Goebbels and Limbaugh

Two articles on the Tea Party appeared on the OpEd page of the Toledo Blade today, one by Tomas  Friedman of the New York Times and the other by local right-winger Jack Kelly.  Kelly, naturally, was in full-support of the Tea Party movement.   Kelly even came close to defending Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, trying to prove that McVeigh would not have been a Tea Party attendee, but rather was motivated by revenge for Waco.

“Mr. Clinton expressed in the New York Times his fear that harsh criticism by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and others could inspire another Timothy McVeigh,” said Jack Kelly, but McVeigh made it clear that what provoked him was the FBI assault precisely two years earlier on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.”

What ‘provoked him’ according to Kelly, was not talk radio, not the daily hate rhetoric spewed out by Limbaugh, the Nazi references, the socialist tags, hatred for Democrats and the President and the daily dose of ‘them versus us.’ No, that could never ‘trigger’ someone like McVeigh.  He was a lone wolf, self-directed and didn’t need a Limbaugh to incite his violence.

Although I do not listen to Limbaugh, apparently he has a faithful audience all across the land.  From the clips I’ve heard, he and Joseph Goebbels have similar attributes and talents, although Goebbels was much more learned and accomplished.

One biography on Goebbels [Wistrich, Robert S. Who’s Who in Nazi GermanyRoutledge, 1997] said of him, “[he had] an overwhelming need to destroy everything sacred and ignite the same feelings of rage, despair and hatred in his listeners.” It goes on to say, “It was in the Nazi Party that Goebbels’s sharp, clear-sighted intelligence, his oratorical gifts and flair for theatrical effects, his uninhibited opportunism and ideological radicalism blossomed in the service of an insatiable will-to-power.”

‘Insatiable will-to-power.’ That’s Rush Limbaugh.  In video clips of Limbaugh, he often bounces from his chair when making a point, as if giving a grand speech on a podium before millions of cheering supporters.

“[Goebbels]had already become the most feared demagogue of the capital city, exploiting to the full his deep, powerful voice, rhetorical fervour and unscrupulous appeal to primitive instincts. A tireless, tenacious agitator with the gift of paralysing opponents by a guileful combination of venom, slander and insinuation, Goebbels knew how to mobilize the fears of the unemployed masses as the Great Depression hit Germany, playing on the national psyche with “ice-cold calculation.”

With a change of only a few words in the quote above, the statement could define Limbaugh.

“Goebbels’s deeply rooted contempt for humanity, his urge to sow confusion, hatred and intoxication, his lust for power and his mastery of the techniques of mass persuasion were given full vent in the election campaigns of 1932, when he played a crucial role in bringing Hitler to the centre of the political stage.”

There are those in the blogosphere who warn about using Hitler-references in any discussion. OK, sure.  But there is a remarkable resemblance in style and psyche between Hitler’s propagandist and today’s leader of the Republican party.


17 thoughts on “Goebbels and Limbaugh

  1. Hello Muddy,
    Through my personal and professional life, I have come to know and interact with a lot of those with conservative view points. These good people often quote what they hear stated from sources like Fox News, O’ Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Palin believing their statements to be true and accurate.

    You may very well remember back in July of last year I had written and you posted a piece call, “Social Experiment.” After listening to all of the miss-information, half-truths, I decided to engage in a social experiment.

    I wanted to see just how different groups of basically good people with these conservative viewpoints can be misled. I created a liberal bashing piece that I posted in the “Comment Section” of different conservative blog sites identifying myself as “Fighter For Faith From the Front Lines.” What I did was take the essay written by Joseph Goebbels in 1935 called “The Jew,” “The attack, Essays from the fight time” and just replace the statements noting where the words “Jew” was and replaced with “Liberal.” In place of “we” when Goebbels was referencing the Nazi Party and “German people” I replace these with “Conservatives” or “Conservative Americans.” Other than those few words, I left the exact same words of hate and intolerance that Goebbels had directed towards the Jewish people. The document uses the word “Liberals” in generalization type arguments, just as Joseph Goebbels did, which allows others to interpret the comments based on their own thoughts and viewpoints of what “Liberal” means to them.

