Sent you a message but not sure if it went through. So I'm just going to comment here and it has nothing to do with this article.
Just saw this and thought you would like it.
There is now a shrew virus - New virus discovered in Alabama raises pandemic fears. A potentially deadly virus has been detected in the United States for the first time ever.
Scientists identified the Camp Hill virus in shrews in Alabama, sparking fears it could find its way through animal reservoirs to humans and cause a potentially wide-reaching outbreak.
This is amazing!!! Thank you so much for this! I so hope it does "find its way through animal reservoirs to humans"...how exciting. I will be sure to milk this for all its got...a new deadly virus, just for shrews!!!
Your column summarizes more or less how I feel about Trump. I do not really like the guy. But Kamala and the Democrat Party stand for open illegal inmigration, mutilation of children who imagine they are of the wrong sex, suppression of any opposing free speech, undermining of any traditional values, financing foreign wars... By comparison Trump does not look so bad; certainly the Hitler analogybis not warranted. My friends with TDS cannot see that.
When Trump starts calling for the elimination (by death or otherwise) of any certain segment of society: people of color, of a certain religion, homosexuals, etc. Then I will start comparing him to Hitler. He has not done this, and I don't believe he will. But if he does (and deporting illegal aliens is NOT an example of this) I will be the first to admit there is a problem.
"Totalitarianism vs. Democratic Framework: Hitler dismantled democratic institutions to establish a totalitarian regime where dissent was brutally suppressed. Trump operated within a democratic system where checks and balances, including judicial rulings and legislative opposition, constrained his actions."
Within this difference is perhaps the greatest difference of all. The support of the majority of voters. While the 2016 election was marked by the Electoral College victory Pres. Trump secured - by campaigning in swing states that determined the greatest number of Electoral College votes as the rules of the system dictated rather than campaigning in all states for a simple majority - the 2024 election results secured by both the Electoral College system rules *and* a simple majority of voters in a (comparatively) free election.
This is something that Adolph Hitler never secured in any of his election "victories."
The 1932 election, multiparty race, Hitler's Nazi party won a plurality 37.3% of the vote. No party was able to govern without a majority, deals were struck and broken, leading to another election later that year, with Hitler's Nazi party again winning a plurality of the vote, this time with only 33.1% of the vote. Backroom deals were made, broken again, eventually Hitler was named Chancellor in January, 1933. The Reichstag Fire (the first J6 fake insurrection) was set, leading to martial law and the rigged March, 1933 election. where Hitler's Nazi party received a plurality of 43.9%, combined with the support from a coalition party gave the Nazi's the majority of the parliament needed to govern. In a rigged election. Six days after a J6-style orchestrated event pumped by up by Goebbels propaganda media. Hitler NEVER received the votes from the majority of Germans in any free and fair election. Not even the totally rigged one days after the Reichstag Fire.
That was it for free and fair elections in Germany. The next election in November, 1933 Nazis received 92.1%, 1936 98.8%, 1938 99.1%, and that was it until after Germany's defeat in WWII.
Hitler and the Nazi party NEVER secured the support of the majority of Germans in any real election. Never. 90%+ election results are only seen in dictatorships. Even the elections they received a plurality of support in were ungovernable, until the Reichstag Fire-influenced rigged results gave Nazi's and their coalition member a majority of the parliament. Still, not a majority for Hitler.
Pres. Trump won the votes of the majority of the American people. In a (comparatively) free election (no doubt many results still rigged, the election integrity issues of 2020 were never resolved, it was simply, "too big to rig.")
Nope, not two peas in a pod. Not even close. Hitler seized power. Trump won it.
Thank you so much for this, although I knew it, I could not put the details in words...thank you for doing that. It is something I am afraid few people know.
Still. It is difficult to say if it really matters to the Trump haters if he won fair and square. They will then transfer their hate to the voters. As I said in a previous article (or maybe one coming up!) the left squeals about democracy being destroyed, but the minute it is expressed, they suddenly do not believe it should count...."if the people voting are idiot enough to vote for Trump, they should not be voting." There's democracy for 'ya!!
As you probably know, I am not a real fan of democracy (the majority could have voted for Kamala fair and square!!) but I know of no better system. I used to think Ayn Rand's idea of "highly intelligent, educated, wise individual make up a panel that decides on the president" was a good one. But who would appoint this panel? Sound problematic to me for sure.
