Can we use the N word NOW?!!

[Neil Lisst]

The mere mention of this word sends people into a frenzy, but it's about time we stopped running away from it.

NAZI.

Bush is systematically ignoring due process, trampling the rights we took over 200 years securing, and tracking political opponents with spying.

When an author who correctly describes Bush's relationship with Karl Rove can be put and kept on the NO FLY list, it's time to call George Bush the Nazi he is.

Did he invade a foreign country in the name of security? Have tens of thousands died because he fabricated a war? Is he an enemy of freedom and democracy here and abroad?

He's a NAZI, and everything about him oozes it.

[Acryliccalico]

1. He is a NAZI................n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

Yep

Runs in the family apparently. Quite sad.

[merwin]

2. As much as I hate Bush, I can't justify calling him a Nazi.

Hitler killed millions of people in an effort to bring one race to power and kill all Jews.

Bush is definately killing people, but not to the extent of Hitler, and he's doing it for pure greed.

However, I have no problem calling Bush a Fascist!

[FreedomAngel82]

3. I call him that all the time

And remember Bush once called the whole deal in Iraq a holy war and he said God told him to attack them. So he is a Nazi.

[merwin]

6. He's definately delusional but his goal is not to bring one race to power.

Wikipedia has a great article regarding this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fascism#Neo-Fascism_and_the_United_States

Here's an excerpt:
In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in "As We Go Marching," where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to uncomfortably similar American policies.

For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were:
1) unrestrained government;
2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;
3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;
4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";
5) state control of the financial sector;
6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;
7) militarism, and
8) imperialism

........

There's also:

Britt argues that "fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for." Britt looked at the "following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible" <6>.

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Rampant sexism.
A controlled mass media.
Obsession with national security.
Religion and ruling elite tied together.
Power of corporations protected.
Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Obsession with crime and punishment.
Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Fraudulent elections.

-----------

This administration fits every single one of them. The Nazi party was a form of Fascism, but there are differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Differences
While Nazism was a metapolitical ideology, seeing both party and government as a means to achieve an ideal condition for certain chosen people, fascism was a squarely anti-socialist form of statism that existed as an end in and of itself. The Nazi movement, at least in its overt ideology, spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes. The Fascist movement, on the other hand, sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture, although this is not to say that Fascists rejected the concept of social mobility. Indeed a central tenet of the Corporate State was meritocracy. This underlying theorem made the Fascists and National Socialists in the period between the two world wars sometimes see themselves and their respective political labels as at best partially exclusive of one another, and at worst diametrically opposed to one another. This seemed to be especially the case in 1934 when Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist leader of Austria was assasinated by Nazi Brown shirts, on Hitler's orders in preparation for a planned Anschluss, which prompted Mussolini to move troops to the Austrian-Italian border in readiness for war with Hitler.

[snowbear]

10. Not one race ... but definitely ONE party..

I don't use the word Nazi either, but I do believe Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are two of the most evil, LYING bastards on the planet.

[Maddy McCall]

14. And, by logical extension, one race.

Let's face it. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly lily white.

[wtmusic]

11. One major difference

Germany was in tatters following WWI, thousands were starving, the populace was humilitated. Hitler successfully capitalized on all of these factors with a nationalistic appeal to return the Homeland to her former greatness.

Dubya, who presides over a relatively affluent citizenry, found a platform after 9/11 by appealing to an even baser emotion: fear. Both evolve into fascism.

[wiley]

50. The Nazis had no problem with Africans

as long as they realized they were an inferior but interestingly robust species of animal related to man. Don't kid yourself * or his ilk have any regard for other races.

SIGN OFF

[DemoVet]

7. I don't have a problem calling him a fascist either

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=44992&mesg_id=44992">because the "F" word fits him nicely. Here's a link that http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm">lays it all out.

[merwin]

8. Your links are broken.... they should be respectively:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=44992&mesg_id=44992
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Mr Rabble]

38. Replace "jew" with "muslim" + wait a few years...

and youve got youre 4th Reich.

Gitmo and the "black sites" are 1 step removed from Nazi death camps.

Am I overstating it? Maybe. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Fovea]

4. He's worse

It's just a matter of time before his genocide equals or exceeds the nazi final solution.

And he will, once he is declared president for life, have time to do it.

[MadisonProgressive]

5. He certainly is a reasonable facsimile on one!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Numbskull?

:shrug:

[Patchuli]

12. Don't forget the variation of 'NUMBNUTS!' LOL! nt

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. No!!!!!

