I am speaking in NYC this weekend and could use advice

[seventhson]

Those of you who are familiar with my rants know that I have various levels of success communicating.

I have been invited to speak at a fairly prominent event and my subject will be on fascism and parallels to Nazi Germany, the Holocaust and what is happening today.

I have limited time and want to make a good impression.

Are there points and arguments which I am most effective or ineffective at (leavbing out the Kerry skull and bones issue which I will not touch)?

Any pointers for speaking to NY audiences?

How does one draw parallels between what is happening today and the Holocaust without offending anyone?

Any advice from seasoned speakers or regular readers of my posts (and my critics) to help inspire poeople not only to defeat Bush but also to educate folks in how global corporate fascism works and how todays events have parallels?

Thanks

[eileen from OH]

1. Focus on the use of rhetoric

rather than getting into anything that compares events between the two, talk about how fascism/Nazism used the demonization of a group to foster their ideology.

Talk about how rhetoric can evolve into propoganda, and how challenges and limitations to free speech are a danger signal.

Talk about how a media that is compliant and serves as a mouthpiece for government, whether through ideology or corporate monopolies, is dangerous to democracy.

Just some thoughts.

eileen from OH

[Justice]

10. Very Good

I agree - step back from the details and focus on the larger picture - and the use of rhetoric.

Highlight generally the restrictions on free speech - if you must give examples, look for examples that are not about the war as much as the war. I saw one posted on DU about talking points given to the National Park Service - and how they were told to stick to the talking points if asked questions about staffing cuts, hours, general operations, etc.

[kentuck]

12. I think this is a good idea....

This is the way I would approach it...

[wysimdnwyg]

2. Maybe this will help (maybe not)

Once you get the speech written, post it here for critique.

Read the speech aloud (in private) several times. If you do this, you are less likely to fumble over a word. On more than one occasion when I did NOT practice my speech, I've fumbled words that I say all the time. It doesn't matter how common the word, or how often you use it in regular conversation. If you're the least bit nervous, it's possible to mess up.

If you get nervous, you can try a meditation technique I learned a long time ago. Breathe blue air. (Yes, I know it sounds funny.) Close your eyes and imagine the air you're breathing in and out is blue. Concentrate on that, and that alone.

Since it's a NY audience, try to avoid sounding like an east Tennessee hillbilly. :-)

Oh, and insult the Yankees every chance you get. And try to get them chanting, "Go Red Sox!!!" :evilgrin:

[Minstrel Boy]

3. here's a suggestion:

A stumbling block is the "it can't happen here" school of denial, and the conception that fascism is a wholly foreign ideology. Introduce the fact that fascism was not even novel to the United States 70 years ago. "Great" families, like the du Ponts and the Morgans, admired Hitler and Mussolini and sponsored a military coup against Roosevelt. Prominent in underwriting Nazi industry were the likes of the Rockefellers, future CIA director Allan Dulles, William Farish (grandfather of the man Bush appointed ambassador to the UK), and Prescott Bush. And it was American Nazi sympathizers who helped ease the assimilation of SS doctors and scientists into the US through Project Paperclip. This marked the birth of the National Security State, which was something of an amalgam of old America and the Third Reich. What we're witnessing is not an aberration, but a culmination of this 50-year history.

[JHB]

4. Without offending ANYONE?

That's a tall order, especially for an NYC audience. Better to try for "without offending anyone unnecessarily.

First of all, realize that NYC has plenty of people who care PASSIONATELY about Nazis, the Holocaust, and how they are presented.

I think the most important thing is to stress that you're not making a one-for-one comparison or engaging in calling the Bushies Nazis (assuming you're in fact not doing so).

But do drive home that many of the methods used and conditions exploited by the Nazis are uncomfortably like the methods used and conditions exploited by the Bushies. Back then, people observing the rise of the Nazis raised alarms, but few listened until it was too late. Bush has been raising alarms for years, sometimes the very same ones raised to warn of the Nazis, but he's where is today anyway.

No one can ultimately say if the Bushies will do as much damage to the peoples of the world as the Nazis did, but we don't really want to find out, either. That means working together, putting aside some of our differences or even just papering over them for the time being.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Start with a spark to capture listener's attention

Then state your thesis - your main point.

Present the examples and stories that support your point.

Sum up your evidence again in the contest of your thesis.

Have your conclusion planned -- know what you will say to end your talk, and thus conclude with energy and strength.

That's a basic rhetorical structure on a Public Speaking book I edited for a consultant, many years ago.

