Enough with the Nazi references! (Keith Olbermann)

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Enough with the Nazi references! (Keith Olbermann)

LOS ANGELES - A message to Dick Durbin, Rick Santorum, and Robert Byrd - as they combine to delay my reports to you about the night I inadvertently offered Bill Clinton my New York City subway pass, and my experiences behind the scenes at "The Tonight Show," and my private eight minutes with Mary Carey.

The message is this: Boys, just don’t say "Nazi" ever again in your life.

There’s no place for the reference in this culture. Not about the Republican tactics, not about the Democratic tactics, not about Guantanamo Bay.

The Republicans are not the SS, and the Democrats are not the Gestapo, and Gitmo is not Buchenwald.

<</SNIP>>

[LisaM]

1. No more FemiNazi, either.

THAT has got to stop. I'm going to email Keith on that one.

[Endangered Specie]

2. dont forget to add "Hitlery"

I hear that one alot now... also tell him that people (republicans) should stop the communist references too!

[wryter2000]

4. Yup

stop the communist references too!

Absolutely! Especially since they're more like the communists in the sense of stifling civil liberties.

[indepat]

How about suspending the bleeding-heart, commie-loving, tax-and-spend

pinko soft-on-crime liberal crap too.

[LisaM]

10. Do Limbaugh, Savage, et al use "Hitlery"?

I've seen it in my forays over to FreeRepublic, but nowhere else (I don't listen to right wing talk radio, though.)

[iconoclastNYC]

14. You bet your bippy, don't forget that FEMINAZIS gem. n/t

[BurtWorm]

18. Amen!

[wryter2000]

3. I have to agree

Stating the facts is powerful enough to make the point. Every time someone uses "holocaust" or "gulag," the conversation turns from the substance of *'s latest abuse to whether or not it's "the same" as the holocaust or the gulag.

And that also applies to feminazi, as Lisa has pointed out. :)

[Cleita]

5. Yeah, bite me.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then most likely it's a duck.

I have the same sentiments about Nazis.

[area51]

42. What Cleita said. (n/t)

[geniph]

6. Besides, Bu$h isn't analogous to Hitler -

he's far more analogous to Mussolini, and what's happening in this country is far more reminiscent of what happened in Italy as the Fascisti gradually assumed control of everything.

There's even a whole cult of personality revolving around Cuckoobananas that is eerily similar to the statues and near-icons of Mussolini that were eventually mandated in public places.

Why do I have Frank Zappa's "It Can't Happen Here" running through my head these days?

[shance]

7. We in America are above that sort of thing, huh?

I think we have enough arrogance to act as though there aren't some acting like Nazis, which Olbermann and everyone else knows it's true.

On the contrary, I think we need to be pushing the ante for calling a spade a spade.

Many of the Neocons have long been followers, students, supporters of the Nazi regime, however quiet they may be about it. Many if not most are White Supremists who support an Aryan nation JUST LIKE HITLER, but Olbermann wants to ignore that fact.

Durbin was 100% accurate with the comparison he made, and he needs support and accurate clarification not someone like Keith Olbermann throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But Keith wants those to shut up about the truth.

[LynnTheDem]

8. So what bodycount does bush need to reach before we can compare

Nazi tactics to the very same tactics bush is using?

[The Magistrate]

26. Mr. Olberman Is Correct, Ma'am

Nazis have come to stand in the popular mind for absolute evil, and did in fact a fair enough personation of that ideal for the identification to ring true enough for solid attachment. The temptation, for someone seeking to move popular feeling against some object, to claim that object is like the Nazis, is obvious enough, but in the final analysis, the thing contains a fatal flaw, which is this: anything actual falls short of absolute evil, and the gap between whatever wrong the object you wish to rouse feeling against has done, and the absolute of evil the Nazis represent, will immediately be obvious to the popular mind, which will recoil against the exaggeration, and refuse to take seriously the utterance. Thus, it will tend more towards provoking people to defend the object of the charge, rather than to identify with the charge and take it as their own. A propaganda line that gets many people to say your opponent is not that bad cannot be a good one.

As to your question, two points seem worth mention in reply.

