Toblerone

Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

▼

Bush Admin. students of Nazi propaganda tactics?

all systems are the same, they just use a different name

from JoeUser Forums
The quote speaks for itself:
politics
70,959 views 213 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
But again you miss his point. Once you resort to inflamatory rhetoric and specious comparisons, you have not only lost all hope of making a point, you have defeated your own purpose.


Does "liberals are anti-Christians?" ring any bells?
Who said what about black kettles and glass houses? Sheesh............

In short, the only ones you impress with your arrogant idiocy is yourself.


Obviously, the only arrogance you don't perceive as such is when it's righty based. None of what you said here is even remotely on topic. It's just bashing me. So get the hell real, and practice what you preach.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Daiwa:
And that idea is insane. To pretend they are looking to Goering for "wisdom" is psychotic at best.


Well the idea of Bush himself looking to Goering would be insane yes, because he can't read (I'm just kidding) but someone else in his cubby house might. Actually my point of posting the quote (which you might notice I hadn't actually commented on, so any opinion you attritute to me is pure speculation based on the headline) was simple to point out the similarity in propaganda tactics. I wrote an inflamatory headline so people would visit, so sue me. While we are at it though is there any reason why a bunch of well educated people with an agenda WOULDN'T use a propaganda tactic, Nazi or not, to their advantage? Would that be sane knowing politicians as we do? Do you live in a world where politicians don't try to sway public opinion using every trick in the book?(If so what drugs do I have to take to get there?) It isn't exactly an original idea, being manipulative in this way has been around for centuries. The Nazi may have used this tactic but it is a safe bet they weren't the first and they won't be the last. Really accusing people of not being patriotic is just a sort of "divide and conquer" tactic, the difference is it is aimed at making an uneven divide in favour of the crowd that support you.

Dear Andrew J. Brehm oh sarcastic one, the point of posting the quote was to point similarity in propaganda tactics not to say that Bushco is an exact replica of Hitlerco, I hope you enjoyed writing that essay though.

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

Err no, a quiet disagreement doesn't not lose elections, hell not even a loud one does (remember the demostrations, opinion poles etc) Only a majority disagreement loses elections and that is exactly what the tactic is meant to deal with*cue mock scharmyness* you see everyone that knows something about democracy knows that. The whole idea is that people can be brought around after the fact and go "that was a great idea all along, even though I opposed it before we went to war now I think it just peachy *grin*". Fascists still need the support of their troops by the way, they aren't magic you know, the fear has to come from somewhere, namely people with guns, and if the people with guns don't like you you're in deep shit. "Viva la revolution!"

The quote by the way is actually an drastically abridged version of a conversation between Goering and his shrink and Goering's shrink brings up the same arguement as you as seen below.

Goering:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Goering's shrink:
]"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering:

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."



You can check out the full story at the urban legends reference (this quote is rated as true) at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Zinkadoodle,

"I tend not to really compare the Bush administration to Nazism and Hitler, but rather to its similarities to the concept of fascism, in general."

what exactly is the "concept of fascism" as opposed to "Nazism and Hitler"?

You might be under the impression that stating that Bush's policies compare to the gasing of several million people is a position that "remotely hints of dissent from the dubya administration practices". But if you are, you will never be able to convince anybody. The position you appear to defend is ridiculous at best and contempt for the victims of fascism at worst.

And if you believe that a president who holds an MBA and who can fly an aircraft (and land it on an aircraft carrier?) is a "joke", then I'm afraid you will find very few people who qualify as serious using your standards.

Your answer to Moderateman's remark again shows that you seem to have no idea what fascism actually is. How can we take your statements seriously?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Obviously, the only arrogance you don't perceive as such is when it's righty based. None of what you said here is even remotely on topic. It's just bashing me. So get the hell real, and practice what you preach.

See?  Your own arrogance prevents you from taking advice from someone not a sheeple.  You still have not addressed the point and instead just used useless rhetortic to justify your own indefensible position.

What I said was all on topic.  You just dont like the way the topic is going.  That is your problem, not mine.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

You can check out the full story at the urban legends reference (this quote is rated as true) at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm[/quote]

The funny part of the quote, is that this article and your insistance upon it can also be viewed in the same light.

My original statement stands.  If you cannot comeup with valid reasons, and not hyperbole, to justify your position, you have lost.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Err no, a quiet disagreement doesn't not lose elections, hell not even a loud one does (remember the demostrations, opinion poles etc) Only a majority disagreement loses elections and that is exactly what the tactic is meant to deal with*cue mock scharmyness* you see everyone that knows something about democracy knows that."

