of by Congress (according to the Constitution), and Prs. Bush was re-elected says that the people and those representing the States and the people weren't "dragged" into the war against our will.

There is more denouncing of the pacifist than I'm comfortable with though. It is (after all) just as Constitutional to protest any war as it is to fight in it. That doesn't change with President or Popularity of the war in question.

Of course pacifism and dissent are not the same as pulling for the enemy to win, speaking out for their cause, aiding and abetting or just plain joining in the fight. Too many on both sides of the rhetoric often forget that.

3

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

Not the most original blog you've done Toblerone, but it's good to see you finally getting political.

Para, how exactly does the re-election prove that the people haven't been dragged along/brainwashed exactly? I'm not saying there aren't Americans who can make legitimate arguments for the Iraq War (although most of those people don't seem to have anything to do with the Bush administration and are more likely to reside at JU) but there has been so much misinformation and so many instances of people buying into it hook, line and sinker, that it must be assumed that Bush's team has studied the rather effective propagandist techniques of Goebbles and Goering. Equally, they probably studied Aristotle, who makes equally effective claims in favour of using manipulative rhetorical techniques.

4

Toblerone

on Jun 19, 2005

Not the most original blog you've done Toblerone

Well I should be writing an essay right now so hence the reason for putting up some discussion stimulus instead.

5

Daiwa

on Jun 19, 2005

Para, how exactly does the re-election prove that the people haven't been dragged along/brainwashed exactly? I'm not saying there aren't Americans who can make legitimate arguments for the Iraq War (although most of those people don't seem to have anything to do with the Bush administration and are more likely to reside at JU) but there has been so much misinformation and so many instances of people buying into it hook, line and sinker, that it must be assumed that Bush's team has studied the rather effective propagandist techniques of Goebbles and Goering. Equally, they probably studied Aristotle, who makes equally effective claims in favour of using manipulative rhetorical techniques.

What condescending horse manure. However, I'm encouraged by the smell of it, not to mention amused. This kind of stuff only hurts the left's cause. And how ironic Champas "Socialist" criticizes "propagandist techniques," socialism being a house of cards built entirely of propaganda & brainwashing. Lenin must truly be spinning.

This type of article also exposes either ignorance of historical circumstances or simple malicious intent. Equating the Nazi propaganda and brainwashing machine, in which a totalitarian regime had complete control of all sources of information, with the most open form of government in the world subject to the scrutiny of a completely free press is, well, nuts. These feeble attempts to demonize our freely elected government by playing the "swastika card" are the height of desperation and intellectual laziness. I'm with BakerStreet on this - it boggles the mind that the left is squandering all its energy and time on crap like this.

Cheers,
Daiwa

6

Toblerone

on Jun 19, 2005

Daiwa, it is exactly that sort of response that people like Bush rely on to control people. You just say "oh well this person is against the government so they obviously have nothing to back them up". All you have to do is look at the facts, the Us versus them Them attitude of the Bush Admin, the attacks against anyone who didn't support the war e.g. the Dixie Chicks etc. and you can see the sort of propaganda at work.
Yet again we have a person who can't tell the difference between socialism and fascism. Just because there were fascists in the past that pretended to be socialists doesn't mean they were socialists.

or in your language:
"Baaa Baa ba ba ba baa" etc.

7

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

Daiwa you make many assumptions in your criticisms of my response. I have not equated Bush with Hitler at all. In fact, at other times I have been quite critical of people who have done so. But that does not mean that Bush has not learned some techniques from the people in charge of propaganda for Hitler. It does not make Bush in any way Hitlerian, just as it does not make Bush in any way Aristotlean to use some of Aristotle's techniques. By using Aristotle, one does not suddenly become a poof, any more than using Goebbles' techniques makes one a mass murderer. As a student of rhetoric, I greatly admire Goebbles. Unfortunately he used his talent and skills for evil, and that is not the part I admire, but he did some groundbreaking work neverthless. many of the greatest minds have done some very evil things.

"And how ironic Champas "Socialist" criticizes "propagandist techniques," socialism being a house of cards built entirely of propaganda & brainwashing. Lenin must truly be spinning."

