Cautionary words from Hitler’s Germany: They Thought They Were Free

The New Neo Posted on by

[Every now and then I may post an excerpt from Milton Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free. The book, first published in 1955, is an exploration of Germans’ attitudes in the period leading up to WWII and including the war and its immediate aftermath. It features interviews with ten “typical” Germans, conducted a couple of years after the war’s end, and offers extraordinary and often relevant insights into how it was that Hitler came to power and stayed there so long. Here is my general discussion of the book and its author, who was a man of the left. To understand the following excerpt, it is helpful to know that for the purposes of the book, Mayer refers to the ten interviewees as his “friends.” ]

National Socialism was a repulsion of my friends against parliamentary politics, parliamentary debate, parliamentary government—against all the higgling and the haggling of the parties and the splinter parties, their coalitions, their confusions, and their conniving. It was the final fruit of the common man’s repudiation of “the rascals.” Its motif was “throw them all out.” My friends, in the 1920’s, were like spectators at a wrestling match who suspect that beneath all the grunts and groans, the struggle and the sweat, the match is “fixed,” that the performers are only pretending to put on a fight. The scandals that rocked the country, as one party or cabal “exposed” another, dismayed and then disgusted my friends…

While the ship of the German State was being shivered, the officers, who alone had life preservers, disputed their prerogatives on the bridge. My friends observed that none of the non-Communist, non-Nazi leaders objected to the 35,000 Reichsmark salaries of the cabinet ministers, only the Communists and the Nazis objected. And the bitterest single disappointment of Nazism…was the fact that Hitler had promised that no official would get more than 1,000 Reichsmarks a month and did not keep his promise.

My friends wanted Germany purified. They wanted it purified of the politicians, of all the politicians. They wanted a representative leader in place of unrepresentative representatives. And Hitler, the pure man, the antipolitician, was the man, untainted by “politics,” which was only a cloak for corruption…Against “the whole pack,” “the whole kaboodle,” “the whole business,” against all the parliamentary parties, my friends evoked Hitlerism, and Hitlerism overthrew them all…

This was the Bewegung, the movement, that restored my friends and bewitched them. Those Germans who saw it all at the beginning—there were not very many; there never are, I suppose, anywhere—called Hitler the Rattenfé¤nger, the “ratcatcher.” Every American child has read The Pied-Piper of Hamlin. Every German child has read it, too. In German its title is Der Rattenfé¤nger von Hameln

[NOTE: Additional excerpts will follow at intervals.]

Pelosi’s been reading her Goebbels

The New Neo Posted on by

The Big Lie at work:

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Yes, and I’m the Queen of Sheba.

Check out the comments section for the article; I have never seen such intense rage before from virtually every single commenter, and this in a thread that now numbers over 1500. No one is defending Pelosi, probably because the liberals who ordinarily would be inclined to do so are angry at being shut out of the negotiating process as well. What many of the posters there are saying about Pelosi can’t be repeated on a family blog. And just think—this woman is third in line for the presidency.

The biggest problem isn’t Pelosi’s egregious lying, however, nor the contempt in which she obviously holds Americans, although both are indeed huge problems. But even worse, the checks that should limit her are not in place, because despite Pelosi’s outrageous and—yes, un-American—behavior, there’s no chance that the House of Representatives will find enough votes to call for her removal and the election of a new (and better??) Speaker, and there’s every likelihood that the MSM will keep mum about her excesses and mendacity.

I wrote “Goebbels” in the title of this post. But while it’s true that he discussed the technique, and most people attribute the idea to him, it actually was none other than Hitler who first voiced the concept, 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.

Note that Hitler was not saying he was about to use the Big Lie. In the original context, the quote was imputing its use to his favorite enemies, the Jews and the Marxists, which of course (at least regarding the Jews) is a Big Lie itself. Then, during the war, Propaganda Minister Goebbels accused the English of being practitioners:

The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

In 1984 Orwell had this to say about what he referred to as “blackwhite:”

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.