Why can a majority disagreement not be quiet?

In a democracy, the majority makes the ruler, not the loudest faction. That is exactly what makes a democracy different from a fascist system.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
And if you believe that a president who holds an MBA and who can fly an aircraft (and land it on an aircraft carrier?) is a "joke", then I'm afraid you will find very few people who qualify as serious using your standards.


An MBA and the ability to fly a plane says absolute nothing about the man's character. You are right though, he isn't a joke, the fact a man like that is running an entire country isn't funny at all. Than god I'm Australian...no wait our PM sucks as well, DAMN!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why can a majority disagreement not be quiet?

In a democracy, the majority makes the ruler, not the loudest faction. That is exactly what makes a democracy different from a fascist system.


Well you're the one that started talking about volume and not proportions when obviously it is the latter that makes the difference. Again I'm not saying that democracies are EXACTLY like fascist regimes just that they both use similar tactics when swaying public opinion.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

An MBA and the ability to fly a plane says absolute nothing about the man's character. You are right though, he is a joke, the fact a man like that is running an entire country isn't funny at all. Than god I'm Australian...no wait our PM sucks as well, DAMN!

Kind of hard to gloat when we are sitting in the same Boat.  I like your PM.  Hence why I dont trash him. (altho I know he has flaws as well).

BTW, the first part I do agree with.  But I think Bush's character has survived the test of time and liberal rhetoric.  Including the lame (yes lame) nazi comparison.  if you want to debate his character, do so.  Dont use something that has no bearing or is easily transferable to you as well.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Including the lame (yes lame) nazi comparison.

As far as I can tell it was only a lame comparison because I chose the Nazis. If I had picked similar quote from a member of what ever party runs Micronesia everyone would be happy I suppose? And Micronesia has such sex appeal too, I regret missing that boat!
The point was not who had used the tactic but the tactic itself, I made the mistake of writing a eyecatching suductive headline and everyone is focusing on that rather than the quote and recent events. I thought the quote spoke for itself but apparently people have to be lead by the hand to see the comparison even with Dubya say stuff along the lines of "You either with us or against us."


I like your PM.


Well you can have him then. Do you actually know anything about him other than he's Bush's lap dog?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

The point was not who had used the tactic but the tactic itself, I made the mistake of writing a eyecatching suductive headline and everyone is focusing on that rather than the quote and recent events. I thought the quote spoke for itself but apparently people have to be lead by the hand to see the comparison even with Dubya say stuff along the lines of "You either with us or against us."

And you used the same tactis.  does that make you a nazi?

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well you can have him then. Do you actually know anything about him other than he's Bush's lap dog?

Yes thanks to Champas and PB.  And Fox news.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Why are we talking about Gulf War 1 now, that's a different kettle of fish my friend."


LMAO, urm... no it isn't. Iraq was not a nation at 'peace', Iraq was a nation functioning under the terms of a cease-fire that they VIOLATED time and time and time again. The reason he was 'contained' was because of his actions during the Gulf War.

I'm sure you'd LOVE for everyone to forget WHY Hussein was functioning under sanctions and MILITARY containment. I'm sure you'd LOVE for us to forget that Iraq wasn't just a sleepy little nation being bullied, rather than an oppressive regime that threatened his neighbors. That would make us appear to be attacking without provocation, instead of accepting his rejection of the cease-fire and going BACK to war.

Sorry, people don't forget so easily. I remember him thwarting the terms of peace and firing on our aircraft over and over again. I remember him working with China to upgrade his anti-aircraft batteries using fiber-optics equipment that the Clinton adminstration mediated the sale of.

Your propaganda relies much much more on ignorance than any the US government cranks out. Ignorance of Hussein, ignorance of what he had done, and what he was ready, willing, and soon-to-be-able to do, given that France, Germany, and China were poised to rearm him with vigor the moment sanctions ended.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyway, I thought you guys learned during the last Democratic fiasco (i.e. "election"), that comparing Bush or his administration's tactics to Nazis was asinine and just made Bush-haters look more insensitive and ignorant? I think so. Who's horrors do you want to hijack next? Maybe you can find a quote by Atilla the Hun or Idi Amin or something.

Would be just a relevant. My question would be "Why are we talking about the Iraq war now..."? You have some way of turning back time and stopping it? Or would you prefer us to abandon the Iraqi people?
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Toblerone,

let me ask you something. A very simple question. But I find it an important question:

Why do you assume that Goering was right?