Good luck and have fun 7thSun - SH

[seventhson]

7. Great Advice, SpiralHawk

I will start with a spark

[sangha]

11. That is a good idea

You might want to start with "There's an old saying 'History repeats itself. The 1st time as tragedy, the 2nd as a farce.' But sometimes, the 2nd time around is not very funny. In 193x Hitler wrote a book outlining his theories of racial superiority, etc... and people who read it said 'It couldn't happen here'. In 1998, a group called the PNAC wrote a plan called......."

[seventhson]

6. Thanks - and good advice all. Any others care to give ME advice?

Should I start with a joke or a startling fact?

[sangha]

9. Yes, I'd like to add two points

1) The 1st response mentioned drawing parallels, particularly with regard to free speech issues. I would add including parallels concerning the way Nazis used Jews as scapegoats, and Bush* uses the word "terrorist" to scapegoat various groups like anti-war protestors, Democratic politicians, all Muslims, etc

2) Someone mentioned that you should explicitely state that you are not saying the two (Bush*'s America and Hitler's German) are the same. I would strongly emphasize that point. While Hitler was focused on the racial superiority of Aryans, Bush* is NOT focused on any one group or race. Bush*;'s fascistic tendencies apply to anyone who doesn't share his ideology.

IMO this is very important because many people feel, and justifiably so, that Hitler's Holocaust was a unique event and difficult to match. For you to equate the two (as opposed to noting similarities) might leave your audience with the perception that you are exagerrating and engaging in empty rhetoric, and therefore reduce your credibility in their eyes.

To help you towards that end, you might consider explaining the important aspects of fascism, such as propoganda and censorship, intolerance of dissent, scapegoating, militarism, cultural superiority (as opposed to Hitler's racial superiority theories) etc. I think this might help make it clear that you are saying that there are *similarities* but that they are NOT "the same"

Good luck

[GiovanniC]

14. A Joke?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are there any good jokes that have to do with Bush vis a vis the Holocaust? That won't offend anyone?

You could quote, say, four or five of the particularly Nazi-like things members of the Bush gang have said, then follow it up with Hitler's quote that it's a good thing for leaders that men do not think. Then you can reveal that Hitler only said the last one.

I'm sure some DUers have good examples of Nazi-like quotes from the Bush gang.

Like the other day when Rumsfeld said (paraphrasing here), "People who are accusing the government of using intimidation should be very careful about the accusations they're making."

[CBHagman]

21. I vote for the startling fact.

You could also begin with a quote from the humanitarian or educator of your choice, if you can find one that matches your theme.

Best of luck!

[PeaceProgProsp]

8. Talk about Hitler's drive for "liebenstraum"

Ask if the US is doing the same thing in Iraq under the guise of fighting for 'freedom.'

Maybe that's a bad parallel.

But maybe it isn't.

[Guava Jelly]

13. I found this in a chat room a few years ago

CHILLING DEJA VU: Hitler and Bush
Stalin and Bush’s Conservative Reform Movement;
The GOP of 1936 and Today’s Dirty Politics
By Cheryl Seal ([e-mail])

BUSH AND HITLER: Is History Repeating Itself?


No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about everything he had even undertaken until he discovered politics. In the world of spin and power plays, a superficial gift of gab and bullish determination could replace intelligence and idealism without missing a beat. Hitler found that the path to the top was short: Just tell a discontent people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention to keep.

In Hitler's first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, he pledged “to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation” and invoked God's blessing on the German government. (Hitler was a fervent Christian - a fact too many have either forgotten or never knew, thanks to sanitized school history books). But, the Fuhrer soon proved he had no intention of being a uniter. The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had been “down with the liberals!”

Once in office, Hitler made “liberals” (a mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to Hitler’s model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.

As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: “The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state . In addition, he noted, “Radio and press are at our disposal.”

Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an “enemy of the state.” Contrary to popular belief, the first “enemy” Hitler formally targeted was not the Jews but the Communist Party. Why? Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime.

Hitler was thus the first to invoke the spectre of “the Red Menace.” He intentionally sought to provoke party activists to violent protest so, under his new aggressive laws suppressing public dissent; he could round them up and arrest them. Aware of this ploy, the Communists laid low, believing that Hitler was merely a puppet of reactionaries and his regime would not last. But the Fuhrer, becoming progressively more drunk with his new power, was not so easily thwarted. To facilitate his demonization of the “Reds,” he sent provocateurs to orchestrate a staged act of “terrorism.”

Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der Lubbe, who was implicated in (i.e. framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag (the equivalent of the Congressional building). This incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed for “cracking down” on “enemies of the state.” He rallied the Germans against the “terrorists” and passed the odious “Enabling Acts,” in which the government was granted the right to bypass any due process for “suspects.”

One human right after the other was revoked: the Jews were stripped of all rights, trade unions were broken, and rival parties were made illegal. In addition, Hitler began to isolate Germany from the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations.

From the start, Hitler courted the conservative Christian clergy. To their shame, historically, many clergymen became his closest allies and most effective tools, as propagandists, spies, and suppressors of dissent. The clergy’s most important role in the beginning, was to fuel anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism. Jews, according to Hitler, were “the source of every ill that had befallen Germany and of every continuing threat.” .

Historian John Weis pointed out that “Hitler inspired only those who shared his anger.”

Hitler made public dissent first all but impossible, then illegal. At first, whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall. Hitler also made sure that the media did not give provide the public with any coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was “encouraging of destructive elements.” . So, what the media faithfully recorded was Hitler and Hitler supporters. To see an old German newsreel, you’d never guess there were plenty of dissenters around - at least until they were all shot or sent to concentration camps.

Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families; he especially liked being photographed with school children. At the same time, Hitler actively promoted “family values” and high moral standards. He believed women should go back to being at home with their families and not in the work force. He also believed there should be little or no separation between the state and his brand of Christianity, especially since he firmly believed that the emotional fervor of religion could be used to effectively to promote the state’s objectives.

Under Hitler, worker protections were dismantled, one by one. Soon workers were laboring for longer hours for less pay. Worse yet, all trade unions had been smashed, so there was no recourse. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats were not organized and did not offer a solid front for opposing Hitler and his initiatives. Soon, they found themselves overwhelmed by a highly organized, aggressive and fanatically single-minded army of Nazi Party appointees who did whatever Hitler told them to do without questioning. Here we end the story, because we all know what happens next: the Holocaust and World War II.

STALIN AND BUSH’S CONSERVATIVE REFORM MOVEMENT:

A Pattern of Despotism?

Joseph Stalin was successful in seizing and retaining power primarily because he was able to stack the Politburo with politicians as extreme as himself and to dictate their actions and their votes on every issue. Party dissenters were harassed mercilessly by the Politburo members who remained blindly loyal to Stalin. With a block of supporters who did not think for themselves, Stalin was able to completely reverse Russia’s policy on a number of key issues, right across the board. For example, in 1936, he completely reversed the liberal communist doctrines pertaining to family, divorce, and abortion. He made divorce difficult, made abortion illegal, and stressed “family values” .

Stalin’s propagandists used a three-point strategy to convince the Russian people that things in Stalin’s policy that were in fact extremely bad for the country (including the systematic round up and extermination of all “enemies of the state”) were in fact “good.”

Point One: Create arguments that how the negative thing is actually NOT bad, but is actually good. .

Point Two: Show how the negative thing is actually not true. .

Point Three: Show that the negative thing is actually being caused by “enemies of the state” - most likely liberals. .

THE GOP OF 1936 AND TODAYÂ’S DIRTY POLITICS: How the Former Gave Birth to the Latter

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., FDR was attempting to guide the nation safely through the depression. The outrageous treatment of American workers throughout the industrial era up until that point by the corporate “bosses” had become a major issue. Men and women worked 12-14 hours a day, had no unemployment benefits, no health insurance, no safety regulations - no job security whatsoever. In response to this sorry state of affairs, labor unions were forming, but they were being met with brutal resistance by the Bosses and their henchmen. Because FDR championed the worker’s cause and called for all manner of reforms - including the social security system - he was identified as “the enemy” of the bosses. The Republican Party, the attack dog of big business even then, was turned loose on the President with a vengeance. His every step was “dogged.”

Just as corporate America saw FDR as an enemy, many of them, including IBM and G.W. Bush’s grandfather, saw in Hitler a friend and treated this vicious genocidal maniac with far more respect and deference than they did FDR. The GOP was to learn many of its nastiest tactics from Hitler and Goebbels, including using communism as a scapegoat/enemy of the state to consolidate power just as soon as they had a Republican back in the White House (Eisenhower in 1952). Another Hitler tactic learned by the GOP was the use of the smear. Hitler advised telling a damaging lie about an “enemy,” then repeating it over and over, no matter what proof may be offered to counter it.

