How Hitler Became a Dictator

Vancouver Independent Media Centre

Original article is at (external - login to view)
How Hitler Became a Dictator
by brian • Wednesday June 30, 2004 at 06:25 PM

the correspondances with present day events are uncanny

How Hitler Became a Dictator
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted June 28, 2004

Whenever U.S. officials wish to demonize someone, they inevitably compare him to Adolf Hitler. The message immediately resonates with people because everyone knows that Hitler was a brutal dictator.

But how many people know how Hitler actually became a dictator? My bet is, very few. I’d also bet that more than a few people would be surprised at how he pulled it off, especially given that after World War I Germany had become a democratic republic.

The story of how Hitler became a dictator is set forth in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, on which this article is based.

In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”

Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters. On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent

Thus, even though Hitler’s vote total had risen, he still had been decisively rejected by the German people.

On June 1, 1932, Hindenberg appointed Franz von Papen as chancellor of Germany, whom Shirer described as an “unexpected and ludicrous figure.” Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag (the national congress) and called for new elections, the third legislative election in five months.

Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party, who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany, did everything they could to create chaos in the streets, including initiating political violence and murder. The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin.

Even though Hitler had badly lost the presidential election, he was drawing ever-larger crowds during the congressional election. As Shirer points out,

In one day, July 27, he spoke to 60,000 persons in Brandenburg, to nearly as many in Potsdam, and that evening to 120,000 massed in the giant Grunewald Stadium in Berlin while outside an additional 100,000 heard his voice by loudspeaker.

Hitler’s rise to power

The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body.

On the basis of that victory, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him chancellor and place him in complete control of the state. Otto von Meissner, who worked for Hindenburg, later testified at Nuremberg,

Hindenburg replied that because of the tense situation he could not in good conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy and undisciplined.
Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.

Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks, Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor. Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag, however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.

On January 10, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.

The Reichstag fire

On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: “The Reichstag is on fire!” Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the fire, where they encountered Hermann Goering, who would later become Hitler’s air minister. Goering was shouting at the top of his lungs,

This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very day be strung up.
The day after the fire, the Prussian government announced that it had found communist publications stating,

Government buildings, museums, mansions and essential plants were to be burned down... . Women and children were to be sent in front of terrorist groups.... The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war.... It has been ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.
So how was Goering so certain that the fire had been set by communist terrorists? Arrested on the spot was a Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. Most historians now believe that van der Lubbe was actually duped by the Nazis into setting the fire and probably was even assisted by them, without his realizing it.

Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history — that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.” And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.

Suspending civil liberties

The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, “Germany will be free, but not through you!” When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

The judiciary under Hitler

One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Shirer points out,

Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent, subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.
In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime (who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted, which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court, which, as Shirer points out,

soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land. It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.
One of the Reichstag terrorist defendants, who had angered Goering during the trial with a severe cross-examination of Goering, did not benefit from his acquittal. Shirer explains:

The German communist leader was immediately taken into “protective custody,” where he remained until his death during the second war.
In addition to the People’s Court, which handled treason cases, the Nazis also set up the Special Court, which handled cases of political crimes or “insidious attacks against the government.” These courts

consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.
Even lenient treatment by the Special Court was no guarantee for the defendant, however, as Pastor Martin Niemoeller discovered when he was acquitted of major political charges and sentenced to time served for minor charges. Leaving the courtroom, Niemoeller was taken into custody by the Gestapo and taken to a concentration camp.

The Nazis also implemented a legal concept called Schultzhaft or “protective custody” which enabled them to arrest and incarcerate people without charging them with a crime. As Shirer put it,

Protective custody did not protect a man from possible harm, as it did in more civilized countries. It punished him by putting him behind barbed wire.
On August 2, 1934, Hindenburg died, and the title of president was abolished. Hitler’s title became Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. Not surprisingly, he used the initial four-year “temporary” grant of emergency powers that had been given to him by the Enabling Act to consolidate his omnipotent control over the entire country.