Looking at Germany's history, which part exactly made you think that Goering was right and his shrink was wrong?
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The sum total of your contribution to the original article was, "The quote speaks for itself." So don't get your knickers in a wad if we fail to comprehend what you "meant." How anyone could compare what's happening here to fascism is beyond comprehension, anyway. You want to throw bombs from Down Under, feel free, but be careful to look down... your ignorance is showing. Disagreeing with policies & decisions is fine. Offering alternative constructive ideas is fine. But this is stupid. Sorry, it just is.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is just another "Bush is Hitler" picket sign in the guise of some moralist sermon. It just shows that Nazis or anyone functioning at any level of evil could get a standing ovation from the Left as long as they can use them as a weapon.

To me, the ideal-less propaganda tactics, the "Lying for Truth", the 'political gains at all costs' behavior of the Left around the world looks a lot more like Nazi tactics. Hitler posed as a socialist, too, pretending to defend people from warmongers and the evil threats of world powers.

How wonderful that these folks can be distracted from the horrors of a nation just because both parties hate the US. How wonderful that Arab nations that behead and torture get a free ride from moralists because they happen to be on the 'right' side of this conflict. How nice that China can continue torturing and abusing and threatening just because everyone is so distracted by their irrational hate of Bush.

Who's to say that Toblerone isn't the one carrying the fear-mongering, despot promoting message? Who's to say a hundred up-and-coming Hitlers all around the world aren't laughing themselves sick over the fact that they have so many well-meaning people carrying their hateful message against their one major opponent?

Shameful.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

You want to throw bombs from Down Under, feel free, but be careful to look down... your ignorance is showing. Disagreeing with policies & decisions is fine. Offering alternative constructive ideas is fine. But this is stupid. Sorry, it just is.

Daiwa, why do you try to reason with those who lose before the debate is even begun?  If someone is going to use Nazis as their argument, they lost before they uttered their second syllable.

Your post is a great one, just wasted on a wasted article.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

#17 by zinkadoodle
Sunday, June 19, 2005





because someone holds a differing opinion doesn't mean they are stupid, ill informed, brainwashed, or Nazis.


In this case, we're merely pointing out the similarities. You don't like it, tough shit. Just calling a spade a spade.


Knock off the swearing and personal attacks. I can promise you will not enjoy the outcome.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Knock off the swearing and personal attacks. I can promise you will not enjoy the outcome.


For cryin' out loud, the personal attacks were not made by me. And, I forgot...... only you are allowed to swear. Are you saving all of my posts now, the way you saved dabe's? I sure hope this site's admininstrators don't buy into your extremely hypocritical bs. Oops, forgot again. You have a patent on the "bs" shortcut. Dammmmmmmmmmm.................
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa, why do you try to reason with those who lose before the debate is even begun? If someone is going to use Nazis as their argument, they lost before they uttered their second syllable.

I don't think if I had a attributed the quote to someone else you would be any happy. You're just annoyed that I'm pointing out the manipulative tactic of your government (it was also used by mine) which for some odd reason you seem to love. Really the only reason why I used a quote from a Nazi was because that just happened to be where the quote came from. If I found a similar quote from King Henry just as a random example I would have used it. Have you ever seen compare Bushco to Nazi before? You may have seen it from other lefties but not me.

I don't think Bushco is exactly like the Nazis I AM JUST POINTING OUT THE SIMILARITY CONCERNING SWAYING PUBLIC OPINION.

I'm shouting because everyone seems to be ignoring that and going with "he's just another leftie compare Bush to Nazis" line. That is a lame arguement in my view. Not one of you have directly refuted the comparison (which could have been to anyone) which leads me to believe I've touched on a sore point otherwise you would not be so narky about it.

The sum total of your contribution to the original article was, "The quote speaks for itself." So don't get your knickers in a wad if we fail to comprehend what you "meant."


Well you could have discussed the quote in relation to events rather than just attacking me, champas and the fact I just happened to use Nazis as a comparison. I have never compared Bush to a Nazi in my life, but I happened to see a similarity between the tactic mentioned in the quote and his rhetoric. Saying an idea is insane isn't an actual arguement. Attacking someone is a just a lazy way of arguing and usually the resort of people who CAN'T actually form an arguement to support their view. All you had to say was something along the lines of "Bush has never accused anyone of being unpatriotic or even made the implication" and that would have been more than what you attempted in terms of a rubuttal.