Definitely problematic. Legal philosopher and scholar Walter Berns sideways addressed this in 1963. It presciently speaks to what science applied as law might look like. Science designed with algorithms that privilege "more complicated persons with greater wants" (6% of the population) to "simple individuals" (94% of the population).
Ayn Rand's ideas sound like they are informed by another legal philosopher's work. Frederick K. Beutel's theories were emergent at the same time, which the Berns piece deconstructs. Not good for freedom, constitutional liberty. Beutel, had written a book proposing science-based law and jurisprudence. Behavioral Science. Aka The Science (TM) of the pandemic. Which AI undoubtedly helped determine. The Science (TM) that all of the world's leaders, on the right and left have told us we must follow. That would be AI substituting for "highly intelligent, educated, wise individuals" deciding on the president. Who would program this AI/panel? Problematic for sure:
Law and Behavioral Science
Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
[The first 14 pages get into a game theory type application of behavioral sciences on judicial philosophy. The final 14 pages are very informative and cautionary of governance by science.]
"Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx." One such theory, or "fomented" theory, is the idea that man is not a part of nature in the same way that animals and inanimate objects are. "Most advanced thinkers [however] have now come to the conclusion that man in his most intricate aspects is as much a part of the universe as is an animal or a stone.... " Being wholly in and of nature, man is as controllable as other animals and matter, and the means of effecting this control is experimental jurisprudence. "Nobody should be prepared to argue that the solution of all moral, social and international problems is presently possible by the technique of Experimental Jurisprudence, but can it not be said that it is foreseeable that the ultimate projection of procedures here suggested may lead to a possible means of resolution of clashes of opinion which in the past have been settled by brute force?"
...
Beutel tells us.:
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence.
[FF - Behavioral science-based propaganda and censorship so government can control the "cognitive infrastructure" of the nation]
When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
[FF- Eugenics!]
Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws.:
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
[FF - You will own nothing and eat bugs in your 15-minute cities. We will own it all and eat caviar, veal and filet mignon.]
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
...
Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government.
[FF - You will own nothing and eat bugs in your 15-minute cities. We will own it all and eat caviar, veal and filet mignon.]
...
Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils--no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
"What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
Well said. I can’t stand the man, personally. My husband was so upset when he was elected (don’t get me wrong-he didn’t want Hillary either) that he waited every day for him to be impeached. His objection was a personal embarrassment that anyone that immoral (his poor wives) was running the country. Nothing to do with politics-just personal distaste. My husband believed that humility was important when you had power or influence, and I don’t think trump ever learned the definition of that word.
But the comparisons to Hitler? Really?
And I don’t think that Hitler was the worst of the worst. Evil, yes, but there have been others throughout history just as bad who didn’t make the front page.
Trump might be selfish, uneducated, uncouth, boorish, insensitive, and self centered, but he’s not evil
There of course have been many leaders throughout history that have been "worse" than Hitler...much worse. It just goes to show this evil is accessible to all of us (unless they all ARE lizards).
As I have said before, what made Hitler fully evil was his distorted view of human value. His military and imperialist agenda was rather run of the mill (I mean his intentions were not all that unusual as far as historical world leaders go...take over the world, but the grand master of the whole enchilada) ...and he was pretty good at it...or at least the people on his "team" were.
I don't put any of Hitler's tendencies in any regard inaccessible to Trump...or to anyone...falling into these pathologies is a danger anyone in power has to be aware of and avoid. Most can't. But we'll see what happens.
Thanks TS. The thing that always marks Hitler is his ruthlessness, his hatred, and his literal destruction of innocent human lives. Trump has never demonstrated anything of the sort.
I don't think the majority of us fully appreciate nor understand the vast differences between billionaires and the rest of us peons. They are just radically different human beings. You only think they put their pants on one leg at a time but they don't. And these differences are spotlighted and magnified now because one of them sits in the Oval. In time, we might come to hate any one of these modern day billionaires were he president. Gates? Bezos? Cuban? Zuck? Musk? ... are you kidding me? Add to that the ad hominem, hate-filled attacks of the media and none of these guys would fare any better than Trump. Best we put aside personality and personal appearance; maybe even personal character in some instances. They come and go so quickly ... "Are we better off?" should be the only measure by which we grade our presidents.
