Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Radicalism of Rigidity

What makes an idea, an ideology, a politician or a political party too extreme or too radical? The language of left, right, and center applied to politics reinforces a misapprehension that there is a linear measure against which any idea or politician can be measured to determine whether they are extreme or “centrist”. But dangerous radicalism can raise its head anywhere along the mythic spectrum, as can worthy concepts.

In great works of art, it is the interplay of darkness and light, of bright colors and muted tones which lend to their wholeness and beauty. Some masterpieces are dark, others light, but regardless of where the overall tone of the piece lies, it is the variation within it which give it meaning and make it work for the viewer. And so it is with politics. Ideas are our color pallet, society's institutions, whether government or private, are our paintbrushes. No idea by itself is too dangerous, but any idea over applied with rigid fanaticism will likely have bad results. It doesn't matter whether the idea comes from Karl Marx, Milton Friedman, John Locke, Adam Smith, or John Keynes; rigidity and the unbending application of any narrow set of precepts to solve every problem is dangerous and almost always bound to have disastrous, even if unintended, results.

I am unabashedly liberal, and by some accounts in certain areas - extremely so. But I recognize that truth can come from anywhere, and I KNOW that certain conservative ideas have far too much merit to be ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because they are conservative. I'm a big believer in using a full pallet in painting our democracy. Let's work together and see what works, don't be afraid to try new ideas, or to mix old ideas in new combinations. As they say the devil is in the details, and reasonable people will disagree with each other on how to proceed. I wouldn't presume in a single article to provide THE answer to solving our problems. What I will suggest with some confidence is that we should be wary of those who prescribe adherence to a rigid agenda in addressing those problems. And rigid agendas can come not only from the far right or far left, but can just as easily come from the center, from libertarians, neoliberals, neoconservatives, etc. etc.

A recurring theme in my criticism of the Bush administration has been that it's not how far right they are, it's how far wrong they are. Well, my belief is that what has been so wrong is precisely that rigidity in applying a narrow set of precepts, from a canned set of talking points to every policy on every front. When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Monday in this column, Paul Siegel wrote a commentary arising from his reaction to the coal mining tragedy in Utah, in which he attacked the rigidity of the popular ideology which holds sacred the primacy of the free market in determining government policy. I remember being struck by how "on target" the piece was, only to discover how utterly repulsed some readers were by that article, declaring disgust and an inclination to vomit because of it. Upon rereading the article, I understood better this reaction, and realized that Paul and his commenters approached the subject with different understanding of the particulars of this case (and I think the exposure of the those particulars will largely vindicate Paul), but also see that Paul erred in implying that the rigidity he attacks might be applied generally to all conservatives. I'm confident that Paul would agree with me that such is not the case, but rather that the talking points of the conservative movement in this country over the last three decades, as encapsulated in the commentary of such ideologues as Rush Limbaugh, do attempt to prescribe such dangerous rigidity.

Limbaugh in fact is a master at exploiting the misapprehension I spoke of at the beginning of this article in leading his listeners to assumptions about the reasonableness of some ideas and solutions as opposed to the "radicalness" of others. People on the left are just as guilty of the same technique and honestly that bothers me just as much. But let's look again at some of Paul's specific language to see why his suggestions are in fact the moderate ones. In his key summary paragraph, Paul acknowledges that "Ownership, free markets and self-reliance are all good." That statement certainly does not come from the radical left. He goes on to say "But they must be modified occasionally. Ownership cannot get anywhere without people to do the work. Free markets must be regulated for the interest of the average person. Self-reliance must yield to working as a community for the common good." In other words, Paul wants us to use a full pallet of ideas in working out solutions that - well - work! Now some were offended that Paul put words into the mouths of conservatives in parodying the rigidity which he and I see have dominated the conservative movement, but for many movement conservatives those words are all too close to what they are trying to imbue into the conservative American psyche. When someone in all seriousness comments that "If the government has no power to regulate the economy, their(sic) is no corruption", it is evident that in many cases they have succeeded in implanting such rigid thinking.

Posted by Walker Willingham at August 22, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #230354

All there is in the middle of the road,is a yellow line,and a dead armadillo.

Posted by: the libertine at August 22, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment #230365

Political philosophies based on dark and wrong asumptions produce policies that are also dark and wrong. They are never beneficial,they are always destructive. One popular asumption is that war is the natural state of mankind. Another is the “greed is good” crap spewed by Rand et al.Malthusion economics is another millstone keeping us from a better world.Lending these ideas credence for the sake of commity is near suicidal.

Posted by: BillS at August 23, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #230375

Well I scarcely mean to suggest that all or even most ideas are equally meritorious. I would agree that policies arising from some bad ideas are indeed dark and destructive, even without having to be applied rigidly. But judging an idea strictly based on its perceived position along some axis between “conservative and liberal” or “authoritarian and libertarian” is something that most of us engage in far too often, and we would be well served to be wary of that tendency. That is a primary thrust of my message here, and I’m sticking to it. I’d also be wary of dismissive platitudes against the center, libertine. Assuming that all centrist positions represent a mushy middle, just because some of them do is just as wrong-headed as believing that centrism = moderation = reasonableness.

