We went over to the Holocaust Museum today. I’d never been, but never had much desire to — I’d read my fill of that history years ago. It’s not so much that I found it disturbing as simply a waste of time that I could spend looking at museums in which I was more interested. But Patricia wanted to, and one of the reasons that I love her is that she did, and so we did. As I expected, there was little unexpected for me in the permanent exhibit on the upper floors, but in the basement is space for temporary exhibits. One that opened a couple weeks ago (ten days after the White House had a new occupant, though I’m sure that was just a coincidence) was on Nazi propaganda. Now that, I found disturbing.
This is the image that greets you at the beginning of the display.
The placard that accompanied it said that one of the elements of convincing propaganda, to appeal to the masses, is a powerful image combined with a simple message. It helps even more, apparently, if it is done in the style of socialist realism, like this.
Farther on in the display, it discussed how Goebbels and the other Nazi propagandists were enamored of new communications technologies, using the gramophone as an example. If they were operating now, they would no doubt be fascinated by Web 2.0.
A few steps later, I came across the following striking quote, by a woman in Germany who had attended one of Hitler’s rallies:
How many look up to him with touching faith! As their helper, their saviour, their deliverer from unbearable distress…
I was so relieved that I live almost eighty years later, and that our society had grown beyond that kind of primitive thinking — that the president is responsible for the personal well-being of every citizen, and every sparrow that falls in America, like a demigod. I mean, obviously, any responsible leader today, confronted with such idolatry would use it as a teachable moment about the nature of our Republic, rather than basking in the worship, as Hitler did, to gather more raw unchecked political power unto himself.
I also found interesting the description of how the Nazi authorities encouraged and organized public rituals, ceremonies, meetings and other public events. I could see how this kind of activity might solidify public support behind otherwise less politically palatable notions felt important by the state.
Of course, one of the most disturbing tactics, used not only by the National Socialists, but also the fascistic international socialists in the Soviet Union, was the continual rewriting of history to glorify the state, and make it out to be the victim of past failures and treachery, and misguided policies. Some of the examples they gave were almost as though modern leaders were continually talking, fantastically, about how we got into our current economic problems through deregulation and tax cuts, and (non-existent) laissez-faire policies, rather than overspending and overregulation, and continuing government interference in the free market, often at the behest of corporations.
Finally, during the war, one of the hallmarks of the Nazi regime was to control the flow of information to the German citizenry. I hadn’t realized that they actually built specialized radios whose sensitivity was so weak that they could only pick up German government signals, but generally not overseas views (such as the BBC). They viewed clandestine listeners to foreign broadcasts as traitors to the state, undermining the war effort. I’m certainly glad we live in a nation where such attitudes would be odious, to both Congress and the President.
All in all, it was a relief to leave the museum, and walk back across the mall toward the White House, secure in the knowledge that such things could never occur here.
[Update a while later]
We’re all fascists now (part II).
And try to figure out which chapter of the story we’re in.
[President’s Day update]
The administration is no longer issuing denials on the Fairness Doctrine. I guess when the campaign did it last summer, it was, you know, “just words” to get elected.
But I’m sure they mean well. They just have to keep their options open in case some people don’t follow the leader’s sage advice to “not listen to Rush.”
[Update a few minutes later]
What I find fascinating is how the BDS-afflicted had to doctor the photos of President Bush to push their conception of him as a fascist dictator, yet the Obama promoters did it to him with no apparent sense of the irony of what they were doing.
These folks seem to have had their sense of irony excised at birth.
Was this guy:
http://www.atin.org/images/zamanhatti/1910_1919/Benito_Mussolini.jpg
separated at birth from this guy?
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/obama.jpg
So, is this your revenge for 8 years of countless comparisons of Bush to Hitler by clueless bitter losers, or have you joined them?
So, is this your revenge for 8 years of countless comparisons of Bush to Hitler by clueless bitter losers, or have you joined them?
Neither.
I’m just making a few that are actually valid. Just providing food for thought.
Excellent post! When we visited the museum in July, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between German propaganda then to the propaganda we are being fed today by the Liberals/Socialists.
I will never forget seeing an original German newspaper from 1933 behind the glass at the museum with inch high letters forming the headline which read:
One Party One State
I showed it to my 13 yr. old son and told him that this is the ideology of the Socialists who want to take over this country with their “revolution” beginning with the Obama Administration…..
