#Adolph Hitler

[disasterhimbo]

[ID: a scanned newspaper clipping. The headline reads, “Hitler Tamed By Prison.” The subheading reads, “Released on Parole, He Is Expected to Return to Austria.”

Below that, it says, “Copyright. 1924, by The New York Times Company. By Wireless to The New York Times.”

The body text says, “Berlin. Dec. 20. — Adolph Hitler, once the demi-god of the reactionary extremists, was released on parole from imprisonment at Fortress Landsberg, Bavaria, today and immediately left in an auto for Munich. He looked a much sadder and wiser man today than last Spring when he, with Ludendorff and other radical extremists, appeared before a Munich court charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government.

“His behavior during imprisonment convinced the authorities that, like his political organization, known as the Völkischer, was no longer to be feared. It is believed he will retire to private life and return to Austria, the country of his birth.”

End ID.]

100 years ago yesterday, The New York Times reported that Adolf Hitler had mellowed out and would likely retire from politics

[tomorrowusa]

85 years ago today Hitler invaded Poland. He felt he could get away with it the way he got away with a half dozen or so annexations or occupations since 1935. Instead, the worst war in human history broke out. It could have been prevented if Western democracies had said „NEIN!” to Hitler much earlier in his lust for additional territory.

Just as there were people willing to appease Hitler in the 1930s, there are people trying to appease Vladimir Putin today.

History Makes Clear the Risks of Appeasing Putin

Appeasement of Hitler didn’t work, and appeasement of Putin threatens the safety not only of Europe but of the world beyond. The GOP appeasement caucus might want to think about what future generations are going to say about them; history has not looked kindly upon the western leaders who sold out Czechoslovakia and, in the name of peace, fueled a much broader war.

J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for VP, is a notorious appeaser.

[tuttle-did-it]

As someone who has worked on war and history in an academic setting, the rise of Trump all felt incredibly familiar to everything I've read and seen.

When Trump started shouting into the void, I said that he reminded me of Vollmer, the character Dennis Hopper played in The Twilight Zone episode, 'He's Alive.'

(First thing's first, please try to go watch this episode and then read the rest of this, because the episode was incredibly well done.)

Everyone told me that Trump was just a harmless clown-- that no one would really vote for him. That I was inventing absurdities just because I don't like Republicans and Trump. He's just a joke. He's a sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic rapist. And no one would vote for him. We're too civilised for this, now. We've evolved as a species, and that will never happen again.

Everyone got a pretty clear reality when people did, enthusiastically, salivate over the idea of having a sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic racist in power. And over the past few years, he's become enveloped in his own conspiracy theories and hatred. And I am still strongly reminded of Vollmer every time I see Trump speak.

For those who are not aware, the episode is about a tiny, useless little white man who craves power and adoration. (spoilers for a 61 year old show below.)

A man in the shadows teaches Vollmer how to capture the attentions and hatred of the white audiences and rise to power. The phantom is eventually revealed to be Adolph Hitler.

S4 E4, Episode aired Jan 24, 1963, Written by Rod Serling, directed by Stuart Rosenberg.

Rod Serling's Opening Monologue:

Key scene where the Phantom (Hitler) teaches Vollmer from the shadows. Tell me that Trump and the other Republicans have not learned these lessons just as well as Vollmer ever did.

Rod Serling's End Monologue:

All of this has happened before. All of this IS happening again. Make no mistake-- Trump is unstable, and doesn't know about half the lies that come out of his mouth every day. But if you think, for a second, that this man has your best interests in mind? You are going to get a very, very harsh dose of reality. But not before millions of people suffer at the hands of this monster, and will for many, many years to come.

[pulpsandcomics2]

Bomber Comics #4 Winter 1944

[evilhorse]

They called him Captain America!