Assessing the true merits of any proposition requires us to set aside these one-dimensional prejudices, and look at actual effects and outcomes.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 23, 2007 3:00 AM
Comment #230380


Quite right. I often rail against partisanship, but what I mean is what you mean. Too often we let party or ideology guide our thoughts and reactions, instead of our reason. We don’t concede valid points because we fear losing a rhetorical edge. We close our minds if we see that an argument might go against what we are supposed to think.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 23, 2007 9:23 AM
Comment #230431

Walker said: “No idea by itself is too dangerous”

BullCrap, a myriad of ideas are dangerous. Let me give you two. 1) Slavery. Slavery has revolt and civil disorder built into the very rudiment of the idea. Making it very dangerous, not just for the slaves exploited and mistreated, but, eventually for the enslavers as well. 2) Racism. Same principle; as in anti-semitism practiced in Nazi Germany. Extremely dangerous for millions of persons murdered as a result.

Adam Smiths ideas laid down in Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations were pure unadulterated Genius. And therein lies the problem with Adam Smith. Few can grasp the breadth and comprehensiveness and relationship between his two monumental philosophical and psychological works. Thus, Adam Smith’s ideas have never been implemented as conceived by or intended by Adam Smith.

I have yet to meet an MBA who has ever read Theory of Moral Sentiments in college, which contains one half of Adam Smith’s ideas regarding the interface between human psychology and economics. Trying to setup an economic system based solely on Wealth of Nation’s has lead to the heartless and dispassionate ‘trickle down’ and ‘supply side’ distortions of his works by Republicans, for example.

We don’t know if Adam Smith’s ideas and understandings would work, because they have never been implemented fully and comprehensively, because those controlling power have either never read his two volume work, or, having read it, found it over their heads to synthesize the two halves.

A similar argument can be made for Marxism, except, that Marx’s ideas were far less complex, and easier to grasp in their entirety, and therefore have been tried in microcosm in various places around the world, like China’s co-op farming (a disaster), and some communes in the 1960’s and 1970’s with very mixed results and only a few dozen ever having survived the experiment and that within a Mixed Macro-Economy in the U.S.

But, Walker’s implied central point is valid, even the best of ideologies must be adapted and modified to fit reality and changing circumstances, as they depart from the underlying assumptions about reality made by the author of the ideology. This is no less true of Adam Smith’s ideas as Karl Marx’s, since reality today is remarkably different in significant ways from Smith’s and Marx’s reality 300 and 100 years ago.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 23, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #230451

Thanks for returning to my central point - and acknowledging it AS my central point. After BillS comment I was already regretting my “no idea by itself is too dangerous” phrase. I suppose I could defend it semantically by suggesting the idea of slavery briefly floating around in someone’s head BY ITSELF is not dangerous, or that in order to understand the brutality and utter wrongness of slavery, one must first deal with the idea of it. But you and BillS are correct to point out that there are some truly awful ideas which are not worthy of consideration of being implemented by human beings. I absolutely concede that point. That said, some people who have advocated awful ideas have also entertained some good ones, so it is worth being careful in the arena of ideas to avoid the condemnation by association tendency.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 23, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #230576

Walker said: “so it is worth being careful in the arena of ideas to avoid the condemnation by association tendency.”

Now that there is truly profound and fundamentally accurate as wisdom. As much as I have opposed the presidency of GW Bush, he has managed to accomplish a few fundamentally good things. Cutting taxes in 2001 to address the recession was absolutely appropriate and produced the results intended, a short lived Recession. His decision to invade Afghanistan to destroy the regime that fostered and hosted the 9/11 terrorist’s plans, was resounding supported and approved of as appropriate policy implementation.

Einstein, a brilliant genius in the area of physics, was a complete boob when it came to public policy and politics of his day (Nazi Germany excepted). In psychology education it is a basic proof that stereotyping is a basic survival mechanism and universal among many species including humans. But, as you appropriately point out, stereotyping for fast fight or flight survival decisions can be counterproductive and inefficient when it comes learning, filtering, and processing information of a more cerebral nature.

To discount anything GW Bush says, or John Kerry or Al Gore for that matter, solely on the basis that one didn’t like what they have said in the past, is a barrier to potentially useful and productive information, which each of these persons is capable and at times do put forth.

Your warning and caution is wise indeed, and is a fairly accurate signpost of whether or not a person is educated intellectually or not based on the extent to which they block out information based solely on a prejudged source of that information. Cerebral stereoptying truly is the root of bigotry and prejudice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 24, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #230618

David R. Remer- I am immensely impressed just by
seeing Adam Smiths name brought up let alone being
applied in a discussion. You an Walker Should get
together and combine Smiths works into one Novel.
Thank you an Walker for your constructive an
informative posts.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 24, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #230667

-David-, thanks for your comments. My problem with your suggestion though is that there is no substitute for reading Adam Smith. We have become a Cliff Note society, asking for the bottom line and spare me the details. The genius of Adam Smith is in the painstaking details, which he uses to maximize the strength of his conclusions, via a process of establishing premises and logical conclusions which form the premises for the next tier of conclusions, etc. etc. finally culminating in the ‘bottom line’ conclusions which are conditioned on a tightly defined set of assumptions and premises.

If any of those painstakingly defined premises no longer exist in society 300 years hence, the viability of his ‘bottom line’ conclusions must be called into question, and must be reworked to accommodate reality, now different from that of his day, which he used as premises, or assumptions, for logical conclusions and prescriptions.

Example: Smith goes into great detail to examine the psychology of empathy, charity, and greed which in his time and circumstance, could rectify suffering and destitution in the early colonies where population was concentrated into relatively small numbers of communities and common values were a prerequisite for survival in the colonial wilderness. Thus, he laid down the argument and defense for the Eelymosynary System of charity, (private charity), which could and largely did address suffering and destitution in close knit communities where, relative wealth could not avoid direct contact with suffering and destitution, and whose act of ignoring it, would cause diminution of the wealthy person’s stature in the community.