First, very little that is refered to as "Nazi tactics" either originated with them, or can really be viewed as peculiar to them. Lies and brutality have been the common coin of oppressive government throughout human history, and throughout human history government has tended to be more oppressive in character than otherwise. In the mechanics of establishing and maintaining power by such means, the Nazis are hardly unique, nor are they pioneers, or even particularly effective exemplars. They are simply better publicized, because their regime contained some outlandish features which, owing to their very wierdness and otherwordliness, exert a certain fascination on the popular mind, sufficient to impress them on even people who have no particular interest in history.

Second, the question of "bodycount" is not quite the diagnostic. The over-riding aim of the Nazi regime was total extermination of a particular group of hmans, and the reduction of other particular groups to a state of chattel slavery. Even this last is different from a program seeking to exploit the resources and populace of a region, even if this program has, at bottom, a basis in racist regard towards the people of that region. No one seriously supposes, for example, that it is the intention of even the current regime to kill every person in Iraq, let alone evry Arab or Muslim in the world. The intention goes, at worst, no further than to kill a sufficient number to ensure the quiesence under exploitation of the rest. Absent a determination to exterminate, there can be no "threshold" to cross that can enable an identity to be declared.

[bpilgrim]

55. Springtime for Hitler

the final solution wasn't operational until late in the war.

NEVER FORGET

peace

[Amonester]

38. 25 millions?

That's Iraq's population number! It's **'s secret dream: murder them all over one or two generations? Or as long as there's gonna be some oil to rob...

Of course Busholini will need to get a third, a fourth, and a fifth term to kill them that slowly. After all, FDR got more than two...

:scared:

[DivinBreuvage]

40. Bush could kill the entire population of Iraq, he still wouldn't match

what Hitler was responsible for in the Soviet Union alone. This is not to defend Bush, it's just to say that Hitler sinks to a more profound evil than even Bush has yet proven capable of.

[Amonester]

56. Apples and oranges...

I agree with you that **, as of today, in June 2005, has not yet proven being capable of sinking to a more profound evil than Hitler has, as of way back then in May, 1945.

All we're sayin' is... ** is following in his footsteps...

The fact that ** is considered as the world's most dangerous terrorist from outside of the U.S. should start ringing a few bells... but a sheer majority of Americans didn't even learn about the rest of the world (and frankly, just couldn't care less...)

** in 2005-06 = Hitler in 1938-39, and not 1945 (yet).

[DivinBreuvage]

39. We can start when Bush gets up to about 37 million dead

Believe me, Lynn, I don't disagree that Bush is a fascist, or that many, many innocent people are suffering and dying from the policies of the Establishment (which is the real entity to blame, Bush being little more than a willing puppet). But the simple fact of the matter is that as bad as Bush is, Hitler really did create a hell of a lot more misery and suffering in the world. Granted, most of his victims have been dead for 60 years, but that in no way lessens the crime -- nor is it just to their memory to equate the affliction of Nazism with the policies of the current American buffoon.

Quite frankly, at this stage Bush is NOT the equivalent of Hitler. Bush is merely the equivalent of countless tyrants down through the ages. I've never seen a single poster on DU shed tears about the victims of Sargon or Ramses or Cleon, but in the final analysis -- so far -- Bush isn't going to amount to any more than this. Evil, yes -- but not Hitler.

[burythehatchet]

41. We can start when Bush gets up to about 37 million dead

doesn't that just about say it all.

Yes, when 37 million people have been killed then it will be OK for us to consider bush the modern day hitler. Not before.

[DivinBreuvage]

45. There is NO equivalent, even if saying there is makes you feel better

As the Magistrate explained much more eloquently in his post, the evil of Hitler far surpasses that of Bush, who is merely the same type of run-of-the-mill evil bastard the earth has been producing down through the ages.

When people like you make this ridiculous and hysterical assertion you dishonor the memory of those tens of millions of dead who suffered under the Nazi regime. I understand that you hate and despise Bush, and I'm not saying you shouldn't! But for heaven's sake try to have some sense of proportion.

