Saturday, June 10, 2006

George W. Bush and The Big Lie

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

The above quote might be from a page out of the Bush administrations play book on how to handle public policy discussions. Especially the so-called "War On Terror".

But it's not.

It's from an OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of the CIA) report created during WWII describing Adolph Hitler's psychological profile.

Hitler himself outlined this strategy in Mein Kampf:

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ..."

Those die-hard Republican Neo-Cons who continue to support their president just prove that Hitler, and George W. Bush, were correct.

12 comments:

emawkc said...

Okay. Here we go with the "Bush=Hitler" shpiel again. You know you've come to the end of your argumentative rope with you give up and just start calling people Nazi's.

Xavier Onassis said...

Read the OSS psychological profile of Hitler and tell me, with a straight face if you can, that it isn't exactly what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and the rest of them have done over and over and over again.

LiberalKerry4eva said...

Yeah, I'll believe you when I see Bush marching the millions of Jews into death camps.

So if the psychological profiles for hadling a war are similar then all of sudden Bush is similar to Hitler? This is almost the lamest comparison of Bush to Hitler I have read. (The lamest was comparing the origin of Hitler's bank accounts to Bush's bank accounts).

My question to you: What should the psychological profile of an administration be if they are trying to fight a war? Should they constantly admit defeat and let the enemy see that we are weak. Maybe thats how John Kerry and the libtards of America fight wars.

We just killed Zarqawi and Bush has been very humble in saying that this does not mean that the war is over and there is a long road ahead. This does not fit with Hitler's psychological profile.

Bush is worse than Hitler!! Yeah right. Shouldn't you be watching American Idol?

Xavier Onassis said...

The rhetoric and fear mongering used to get us into Iraq and keep us there were the same techniques that Hitler used to rally the Germans against the Jews.

Tell a Big Lie, and keep repeating it until people believe it.

There were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there. Iraq was no threat to anyone but the Iraqis.

But Bush & Co. told the Big Lie that Iraq was connected to 9/11 (false), they have nukes (false) and they're coming for us (false). Lies. All lies.

But the lies have been repeated so often that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are lies, people refuse to admit to themselves that they have been completely duped.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the masses.

emawkc said...

The rhetoric and fear mongering used to get us into Iraq and keep us there are the same techniques that Liberals use to rally Americans against the Republicans.

That's what politicians do, but it doesn't mean they're all Nazis. You cheapen the holocaust when you make such comparisons.

Xavier Onassis said...

emaw (my brutha from a conservative mutha),

Okay. I'll give you that. Liberals have been just as guilty of rhetoric and fear mongering against the right. I guess I was guilty of it myself when I made this post. So I'll just go balls to the wall and use the same excuse the Nazis used...seemed like a good idea at the time.

However, I'll take issue that comparing a contemporary leader to Hitler "cheapens the holocaust".

If I were to compare, say, what happened on 9/11 to the holocaust, that would indeed cheapen it. Our loss, as great and as tragic as it was, doesn't even come close to what the Nazis did to the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and anyone else that didn't fit the profile of a Master Race.

But we need to reserve the right to compare our leadership to the Nazi leadership. Otherwise, how will we recognize it when it rears it's ugly head?

The Nazi approach to governing and going to war extends far beyond the Jews. The Jews were just the chosen "enemy du juor" for Germany.

We need to be constantly on the watch for any leaders anywhere who are willing to lead their people into a war of extermination based on lies and misinformation.

And with a target as nebulously defined as "terrorists" (terrorist=anyone we say is a terrorist), we are headed down a very slippery slope with no end in sight.

Brooksider said...

There is the old adage about repeating history until we learn it's lessons. Using history to help discern the fine line between propaganda and legit patriotic pride can be useful. But that is not what Bush was ever about in his disgusting co-op of 9-11 in order to find a war for his misadministration.

The problem with the "Liberals did it so we can too" argument is that there will always be historical precedents for behavior that was unfortunate at best to behavior that was intentionally deceitful and destructive at worst. Rather than point to the past for rationales of bad behavior, we need to use it to learn how to better craft our politics for the future. Truth is a good place to start as is finding common ground.

LiberalKerry4eva said...

Saddam had no nukes. We should have let him in power so he could develop them a few years down the line.

Xavier Onassis said...

Iran is developing nukes right now and bragging about it.

We aren't invading them.

Why not?

North Korea has nukes now! They are on the "Axis of Evil".

We aren't invading them?

Why not?

IRAQ: We don't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction.

US: We think yer lyin'! We're comin' fer ya! We'll invade your lands, capture your leader, throw down your government, destroy your infrastructure, cast your country into chaos, train the same sadistic goons who used to oppress you to do it again the way we like it done, then abandon you to patch things up on your own while we use your "victory" to win elections back home.

N. KOREA: We got nukes now. Wanna see 'em? Come on over! We'll show 'em to ya!

US: Umm, you better not have any nukes. Or we'll say it again using ALL CAPS. Seriously. Don't fuck with us.

Echele said...

I see what you are saying Xavier. For those who can not read between the lines and get the jist and want to argue literal things...

I'm just throwing this out there...9/11 happened, yes it was horrific, I know alot of people involved in 9/11...the U.S. went to Afganistan...then all of a sudden we are invading Iraq????

It's convenient to say, we will go after anyone harboring terrorist. It opens the door to go after who ever you want.

But after 9/11 did you notice when Bush spoke, in every speech, he never mentioned Iraq and terrorists in the same sentance but he would mention them in consecutive sentances? If he mentioned one he would mention the other even though they were not related, at least at that time - pre-invasion? It's a settle psychological approach at linking them to shift public interest and view to Iraq.

Anyone notice these things?

Who knows. I just seem to pick out things that don't fit in addresses to the people and I am lucky enough to have a friend that is a PhD in Biomathematical engineering, so he is very analytical. So I guess what I am trying to say is - I am smart enough to notice it but not smart enough to put it in words like he can without taking sides but to see it for what it is and to see it from all viewpoints and opening my eyes further.

Sorry to take up so much space on your comments. Hope you don't mind.

Xavier Onassis said...

You got it perfect echele!

Stop back by anytime.

LiberalKerry4eva said...

We dont invade korea because koreans aren't waging holy war against us.

You ask why arent we invading iran? Well because we already have our hands tied with iraq. Don't liberals want diplomacy? Isn't that what bush and the UN is trying to do now?

I dont want to go to war with iran, but if we have to, I'm sure we will. And no, it wont be for oil. I hope if we have to go in, the international community will stand firm against this threat and not back down and dump the responsibility on the US.

Al queda wants us to go to war with iran because it will weaken our fight in iraq.