Firstly, I agree with Toblerone that Lenin is hardly an accurate example of socialism. But secondly, the key part of my username, that you ignore is "champas". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unaware of Aussie slang, but it refers to "champagne". I'm sure you know what a champagne socialist is, and it is quite different to a socialist. Therefore, I am no Leninist.

"a totalitarian regime had complete control of all sources of information, with the most open form of government in the world subject to the scrutiny of a completely free press is"

Good points but you still ignore these parts of Goering's statement:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders".

While Bush cannot be equated effectively with Nazism, Goering makes an interesting observation about the power of language. An observation that is pertinent to the current US administration. The question is, can he justify this statement or is it mere conjecture on his part? He was an arrogant man, likely to believe whatever he said was truth and to run off believing more than he could prove. But he also turned out to be scarily right about his ability to brainwash a people. Far more right than any of us would have expected prior to WW2, thus making his assertion an interesting one. I think there is certainly an element of truth to his accusation.

8

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

AARRRGGHH! Sorry Toblerone. I'm not trying to triple post, but I can't get it to delete those comments. You'll have to have a go mate.

9

Chakgogka

on Jun 19, 2005

Para, how exactly does the re-election prove that the people haven't been dragged along/brainwashed exactly?

Well, who's to say that the people have been brainwashed? Because a majority opinion is different from yours, that is no 'proof' that the people have been brainwashed. Perhaps (a la Brecht) the people have forfeited your confidence. Would it not be better in that case to dissolve the people and elect another?

Have the (American) people been misled (something different!)? Probably. It seems that an awful lot of Americans saw the Iraq War as 'payback time' for 9/11. There is a huge argument going on in the States about whether there was any link between the militantly secularist Baathist regime and the Islamic fundamentalists of Al Qaeda before the invasion. The argument ought to be purely academic. The reason that it is not, is the suspicion that the Bush administration used the 9/11 tragedy dishonestly as a justification for the war. I would be inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this one, (i.e. no attempt to mislead, but no attempt to clarify a misconception that worked in their favour either) if it were not for Dick Cheney continuing to beat the drum for a spurious Saddam/Bin Laden conspiracy. It would be better to let that one drop.

The British perspective is quite different. Tony Blair did not try to paint Saddam as responsible for 9/11 because there was no real evidence that this was so. The British parliament voted for war on the basis of the dossiers alleging Saddam had a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, ready to deploy "in 45 minutes". Those weapons have not yet been found (they may not exist or they may be fantastically well hidden - take your pick of available theories). Whereupon the new rationale for war has become regime change. British MPs did not vote for regime change (there are after all plenty of other regimes that need changing and we can't - and shouldn't -invade them all), and so many now feel that they were deliberately misled into war and have said so.

The truth in the Goering statement is that, once war has started, and the people are presented with a fait accompli, then they tend to rally round and support the troops whatever they think about the war. In Britain this was shown by opinion polls showing a huge majority against the war, before it started, but a majority in favour once British troops were committed.

10

Champas Socialist

on Jun 19, 2005

"Well, who's to say that the people have been brainwashed? Because a majority opinion is different from yours, that is no 'proof' that the people have been brainwashed."

Surely, that is the question raised by Toblerone? I do not argue that on the basis that their opinion is different from mine, in fact Toblerone recently expressed surprise at my recent positivity regarding the Iraq War. I would argue that the people were deliberately misled and they have bought into it. My argument in favour of this is that many Americans still believe in the tenuous claims that were given for war prior to Invasion. I think there were better reasons for going to war than Bush and Co gave, but that's a separate question. That's a debate about whether the War was right, not a question about how Bush convinced us to go to war.

I don't give the US administration the same benefit of the doubt that you do, Chakgogka. I think they deliberately misled the West and the UN, and many of the people did not question it, and will still never question it. Those that did question it were accused of a lack of patriotism and of exposing the country to danger. And therein lies the analogy with Goering. Whether that explains the rest of the population's support for the war, as Goering's quote suggests, is another matter for debate. It's certainly a powerful assertion.

11

bakerstreet

on Jun 19, 2005

A highly abused quote. It was beaten to death and made myth during Vietnam.

