CanadianWoodcck Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Caveat: I don't think this comparison has any merit, but if you accept the reasoning behind it for a moment, it doesn't even slightly hold up. Right now, the MSM is comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, an evil man that is conventionally considered to be the worst leader in human history. It seems to me that this comparison could only hold if both men were similarly hated by pop culture and had a similar amount of support from the people. Donald Trump has a large following but the MSM hates him. What I'm really curious to know, is how many supporters did Adolf Hitler have and what was the MSM's opinion of him. I appreciate all knowledge you can share.
Cesco Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRI9AmyVvY One thing i did understand watching hitlers speeches and the films of the era (trough vpn proxy, this stuff is blocked in europe) is that many germans did admire him. The masses cheering and applauding are incredible. He did promise a future. History narrative is pretty one-sided.
Mister Mister Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Yes the Hitler comparison is so ridiculous and overblown. I say this as someone who made the Obama/Hitler comparison in 2008 and recognize this was a little hysterical and reactionary. But these claims are mostly being made by people with no conception of history.I have another comparison. Trump to me is more like a modern Churchill. He is trying to warn of an enemy in our midst - political correctness, radical Islam, illegal immigration, national debt, and so on, and that we can either deal with this enemy now and have a little bloodshed, or deal with it later and have a lot. UK didn't listen to Churchill until it was too late to do it the easy way. As a libertarian this makes me uncomfortable, as from a purely principled point of view, there is a lot to dislike about someone like Churchill or Trump, and I really don't want to give anyone that power regardless of what virtues they may have. But still I have to concede, that when you are approaching a crisis, it is too late for philosophy to do anything, except teach us a lesson so as we don't repeat history. But in a war, maybe you need to have a strong decisive leader who actually has the people's general interests at heart. I hate those words as they come out of my mouth, but part of me feels like it is maybe true. Anyone have any thoughts?
Guest Gee Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Check out the video from the citizen super pac: https://www.citizensuperpac.com/heil-trump
Mister Mister Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Check out the video from the citizen super pac: https://www.citizensuperpac.com/heil-trump I can't tell if this is satire or not. Most of it is just vague sentence fragments like "I swear to you", or "vote for me". The only thing that has anything of substance is "shutdown of Muslims coming into this country" and "complete extermination of the Jewish race". If you can't differentiate between the two I don't even know what to say.
utopian Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 There are many comparisons that are valid. The question, I think, is more about if that is good or bad, in a person's eyes. General society hears the word "Hitler" and automatically associates anything with it as bad. And Hitler was in fact bad, for the Jews and for most of the rest of the world. But did you know that, in consideration of the German people and their economy, Hitler was quite possibly the best thing that ever happened to them? In fact, after experiencing the worst hyperinflation in history, Hitler turned their economy around so successfully, they put him on the cover of Time magazine as man of the year, and called what he did "The German Miracle".
ShadowWhoWalks Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 For one, they both have funny hair. They are both authoritarian. They appeal to illusion of nationalism, and to victim hood tribalism (which I am convinced to be demagoguery). There are parallel in some of their policies. However, multiple people can fulfil some vague similarities, and that doesn't make them Hitler. Historical analogies are dangerous; a justification for the Iraq war was "Saddam is like Hitler", and a justification for ignoring the massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda was "it is not like the Holocaust". Historical analogies need to help us understand the present, not attempt to push our own conclusion; we need to realize analogies fail (otherwise they would be called 'identities') and two different phenomena are different. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that Trump was influenced to some extent by Hitler since he read the sequel to Mein Kampf and kept it near his bed for some time.
Wuzzums Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 The comment section of the video is gold. Absolutely no one fell for it, in fact it backfired with people saying it's not an anti-Trump vid but a pro-Hitler vid. "if they lied about Trump, did they also lie about Hitler?" We truly live in the most interesting times where the underdog in the presidential race for the free world is a multi billionaire.
shirgall Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Simple strategy. By harping on this comparison, it makes it harder to harp on the same comparison with Bernie's statements.