(Captain America #255)

[lowcountry-gothic]

Almost 40 years after Hitler was elected to power, [James] Dobson utilized many of his same arguments to appeal to aggrieved white middle class Christian families of the United States. He, under the tutelage of the eugenicist Paul Popenoe, saw it as his primary goal in life to help white women live up to their ultimate aim as mothers in a patriarchal household—and to discipline and raise their children in such a way that they would accept their role in a patriarchal authoritarian system. And in the United States, Dobson used evangelical Christianity as the framework under which to baptize his political aims. He, and many other [religious authoritarian parenting] experts, constantly appealed to God as the ultimate loving authoritarian, the Führer who would protect the family from all of those who sought to tear it down, if only the children would obey. 

D.L. Mayfield, STRONGWILLED, “Chapter 11: Focus on the Fascist Family”

[liberty1776]

Hitler loved Social Justice

[eretzyisrael]

by Robert Spencer

The New York Times wants you to weep for the people of Gaza, and for what Hamas’ massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, which Gazans cheered in large numbers, has brought upon them. In service of that goal, on Christmas Eve the Paper of Record ran a weepy piece by a prominent Gazan, someone who has witnessed the Israeli incursion firsthand. Did the Times give this plumb editorial space to a “moderate” Gazan, a known foe of the Hamas regime, one of those “innocent Palestinians” who have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Hamas? Uh, not quite.

“I Am Gaza City’s Mayor. Our Lives and Culture Are in Rubble,” was written by Yahya R. Sarraj and published in the Times on Sunday. The Times identifies the author in terms that make him sound like an airy, inoffensive intellectual: “Dr. Sarraj is the mayor of Gaza City and a former rector of the University College of Applied Sciences there. He wrote from Gaza City.” 

Yahya R. Sarraj, you see, is no terrorist, he’s a mild-mannered professor. But what the Times doesn’t bother to remind its hapless readers about is the fact that Hamas controls Gaza, and no one can hold the position of being mayor of the largest city in the Gaza Strip without being either an active Hamas member or entirely sympathetic with the terror group’s outlook and goals. Sarraj even alludes to this matter-of-factly in his piece, writing: “One of my major goals after the Hamas administration appointed me mayor in 2019 was to improve the city’s seafront and foster the opening of small businesses along it to create jobs.”

Sarraj spends the bulk of his article doing his best to move the reader to rage against Israel. “As a teenager in the 1980s,” he says, “I watched the construction of the intricately designed Rashad al-Shawa Cultural Center in Gaza City, named after one of Gaza’s greatest public figures, and its theater, grand hall, public library, printing press and cultural salon.” 

This place was so impressive that Sarraj says even Bill Clinton visited it while he was president; it was, in fact, “the gem of Gaza City,” and it meant a great deal to Sarraj personally: “Watching it being built inspired me to become an engineer, which led to a career as a professor and, in the footsteps of al-Shawa, as mayor of Gaza City. Now that gem is rubble. It was destroyed by Israeli bombardment.”

Sarraj claims that “Israel, which began its blockade of Gaza more than 16 years ago and has maintained what the United Nations and human rights groups call an ongoing occupation for far longer, is destroying life here.” Destroying life! Sixteen years ago, in 2007, the population of Gaza was 1,416,543, up from 1,022,207 in 1997. In 2023, it’s 2.2 million, 64% higher than it was in 2007. If the Israelis are “destroying life” in Gaza and even committing a genocide, as many have charged, they’re doing a remarkably ineffective job of it.

Sarraj laments: “Why can’t Palestinians be treated equally, like Israelis and all other peoples in the world? Why can’t we live in peace and have open borders and free trade?” He doesn’t offer any answers, so I will, as the answer is not elusive at all: if Palestinians would stop trying to murder Israeli civilians and destroy the state of Israel altogether, they could have all of that and more.

Why is the New York Times publishing Hamas propaganda? Because doing so is consistent with its longstanding editorial policies. Ninety years ago, on July 9, 1933, just over five months after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany and years after his virulent anti-Semitism and propensity for violence had become internationally known, the Times published a fawning puff piece on the Führer.

Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to interview the new chancellor, and in his presence, she was starstruck: “At first sight,” McCormick gushed, “the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator.” McCormick seemed to have a crush on the future butcher of Europe: “His eyes are almost the color the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.” 

Hitler, McCormick signaled to her readers, was reasonable and genuine: “He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.”

In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, McCormick says that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length. Later, she says, “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”

Little did Anne O’Hare McCormick realize, as Hitler’s blue larkspur eyes twinkled in her direction and his disarming smile made her heart flutter, that all these years later, the New York Times would not only be publishing puff pieces about authoritarian thugs, but giving them space to propagandize to their heart’s content.

[donnatroyprincessofthemyscira]

Art Edit Credit to Roberto Coltro

[spiderlegsmusic]

Trump told chief of staff Hitler ‘did a lot of good things.’ Trump Wanted His Military Leaders to Pretend He Was Adolf Hitler. Trump's late wife, Ivana, said Trump kept a book full of Hitler's speeches on his bedside table.

Hitler had poor social skills, singular obsessions with conspiracy theories, and an intolerance of anyone who disagreed with him. His deepest need was to be seen as a genius. Trump has narcissism, with odd social skills, belief in conspiracy theories, and an intolerance of people who disagree with him. His deepest need is for admiration and support of his grandiose sense of self-importance.

Here are 20 serious points of comparison between Hitler and Trump:

Neither was elected by a majority.

Both found direct communication channels to their base.

Both blame others and divide on racial lines.

Both relentlessly demonize opponents.

They unceasingly attack objective truth.

They relentlessly attack mainstream media.

Their attacks on truth include science.

Their lies blur reality--and supporters believe and spread them.

Both orchestrated mass rallies to show status.

They embrace extreme nationalism.

Both made closing borders a centerpiece.

They embraced mass detention and deportations.

Both used borders to protect selected industries.

They cemented their rule by enriching elites.

Both rejected international norms.

They attack domestic democratic processes.

Both attack the judiciary and rule of law.

Both glorify the military and demand loyalty oaths.

They proclaim unchecked power.

Both relegate women to subordinate roles.

Germany in 1920 had many similarities to the United States in 2020:

Both times were/are extraordinary. Voters were/are polarized between the left and the right, and centrist leaders struggled to stay in office. Street brawling between the left and right occurred nightly in cities across Germany, like the recent unrest in Portland and Kenosha.

Both times were/are extraordinary for the same reason: conservatives were discredited and lost control of the right, enabling the rise of right-wing populists. The conservatives, who were generally well-educated, affluent, and had been in positions of influence for generations, were discredited. Their place was taken on the right by populists, who were not educated or affluent. The 2007–2008 Great Recession was followed by a realization that the wealthy “1%”, who are associated with conservative politics, had both caused the recession and benefited from it. Since 2008 economic disparity has increased in the United States, i.e., the rich are getting richer and the poor are becoming poorer. This discrediting of conservatism led to the 2016 conservative loss of control of the Republican Party, with conservative leaders being replaced by populists.

The German right-wing populists, including Hitler, were dedicated to restoring Germany to its pre-WWI status as one of the leading nations of Europe, economically and culturally. Current American right-wing populists, including Trump, promise to “make America great again.”

In 1920s Germany conservatives supported the right-wing populists on the belief that the conservatives could control business and industrial policies while the populists focused on popular conspiracy theories, such as international cabals of Jewish bankers and Freemasons, secret Catholic societies, and Russian control of German Communists. Since the 2016 election, conservatives have made a similar deal with right-wing populists, who enthrall voters with wild theories about Mexican immigrants, Muslim terrorists, and Democratic pizzerias.

