Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Trump is Hitler: Fiction and Fact



The press – mainstream and otherwise – is going over-the-top on Trump-Hitler comparisons.  Some are direct, some more subtle.  I offer an examination of this comparison – what is fiction, what is fact?

Fiction

Let’s look at the history of Hitler prior to becoming German Chancellor, and see how Trump measures up.  Admittedly, this isn’t an exhaustive listing (just the highlights), but hopefully it will suffice:

In 1923, he attempted a coup in Munich to seize power.

What was this coup?

The Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Munich Putsch, and, in German, as the Hitlerputsch or Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch, was a failed coup attempt by the Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler — along with Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff and other Kampfbund leaders — to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, during 8–9 November 1923. About two thousand men marched to the centre of Munich, where they confronted the police, which resulted in the death of 16 Nazis and four policemen. Hitler himself was wounded.

After two days, Hitler was arrested and charged with treason.

Trump?  Any “coups” in his background – the deaths of dozens, charged with treason?  Nope.

While in prison, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf:

Hitler wrote "the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated" and in another passage he suggested that "If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

Has Trump called for extermination of anyone – “international poisoners” or otherwise?  Nope.  Has he called for poison gas for tens-of-thousands?  Not to my knowledge.

Well, he has gone back and forth on possible war-mongering ways.  But it isn’t for these that the Hitler comparison is made (well, they don’t like the “back,” just the “forth”).

In Mein Kampf Hitler openly stated the future German expansion in the East:

And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

Has Trump talked about invading Canada or Mexico?  I don’t think so.  Closer to the opposite, actually.

Trump is no Hitler; not even close.  Those who suggest it are both ignorant of history and disrespectful of Hitler’s victims – Jew and Gentile alike.

So much for the fiction, what about the fact?


Fact

For “fact” I turn to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (born July 31, 1909 in Tobelbad (now Haselsdorf-Tobelbad), Austria-Hungary; died May 26, 1999, in Lans, Austria) was an Austrian Catholic nobleman and socio-political theorist. Describing himself as an "extreme conservative arch-liberal" or "liberal of the extreme right", Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties, and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote for a variety of publications, including Chronicles, Thought, the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, Catholic World, and the Norwegian business magazine Farmand. He also worked with the Acton Institute, which declared him after his death "a great friend and supporter." He was an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn points to the progressivism of the west, the worship of democracy gaining full momentum at the turn of the last century and fully manifest by the time of the Great War.  This is where the “fact” can be found regarding this comparison of Trump and Hitler.  The fact can be laid right at the feet of the same “progressive” mouthpieces that are making this comparison. 

From “The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large,” by Kuehnelt-Leddihn, written in 1943.  Referring to Jefferson’s disdain for “democracy,” he offers:

Sometimes Jefferson's vocabulary was rather unfitting for "progressive" ears; this seems apparent when he deals with the possibility of a large urban proletariat in America which by destroying the agricultural character of the country would make even representative government unworkable.

What does Kuehnelt-Leddihn see in the future of “progressivism”?

What we experience in the realm of government control in "progressive" countries is nothing but the first clouds heralding a bigger storm. We have all the prospects of a total aerial war with bacilli, gas, and high-grade explosives and there is a possibility that mankind may unloose dark powers over which they will finally lose control like Goethe's sorcerers' apprentice.

One sign of those “dark powers” emerged two years later over the land of the rising sun.  Twice.

In whom has he seen this manifest in his time?

The man to avenge the easy murder of Austria was an Austrian who got hold for this purpose of the most deadly and precise instrument in Europe — the German people. At one time he had turned his eye south of the Alps, as all Germans traditionally do. A superficial glance seemed enough. And then he started to create a superochlocratic, superidentitarian, monotonous, and monolithic state which was a synthesis of all ideas sprung from the French Revolution, a veritable reductio ad absurdum of "progressive" thought, a gorgonic mirror to the West. This man is Adolf Hitler.