“No consideration of the fact she supported a criminal war in Europe and an equally, if not a more, criminal war in the Middle East. No consideration that she advocated the mutilation of children to change their sex to the one they imagined. No consideration that she had no problem with mass immigration of unvetted criminals into the US.” These are a few of the main reasons that Hitler was so popular among Germans. Yet you see these as completely acceptable reasons that people voted for Trump. You morons have Hitler Derangement Syndrome. What happened to Germany after WW1 was horrible, Hitler fixed it. What happened to Germany during and after WW2 was beyond horrific, and nobody cares. Your 6million jews *sob*sob* has been disproven for decades and no one wants to admit it.
Trump could NEVER come close to the greatness of Adolf Hitler.
Not sure if I follow you here. Who are the morons you are referring to? Me? My readers? And what reasons are "completely acceptable reasons that people voted for Trump"? What reasons?
Yes, Hitler did fix the horror that the allies left Germany in after WWI. His methods are left to scrutiny and cricism though—and his genocide of the Jews and other undesireables had little effect on getting Germany out of the pickle the West left it in after the War.
And I would not argue with you regarding how Germany was left after WWII, and that nobody cared. Seems like they figured it out though...and rather quickly.
I strongly suspect that the portrayal of Hitler as an evil, murderous, narcissistic, psychopathic, neer do well, is a propagandised caricature created by the West and the Soviets.
Have a look at the Hannah Reitsch videos on Odysee.
She flew solo into Berlin to rescue Hitler, such was her devotion to him.
Like most things the left drones on about, I believe this is more projection (conscious or otherwise) than anything else. I believe, absent the U.S. Constitution, the checks & balances of government, or the objections of 70% of the American people, the left would be so similar to Hitler in thought and deed I shudder to contemplate it. Without restraint, I believe the radical left in America today would be the modern day Jacobins, who ushered in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.
I am not certain if you removed the humantarian element of the Third Reich if it would be considered much different (in heinous atrocity) than what most other countries have committed in the world since him.
Germany's campaign in this regard is rather unique...at least the magnitude of it was. Hitler and the National Socialists were indeed opportunists, they did want to make Germany Great Again, at all costs. What made them evil was not that per se, but their methods in acheiving it.
What do I mean by "humanitarian element"? Murder, an ideology which had at its heart the degradation of all human life that did not meet its definition of "human," seeing Hitler as God, death, hate, a belief in human, and divine, superiority. We DO see similar things going on in the world today (obviously) but I clearly do not see it in the US under Trump (or under anyone that we know of—although drone warfare comes close, Ukraine comes close, Gaza comes close...so I'll shut up now.)
Not Trump though...and although I don't believe it, I will say "not yet."
Have a look at "Adolf Hitler. The Greatest Story Never Told".
I do not believe that he was the monster we've been told he was.
The American left under Biden, without any checks and balances, would be like the Bolsheviks or Stalin, murdering and starving millions, locking them up in Gulags, or abandoning them to be eaten by wolves.
One other thing about AH. I agree with your comment about Western propaganda, but that truth does not completely wipe Hitler clean of wrong doing. Although I have read dozens of books about Hitler and the National Socialists, being fully aware much of it may be propaganda and untruths, I can still fall back on all that Hitler said in his speeches, his own writing (particularly Mein Kampf—which I have read 3 times) and the obvious objective reality of the state of Germany during the Third Reich. Hitler may not be 100% how the mainstream defines him, but even if it is only 10% it is still pretty bad...
If you know that much about NS, WW2, and Hitler, how come you still believe the lie about the Holocaust and jewish genocide? Surely you have seen the works by Fred Leutcher, Ernst Zundel, David Cole, Jim Rizzoli, ect. that show how homicidal gas chambers just did not exist. The people who were sent to the WORK camps were criminals and Communists. And they suffered and died in there due to the Allies bombing the living Hell out of Germany. The thousands of testimonies by jews that lived through the camps were of a kind German camp staff and comfortable living conditions. Do you believe all of the execution stories they tell? Like masturbation machines, electric floors, roller coasters into ovens, atomic bombs? How about the poop diamond story?
How about the fact that there was still an open synagogue in Berlin at the end of the war. Not all Jews were in camps, because it wasn’t simply being Jewish that got you sent to the camps. Only criminals and Communists, which led to lots more than just jews being in those camps. Patton was right, we fought the wrong enemy.
I think the evil side of Hitler is clear from his own words, and maybe from a lot of his actions. Most of the disgust an individual puts on Hitler as Satan, or worse, is psychological projection..."There but for the grace of God, go I"
A genuine distain for large swaths of humanity is the common thread that binds the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. To compare Trump to any one of these despots is simply ignorant and wildly short-sighted. I don't give these people the time of day.