The GOP poured an unprecedented amount of money into the 1936 campaign of their candidate Alf Landon. The party launched what was then dubbed the “nationwide selling campaign strategy.” To do this, observed political writer Ralph D. Casey in 1937, the party was showered with the money and vigilant efforts of “a small but determined group of businessmen.” Casey says the campaign was designed to be “an intensive, subtle, highly-organized salesmanship drive to ‘unsell’ President Roosevelt and to ‘sell’ Governor Landon and his highly-advertised common sense.” .

The GOP “sales team” identified several key points of attack, which they have used with almost no variation in every campaign since, whether appropriate or not.
- Accuse opposition of overspending
- accuse opposition of supporting “big government”
- Identify a bogeyman - usually the communists and/or liberals , although they have gotten a bit creative and now include environmentalists, anti-gun folks, and scientists on their list of “enemies of freedom”
- condemn New Deal (i.e., government social programs) as communistic or in some other way “unAmerican”
-Manipulate statistics to own advantage
- Accuse opposition of waging a class war.

Day in, day out, the GOP attacked FDR, throwing suspicions on everything he did, and said, and on everyone he had ever known. His family dog was not even exempt from political attacks! FDR had nothing but contempt for this self-righteous underhandedness. He denounced the GOP as a pack of “economic royalists” who used the flag and constitution as smokescreens. “I welcome their hatred,” he proclaimed.

It was the GOP that started the bane of our current system: paid political ads. In the 1930s, these were called “radio spots.” It was in the ugly election of 1936 that the first conservative “talk show” was set up. These programs were created expressly as outlets for GOP propaganda. “No political party has ever excelled the businesslike effectiveness of the Republicans in the distribution of their party propaganda,” observes Casey.

In the 1936 election, farmers and ranchers were courted by Republicans who shamelessly praised them for their “All-Americanism” a “rugged individualism.” At the same time, of course, the same Republicans were supporting the right of bankers to foreclose on farms and ranches and opposing efforts to provide farm relief. Even the usually non-politically-oriented “Variety” magazine condemned the ruthless GOP campaign machine. “Political parties are being reduced to merchandize which can be exchanged for votes in accordance with a well-conceived marketing plan, taking stock of income levels, race, local problems, exactly as does a commercial sponsor. This differs not one whit from the tactics employed by any corporation.”

To their credit, Americans in the 1930s were not as easily swayed by propaganda as they apparently are today. They were grateful to FDR for having placed the interests of the common man first and corporations second, for taking steps to make life less stressful and uncertain through the construction of safety nets such as relief and social security. In the end, despite the estimated over 170 million press releases spit out by the GOP and the countless millions it spent, the party could not buy its way into the White House.

Instead, FDR was given an earned vote of confidence by the American people to whom he devoted the last decade of his life. Landon lost big time, winning just two states (Maine and Vermont, which are both making up for this lapse today). Three days before he was elected, FDR said, “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I would like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces have met their master.” How I wish he had been right.

Selected Bibliography: Special thanks to Loyola College in Baltimore, which makes JSTOR (the Journal Storage project initiated by the Mellon Foundation) available to the public.
“The 1936 Republican Campaign,” Ralph D. Casey; 1937, “Public Opinion Quarterly”
Essay by Charles W. Smith, Jr. “Journal of Politics,” August 1939
“Public Opinion Inside the USSR,” by anonymous U.S. government official, spring 1947 issue of “Public Opinion Quarterly”
“Future of Psychological Warfare,” Hans Spiel, spring 1948 issue, “Public Opinion Quarterly”
“The Ideology of Death,” John Weiss, 1996
“Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1996
”The American Pageant” by Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy (the BEST U.S. History book ever produced!)

[anarchy1999]

15. Here is a speech given last year by a DU'er at a rally in Dallas -

It was very well received and many asked for copies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11133&forum=DCForumID38

from thread:
And, so went my speech:
***********************************************

"When (they) came to power we did nothing to stop them; we betrayed our own ideals. Ideals of personal, democratic and religious freedom. The workers went along with , the Church stood by and watched, the middle classes were too cowardly to do anything, and so were the leading intellectuals. We allowed the unions to be abolished, the various religious denominations to be suppressed, there was no freedom of speech in the press or on the radio. Finally we let ourselves be driven into war. We were content for (our country) to do without democratic representation and put up with pseudo-representation by people with no real say in anything. Ideals can’t be betrayed with impunity, and now we must all take the consequences."
http://www.awesomestories.com/movies/the_pianist/the_pianist_ch1.htm

This was a diary entry from my relative, Wilm Hosenfeld, a Captain in the German army during World War II. The country referred to was of course Germany. The year was 1943.