[burythehatchet]

49. Take your "people like you"

and stick it up your arse

[DivinBreuvage]

50. Well, you're just as bad as Hitler for saying that!

Hitler probably understood history a little better than you, though, and even he wasn't that good.

[burythehatchet]

51. OK that was funny

I understand history a bit too well, ergo my concerns

on edit - that coupled with the fact that the people who we are discussing posess the military means to dominate/destroy every human being on earth. Imagine if Adolf had that power. Makes ya think.

[DivinBreuvage]

52. Now, that is definitely a valid concern

Although I would argue that the history of the downfall of the Third Reich suggests that Hitler's order to unleash nuclear devastation on the planet -- while he almost certainly would have issued it -- would likely not have been obeyed.

But in any event, it seems silly to me to attempt to drum up opposition to Bush on the reasoning that some day, theoretically, perhaps, he might possibly prove to be as bad or worse than Adolf Hitler.

Bush is acting in the here and now. Either what he's doing is wrong, undemocratic, and unjustifiable, or it isn't.

If it is, that in itself is the only necessary and sufficient reason to oppose him. Lurid conjectures about nuclear holocaust are melodramatic and irrelevant, and, worse, are so over the top that the citizen in the street is going to dismiss them.

If it isn't, then there's no real reason to oppose him.

Make your argument based on what Bush is doing here and now -- in other words, show people the documented reality. If that isn't enough to piss people off, then either you're not arguing effectively or what he's doing isn't that bad.

I do believe Bush is bad for America and bad for the world. I do believe he should be opposed. But Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with it.

[The Straight Story]

54. And what do we call those complicit

and those who voted for the IWR and so on? Is kerry just as bad because he went along with things? Are other dems? How do we judge those who let it be as it is and have not sacrificed enough to stop it (ie, they were more worried about their careers then the lives of others)?

[Beetwasher]

9. So, IOW, WE SHOULD JUST FUCKING FORGET ABOUT THE NAZI'S?????

Sorry Keith, not with you on this one.

Remember the lesson of the Holocaust and the lesson MY RELATIVES who were in the death camps passed down to me: NEVER FORGET.

The world didn't wake up one morning to 6 million jews being murdered. It started slowly, probably w/ a camp very much like Gitmo and built up from there because that first camp wasn't challenged. The Nazi's got away w/ the first murder, the first camp, the first ovens. So, we should just let Bushco. get away w/ Gitmo? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I won't wait until 6 million Muslims are slaughtered before it's ok to make Nazi comparisons.

NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET
NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET NEVER FORGET

[Raksha]

33. NEVER AGAIN!!!

NEVER AGAIN NEVER AGAIN NEVER AGAIN
NEVER AGAIN NEVER AGAIN NEVER AGAIN
NEVER AGAIN NEVER AGAIN NEVER AGAIN

[damntexdem]

11. I cannot take his assurances seriously:

I often feel like it's Berlin in the late 1930s.

[Endangered Specie]

12. and stop with the damn "9/11 = Reichstag fire" bit too

:eyes::tinfoilhat:

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Oh I AGREE!!

Because there will never be anything like a HILTER. I mean it's impossible that someone could ever COME CLOSE? I mean we shouldn't make any comparisons at all. We might as well just forget about Hilter even existed.

(sarcasm)

[Spazito]

15. I get the impression, and not just from Keith, that when the term

'Nazi' is used they see it as the 1945 Nazi after the discovery of the concentration camps and don't see the Nazi of 1933. The Nazi party that took control of the media, provided a target for the German people to fear, etc.

[carnie_sf]

16. Repukes do, however

display many traits of fascism.

[CAcyclist]

17. Maybe The Republicans Could Stop First

After all they are the ones calling feminists nazis, etc.

Maybe this side could worry a little less about Republicans complaining about what someone on this side says and a little more about what their side is doing.

I am really starting to believe that this Republican - false - outrage about being compared to the Nazis is because they know this is something that can harm the Republicans - that it really will resonate with the American people.

After all, I do know of at least one person who told me he was moving to Canada because this was too much like Weimer Germany.

In local activism ,my tried and true motto has always been to do whatever my political opponent tells me not to do. I have always won with that motto.