As we have witnessed through the covid craziness - if you hear something often enough, many people believe it and then repeat it. Before it was the 'safe and effective' BS - now it is 'bad orange man'. People can be so gullible.
You nailed it with this comment. I have yet to find a "Trump hater" who can tell me exactly why they hate him without referring to his mannerisms, his looks, his comments about "pussies," his "deportation of innocent people," his collusion with Putin (all propaganda). Blah blah blah
There are GOOD reasons why people do not want him as president, but most (or all that I have talked to) can't recite them. Their hate is entirely based on bullshit.
A week before Trump won the landslide victory, a woman said to me (through clenched teeth :) ) that he's a racist, a misogynist, and a few more labels I can't remember. All labels spun together that I heard so many times before. Propaganda works well lol.
It would be interesting to me if anyone gave evidence for those labels. Sure, Trump has given evidence of being rather piggish with women in certain situations that a lot of woman would be offended by. And there are instances where he has been rather off with his treatment of people of colour...but a misogynist? A racist? Sure, by today's Woke standards, yes, but then we all are.
I refer to these people as sock-puppets. They recite words they've heard others say while being completely unaware of the hidden hand up their backside making their mouths move.
Todd- another excellent spot on post. Your comparison list is useful but IMHO I believe, like the boy who cried wolf too often, the leftist claim that Trump, Musk or anyone on the right is Hitler has lost its effectiveness; nobody cares anymore because it has been overused.
It definitely is overused, but I still hear sheeple doing it. It is still one of their favorite things to do. Do people honestly believe that if someone does a "salute" they way Musk did they are a Nazi? Does anyone even know what being a Nazi is???
An excellent piece , full of common sense ! Yes the “labeling “ of Trump as Hitler 2,0 is such an easy way to join the crowd while avoiding any original thought . I asked someone in my family to explain the reason for this comparison, I became the focus of the attack being labelled a facist. Sadly none of the Hollywood elites ( or anyone else) would be able to articulate even briefly the reason for this comparison academically the argument would fall apart .
There are lots of ways to compare anyone with anyone else. And when you are comparing leaders with other leaders they will fall into one of two basic categories—benign, and aggressive. All the aggressive leaders will share attributes with other aggressive leaders.
And I would argue the benign leaders APPEAR to be benign, but in fact typically are not. Almost all recent presidents (with the exception of Trump) would fall into the class of "appearing benign" but are far from that in reality. I think there are more similarities between Joe Biden and Hitler than most care to contemplate.
Also, Hitler was quite an exception in the recent world of leaders. But it was not only Hitler that made him so. It would be difficult, if not pointless, to compare true human personality attributes between Hitler and anyone else. Hitler would not have been Hitler if it weren't for many of the men around him, as well as the entire nation of Germany, as well as the state of the entire world. Saying Trump is like Hitler is like saying both men had ambition, both men were ruthless in achieving their goals, and both men were confident in their actions. Every successful leader in the world, tyrannical or not, share those attributes.
The only important comparison between anyone and Hitler is whether they would allow the wholesale extermination of other human beings. I have not yet seen Trump send anyone to the gas chamber. Could he? No, I don't think so. Also, "allowing it" is a moral issue, "doing it" is something altogether different. The law doesn't make the distinction, but psychology does.
Sent you a message but not sure if it went through. So I'm just going to comment here and it has nothing to do with this article.
Just saw this and thought you would like it.
There is now a shrew virus - New virus discovered in Alabama raises pandemic fears. A potentially deadly virus has been detected in the United States for the first time ever.
Scientists identified the Camp Hill virus in shrews in Alabama, sparking fears it could find its way through animal reservoirs to humans and cause a potentially wide-reaching outbreak.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14355477/camp-hill-virus-kill-rate-alabama-pandemic-fears.html
This is amazing!!! Thank you so much for this! I so hope it does "find its way through animal reservoirs to humans"...how exciting. I will be sure to milk this for all its got...a new deadly virus, just for shrews!!!
Your column summarizes more or less how I feel about Trump. I do not really like the guy. But Kamala and the Democrat Party stand for open illegal inmigration, mutilation of children who imagine they are of the wrong sex, suppression of any opposing free speech, undermining of any traditional values, financing foreign wars... By comparison Trump does not look so bad; certainly the Hitler analogybis not warranted. My friends with TDS cannot see that.