Wilm Hosenfeld knew that the direction his country was taking was the wrong one. Shortly after Germany invaded Poland and Wilm was sent there for active duty, he predicted in one of his diary entries: “When the world sees that we are killing millions of women and children, Germany will LOSE this war!”

These are poignant words from sixty years ago that we should take to heart now on this brink of war.

Do we stand by and let Wilm’s predictions become a reality for us?
Or do we follow Wilm’s footsteps and dissent in ways that only we know how?


It is alarming the rate at which people who agree with this war are labeling us as treasonous! TRAITORS of America! Though, as you and I well know, if we do not learn from the past, history is destined to repeat itself.

Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Right Hand Man, who was accused of war crimes at Nuremberg said in 1946:

“voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Wilm Hosenfeld was guilty of one thing: He, like you and I, loved his country. And, he was not afraid to dissent. In fact, he gave his life for dissenting. He gave his life for helping people on the “other side” escape the destitution of war.

Thank God for movies and books like "The Pianist" which are preserved and shared to remind us that war is dirty and humanity still survives AND prevails!


And, now I ask of you: Should we trust 85% of the German people, including my family, who inhabit a country that knows firsthand the physical and emotional devastation and destruction that war can bring?

Or, should we trust a man who calls himself our leader yet deserts us during one of America’s worst conflicts?

Mr. Bush,

We are not traitors!

We are patriotic! We love America!

We care for our brothers and sisters in the military!

We do not agree with your administration!

We join the MAJORITY around the world in saying:

We do not want war!
***********************************************************

If you would like to know more about the movie "The Pianist", you can visit:

http://www.thepianistmovie.com/index2.html
http://www.thepianist-themovie.com/

A couple Reviews:
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-dargis27dec
27,0,1568323.story?coll=cl%2Dmreview
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/review.asp?mid=204
5663
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archi
ve/2003/01/03/DD123784.DTL&type=movies
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-pianist03f.ht
ml

And, to know more about the story behind the story. visit:
http://www.awesomestories.com/movies/the_pianist/the_pianist_ch1.htm

Thank you again for those that took an interest in my speech and in my family.


Here are links to a couple of other good articles I had saved last year:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

and

http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step3.htm

[bobthedrummer]

18. I heard on public radio, yesterday, that thousands of US Nazi cases

have been reopened. That's good news, President Clinton actively prosecuted Nazis and apologized for abuse during Cold War
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/holtzman.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/maloney.html

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/index.html

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

[seventhson]

24. Thanks - I did see this

If you are familiar with the Bush-Nazi connection, the CIA-Nazi connection,
the Giuliani/Manhattan Institute/Nazi connection, the GOP-Nazi connection,
the Rockefeller-Nazi connection etc. material the book described in this
article should be of considerable interest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-nazi-symp...
(requires registration)

LA Times 5/13/04
U.S. Said to Embrace Alleged Nazi Allies

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government threw moral qualms to the wind in employing
ex-Nazis after World War II, contend historians who examined a mountain of
declassified papers released Thursday.

The government "dishonored the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and
American soldiers who died," said Elizabeth Holtzman, member of a
government-appointed group studying millions of pages of files from that
era.

Reinhard Gehlen, for example, was recruited by the CIA after World War II
because he was chief of army intelligence for the Nazis on the Eastern
Front, where most of the mass killings of Jews occurred. Gehlen was
undoubtedly involved in the brutal interrogation of Russian prisoners of
war, Holtzman said.

Gehlen was brought to America and then sent back to Germany to set up a
major spy network for the United States. First, he worked for the CIA; later
his operation became the West German intelligence service and he was thought
to have employed Nazi war criminals.

He is just one example of how the FBI and other U.S. agencies ignored the
murky pasts of alleged Nazi collaborators, many living in the United States,
because the government saw them as useful during the Cold War, according to
the records released at the National Archives.

[WilliamPitt]

16. How comfortable are you speaking in public?

If you are new to it, focus on the back of the room; it makes you look like you are addressing the crowd, but you will not be spooked by the eyes of your listeners until you are comfortable.

COME WITH FULLY PREPARED REMARKS IN HAND. I can't emphasize that enough.

As for the topic, most people have a reasonable grasp of the history of the Nazis. Start instead with some facts and questions:

In America today, militarism and war are toutet as the greatest of all things. What does this sound like?

