Of whom does the following remind you?
A host of earlier biographers have advanced theories about Hitler’s rise, and the dynamic between the man and his times.
Some have focused on the social and political conditions in post-World War I Germany, which Hitler expertly exploited — a yearning for a return to German greatness; unemployment and economic distress; and longstanding ethnic prejudices and fears of “foreignization.”
Hmmm . . . “Make America great again,” anti-Muslim, build a wall. Now who is that?
Hitler as a politician who rose to power through demagoguery, showmanship and nativist appeals to the masses.
Hitler was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.”
Do demagoguery, showmanship and nativist appeals sound familiar? And which egomaniacal politician describes everything about himself as “incredible.”
What about this:
A former finance minister wrote that Hitler “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth” and editors of one edition of “Mein Kampf” described it as a “swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.”
Which politician not only lies the most of any in recent memory but repeatedly denies the incontrovertible evidence of lies?
Hitler was an effective orator and actor, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a “mask of moderation” when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies.
Which politician is a professional TV actor? Who boasts about huge rallies with thousands of cheering people?
Which politician breeds hatred of minorities?
He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.
Which politician yells “Get ’em outa here” when heckled? Which politician promises to enforce “law and order”?
Hitler increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead Germany to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans.
He often harked back to a golden age for the country, the better “to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay.”
Which politician repeatedly tells us we are losing to the Chinese, losing to the Mexicans, losing to the terrorists — losing, losing, losing — but is vague about plans (sometimes claiming they are “secret.”?)
Because the understanding of the masses “is feeble,” Hitler said, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be “persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”
Seen any political slogans printed on hats and repeated constantly in speeches, to remind the “feeble” masses?
Hitler’s rise was not inevitable. There were numerous points at which his ascent might have been derailed.
(But) in addition to economic woes and unemployment, there was an “erosion of the political center” and a growing resentment of the elites.
(There was) the belief of Hitler supporters that the country needed “a man of iron” who could shake things up. “Why not give the National Socialists a chance?” a prominent banker said of the Nazis. “They seem pretty gutsy to me.”
Does resentment of elites (aka “the establishment”) ring a bell? What about the need for change, to “shake things up”?
(Hitler’s) conservative coalition partners believed either that he was not serious or that they could exert a moderating influence on him.
Know of any politicians whose own party continues to try to moderate them? Was there speculation about any politicians not really being serious about running for President?
Hitler, it became obvious, could not be tamed.
The independent press was banned or suppressed and books deemed “un-German” were burned.
Think. Which American politician wants to sue the press for unflattering articles?
Germans believed, “It cannot happen here.” But, as the author asks . . .
What persuaded millions of ordinary Germans to embrace Hitler and his doctrine of hatred?
How did this “most unlikely pretender to high state office” achieve absolute power in a once democratic country and set it on a course of monstrous horror?
It happened in Germany. Actually, it has happened in many countries. People fundamentally are the same, everywhere, and everywhere they can be led like sheep to the slaughter by Hitlerian leaders.
Yes, it can happen here. It, in fact, is happening here, right in front of our noses.
Don’t believe, even for one second, that we are immune.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012
Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.
The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
17 thoughts on “Astounding similarities: Hitler in America. It’s happening now.”
Extremely disturbing parallels. God help us all if Trump is elected. The failure of our politicians, especially the Republicans, to see the depth and breadth of the danger that Trump represents is going to come back to bite them.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that I support Hillary. She is as evil as Trump, just in a different way. She is likely to lead us into a shooting war with
Russia that could lead to the use of tactical battlefield nukes. And, that would be the end of us all.
The psychologist Erich Fromm published a book back in the ’60’s called Escape from Freedom, which posited that people will accept authoritarian leaders because, among other reasons, it is easier to follow the dictates of such a leader than it is to think through the ethical and moral dilemmas that we face. Such authoritarianism also provides the desired security that is so difficult to achieve in a volatile and oppressive economy such as ours.
Interesting that you feel Clinton has a war image. She was just as Secretary of State, serving at the pleasure of Obama. She followed his lead.
Does Obama have a war image?
IIRC, it was Obama who moderated Hillary’s call for more troops on the ground in Syria. I do know that Hillary has called for a no-fly zone over Syria, which would be tantamount to a declaration of war on Russia. See this: https://twitter.com/Syricide/status/779475480596578304 for example.