It's a dumb comparison to make, and gives them to many DISTRACTING talking points.

As soon as you compare Bush & Co. to Nazis your credibility goes out the window.

[man4allcats]

15. Why do you call it dumb?

Seems to me it is at most a difference in degree; not in philosophy.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. I explained why I call it dumb.

Because it allows enemies too many red herring argument openings.

For example: Bush has not engaged in an organized plot to commit genocide.

That's a big difference, and that's probably the #1 reason that the comparison is a loser. Dumb.

[enough already]

22. The Iraq war is certainly an "organized plot".

The chimp lied to get us there. Calling Bush a nazi might not be harsh enough.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. I said "organized plot to commit genocide"

If you're going to leave out the last part your not really saying anything, are you?

I'm engaged in an "organized plot" to get the dog to take a crap this morning. Does that make me a Nazi?

[enough already]

24. My apologies. It IS an "organized plot to commit genocide"

Nazi Bush wants these people DEAD and it is clear as day to anyone with their eyes open. You want to defend the chimp, be my guest.

[onenote]

40. no its not

And suggesting it is only makes you look silly.

onenote

[Strawman]

47. I agree with you

A wannabe dictator, yes. A Nazi, no. There is a meaningful difference in my view. There is no need to use that word. Does what *'s doing have to be that bad to be bad enough for anyone here? It is already well beyond the threshold of unacceptable and antidemocratic. I can understand the temptation to compare him to the Nazi's out of frustration, but it's not right. I don't see why we have to reach for that.

Using the Nazi analogy should be done with sensitivity if at all. The logical extension of the label is that *'s actions compare to the Holocaust. They don't. One doesn't want to trivialize the evils of the Nazi's by comparing them to *. The Nazi's rounded up and killed six million Jews. Deliberately. Six million. Not just if they got in the way of a "smart bomb." I guess the test for me is whether or not I would feel credible looking one of the Holocaust victims in the face and saying: I think George Bush is a Nazi." Personally, I would not feel credible saying that. Some people might feel the exact opposite way. They might feel they are honoring the victims, by speaking out preventing the next Holocaust. I can understand that, but I feel that * comparisons do nothing to accomplish that and at least at this point in history only serve to trivialize the Holocaust. And one can speak out without using that label, so it's unnecessary.

On the other hand, one doesn't want to trivialize the deaths of people who have died unnecessarily in this immoral war. As I write this, and attempt to disagree with the use of the Nazi label, I find myself having to be careful not to trivialize in the other direction. Every unnecessary loss of life is uniquely tragic. But I don't think one has to equate *'s action with Hitler's in order to appreciate the wrongness of his actions and the tragedy that has occurred.

I can't honestly say to myself that * is as bad as Hitler, and I don't see how anyone can really. I think it's intellectually dishonest. * isn't the first President to trample upon civil liberties or launch an unnecessary war that claimed the lives of tens of thousands for no good reason. Were those Presidents "Nazis" too? Do the Republicans have to be the Khmer Rouge for my critique of their behavior to have the same impact? Ultimately, * doesn't have to be as bad as the Nazis to be unacceptably immoral.

It's useful to point out the parallels and the dangers of where some of these things can end, but it's not the same. * is not a Nazi. Maybe I could see using that label if it woke people up and saved people's lives (and I think that's the good intention of many of those that do) but I think it really just makes it easier for the other side to marginalize * critics as being unreasonable whackos. And before even considering the cost/benefit of using it, I think it's just wrong on its face. I think language matters. That word has to be unique. It represents a specific historic evil. When it is tossed around as an insult to our political opponents, no matter how bad they are, I think it loses some of its meaning to people. It's a free country, and maybe it's not a bad thing to think about and discuss, but I think the specific analogy is not correct.

[Harper_is_Bush]

49. You want to make democrats appear ridiculous....

why would that be?

[onenote]

39. do you know anything about the Nazi's "phiolosophy"?

If you did, you couldn't say what you did. This administration is corrupt, power-mad, and frequently delusional. In that regard, they are similar to the Nazis (as well as to any number of evil government regimes throughout history). But calling them "Nazis" drains all meaning from the specifics of what the Nazis were.

onenote

[PurpleChez]

17. Good point.

I wouldn't piss on W's face if his head were on fire. He and his accomplices and their supporters are repugnant to me. Heck...I've even photoshopped his head onto pictures of Mr. Hitler. Just for fun. But calling him a Nazi, however satisfying it might be, gives the thugs ammunition they don't need. Plus, historically speaking, Nazi implies a lot of specific stuff that may not apply. And, anyway, we've got plenty of legitimate adjectives for President Corky and the Playhouse Gang. Like sociopathic murderers.