So sad to see some have not learned from history and have doomed us to repeat it.
Jay, you won. Get used to it.
Did the poster happen to say “Wir sind das derjenig, die wir auf gewartet haben”?
Did the poster happen to say “Wir sind das derjenig, die wir auf gewartet haben”?
No, but we should print up some that do.
This is food for thought. I have been disturbed by the lack of critical assessment of this man by both the media and his supporters. I feel the media (with few exceptions) has completely abdicated their oversight responsibility. And I have seen what seems an attempt to stifle any criticism of the man from his opponents. (charges of racism, lack of patriotism, etc for those who would criticize or question his ideas). And now we see the growing call for the “fairness doctrine” to stifle the loudest critics.
If it continues, it can lead to no good.
I never, ever thought I would be missing Bush only 4 weeks into O’s presidency.
My country is gone in one fell swoop. It’s unreal.
Ouch!
I swore I wouldn’t sink to the level of the BDS hordes, but I’m glad someone did, albeit more subtly and stylishly.
I wouldn’t compare Obama to Hitler, but the parallels in the artwork and the propaganda really are amazing.
Funny how NAZI and Soviet media tend to resemble each other. I’m sure glad that can’t happen here!
Rabbi Hillel’s most famous adage is often worded in modern English as: “If not me, who? If not now, when?” Many modern Rabbis address use the plural form for the first part: “If not us, who? If not now, when?
How is this sentiment any different from “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for?”
—
On a side note: I recently learned that Hitler and Ludwig Wittgenstein spent a year in school together. There is even a bizarre book (easily found if you google Hitler and Wittgenstein) which claims that the Holocaust occurred because Hitler and Wittgenstein didn’t get along as children. (Which seems like nonsense, and also contradicts Mein Kampf.) In reality, they may not have known each other — even though they were six days apart in age, they were two grades apart — Wittgenstein skipped a grade while Hitler was held back one. (Sounds like a joke, but it is true!) Anyway, if and when you should google Hitler and Wittgenstein, click on Image search to see an absolutely chilling photo of a young Adolf Hitler (standing next to a child who might be Wittgenstein.) A friend looked at it and said “That kid can’t be Hitler – he looks too much like Hitler!” Have a look.
Transterrestrial Musings – Biting Comparisons of Obama to Hitler … and Democrats to Fascists! It looks quite silly from over here.
The US politics will forever be suffering from the two party system as there is no useful criticism (this is both a cause and an effect). Bush is a chimp. Blah blah blah.
The PR machines and mood swings ensure a steady oscillation. Republicans will be in power after a while again.
“Suffering” from the two-party system? The (at least) two-party system is a big part of our success, it seems to me. The “no useful criticism” thing has some truth – having two presidents in a row who are caricatured with giant ears is a frank waste of time, for instance.
As for this piece: It makes me uncomfortable, skating as close to the Godwin-edge as it does. But – I’m trying hard to be objective here – to worry about a totalitarian impulse in government seems more reasonable when there’s constant rhetoric from the top about things like “balance” in the media and not listening to the most popular voice of the party-in-power’s opposition and subsuming individual concerns in a giant nationalistic concern for the Whole, than when the constant rhetoric from the top is about a common desire among people of all nations for liberty and civil rights for all, American exceptionalism, and the way the American moment rests on the determination of the American people.
I didn’t put that very objectively, I know. I supported Bush – in a one-issue way, not being a fan of his fiscal policies generally – from 9/11/01 to 1/20/09, and I thought from the get-go that Obama was going to turn out to be one of two things: a Clintonesque operator out solely for his own good, or a small-time Chicagoland operator out of his depth in the world of geopolitics. At present, I think the latter. I think he’s at grave risk of surrendering entirely to the influence of the most extreme voices in his already rather far-left circle.
But my point is, “Bush==You-Know-Who” and “Oh well, I didn’t need my constitutional rights anyway” didn’t make objective sense when you look at what was actually happening under Bush (point to those whose rights were “trampled” under the Patriot Act, for instance). “Obama==You-Know-Who” is too extreme, but “Obama==Stifling of Dissent” may indeed turn out to be the case if the Fairness Doctrine is revived and is true now if instead of “stifling” you substitute “attempting to discourage” as he did with his “don’t listen to Rush” bit; “Obama==Vastly Increased State Control of the Economy and the Means of Production” may indeed turn out to be the case if this “stimulus” package comes to pass. And shouldn’t we be watching?