I think people should think about that motto and if you think it's the right way to go, then, in order to fulfill that motto, since the Republicans are consistently complaining about us bringing up the words Nazis and Hitler, let's do MORE of it.

[johnaries]

19. I know that sometimes the Nazi reference can automatically turn

someone off so they no longer listen to you and therefore destroys your chances of convincing them of anything.

BUT, if we do not remember and learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it (I read that somewhere in a History book).

When parallels exist, the parallels should be noted.

And there are a lot of parallels between this administration and the lead-up to NAZI Germany. As well as Orwellian parallels.

Keith, I love ya, man. But I gotta disagree with you on this one.

[noamnety]

22. I'm with you, johnaries

When they wrote the torture memo, they made the comparison themselves.

If you include discussions of the Nuremberg Defense in the policy documents, you don't get to act shocked that other people see similarities.

[bowens43]

20. Either he hasn't been paying attention

or he slept through world history.

[sui generis]

21. I disagree

there are valid comparisons to fascist regimes that have merit and deserve discussion.

The only people who would say there is no comparison to be made are clearly not any kind of student of history, and so their opinions, both republican and democratic, can be discounted from the beginning.

Burtworm said something earlier that I have to agree with though - there is a time and place to draw those parallels, and it is not in the heat of a discussion, when posturing and reacting to it can obscure a topic.

[JDPriestly]

23. I disagree.

People who say the NAZI analogy does not apply to the Republicans in the government today just haven't studied the history of Germany in the 1930s. I ask them to do so and then comment.

My husband was born in 1940, remembers his own experiences from that time and is an expert on German culture and history (has a PhD in a related field). He believes the conduct of the Republican extreme right is very similar to that of the NAZIs in their EARLY YEARS. The NAZIs did not just suddenly take power and start putting ordinary citizens in concentration camps. They slowly but surely and only little by little eliminated civil rights and dissent, and only when they had destroyed their opposition did they begin to achieve their terrible agenda of invading other countries to obtain their land and wealth and the genocide of the Holocaust. Many Americans are ignorant of the historical facts. What is it they say about people who are ignorant of history? Aren't they doomed to repeat it?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this, but the similarities between policies of the Bush administration and the NAZIs are striking: the Patriot Act is like NAZI laws allowing repression of opposition groups (notice that the terrorism laws are actually being used to target crazy, but very American fringe groups like PETA and environmentalists in this country). Then there is the invasion of Iraq (remember Czechoslovakia in 1938) based on the fixing of the intelligence (Hitler's invasion of Poland), the scapegoating of gays and other minority groups, the censorship of certain speech (remember Bush's war on obscenity in the media), the closed rallies, the control and manipulation of the press, the single voice, near worship of the leader -- Bush -- Hitler and statements to the effect that criticizing the leader or his policies are treason, the use of internment camps and arrests without charges, use of propaganda, the central message with all spokespeople and followers pretty much on message, etc., etc. The list goes on and on. There is no end to similarities. In fact, the attempt to silence the comparisons is yet another way in which the Bushies resemble the NAZIs.

[sui generis]

27. you are absolutely spot on

My german-american family has long memories too.

[frictionlessO]

24. Is Mussolini ok?? Or Hirohito then?? Or is it we can't use any dictator

references.

Maybe all the pagans should get together and demand "witch-hunt" and "inquisition" never ever be used again.

Many millions were totured to death then as well, just over a long period... better to instill that fear of god into generations and their respective cultures.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. From an earlier post

Is Bush like Hitler? I have seen some make a case for it, but it always falls short. I assert that NO ONE is Hitler other than Hitler. He is in a “class” all by himself! Yes, like Hitler, Bush has invaded a sovereign nation. Like Hitler, Bush has manipulated the media and national patriotism. Like Hitler, Bush is despised worldwide. Although a few more examples exist, Hitler was responsible for one of the most horrific genocides to ever take place in the history of humans. Therefore, Hitler stands alone. Bush may “aspire” to Hitler’s power, but he is not systematically destroying an entire group of people, in order to wipe them from the face of the planet. Even Stalin and Pol-Pot and their horrific regimes didn’t reach the level of evil that Hitler achieved. Does this mean the acts carried out by Bush, Stalin and Pol-Pot are any less evil or dastardly? OH HELL NO! But, why not compare Bush to Caesar? Napoleon? Genghis Khan? They are all examples of bat-shit crazy despots. Do you use Hitler for shock value or is there an actual comparison? When someone says “Hitler,” do you think of the struggling/failed artist? Do you think “the weasly, little nobody who could barely muster support, at first?” I bet you think “crazed madman, who sent 12 million hapless souls to their deaths!” So even if there are comparisons between Bush (or any leader) to Hitler, the only impression that people think when they hear that name is “crazed madman, who sent millions to their deaths.”