Cesco Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 Trump to me is more like a modern Churchill. Anyone have any thoughts? Churchill was an obese bankrupt alcoholic before WW2. Bankrupt because of his gambling addiction. Some sources claim churchill was paid to go against germany. He lost an empire for personal gain. Trump is VERY different. Not obese, not drinking alcohol, not bankrupt. I hope 2016 it's common knowledge germany did not want a war with england and made more than a dozen peace treaty attempts before and during the war. in consideration of the German people and their economy, Hitler was quite possibly the best thing that ever happened to them? True story. The "lügenpresse" has done a good job at distorting pretty much everithing around WW2.
Pelafina Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I wish Stef would do a youtube - The Truth about Hitler and also The Truth about The Holocaust.
AccuTron Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 ... One thing i did understand watching hitlers speeches and the films of the era (trough vpn proxy, this stuff is blocked in europe) is that many germans did admire him. The masses cheering and applauding are incredible. He did promise a future. History narrative is pretty one-sided. I saw an interview with a German woman alive at the time. The Germans loved Hitler at first, because he was fixing some stuff, bringing Germany back into something other than underdog, and because he didn't start WW2 at first. After he started invading, opinions plummeted but to show that was to invite one's disappearance. So be wary of newsreel footage: is it before or after certain events?
AccuTron Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I wish Stef would do a youtube - The Truth about Hitler and also The Truth about The Holocaust. Hitler info abounds; but do look into Hitler's possible syphilis infection which may have caused decades later brain damage which would explain his decisions disastrous to the German Army. Also, he apparently had a meth/downers doc glued to him like a pet dog, which was also not mentally healthy. As to Holocaust...keeping in mind that it's now apparently illegal in Germany to even ask questions about it -- follow the money and power on that one, Shin Betcha' -- so I'd expect Stefan's life expectancy to drop to about one week if he does a Truth About Holocaust episode. And he'd be "anti-semite" during that week. ... Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that Trump was influenced to some extent by Hitler since he read the sequel to Mein Kampf and kept it near his bed for some time. Careful here. Recently I realized that in our internet age, I could just go online and read Mein Kampf. Which I'm glad I did, since I KNOW what it is, instead of imagining. The first section about historical German peoples leading up and into WW1 is actually good historical reading, nothing twitches in it. The next sections deal with what was needed to lead the German people -- an interesting and valid treatise on it's own, thought provoking -- and a blatant plan to get needed land by going east, and removing anyone in the way. He made no secret of it. Just because I read the book, doesn't mean I want to kill Slavs. So saying Trump is influenced is blatant guesswork. Am I an anti-semite because I educate myself? As to having any book by the bed for some time...well, how long does it take to read a book, especially if it's NOT a passion, but curiosity? (I don't know about a sequel, what is it?)
st434u Posted March 15, 2016 Posted March 15, 2016 I think Hitler was also initially hated by the other political parties. As far as I understand it the Nazi party was irrelevant and nobody thought they could win, but the economy was in such chaos that the outsiders who promised hope gained in popularity. Both Hitler and Trump had/have a very strong populist message, and economically they both support/ed moderate socialism and intense protectionism. Some of Trump's comments on war seem to suggest that he also may have an expansionist view, when he says they should take the oil, and get the spoils of war when they go to war and win, but it's too early to know for sure what his policy actually will be, since elected politicians rarely do exactly what they said they would during campaigns. Hitler obviously had a very expansionist military policy, and he didn't just go to war for war's sake, but had clear objectives, whether or not they were achievable is another matter. But I'm not sure if that was clear from the beginning or if it only happened as a result of what the rest of the countries were doing at the time in response to nazism.