Today, wealthy persons spend a fair amount of their wealth expressly to remove and secure themselves from contact with want, need, suffering and destitution, which can pose a real threat to the wealthy in the acts of kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and blackmail, and UNLESS the Media forces the wealthy into contact with it, on TV News or Newspaper and Blog headlines, the wealthy will not have even the opportunity to gaze upon, and be forced to reflect upon, the suffering and destitution in their sphere of influence, let alone be moved by consequences to social standing for failure to act charitably.

This difference today, that the diminution of social status in the community which Adam Smith so adroitly details as a reality of Colonial life in response to IGNORING suffering and destitution, is crucial. 99.9% of the people in this country haven’t a clue which wealthy persons donate to charity and which don’t, or to which charities, if any. Hence, today, there is no social loss in reputation to be addressed by the wealthy for the act of ignoring the suffering and destitution in their society and community which they are also likely never even to see or face up close, unless the MEDIA forces it upon the whole culture as in the case of Katrina.

Hence, the premises and conclusions of Adam Smiths’ prescription for the Eelymosynary system of charity which relies on social conscience and consequence to motivate the relief of most suffering and destitution in society, breaks down and fails to work by the post Civil War era of Industrialization. By the 1930’s the people in Appalachia were on the verge of being left a century behind in education, language, culture, and economic opportunity largely due to their entire lack of electricity infrastructure, and the poverty and destitution and uncivilized behaviors (Hatfield’s & McCoy’s) could not, and would not be addressed by the Eelymosynary system effective in Adam Smith’s day.

FDR, recognizing this, and the potential costs and consequences of leaving Appalachian people in the 17th century as the rest of the nation moved toward the 21st, created the Tennessee Valley Authority to bring electrical power, communications, and modern commerce, and exposure to modern culture, to the people of Appalachia.

Conservatives still today denounce FDR’s actions as creating an era of socialism in America. But, the irony is, Republicans defend their position using Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation’s ‘Invisible Hand’ to defend their criticism, failing to recognize that Adam Smith himself, would have acknowledged in the 20th century, that his Invisible Hand solution to raising up the quality of life for all of society would not work anywhere near as effectively in the 20th century, precisely because what was true of Colonial Society and Moral Sentiments commonly regarded amongst middling and upper class folk of the 17th Century was in large part no longer valid in the 20th Century. Hence the absolute necessity of Economists to read and understand Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is the foundation for his work Wealth of Nations.

The validity of saying Adam Smith himself would revise his own writings on the Eelymosynary system and Invisible Hand theory is established by the irrefutable fact that Adam Smith built his treatise on the very minute and particular realities of his day; many, many of which are not realities today (like the Gold Standard for monetary value, for example).

If Adam Smith were alive and writing his works in the 1930’s and 1940’s, he would build his work on the realities of the psychology of moral sentiments and cultural features and social national infrastructure of the 1930’s and ‘40’s, including radio, telegraph, the greatly expanding numbers of literate persons, Industrial Baron’s exploitation of labor, child, ethnic, and women, combined with insulation from their suffering, and changed realities brought on by WW1, agricultural and industrial competition for labor share. etc. etc. etc.

This is what belies so many Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) having never read, or understood Adam Smith, when they cite him. Adam Smith’s work was contextual to his time every bit as much as it was universal in its examination of moral sentiments. While his moral sentiments examinations are universal across time and culture for the most part, the psychology of the people is not. Adam Smith would have recognized this fundamental fact, that the context of social and historical realities alters both psychological and economic and industry realities.

And for the most part, those realities today bear little resemblance to the realities of Colonial 18th Century America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #230675

DRRemer wrote:

so many … having never read, or understood Adam Smith, when they cite him
Guilty as charged, in this case. ;-) Of course we can’t all be experts on everything, but we also can’t expect to deeply understand relationships if we are always just skimming the surface. I appreciate the depth you bring, David, on economics in general on this site. But I also appreciate being able to get a top level inkling about most concepts these days with a simple web search.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 25, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #230713

Walker, reading and coming to understand Adam Smith is some of the toughest academic work I ever did in college, but also the most rewarding. The insights still keep coming decades after graduation.

But, Adam Smith is very difficult for most modern Americans to read, as his texts are in 18th century English and style, which for many would read almost like a foreign language that sounded like English. Having said that, I find it incredible that our institutions of higher learning graduate economists who have never read either of his works, or, only Wealth of Nations, and been spoon fed what the Prof.’s understanding of what Adam Smith was about which, leaves incredible latitude for right or left, conservative or liberal, bias, never written nor intended by Adam Smith or substantiated by his writing.

I agree with you, it is a modern miracle that we lay people can nearly instantly provide ourselves with overview information on almost any specialty of occupation, but, it comes with the price of frequently being deceived by ourselves or, others into thinking we know more about something than we actually do. Kind of like reading a step by step manual on an appendectomy and walking away believing one can actually perform one without doing the patient as much harm as good, or worse.

There are so very many more considerations and expertise to be aware of before one can actually perform an appendectomy without killing the patient in the process. Like avoiding lethal shock through the administration of anesthesia, or otherwise providing the patient with a method to cope with the pain and fear of being cut into. That would not be in the step by step procedure for the appendectomy procedure. Nor would be the practice and skill of using a sharp instrument around the bowel which poses the threat of accidentally leaking bowel content bacteria into the surrounding tissues which can be lethal.