Accepting the new order

Oddly enough, even though his dictatorship very quickly became complete, Hitler returned to the Reichstag every four years to renew the “temporary” delegation of emergency powers that it had given him to deal with the Reichstag-arson crisis. Needless to say, the Reichstag rubber-stamped each of his requests.

For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn’t involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.

Keep in mind also that, while the Nazis established concentration camps in the 1930s, the number of inmates ranged in the thousands. It wouldn’t be until the 1940s that the death camps and the gas chambers that killed millions would be implemented. Describing how the average German adapted to the new order, Shirer writes,

The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

How Hitler Became a Dictator

Step 1: Take a democratic republic.

Step 2: Scream "Terrorists!!!"

Step 3:

-Suspend the Constitution and civil liberties to keep civilians and State "safe"!

-Appoint dictator-friendly Federal judges!

-Appoint yourself "temporary" powers above all laws, free of all judiciary and constitutional restraints!

-Bring in the "Enabling Act" to "fight terrorists"!

-Label dissidents and anyone else you want to as "enemy combatants" and make it "law" to arrest and incarcerate them without ever charging them with a crime.

-Establish concentration camps! (death camps didn't come to Germany for almost a decade after their concentration camps)

After all, the vast majority of Germans didn't mind, coz Hitler's laws didn't affect them as long as they kept heads down, mouths shut, and didn't happen to belong, by birth, to any of the persecuted groups!

Diamond Sun

The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.

Substitute American in there, and you could use this very paragraph to describe what is happening today.
Haggis McBagpipe
Very true, very frightening, very applicable to the US today. People say that it could never happen in the US because Americans are different than Germans, but this is not so. Americans are ripe for something like this to happen. Just one more terrorist attack and they will beg Bush to stay, beg him to keep them safe. It scares the hell out of me.
American Voice
Sam, you left out one very critical and revealing detail in your narrative, i.e., that the National Socialists came to power in the Reichstag in coalition with the Communist Party, against the Catholic Center Party. This gave rise to a couple of jokes: what is a National Socialist? He's an unemployed Communist. And: when most dictators sieze power, they lock up all of their enemies. When Herr Hitler came to power, he locked up all of his friends!

Back when I was a student, I had the good fortune to take two history courses from a Professor Dorpalen, who was himself a student in Germany, in the 1930's. He told us how he had been interned at Dachau when he refused to join the Nazi students' organization. He was paroled when he agreed to volunteer for service in the army.

He told us another little story, a joke of the time. Let's see if I can tell it as well as he could: It was during the election in 1932, in a small rural town. Three candidates running to be the district Reichstag deputy mounted the platform in the square. The whole town were assembled to hear them, as it was market day. The Communist candidate, dressed in a rather shabby suit, addressed them. "Comrades, what Germany needs are lower bread prices!" At this, the workers of the town cheered. The candidate from the Catholic Center party, a conservative dressed in a new black suit, spoke. "Friends," he said, "what we need are higher bread prices!" At this, the farmers all applauded. Then, the Nazi Party candidate walked to the front of the platform. He was wearing his new, finely-tailored party uniform, with all its shiny buttons, and colorful piping, ribbons, badges and insignia. He wore a leather belt, and had shiny leather boots. He wore an officer's cap. "People of Germany," he said to the crowd, "what Germany needs is not higher bread prices! Nor do we need lower bread prices." For a moment he paused, and everyone present in the square leaned forward, in anticipation of what he might say next. "What Germany needs," he declared, now in a booming voice, "ARE NATIONAL SOCIALIST BREAD PRICES!" And everyone in the town cheered.
You're kidding, right?

Can you REALLY say that Bush is Hitler? For REAL?

Seems to me political rhetoric is out of hand.

If you're really looking for a Hitler, there are far better candidates. Not potential Hitlers, but proven, actual evil men.
I knew you will say that. But look at the response this article generated.
I can post an article on UFO's and get a response.

That doesn't make it true or factual.