Donnadogsoth Posted March 16, 2016 Posted March 16, 2016 Yes, today everyone is Hitler who steps out of politically correct line. The only questions are, how many Hitlers are there...and do they vote? 1
regevdl Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 I think Hitler was also initially hated by the other political parties. As far as I understand it the Nazi party was irrelevant and nobody thought they could win, but the economy was in such chaos that the outsiders who promised hope gained in popularity. Both Hitler and Trump had/have a very strong populist message, and economically they both support/ed moderate socialism and intense protectionism. Some of Trump's comments on war seem to suggest that he also may have an expansionist view, when he says they should take the oil, and get the spoils of war when they go to war and win, but it's too early to know for sure what his policy actually will be, since elected politicians rarely do exactly what they said they would during campaigns. Hitler obviously had a very expansionist military policy, and he didn't just go to war for war's sake, but had clear objectives, whether or not they were achievable is another matter. But I'm not sure if that was clear from the beginning or if it only happened as a result of what the rest of the countries were doing at the time in response to nazism. It's easy for any of us to pick out certain similarities and differences and think we have achieved something. it's completely arbitrary. Ok, so Hiter was often beaten to a bloody pulp by his parents until he lost consciousness, suffered from impotency and other symptoms of unresolved abuse....maybe that is the special ingredient to make a tyrant ready to use state power to unlease his rage on people? Trump was taught by his father, a successful businessman how to negotiate, was not spanked and Trump does not spank his kids and is an excellent negotiator. The fact that media tries to put the two names in the same sentence, as well as put Trump /KKK in the same sentence and people try to 'analyize' it IS still the media controlling us. Trump has held positions and views and once he had more information, occassionaly changed those views despite it being inconvenient to certain niches. Why isn't that in the Hitler/Trump compare/contrast list? Hitler was a double-down type leader...surrounded by yes men. Trump even writes that he takes the BEST people from his competitors. He knows how to delegate. I have a friend who knows Carson personally and was part of his campaign. carson isn't in the public light so much but he has been sort of delegated by Trump to try to rally the people that Carson appeals to...the religious and the more PC conservatives. He knows how to use people's best quailities to the best of their abilities, he's not micromanaging them. I just don't see that in Hitler's profile. He had a network of horizontal peer-enforced obedience and discipline. I mean....if we want to compare.....then Hillary and the Clinton regime should come up in THAT compare/contrast. How many people who went up against them ended up dead? If someone isn't useful for Trump he just walks away....he doesn't seem to be the type or seems a bit too busy to dwell on it and use resources to go after them. He just lets them be and carries on. Even Clintons can't claim that and yet..media has us fixated on the Trump/Hitler Trump/KKK. very very clever Left media to protect Hillary. Why even entertain this garble? People use the same commonalities and the same difference and rely on confirmation bias or 'consensus' to feel validated to then go into hysterical panic as we see occuring on the streets in Chicago and other places. Hitler was a skiddish abused man child. Trump has actual confidence that came from a loving and productive childhood. Hitler's 'protectionism' was turning LEGAL citizens in his own country into targets and enemies of the state. Trump has a problem with citizens of other countries, entering illegal to suck off the welfare which is violence against the taxpayers of the US. So to even compare the two is a false equivilancy. His remarks from 'take the oil' he has said in expanded statements in the context that he disagreed long ago about the war in Iraq and once he realized Bush was going to do it anyway he said....it's a bad idea but if you are going to do it, then take the oil. He then explains why. because if you don't, then you are going to rouse of the hornets nest and when you leave...the new power force that fills the void will use the oil revenue to unleash unholy hell and he was exactly right. I struggle with this and finally realized why. I used to be Libertarian and am now Anarcho-capitalist and my bad habit was to try to implement 'free market free society' ideas on a STATIST world. And then nothing made sense and everyone was a tyrant and nothing was productive. The statist world is a mess and bad decisions are always made and worse decisions to counter those bad decisions are made BUT...Trump... knows how to minimize damage. This is something intuitive with his business experience and 4 bankruptcies out of 500 companies (.008 fail rate). That's why it's hard to process for us 'liberty minded'. In the matrix of a statist world and terrorism and agents of war not ordered by a head of state, then his suggestion to take the oil would have minimized or eliminated or prevented EVERYTHING we see going on today and all the terrible subsequent decisions and intervetions that occured after Iraq. I mean how is ISIS funding themselves now? From the oil Trump suggested to take. People make it seem like he pushed for Iraq and to take the oil. No. he was against it and new it would fail and to minimize tht damage from a bad decision he did not support he made a suggestion.