    After posting this document in the “Comment Section” of about half a dozen Conservative Blog sites, I went back a few days later to see what others had said about my posting.
    1. “Fighter For Faith From the Front Lines is a man who knows what is right and fighting the good fight trying to keep the liberal socializing programs out of the United States.”
    2. “It is obvious to me that Faith Fighter is a good Christian man doing God’s work.”
    3. “All those Liberals should be taken out and shot for trying to push their social liberal policies on the American citizens starting with Congress.”
    4. “Liberal’s are always trying to keep killing babies but when Sarah Palin gets elected President, she will get this stopped.” When this happens then we will go after them.
    5. God Bless Faith Fighter!!!!
    6. We all should put forth the same effort as Fighter. I see the same people at the John McCain and Sarah Palin rallys doing their part.

    This was just a snap shot of comments made to my piece. As you can see, we have a good group of solid Conservative American Citizens and Faith Based political movement in this country that would make very good Nazis agreeing with Joseph Goebbel’s essay of 1935.

  2. Engineer,

    Your shenanigans don’t make a strong case for anything. What if some nutjob (think Goebbel) pens an essay waxing eloquent about the beauty and value of pedophiles?

    Then I come along and change pedophile to puppy. I cleverly leave everything else intact so it reads something like, “Puppies are cute. Why would anyone object to children snuggling with a puppy? Sure they cause problems occasionally, but on the whole, puppies are great. I think we need more puppies in society because they’re such good companions. I love puppies!”

    What would that prove about the puppy lovers who give me three cheers, two thumbs up and an amen?

  3. The proof of how effective Limbaugh and Beck are as propagandists is in reality. If you are a Hispanic citizen living in Arizona, you are now required to carry and show “Zeee papers please herr ‘citizen’?”

  4. Matthew, your “what if” is almost ridiculous to the point of being a non sequiter.
    Talk about “changing the subject” , you have engaged in utter avoidance of reality by using a ridiculous comparision.
    Let’s see you do this thing…find a Goebbels rant praising pedophilia and then change the wording to puppie for us. Could you please?

    You know, I got an email joke from my conservative brother in law in Orange County who thought he was being cute by posting, “It’s Gods job to forgive Barack Obama, we just have to help them meet.”

    Now here’s another defense of the Tea Party Movement, would you agree with the words? Does it seem reasonable to you Matthew? If you can guess the author of the quote, I’ll give you a donut:

    “Tea Party people are called racist because the vast majority wants to stop the massive non-European immigration that will turn America into a crumbling tower of Babel. Most Tea Partiers believe that we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture, just as every nation has that human right. The vast majority of Tea Party activists oppose affirmative action and diversity, which are nothing more than programs of racist discrimination against white people. The vast majority of Tea Party enthusiasts despise Hollywood and the mass media.

    You know, the unelected media bosses have far more power than any senator or congressman, and are far more alien to America than the British were at the time of the American Revolution. At least the British were of our own, Christian cultural heritage, while the non-Christian ethno-religious minority who dominates Hollywood sees itself as very distinct from the 98 percent of the rest of us.

    Tea Party activists are true populists who see the powers that control international finance and the Federal Reserve as the biggest threats to American prosperity and freedom.

    …… The Tea Party movement is made up of American people who have watched in silent anger while the nation of our forefathers has been destroyed. The Tea Party movement, as the original Tea Party, is about preserving our heritage and our freedom. ”

    Now, anyone with an analytical, critical intelligence would see that this is manipulative blather of the highest order, but to many people, this is the kind of rhetoric that manipulates the economic, religious and xenophobic fears that drive their psyche…
    Now who made this statement?…it was made only last week.

  5. Really Matthew, that is what you are going with to argue your counter point…pedophiles and puppies to what is considered to be one of the most notable hate speeches in history?

    Have you ever read Joseph Goebbels, “The Jew,” “The attack, Essays from the fight time”?

    Tell you what, you read Goebbels, “The Jew,” replace the word Jew and substitute the word, “Puppy,” then tell me what parts you agree with.

    You are going to have to take this one.

  6. Those fundamentalist Christians like Palin are experts at the one-liners as well as standard lines of bull because they have hear them all of their lives in church. It is an easy step to substitute ‘Devil’ with Obama and paint Dems as ‘the evil ones.’ Just a few changed lines [as Engineer pointed out] is all that it takes for the standard propaganda to be tweaked for whatever use is intended.

    You are going to have to take this one.

    Matthew is generally pissed at me because I don’t take too very much shit from fundamentalists/evangelists. Thus, you have to read his comment with this in mind.

    As you can see, his debate tactics are at the junior high level.

  7. You guys aren’t as intelligent as I thought if you believe I was actually talking about puppies.

  8. My point is a simple one. Changing the object of the discussion while using similar or identical surrounding words doesn’t prove anything or advance an argument.