In America, the populace is focused on an enemy whose nature is pure evil and mystery. What does this sound like?

Mussolini defined fascism as "Corporatism, because it is the merger of State and corporate power." What does this sound like?

...or words to that effect. Good luck.

[anarchy1999]

20. Hey Will, share your Labor Day Speech with him.

n/t
I have it saved.

snip:
"Here’s the news, America. ‘Homeland Security’ is not a bunch of guys in black suits and sunglasses. Homeland Security is cops, and fire fighters, and emergency medial teams, all the people who work every day to save lives. Homeland Security on September 11 was union workers all, and those cops and fire fighters and EMTs have since had their funding eviscerated by an administration that took their pictures and then gave them the back of their hand.

Oh, yes, ladies and gentlemen, the right to speak out has been earned here.

Caution and deference have no place in this conversation anymore, I think. We gave those people our caution and deference, and they have paid us back by steamrolling us. So enough of caution. Enough of deference. It is time to talk hard. If we can’t speak the truth in the daylight, we will never be able to begin the process of changing that which desperately needs to be changed. Every great movement in history has begun with one thing: Words exchanged in truth between people of good conscience. So let us, as people of good conscience, exchange a few hard words in the hopes of beginning something whose time has come.

A long time ago, a man named Benito Mussolini invented something called Fascism. In the time since, fascism has come to be defined by Nazis, by war, and by crimes against humanity that defy description. But when Mussolini invented fascism, those definitions had not yet established themselves. Mussolini, the inventor of fascism, defined it differently. “The first stage of fascism,” said Mussolini, “should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and Corporate power.”

Now, even with all my tough talk about hard words and doing away with caution, I am appropriately cautious about using so bloody a word in this setting. Well I should be. But I ask you: What do we have today if not the beginnings of the merging of state and corporate power? Even if you refuse to see our current situation through Mussolini’s eyes, even if you refuse to use that hardest of words, the simple fact that the corporate world and the federal government are becoming one and the same is clear, and unavoidable. Is that merger complete in America? Certainly not. Are we headed in that direction? Lawyers use a Latin phrase: “Res ipsa loquitor.” The thing speaks for itself."



Maybe he could get a few things to use, isn't imitation supposed to be the best form of flattery? And god knows, you are quite the eloquent speaker! Heck, offer to be a mentor???

[seabeyond]

17. dont talk holocaust

you talk hitler ism. showing how hilter was able to create, and the comparisons to what we do now. and all the fundie religion stuff (catholic.com now has put out how to vote) and patriot bill, and speech being taken from us in different forms. dissent adn words we use

[smirkymonkey]

35. Agreed

Too many people immediately associate Nazi Germany w/ the Holocaust. The fact is that Hitler was in power for almost 7 - 8 years before the "Final Solution" was in full swing.

Where are you speaking? New York has a large Jewish population, so you may want to come out saying up front something to make it clear that you are not diminishing the tragedy of the Holocaust in any way. (although I am not so sure that one can't happen here in the near future - I never would have guessed that we would be where we are today four years ago.)

Also, Check out a timeline - you can google "Nazi Germany, timeline" or "holocaust, timeline" to see the actual progression of events.

The timeline shows the events leading up to the Holocaust, which in the first 4 years of Hitler's reign were strikingly similar to what is happening under the Bush Administration.

Also, New Yorkers like things concise and to the point - we are an impatient bunch but very receptive when presented with clear, relevant information. It is a great city if you have time to enjoy it - Get a TimeOut New York (at any newstand) when you get here for events taking place that week. If you are looking for specifics you can pm me. Can the general public attend your talk? Is it at the NYU conference? Well - Best of luck and let us know how it goes!

[MissMarple]

19. The war of ideas.

Paul Berman (not Bremer) has an excellent article on 20th century totalitarianism in "The Fight Is For Democracy" edited by George Packer.

He has many excellent points but two that stick with me are about the irrationalist nature of Fascism, and the idea that we won the war against European totalitarianism by also waging a war of ideas to counter the hold the totalitarian leaders had on so many people.

"Liberal minded thinkers sometimes found it very difficult to believe that great numbers of perfectly intelligent people would join an irrationalist movement: and the liberal minded thinkers therefore tried their hardest to discover a hidden rationality within those movements."

"Once upon a time the United States had a Franklin Roosevelt, who knew how to wage a violent war while also waging a war of ideas-knew how to oppose totalitarian movements by offering a liberal alternative, which he expressed in words and in policies, both. The current president's policies speak, instead, of sheer power. He has invoked a world in which each nation will simply have to look out for its own affairs and devil take the hindmost."