A little knowledge is better than no knowledge. But, too little knowledge can also be extremely dangerous. The handling of firearms is a classic example.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2007 6:09 AM
Comment #230769

David R. Remer- Many years ago, I would do some of my
studies in one of those Stainless Steel Dining cars,
and there were three Philosophy majors also having
coffee while debating philosophers and one of them
would invoke Adam Smith an his works. Usually within
ten minutes the other two people would get angry an
leave. I would join in sometimes only to ask for
a clarification of one thing or another. In the
event you were older, I think you may have been
that person. Those discussions so long ago
still bring about some great memories.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 27, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #230774

Walker Willingham-
Your post is a truism an eminence quality, an
may be, em.i.nence grise.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 27, 2007 1:31 AM
Comment #230932

I know this posting is extremely long, but in order to understand Hitler, the man, you must read his actual speeches. I hope you enjoy reading!
It has become very “in vogue” to correlate the rigidity of the Bush Administration and the Christian right with the teachings of Hitler. The left claims that Hitler used his Christianity to overthrow a secular Germany during his time, thus pitting a new Christian-run Germany against the Jews. The left loves to quote words from Hitler talking about his Christianity, while they try to invoke a sense of danger in mixing politics with religion. However, when the actual texts of Hitler’s speeches are studied, his religious views on Christianity were more in line with the religious views of the moderate to left-leaning Christian blue-dog Democrats who criticize the conservative Christian right for their acceptance of individual accountability and freedom of opportunity, over the common good of the masses and group opportunity. The latter being a more socialist view. Here is Hitler’s own words describing his new Socialist Christianity:

“Socialism is a question of attitude toward life, of the ethical outlook on life of all who live together in a common ethnic or national space. Socialism is a Weltanschauung! But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! What the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross— the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over— as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!
We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!
Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ’s deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ’s words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, wit loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war.”
(Adolph Hitler)

Hitler used his Socialist brand of Christianity almost in an identical message to John Edward’s “two Americas”. He tried to exhort his Socialist Christians for standing up for themselves and other “have nots“, depicting them as being persecuted by the selfish and hypocritical Christians who align themselves with the rich Jews of the Stock Market. Here he speaks in Munich, April 12, 1922:

“And if we ask who was responsible for our misfortune, then we must inquire who profited by our collapse. And the answer to that question is that ‘Banks and Stock Exchanges are more flourishing than ever before.’ We were told that capitalism would be destroyed, and when we ventured to remind one or other of these famous statesmen and said ‘Don’t forget hat Jews too have capital,’ then the answer was: ‘What are you worrying about? Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free. Christian capitalism’ is already as good as destroyed, the international Jewish Stock Exchange capital gains in proportion as the other loses ground. It is only the international Stock Exchange and loan-capital, the so-called ‘supra-state capital,’ which has profited from the collapse of our economic life, the capital which receives its character from the single supra-state nation which is itself national to the core, which fancies itself to be above all other nations, which places itself above other nations and which already rules over them. The international Stock Exchange capital would be unthinkable, it would never have come, without its founders the supra-national, because intensely national, Jews…. The Jew has not grown poorer: he gradually gets bloated, and, if you don’t believe me, I would ask you to go to one of our health-resorts; there you will find two sorts of visitors: the German who goes there, perhaps for the first time for a long while, to breathe a little fresh air and to recover his health, and the Jew who goes there to lose his fat.”(Adolph Hitler)

Hitler repeatedly turns the German people against the Jews by depicting them as the Stock Market rich; those who can buy their health any time they want as the above words of Hitler suggest. Meanwhile he depicts the other Germany as those who can only purchase their health from time to time, suffering for long periods in-between.

“We as National Socialists and members of the German Workers party - a Party pledged to work - must be on principle the most fanatical Nationalists. We realized that the State can be for our people a paradise only if the people can hold sway therein freely as in a paradise: we realized that a slave state will never be a paradise, but only - always and for all time - a hell or a colony…we grasped the fact that power in the last resort is possible only where there is strength, and that strength lies not in the dead weight of numbers but solely in energy. Even the smallest minority can achieve a mighty result if it is inspired by the most fiery, the most passionate will to act. World history has always been made by minorities.
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see it work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week it has only for its wage wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited.” (Adolph Hitler. Munich, April 12, 1922)

The words of Hitler below could almost have been taken right out of the Democratic National Committee’s playbook of demonizing the sponsorship of the corporate world and business at the expense of the German worker. Of course, today it is the CEO that is the culprit. In Hitler’s Germany, it was the Jew.

“And it was precisely the same in the economic sphere. The vast process of the industrialization of the peoples meant the confluence of great masses of workmen in the towns. Thus great hordes of people arose, and these, more’s the pity, were not properly dealt with by those whose moral duty it was to concern themselves for their welfare. Parallel with this was a gradual ‘moneyfication’ of the whole of the nation’s labor-strength. ‘Share-capital’ was in the ascendant, and thus bit by bit the Stock Exchange came to control the whole national economy. The directors of these institutions were, and are without exception, Jews. I say ‘without exception,’ for the few non-Jews who had a share in them are in the last resort nothing but screens, shop-window Christians, whom one needs in order, for the sake of the masses, to keep up the appearance that these institutions were after all founded as a natural outcome of the needs and the economic life of all peoples alike, and were not, as was the fact, institutions which correspond only with the essential characteristics of the Jewish people and are the outcome of those characteristics.
Then Europe stood at the parting of the ways. Europe began to divide into two halves, into West Europe and Central and Eastern Europe. At first Western Europe took the lead in the process of industrialization. Especially in England crowds of farm laborers, sons of farmers, or even ruined farmers themselves, streamed into the towns and there formed a new fourth estate. But here one fact is of more importance than we are accustomed to admit: this England, like France, had relatively few Jews. And the consequence of that was that the great masses, concentrated in the towns, did not come into immediate contact with this alien nation, and thus feelings of aversion which must otherwise necessarily have arisen did not find sufficient nourishment for their development. In the end the fifty or sixty thousand Jews in England - there was hardly that number in England then - with supreme ease were able so to ‘Europeanize’ themselves that they remained hidden from the primitive eye of the ordinary member of the public and as ‘Captains of Industry,’ and especially as representatives of capital on a large scale, they could appear no longer as foreigners but themselves became Englishmen.” Already in those early days they saw to it shrewdly that here were always two or three groups apparently hostile to each other, but in fact all hanging on a gold thread, the whole designed to take account of a human characteristic - that the longer a man possesses an object, the more readily he grows tired of it. He craves something new: therefore one needs two parties. The one is in office, the other in opposition. When the one has played itself out, then the opposition party comes into power, and the party which has had its day is now in its turn the opposition. After twenty years the new party itself has once more played itself out and the game begins afresh. In truth this is a highly ingenious mill in which the interests of a nation are ground very small. As everyone knows, this system is given some such name as, Self-Government of a People.” (Adolph Hitler)