As I said, if you'r elooking for real Hitlers, there are better candidates.
You are entitled to your opinions, of course.
ohhhhhh thank you soo ooo much..........................
Thank you thank you thank you!!! I'm so happy to be here. Thank you all!!!!!!
Wow! I have spent the last two weeks in a forum in the US that slammed me to bits for suggesting that maybe, perhaps Bush jumped the gun, and maybe the troops should not be there. I found it so odd people hated the war but said it was ok to be cause America was above International Law. When I politely asserted some ideas, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. people said mean things about Canada and those us who dwell here. I'm so glad to see this discussion taking place without reprisal of veiws. I want to stay here!
Free at last free at last!!!!!

oh... and Bush, Hitler.... yep. I see it the guy looks like a cowboy but the eyes say helter skelter.
welcome here Chewy. You are safe with us no matter what your political views are. Enjoy your stay.
Here is a video comparison.

"The liberal activist site MoveOn ran a contest, Bush in 30 Seconds, in which people were invited to create and submit political TV ads critical of the Bush Administration, with the winning entry to air in swing states and on national television. (CBS has refused to air the winning ad during the Super Bowl, however.)

Over 1,500 ads were submitted. Out of them, two compared Bush to Hitler. After years of talking about "feminazis" and "Hitlery" Clinton, the right wing suddenly felt that Third Reich references were absolutely indefensible. Republicans expressed new-found outrage, and the corporate media dutifully tsk-tsked. MoveOn pulled the ads from their contest Website." (external - login to view)
Thanks Vista. Good videos.
This is just my own opinion, and I am a lumberjack, raised on yak milk. I think the only people that can say bush is a dictator are those who have spent time in a oven, and I am not talking apple pie either. Only individuals who have actually lived under a dictator in my opinion can make the comparsion with any merit. I don't really hear those people saying bush is just like hitler. I hear people who have fortuneate lives making the comparsion. If bush was really like hitler than a few people at this board who are free to say what they want, just might disappear and never be heard of again. No on second thought they would be to afraid to post their messages.

The comparsion is lazy thinking, its easy and you don't have to explain why or how you came to your conclusions. At a board I visited an american posting was being an idiot. He did not like the particular canadain views that were being made. He said americans were going to come up here and kick some canadian *** and send us to cuba. It was pointed out to the american that this was tried twice already and it was not the canadian *** that was kicked. We are polite people tho, we let them go home and did not send them to cuba. My point is this indivdual did not know basic history and you do need it to make judgements..Please nobody come back and kick my ***, or my posting I should say, my *** is to smart to be kicked....I did say that canadian are humble to.
There are very large differences between these two, Hitler and Bush. Sure you can compare some things about them, but the bottom line is that Hitler and Bush both wanted something completely different from their power.

Hitler wanted a bigger and stronger Germany minus enemies (the jews, who basically cost Germans work) and his political enemies (who were ultimately a threat to his speed of rise and power).

Bush wants more money and power for himself and his friends. He's cost the American people nothing but blood and money.
Haggis McBagpipe
I agree with Andem. I think, though, that comparisons to Hitler are natural enough, given the political climate south of the border. It isn't just Bush, it is the whole American attitude these days, they are on a hair-trigger - they're ready to champion a cause, they're wanting to champion a cause, they're needing to champion a cause.

Question is, what cause will it be? Like it or not, there are certain parallels that can be drawn between Hitler's Germany and the US. Americans like their heroes, and barring finding one, they will elevate a moron like Bush to hero status.

If there's another attack of any sort, Americans will gladly embrace a cancelled election and all the ugly things inherent in such an action. And they will put Bush on a pedestal that will be hard to shake.
SATIRE - That Pesky Bush-Hitler Thing
Marc Ash

Here we go again. Another bone-head with a Bush-Hitler analogy. How many times have we told folks this? Bush is not Hitler, Bush is not Hitler, Bush is not Hitler. Holy cow, this is getting really frustrating. Why won't this thing die?

Just because his grandfather Prescott Bush financed Hitler's rise to power, do they think that means George W. Bush has Nazi tendencies? That's absurd. Is it fair to say that just because the U.S. government had to step in and shut down Prescott Bush's Union Banking Corporation operations in New York in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, that this Bush should viewed with caution and skepticism? That's just silly.