The Nazis believed, correctly, that a small minority of fanatics could gain power over larger numbers of more or less indifferent voters. American democracy is more firmly established, but the Republicans were able to gain the Presidency after losing the popular vote in 2000 and 2016. Republican-controlled state legislatures have used gerrymandering and changing voting laws to maintain control.

A key step in the rise of the Nazis was the 1920 purchase of Munich’s Völkischer Beobachter newspaper. In 1923 the newspaper moved to daily editions, with Nazi supporters reading only the Völkischer Beobachter, enabling the Nazis to shape their followers into fanatics. Donald Trump doesn’t own Fox News but their relationship is symbiotic. Cable news and social media algorithms enable Trump’s followers to live in a news bubble, shaping their views.

the effort to bring Trump to justice is the beginning of a much longer struggle, not the end.

Trump called US soldiers who died in war “losers” and “suckers”.

Trump has made positive remarks about far-right and white supremacist groups. Trump's understanding of slavery, Jim Crow, and the Black experience in general post-civil war as vague to non-existent. His indifference to Black history was similar to his disregard for the history of any race, religion or creed.

The parallels--especially the links between Lugenpresse and 'fake news,' and promises to restore German greatness and 'Make America Great Again'--are just too close to be coincidental.

The federal architecture intended to be a check and balance against tyrants, is not poised to act. Congressional representation is fundamentally anti-democratic. In the Senate, politicians representing 18 percent of the national population--epicenters of Trump's base--can cast 51 percent of the chamber's votes. A Republican majority from rural states, representing barely 40 percent of the population, controls the chamber. It repeatedly thwarts legislation reflecting multicultural America's values--and creates a brick wall for impeachment.

The House of Representatives is not much better. Until 2018, this decade's GOP-majority House, a product of 2011's extreme Republican gerrymanders, was also unrepresentative of the nation's demographics. That bias still exists in the Electoral College, as the size of a state's congressional delegation equals its allocation of votes. That formula is fair as far as House members go, but allocating votes based on two senators per state hurts urban America. Consider that California's population is 65 times larger than Wyoming's.

The Supreme Court's majority remains in the hands of justices appointed by Republican presidents--and favors that party's agenda. Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's blocking of President Obama's final nominee thwarted a twice-a-century change. Today's hijacked Supreme Court majority has only just begun deferring to Trump's agenda.

There will, of course, be American quislings who will enthusiastically support an American tyrant. There always are--everywhere.

The ex-president was charged with consequential offenses in Georgia and in federal court for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election; inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection; and absconding to Mar-a-Lago with a trove of top-secret documents; the available public evidence suggests he is in serious jeopardy of being convicted of multiple state and federal felonies.

We should be under no illusions that taking Trump down will cure all that ails our democracy. Trump is the head of the Republican Party and a political movement that has morphed into a form of 21st-century fascism. Prosecuting Trump, and even sending him to prison, will not extinguish the movement he unleashed.

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

An upgraded form of fascism with its rabid nativism and hatred of racial mixing is currently at the center of politics in the United States. Traditional liberal values of equality, social justice, dissent and freedom are now considered a threat to a Republican Party supportive of staggering levels of inequality, white Christian nationalism and racial purity.

It is by no means clear that the U.S. can withstand the existential threat posed by the upgraded form of fascism we face today.

[lukakustriker]

[johnschneiderblog]

A university adrift

Maybe you heard or saw something over the weekend - a snippet of a TV story or an Internet headline - that made you stop in you tracks and say, "Wait ... WHAT ...?"

Spartan Stadium ...? Adolph Hitler ... ? You may have written it off as more AI-generated fake news.

Sorry - we can't pin this one on the bots. A image of Hitler actually appeared on the Spartan video board prior to Saturday's game. It was part of a pre-game trivia contest.

The reaction has been anything but trivial. Somebody got fired (an underling, of course). MSU officials have been falling all over each other apologizing and condemning and stating emphaticallly that Adolph Hitler does not represent the values of the university. Honest!