Hillary was also instrumental in the Libya (not Benghazi) debacle. How do you see her comment about Gaddafi “We came, we saw, he died” with a laugh? What about the efforts of Victoria Nuland, who worked with Hillary, in the coup that overthrew the elected leader of the Ukraine, leading to civil war there? Hillary is also the one who approved arms sales to Saudi Arabia which is using those weapons against the Yemeni people and destroying their country, leading to some 2.8 million citizens starving or nearly so.
Of course Obama made the final decisions, but do you really see Hillary as just a follower with no influence on the direction of our foreign policy? That was her job.
And, what about the broad support she enjoys from the neo-con community of foreign policy war hawks?
In answer to your last question, I don’t think Obama has a war image, but that’s just due to public relations. He is only slightly less interested in using war to promote regime change than Hillary. (Actually, I think he should return his Peace Prize.)
Rodger, I understand that you fear Trump more than Hillary; I do, too. He’s almost certain to screw up many more aspects of our economy and society than she is. But that doesn’t mean that her words and actions in support of various wars should be overlooked or minimized.
The U.S. has been on a war footing since Roosevelt. It’s part of our cowboy culture.
Carter was a dove. Think of how he’s viewed.
Doves are considered “weak” by the electorate. Americans prefer strong, aggressive, warlike leaders. It’s hard to blame Clinton for being what Americans really want (though some may claim otherwise).
Trump’s attraction is based wholly on being tough with everyone and everything. That Clinton is less a hawk than Trump is a good thing, I believe, and not a criticism.
Do you know of any American doves?
Do you mean other than you and me? Damn few. It’s our cowboy culture on top of American exceptionalism that could be our downfall in this respect.
I am not criticizing Hillary in comparison to Trump. She is certainly far more level-headed than he is and that is immensely important. My criticism of her stands on its own. Hillary could lead us into war as a calculated risk, which means she could also be persuaded not to do so. Trump could start a shooting war just because someone insulted him, especially a nuclear conflict since the President can launch our missiles before Congress can even call a meeting. Can you imagine his response if Pres. Duterte of the Philippines said the same thing to him that he said to Obama? Very scary!
Insanity or stupidity: You make the call. More States Passing Laws Allowing Firearms Without Permits
Was it in “Peanuts”? “We have seen the enemy, and he is us”
Trump is no hitler. Trump is a showman, Hitler was deadly dangerous and he had plans. Trump has none.
It was in “Pogo” by Walt Kelly, published on Earth Day, 1971.
ah yes. I’d forgotten about Pogo.Thanks.
“Trump is no hitler. Trump is a showman,”
That is exactly what the German people thought. In the beginning, they laughed at him — called him the “Bohemian Corporal.”
Ha ha ha. He doesn’t mean what he says. It’s all just showmanship.
Ha ha ha. He won’t really put the opposition in jail.
Ha ha ha. He won’t really build the wall and deport 11 million people.
Ha ha ha. He won’t really bar all Muslims from America.
Ha ha ha. He won’t really use nukes on Isis.
It’s all just showmanship. He doesn’t really deny climate change. He doesn’t really think he knows more than our generals.
All he’ll do is “shake up the establishment,” like our democratic form of government.
It’s all just a joke. I’m going to vote for him because he doesn’t mean anything he says. That makes me smart.
We’ll have to wait and see, won’t we? But yes, it’s mostly showmanship, and since it’s doing well, why would he change tack now and shoot himself in the foot? Whether or not he reinvents himself after the election he’s obviously not saying and has no need to yet.
So vote for me. I’ll bomb Russia and China, deport all white Christians, put young girls into my harem, and arrest everyone whose name begins with a “C.”
Actually, I’m lying.I don’t mean what I say I’m just a “stone in the shoe.”
Aren’t those perfect reasons for electing me?.
By the way, I just received this Email:
If you hurry, you can get your name on the wall along with the other suckers.
It’s really gotten to you hasn’t it! What a muddle.
BTW did you see what Maureen Dowd said in the NYT?
Whether you live in America or not, you should be terrified at the thought of a Donald Trump presidency. It should “really get to you,” too.
Of all things in your world you consider important, this should be fairly high on your list.
No, I’m much more worried about a Clinton POTUS.
It probably will resemble the Obama POTUS — you know, the one that brought us out of the Republican’s Great Recession, and has grown the economy, reduced unemployment and unlike the Bush regime, did not get us into a major war.
Now tell me again what the Trump administration will do aside from use nukes on ISIS, bar Muslims, build a wall, deport 11 million immigrants, and demonstrate it “knows more than the generals.” Or, perhaps you like the fact that Trump uses hundreds of thousands of dollars of “charity money” to settle personal debts.
Or is “shake up the country” what you’re looking for?
As a respondent on another site said “a kick up the bum”