And who are these bloody Europeans who keep comparing Bush to Hitler? Take that German Justice Minister, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, who compared Bush's dealings on Iraq to those of Hitler. That really takes the cake, now doesn't it? What do the Germans know of Hitler anyway? Why should they feel empowered to warn the world of such impending dangers? Why couldn't they just shut-up and help us kill the Iraqis?

The worst has to be Newsweek's Poland bureau. The story they published titled "The Bush Family and Nazis" was completely out of left field. Who cares that the story states "The Bush family reaped the benefits of slave labour in the Auschwitz concentration camp"?
The important thing here is that George W. Bush is very patriotic. RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie is right. His boy George is clean, that's right, clean as a whistle. No skulls or bones in his closet for sure.

This thing has to stop right now. New rules: If you are a journalist and you talk about Bush and Hitler, you're fired on the spot, no ifs, ands, or buts. If you are an official and you try it, you will be forced to resign -- you're done. And for all of you trouble-makers out there who want to keep it up on your own, we can keep track of you with the Patriot Act. *

America: The Fourth Reich (external - login to view)

It should not be denied any longer: America is hurtling along the road to full-fledged fascism. To recognize this is the necessary first step in deflecting the juggernaut and creating the possibility of more peaceful tomorrows. It is legitimate and also necessary to correctly employ the power of naming.

By Barrie Zwicker, Global Outlook, Issue No. 6, Winter 2004

Fascism according to the Collins English Dictionary is “any (#1) right wing (#2) nationalist ideology or movement with (#3) an authoritarian and (#4) hierarchical structure that is (#5) fundamentally opposed to democracy and (#6) liberalism”. Add (#7) racism and (# brutality and you have Hitler’s Third Reich in a nutshell.

By any sober analysis America has become extremely right wing and nationalist. At the same time I am soulfully aware of the tremendous numbers of Americans ashamed, appalled, afraid and angry about the direction of their government and that of too many of their fellow citizens.

Signs of growing authoritarianism in the US are evident especially to those outside the self-absorbed cocoon of US culture. The signs include the supine attitude toward authority of most of the mainstream media.

Contrary to incessant rhetoric about democracy, the US power structure is considerably hierarchical. Money power comprises the main rungs of the hierarchy. According to the New York Times the Republicans were confident of raising at least $170-million for George W. Bush’s 2004 election campaign, redefining what the Times called ‘standards’ for fund-raising. Both the hierarchy of money and the antagonism to democracy are spelled out in Greg Palast’s The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

That the US establishment is opposed to liberalism – no matter how you define liberalism – can hardly be debated. We already have six grounds for applying the term Fourth Reich. But consider another 20 parallels between the USA today and Hitler’s Germany:

Concepts like anti-communism, anti-Marxism, anti-socialism stir up visceral reactions. The core opposition to the regime is from the strong conscious left.

A fundamentalist faith in capitalism, specifically the systematized form of greed known as monopoly capitalism, is dominant. Corporations are at the centre of the power structure. Corruption at the top is endemic.

The number of people consigned to the grave by military and paramilitary actions in both cases is in the millions. Backdate the Fourth Reich to the end of the Second World War and the number murdered by US forces equals or outnumbers the toll in the Holocaust – almost three and a half million people in Vietnam alone. The brutality is a matter of record for those who are willing to look at it. See William Blum’s Killing Hope for one researcher’s record.

In both cases the leader was illegally installed into power, Hitler in 1933, George W. Bush in 2000.

The ambition of world domination. The Third and Fourth Reich’s invade as many countries as can be gotten away with. A Blitzkrieg approach is favored. For Hitler: Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. For George W. Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq and who ever’s next – Syria? Iran? Libya? Cuba?

Seizure of other countries’ oil. Grabbing Russia’s Baku oil fields was a major objective of Hitler – the Caspian oil fields and those in Iraq are the same for Bush.