National Socialism, as we have pointed out before, is not the result of the Treaty of Versailles. Nor has the movement as such anything to do with St. Germain, Trianon, and Neuilly, which were instrumental in laying the foundations for this war. Yet the present issue is, in the political and ideological sense a clear outcome of the political and ideological efforts of the victorious Allies in 1918-1919, and the result of their so-called order, which was (badly) organized disorder.

Replacing the previous order of monarchy.

The fatal thing which happened twenty-two years ago was the victory of the principles of national, identitarian, ochlocracy and a spurious concept of "democracy" in Central and Eastern Europe. There is only a very short step from national majoritarianism to National Socialism, a step as short as that from mortal disease to death.

As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn offers, Hitler presented nothing more than an extension of progressive thought – think eugenics, as merely one example common to both the US and Nazi Germany.  Think of the acceptability of abortion as another – perfected in the land of the (supposedly) free.  Consider “equality” and “liberty” and what these have come to mean in our era.

Think about the government offered as the solution for every problem; consider that many have been brainwashed by progressive government schools to ensure they believe this.

Further: in every way those same mouthpieces have demonized “the other” – whoever was the convenient “other” of the moment.  They have conditioned the people to believe that their problems are caused by or their security is threatened by “those guys.”

Finally, they have developed a political system where all power is focused on one individual, and they only complain when that one individual might not do their bidding.

Progressive thought has been the hallmark of US politics (and therefore much of the world, being “made safe for democracy” by that same United States) for over a century.  Should we be surprised at the result?

Conclusion

Trump is no Hitler.  Nothing in his background comes close to this comparison.  Certainly every other candidate running in the two major parties has more in common with Adolf than does Trump – just count dead bodies and wealth destruction.  Do you offer more relevant measuring sticks?

In any case, those who seem to be most concerned about this (the political class, the pundits, the newspaper and television mouthpieces) have ensured the preconditions for a “Hitler” to take the stage.  They have been working on it for over 100 years.

They have designed and otherwise allowed for a position of almost absolute power.  Trump just happens to be the first one to explicitly offer supposed “solutions” that implicitly recognizes this fact.  He is saying loudly and clearly: the clothes on this emperor confer omnipotence and I will act accordingly. 

They have designed this position for a person who will be compliant to their wishes.  Trump seems to be upsetting this design (well, at least for a vocal subset).

They want their own Hitler – an absolute ruler, just as they have designed the office.  They also want their Hitler on a string; sooner or later (and for better or for worse), this was going to prove to be impossible. 

Our best bet?  A combination of technology / communication and the inability of the state to meet their promises will move society toward a more decentralized condition.  I believe this to be in our future.  Otherwise, the path seems clear – the only question being time.

21 comments:

  1. Once again, a GEM! Thanks, B.M.!!
    Yeah, the Hitler analogies are ridiculous. Not to say that Trump is Mr. Wonderful. But at least he doesn't GUARANTEE disaster, unlike Cruz, or Hills.
    So, your last paragraph is "Secede, or die"? If so, I concur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Capn.

      I struggled with the last paragraph. What I am getting at is this empire will also see its end, because the word is getting out (technology / communications) and the state has made numerous promises it cannot keep (hence, those formerly sucking at the teat will have little reason to support leviathan).

      However, if this doesn't happen, the monster will continue to grow. I just don't see this as likely - maybe not even possible.

      Delete
  2. I apologize that this is off topic but I did not see an email contact on your site. I have being to get in contact with you for sometime. I have read many of your articles over the past 2 years (whenever it was that Lew Rockwell first published you), and was particularly interested in your recent exchange with Robert Wenzel(I have read him for years as well), as well your writings on immigration and culture.

    I recently engaged in a debate with a libertarian in the comments of a terrible article by Jeffry Tucker on FEE's website: http://fee.org/articles/choose-diversity-or-the-welfare-state/. I posted under UnhappyConservative (and in my last post ConservativeGuy).