regevdl Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 For one, they both have funny hair. They are both authoritarian. They appeal to illusion of nationalism, and to victim hood tribalism (which I am convinced to be demagoguery). There are parallel in some of their policies. However, multiple people can fulfil some vague similarities, and that doesn't make them Hitler. Historical analogies are dangerous; a justification for the Iraq war was "Saddam is like Hitler", and a justification for ignoring the massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda was "it is not like the Holocaust". Historical analogies need to help us understand the present, not attempt to push our own conclusion; we need to realize analogies fail (otherwise they would be called 'identities') and two different phenomena are different. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that Trump was influenced to some extent by Hitler since he read the sequel to Mein Kampf and kept it near his bed for some time. This is the 3rd time I have heard the Mein Kampf comment from different people on different social venues. So that tells me this is some narrative being pushed. I don't know who knows what he has on Trump's nightstand and if he's going around in interviews commenting on what he has on his nightstand? I would like someone to fill me in because everytime I ask....I never receive an answer where this comes from and if this came from Trump himself. With that said. I know Israeli Jews who have read it and were given the book by the Holocaust survival grandparents....so? I mean that would make EVERY crime scene investigator a murderer by association since they study in GREAT detail the motives and techniques and patterns of murderers. Mein Kampf has been a GREAT tool to be now used as a protection device. Even if someone wanted to use the content of Hitler's motive in the same way Hitler did, then it will be countered with those who have read it to immediately recognize the tactc. People forget HOW many people have read it and now understand how the Germans were lulled and influenced and obedient and compliant. It's not like suddenly all the people who have read it and would never do arm are now 'deactivated' by the people who have read it and may want to try to be the next Hitler. That's how dillusional Hitler was.... he was so proud that he shared his method in order to gain fame and glory, in his mind. Trump....was raised in a peaceful home, grew up with success and help from his father to grow his own success and made him organically confident, therefore he doesn't need some psychotic manifesto because Trump...with or without the presidency IS someone unique and memorable (doesn't mean likable but can't deny memborable) throughout internationall and intergenerationally. Plus, Trump keeps his plans SEALED tight. He is planned and calculated but unpreditable. That makes some people uneasy and assume the worst about him but Hiter revealed his method to everyone for the glory but by doing that, he just disarmed himself (even after his death) from ANYONE willing or wanting to copy cat him.... so.... not even a success after his death. AGain...in the mindset of Hitler. If I think I am such a genius and I publish my methods and ideas that is to gain credibilty but also hoping it will create a world of other 'me's'. Trump doesn't need that nonesense.
Guest Gee Posted March 17, 2016 Posted March 17, 2016 You know..... If Trump has Mein Kampf and has read it and has been influenced by its ideas by virtue of knowing them then someone who knows Trumps ideas must be duly influenced by Trumps ideas by virtue of knowing them and by the transitive property must be influenced by Mein Kampf. 1
regevdl Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 You know..... If Trump has Mein Kampf and has read it and has been influenced by its ideas by virtue of knowing them then someone who knows Trumps ideas must be duly influenced by Trumps ideas by virtue of knowing them and by the transitive property must be influenced by Mein Kampf. And...that principle must be applied to every other thing this man has read or written. I am sure he has read a LOT of books that have influenced him on business or life or possibly parenting and yet since those aren't as sensational, it's not worth mentioning from a media perspective.
