Pavlov, Orwell, Alinsky, Hitler and Obama: A Synthesis of Evil

Written by:

Published on: November 17, 2014

A couple of months ago, it was revealed in the press that “someone” had set up unauthorized communications towers and was surreptitiously collecting data from an indeterminate number of Americans’ cell phones.

Now, The Wall Street Journal has revealed that it is the Department of Justice that is engaged in this activity, in “a high-tech hunt for criminal suspects that is snagging large number of innocent Americans.”

In the coming weeks, we will probably hear that this bureaucratic overkill was the fault of “rogue agents” within the DOJ, or that the “inadvertent” data gathering was a “technical glitch,” and that outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama only learned of the program when The Wall Street Journal reported it.

The public should believe this of course, and rest in the secure knowledge that the Obama administration – which has demonstrated over and over that it considers a substantial portion of the American population to be far more of a threat than foreign terrorists – would never target innocent citizens for surveillance or persecution.

But what about the IRS and the NSA scandals which did in fact involve the illegal targeting of citizens, and the widespread abuse of civil forfeiture statutes, wherein the IRS and Obama’s nominee for Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been summarily seizing billions of dollars in Americans’ money and property, you say?

What about the fact that DOJ head Eric Holder himself has been held in contempt of Congress, and that the DOJ, the IRS, the NSA, and other federal agencies have been implicated in activities so nefarious that they have even run afoul of our foreign allies, you say?

Now, there you go – using your brain again. As you may recall, according to Obamacare consultant Jonathan Gruber, Americans are stupid, so we probably ought not trouble our feeble little minds with such issues.

According to The Wall Street Journal:

“A Justice Department official would neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a program. The official said discussion of such matters would allow criminal suspects or foreign powers to determine U.S. surveillance capabilities. Justice Department agencies comply with federal law, including by seeking court approval, the official said.

The program is the latest example of the extent to which the U.S. is training its surveillance lens inside the U.S. It is similar in approach to the National Security Agency’s program to collect millions of Americans phone records, in that it scoops up large volumes of data in order to find a single person or a handful of people. The U.S. government justified the phone-records collection by arguing it is a minimally invasive way of searching for terrorists.”

See? “Justice Department agencies comply with federal law, including by seeking court approval” for surveillance activities – so we have nothing to worry about!

There have been an increasing number of parallels mentioned in recent months between the methods of the Obama administration and those of Hitler’s Nazis – but before I tread in that area…

The reader may or may not be familiar with something called “Godwin’s law.” This curious adage, coined in 1990 by attorney and author Mike Godwin, asserts that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.” According to Godwin’s Law, if an online discussion – on any topic – goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

Now, that’s certainly a curious observation – assuming it’s true. And why might someone find it necessary to codify said observation as such, and promulgate it as a significant rhetorical device – starting in the 1990’s, when the Internet was in its infancy?

Well, Godwin himself has said “I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.” In general, Godwin’s Law has ostensibly been used to prevent hyperbolic comparisons of confrontational situations or opponents with Nazis – “playing the Hitler card,” as it were.

But did it have another purpose? I think so…

Over time, it became indelicate, gauche, disingenuous, and most of all – un-PC – to compare anyone or anything to Hitler and the Nazis, even if the comparison happened to be accurate.

What a coincidence then, how in recent years, American liberals have summarily exploded into histrionics when such comparisons are made with regard to the incremental overreach of government under progressive-socialist leaders. In fact, if one studies Godwin’s Law and its applications, one would think it had been tailor-made for the situation in which America now finds itself: Under an ascendant totalitarian leader, but deprived of the ability to even speak to the methods being used by said leader as being identical to those of Hitler and the Nazis.

I offer here just a few points from an early platform of Hitler’s Nazi Party, courtesy of The History Place. With the exceptions regarding Germany’s nationalism and disdain for immigrants, they’re almost identical to the policies we’ve seen proposed and/or enacted by the Obama administration. For the record, these are not in order of importance:

  • Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
  • We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
  • We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
  • We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
  • We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
  • In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
  • The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
  • We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (volk) army.
  • We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press [according to the Nazis criteria, of course].
  • Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
  • In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

There’s little doubt that the astute reader will have easily recognized Obamacare, Common Core, Net Neutrality, Obama’s call for a civilian police force, the federal government’s insinuation into private industry on a massive scale, and a myriad of power grabs by federal agencies among the intrusions identical to those proposed and later implemented by the Nazis.

We can also see how such devices as Godwin’s Law and Political Correctness – both of which came into prominence during the same time period – were used, and are being used to condition our responses and to silence dissent.

From its inception, it didn’t escape the notice of the astute that Political Correctness is right out of George Orwell‘s book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, and there’s a reason this book has fallen out of popularity in recent years, where it was a household word and required reading in the years following World War II. It simply hits too close to home for the political left these days.

In Orwell’s book, “Newspeak” was a subversion of the English language used by the totalitarian state to limit freedom of thought. Any divergent forms of thought were classified as “Thoughtcrime,” and “Doublethink,” a component of Newspeak, was the idea of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

Political Correctness” itself is actually an oxymoron, in that “politically correct” concepts are anything but “correct” – indeed, they are propagandistic in nature, and often contradictory to logic, common sense, and individuals’ better judgment.

Then, there is the noxious stimuli so often used by the political left, such as tediously employing contrived terminology and invective to stifle debate. When leftists “zap” opponents with terms such as racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, extremist, hater, and others, this is right out of the psychological conditioning models pioneered by Pavlov and refined by other researchers. Use of Godwin’s Law has also been an aspect of this conditioning.

If the reader is interested, it was Saul Alinsky, the evil radical genius, who synergized everything discussed here into a design for political ascendancy. Alinsky, who dedicated his “Rules for Radicals” (the “bible” of radicals like Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, Valerie Jarrett, and others) to Lucifer, provided an inter-disciplinary synthesis of Pavlov, Hitler, and Orwell, as well as boilerplate Marxist methodology, to formulate his malignant prescription.

The final sickening parallel between the Nazi regime and Obama’s is their collusion with Islamists. We really don’t have to get into why American school children aren’t taught that Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Adolf Hitler began collaborating in 1941, do we? Both of course shared a deep hatred of the Jews. al-Husseini commanded Eastern European Muslim SS brigades, helped Hitler craft the “Final Solution,” and was later charged with war crimes by the Yugoslavian government. Middle Eastern Muslims are known to have aided Nazi officials in escaping Europe after the war.

So there you have it. While these facts will no doubt give rise to disgust and anger relating to the American press and those in government who should be working to thwart the Obama regime by any means necessary, bear in mind that there are ample 1930’s parallels to their contemporaries having been ineffectual for a variety of reasons.

The point is that whether one contextualizes all of this in terms of their faith or on a purely secular basis, as some conservative and libertarian Americans do, there is no longer any denying that we are dealing with evil, an evil that will exact a horrific and merciless toll if it is not dispatched with extreme prejudice, and with all due speed.


Don't forget to like on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus