Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00333)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mic Forster <micforster@y...> 
wrote:
> 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. 
> 
Hitler discussion must be making the rounds at this time. We have 
been discussing him from a karmic standpoint. And as long as you are 
not saying they are the same person, I don't think you are, then I am 
fine with this analogy.

One thing I would add they both thought they were something they were 
not: true wannabes. How? Well, Hitler thought he was an Aryan, but he 
did not in any wise fit the Aryan phenotype to say the least. He was 
pale if not swarthy, had black or dark hair I believe and was not 
tall and was raised a CATHOLIC. He was not even a good WASP! He hated 
any group that was not Aryan, not just Jews, people keep loosing 
sight of that. He wiped out the Gypsies -- their heritage is Indian, 
and technically they were Aryans. So he was indiscrimanate in his 
objects. And as Himmler or one those guys said "I decide who is a 
Jew." Hitler thought himself a artist or painter, he was not. I am 
not sure if Bush thinks himself an intellectual but he surely 
surrounds himself with some. And BTW they are Jewish the 
intellectuals he relies upon. I find that dangerous--because they are 
known revisionists of American and world history. But he was a 
mediocre student who attended and graduated from an Ivy school. I 
thought the reason for going to such a school should be because you 
have at least aspirations to intellectuality, not just "Skull and 
Cross bone" material--silly me.

And you forgot one thing he and Hitler both believed they are set 
apart and called to something special. I believe it is demonstrated 
by Hitler's fascination with the occult (did this in past lives as 
well) and by Bush's membership in the Skull's elitist group--which 
has been documented BTW.

Netemara

There is a new book written by a young woman on the Bush -- Skull 
connections. She went to Yale and has some insider information. She's 
a WASP.

> ________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/