The ‘pitiful giant’ syndrome is invoked. “Our enemies are powerful,” it goes, so we must arm endlessly in ‘self-defense.’ Often accompanied with this rhetoric is the high-sounding: “Our enemies taunt us, and we are patient, but our patience is not endless.”

Pre-emptive or ‘preventive’ war is policy and practice.

Highly orchestrated propaganda campaigns are a Reich staple. Hitler’s stylized mass rallies come to mind. The propaganda of the Fourth Reich is suited to the TV age: sophisticated and media-savvy deluxe. Embedded journalists, for instance. An example from the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the much-publicized return of petite blonde soldier Private Jessica Lynch to her family, in full uniform. Props included a hometown band and Blackhawk helicopters.

Where the media are not sufficiently pro-regime and self-censoring, censorship and intimidation of the media are commonplace. Brutal intimidation under the second Bush regime includes bombing Al Jazeera television facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter killing an Al Jazeera journalist, thus constituting censorship by assassination.

Use of religion. Invocations of God’s approval for the Reich and its works. William L. Shirer in his classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich quotes the Fuhrer’s minister of church affairs as declaring that the Nazi party “stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism… National Socialism is doing God’s will…”

An ever-encroaching police state is a sure sign you’re living in a Reich.

Illegal actions. International and domestic laws are breached, resisted and undermined, along with rejection or subversion of multilateral agreements and organizations. Hitler pulled Germany out of the League of Nations altogether. In America’s case the United Nations is vilified, sidelined or embraced according to the Empire’s needs at any given time.

Use of fear is an important tool of a Reich. Inflated or imagined threats of ‘terrorism’ are drummed into the domestic public’s mind.

Alarms of ‘terrorism’ by a Reich are hypocritical to the nth degree considering the wholesale terrorism a Reich unleashes on others. Third Reich Stuka dive-bombers over Spain, V-2 rockets into London. Fourth Reich ‘daisy cutters, cluster bombs, ‘bunker busters,’ DU munitions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Skies full of helicopter gunships in a string of countries going back to Vietnam.

Actual retail terrorism: the clandestine formation, training, funding and control of functioning terrorists serving as dark pawns of the Reich. This is one of the lesser-known parallels. William L. Shirer explains once again: “For months prior to July 1934 the Austrian Nazis, with weapons and dynamite furnished by Germany, had instituted a reign of terror, blowing up railways, power stations and government buildings and murdering…”

Both Unholy Wars by British investigative journalist John K. Cooley and Was and Globalisation, the Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky, document the close links between the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI (virtually an arm of the CIA), Saudi intelligence and the bin Laden family, and that the CIA was deeply involved in the creation and subsequent operations of AL Qaeda.

A preoccupation with secrecy. Secrecy is a precondition for deception. And deception, above all, is the key to everything for a Reich. The leaders are marinated in a complete obsession with lying an deceiving at every turn. Deceptions are the regime’s key to mobilizing public opinion. Deception is needed to fool the citizenry into relinquishing their civil rights and thereby closing many avenues of dissent. Deception precedes and leads to the police state. Deception precedes and leads to war. At every step deception is required for a Reich’s gaining and maintaining power, and carrying out all its other nefarious actions. Without successful deceptions the Reich agenda simply cannot proceed. If the deceptions can be unmasked early enough and sufficiently the Reich collapses. No Reich so far has collapsed this way. In an information age it might be possible.

The masterpiece deceptions are those so big that ordinary decent honest people cannot or will not comprehend or face that they exist. The fact is they are a species of what the anarchist Bakunin described as “the propaganda of the act.” An act such as a bombing or assassination is also a message or propaganda. A potent version is the fake act, for instance a bombing which the perpetrators make appear to be carried out by others. The gold standard of these is the election-stealing or war-triggering fake event, especially one involving ‘foreign terrorists.’

This makes pivotal the parallel between the Reichstag fire of 1933, on the one hand, and the events of 9/11, on the other.

The Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 was in its day as iconic as were the events of September 11, 2001 in ours. The Reichstag fire was blamed on a Dutch communist, who was subsequently decapitated. And by extension, the fire was blamed on all Communists. The historical evidence is that the Nazis arranged the conflagration. In the Rise and Fall, Shirer writes: “… beyond reasonable doubt it was the Nazis who planned the arson an carried it out for their own political ends.”

The idea for the fire writes Shirer, almost certainly originated at the top, with Goebbels and Goring.

Vice-Chandellor von Papen recalled that when he arrived at the blazing parliament buildings Goering was already on the scene shouting, “This is a communist cirms…”

“Hitler lost no time,” Shirer writes, “in exploiting the Reichstag fire to the limit.” The very next day he prevailed on the President to sign a decree “for the Protection of the People and the State,” suspending the seven sections of the constitution, which had guaranteed individual and civil liberties. It was described as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence against the state.”

The parallel with the events of 9/11 is stunning. The official narrative, introduced with Goring-like speed, emerged within two hours: the “attack on America” was portrayed as the work of ‘terrorists,’ namely one evil man, Osama bin Laden, and a small group of co-conspirators – the 2001 equivalents of the 1933 Communists.

The number and magnitude of anomalies surrounding 9/11 can point to only one conclusion: 9/11 was a completely made-in-the-USA inside job, a manufactured incident planned and run by some among the top leadership.

To term 9/11 ‘Reichstag 2001,’ then, seems to me highly legitimate.

Besides the parallels past, present and nascent, are the direct links between powerful interests and families in America with actual Nazis. The bankrolling of Hitler by US corporations is one. In Trading With the Enemy, Charles Highman’s fulsomely-documented book (the sub-title is “An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot (1933-1949)” points to the collaborations with the Nazi regime, throughout the Second World War, by: ford, GM, Sterling Drugs, Standard Oil of New Jersey, ITT and other pillars of US capitalism. To take just one example, Standard Oil provided fuel for German U-boats until 1944.

The sordid tale includes how Prescott Bush, grandfather of the current occupant of the White House, served as the US Banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942: (For further details See Wesley C. Tarpley, Bush Family Ties to Nazi Germany, the Legacy of Prescott Herbert Bush, Global Outlook, No. 5, Summer/Fall 2003, p. 54).

Numerous subsequent actions and hints of Hitlerism in the White House are documented. When George Bush Sr. Was vice-president to Ronald Reagan. Reagan paid a visit to the Bitburg Cemetery in Germany wearing (the imagery would not be lost on millions) a long black leather coat of the type favoured by the Nazis. At the cemetery he placed a wreath on the grave of an SS officer, commenting that “the other side” suffered losses too. It was one of the most bogus and distasteful cases of ‘moral equivalency’ imaginable.

The Bush dynasty is Nazi-oriented.

‘War,’ wrote Randolph Bourne, “is the health of the state.” War also is the health of monopoly capitalism, the dominant institution of our time. That institution now is practically merged with the state again, as it was under Hitler. If anything, the present merger is more complete, closer, more effective.

Many Americans have told me they’re aware of the possibility of the suspension of the US Constitution (there would be a startling, deceptive, pretext of course) and other goose steps toward a Fuhrership. Should those steps be taken, it could be too late to prevent an awful an perhaps permanent catastrophe.

Transforming the Fourth Reich and its outposts, including the ones within each of us, is perhaps humanity’s last major challenge. Understanding and sufficiently dismantling it would probably lead to a period of chaos. But from that could emerge another world, still imperfect, but one less in imminent danger of Armageddon. In it we might finally face a reasonably sane future.
I am not a fan of Mr. Bush, and he is not the first american president or human interested in money and power. Why not say bush is just like pol pot. Its the comparsion I don't agree with. Lots of people I know think bush came into power based on a fraud, I think it was more a bias, and I find there voting system somewhat flawed. Americans it they choose to do so can vote Mr. Bush out in their election. Hitler could not be voted out.
Bush did come to power through fraud. Without question. Here are two different opinions.