Toblerone,

let me ask you something. A very simple question. But I find it an important question:

Why do you assume that Goering was right?

Looking at Germany's history, which part exactly made you think that Goering was right and his shrink was wrong?


Well the Nazis managed to get a lot of the German people behind them it is as simple as that. He was right because the same thing has happened in Austrlia, UK and the US when the leaders tried to get people behind the war. All these leaders used the fictious WMDs, and supposed connection to Al Queda to try to instill fear in the people. Anytime someone (the opposition party here for example) opposed sending troops or wanted to bring troops back they were accused of not supporting the troops and not being unpatriotic. In fact the government doesn't even have to do the latter because once they made up a threat the people who believe it will often automatically shout about unpatriotism.

I have an essay to write now. Bye.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again the JU Right fails to engage in actual debate, preferring to resort to infantile tactics of "You called me Hitler, you called me Hitler!!", which was not at all what Toblerone did. You all kepp rabbiting on about the killing of the Jews. This quote is nothing at all to do with the atrocities committed by Hitler, it has only to do with rhetorical and propagandfist techniques. It is a debate about language.

Before I go on, Daiwa, apology accepted. It was not after all your fault.

Saying that Bush and his mob have used a rhetorical technique that was identified by Goering is not in any way saying that he is a Nazi. I have written quite a lot about former Australian PM Paul Keating's use of techniques that were identified in Aristotle's Rhetorica Addendum. This does not mean that Keating believes in the superiority of homosexuality, nor does it mean that he believes that only the intellectual elites should govern (Keating never completed high school). Many of the Ancient Greeks believed that, but that is a separate issue. Only a fool would enter politics without studying Aristotle's study of rhetorical techniques. They provide valuable tips on how to convince people of anything.

Have an actual look at the quote, rather than making all sorts of jumps that Toblerone never made. Goering is making an observation about how countries manage to justify war to their people. Being an astute observer, he used the same tactics in justifying the killing of the Jews. But Goering's own statement implies that he is not the first or the last to use these tactics. They are the same in every country according to him. Goering's statement implies that the same tactics were even used by Churchill and Menzies and Curtin etc. Whether his observation is correct is a matter for debate as he does little to substantiate the claim here.

Using the same propaganda techniques as Goering does not even mean that GW2 was unjustified. If I wanted to convince a nation of pacifists to go to a war that I believed to be just, surely I would do well to study how previous world leaders had convinced a nation to go to war. The Nazi propaganda machine were a very clever bunch of people. They understood the power of language very well. Bush's men are perhaps equally intelligent.

This has nothing to do with whether the War was justified or not. I believe removing Saddam was a good goal. I don't believe Bush made the case for it very well, but only in the sense that he did not put forward arguments that would convince me. His tactics convinced many others. So let's for a second leave aside what the real reason for war was and assume that the goal of the Iraq war was to save millions of lives. Is it ethical to use rhetorical techniques that were once used by the Nazis? Is it ethical to lie in order to convince people to fight a war that will save lives? You may not believe that he was lying, but the question still remains, is it ethical?

Personally I don't think it is. I expect politicians to lie, but in the case of war I think they need to be truthful. But others would argue that my naivety, my belief that the truth will convince people to fight for justice would be the ruin of millions of lives.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the contrary, Champas, many of us have made many points besides pointing out the sad tendancy of the Left to equate their opponents to Nazis.

YOU have chosen to deal with the parts you find easiest to address... kind of like what you are accusing us of. You can dwell all you like on what you consider to be lies, but Hussein violated a cease-fire he agreed to after the Gulf War. He attempted to thwart sanctions, he fired on our aircraft.

The only people who felt we needed all this WMD junk were people who were so soft on Hussein that he NEEDED to gas half of us to death for us to grow a backbone and remove him from power. Oh, and those where were making billions from propping his evil regime back up.

Oh, and the ones that were ready to start selling him all the arms he wanted again once sanctions fell...

You guys keep on with your "Abandon the Iraqi People!!" campaign. I hope it serves you as well as it always has.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

The only people who felt we needed all this WMD junk were people who were so soft on Hussein that he NEEDED to gas half of us to death for us to grow a backbone and remove him from power. Oh, and those where were making billions from propping his evil regime back up.


What does that have to do with comparing Bush's rhetoric to Goerings? Nothing, stick to the topic.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
I should make an amendment to one of my comments I said no one was discussing the topic at hand without bringing up the fact that I used a Nazi quote. ParaTed did manage to seperate the Nazi thing from the topic, sorry Para, good stuff.