This claim that both parties are bought and paid for by the rich special interests is particularly popular within the U.S. political climate today. Hitler fed on this principle. Much of the success of the radical far-left in the Democratic Party is also based upon this ideology; having their views of socialism also in parallel with Hitler’s views.

“Besides this we always find two great catchwords, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Democracy,’ used, I might say, as signboards. ‘Freedom’: under that term is understood, at least amongst those in authority who in fact carry on the Government, the possibility of an unchecked plundering of the masses of the people to which no resistance can be offered. The masses themselves naturally believe that under the term ‘freedom’ they possess the right to a quite peculiar freedom of motion - freedom to move the tongue and to say what they choose, freedom to move about the streets, etc. A bitter deception!” (Adolph Hitler)
Hitler’s words against the Jews are much like those expressed on the left about America. One could nearly substitute the words Jews for Bush/Cheney, or corporate America, and it would be hard to tell the rhetoric of Hitler apart from the rhetoric of those in the Democratic Party.
“Everything that he has is stolen. Foreign peoples, foreign workmen build him his temples, it is foreigners who create and work for him: it is foreigners who shed their blood for him. He knows no ‘people’s army’: he has only hired mercenaries who are ready to go to death on his behalf. He has no art of his own: bit by bit he has stolen it all from the other peoples or has watched them at work and then made his copy. He does not even know how merely to preserve the precious things which others have created: as he turns the treasures over in his hand they are transformed into dirt and dung. He knows that he cannot maintain any State for long. That is one of the differences between him and the Aryan. True, the Aryan also has dominated other peoples. But how? He entered on the land, he cleared the forests; out of wildernesses he has created civilizations, and he has not used the others for his own interests, he has, so far as their capacities permitted, incorporated them into his State and through him art and science were brought to flower. In the last resort it was the Aryan and the Aryan alone who could form States and could set them on their path to future greatness. All that the Jew cannot do. And because he cannot do it, therefore all his revolutions must be ‘international.’ They must spread as a pestilence spreads. He can build no State and say ‘See here, Here stands the State, a model for all. Now copy us!’ He must take care that the plague does not die, that it is not limited to one place, or else in a short time this plague-hearth would burn itself out. So he is forced to bring every mortal thing to an international expansion. For how long? Until the whole world sinks in ruins and brings him down with it in the midst of the ruins.
It is said, if one criticizes the state of affairs to which we have been brought today, that one is a reactionary, a monarchist, a pan-German. I ask you what would probably have been the state of Germany today if during these three years there had been no criticism at all? I believe that in fact there has been far, far too little criticism. Our people unfortunately is much too uncritical, or otherwise it would long ago have not only seen through many things, but would have swept them away with its fist! The crisis is developing towards its culmination. The day is not far distant when, for the reasons which I have stated, the German Revolution must be carried forward another step. The leaders know all too well that things cannot always go on as they are going today. One may raise prices ten times by 100 per cent, but it is doubtful if in the end even a German will accept a milliard of marks for his day’s wage if in the last resort with his milliard-wage he must still starve. It is a question whether one will be able to keep up this great fraud upon the nation. There will come a day when this must stop - and therefore one must build for that day, before it comes. (Adolph Hitler, July 28, 1922)

Hitler also accused America of having no just reason to go to war with Germany in WWI. He accused America of creating a huge lie to deceive its people into believing that America was protecting civilization. Now, where have we heard that recently?

“What cause finally had America to enter the War against Germany? With the outbreak of the World War, which Judah had desired so passionately and so long, all the large Jewish firms of the United States began supplying ammunitions. They supplied the European ‘war-market’ to an extent which perhaps even they themselves had never dreamed of - a gigantic harvest! America was to intervene ‘in defense of civilization,’ and the Americans were persuaded so to do by an atrocity propaganda conducted in the name of civilization which from A to Z was a scandalous invention the like of which has never yet been seen - a farrago of lies and forgeries.” (Adolph Hitler, April 13, 1923)

Again on Feb. 15, 1933, Hitler uses his blue dog Socialistic Christianity to rebut the present government, calling them unChristian-like for their treatment of the poor and their destruction of the middle class:

