Article

2007-11-25 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing daughter #1 2007-11-25 18:10|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 I was not aware of Godwin's Law. I really don't see much evidence of this on Rantburg or some other "conservative" or "libertarian" blogs it does sseem to be a feature (bug) of left leaninig blogs.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-11-25 18:40|| 2007-11-25 18:40|| Front Page Top

#2 Only people who are ignorant (inadvertantly or willfully) of the Holocaust would compare anything since that time to the fuehrer or the reich. A pox on them all...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2007-11-25 18:47|| 2007-11-25 18:47|| Front Page Top

#3 Only a Nazi would post this article. ;)

Posted by Mike N. 2007-11-25 18:58|| 2007-11-25 18:58|| Front Page Top

#4 Sure. Just make clear what we're dealing with. For some the term nazi [note small letters] is simply a pejorative used like the other 'n' word nigger. We can now add the term nativist to the selection too. It's employed as an insult which in many circles is far more acceptable than the other classical 'n' word. The intent is still the same.

However, if you're referring to the National Socialist German Workers Party, or NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party, we're referring to a bunch of thugs who employing the facade of socialism and nationalism to undermine basic human liberties and freedoms to accumulate power all while doing it in the name of the People[tm]. These were socialist of a nationalistic flavor, not to be confused with international socialists like the flavors of communism. They get great recognition due to the mass media of the era who could stereotype [with good reason] them into the classical mold of 'evil' [with nifty uniforms]. Though the historical record is pretty clear their cousins in the international movement, the communists, had a far larger kill count in the 20th Century and much better press and reception in our esteemed institutions of 'higher learning'.
Regardless of the popular press, they were indeed socialist, with a program for the People[tm].

If you're dealing with the left and their patterns of behavior and language manipulation begin to merge, the alignment of goals and means to the real historical 'Nazis' become apparent, then by all means call it for what it is.

If you're referring to those of the right who would promote individual subordination to the state, but who are definitely anti-communist/left, then the appropriate term would be fascist. Something along the line of Franco.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-11-25 19:06|| 2007-11-25 19:06|| Front Page Top

#5 It is important to recognize that the Nazis were not an alien force to Germany. That they were truly Germanic in their origins. If you compare fascism between German, Italian and Spanish groups, you see how very different in national character they are.

Hitler, while never popularly elected, was popular as a person. In much the same was as Bill Clinton, people disparaged his behavior, but liked him personally. As a politician, by the standards of the time, but with modern labels, he could be called a feminist, an environmentalist, and a believer in public welfare and health.

As a feminist, he elevated the German Hausfrau from a domestic drudge to an important and honorable role in society. He was opposed to smoking and drinking, and supported physical education, environmental causes, and a healthful diet for all. Even socialist realism art emphasized healthful living and the avoidance of bad habits and condemned art depicting them as decadent itself.

Fascism saw itself as halfway between capitalism and socialism. Government should not nationalize industry, but it should join with it in public-private partnerships, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the US today. Such thinking held considerable interest in the left, around the world and in the US. It was seen as a half step towards socialism, or "moving in the right direction."

At the social level, it has only been recently noted that once the Nazis were in power, they behaved much like socialists, seeing individuality as bad. But the Nazis deferred to group actions, such as large protests, and never interfered with them.

That is, if you individually protested the Nazis, you would be arrested and abused. But if there was a large group of people protesting, the Nazis seemed helpless. They would not interfere, or allow the police to do so either. They were deferring to "the people."

Much of what Hitler did in Germany was very ordinary and typical for politicians anywhere. Again, like Bill Clinton, he spent a great deal of time acting like he was campaigning for an election, even elections had ended and he was in power.

It is quite likely that the future will regard Hitler much like we now regard Napoleon Bonaparte. For 150 years, Napoleon was seen as a tremendously evil, almost anti-Christ figure. But today, we see him as a powerful French leader. In France, he is seen as a national hero. The horrific crimes of his regime and the terrible destruction he caused has been popularly forgotten.

In the future, it will be easy to compare the two, because they had similar ambitions, each for their own country.