I think the latter description fits Pelosi; my guess is that, although on a certain level she knows she’s lying, she temporarily and strategically believes her own lies, in the time-honored leftist manner described here. But does Pelosi believe the technique will work, and that the American public will buy those lies? Or if not, does she believe it doesn’t matter, because right now she’s got the power?

[NOTE: Michelle Malkin calls Pelosi and company vampires:

Meet the Beltway bloodsuckers. They convene in the dead of night, when most ordinary mortals have left work, let their guard down, or are lying asleep in bed. Pale-faced and insatiable, the nocturnal thieves do their nefarious business in backrooms and secret chambers. Their primary victims? Taxpayers, the free market, and deliberative democracy.]

Post-holiday thanks

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that the holidays are over (see all those Valentine candies in the stores?), I’d like to offer a big heartfelt thanks to all of you who placed Amazon orders for Christmas and Chanukah gifts through this blog, and also to all those kind souls who donated to me via Paypal. I hope to be worthy in the coming year!

What sort of criticism of Obama is considered acceptable?

The New Neo Posted on by

None.

Good old Andrew Sullivan is on the case of those who saw this official White House photo of Obama as condescending and arrogant:

obamalook.jpg

Obama’s supporters see the pose as James Bondish—although I can’t see how that would eliminate arrogance; after all, wasn’t James Bond condescending and arrogant, albeit in a charming and attractive way?

But Sullivan isn’t having any of it:

I tried to puzzle this one out and can just about see how an elusive photo of a tired Obama reacting to something unknowable might make him look tired or arrogant or something.

And then I realized why this photo immediately strikes some people are damning. Obama is a black man who looks as if he is condescending to a white man. That’s political gold.

So, anyone who sees this as condescending is ipso facto racist. As for me, the moment I first looked at the photo, what came to my mind was something quite different: Mafia don. But I suppose that’s racist as well—towards Italians, or Sicilians, or Mafiosi, or whatever. Although some of my best friends are…

So Obama can’t be called condescending, especially if he’s looking at a white man, without the caller being called racist.

But what if Obama were to look condescendingly at a black man? Could we call him condescending then? No; if we did, we’d be guilty of saying Obama’s an Uncle Tom, looking down on his own race. And that would be, um, racist of us.

What if we said some things Obama does are stupid? You know, like what Democrats said about the stoooopid Bush, his predecessor? Clearly, that would be racist, because we’d be saying black people are less intelligent than white people (except, of course, for Bush, the stupidest white person of them all and perhaps the stupidest person on earth).

What if we said Obama’s a leftist? That would be McCarthy-esque, as well as racist, because everyone knows that “leftist” or “socialist” is a code word for black. Lest you think I’m making that up, please revisit this.

And then there’s “liar.” When Joe Wilson tried it, Maureen Dowd heard it as, “You lie, boy!” Racism is in the ear of the listener.

Call Obama inexperienced, and it’s the same thing: young, as in “boy,” as in—well, you get the drift.

There was a lot of this going around during the campaign and in the early days of Obama’s presidency. But it appeared to have died down in recent months, mostly because there were clearly so many bona fide reasons to criticize Obama, and also because the “racist” charge got very old and tired and ineffective.

But here it is again; what could that mean? Perhaps Obama’s supporters are feeling old and tired and ineffective—as tired as he looks in the photo?

Releasing Gimo detainees: the courts’ usurption

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s another excellent piece from Andrew McCarthy on the legal issues involved in the Gitmo detainees’ release. McCarthy—the prosecutor in the first WTC case—speaks the voice of reason, although he may be crying in the wilderness at this point.