“I would ask whether the economic policy of this now superseded system was a Christian policy. Was the inflation an undertaking for which Christians could answer, or has the destruction of German life, of the German peasant as well as of the middles classes, been Christian? … When these parties now say: we want to govern for a few more years in order that we can improve the situation, then we say: No! now it is too late for that! Besides, you had your fourteen years and you have failed. In fourteen years you have proved your incapacity - from the Treaty of Versailles by way of the various agreements down to the Dawes and Young plans. Herr Bolz, too, has given his support to the Young Plan while I have always opposed it. If today we are told that we have no program, then I answer that for the last two years this other Germany has lived only by making inroads on our thought-world. All these plans for the creation of work, for labor service, etc.- they are not the work of Staatspräsident Bolz, they come from our program of reconstruction from which they have taken them over imperfectly and incompletely. We are convinced that the restoration to health of our people must start from the restoration to health of the body politic itself, and we are persuaded of the truth that the future of our people, as in the past so now, lies first of all in the German peasant. If he perishes, our end has come; if he survives, then Germany will never go under. There lie the strength and the source of our people’s life, the source of our renewal. The towns would not exist at all, if the peasant did not fill them with his blood. The dweller in our countryside may be primitive, but he is healthy… . We want, too, to restore to the German intelligentsia the freedom of which it has been robbed by the system which has hitherto ruled. In parliamentarianism they did not possess this freedom. We want to liberate Germany from the fetters of an impossible parliamentary democracy - not because we are terrorists, not because we intend to gag the free spirit. On the contrary, the spirit has never had more violence done to it than when mere numbers made themselves its master. I will not build myself a villa in Switzerland, nor will I lay claim to any fund with which to fight criminality in this election campaign. Then after four years people shall judge whether the policy of ruining Germany has come to an end, whether Germany is rising once again. (Adolph Hitler, Stuttgart, Feb. 15, 1933)

When Hitler talked of Britain, he alluded to once secret documents that reveal that they had been conspiring with other nations against him and the German people out of hatred and envy, for the purpose of obtaining and sharing in Germany’s wealth and riches.

“Even though this Germany through the decades was the safest guarantor of peace, and even though she occupied herself with peaceful things, she was unable to prevent other nations, and especially their statesmen, from following this rise with envy and hatred and finally to answer with a war. Today we know from the documents of history how the encirclement policy of those times was carried on in a planned way by England.
We know from numerous findings and publications that in that country the conception was that it would be necessary to bring down Germany militarily because its destruction would insure every British citizen a greater abundance of life’s possessions.”
(Adolph Hitler)

Hitler also made accusations against the present German leadership during the time of his rise to power. He blamed the sitting German leaders for making many mistakes. Most of his complaints were that the Administration in Germany was unprepared for an attack even though they knew about it in advance.

“Certainly at that time Germany made mistakes. Its most serious mistake was to see this encirclement and not to stave it off in time. The only fault we can blame the regime of that time for is that the Reich had full knowledge of this devilish plan of a raid and yet it did not have the power of decision to ward it off in time and could only let this encirclement ripen until the beginning of the catastrophe. But there was the power of the lie and the poison of propaganda which did not balk at misinterpretation and untruth.
This Germany faced the world in absolute defenselessness because it was unprepared.”
(Adolph Hitler, Wilhelmshaven, April 1, 1939)

Here Hitler speaks to Berlin:
“Now, my fellow-countrymen, this world has not been so divided up by providence or Almighty God. This allocation has been made by man himself. The land was parcelled out for the most part during the last 300 years, that is, during the period in which, unfortunately, the German people were helpless and torn by internal dissension. Split up into hundreds of small states in consequence of the Treaty of Muenster at the end of the Thirty Years’ War, our people frittered away their entire strength in internal strife…. While during this period the Germans, notwithstanding their particular ability among the people of Western Europe, dissipated their powers in vain internal struggles, the division of the world proceeded beyond their borders. It was not by treaties or by binding agreements, but exclusively by the use of force that Britain forged her gigantic Empire.
The second people that failed to receive their fair share in this distribution, namely the Italians, experienced and suffered a similar fate. Torn by internal conflicts, devoid of unity, split up into numerous small states, this people also dissipated all their energy in internal strife. Nor was Italy able to obtain even the natural position in the Mediterranean which was her due. Thus in comparison with others, these two powerful peoples have received much less than their fair share. The objection might be raised: Is this really of decisive importance? My fellow-countrymen, man does not exist on theories and phrases, on declarations or on systems of political philosophy; he lives on what he can gain from the soil by his own labor in the form of food and raw materials. This is what he can eat, this is what he can use for manufacture and production. If a man’s own living conditions offer him too little, his life will be wretched. We see that within the countries themselves, fruitful areas afford better living conditions than poor barren lands. In the one case there are flourishing villages; in the other poverty-stricken communities. A man may live in a stony desert or in a fruitful land of plenty. This handicap can never be fully overcome by theories, nor even by the will to work. We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth. And it is only natural that evolution follows the same rule in the larger framework as it does in the case of individuals. Just as the tension existing between rich and poor within a country must be compensated for either by reason or often if reason fails, by force… All my life I have been a ‘have-not.’ At home I was a ‘have-not.’ I regard myself as belonging to them and have always fought exclusively for them. I defended them and, therefore, I stand before the world as their representative. I shall never recognize the claim of the others to that which they have taken by force. Under no circumstances can I acknowledge this claim with regard to that which has been taken from us. It is interesting to examine the life of these rich people. In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’ By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the ‘freedom of the press.’ I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a few hundred people say: ‘As far as I am concerned it is good, excellent; my dividends are splendid.’
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn the line. They may then retort: ‘Well, look here, that is just what we mean. You jeopardize liberty.’
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76, 80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry. Naturally they say: ‘If the German methods grow apace and should prove victorious, this sort of thing will stop.’ They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the National Socialist state will intervene.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men, farmers’ sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest posts…. Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the end of the German people as a whole. I can well understand that they declare: ‘Let us prevent this at all costs; it must be prevented.’ They can see exactly how our nation has been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State. These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb. Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced that the nations will become free for the first time. (Adolph Hitler, Berlin, Dec. 10, 1940)

Yes, Walker, radicalism can come from the most surprising and the most seemingly well-intentioned places when some are fooled from seeing the nail because they are too busy being the hammer!