It wasn't part of the Nuremberg trials at all, rather it was from a private conversation with a psychologist at the time. Some have even said the author 'embellished' his diaries of the trial with such quotes and wonder if Goering said it at all.

Regardless, this is a guy who thought Jews were like rats, so I guess we are gonna look to him for wisdom, now. Oh, how desperate folks get when their predictions of gloom and doom don't go their way.

The Middle East has shown itself to be a threat to the US. Our interests have been threatened and attacked for decades, and we have now been attacked here. The bigoted, fascist wacko governments there must fall, and Saddam Hussein gave us ample excuses. Israel, one of our closest allies, is constantly under threat from these nations. NOw the US has an ally and a foothold in the region, and said wackos are sweating.

Hussein invaded a soverign country, butchered and tortured people there, and then violated terms of the ceasefire that left him in power, over and over and over again. He even fired on our aircraft. So, the idea that we brainwashed people with empty threats is, frankly, stupid. He caused the original war by invading Kuwait, and then botched his ceasefire. Fek 'em. One down...

12

Toblerone

on Jun 19, 2005

Hussein invaded a soverign country, butchered and tortured people there, and then violated terms of the ceasefire that left him in power, over and over and over again. He even fired on our aircraft. So, the idea that we brainwashed people with empty threats is, frankly, stupid. He caused the original war by invading Kuwait, and then botched his ceasefire. Fek 'em. One down...

Why are we talking about Gulf War 1 now, that's a different kettle of fish my friend.

Regardless, this is a guy who thought Jews were like rats, so I guess we are gonna look to him for wisdom, now.

You're missing the point there, the point was is the Bush admin. looking to him for wisdom.

13

zinkadoodle

on Jun 19, 2005

Toblerone, the responses you get from people here, like Daiwa, Bakerstreet and ParaTed, are exactly what that quote speaks of. I and others have posted examples of this administrations wrongdoings, complete with links, and they dismiss them out of hand because they did buy into this admin's crapolla hook, line and sinker. And, whether Goering said it during the Nuremberg trials, or to a psychiatrist is immaterial. He said it. He was quoting from the Nazi playbook. More stuff straight out of the Nazi playbook is found right within our own Patriot Act. These links are pretty amazing:

Link
Link
Link

There is tons more out there. Just google search "patriot act nazi" and you'll get lots of hits. Some will say that the comparison is disgusting. Yeah, the Nazis were disgusting, and we are no where near what Hitler tried and partially succeeded in doing in Europe. But the comparisons are more aligned with a kind of fascism, than with Nazism or Hilter himself. In other words, the comparisons to fascism are very apt, with Nazism thrown in as hyperbole. But, don't think it can't happen here. It can, and it is.

I've seen this Goering quote before, and it sent chills down my spine. Interesting that the bush dynasty even had ties with the Nazis, but admittedly I wouldn't blame the son for the sins of the fathers. In fact, I blame the son for his own miserable sins, which are posted all over the internet, but again, these righties just dismiss it all as "conspiracy theory". Well, it's not conspiracy theory, in that the excellent investigative journalism of some who have written about this is completely backed up with factual historical record. Again, those who buy into this admin's crap refuse to even read these records.

Someone, I forget who, states that liberals here do not even know what neocon means. I've not posted because I didn't feel like getting beat up for my thoughts. But, here goes....... neo means new. Conservative is someone who adhers to past principles of governance, without change and without excessive government interference. It also means someone who would take a conservative approach to economic interests, thereby refuting socialistic ideas of spending for society as a whole, and particularly those who may be in bad economic straits. In my view, conservativism is very much a dog eat dog way of looking at society, in that the top are the fortunate, the middle class are lucky, and the lower class are SOL.

But, with neoconservatives, new kind of conservatives, that is, they are not really conservative. They have taken conservatism to new realms of selfishness, wherein corporate finances and greed are paramount. Neocons, in fact, pander to corporate greed, in the name of some kind of proven failure of trickle-down economics. Neocons, like fascists, use religious "values" to spread their message, thereby overlooking and in fact disregarding the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. When questioned on it, they twist its meaning. All of the above lead to the erosion of the environment and health care and any social program that would eat into corporatate profits. These are the neocons of today, and the neocons who 50% of the American population voted into office. Their abysmal record be damned, because they've been aptly swayed by a hyped up war effort to support their neocon president.

