On November 4th, could we lose more than just an election?
By Christopher Cook
The most common corollary to Godwin's Law suggests that once you use Nazis or Hitler in an argument, you've lost. It's fair enough as a general axiom, but this law has a few unintended problems.
First, as Jonah Goldberg educates us in the truly riveting pages of Liberal Fascism, people regularly misdefine "fascism" to make it 100% synonymous with a totalitarian Hitlerism.
Goldberg shows us that this is a clumsy and inaccurate definition for a much more complex phenomenon. So, since many people define fascism in this way, some of them are also likely to apply Godwin's Law to the use of the word fascist as well as "Nazi," "Hitler," etc.
Thus, when I made a post titled Barack Obama is a 1920s-style fascist, there's little doubt that some would proclaim it an overwrought, Godwin-defiling post.
That, however, would be a clumsy criticism of what I think is a reasonable allusion.
The second problem, though, with Godwin's law is this:
Though admittedly rare, what if there is a comparison to actual Naziism that is actually apt? Does Godwin's law not get in the way of making such an observation?
There is a definite Hitler Youth vibe therein:
Paramilitary behaviors and trappings.
A group of children engaged in a regimented display of support for the great national leader.
Marching while chanting "alpha . . . omega" (a term which is usually reserved for God, thus playing into the idea of the great Obamessiah leading us all in under his national gleichschaltung)
YouTube Video was removed/scrubbed by Obama pressure but is available below the photo.....
No, it won't go away because someone scrubs it from part of the Internet, view the video below
I think it's more than reasonable to find this a little creepy.
Granted, the video was not directed by Leni Riefenstahl. However, if you add some lighting and music, change the location, and get some actors who are in a little better physical shape, you've got yourself something she could work with.
Granted, it's just a few kids in a small, nondescript room lit with dingy fluorescent lights. But that's just how the Nazis got started.
It's just how Lenin and his gang got started. First, it's just a few people with a vision meeting in dimly-lit rooms.
Then, they organize their local areas. Then they get the youth, and before you know it, they've got the country.
Next step: giant politico-economic killmonsters slaughtering 120 million people.
Granted, this is America, and we've got a special definer of protection against such things. Or do we?
Our version of this already happened during the Wilson administration.
And it was many of Wilson's people who ran the FDR administration. We're still feeling the ramifications of that, having taken a decidedly more socialist turn in those years.
Moreover, I know a few people who still think they're voting for FDR.
Wilson used state power to create an American fascism, and though forgotten now, it was terrible for many people at the time. It's one of the reasons why Harding's slogan "Back to Normalcy" was so appealing.
And thank God the nature of America was such that we could find our way back to normalcy again.
But what of today? What of this Obama phenomenon?
He has allies at every layer of society who are willing to change rules, break laws, and flout procedures in order to bring him to power.
He has a media that is working on his behalf every bit as reliably as "Pravda" reported the party line in the USSR.
He has a vote fraud operation working on his behalf in states across America. This operation is aided by laws passed by his allies in Congress and supported by his allies in various states.
And now, Obama Youth groups are being formed.
This is all, it seems, far too reminiscent of how other movements have come to power in the past. I don't wish to sound too overwrought here, but the similarities are troubling.
Interestingly, a related point appeared in an email blast this morning. Michael Zak, in his post Those who do not remember the past are condemned to vote for Barack Obama, reminds us of Obama's point about America needing a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military.
At the time—latching on to the "just as well-funded" portion of the comment—most people wrote this off as silliness. After all, we devote a sizable share of our GDP on defense, spending, I've heard more than the next dozen or so nations combined. We're hardly likely to do that with any sort of new civilian force.
But don't focus on the logistics of it. Focus on the idea itself, and on the mind of the man who floated it.
Alan asks: will it be similar to islamic iran's Revolutionary Guards or their Bassiji Suppression forces?
• What sort of people would be in this paramilitary force? •
What sort of weapons would they have?•
Who would command them?•
Would they be subordinate to the U.S. military?•
Would they be subordinate to the police?•
What would be the purpose of this paramilitary force? • What would it do?