What about “nazi?” Fair game? Well, in some sense, yes. Nazis are a type of fascist. There are a few other examples. But, why use “nazi” instead of “fascist?” Could it be for shock value? I think it is. Because, like Hitler, Nazi, invokes a very particular image…the Holocaust. So the next time you see “fascist” behavior, call it out by calling it “fascist!” Nazi-like behavior is all over the world, but it is simply fascism.

This is from my own piece.

[Karenina]

32. Know your BFEE.

the *dauphin's opa FUNDED NAZIS, Thyssen, IG Farben... His father had to fire a few ensconced in his administration once their "pedigree" was uncovered... We, over here where the horror occurred with our DAILY REMINDERS, are FREAKING OUT watching y'all amble down the primrose path, ignoring HISTORY and arguing about the definition of "fixed."

See yourselves as you like. But THIS is how others see you:

[Behind the Aegis]

34. This is how you see Americans?

Your post was a tad confusing. I have no issue saying our leadership is headed down a certain path, but, as seen, any mention of the dreaded words, the message is lost in a flurry. So, why not just not say it, but imply it? Nuance is not something that the right understands all that well. However, give them a target, then they are like pit-bulls with a bone.

[DivinBreuvage]

43. Great post ! You're right, Hitler is always picked cuz he's the SEXY one

Nobody much knows or cares about the victims of Ghengis Khan, even here on DU. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie or tv melodrama or History Channel documentary about him. But Hitler, man, all those jackboots and leather and swastika flags -- it gets to people, it makes an impression even those who decry him.

Hitler and Goebbels were tremendous geniuses. Sixty years after their death and the utter wreckage of their "dream", they continue to seduce even those who damn everything they stood for.

[The Magistrate]

44. The Great Khan, Sir

Is badly mis-represented, the history of him being mostly written by his enemies. By the standards of his day, he was a pretty decent fellow, and something evenm of a progressive.

Tamurlane, of course, is a different kettle of skulls entirely....

[DivinBreuvage]

46. I am not a sir, Sir. And as for the Great Khan

I admit I know nothing about him, and only mentioned him because he was one of the personalities mentioned by Behind the Aegis in his/her intelligent and thoughtful post. But I do thank you for pointing out that my "received opinion" of him is unfair and that he is worthy of further study. I have read many of your posts here and admire and respect you.

[dweller]

28. ...

http://www.amics21.com/911/fasano.html


dp

[Catrina]

29. It's interesting

that there were no calls to drop the references to Hitler or Nazism while rightwingers had a free reign to call the former First Lady 'Hitlery' (and yes, it is a common name used in every rightwing chatroom used to defame Hillary Clinton) or women who ask for equal rights, Feminazis, a term initiated by Rush Limbaugh and allowed to go unchallenged for 15 years or more.

Once again, the rightwingers whine and complain, and everyone rushes to appease them. One thing the rightwing is right about, it seems to me, Democrats are appeasers.

Ed Schultz is defending Durbin and decrying the campaign against for telling the truth. He just that anyone using the word 'Nazi' on the Senate floor better get ready to be attacked. WRONG! ED! Santorum used it to describe the Democratic Party and the Democrats overlooked it.

This is not about the words, it's about who screams louder. And once again, the whining rightwing just yelled louder. They could care less about the use of the word Nazi, if they did they would have yelling just as loudly at Santorum. When Keith asks Santorum for an apology on the floor of the Senate, and Rush Limbaugh and his copy-cat talking heads to apologize on the air, I'll worry about this.