In fact, neocons aren't even conservatives at all. Which is why I've posted an article which was completely bashed by the neocons here, that the conservatives are even questioning Bush's tactics, record and war effort. It's not just rightwingers or liberals anymore. They see that this admin is a collective lame duck who has been given carte blanche by Congress, and now they are second guessing that carte blanche, at least as it applies to the Iraqi war.

If you want to actually read some great investigative journalism on this subject, I suggest you go to the following links:

Greg Palast Link

Lew Rockwell's Peace Archive Link

Media Channel Link

BushGreenWatch Link

These other sites have already been poo pood by the jingos here as liberal-leaning, but they really are packed with good information for research purposes. I don't buy into everything they post, particularly Common Dreams, but the sites are well worth checking out.

Truthout Link

Common Dreams Link

These are just a start. Follow some of all of the above link's links for some great investigative reporting. You won't be disappointed.

14

Leauki

on Jun 19, 2005

Toblerone,

yes, you are absolutely right. Afterall, we all know that World War II began because Hitler won an election, was re-elected in free elections, had an elected parliament to support him, and attacked a country that was in violation of a cease-fire.

I see the similarities to Bush's policies. It's quite amazing.

The enemy, of course, was a moustached dictator who gases people and hates Jews. So there were arguably some similarities between the good guy and Hitler as well, weren't there?

I think I ought to quote a previous forum post of mine:

BEGIN
In an analogy where George Bush is Hitler and the Republicans are the Nazis, who or what is Saddam Hussein?

And what about white supremacists like David Duke who are vehemently opposed to the war?

The left may explain.

I prefer what I think is a more logical analogy:

The Americans are the Americans.
The British are the British.
The French are the collaborators.
The dictator with the moustache who gases people is the dictator with the moustache who gases people.
And the anti-semitic Arab national-socialist Ba'ath party is the required anti-semitic national-socialist party.

I cannot even determine a difference in degree between the one fascist and the other. It only seems to me that the original moustache had more time to build a huge military and wasn't disturbed by the Americans and British early and often enough.
END

And perhaps another:

BEGIN
The problem is that the fascists do not need people's support, they only need people's quiet disagreement. And they get that from the left, a left who rather demonstrate against neo-conservatives than against fascists who gas people or openly racist white supremacists like the afore-mentioned David Duke (who, I find, is rather scarily proud of being closely related to Gipsies aka Aryans).
END

You see, Toblerone, everybody who knows something about Nazis, knows that the quoted statement above is true for fascists only. A democratic leader cannot afford quiet disagreement. Because quiet disagreement loses elections. Democracy is the system where quiet disagreement becomes fatal. That is why democracy works. But unfortunately REAL fascists don't care for democracy.

So I suggest that you look for Nazi parallels among the fascists, not the democrats. It is always surprisingly hard to come to the obvious conclusions (A is A, Americans are Americans, moustached dictators who gas people are moustached dictators who gas people), but it helps in the long run.

Believe me, if you argue against Bush's policies, specifically when it comes to the war, you make a far better point if you don't pretend to be so stupid as to not see the obvious similarities between two fascist dictators or the difference between fascism and democracy.

Why should I believe anybody who knows so little about 1930s Germany that he actually thinks that it was at all similar to the USA today?

I grew up in West-Berlin, under American occupation no less. Relatives of mine died under the Nazis. Please do not compare their suffering to your inability to convince enough people that they should not vote for Republicans.

It really is not quiet the same.

15

Dr Guy

on Jun 19, 2005

I think you should join the democrat party leadership of this country. You have just goosestepped yourself up right along with them in comparing Bush to Nazis.

Why is the left is so bereft of ideas that they can no longer engage in open and honest debate, but must cheapen the horrors of history for cheap theatrical effect?

It is sad, but the only true and open and honest debate is not coming from the left. It is coming from the right, and that makes it hard to debate when one agrees.

Angry inflamatory hate filled rhetoric seems to only come from the left, and that is due to a lack of ideas and intelligent thoughts. Just a perverting of history for their own limited intelligent discourse.