A statement from the board of trustees said, in part:

"Dear Spartan Community: The Michigan State University Board of Trustees is outraged at last night’s incident at Spartan Stadium. The projected image was unacceptable, and as the oversight body for MSU we want to publicly apologize to everyone who was in Spartan Stadium or learned of this through other means."

MSU's commitment in recent months to self-destruction points to a lack of leadership at all levels.

(Photo: Jeff Kowalsky / Zuma / Alamy)

[tomorrowusa]

Mike Godwin is an internet legend. He was the first known person to use the word meme in its internet context. He's also the originator of what's become known as "Godwin's Law".

In a recent interview, Mr. Godwin stated that comparisons of Donald Trump to Hitler or Nazis are fair and appropriate.

So to be clear — do you think comparing Trump’s rhetoric to Hitler or Nazi ideology is fair? I would go further than that. I think that it would be fair to say that Trump knows what he’s doing. I think he chose that rhetoric on purpose. But yeah, there are some real similarities. If you’ve read Hitler’s own writing — which I don’t recommend to anyone, by the way — you see a dehumanizing dimension throughout, but the speeches are an even more interesting case. What we have of Hitler’s speeches are mostly recorded, and they’re not always particularly coherent. What you see in efforts to compile his speeches are scholars trying to piece together what they sounded like. So, it’s a little bit like going to watch a standup comedian who’s hitting all of his great lines. You see again and again Hitler repeating himself. He’ll repeat the same lines or the same sentiment on different occasions. With Trump, whatever else you might say about him, he knows what kinds of lines generate the kinds of reactions that he wants. The purpose of the rallies is to have applause lines, because that creates good media, that creates video. And if he repeats his lines again and again, it increases the likelihood that a particular line will be repeated in media reporting. So that’s right out of the playbook. You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence. But both of them pretty much makes it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental. The question is why do it on purpose. Well, my opinion is that Trump believes, for whatever reason, that there is some part of his base that really wants to hear this message said that way, and he’s catering to them. He finds it both rewarding personally for himself and he believes it’s necessary to motivate people to help him get elected again.

He adds this cautionary comment about the state of American democracy...

When I was growing up and being taught the American system of government, we would always be taught that the U.S. government has checks and balances in its design, so you can’t take it over with a sentiment of the moment. But I think what we’ve learned is that the institutions that protect us are fragile. History suggests that all democracies are fragile. So we have to be on the alert for political movements that want to undermine democratic institutions, because the purpose of democratic institutions is not to put the best people in power, it’s to maintain democracy even when the worst people are in power. That’s a big lift.

[nitpickrider]

And thus the two most blackened, pathetic souls in all mankind found one another. More's the pity.

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

These people like to think they are different than those who supported Nazis because they are doing it reluctantly (or so they say, as they call Harris brave and girl boss).

But here's the thing: Not everyone who supported Hitler was eager for genocide. But each and every one decided that the alternative to Hitler was worse. And I'm not even talking about people who feared for their lives if they spoke up.

There were people who supported him because they thought he would improve the economy. There were people who disagreed with Weimar and thought Hitler would improve things. There were people who believed Hitler would usher in stability.

But whatever the reason for their support, people were willing to accept Hitler's antisemitism and eventual genocide if it meant they got what they wanted.

Their excuses haven't aged well, and neither will the excuses of people who support the perpetrators of the genocide in Gaza.

So it's clear a lot of the "I'd even vote for Hitler" Democrats are trying to impress upon us the urgency of the situation, like "things are so dire I'd even resort to this!"

And of course one major problem with this tactic is that you're assuming we'll be like "wow, you'd overcome your obviously strong principles" but like.

You haven't established you even have those principles. You've just told us that you'd collaborate with Nazis and like, yeah, that is famously something many liberals have been okay with doing.

[evilhorse]

Get it off your chest, kid!

(Boy Commandos #1)