Posted by: JD at August 28, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #231062

JD- I think that your premise that Religion was a
cause an affect is wrong. The Bankers, an Businesses
robed the population in Germany just as the Robber-
Barron’s did the Americans people in the late 1890s
an early 1900s almost an including Death from starvation,
because of greed from those fat cats. In case you
forgot, the robber Barron’s were the Republicans!
The past six years have been an attempt to return
our Nation back to those good old days of the
haves an haves not. Plausible Deni-ability need not reply.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 30, 2007 5:12 AM
Comment #231064

My last sentence is just a quip

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 30, 2007 5:34 AM
Comment #231078


I am saying that Hitler used his religion to turn people into the Jew hater characterized by the Nazis in the same way that the Democratic Party uses their so-called “Christian compassion” to turn people into haters of Bush/Cheney and corporate Capitalism. As quoted directly from Hitler’s speeches, the rhetoric of Hitler against the Jews and the ruling Party of Germany, was identical to the rhetoric of the Democratic Party against the Bush Administration and American Capitalism. There is no denying that when the speeches of Hitler are read as I pointed out in my post!
Does it not bother you in the least that if Hitler were alive today in America, he would be the spokesperson for the Democratic Party, and probably its Presidential front-runner?


Posted by: JD at August 30, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #231090


Does it not bother you in the least that if Hitler were alive today in America, he would be the spokesperson for the Democratic Party, and probably its Presidential front-runner?
Your assertion is preposterous - NOT because Hilter would necessarily be a Republican, not a Democrat, or anything else, but because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can solve such a hypothetical problem.

You are clearly making leaps of logic which are wholly unfounded, based on A SPEECH that Hitler made many years ago. I’m not one of those who thinks reflections on Hitler or Nazism should be taboo in confronting today’s problems. How can we learn from the past if we aren’t allowed to examine it carefully and make nuanced comparisons to make sure we don’t revisit past horrors? BUT comparing what someone SAID years ago to what someone SAYS today, is far less significant than looking at and comparing ACTIONS and POLICIES. Concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act moving toward fascism are far more compelling to me than statements of some blue dog Democrats (who happen to be conservative - not moderate to left-leaning as you claim - see their own insignia here) which you are trying to compare to Hitler’s words.

It is also worth noting that while evil intent is most likely to lead to evil results, evil results can also emanate unintentionally from benign intent. Evilly intended people may also be gifted at noble speech. There are simply way too many variables to impugn whole groups of politicians based on a few perceived similarities.

I frequently decry the power of corporations and the obscene wealth disparity between those at the top and the line workers. Does that mean I’m like Hitler? I can tell you (and you can choose to believe me or think me a liar) that I do not hate corporate executives as a group, and I am opposed to their vilification. But the power of corporations and the extreme wealth disparity are very dangerous and destabilizing to the social order. I think that history will back me up on that one.

By the way, Hitler was not an extreme right-winger or left-winger, but simply an authoritarian gone to his own extreme. All of which goes to back up the original point of my article, but NOT to suggest that those at some similar point between right and left as Hitler happened to have been are therefore radically rigid. By associative logic one can prove most anything like up is down, or black is white, or peace is war.

But please, pay more attention to deeds than words, and pay more attention to compassion than to platitudes and ideology, in judging the worthiness of those who govern us.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 30, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #231168

All I am saying is that the Democratic Party has adopted the same rhetoric and identical tactics used by Hitler in his rise to power. I would think that this would throw up a red flag, (no pun intended), to anyone who is aware of the consequences of embracing such hate. It does not mean that all in the Democratic Party hate. However, if one reads the left wing blogs out there, as I do, by the way, there is very little difference in the way they talk about the U.S., the Bush Administration, and others, and the way Hitler tried to turn people against the Jews.


Posted by: JD at August 31, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #231186

Nonsense. No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, that does not make it true. Justifiable outrage against HURTFUL POLICIES is in no way comparable to the hatred of a race of people.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 31, 2007 4:05 AM
Comment #231210

JD, lack of education and hate are affiliated with both the Dem. leaning blogs and the Repub. blogs. That is evident by a cursory view of comments on either kind of blog with an active readership.

Neither side has a monopoly on ignorance or hating amongst its followers. Education predisposes one to evaluate the world mentally and rationally. Lack of education predisposes one to evaluate the world on how it feels, sounds, and appears. Which is why the lesser educated make such great followers, they are easily led by appearances, and appearances are easily created by leaders whatever their political bent.

As for Hitler and Democrats, there are appearances of similarity in the way both speak to the masses of lesser affluence and power. But, that is where the similarities end. Mahatma Gandhi’s rhetoric was similar and actions against the wealthy British also similar. The two men could not have been more diamtrically opposed in terms of ends and means.

Neither could Democrats and Hitler be more opposed on both means and ends. Hitler’s rhetoric was used to procure followers into an entirely different educational indoctrination in the Hitler Youth Camps and military, where authoritarianism was both ends and means. The closest America has come to authoritarianism is the FDR and GW Bush regimes. Authoritarian here refers to the garnering of power to one person to author laws without the consent of the people or their representatives.

GW Bush and FDR were both checked and forced to defer to the Congress which struck down or otherwise called into question their more authoritarian lawmaking. The current Congress is still engaged in this process with Bush.