I hope that helps some. For me, it was a surprise to see how irrational totalitarianism of any stripe actually is. The anti-democratic, irrational nature of Fascism is difficult for liberal thinkers to comprehend because it is based on fear, paranoia, and hatred. And to win a war against a population driven by such things we must articulate, clearly and consistently, our liberal principals and what we expect of a government founded on those liberal principles.

[seventhson]

22. wow - thanks - this got more responses than my usual sorry rants...

I guess asking questions is a useful rhetorical tool as well.

Those who have supported or attacked me here in the past-- (and anyone else) - any ideas on my most effective or ineffective arguments that I have used here???

[seventhson]

23. Anyone else have any thoughts? Or NYC things to do?

I love NY (lived there the summer of sam and the blackout when I was a kid)

but a little advice is always good on happenings I may not know about

going to try and see imbedded (Tim Robbins)

[indigobusiness]

25. Have a gander...

at the Sludge Report.

There are a few items in there that might help.

http://sludgereport.blogspot.com/

[freeforall]

26. Here's an idea seventhson

...for organizing your speech. It helps to read a few speech transcripts by people who are excellent public speakers - so you can see how they organize their topic.

For example, on Moveon.org, there are a couple of speeches that Al Gore gave - the political uses and abuses of fear, and another on the environment and global warming.

I'm sure you can think of other good speakers and find some material to get some ideas of structure.

One other point - know your topic well and believe in the material you're presenting. Your energy and interest will come across.

Good luck with it!

[kodi]

27. be brief, be concise, and be seated.

"Bush, the Nazis and America"
by dave neiwert of the site orcinus.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

it is an award winning 40,000 plus word essay and report on the topic.

you can outline the report and acheive a working paper on what you need to say

[Aries]

28. Maybe work in a Kevin Phillips reference...

after all, his current book covers some of the same territory:

http://www.americandynasty.net/kp.htm

From a review:

"The power of the Bush dynasty, writes Phillips, extends for four generations, and its scions have been intimately involved in three of the 20th century’s chief growth industries: intelligence, energy and national security. “If there are other families who have more fully epitomized and risen alongside the hundred-year emergence of the military industrial complex, the post-1945 national security state, and the 21st century imperium,” he writes,” no one has identified them.”

Congratulations on the gig.

[seventhson]

29. Great quote. Thanks! Anyone else?

nt

[Tinoire]

30. Graphics/// Do you have the option to throw any graphics up?

One good graphic in the background can carry a lot of weight; it will sear people's souls. Don't make it too bright though - a strong discreet that helps their emotions connect to the facts you're presenting a lot better.

Works wonders.

[calimary]

31. As long as you're talking about Germany et al, how 'bout another

GREAT quote:

"What luck for the leaders that men do not think."

My daughter chose that one out of a collection of many that I've compiled from the internet. She played "Who Said That?" with her classmates last year, in eighth grade, and blew them all away, including her teacher, who was trying to place it in some vague Shakespearean corner. They were slack-jawed when she told them who said it:

Adolf Hitler.

[mitchtv]

32. Don't forget The Mets

some of us love them

[bobbieinok]

33. quotes - Goebbels abt how masses can be conned to war; T Roosevelt

about how it's NOT treason to question leaders

both have been used as signatures by DUers

[pacifictiger]

34. the dangers of secretive government organizations

and tie in the power that the cia has on the international front with no oversight, especially relevant in this age of globalization. They have been the shadow government's front for much of the world's chaos for the last 40 years.
You might find this article interesting.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3566427&thesection=...

a few exerpts
-----------
Experts in torture are not surprised by the details in the stories of abuse which continue to emerge from US-run prisons in Iraq. And the more that emerges the less it seems to be the work of a handful of sadists or perverts.
-------
The techniques, which rest on principles of psychological disorientation rather than inflicting physical pain, were pioneered in Russia and China after the Second World War. They included humiliation, hooding, disorientation and depriving prisoners of sleep, warmth, water, food and human dignity. The KGB and Chinese secret police passed them on to the North Koreans during the Korean war,
---------
In Israel what was called "moderate physical force" was once lawful and security forces ended up torturing as many as 85 per cent of Palestinian security detainees " thousands of people" before Israel's Supreme Court in 1999 outlawed acts such as shaking prisoners, hoods, frog crouching, chair perching and sleep deprivation.