    I believe it might be of interest to you. I provide the my email in my last comment (as of 3/16), I would like to know what you think of my arguments. I will also check back into this comments thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My email can be found on this page:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/about.html

      This statement from Coralyn best sums up my view:

      "I oppose the use of government violence both to stop people from traversing private property and I oppose its use to compel them to."

      Regarding the following exchange:

      "Cultural identify is not required for liberty."

      Are you familiar with the libertarian blogger Bionic Mosquito? He recently had some posts dealing with this (if not just google Bionic Mosquito, culture).

      I have written too many words on this to effectively respond here. The best I can do: if property was private and this was respected, culture would evolve in a natural way. This is no threat to liberty. As the government does not respect private property, and the government compels property owners to act in way other than they might choose, cultural evolution does not happen naturally. I view this as a threat to liberty.

      Delete
  3. I appreciate you taking the time to look at that, you are a good dude and I will make a habit of commenting on your site when I have something to say.

    I understand an in depth response is alot to ask, so I'll keep my reply simple as well.

    "The best I can do: if property was private and this was respected, culture would evolve in a natural way."

    While I agree that the State is a threat to civil society and therefore disrupts organic communities, I would argue that this is putting the cart before the horse. In order to arrive at the libertarian legal norms you favor, it is necessary to have a civil society that will accept them. That requires a culture that is conducive to libertarian legal norms. For reasons to complicated to get into in this post, I believe this would be best achieved by a homogeneous society.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Idiotic article. Has Donald Trump called for an extermination of the Jews, well no. Prior to 1923 neither had Hitler. Even the revolution in Germany of 1923 is not significantly different than say occupy Wall Street or the Ferguson riots, our police may just be more restrained than the German police.

    However is Donald Trump a populist and authoritarian? Absolutely. His tactics for attacking any journalist is to any defined. He is currently using authoritarian tactics to force the media to only say nice things about him. He is use this tactic successfully his entire business career. If you cannot buy something from you he will attempt to sue you into oblivion. Reasonably easy for a billionaire compared to most citizens.

    Americans are no different than the Germans of the 1920s. If a leader comes along that promises to fix our problems and there are plenty, that Americans will blindly follow. That is exactly what Hitler did and now what Donald Trump is doing.

    Is Donald Trump is willing to use his power again say journalists such as Megan Kelly and others while he is running as president what makes anybody think he won't use the IRS and all the powers that come with being the American dictator against his enemies?

    Tyranny is tyranny Donald Trump does not have to be a mass murderer to destroy America and move us into a more fascist nation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Idiotic article. Has Donald Trump called for an extermination of the Jews, well no. Prior to 1923 neither had Hitler. Even the revolution in Germany of 1923 is not significantly different than say occupy Wall Street or the Ferguson riots, our police may just be more restrained than the German police.

    However is Donald Trump a populist and authoritarian? Absolutely. His tactics for attacking any journalist is to any defined. He is currently using authoritarian tactics to force the media to only say nice things about him. He is use this tactic successfully his entire business career. If you cannot buy something from you he will attempt to sue you into oblivion. Reasonably easy for a billionaire compared to most citizens.

    Americans are no different than the Germans of the 1920s. If a leader comes along that promises to fix our problems and there are plenty, that Americans will blindly follow. That is exactly what Hitler did and now what Donald Trump is doing.

    Is Donald Trump is willing to use his power again say journalists such as Megan Kelly and others while he is running as president what makes anybody think he won't use the IRS and all the powers that come with being the American dictator against his enemies?

    Tyranny is tyranny Donald Trump does not have to be a mass murderer to destroy America and move us into a more fascist nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hitler became chancellor in 1933, not 1923. It is Hitler's history up to the time he took a position of authority to which I speak.

      You think Trump is more authoritarian than Hillary, Rubio, Cruz? Trump's only problem is he says overtly what the rest of them practice while smiling.