shirgall Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 Are people really saying that if you've read a book that you are forever beholden to its influence? How many of us have a friend that read Atlas Shrugged but are not objectivists? 2
Guest Gee Posted March 18, 2016 Posted March 18, 2016 And...that principle must be applied to every other thing this man has read or written. I am sure he has read a LOT of books that have influenced him on business or life or possibly parenting and yet since those aren't as sensational, it's not worth mentioning from a media perspective. True. Are people really saying that if you've read a book that you are forever beholden to its influence? How many of us have a friend that read Atlas Shrugged but are not objectivists? Funny you mention Atlas Shrugged, I just signed up for audible and started listening. The whole game seems to be to infect Trump with guilt. There was a speech that struck me as outrageously pertinent, I will find it shortly. ..... yes, I'm thinking of it too, I'm thinking of a certain tycoon who is in a position to blast us to pieces weather we will recover the pieces or not is hard to tell. God knows that is liable to happen at a hysterical time like the present. In a situation as delicate as this anything can throw anything off balance blow up the whole works and if there is anyone who wants to do it he does, he does and can. He knows the real issue, he knows the things which must not be said and he is not afraid to say them. He knows the one dangerous, fatally dangerous, weapon. He is our deadliest adversary. Who? Asked Lawson. Dr Ferris hesitated, shrugged and answered, the guiltless man. Lawson stated blankly, what do you mean and who are you talking about? James Taggert smiled. I mean that there is no way to disarm any man, said Dr Farris, except through guilt, through that which he himself has accepted as guilt. If a man has ever stolen a dime you can impose on him the punishment intended for a bank robber and he will take it, he'll bear any form of misery, he'll feel he deserves no better. If there is not enough guilt in the world we must create it, if we teach a man it is evil to look at spring flowers and he believes us, and then does it, we'll be able to do whatever we please with him. He won't defend himself, he won't feel he's worth it, he won't fight. Save us from the man who lives up to his own standards, save us from the man of clean concious, he's the man who will beat us. Well not a speech I suppose. Apologies for the grammar. It's from the scene where the filth are scheming upon the initiation of the memorandum on brains. (Just before they pass the law with the basic year bit).
regevdl Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 I don't know if this falls in line with the overall discussion but there is even contradictory viewpoints about media's perception of Trump. Some say the media hate him and some say the media loves him since they give him so much publicity and they say 'love' with equivilence to 'support' him. my argument on this is that they media loves him as much as a farmer loves the cow who provides profitable resource. The media can be nice or hateful towards Trump but either way profits from his face on their website/newspaper etc. Now, at the beginning, the media and especially debate moderators were completely out of line and unfair towards him, yet they were still rewarded with profits simply because he existed on their airwaves. He set very clear and strong standards and media abided. Why? Because they cannot afford him to BOYCOTT their news outlet. So it's more profitable for them to play by his rules so they still get the cash flow by being nice and playing fair. Same with the left media. They use honey to bring the bee. It's not a matter of them liking his ideas and policies but he already exempliefied how his high standard and unapologetic reasonable demands benefits EVERYONE. Because as I mentioned, the media profits from him Either way....so they might as well be respectful towards him so they don't 'scare' him off which will leave them with nothing. So, it's a win win. Hitler was a win-lose authoritarian all around.
Quinton Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 The best part is how the families and banks behind the media railing against Trump are the same families and banks who backed Hitler. So you basically have Nazis calling Trump a Nazi. The same way we had Jews attacking Jews in WWII. Strange...
Donnadogsoth Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 Prediction: The media has "jumped the shark" by calling Trump Hitler. They can't get any lower than that, unless there's a revealed Cosby-style Trump sex scandal (which we can be sure the MSM shovels are a-busy digging for). But, I think that by doing that, if he can shrug off those Hitler charges, if people see through them for what they are, malarky, then Trump will have defeated the MSM. They will have been broken, reduced into crawling into his camp and debating his issues, all while continuing to provide him with billions in earned media coverage.
regevdl Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 The best part is how the families and banks behind the media railing against Trump are the same families and banks who backed Hitler. So you basically have Nazis calling Trump a Nazi. The same way we had Jews attacking Jews in WWII. Strange... classic projection. The guilty party throwing red herrings and guilty projections at 'innocent bystanders' 1
Recommended Posts