A note should also be made to the Joe McCarthy era and Red Scare in which a Senator sought Hitlerian type fear mongering as a means to expanding his power. It failed.

Hitler did not invent the struggle between aristocracies and peasants, mercantilists and consumers, plutocracies and the poor, oligarchs and the powerless. He simply coopted such themes to advance his agenda. The tensions between the people of a nation and their governors is as old as social human history. To try to paint Democrats with the same brush as Hitler due to Democrats attempts to champion the issues of the majority of the population, is like trying to paint all teachers as Hitlerian indoctrinators because they feed young minds hungry for information and knowledge.

At best, one can make a defensible argument that Democrats talk democracy while promoting a Plutocratic type of governance with the brightest and most educated as philosopher kings, always championing education and rational knowledge as superior to any other kind. But, that is hardly Hitlerian, which championed dictatorship, pure and simple.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #231243

I disagree wholeheartedly, David. I believe that the message of the Democratic Party is not only pertaining to rich and poor, but also pertaining to rich white Republicans and poor black Democrats. Democrats tie race, and even religious intolerance into their message just as profoundly as Hitler did against the Jews. If it was just a matter of Capitalist ideology in the Conservative Republican Party and the more Socialist Labor ideology of the Democratic Party I would agree. But that is not where the Democrats stop. They demonize the rich white guy, even here in Watchblog we have had this happen, the equivalent of Hitler’s “racial Jew”. Democrats also demonize the Christians, (Hitler’s religious Jew), and this is where the real significance of the Democratic hate message lies. Many in the Democratic Party hate G.W. Bush because he is simply a “rich white Christian”. The left wingers characterize him that way all the time when they spew their hatred at him. The Democratic Party deliberately pits these racial and religious groups against each other for the purpose of rising to power, (buying votes). This is not about ideology, David, it is about bigotry. Thus, an identical message to Hitler’s.


Posted by: JD at August 31, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #231314

JD - The framers of our Constitution realized that
a King was out of the question, so they designed an
almost perfect mechanism of self rule designed to
prevent Kings, bigots or any other small group of
people from taking or keeping freedom from the people. We have Towns, townships, cities, County
and State Governments. People have the choice of
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and with a great many votes, you might some day, have Greens.
None of these rights that encompass the above
will succumb to by hate or those who profess such.
Do your self a favor an read your post three times
and see if you might be able to change your thinking.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 1, 2007 5:21 AM
Comment #231395

People have the choice of
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and with a great many votes, you might some day, have Greens.
Posted by: -DAVID- at September 1, 2007 05:21 AM

You are right DAVID, people do have a choice in America, just as the people had a choice between different Political parties in Hitler’s 1930’s Germany, but still succumbed to the message of Hitler’s hate just as many do to the Democratic message today. Our Democracy does not guarantee that the people will not be duped by a message of hate any more than Germany’s political system did in the 1930’s. My belief still stands that the message of the Democratic Party today is identical to that of Hitler’s in the 1930’s!


Posted by: JD at September 1, 2007 5:11 PM
Comment #231413

JD Because a person or group of people do not
approve of one party or the other does not signify
nor has it been demonstrated by you that any Democrats, or any one else are remotely behaving like Hitler or his Gestapo henchmen. I will concede
that there are more than enough ignorant and or
illiterate folks on both sides of the isle, although
I would say that is some what representative of our
general population for the past many years. All you
need to do is watch Television or listen to all the stupid shows, an you will soon recognize where
all the loud and angry people have found what
they believe to be the real world an they act
accordingly. I have heard that there are a great
many new Prisons being built, but I seriously
do not believe they contain any Gas Chambers.
Excuse the pun.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 1, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #231583


And who needs to use gas chambers to wreak havoc on people.

All that is necessary is this liberal Democratic
ideology pitting certain people against other people that would give those certain people the opportunity to use such ideology to justify such illegal things as thieving, murdering by perhaps drive-by methods, and all manner of other crimes against humanity.

Many today in certain groups supporting the Democratic Party bear this ideology that any poor, and even violent behavior can be justified on the basis that some other group is keeping them from a “piece of the action”. This was the same ideology that prompted the German people to follow Hitler and carry out his death camp wishes against the rich “Stock Market Jews”.
Perhaps, there would be far fewer prisons being built if it were not for the Democratic messages of blaming everyone else for your conditions rather than taking personal responsibility for
your own actions. Everyone falls upon hard times once in a while. Some live through hard times their whole lives because of lack of education, lack of skills, or perhaps even disability of some sort. Yet, the Democratic message to these people is that they do not have what other people have because other people have either stolen it from them, or are keeping it from them by not paying the “nation of Socialist Democrats” enough of their money in taxes, and therefore, these “rich Jews” on Wall Street need to be pick-pocketed by the State, for the good of Germany, (or I mean the United States)!


Posted by: JD at September 3, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #231631

JD- After several days and posts, you got up enough
nerve to say what you really wanted to say, and that
being just the last sentence on this post. Does that
statement, now that you made it, make every thing
better now? No of course not, because Hitler was
just one person and you are blaming the Democrats
picking the pockets of Jews! I have a serious
problem with your line of thinking on this matter,
an of course your statement about Democratic messages, you know where to put them.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 3, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #231789

I think most Jews in the U.S. and abroad would understand exactly what I am saying if they are old enough to have heard the rhetoric of Hitler. I doubt seriously that any of them would think that I was talking about them literally in that last sentence if that is what you imply, but rather showing how the messages are being used in an identical fashion. If any are offended, it is because they are probably supporters of the Democratic Party; something that boggles my mind to this day!!


Posted by: JD at September 5, 2007 12:11 AM
Post a comment