      You think they are making love to you, all the time you are being raped.

      The move to a more fascist nation has been ongoing for at least 100 years. Name the person in this election (or any election since at least November 1963) that will stand in front of that train.

      Delete
    2. I disagree strongly with your characterizing American history of the past 100 years as move towards fascism. What is your loose definition of fascism?

      I find it to be anachronistic to characterize America in that way. In my opinion fascism is best understood in a historical context as a right wing counter-revolutionary movement in the interwar period (Europe).

      Fascism has a reactionary component that is not present in America, in America there is ideological hegemony of the left.

      Do you really see American history of the past 100 years as a struggle against/for fascism?

      Delete
    3. Good grief!

      Have you read Benito Mussolini and his economics policies? Some were implemented in these uSA by F.D.R.. Both F.D.R and Winston Churchill were admirers of Mussolini but Mussolini joined with Hitler. Bummer.

      -----
      The Italian term fascismo derives from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces.[14] This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates and at first applied mainly to organisations on the political Left. In Milan in 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which, in 1921, became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party). The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio[15]—a bundle of rods tied around an axe,[16] an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate[17] carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[18][19]

      The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[20] Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements: for example the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke.[21]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Etymology
      -----

      BTW, look at Lincoln's throne, on either side, below his hands.

      What do you think fascism is?

      Delete
    4. Fascism is socialism characterized by private ownership but government control of productive property. Specifically the government aligns the private sector to its ends so the whole is properly dedicated to the government design. The U.S. was entirely fascist during WW2 and remains largely so now.

      Right wing socialism is an interesting concept. I’ve heard of it being described as circular in nature such that extreme right wing socialism abuts extreme left wing socialism, again, with nominal private ownership of productive assets under government control.
      Socialism can be benevolent as in Scandinavia or pernicious as under Stalin. But it’s still socialism.
      TomO

      Delete
    5. Unhappy

      See here:

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/friendly-fascism-2016/

      I have not viewed the video, so do not vouch for it. But there are other links embedded that address your strong disagreement.

      Delete
    6. Jamie, I gave a brief but coherent explanation of what I think fascism was. My definition was not economic and I do not dispute that there are many similarities between the economic policies in Italy,Germany, and the U.S during the 1930s. A good book on the subject can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/0312427433.

      I am also aware of the aesthetics and the etymology of fascism. Do you think that all no-classical architecture is fascist? If so you would be in agreement with the left. Perhaps you don't like representational forms in painting either, too fascist (I mean socialist, whatever thy are interchangeable right?)

      The definition I gave was political and historical. I do believe fascism may return as a political force in Europe, I think The Golden Dawn party is an example of this. I do however remain incredulous about the possibility of a fascist movement occurring in America, that is not to say there couldn't be something similar, and on that I agree with Sinclair Lewis that it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

      Mosquito I appreciate the video, I mostly like Charles Burris but he is a bit liberal with the term himself. I prefer Paul Gottfried's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gtc4EuUbB0.

      Mosquito, I have a proposal for you. Gottfried wrote a new book Fascism: The Career of a Concept, although it is a bit expensive, I propose we both read this book and perhaps a debate might come of it.

      Delete
    7. Unhappy, thanks for the invite but I will pass. I have more than a dozen books on subjects of far more interest to me waiting for me on the shelf, and in any case it is not terribly important to me to become an expert on any "ism" that doesn't start with "libertarian.". They all want to initiate aggression to one degree or another in order to get me to comply. That's enough for me.

      Delete
    8. I understand Mr. Mosquito, my shelf is piling up as well. As you may have gathered I do not accept the NAP and I think libertarianism is a terrible philosophy for actual politics.

      That being said I respect libertarians, and I myself used to be one (still sort of am). I am probably as well read in libertarian theory as yourself and am happy to debate anytime you are interested (I extend that offer to any of your readers as well).