McCarthy first came to my notice in 2004 when he wrote one of the best articles ever on our legal approach to terrorism, this 2004 piece (“The intelligence mess: how it happened, what to do about it”), which is still well worth reading for an overview. In today’s article, McCarthy notes:

What is the administration thinking? As the intelligence debacle surrounding the Christmas Day attack shows, President Obama will be blamed for failures to take obvious steps to thwart terrorists. He has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation, and Congress is firmly in the grasp of his party. If he proposed sensible procedures for terrorists’ detention cases, he’d get nigh-unanimous Republican support ”” and Democrats would go along regardless of the Left’s grumbling…Politcally, Obama can get it done. Why doesn’t he?…

Which brings us to the final, related point: Why is the Justice Department failing to appeal bad detention decisions? Rulings such as the one by Judge Kollar-Kotelly are specious. The Justice Department should not just want to appeal, it should welcome the opportunity to persuade the appellate court to do what Congress has failed to do: impose on the district courts the presumption in favor of detention that the Supreme Court outlined in Hamdi…

Why isn’t this being [appealed]? Americans are more than entitled to surmise that it is because there is a serious pro-detainee bias in this Justice Department. Many top DOJ lawyers and their firms ”” including Attorney General Holder’s former firm ”” volunteered their services for years to represent the detainees in court. Undoubtedly, several DOJ lawyers in influential positions think rulings like Kollar-Kotelly’s are perfectly reasonable. After all, these are just the sorts of rulings for which they spent the last several years arguing. They don’t want to appeal. Having represented detainees, they are untroubled by the prospect of their being released.

Please read the whole thing.

Finally: a poll in the Coakley/Brown Senate race

The New Neo Posted on by

And a fascinating one it is.

Ever since I’ve heard of this race, I’d been searching and searching for a poll, but nada so far until today. Rasmussen says that the results are 50% Coakley to 41% Brown, which doesn’t sound so good for Brown.

But remember, this is Massachusetts, nearly the bluest state in the country. This is Ted Kennedy’s seat, after all. Brown’s momentum is still building. And this is a special election, in which turnout tends to be low unless voters are enthused.

Coakley voters are not enthused, although they may become so if they hear that Brown has a chance to be a Republican Senator from Massachusetts (isn’t that a sort of oxymoron?). I’ve seen the Coakley ads, and the woman conveys nothing whatsoever that might engender enthusiasm, whereas Brown—well, that’s another story.

In the Rasmussen poll, the third candidate, the serendipitously-named Libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy (no relation) was left out for unknown reasons, although “some other candidate” is mentioned as a possibility. It’s hard to know what effect Kennedy will have on the race. He might split the Conservative vote, or he might cause liberals to pull the lever for him because they think he’s of the famous old family and a liberal (especially if they don’t know what the word “libertarian” means.)

Whatever happens, there’s only about two weeks till election time. If Brown were to win or even be competitive, it would be practically a miracle, far bigger than what happened recently in Virginia and New Jersey combined. It would send a cold shiver throughout the entire Democratic party. In fact, today’s Rasmussen poll (which also included the finding that, among voters who say they are certain to vote, Brown came within two points of Coakley; and that Brown leads among unaffiliated voters 65% to 21%) ought to cause Democrats to break into a cold sweat already.

However, as Sisu points out, a Brown victory might take even more than a miracle, since the Democrats have a habit of bringing the required number of dead people to the Massachusetts voting booths if necessary.

But, as the man says, it’s time to throw a snowball at Washington:

[NOTE: In related news, Curt Schilling makes the pitch for Brown. Donations for Brown accepted here. And more links here.]

Streetwalking songs

The New Neo Posted on by

See the way he walks down the street
Watch the way he shuffles his feet—

“He’s a Rebel” was one of those wonderful girl-group numbers that entertained us in the early 60s. It’s also one of a host of rock songs that walk the walk in addition to talking the talk—that is, they feature the words “walk” and “street” (or its variant, “road”), either in title or lyrics.