When Trump starts calling for the elimination (by death or otherwise) of any certain segment of society: people of color, of a certain religion, homosexuals, etc. Then I will start comparing him to Hitler. He has not done this, and I don't believe he will. But if he does (and deporting illegal aliens is NOT an example of this) I will be the first to admit there is a problem.
What a joke.
"Totalitarianism vs. Democratic Framework: Hitler dismantled democratic institutions to establish a totalitarian regime where dissent was brutally suppressed. Trump operated within a democratic system where checks and balances, including judicial rulings and legislative opposition, constrained his actions."
Within this difference is perhaps the greatest difference of all. The support of the majority of voters. While the 2016 election was marked by the Electoral College victory Pres. Trump secured - by campaigning in swing states that determined the greatest number of Electoral College votes as the rules of the system dictated rather than campaigning in all states for a simple majority - the 2024 election results secured by both the Electoral College system rules *and* a simple majority of voters in a (comparatively) free election.
This is something that Adolph Hitler never secured in any of his election "victories."
The 1932 election, multiparty race, Hitler's Nazi party won a plurality 37.3% of the vote. No party was able to govern without a majority, deals were struck and broken, leading to another election later that year, with Hitler's Nazi party again winning a plurality of the vote, this time with only 33.1% of the vote. Backroom deals were made, broken again, eventually Hitler was named Chancellor in January, 1933. The Reichstag Fire (the first J6 fake insurrection) was set, leading to martial law and the rigged March, 1933 election. where Hitler's Nazi party received a plurality of 43.9%, combined with the support from a coalition party gave the Nazi's the majority of the parliament needed to govern. In a rigged election. Six days after a J6-style orchestrated event pumped by up by Goebbels propaganda media. Hitler NEVER received the votes from the majority of Germans in any free and fair election. Not even the totally rigged one days after the Reichstag Fire.
That was it for free and fair elections in Germany. The next election in November, 1933 Nazis received 92.1%, 1936 98.8%, 1938 99.1%, and that was it until after Germany's defeat in WWII.
Hitler and the Nazi party NEVER secured the support of the majority of Germans in any real election. Never. 90%+ election results are only seen in dictatorships. Even the elections they received a plurality of support in were ungovernable, until the Reichstag Fire-influenced rigged results gave Nazi's and their coalition member a majority of the parliament. Still, not a majority for Hitler.
Pres. Trump won the votes of the majority of the American people. In a (comparatively) free election (no doubt many results still rigged, the election integrity issues of 2020 were never resolved, it was simply, "too big to rig.")
Nope, not two peas in a pod. Not even close. Hitler seized power. Trump won it.
Thank you so much for this, although I knew it, I could not put the details in words...thank you for doing that. It is something I am afraid few people know.
Still. It is difficult to say if it really matters to the Trump haters if he won fair and square. They will then transfer their hate to the voters. As I said in a previous article (or maybe one coming up!) the left squeals about democracy being destroyed, but the minute it is expressed, they suddenly do not believe it should count...."if the people voting are idiot enough to vote for Trump, they should not be voting." There's democracy for 'ya!!
As you probably know, I am not a real fan of democracy (the majority could have voted for Kamala fair and square!!) but I know of no better system. I used to think Ayn Rand's idea of "highly intelligent, educated, wise individual make up a panel that decides on the president" was a good one. But who would appoint this panel? Sound problematic to me for sure.
Definitely problematic. Legal philosopher and scholar Walter Berns sideways addressed this in 1963. It presciently speaks to what science applied as law might look like. Science designed with algorithms that privilege "more complicated persons with greater wants" (6% of the population) to "simple individuals" (94% of the population).
Ayn Rand's ideas sound like they are informed by another legal philosopher's work. Frederick K. Beutel's theories were emergent at the same time, which the Berns piece deconstructs. Not good for freedom, constitutional liberty. Beutel, had written a book proposing science-based law and jurisprudence. Behavioral Science. Aka The Science (TM) of the pandemic. Which AI undoubtedly helped determine. The Science (TM) that all of the world's leaders, on the right and left have told us we must follow. That would be AI substituting for "highly intelligent, educated, wise individuals" deciding on the president. Who would program this AI/panel? Problematic for sure:
Law and Behavioral Science
Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
[The first 14 pages get into a game theory type application of behavioral sciences on judicial philosophy. The final 14 pages are very informative and cautionary of governance by science.]
"Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx." One such theory, or "fomented" theory, is the idea that man is not a part of nature in the same way that animals and inanimate objects are. "Most advanced thinkers [however] have now come to the conclusion that man in his most intricate aspects is as much a part of the universe as is an animal or a stone.... " Being wholly in and of nature, man is as controllable as other animals and matter, and the means of effecting this control is experimental jurisprudence. "Nobody should be prepared to argue that the solution of all moral, social and international problems is presently possible by the technique of Experimental Jurisprudence, but can it not be said that it is foreseeable that the ultimate projection of procedures here suggested may lead to a possible means of resolution of clashes of opinion which in the past have been settled by brute force?"
...
Beutel tells us.:
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence.
[FF - Behavioral science-based propaganda and censorship so government can control the "cognitive infrastructure" of the nation]
When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
[FF- Eugenics!]
Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws.:
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
[FF - You will own nothing and eat bugs in your 15-minute cities. We will own it all and eat caviar, veal and filet mignon.]
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
...
Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government.
[FF - You will own nothing and eat bugs in your 15-minute cities. We will own it all and eat caviar, veal and filet mignon.]
...
Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils--no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
"What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
Well said. I can’t stand the man, personally. My husband was so upset when he was elected (don’t get me wrong-he didn’t want Hillary either) that he waited every day for him to be impeached. His objection was a personal embarrassment that anyone that immoral (his poor wives) was running the country. Nothing to do with politics-just personal distaste. My husband believed that humility was important when you had power or influence, and I don’t think trump ever learned the definition of that word.
But the comparisons to Hitler? Really?
And I don’t think that Hitler was the worst of the worst. Evil, yes, but there have been others throughout history just as bad who didn’t make the front page.
Trump might be selfish, uneducated, uncouth, boorish, insensitive, and self centered, but he’s not evil
There of course have been many leaders throughout history that have been "worse" than Hitler...much worse. It just goes to show this evil is accessible to all of us (unless they all ARE lizards).
As I have said before, what made Hitler fully evil was his distorted view of human value. His military and imperialist agenda was rather run of the mill (I mean his intentions were not all that unusual as far as historical world leaders go...take over the world, but the grand master of the whole enchilada) ...and he was pretty good at it...or at least the people on his "team" were.
I don't put any of Hitler's tendencies in any regard inaccessible to Trump...or to anyone...falling into these pathologies is a danger anyone in power has to be aware of and avoid. Most can't. But we'll see what happens.
Many people at the time were amazed by the way crowds reacted to hitler. That stuff can be staged, but he seemed to have an effect on crowds.
And, as you say, there’s no way to know who’s on board with the power grabs as things begin to roll. Look at the guy who’s been running your country.
It’s going to be interesting going forward
Crowds loving celebrities can be explained with very simple and basic psychology. No need to stage it usually.
Interesting indeed.
Such a great article Todd! I am wordless at times when friends make the
Nazi comparison. You offer some useful facts that I can voice.
Thanks TS. The thing that always marks Hitler is his ruthlessness, his hatred, and his literal destruction of innocent human lives. Trump has never demonstrated anything of the sort.
I recall that Dennis Prager recounted the history of the left smearing opponents with a fascist/Hitler meme. I view that tactic as an effective emotional manipulation, that's why the left uses it. Many argue the cynical smear diminishes the depravity of the Nazis, that arguably survive in Islamic terrorism. I was moved by https://rumble.com/v3vz9t7-muslims-invented-the-yellow-star.-brigitte-gabriel-with-sebastian-gorka-one.html and more recently: https://www.pbs.org/video/i-danced-for-the-angel-of-death-the-dr-edith-eva-eger-story-hoh0ya/
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(insult)#England :
<<
In 1944, the English writer, democratic socialist, and anti-fascist George Orwell wrote about the term's overuse as an insult, arguing:
It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless.
>>
That links to https://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2017/02/orwell-watch-27-what-is-fascism/ and that links to http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efascv I'm seeking a better source and a link to the Prager program I heard, but I reckon Orwell should know. This archive might offer a better link: https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/index.html
Like 'cult', 'fascism' might lack sufficient meaning to rise above a vacuous smear.
I don't think the majority of us fully appreciate nor understand the vast differences between billionaires and the rest of us peons. They are just radically different human beings. You only think they put their pants on one leg at a time but they don't. And these differences are spotlighted and magnified now because one of them sits in the Oval. In time, we might come to hate any one of these modern day billionaires were he president. Gates? Bezos? Cuban? Zuck? Musk? ... are you kidding me? Add to that the ad hominem, hate-filled attacks of the media and none of these guys would fare any better than Trump. Best we put aside personality and personal appearance; maybe even personal character in some instances. They come and go so quickly ... "Are we better off?" should be the only measure by which we grade our presidents.