How is this sentiment any different from “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for?”
Because there’s too much of a sense that the “we” is royal, particularly in the context of the rest of his campaign. You know, he was the One who was going to lower the seas?
Obama was stifling the media back in the campaign as well. Despite having nearly every major news outlet eating out of his hand he still said several times that there was a media attack machine being orchestrated by Fox News that was out to get him. Most liberals were already pretty dismissive about Fox News so they made a easy target. When in reality Fox News was probably about the most fair and balanced in their reporting.
I just get this distinct impression that Liberals are so used to being lied too by their party that they knowingly digest feel good rhetoric and just assume the opposite is really true with everything.
I’d being willing to wager that Bush was probably one of the most down to Earth and honest Presidents to come along in a while. He certainly bested his dad with his ‘Read my Lips moment’ and of course Clinton, well umm yea. Did Bush have his moments, sure, when he said Brownie was doing a good job that elicited a slap to the forehead. But despite that Liberals just couldn’t digest Bushes message because it was too honest, they heard what he had to say and then automatically, as they are accustomed, twisted the words to the worst possible outcome. Would any Democrat politician flat admit that enhanced interrogation techniques would be warranted in a time of war? No, but George Bush did and therefore didn’t provide the type of lofty rhetoric that a Lib needs in order to digest that action. A Democrat president just silently signs the order rendition and then when asked about it gives some pie in the sky answer about how we have to rise above such actions and remember to hug some ethically diverse person once a day. After all we all agree that people needs hugs — uh huh, hugs are good!
Josh Reiter, while I think you meant “ethnically diverse” rather than “ethically diverse” in your last para, I REALLY like the “ethically diverse” formulation! The new administration has certainly given us “ethical diversity” that “looks like America,” hasn’t it?
I think ethically diverse fits too. Hug a head-chopping terrorist, they need hugs – that’s why they became terrorists. The meanies who write mean articles about them should be arrested through for inciting violence.
Or as Kang would say:
Hugs for some, re-education through labor for others!
yay!
‘The new administration has certainly given us “ethical diversity”’
Dunno, the more we learn, the more they same ethically the same.
Rand – you are confusing the tool with the operator. Mass communication is a tool, and it was used by Stalin and Hilter. Mass communication was also used by Ronald “The Great Communicator” Reagan.
Mass communication is a tool, and it was used by Stalin and Hilter. Mass communication was also used by Ronald “The Great Communicator” Reagan.
Ronald Reagan ended the fairness doctrine that controlled what was broadcast by Mass Communication. Stalin and Hitler imposed limitations on what Mass Communication was allowed to broadcast.
Today, Democratic politicians claim Rush Limbaugh is somehow prohibiting their message from getting out. They are using that excuse as rationale for imposing new regulations on Mass Communication.
It’s nice – Obama used internet – Hitler used the gramophone. Striking similarities in being technology savvy, don’t you think?
(McCain can’t probably be blamed for that, he can’t use the internet because of his injuries from torture.)
Sometimes I think Rand is doing a parody.
While all this fiddling is going on…..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4623525/Failure-to-save-East-Europe-will-lead-to-worldwide-meltdown.html
Rand, although the phrase “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” was widely ridiculed in the papers, I’d be surprised if you can find any newspaper editorial or even op-ed piece in the United States which took that meaning from the word “we” — it simply wasn’t how the phrase was interpreted. The more common interpretation is consistent with the public service message that has been peppering the airwaves showing Obama calling for increased volunteerism.
Furthermore “we are ones we’ve been waiting for” is consistent with the use of the word “we” in the much more common slogan of the campaign: “Yes we can”, which was embedded in the wider context of Obama’s New Hampshire concession speech:
“It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom. Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can. It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land. Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. ”
Obama isn’t talking about himself – he is talking about all of us. And note that the odd expression “repair this world” is an expression taken from Judaism, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam) once again showing that Obama is not channeling Hitler but rather Rabbi Hillel and the modern day Jews Hitler sought to murder.
