[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

figures in history compared

Feb 25, 2003 01:38 AM
by Mic Forster

I have heard many an argument for war against Saddam
where the premise of the argument is that Saddam and
Hitler are essentially equivalent. But for a bunch of
people who supposedly know about illusion, I certainly
hope no one here adheres to this reasoning. Instead I
outline below seven points on which, I believe, Hitler
and Bush are comparable. This is by no means a
comprehensive picture but one to merely illustrate
that the shoe often fits the other foot. It is also
rather superficial and by no means an entire thesis.
Again, it is merely written to illustrate the fact
that this Bush character is not as "good" as people
would like him to be.

1) Both Hitler and Bush were in the business of
expanding "national" values. There is no argument that
Hitler was on a clear expansion forcing his neighbours
to tolerate Aryan values. What are the "national
values" that Bush is advocating? Democracy and freedom
for all. Admittedly slightly better than Hitler (at
least you can say that Bush is helping all humanity
and not just America) but if you asked Bush to
actually define what he means by freedom (or democracy
for that matter) I am sure he would struggle to relay
an intelligible answer. I may have freedom to practice
any religion I want but what use is that freedom when
I have to work 80hour weeks to keep food in my belly
and a roof over my head. But the point to take from
this is that both truly believe/d that their national
values were the only national values any other nation
could have.

2) Both make/made convenient alliances that ultimately
are in direct conflict with their espoused ideologies.
eg Hitler's alliance with Stalin; Bush's tolerance and
support of dictators where those dictators reside in
military strategic locations (eg Pakistan, Tajikstan).
If Bush's crusade is freedom and democracy, well he's
kidding himself.

3) Both attempt to add legitimecy to their actions. It
is well known that Hitler wanted to appear
"democratic" in his early days and sought "legal"
avenues whereby to undertake his expansion into
Austria and Czechoslovakia. Bush has never had the
intention of obeying any UN resolution that was not in
his favour however, perhaps under pressure from more
enlightened colleagues, he has tried to give the
entire process legitimecy by even going to the UN. 

4) Expanding their country's arm's capabilities in the
face of a perceived, though not necessarily real,
enemy. No need to speak for Hitler on this one. As for
Bush, need I say anything more than Space Wars?

5) The source of good and evil in the world is a black
and white issue. Hitler: good: Aryan; bad: Jew. Bush:
good: America; bad: any one who opposes America,
benign or otherwise.

6) Both were/are poor economic managers. Bush needs no
explanation here whereas Hitler may need some
clarification. One of the reasons cited for his
immense popularity was the strong German economy
during the 1930s when the rest of the world languished
in the depression. Such prosperity was only skin deep
and, as any good Keynesian would tell you, pumping
that amount of money and resources into an economy is
bound to bring it to its knees. If it weren't for the
war the German economy would have eventually
experienced a huge bust.

7) This is a little harder to quantify and is a
qualitative observation. It was an image I saw on the
television about 6 months or so after Sept 2001.
George Bush was standing on a podium saluting to US
troops marching pass. Nothing wrong with that. But if
you saw that image and directly compared it with
numerous images of Hitler saluting his troops you
would absolutely shudder. It was an absolutely
terrifying image and, as the saying goes, a picture
can speak a thousand words. 

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application