I have written several articles pointing out exactly what you point out here..."differences between us and billionaires"...check them out...
https://www.shrewviews.com/p/how-else-would-they-do-it?utm_source=publication-search
https://www.shrewviews.com/p/what-do-they-care?utm_source=publication-search
https://www.shrewviews.com/p/who-are-the-elite?utm_source=publication-search
“No consideration of the fact she supported a criminal war in Europe and an equally, if not a more, criminal war in the Middle East. No consideration that she advocated the mutilation of children to change their sex to the one they imagined. No consideration that she had no problem with mass immigration of unvetted criminals into the US.” These are a few of the main reasons that Hitler was so popular among Germans. Yet you see these as completely acceptable reasons that people voted for Trump. You morons have Hitler Derangement Syndrome. What happened to Germany after WW1 was horrible, Hitler fixed it. What happened to Germany during and after WW2 was beyond horrific, and nobody cares. Your 6million jews *sob*sob* has been disproven for decades and no one wants to admit it.
Trump could NEVER come close to the greatness of Adolf Hitler.
Not sure if I follow you here. Who are the morons you are referring to? Me? My readers? And what reasons are "completely acceptable reasons that people voted for Trump"? What reasons?
Yes, Hitler did fix the horror that the allies left Germany in after WWI. His methods are left to scrutiny and cricism though—and his genocide of the Jews and other undesireables had little effect on getting Germany out of the pickle the West left it in after the War.
And I would not argue with you regarding how Germany was left after WWII, and that nobody cared. Seems like they figured it out though...and rather quickly.
Egads! And I thought I had unpopular views.
I strongly suspect that the portrayal of Hitler as an evil, murderous, narcissistic, psychopathic, neer do well, is a propagandised caricature created by the West and the Soviets.
Have a look at the Hannah Reitsch videos on Odysee.
She flew solo into Berlin to rescue Hitler, such was her devotion to him.
Like most things the left drones on about, I believe this is more projection (conscious or otherwise) than anything else. I believe, absent the U.S. Constitution, the checks & balances of government, or the objections of 70% of the American people, the left would be so similar to Hitler in thought and deed I shudder to contemplate it. Without restraint, I believe the radical left in America today would be the modern day Jacobins, who ushered in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.
I am not certain if you removed the humantarian element of the Third Reich if it would be considered much different (in heinous atrocity) than what most other countries have committed in the world since him.
Germany's campaign in this regard is rather unique...at least the magnitude of it was. Hitler and the National Socialists were indeed opportunists, they did want to make Germany Great Again, at all costs. What made them evil was not that per se, but their methods in acheiving it.
What do I mean by "humanitarian element"? Murder, an ideology which had at its heart the degradation of all human life that did not meet its definition of "human," seeing Hitler as God, death, hate, a belief in human, and divine, superiority. We DO see similar things going on in the world today (obviously) but I clearly do not see it in the US under Trump (or under anyone that we know of—although drone warfare comes close, Ukraine comes close, Gaza comes close...so I'll shut up now.)
Not Trump though...and although I don't believe it, I will say "not yet."
Have a look at "Adolf Hitler. The Greatest Story Never Told".
I do not believe that he was the monster we've been told he was.
The American left under Biden, without any checks and balances, would be like the Bolsheviks or Stalin, murdering and starving millions, locking them up in Gulags, or abandoning them to be eaten by wolves.
One other thing about AH. I agree with your comment about Western propaganda, but that truth does not completely wipe Hitler clean of wrong doing. Although I have read dozens of books about Hitler and the National Socialists, being fully aware much of it may be propaganda and untruths, I can still fall back on all that Hitler said in his speeches, his own writing (particularly Mein Kampf—which I have read 3 times) and the obvious objective reality of the state of Germany during the Third Reich. Hitler may not be 100% how the mainstream defines him, but even if it is only 10% it is still pretty bad...
If you know that much about NS, WW2, and Hitler, how come you still believe the lie about the Holocaust and jewish genocide? Surely you have seen the works by Fred Leutcher, Ernst Zundel, David Cole, Jim Rizzoli, ect. that show how homicidal gas chambers just did not exist. The people who were sent to the WORK camps were criminals and Communists. And they suffered and died in there due to the Allies bombing the living Hell out of Germany. The thousands of testimonies by jews that lived through the camps were of a kind German camp staff and comfortable living conditions. Do you believe all of the execution stories they tell? Like masturbation machines, electric floors, roller coasters into ovens, atomic bombs? How about the poop diamond story?