      What finally drove me from libertarianism was the realization that it essentially liberalism carried through to its ultimate conclusion. I too admire classical liberalism (and I particularly admire its premier historian Ralph Raico), but it is not equipped to deal with the leftist and demographic threats.

      I am sure we would agree on the ideal society being a Private Property Society, but I have serious doubts that we will ever get there through political libertarianism.

      I am not alone, in many ways I speak for a growing group of people who have become disillusioned with the libertarian project and are willing to compromise on its principles in order to crush our enemies.

      I highly recommend the "Rebel Yell" Southern Nationalist podcast put on by friends of mine, for a better idea of where I am coming from, as well as the work of Keith Preston who recently appeared on said podcast. These guys know libertarianism well and I endorse everything they have to say. I think fondly of you all and wish to engage with you in good faith.

      Consider me your very own ambassador from the hard-right and feel free to contact me at anytime (you have my email.)

      Delete
    9. Unhappy, you admit the fascism in the FedGov's level of management of the economy?

      You do not think that the PC movement is fascist?

      Delete
    10. Jamie, the answer to both your questions is no.

      I would acknowledge the government's management of the economy, though I would not call it fascism. An Austrian economist would call it a hampered market economy (Mises) or Crony Capitalism. A neo-classical economist would call it a mixed economy. No big differences there. Similarly if you took the Hoppe approach (A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism), there is no third way, or in other words there is no such thing as fascist economics, only a pure capitalist order contrasted with a pure socialist order (and the move from one to the other). In Hoppe's view the intervention and "public" ownership of goods is socialist. I largely agree with this view but I am personally willing to entertain the possibility of a third position in economics. One such scheme that I haven't actually read too much on is (Christian) Distributism, which I believe goes back to Chesterton. Here is a guy who I have had some interaction with that writes on the subject: http://www.traditionalright.com/author/todd-lewis/

      As for the question of PC, I am actually scratching my head to figure out how you could possible think it is "fascist." Are you just using it to describe "control"? Is the management of a home and ones private property "fascist." What do you want the term to mean?

      You do realize that one of the first things you will be called if you start to say the wrong things to the wrong people is FASCIST! or NAZI!, right?

      In the abstract (I know Libertarians prefer abstraction) PC is essentially the enforcement of the ideological superstructure of a society. In that sense ANY ruling ideology at any time or place can be said to use "PC." A communist society enforces communist ideology, a fascist society enforces fascist ideology, and a capitalist society enforces capitalist ideology (in fact you used to be able to lose your job in America for being a communist).

      Our case is no different, the ideological superstructure of our society is enforced by "PC," and that ideology is leftist. Particularly individualism (until that individual breaks PC of course) and universalist egalitarianism and all that goes with (anti-racism, anti-sexism, you know the drill).

      Furthermore the specific roots of PC are the Frankfurt School/Cultural Marxism, Disaffected left-wing Jewish intellectuals who fled Germany during the interwar period and returned after the fall of the Reich.

      Here is one of the key works from that school: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm. There many works from that school and they actually make for some interesting reading if you wish to better understand Cultural Marxism (PC). For instance, Theodor Adorno's work The Authoritarian Personality was about psychopathologizing right-wing ideology, so put another way the whole point of PC was to create cultural hegemony of the Left, and in that it has been successful.

      Keith Preston calls it Totalitarian Humanism (he got from somewhere else) and I like that term as well since it pays reference to what the ruling ideology actually is.

      Personally, I would like to see Right-wing cultural hegemony, so basically what I want is Fascist PC, the opposite of what we have.

      Delete
  6. A fantastic article... again. Kudos and thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. trump = hitler is a manifestation of the worry, possibly even the fear, that trump will upset the carefully crafted corruption in the district of cesspools that all the denizens of that cesspool wallow in.

    the professional political class and its hangers on are squirming. this is good. let the worms on the hook continue to squirm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Basically Hitler is the Satan of our political theology. The Republican primary coverage is one perpetual violation of Godwin's Law.

      Delete