[PDJane]

18. I realize that

the statements I am going to make put me in the tinfoil hat category (a bowler would be nice), but........

US-based corporations were inovolved in the rise of fascism in Germany. The Bush bunch in particular, and that includes Prescott, Brown Brothers, Harriman, and too many others to name were quite willing to plot against Roosevelt and his New Deal, exported the theory of Eugenics to Hitler's regime, and helped to fund the slave labour camps at Auschwitz, among other things.

Whether you consider it conspiracy or coincidence, the ties are there. They've just gotten better about hiding the fundamentals behind their actions. They are still fascists......and yes, Nazis. Hitler used the master race theory and religion to build up his people, and mass murder to finance his regime. Bush uses religion and hides his bodies more carefully.

[Berry Cool]

19. But we still really need to be careful about who we call a Nazi.

It's wrong to slop the term around too easily. It should be reserved for those who do exactly what the Nazis did, or it gets too easily discounted and disregarded.

Until the death camps start being constructed, I will not call Bush a Nazi.

However, I have no problem with calling him a fascist.

[rndmprsn]

20. i dont think twice about calling them nazi's...they don't think twice...

about calling us commies every chance they get...if you cant take it, dont dish it out.

[enough already]

21. That's the right word

He's worse than Hitler.

[Zynx]

28. That is thoroughly preposterous and demands you to support that statement.

As bad as Bush is, his crimes don't even come close to comparing to Hitler and the Nazis.

[Zynx]

25. I strongly oppose using that term in political debate.

It severely discredits any reasoned argument one is making on any topic when they start comparing something to the Nazis. The Nazis are either directly or indirectly responsible for killing over 55 million people and having one of the most truly evil regimes that has ever walked the earth. No regime in the history of man has ever caused so much pain and suffering. Not even close. To compare Bush to Hitler and the Nazis is not correct and it discredits our own arguments that otherwise are quite sound.

If you must compare Bush to an authoritarian tyrant who killed a large, but not Nazi large, number of people, use Mussolini or Antonio Salazar from Portugal. Both led fascist states that generally didn't engage in the wholesale slaughter of people by ethnic cleansing, but killed plenty of people in their imperialistic wars. In Salazar's case, he never killed very many people in Portugal itself, but killed tens of thousands of people in the African colonies and nearly bankrupted Portugal in fighting to maintain his empire with a death grip. Also, both pursued economic policies that only really benefitted the very wealthy.

[Frank Cannon]

26. No, Bush hasn't killed 55 million people

...yet.

Hitler hadn't either in 1936.

[Zynx]

27. Hitler came into power in '33 so the appropriate comparison in years is

1938. Bush has not relentlessly engaged in the extermination of various groups of the population including the disabled, Gypsies, and Jews. Hitler had by his fifth year.

[Frank Cannon]

32. He just STARTED in his fifth year.

And we've already started torturing and killing prisoners. And we all see that this has been going on for years.

I strongly believe the biggest lesson we ever could have learned from World War II is to ALWAYS be vigilant and make sure that the like of the Nazis are NEVER EVER able to do do what they did AGAIN. I don't plan to sit around until a comparable number of people are killed before I compare a neocon to a Nazi. Their ideals, and their ultimate goal (supremacy over all who are NOT THEM), are the exact same.

[enough already]

42. By all means. let's give him more time....

A nazi is a nazi.

[kenny blankenship]

29. Saying he's a Fascist is no exaggeration--he's there

and more importantly the Republican Movement is there. They ARE Fascists. A good percentage of America is actively trending to fascism.

The term Nazi is more of an exaggeration for expressive effect. The Nazis were a specific fascist party and are uniquely identified and notorious for starting WWII and for trying to murder all the Jews of Europe. All Nazis are fascist but not all fascists are Nazis.

Fascism is the present reality. Nazi-ism or nazi-like extremes of brutality is the looming danger. Which is why the N word get used more and more. It's a warning sign that people had goddamn better well start to heed.

[Frank Cannon]

45. The sad fact: most people don't even know what a Fascist is

But EVERYONE knows what a Nazi is. No one has to take any extra time to explain that.