Right now, I am worried about the issue of Guantanamo Bay, which is being effectively buried by this nonsense. Durbin was right.


The world DOES view the US as going down the path of other oppressive regimes because of gulags like GB. That is a fact, and while we may be stopped from using a Nazi or Fascist analogy, the question remains, how do we stop the rest of the world from doing so??

[Hubert Flottz]

30. LMAO!

His compatriot, the aged writer Kurt Vonnegut did not hesitate in calling him "the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'état leader imaginable".

[Burried News]

31. We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control

Just another brick in the wall. Pink Floyd

[moondust]

35. And don't bring up the similarities.

Somebody might realize that history is repeating itself thanks to the U.S. taxpayer.

[radar]

36. The Sideshow wrote a piece about reasons for comparison...

That I agree with in regards to using the Nazi analogy; getting a majority of the country's citizens to treat a minority as unequal & unprotected. *Hmm - kinda like slaves, or indians, in this country awhile back, too.

"...a nation singled-out specified groups of their own people and declared them bereft of their citizenship and their rights.
...the point is that these were German citizens who suddenly found themselves without the protections of German law, the personhood that had previously been presumed - and thus, it became acceptable to do things to them that no civilized society subjects people to.
...now we hear that it's okay to treat non-citizens differently, to deprive them, under numerous circumstances, of due process. And to do things to them that we have already sworn we would never do.
...And we've even seen legislation drawn up and put before Congress that would deprive Americans of their citizenship! Think about that for a minute. How good are your rights as a citizen if the government can simply declare you a non-citizen..."

The Sideshow - On bloody roads jun2005
http://sideshow.me.uk/sjun05.htm#201650

[Raksha]

37. The attitude seems to be here...

...that we're only allowed to use the "Nazi" analogy when it's obviously NOT applicable, but not when it IS!

Well, not "we" actually, but THEY are allowed to use it when it's not applicable (like calling Hillary Clinton "Hitlery," which I've seen ad nauseum on another board and which has NEVER made any sense), or when they talk about the "abortion holocaust," an analogy that has been run into the ground by the theocons for YEARS! In fact, I finally stopped posting on one particular abortion forum because the nonstop Holocaust analogies trivialized the suffering of the Jews in the real Holocaust. And for the record, I *AM* Jewish and that's precisely why I found that analogy so offensive.

So no, dammit, I am NOT friggin' buying this crap for one minute! The reason they are all screaming about the gulag and Holocaust comparisons is precisely because they *ARE* accurate, and they know it and we know it. Durbin should have stood by his original remarks and not caved in to pressure, no matter which side it came from.

[Karenina]

53. Raksha, Welcome to DU!

Do a "Know Your BFEE" search on this site... We KNOW who they are. They been entrenched since BEFORE WWII. Where oh where did dem Krauts get dem crazy ideas, THE FINANCES AND HARDWARE to carry 'em out??? :freak: Hmmm...

[Dave Sund]

47. And stop with all the false analogies!!

Damn, I had a so-called ethics teacher who tried this tired tactic last semester. He was, ironically enough, talking about false moral equivalencies, and brought up Barbara Boxer saying that Hussein was so worthless, that he wasn't worth a single American life. He makes the false analogy, that Hitler was worthless, so does that mean Hitler was not worth an American life? I say to him: "You're making a false moral equivalency, right there." Like any good asshole neocon (this guy was an ex-Marine colonel), he went ahead and just ignored me, continuing his specious reasoning to it's illogical conclusion.

And that's what some of you here are doing. You assume that because we say that you shouldn't call Bush Hitler or Republicans Nazis that we don't think there is a danger of fascism lurking under the surface. Calling it what it is or what you think it might become (fascism, not Nazism, would be the correct term in that analogy), isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about losing the argument before it's started. You use inflammatory rhetoric, then you will lose the argument. Stop using that kind of rhetoric, then you'll start to gain ground. People won't listen if you turn them off immediately.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

48. Olbermann is completely wrong on this. Nazi reference may sometimes

be overplayed or not strategically smart to use because it stops someone listening to you, but nothing is off the table for all time.