And finally, it has been pointed out that the Nazis propaganda machine did not convince the German people to hate the Jews. Many of them already did so. It was preaching to the choir. And were things different, with a fascist regime in Britain, it is not impossible to imagine similar persecution of the Jews there. That is, while officially more liberal, the typical Englishman does not care for Jews, nor has for many centuries.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-11-25 19:36|| 2007-11-25 19:36|| Front Page Top

#6 It is quite likely that the future will regard Hitler much like we now regard Napoleon Bonaparte.

There are many horrid possibilities that might come about.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-25 19:48|| 2007-11-25 19:48|| Front Page Top

#7 At the social level, it has only been recently noted that once the Nazis were in power, they behaved much like socialists, seeing individuality as bad.

I suggest you read Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom", first published in 1944. It traces the sources of socialism culminating in Germany's National Socialism, and details how it was admired by the elite in England.

BTW, you forgot your sarcasm tags.

Posted by KBK 2007-11-25 20:30|| 2007-11-25 20:30|| Front Page Top

#8 I don't think he did.

Posted by Secret Master 2007-11-25 21:42|| 2007-11-25 21:42|| Front Page Top

#9 lotp: There is nothing but some grainy black and white films to teach the horror of Nazism to future generations. Once everyone alive then is dead and gone, the strong need to condemn what the Nazis were will die as well.

One of the last vestiges of Napoleon were insane people in asylums claiming to be him. Then for years, just that was jokingly referred to, a Napoleon complex to denote insanity. But by then, almost no insane people still did that. Napoleon was just a fading memory.

Mel Brooks "The Producers", made in 1968, just 23 years after the end of World War II, depicted how Nazis had lost the strong response of people in America. They *could* be laughed at, without deeply offending everyone. The world was already forgetting them, and getting on with life.

Children in the US no longer learn about World War II except on television. It is only rarely taught in the schools. And, I might point out, that when asked, close to a *majority* of students will identify Vietnam as "America's bloodiest war".

In truth, for all their efforts to appear special, the Nazis weren't. They were incompetent, inefficient, yet were directing a nation that had a lot of resources. Hitler appealed to stupid Germans, no different in their way and time than stupid Democrats in the US today.

The Nazis should have been destroyed, and they were. The only pity is that communism hasn't been destroyed like Nazism was.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-11-25 22:08|| 2007-11-25 22:08|| Front Page Top

#10 To answer your question, TD, yes - many of us have long been familiar with this "law", and it's often used as a handy end to online discussions. Keep in mind the important point of a "comparison" - an historical reference or discussion may be acceptable, and even apt, but the common occurence is simply a slur or smear - i.e. "so and so is a closet Nazi" - and most recently it's a clear indicator of BDS.

As Deacon Blues notes, it's more common on left blogs these days, probably in conjunction with the more common use of profanity there as well, but the left has no monopoly on the technique.

The somewhat milder right-wing version is labelling an opponent a "communist", where the descriptor "socialist" is more accurate (except the factual cases where an interlocutor actually is or was a communist).

Mike Godwin's underlying point was that increasing time and/or participants involved in an online discussion leads to simplistic name-calling - certainly a logical conclusion.

Posted by Haliburton - Border Control Divison 2007-11-25 22:26|| 2007-11-25 22:26|| Front Page Top

#11 As it was recently hinted (like today) that I must lean communist I must agree.

Posted by 3dc 2007-11-25 23:07|| 2007-11-25 23:07|| Front Page Top

#12 As it was recently hinted (like today) that I must lean communist I must agree.

Parse error. Does not compute.

:-)

Posted by twobyfour 2007-11-25 23:24|| 2007-11-25 23:24|| Front Page Top

23:57 Steve White
23:53 mrp
23:50 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:24 twobyfour
23:07 3dc
23:05 McZoid
22:58 JAB
22:45 rjschwarz
22:41 Bright Pebbles
22:40 mrp
22:39 OldSpook
22:33 OldSpook
22:28 OldSpook
22:26 Haliburton - Border Control Divison
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:16 OldSpook
22:08 Anonymoose
22:05 Zenster
22:02 3dc
22:00 Zenster
22:00 Bright Pebbles
21:48 3dc