By the way, I think some of your comparisons are completely off-base, but if you are capable of making them after visiting the Holocaust Museum, nothing I can say will change your mind. Indeed, you’d probably say that you’re trying to apply the lessons the museum is trying to teach. That’s a good goal, but I think you are comparing tyranny and crimes against humanity with the benign politics of a free and just society. Obama isn’t acting like Hitler when he tells lawmakers that they won’t achieve a bipartisan consensus if they listen to Limbaugh, and I find it disappointing that you can’t see that.
Maybe the problem is that you’re taking the word “listen” to literally — Obama isn’t saying “don’t actually use your ears and eyes to be aware of what Limbaugh is saying”; Obama is saying “don’t agree with Limbaugh”. This shouldn’t have to be said. Wittgenstein would be amused.
Does that mean Obama wants to be able to tell people what to think?
I actually believe what Obama was saying was “don’t listen” as in, “don’t tune your radio to his show.” I think your interpretation, Bob, is even more dangerous.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”
What does “just” mean in the above sentence?
Do they still have the Bridge of Shoes?
That’s what did it for me. Up until then I’d been pretty stoic, feeling all up about myself surrounded by whimpers and sobs.
The, I walked across the Bridge of Shoes, stopped and looked long a several/many of the shoes. And promptly lost it.
Never again. Never again.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being Simberg by equating President Obama with Adolph Hitler.
Huh. I’m smarter than I thought. I made this same comparison, when I saw the fist Obama / Hope stickers. But here’s the question I had then, and still, will Obama replace Che on t-shirts on college campuses or in liberals hearts?
It’s not looking good for Che, IMHO.
The room full of shoes… I will NEVER forget the scent of leather in that room. The emotional impact, knowing what happened to every person who wore those shoes, was staggering. It was the most powerful moment of my visit.
It’s not just faux outrage for political advantage this time. Obama is clearly going to attempt to stifle domestic dissent through revival of the “fairness” doctrine. Obama has just pushed through a trillion dollar “stimulus”, and the greatest assumption of debt in the post-WWII era, to reward his supporters. This is the real thing. Comparing the two is like the mindless arguments of “moral equivalence” between the US and the former Soviet Union.
Do they still have the Bridge of Shoes?
Yes.
Chris, the topic of discussion was not “mass communication.” It was propaganda.
Propaganda is a loaded word, implying the propagandist is lying.
Obama and Reagan are/were using mass communication.
Propaganda is a loaded word, implying the propagandist is lying.
Not necessarily. It’s much more than that. Though, actually, at this point, the Hitler poster seems more honest than the “Change!” poster…
Anyway, whatever fantasies get you through the day, Chris.
The thing is propaganda is merely mass communication to persuade people towards a particular viewpoint. Reagan and his administration were effective propagandists. So is Obama and his team. Advertising is propaganda.
Propaganda can be used for good purposes, for example, informing people of the dangers of drunk driving or promiscuous sex without “protection”. Propaganda can also be used for evil purposes as shown above.
Low content propaganda like the “Change” brand is in my view a warning sign. It indicates that the users of the propaganda are either lazy (eg, simply haven’t thought through their arguments properly) or are hiding serious flaws with their argument. Even if the outcome advocated by the propaganda is acceptable, the means is not. We should not, whether the propagandist be an ally or enemy, accept shoddy propaganda in support of an argument.
Rand, the only person suffering from “fantasies” here is you.
You, and some of the Republican party, seem to actually believe this bullshit claim that Obama is some kind of sooper sekrit socialist pinko commie.
Earth to Rand – sorry, he’s not. He’s just a moderately left-of-center politician. Much like that moderately right-of-center politician and idol of the Republican party, Ronald Reagan, Obama has a slick communications strategy. It’s a different strategy, in part because of the changes in mass media from 1980 to now, but it serves the same purpose.
You, and some of the Republican party, seem to actually believe this bullshit claim that Obama is some kind of sooper sekrit socialist pinko commie.
No, I don’t believe that. That’s one of the things that I mean by your fantasies.
It’s a different strategy, in part because of the changes in mass media from 1980 to now
My point is that it seems to have changed a lot more from the 1980s to now than from the 1930s to now…
Karl says: Low content propaganda like the “Change” brand is in my view a warning sign. It indicates that the users of the propaganda are either lazy (eg, simply haven’t thought through their arguments properly) or are hiding serious flaws with their argument.