How about the fact that there was still an open synagogue in Berlin at the end of the war. Not all Jews were in camps, because it wasn’t simply being Jewish that got you sent to the camps. Only criminals and Communists, which led to lots more than just jews being in those camps. Patton was right, we fought the wrong enemy.
I've seen it.
I think the evil side of Hitler is clear from his own words, and maybe from a lot of his actions. Most of the disgust an individual puts on Hitler as Satan, or worse, is psychological projection..."There but for the grace of God, go I"
A genuine distain for large swaths of humanity is the common thread that binds the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. To compare Trump to any one of these despots is simply ignorant and wildly short-sighted. I don't give these people the time of day.
Exactly. You put that very well and succinctly...exactly....
I'm always willing to consider different viewpoints...of anything. But there is truth in there somewhere...
As we have witnessed through the covid craziness - if you hear something often enough, many people believe it and then repeat it. Before it was the 'safe and effective' BS - now it is 'bad orange man'. People can be so gullible.
You nailed it with this comment. I have yet to find a "Trump hater" who can tell me exactly why they hate him without referring to his mannerisms, his looks, his comments about "pussies," his "deportation of innocent people," his collusion with Putin (all propaganda). Blah blah blah
There are GOOD reasons why people do not want him as president, but most (or all that I have talked to) can't recite them. Their hate is entirely based on bullshit.
A week before Trump won the landslide victory, a woman said to me (through clenched teeth :) ) that he's a racist, a misogynist, and a few more labels I can't remember. All labels spun together that I heard so many times before. Propaganda works well lol.
It would be interesting to me if anyone gave evidence for those labels. Sure, Trump has given evidence of being rather piggish with women in certain situations that a lot of woman would be offended by. And there are instances where he has been rather off with his treatment of people of colour...but a misogynist? A racist? Sure, by today's Woke standards, yes, but then we all are.
I refer to these people as sock-puppets. They recite words they've heard others say while being completely unaware of the hidden hand up their backside making their mouths move.
Exactly.
Todd- another excellent spot on post. Your comparison list is useful but IMHO I believe, like the boy who cried wolf too often, the leftist claim that Trump, Musk or anyone on the right is Hitler has lost its effectiveness; nobody cares anymore because it has been overused.
It definitely is overused, but I still hear sheeple doing it. It is still one of their favorite things to do. Do people honestly believe that if someone does a "salute" they way Musk did they are a Nazi? Does anyone even know what being a Nazi is???
An excellent piece , full of common sense ! Yes the “labeling “ of Trump as Hitler 2,0 is such an easy way to join the crowd while avoiding any original thought . I asked someone in my family to explain the reason for this comparison, I became the focus of the attack being labelled a facist. Sadly none of the Hollywood elites ( or anyone else) would be able to articulate even briefly the reason for this comparison academically the argument would fall apart .
Just ask them, what is a fascist? and watch them twist themselves into a verbal knot. It's hilarious!
Love it ! Will do !
There are lots of ways to compare anyone with anyone else. And when you are comparing leaders with other leaders they will fall into one of two basic categories—benign, and aggressive. All the aggressive leaders will share attributes with other aggressive leaders.
And I would argue the benign leaders APPEAR to be benign, but in fact typically are not. Almost all recent presidents (with the exception of Trump) would fall into the class of "appearing benign" but are far from that in reality. I think there are more similarities between Joe Biden and Hitler than most care to contemplate.
Also, Hitler was quite an exception in the recent world of leaders. But it was not only Hitler that made him so. It would be difficult, if not pointless, to compare true human personality attributes between Hitler and anyone else. Hitler would not have been Hitler if it weren't for many of the men around him, as well as the entire nation of Germany, as well as the state of the entire world. Saying Trump is like Hitler is like saying both men had ambition, both men were ruthless in achieving their goals, and both men were confident in their actions. Every successful leader in the world, tyrannical or not, share those attributes.
The only important comparison between anyone and Hitler is whether they would allow the wholesale extermination of other human beings. I have not yet seen Trump send anyone to the gas chamber. Could he? No, I don't think so. Also, "allowing it" is a moral issue, "doing it" is something altogether different. The law doesn't make the distinction, but psychology does.
Yep...and that hat...good lord...
I loved that hat! The chick was GANGSTA! :)
Zorro.