That got me to thinking of all the other oldies but goodies (or in some cases not-so-very-oldies, and sometimes not-so-very-goodies) that contain the words “walk” or “street.” “He’s a Rebel,” with its glorification of the perennial bad boy, almost inevitably led me to the Shangri-Las‘ paean to another rebellious-but-lovable hottie: “Give Him a Great Big Kiss” (“he’s good-bad, but he’s not evil”):

And now let us shift from badass street-walking boys to alluring street-walking (although not in the professional sense) girls—or shall we say “women:”

And just as The Crystals’ “He’s a Rebel” led to the Shangri-Las’ “Give Him a Great Big Kiss,” the great Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” (“walkin’ down the street…I don’t believe you, you’re not the truth/
No one could look as good as you) almost inevitably leads to The Doors’ “Hello, I Love You” (“she’s walkin’ down the street…sidewalk crouches at her feet/like a dog that begs for something sweet”)…

And then, if you want to continue to talk about resemblances (in theme, if not in musical style), there’s also “The Girl From Ipanema” (“the girl from Ipanema goes walking…And when she passes, he smiles/but she doesn’t see”):

Which leads us to the newer hit “You’re Beautiful” (“she caught my eye/As we walked on by…And I don’t think that I’ll see her again”), which to me seems to express a version of the same unquenched yearning:

And here, without further ado or commentary (but with You Tube links for every one), and in no particular order, are the others that popped into my head:

“Love Street”
“Boulevard of Broken Dreams”
“Boogie Street”
“I Get Around”
“Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright”
“Long and Winding Road”
“Walk on By”
“When You Walk in the Room”
“You’re So Vain”
“Country Roads”
“Blowin in the Wind”
“These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”

But that’s just my little list. It turns out the someone else has been down this road before. And a much much longer road than mine it is.

[ADDENDUM: How could I have left out “Walk Away Renee?” To remedy that shameful omission, I’ll post the You Tube video:

[Hat tip: Tonawanda.]

What should we do with Abdulmutallab?

The New Neo Posted on by

James Kirchik thinks we should waterboard him, because Abdulmutallab is a good example of the “ticking time bomb” scenario. I don’t even think waterboarding would be necessary—he’s hardly the hardened and veteran terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is. But I’m in complete agreement with Kirchik’s assertion that the Knickerbomber ought to be in Guantanamo being dealt with by the military justice system rather than the civilian, because he was trained by al Qaeda, a group that is at war with us, and he attempted mass murder of US citizens in furtherance of that struggle.

But no. The Obama administration is determined to give Abdulmutallab all the rights and privileges of the ordinary US citizen/murderer. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder is even on record saying that, if we ever were to capture Osama Bin Laden (remember him?), he could be tried in our ordinary criminal justice system because we’ve got enough evidence to convict him—thereby showing how irredeemably clueless Holder is about the entire idea of obtaining intelligence information from these characters.

In a related item, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan stated the supremely reassuring news that, although the Knickerbomber has clammed up now that he’s been lawyered up; never fear, a plea bargain is near. In other words, in the same time-honored fashion that the government gets the smaller fish in drug dealing cases to rat out the larger fish by offering them suspended or reduced sentences for testifying, we’re going to offer the Knickerbomber the same opportunity.

I’m sure that’ll get all the other terrorists to shaking in their shoes, dreading the wrath of the US government. It’s almost as though Obama and Holder and Brennan are trying to underline, and give greater validity to, Dick Cheney’s assertions that their policies have made us more vulnerable to terrorism.

[NOTE: And for anyone who wants to mount the tired old “but the Bush administration did the same with Richard Reid” argument, here’s my rebuttal.]

The constitutionality of Reidcare

The New Neo Posted on by

I agree with this WSJ article by Orrin Hatch, J. Kenneth Blackwell, and Kenneth A. Klukowski that the Senate health care reform bill is unconstitutional, representing an extension of federal power far beyond what was envisioned, intended, or allowed by the framers.

