Dispatches from the Creation Wars

OMG! Obama is a Fascist!

John Ray, one of the STACLU contributors, has for the last couple weeks been hot on proving that Barack Obama is a fascist in the tradition of Adolf Hitler. Seriously. And you’re gonna love his arguments. Like in this post, where he declares that by calling for America to be more unified, Obama is clearly the “heir to fascism.” Seriously:

In fact, with his constant inspirational calls for national unity, Obama is eerily reminiscent of the Fascists. If he spoke German he might well be inclined to adopt as his slogan Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer — as Hitler did (“One nation, one government, one leader”).

Oh, of course. Because only a fascist would call for Americans to focus on our common goals and interests and set aside the petty infighting. It’s not like such calls aren’t an ever-present part of the political rhetoric of both parties. In fact, I seem to recall George W. Bush talking about his desire to be “a uniter” during the 2000 campaign. Somehow I doubt Ray was comparing him to Hitler as a result.

But wait, not only does Obama’s call for unity show that he’s a fascist, so does his talk moderation and seeking a “middle way”:

And presenting oneself as the man of the “middle way” — which Obama does — is also of course classic Fascism.

Of course it is, John. And everyone who ever invoked such a vague thing is obviously the next Mussolini.

Ray then finds an example of someone gushing far too fervently about Obama’s ability to inspire and quotes them:

Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.

The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us toward a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

Yes, that’s silly and over the top of course, the kind of emotional word salad that is far too common today. And of course, this is more proof that Obama is the “heir to fascism” because – gasp! – someone once gushed about Hitler’s ability to inspire too:

Hitler’s speeches had a similar effect. As Elie Wiesel noted:

“The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people — not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy.”

Oh my god! Obama calls for unity, Hitler called for unity! Obama is a charismatic speaker, Hitler was a charismatic speaker! Still not convinced? Oh ye of too much logic. He’s saved the best for last: Obama calls for change….and so did Hitler!

And as far as Obama’s “change” religion is concerned, see the quote at the head of this post and also note the following policy description:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists” — again the words of Adolf Hitler, from the “Philosophy and Organization” chapter of Mein Kampf

And Hitler also described his movement as having a ‘revolutionary creative will’ which had ‘no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change’

As convincing as Ray’s arguments are, he missed so many other obvious similarities. Barack Obama is a bipedal mammal; so was Hitler. Hitler was a painter; Obama has paintings in his house. Hitler demanded that his followers raise their arms out straight in a salute to his rule; Obama has arms. We rest our case.


  1. #1 NikFromNYC
    March 10, 2008

    Obama says we must cut CO2 emissions by 90% within two decades, about the time he’s retiring from politics, yet offers no other energy sources than coil and oil, or what we do today, which is purchase 30% of our energy from abroad. Yet the earth is not warming. It was from 1840 to 1985, in linear fashion, utterly correlated with the sun’s magnetic cycles, utterly uncorrelated with the 1940 on boom in CO2 output. Since 1985 it has been cooling. In fact, and here it gets confusing, most rural temperature stations, such as all those in Australia, have been cooling for since records began on average of a century ago.

    Is not someone who subscribes to the “Sky is Falling” issue alone a rather dangerous guy to elect? One who wants to stop industry, like California now does with its rolling blackouts? I indeed prefer Obama to Clinton, just to get that era over with, and to elect a half-black guy, so to remove the LEFT’S “race card” for good. But this global warming thing is a classic attempt to establish a non-democratic world government by establishing converts to a doomsday cult religion.

    Here is the temperature of the South Pole for over half a century:

    Here is the correlation between CO2 and temperature, as in non-correlation vs. that of sun activity:

    John Ray, being in Australia, only gets his news of the USA from the media and anti-media blogs, and indeed I agree that we in the USA can handle any “liberal fascist” tendencies he brings to office. But the book “Liberal Fascism” as well as the book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” both have very good points, and they are not just “talking points” but historical facts about how tyranny has a way of sneaking up on societies through DEMOCRATIC means (pun intended).

    The smugness of the comments here are worrying. It means your group of individuals are not very sophisticated in your view of history or of current politics, including the simple fact that many psychotic or sociopathic people seek power for the sake of power. This can be great for corporate CEOs, since they make fully logical decisions, caring not one wit about how it hurts people, yet this helps the company itself. But this is bad for politics, since government that cares about itself instead of its society is damaging to that society.

    That people like John Ray are investigating this HISTORICALLY COMMON problem, and is a bit overly paranoid about it means he is doing a bit of good, not just being some jerk to be demonized or ridiculed. But if you mock him instead of confront his comments using honest and upfront debating points, you will be treated like children, or smugly privileged and thus hypocritical cocktail party liberals with limousines idling outside.

    You might also want to realize that in *this* election, a LOT of Republicans are suddenly sway voters (!) due to their disdain of the very liberal McCain, and are likely to cast protest votes, and it wont be for Hillary. If Democratic activists thumb their noses at Republicans, then that protest vote will be of less force. For the record, I am a Libertarian, and I prefer Obama since he has politically stated that marijuana should be decriminalized, that being the beginning of the end of the Drug War that has put 1 in 100 of our population behind bars.

    Since “Liberal Fascism” is the number one selling book in the nation, is it any surprise that the nation is poking around, looking for analogy, for clues as to whether given candidates have anti-democracy and anti-capitalistic tendencies? If you must know, since I do frequent “right wing” blogs, that there is more worry about McCain in this sense than there is about Obama. Why? Because McCain’s known “liberal” hatred of productive multi-millionaires could result in actual laws being passed to cut them down a notch or two, whereas Obama would have to fight Republican opposition to, say, punitive tax levels that the Laffer Curve indicates would hurt the economy, especially the poorest members of it:

    “He joined various Nazi groups in Australia (in addition to having joined various Communist groups) for what he says are research purposes. In the article he wrote about this he spends the whole time saying that Nazis are right-wing and what not and that he didn’t find it hard to fit in because of his conservatism. This is kind of odds with his praise for J. Goldberg arguing that liberals are fascists.”

    Does not PUBLISHING ACADEMIC PAPERS ABOUT THESE GROUPS *validate* his claim of doing this for RESEARCH purposes?! Amongst his over 200 academic publications (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526-0000/jonjayray.tripod.com/allrefs.html) we find at least one about this exact issue, namely antisemitic neo-Nazi groups in Australia:

    “THIS is a study of some present-day Australian Nazis. The data I have derived by the increasingly respectable method (among scientific sociologists) of participant observation [1]. Over the last seven years I have joined Nazi organizations and “collected” people of Nazi sympathies. As a young WASP of basically conservative political views, I found this relatively easy to do — provided I paid my tax of an occasional antisemitic utterance.”

    Having read the somewhat boring 10 page article, I find at the end that although he did indeed (35 years ago) refer to neo-Nazis as “Right Wing” that he properly qualifies this term at the end by saying:

    “What I have said above in using the terminology of “the extreme Right” must not be taken as implying that I believe the Nazi simply to be a conservative who is more extreme in his views. Shils [16] long ago pointed out that there are some things that Nazis and Communists have in common that in turn distinguish them from Liberals and Conservatives taken together. At its simplest Nazi and Communist are both totalitarian ideologies and Liberal and Conservative are both democratic ideologies.”

    And remember, modern “liberalism” has now been severely criticized for having abandoned Classic Liberalism (which was essentially Libertarian) and taken on many aspects of Big Government nanny statism. It also looks to me that his views have changed a bit in 35 years as it often does in those who have dedicated their lives to the study of political psychology.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.