    Come on guys. This is just basic logical thinking. I applied the same “logic” to the pedophile/puppy situation. This doesn’t mean I think my made up story is on the same level or just as important or anything. I’m just saying that Engineer’s little experiment is irrelevant.

    Notice I haven’t even said I disagree with the premise of your post, Mudrake. I just hoped that some basic logic would prevail with Engineer.

  9. Nobody thought that you were talking about “puppies”. Again to take that tack is either brain damaged or insulting. I am beginning to believe you are a few fries short of a happy meal.
    Yes, your point is a “simple” one and it’s the shape of your cranial cavity.

    Don’t you want your donut?
    Okay…you blew it babe, the author of my quote was David Duke and I didn’t change a frickin word.

    Did you ever see the movie “The Fall”? hoo boy, that Goebbels family…tragic.

  10. “I’m just saying that Engineer’s little experiment is irrelevant.”
    You haven’t begun to explain why you think Engineers experiment is irrelevant. You just made a pointless side trip into illogical silliness about supposing that Goebbels had written a piece praising pedophilia and then substituting the word puppie for pedophilia. Don’t you see how pointless that is?
    Engineer took a piece condemning Jews by Goebbels and used it only substituting liberal sfor the word jews and was able to get the same reaction that Goebbels rant elicited from “patriotic” germans. I think that is significant and to ignore it is to be in denial which I think you are in an extreme state of.

  11. “Although I do not listen to Limbaugh…”

    Then how can you really make an arguement about Limbo when you’re gathering someone else’s OPPINION for the base of this post?

    I’ve listened to Rush before and from what I’ve gathered, all he does is plays sound and video clips of Democrats saying the things that they say and then commenting on them.

    Now, certainly Rush’s commentary could piss some folks off but, some of the things comming out of the mouths of the dem politicians piss off plenty of people too.
    I used to listen to the Randi Rhodes show on air america radio at work. Nothing I’ve EVER heard Rush say even comes close to the incitefull, vile crap the came from that woman’s mouth!

    As for McVeigh’s motivations, I think I’d take his word for what his motivations were over Bill Clinton’s attempt to “cover his own ass / legacy” interpretation that talk radio somehow was a key motivator for McVeigh’s actions.

    Limbo has been on the radio for what? 25 years? And he’s yet to even motivate a good bar fight.

  12. I’ve listened to Rush before and from what I’ve gathered, all he does is plays sound and video clips of Democrats saying the things that they say and then commenting on them.

    “All he does is…”

    I doubt that very much.

    Limbo has been on the radio for what? 25 years? And he’s yet to even motivate a good bar fight.

    …and you KNOW this because…

  13. Pretty nice example of how conservativism took a right turn at crazy and landed smack dab on stark raving mad.
    Thank you Sepp…
    Let’s hear your defense of McVeigh and how the feds drove him to his obscene act!
    I’ve been listening to Limbaugh for years too and I think you would have to find something specific that randi Rhodes actually said that you could compare to the day in day out lies and imflamatory rhetoric that Limbaugh spews.
    In other words, I don’t believe you. I think you are a turning into a desparate apologist for an irrational movement that you actually don’t fully support but you feel you must defend.

    Say, isn’t that over 55 retirement community in Arizona beginning to look good just about now? I hear they filter the cable news so you don’t have to hear anything you might find disagreeable!

  14. Interesting that this thread started with a post comparing opinion pieces in the Blade. Thomas Friedman on one hand talking about the bizarre bent of conservatism in American and to balance it, an apologist for Timothy McVeigh………

  15. MD, who is defending McVeigh? Nobody. It’s impossible to defend his actions and, it’s pure desperation in trying to smear the tea folks with a comparison as Clinton did.
    Whatever motivated McVeigh came from somewhere much deeper than Rush Limbo. McVeigh has much more in common with…Obama’s close friend William Ayers…both of which had personal axes to grind with the government as motivators.

    And I listened to Rhodes regularly since it was the only one that came in clear at work…and she was vile venomous and vulgar daily…maybe THAT is why she got fired?
    Demanding the government obey it’s constitutional restraints? Act ethical and responsible with the people’s money?
    No, I won’t apologize for those beliefs nor, will I apologize for anyone else who believes the same things.

    Maybe YOU need to apologize for abandoning those beliefs! It sure as hell seemed like you cared about the government overstepping it’s bounds not too long ago! Here you are 14 months later pretending that Obama isn’t still utilizing all the policies that Bush did…the exception being it was “bad” when he did it.

    It was bad then and it’s still bad now.

Comments are closed.