Not that I’m defending the One, but simple one word propaganda, like simple advertising is usually the most effective. Everyone I’ve read is paying lip service to Obama’s ability to speak, bu I’m thinking the propaganda posters are part of the communication strategy. I agree Karl that its a warning sign, but those out there, and there are a ton of them, don’t think thay way, or at all, and they’ll get sucked into the machine. Then again, with all the media reports AGAINST something Obama did, on other than FOX, it seems the media is realizing they don’t want a Chicago politician in Washington anymore.
Rand, if you don’t think Obama is evil, why in the world are you comparing him to Hitler?
Obama is neither communist nor socialist.
Communism is common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.
Socialism is public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Fascism has significant government intervention such as regulations, objectives, and nationalization of certain enterprises. Unlike statist socialist systems, fascist economies for the most part protect the right of private property and allowed significant independence for private free enterprise except in areas deemed vital to the national interest where private enterprise was not able to meet economic expectations of the state, in which such enterprises are nationalized.
Obama chose his shoes so it’s completely fair to point out what he chose.
Rand, if you don’t think Obama is evil, why in the world are you comparing him to Hitler?
Now you’re shifting the goalposts again. First you accuse me of believing that President Obama is a “socialist pinko commie,” and then you shift to implying that I think that he is “evil,” as though those are identically equal things. But one can be a socialist without being evil, and one can be evil without being a socialist.
My point is not that Obama is either evil, or a socialist, or even that he is a fascist (though I think that he objectively is the latter, not that there’s anything wrong with that). I don’t expect him to send anyone into the boxcars.
My point (and Michael Ledeen’s) is that when someone sells lofty ideas with misleading and even deceitful propaganda, with tendencies toward desired suppression of speech, we should be on our guard, because sometimes there can be very ugly things at the bottom of that slippery slope. Again, go read the Road To Serfdom (if only the graphical version that I linked in this post). And one can slide down the hill even with the best of intentions (there is a reason for the old saying about the paving stones of the road to Hell).
I chose Hitler as an example because a) he was a master propagandist and mesmerizer and b) I happened to go to a museum in which that was on display. What he was mesmerizing people to do is a secondary issue.
I think a better term to explain Obama is sloganeering. “Hope and Change” was a very effective slogan. It required others to determine what exactly was hope and change, and people were very happy to fill the void left by Obama. Once they filled that void, they took their own thoughts about what “Hope and Change” really meant and simply assumed that is what Obama meant. And then they voted for him.
As for what the Stimulus package is, and how it was supported; it is fascism.
Rand – thank you for your explanation. I’m not sure I’d use such an emotionally-loaded comparison, but it’s your blog.
I definitely don’t agree with the “misleading and deceitful” part of your statement, and until the Fairness Doctrine actually rears it’s head, I don’t see any quelling of speech.
I definitely don’t agree with the “misleading and deceitful” part of your statement
When someone says (or strongly implies) that we shouldn’t cut taxes because that’s the failed policies of the last eight years, it is both misleading and deceitful. Maybe he’s deceiving himself as well, but that doesn’t make it any less so.
…until the Fairness Doctrine actually rears it’s head, I don’t see any quelling of speech
So when people in the majority on the Hill, and the White House, express interest in suppressing speech, we shouldn’t be concerned, or think that they merely want to do it? We shouldn’t think of them as incipient suppressors of speech, but merely people spouting random thoughts unrelated to their desires?
We shouldn’t be concerned until they’ve actually done it, and it’s too late to express such concerns?
I’m currently reading “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayek, so I’ve been thinking a little about parallels between Hitler’s Nazi party and the socialist liberals in the Democrat party today. There are some, to be sure, but one thing that strikes me as quite different is that today’s liberals aren’t exactly swelling with national pride — quite to the contrary, their motto seems to be “blame America first” in almost any national context. Wasn’t the National Socialist party characterized at least as much by rabid nationalism as by socialism? Although I worry that Obama’s election has increased the pace of our slide into socialism, I can’t quite imagine that America’s liberals will be goose-stepping for the fatherland any time soon.