But I wonder whether it will matter. Conservative justices are likely to find it unconstitutional, liberal justices will rule for it, and swing justices are unpredictable. Right now the Court is unusually balanced, with four predictable liberals and four predictable conservatives and one unpredictable swing vote. But to overrule an act of Congress takes guts, and could this Court (particularly swing vote Kennedy) muster the requisite intestinal fortitude to do so in the face of an overwhelmingly liberal House, Senate, and President bent on passing this “historical, transformative” piece of legislation? Somehow, I doubt it.

Laughing all the way

The New Neo Posted on by

I found this You Tube video at Ann Althouse’s, featuring the bride who couldn’t stop laughing:

I have been known to fall prey to the same phenomenon, especially when pregnant—which was not at my own wedding, fortunately, but as a wedding spectator, in a pew that magnified the quaking/shaking tendency of my (or anyone else’s) laughter. It can be painful as well as embarrassing to laugh so much, at times even requiring a shameful exit from the scene.

On occasion I even have been known to laugh in my sleep so hard that it woke me up. Usually, it was at some joke that seemed indescribably, unbearably hilarious in the dream. But on wakening, it didn’t seem especially humorous at all. Anyone else ever had this happen?

Krauthammer on Obama on terrorists

The New Neo Posted on by

Krauthammer gets it, Obama doesn’t:

Obama reassured the nation that this [Knickerbomber] “suspect” had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point — surprise! — he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama’s declaration that “we will not rest until we find all who were involved.” Once we’ve given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

But, the Left says, what about Bush’s treatment of Richard Reid, the somewhat-analogous shoe bomber, who was tried and convicted in civilian courts for his attempted airline attack? I wrote about some of the differences between the two cases here: by then, Bush had already proven his seriousness about fighting terrorism through his behavior during the crucible of 9/11, the subsequent anthrax scare, and the Afgan war, all of which had occurred very recently and which completely dwarfed anything Reid had done.

But here’s another point: the prison at Guantanamo for illegal enemy combatants had not yet been set up when Richard Reid was taken into custody. Reid acted on December 21, 2001, but the first prisoners in the war on terror only came to Guantanamo (with a great deal of fanfare, and a great deal of media disapproval even at the outset) on January 11, 2002, to be housed in the temporary wire cages that featured so prominently in articles of the time. How could Reid have been sent to a place that didn’t yet exist, and tried under a system that had not yet been set up?

I suppose he could have been transferred there later, ex-post-facto. But no doubt that would have set up a host of legal appeals from his attorneys in the civilian court system under whose jurisdiction he already was at the time, and it probably would not have seemed worth the risk and trouble. Remember, again, it was only a few short months after the trifecta of 9/11, the anthrax scare, and the Afghanistan war. Reid seemed like small potatoes then, but only in comparison.

And not only had the alternative military legal system at Guantanamo not yet been set up and operating, but in addition, the vast majority of Americans were aware that our more muscular and serious response to terrorists was still being developed by the Bush administration. In stark contrast, by the time the Knickerbomber tried to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane over Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009, we expect a great deal more from our government. A great deal of time has passed. It has been almost a decade that we’ve been inconvenienced much more than ever before while traveling, and we would like something to show for it.

But instead we have a president who has trouble uttering the word “terrorists,” and who took many months to decide to listen to his own general’s request and send some of the troops he’d asked for into an Afghan war that Obama himself had hyped mightily during his own campaign. This same president has been relentless in criticizing the Guantanamo prison for illegal enemy combatants, and the system of military justice there that most Americans perceive as having helped kept us safe during the Bush administration. Despite this, Obama hasn’t been able to think of a better one, at least not in most people’s eyes.

In addition, as part of Obama’s war against the Guantanamo prison and the system of military justice for terrorists, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, is the official front man for the administration’s dreadful and dangerous decision to try the 9/11 terrorist (and Daniel Pearl beheader) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in our civilian criminal justice system. Holder showed a remarkable combination of ignorance, incompetence, stupidity, and/or mendacity in public Senate questioning that many Americans were able to view on You Tube.

In short, Obama has not proven his mettle in fighting Islamicist terrorists. Americans are very uneasy; many are very angry. And rightly so.