Log in

View Full Version : Gott Mit Uns: On Bush and Hitler's Rhetoric



fernando
6th September 2004, 15:42
I was on the KMFDM website, reading Sascha's journal, and he posted this link, I dunno...I thought it was interesting and it might interest you people here, I posted it here in Opposing Ideologies because I also want to know what our Restricted Members think of this.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0901-03.htm


President Bush told Texas evangelist James Robinson that "I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

With 49.3% of New York City residents in a recent Zogby poll believing that some people in our government knew of the 911 attack in advance and allowed it to happen, the President as right-wing evangelical prophet is under siege in his Madison Square Garden bunker. Convention watchers should take careful note of the theocratic nationalist rhetoric at the Republican convention this week.

When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side?

If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct. Nothing can be more misleading than to categorize Hitler as a barbaric pagan or Godless totalitarian, like Stalin.

Both Bush and Hitler believe that they were chosen by God to lead their nations. With Hitler boldly proclaiming, before launching his doctrine of preventive war against all of Europe, that "I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany."

"I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker," Hitler said.

Hitler stated in February 1940, "But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." After the Iraqi invasion, Bush announced, "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . . ." Neither the similarity between Hitler and Bush's religious rhetoric nor the fact that the current President's grandfather was called "Hitler's Angel" by the New York Tribune for his financing of the Fuher's rise to power is lost on Europeans.

Pat Robertson called Bush "a prophet" and Ralph Reed claimed, after the 9/11 attack, God picked the President because "he knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way." Hitler told the German people in March 1936, "Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learn to pray. . . . The mercy of the Lord slowly returns to us again. And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that he may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help us God."

At the beginning of Hitler's crusade on April 12, 1922, he spelled out his version of the warmongering Jesus: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." Randall Balmer in The Nation, noted that "Bush's God is the eye-for-an- eye God of the Hebrew prophets and the Book of Revelation, the God of vengeance and retribution."

As Bush has invoked the cross of Jesus to simultaneously attack the Islamic and Arab world, Hitler also saw the value of exalting the cross while waging endless war: "To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit.

Like Bush-ites, Hitler was fond of invoking the Ten Commandments as the foundation of Nazi Germany: "The Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul."

But if you ever wondered where Bush got his idea for so-called "faith-based initiatives" you need only consult Hitler's January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag. The Fuhrer begins, "Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so-called democracy is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion."

Hitler goes on to document how much "public monies derived from taxation through the organs of the State have been placed at the disposal of both churches [Protestant and Catholic]." Hitler gave nearly 1.8 billion Reichsmarks between 1933-1938 directly to the Christian churches. In 1938 alone, he bragged that the Nazis gave half a billion Reichsmarks from the national government and an additional 92 million Reichsmarks from the Nazi-controlled German states and parish associations.

Hitler made the intent of his faith-based initiative clear when he noted, "With a tenth of our budget for religion, we would thus have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable loyalty. . . . the little sects, which receive only a few hundred thousand marks, are devoted to us body and soul."

Bush's assertion that "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job" brings to mind God as a dull-witted, cognitively-impaired nationalist unable to utter a simple declarative sentence who spends his time preaching "blessed are the warmongers and profit-makers."

1949
6th September 2004, 20:59
Thanks. This is a such a great article, that I'm going to post it on E-G. Too bad it had to slander Stalin, though.

fernando
6th September 2004, 21:17
Stalin was a Godless totalitarian right?

1949
6th September 2004, 21:20
Godless, yes. Totalitarian, no.

But I don't want to turn this into another Stalin debate. Maybe I should just back off and let the restricted members analyze this article, since that was the point of you posting this. :unsure:

fernando
6th September 2004, 21:24
This doesnt have to be a Stalin discussion, but isnt the communist system (as far as we could call them communists) totalitarian by nature, full control of the population, on practically every aspect of life?

If totalitarian is that definition (that the state controls every aspect of life) it doesnt have to be wrong, it purely depends on how the system is run and who runs it.

However, Western Propaganda and history have shown the bad sides of a totalitarian government.

Y2A
6th September 2004, 21:31
Bu$h=Hitler! :cuba:

1949
6th September 2004, 21:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 01:31 PM
Bu$h=Hitler! :cuba:
Why don't you make an intelligent analysis of the thing, instead of being an idiot? Did you even read the article?

synthesis
7th September 2004, 01:06
Some people think that all comparisons to Hitler are invalid by default. How someone could say that in the face of such overwhelming evidence as this article is beyond me.

revolutionindia
8th September 2004, 14:42
The appeasement of Hitler before WW2 is similiar to the appeasement of General musharaff of Pakistan before ????

fernando
8th September 2004, 15:11
Well...tell me more about the appeasement of General musharaff of Pakistan ;)

revolutionindia
8th September 2004, 15:28
I definately see a pattern between the 2

If my history is correct some time after WW1 when hitler came to power
the western and european powers backed him in the hope that he would do their dirty work against communism and whenever he commited any wrongs they chose to look the other way
Had they reduced hitler in size when he gave them the oppurtunity
WW2 would have been avoidable

Today the western world again commits the same mistake backing
General PERVERT Musharaff against his supposed fight against terrorism and look the other way at all the things pakistan does covertly including its terrorism against india and shady nuclear deals
Not to forget the millions of dollars of aid its getting for playing two-face
had they reduced Pervert Musharaff in size when he gave them the oppurtunity
?????? could have been avoided

Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it again

fernando
8th September 2004, 16:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 03:28 PM
I definately see a pattern between the 2

If my history is correct some time after WW1 when hitler came to power
the western and european powers backed him in the hope that he would do their dirty work against communism and whenever he commited any wrongs they chose to look the other way
Had they reduced hitler in size when he gave them the oppurtunity
WW2 would have been avoidable

Today the western world again commits the same mistake backing
General PERVERT Musharaff against his supposed fight against terrorism and look the other way at all the things pakistan does covertly including its terrorism against india and shady nuclear deals
Not to forget the millions of dollars of aid its getting for playing two-face
had they reduced Pervert Musharaff in size when he gave them the oppurtunity
?????? could have been avoided

Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it again
They (Western Nations) backed him (Hitler) because he had "won" the elections and made very quick economical progressions in Germany, if Hitler would have been killed in 1939 he would probably have been seen as one of the heroes in Western history, the whole idea he had of exterminating the Jews would have been ignored.

Europe didnt do that much against Hitler when he took land because they didnt want to end up in another war, they just had the (at the time) most horrible war in history.

Just kill Hitler in 1939 and things would have been very...very different.

The US back Musharaff because it's in their best interest...I mean he is sort of a puppet, they need Pakistan to have a foothold in that part of the world.

But doesnt India also have nuclear weapons? <_<

revolutionindia
8th September 2004, 16:06
India has nukes but in much safer hands than mad muslim scientists

fernando
8th September 2004, 16:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:06 PM
India has nukes but in much safer hands than mad muslim scientists
But they are mad hindu scientists <_<

I think neither side should have nuclear weapons, but that&#39;s just me talking ;)

revolutionindia
8th September 2004, 16:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:38 PM
But they are mad hindu scientists <_<


NO calling indian scientists as mad hindu scientists is unacceptable

The hindu right party is right now out of power and also most
scientists are secular in their outlook in India and don&#39;t give a shit about their religion

fernando
8th September 2004, 16:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:12 PM
NO calling indian scientists as mad hindu scientists is unacceptable

The hindu right party is right now out of power and also most
scientists are secular in their outlook in India and don&#39;t give a shit about their religion
Ok...mad Indian scientist then...but now Im mixing it up with Native Americans :ph34r: