Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« We're Not Ready | Main | A Tri-Cameral Legislature? »

The Thirties Again?

Arthur Silber has concerns about the Obama cult:

People had better wake the hell up, and they had better study some history very damned fast. I have sometimes remarked, and I repeat the warning here, that the twentieth century was a nonstop train of horrors -- yet in one sense, the most terrible and horrifying aspect of the twentieth century is that we learned absolutely nothing from it.

Among the horrors of the twentieth century were several notable leaders who initiated events that led to slaughter and destruction on an ungraspably monumental scale. These charismatic leaders evoked a response from their followers almost identical to that called forth by Obama. These leaders specialized in "personal stories of political conversion." Doesn't anyone see the connection? Doesn't anyone remember any of this?


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Thirties Again?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the laugh! Disregarding the completely over-the-top Hilter comparison, Silber reminds me of people I knew in college who would say they didn't like a song because it was too popular, rather than because of the song's intrinsic lack of merit.

Also: Silber's explanation of why he choose not to vote makes him sound like a loon.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

Those concerns sound pretty lame. More crying "wolf" than anything else. Of course, the sort of infatuation he describes is dangerous. But my take is that Obama and his followers don't show an inclination to go down this particular slope.

Dave wrote:

Yeah neat way of avoiding gotcha Google searches with the veiled reference, I was at first thinking American presidents until closer attention to the title and the quote.But the liberal education teaches heavily that blind patriotism is bad we're never do that. Of course that from my post Nixon/Reagon education in the northeast.

Though Obama won't take them over the same cliff the veiled reference is specifically to , but more likely the compatriots at the time, and we see when their talking about amending the constitution to make Obama president for life.
And leave behind a bureaucracy of good intentions , assume the senate and congress becomes loss.

Carl Pham wrote:

The reasonable comparison is not really to 1932 (here) or 1933 (Germany). Those elections were dominated by real and widespread distress -- economic (the Great Depression), sociological in the US (a huge wave of immigration), and political in Europe (the rise of Stalinism and the ineffectuality of the international socialists) -- and a thorougly demoralized and impoverished middle class. Those were solid citizens in their 40s and 50s who voted both FDR and Adolph Hitler into power. (Stalin, in case this needs stating, was not voted into power by anybody.)

That's nothing like today, in which the cult members are young and well-off, brimming with confidence in the future, ready to throw off the shackles of their parents largely through boredom and ambition, not the desperation and fear that dominated the minds of voters in 1932/33.

The better comparison is to the election of 1960, which, like the present election, followed on a long period (1949-1960) at the end of which people tired of girding themselves for an unsatisfactory twilight struggle against shadowy forces of evil (in that case Communism, in today's case Islamic terrorism), in which the dominant party seemed stuffy and arthritic, the President was an uninspiring representative of an older generation (Eisenhower), and in which the glamour candidate (Kennedy) was a boyish handsome man with enthusiasm and "new ideas," as well as the press, on his side.

Furthermore, the consequences one might reasonable fear from an Obama Presidency are pretty much those negative consequences of the Kennedy Presidency; namely a naivete combined with a need to prove himself that will produce instability, both in the domestic economy and in international events.

leo wrote:

the bet channel recently had an awards program in which the audience chanted "obama or die". interesting times to be sure...

Habitat Hermit wrote:

Dave wrote:
"...liberal education teaches heavily that blind patriotism is bad..."

How very telling of how far down in the sewage US "liberalism" has sunk.

Here's the cluebat; blind anything is what's bad, the kind of blind approval and support Obama attracts is a good example.

All those chanting sheep are just a few "justifications" away from turning into a shabby version of Hitler Jugend or Red Pioneers, after all Obama supporters have already gotten pretty far in deifying their Man-God...

I predict large Obama portraits appearing in both private and public spaces if he wins (the fascist style posters are already publicly available and in use). As always at first it will be out of the joy of victory among his supporters, then what? How far will they push and how much will the rest give?

Steve wrote:

Why is Obama fascination any different? The liberals invariably find some empty suit to FEEL good about. They are all about change and a new America. Hope, change and defeat of a ruthless or stupid or un-caring Republican candidate is their stock in trade.

This time, the change is supposed to be from the jack booted thugs, torturers and war criminals of the GWB Administration, to the all knowing, all caring, we'll talk to those who hates us BHO Administration. Every four years the DNC appoints a new Savior. The lucky dog this time out just happens to be the junior Senator from IL.

I have to admit that GWB isn't always up to what I want. Neither will McCain be all that I want. But who is? Name ANY POTUS who gets a 100% rating.

The bottom line for me on all this for me as a voter is the in-effectiveness of the current Democrat controlled Congress. They'll be no more effective after January 21st 2009. But with BHO in office they could certainly be much more dangerous.

If you don't think so, remember that he/they want to take oil profits away from legal, stock holders. I'm not sure how that differs from what Hugo Chavez did.

Drooling Obama Cultist wrote:

Obama's supporters aren't a cult. It's Paranoia on the Right, and downright fear of the inevitable that makes the Simby's of the world want to think of cults.

Obama will CRUSH McCain in November. Take note Simberg.

Anonymous Scaredy-Cat wrote:

"Obama's supporters aren't a cult ... Obama will CRUSH McCain in November." (Emphasis in original)

Is this honestly supposed to assuage the fear on the right *and* in the center, that there's no cult of personality going on?

Carl Pham wrote:

One of the marvelous things about stupid and angry people is they so frequently make asses out of themselves in mid-rant, providing us all with a good laugh.

For example:

Obama's supporters aren't a cult.

Following a few sentences later by:

Obama will CRUSH McCain in November.

What would be one of the most salient features of a cult? A fanatical belief in the righteous might of the Dear Leader, yes? He shall sweep -- shall we say "crush?" -- no! "CRUSH!" -- all who oppose him.

Do more, A. S. Cat, this is fun! (And did you notice your initials spell out "a scat"? I love it! I expect you don't know the meaning of the word "scat," which makes it all the richer.)

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on June 30, 2008 2:56 PM.

We're Not Ready was the previous entry in this blog.

A Tri-Cameral Legislature? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1