In 2000, Bush and the election fraud cabal that included his brother, Florida Governor "Jebbie" Bush, and Jebbie's old flame, Florida Secretary of State (now Congresswoman) Katherine Harris and Fox News election analyst John Ellis (Bush's first cousin), engineered Bush's phony Florida "win" using a combination of scrubbed electoral rolls that disenfranchised almost 100,000 African-Americans, confusing "butterfly ballots," an early Fox projected Bush "win" in the Sunshine State, and voter intimidation at mainly rural polling places. (external - login to view)

Remember, Al Gore remained mum following the electoral fraud in Florida in the 2000 elections. And the fraud was then endorsed by the Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore.

There were at least two conflicts of interest in the Supreme Court. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas was working for the Bush campaign and the two sons of Justice Scalia, belonged to law firms on contract to Bush in the Florida recount lawsuit.

Al Gore's could have asked Justices Scalia and Thomas to recuse themselves and Al Gore would have been instated in the White House. Recusing is a simple and unequivocal legal procedure.

The conventional wisdom among Liberals and "Progressives" is that "Bush stole the 2000 election."

That is not what happened.

Al Gore's star Attorney, David Boies, perhaps among the best in the US, had been instructed "to lay off" and loose the Bush versus Gore case in the Supreme court.

In other words, the Democrats had been instructed, no doubt by powerful people in the corporate establishment, operating behind the scenes, to accept a de facto coup d'Etat. (external - login to view)

The question right now is if there WILL be an election for the Americans to vote out bush as three articles discuss.

Coup d'Etat in America? Known internally as "Continuity of Government" or COG, the secret Shadow government would become functional in the case of a red code alert, redeploying key staff to secret locations.

Based on so-called "credible" reports, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has warned that Osama is now "planning to disrupt the November elections". A large scale attack on American soil is said to be planned by Al Qaeda during the presidential election campaign:

"... Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process... This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm... But every day we strengthen the security of our nation."* (external - login to view)
Haggis McBagpipe
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

Americans it they choose to do so can vote Mr. Bush out in their election.

Not necessarily, if you consider that the Bush Admin will simply cancel the election if there is a terrorist attack. For all we know, they might cancel the election if there is a whiff of a terrorist attack, or if someone says 'terrorist' in a back room in Timbuktu.
Like I say I am just a lumberjack, most of you are more knowledgeable and probally more educated than myself. Your points are interesting and I and my cabinet of yaks will think on them. I don't know about one of those darn yaks tho, he use to work for the ministry of truth over in Oceania.
Haggis McBagpipe
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

I don't know about one of those darn yaks tho, he use to work for the ministry of truth over in Oceania.

Hey, Pea, your yaks are fiddling with the 'submit' button. 8-)
Haggis, you said:

I think, though, that comparisons to Hitler are natural enough, given the political climate south of the border. It isn't just Bush, it is the whole American attitude these days, they are on a hair-trigger - they're ready to champion a cause, they're wanting to champion a cause, they're needing to champion a cause.

Exactly how is that different from your politics-- or mine-- or anyone elses?

Further, what exactly has this US administration done that is so Hiteresque?

Rhetoric is one thing- but it can go too far.
Haggis McBagpipe
Research: Too far? Sure. Emotions are running high, it is election time. Comparisons of Bush to Hitler are as natural as the other side making their suggestions that a vote for Kerry means you are for the terrorists., that you don't love your country, etc..

It IS all rhetoric, and of course it goes too far.

As to how the attitude stateside is different from here? You are in denial if you can honestly say that there is not something disturbing about the way Americans have been. To put a finger on exactly what it is, is damned hard, but having lived stateside, I can tell you this, Americans are different now, and they are looking for a leader they can blindly follow without question.

Canadians are simply not like that. They really aren't. They're kind of jaded about leaders, and blind following - even in the days of Trudeau - does not happen to any significant degree.
Well, were on the same page.

The rhetoric is out of control, as far as Im concerned. It does not benefit the electorate- no matter who goes overboard.

I do agree Americans are more likely to blindly follow-- but they are also quick to air their dirty laundry-- moreso than others.
hag don't argue with the guy, he is looking for matches! By the way you old hag very cute on the "submit" poke, is there anything I write down that you can't figure out Be careful I will sic winston on you.
Haggis McBagpipe
Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Well, were on the same page.

The rhetoric is out of control, as far as Im concerned. It does not benefit the electorate- no matter who goes overboard.

I do agree Americans are more likely to blindly follow-- but they are also quick to air their dirty laundry-- moreso than others.

Yes, we are on the same page, I think. Sure, such rhetoric doesn't benefit anybody, but it is the nature of the beast. I don't actually think it hurts anybody, either, strangely enough. In a very strange way, I would say it is better to have passions running high, rhetoric and all, than to have indifference.

As to Americans airing their dirty laundry, yes I suppose they do more than we do, but it is more of a Puritan angst thing, ie it still bugs them that Clinton had sex with Monica, and Cheney bugs them for having said naughty words. Bush, on the other hand, is faithful to his wife (apparently) and clean-as-a-whistle morally speaking, so all his other crimes (like sending American boys to die for naught) go uncriticized by the angsting Puritans. I think, on the whole, the dirty laundry aired serves more as a titillating adventure for Americans grown bored with life than any serious self-reflection.
I disagree somewhat-- I do think it hurts.

I do believe that the office- and thus the office holder-- merit a certain respect.

In our democracies, there is an orderly transfer of power-- an extraordinary event. Even in dispute, there is a mechanism to mediate the dispute.

There comes a point where, because of our 'higher' committmenst, we accept that mecahnism as serving the greater good.

Of course, I'm referring to 2000-- and the fact that after Bush-- this year or in 4 years-- there will once again be an orderly transfer of power. That will be repeated in democracies world over.

The level of rhetoric we hear- from all sides (make no mistake, this was started by the republicans under Clinton (corrected by edit), brought to new heights by the dems)- can and does serve to belittle the the system and mechanism. The very notion that somehow one side or the other is in toto morally endowed by their beliefs, is outrageous. It is sheer hubris.

I am reminded that the greatest of leaders have certain qualities in common.

They are humble, they are modest. They fight fiercely for their beliefs and yet are giving and forgiving. Whether it was Rene Levesque-- who many feared but none 'feared' because he believed in a Quebec for all Quebecois (how I wish he were still here!) or PET, who was imperious, but not imperious enough to spend hours with the poor and the disenfranchised, out of camera range, to listen and learn, or Ronald Reagan, who many despised-- yet wrote letters to his wife and strangers-- rich and poor-- for years-- gave us an insight into a decent man.

All those men- and others-- never labeled opponents as is done now. They fought bitterly for their beliefs-- but never resorted to the name calling and the visceral hatred we see today. They never stood by when those things were done in their name.

Jean Chretien was and is, an example of that kind of attack and an example of the well deserved repulsion towards those that 'crossed the line' when he was attacked.

The rhetoric we see today does indeed hurt the system. Fortunately, the purveyors of this garbage are usually ill equipped to actually argue facts and reality, and have no influence among people who do make decisions. The moral malaise they- of whatever poliical stripe-- spread however, depresses a society, rather than uplifts it.

We have seen that rhetoric before and when left unchecked, where it went and what became of it, in the last century.

Time to look in the mirror, folks-- all of us.
Haggis McBagpipe
Well put, Research. The essence of what you have said is true, and so well put that I see no reason to add a single word or attempt to detract in any way from a valuable message.
My yaks have a question, if bush is just like hitler, how come nobody said Johnston and Nixon were like hitler? These 2 men sent hundred of thousands of american boys to die, to a place many felt was none of their business. Was it power and spring rolls?
I heard Mr. Bush is saying John Kerry is just like hitler at his website now....this stuff is catchy.

Similar Threads

Harper a Dictator?
by prestontakata | Dec 19th, 2008
The syrian dictator and the Emir
by human | Jul 24th, 2008
Mugabe The Zimbabwe Dictator
by Curiosity | Dec 17th, 2006
The Dictator Fashion Show
by Jo Canadian | Nov 1st, 2005
no new posts