And basically, a Nazi IS a Fascist but with the extra trappings of inherited privilege and racial supremacy. Neocons HAVE these. I see absolutely no difference between today's neocons and yesterday's Nazis except for the numbers of murders and atrocities committed--and although the neocons are off to a good start, who wants to wait around to see if they will historically compare?

[JohnnyBoots]

30. He's more of a Mussolini, but using the Nazi playbook n/t

[Neil Lisst]

31. It comes down to each person's vision of "Nazi."

Many good comments, and I want to acknowledge that. I don't have time to tend this thread closely, but it's a topic that I would like to see discussed fully. The wingers are the ones who started this notion that calling them Nazis was ver boten.

Frankly, I don't care for word Nazis - people who act like they can control speech by shouting down words they don't like.

When we use the word NAZI, not all of us are literal.

It's a given that Bush hasn't killed millions of people, but then, most NAZIs didn't either. The new pope was a Nazi, and his position with the Catholic church for years was to enforce regimen. One could call him a Nazi either literally or figuratively.

Some make the mistake of using Hitler to equal Nazism, and therefore compare Bush to Hitler as a straw man. But calling Bush a Nazi is not calling him Hitler. There were millions of Nazis, and Bush would have made a good one. Bush is no Hitler, by any stretch of terms, but he's a great Nazi, exactly the kind of brownshirt who helped Nazism rise from a beer hall to power.

What this really comes down to is this: some people get really upset if anyone is called a Nazi other than in the literal sense, because they believe to do so would diminish the horrors of the Third Reich. Do they get similarly upset when someone is called a Neanderthal? Or a Vandal? Or a Communist? Or to the right of Attila the Hun?

Language is inherently conducive or many interpretations, and when a person tries to limit others from using a term, they're really trying to control THOUGHT, variations in THOUGHT, and expressions of THOUGHT by speech.

Some of the best Dems I've ever known have called rightwingers Nazis for as long as I can remember. It hasn't diminished the term's impact yet.

I believe Bush warrants being called a Nazi. It is ironic that some who can easily call him a murder of innocent IRAQI children can't call him a Nazi.

I accept that how one feels about the use of the word "Nazi" is a matter of personal taste, but that's all it is - a matter of personal taste. It has a literal meaning and a figurative meaning, and I use the term as it fits the circumstance.

[Loonman]

33. He's a fascist

Plain and simple.

[pauldp]

44. Thank you. Corporate nationalism. That is absolutely what he is. n/t

[Posteritatis]

34. By those standards, Mao, Lenin and Stalin were Nazis

And that just don't work.

There's something to be said for not diluting a term. The equivalent of calling everything up to and including single murders "acts of genocide" is one of the reasons people roll their eyes and shrug when they're told about the real ones going on in places like Darfur. I'd really rather not see the consequences if terms like "Nazi" are overused to the point where people roll their eyes and shrug whenever another really totalitarian state shows up.

"Fascist" is another thing; it's an interdisciplinary form of villainy, and much broader. There's considerably more to the word "Nazi" than "this is a naughty, naughty person," though, and I'll cheerfully continue to oppose misapplying that one.

[txaslftist]

35. So Bush is only as bad as Mao, Lenin and Stalin, but not Hitler?

Ah the company he keeps!

[Posteritatis]

41. Is reading comprehension so difficult around here?

No, I'm saying that calling Bush a Nazi is like saying an orange is a basketball because they're both round and roughly the same color.

[Norquist Nemesis]

36. "N" word is now "NEOCON" n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Ni!

Ecky ecky pikang zoop boing.

Yup. He's a nazi.

[Dulcinea]

43. I like "noisome."

Much of what he does, stinks!

[Posteritatis]

46. Narcissistic, noxious... (n/t)

[Neil Lisst]

48. Springtime for George Bush, and Ger-ma-nyyyyyy!!

The Producers

The original, with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder!


Have Nazis ever been funnier?

On a serious note, I'm glad most of the comments have been thoughtful, not mean to others who disagree. I'm troubled by the lack of civility I sometimes see in those who disagree.

As Gerald Ford said (imagine his oddly high pitched voice) "we can disagree without being disagreeable."

[radio4progressives]

51. No it's the F word... not the N word

Can't use the N word because people associate the term Nazi specifically to the regime that exterminated 7 million Jews, Gypsy's, Gays and others that was not of the so called "Aryan race"
.

but Fascists is quite appropriate and accurate.

[many a good man]

52. What if ... Hitler inherited a military hyperpower

Hitler built his military machine up from scratch and nearly took over the world. Imagine what he could have done if he started with the US military circa 2001!

(Then think of bush* )