Despite this, according to Human Rights Watch, the practice seems to have increased in the past year and the head of the American defence contracting firm implicated in the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib visited an Israeli "anti-terror" training camp in the occupied West Bank earlier this year.
--------

[Eloriel]

36. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

(and of course I immediately forget who said that) -- because IMO it's no longer enough to inform, we have to motivate people to start taking action beyond merely voting. You might consider some "to do's" or options for activism.

A few more quotes just in case you might find them useable (but DO, by all means, include the Goebbels quote about how to get the people to support a war):

"Democracy is a process, not a static condition. It is becoming rather than
being. It can easily be lost, but is never fully won. Its essence is eternal struggle." - William H. Hastie

=

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare
as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." - Baron De Montesquieu


=
It was not only forbidden to criticize Stalin, it was perhaps even more forbidden to discuss this very prohibition.
- Joseph Stalin


Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition,
it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive
measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a
country where everyone lives in fear: Harry S. Truman

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize
will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the
name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping
men: Voltaire.


"No truly sophisticated proponent of repression would be stupid enough to shatter the facade of democratic institutions." - Murray B. Levin

----------------------------------

I know you'll do great. KNOW your material. In spades. Tape yourself if at all possible to see how your voice sounds, how your delivery works, how the logic of your presentation flows, whether you need more or less animation, a different structure to some of the info or the points, etc.

There are many websites with Hitler/Bush comparisons -- I imagine you've already got them all scoured.

GOOD LUCK! Do come back and tell all.

[DU GrovelBot]

## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 1:20:06AM EDT, Saturday, May 15, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
1 days,
22 hours,
39 minutes, and
54 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[linazelle]

37. An article from DU...

I saved this from DU. I found it fascinating--I lost the author's/poster's name...



"A Kind of Fascism..."


The following article makes the case for a "kind of fascism", by Professor Emeritus of Politics, Sheldon Wolin, of Princeton University, available here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0718-07.htm

Published on Friday, July 18, 2003 by Long Island NY Newsday
A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy
by Sheldon S. Wolin

<snip>

The American system is evolving its own form {of fascism}: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

<snip>

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

<snip -- this short article is worth a full read>

***

I take the Wolin article to say that we are achieving similar (Nazi) ends through more subtle means.

To illustrate: Though we haven't outlawed political parties, we have the same effect. I've long argued (what is an unpopular position here) that we have one party in America, the Republicrats; that there are two votes in America, the "dollar" vote followed by the "democratic" vote. The problem with the first is that you get to vote a lot more if you have more dollars (very un-democratic). The result is that money sets the agenda and class interest prevails. Both Republican and Democrat represent monied interest first and foremost before they differentiate along the lines of their various coalitions.

The bottom line: There is no need for Nazi-like laws outlawing competing parties -- the ends, the marriage of corporate and state power, have been achieved by more subtle means. And this power works to entrench itself.

I bet that the perception of the ordinary American is that nothing's changed these last three decades; this is still the America of their childhood civics lessons, the land of Jefferson and Madison, of the Liberty Bell and George Washington's cherry tree. But subtle means are working themselves through our polity achieving anti-democratic ends (Lipmann-Bernays-Goebbels-Segretti-Rove have all earned their pay)...

One's perception of "freedom" varies greatly depending on what cell you occupy on this penal colony. Some cells are quite roomy and comfortable, but others, well -- one of our fastest growing industries is prison construction and services. We have the highest incarceration rate in the first world (one of the highest over the entire world). If you're black, male, and live in a city, I think the chances that you spend time in prison are as high as 1 in 3. The chances that you're given the death sentence, another category we lead in, is 8 times higher than if you're white. A buddy of mine was nearly arrested for sitting on the front porch of his home late on a recent Saturday night, a home his family has owned for 50 years. What does this say about the Land of the Free? So, depending on who you ask, you will get very different answers. Some would call this a locked-down police state, more akin to Nazi Germany than a Jeffersonian democracy.

We still have the right to vote, of course, but see my comments above on the two votes in America and its nefarious final effect; if my choices are limited to factions of one Republicrat party that first and foremost serves the interest of monied elites, and I don't have money, then what value is this right? Is this why voter turnout in America is so low? I can protest, of course, but locked in pens known as "free speech zones" far from the pResidential rally.

Sure, I'm free to advocate. I can advocate for, say, single-payer universal healthcare, but since that item never makes it past the dollar vote it never gets on the public agenda. The result is 43 million Americans have only charitable (emergency room) access to healthcare. So what is this "freedom to advocate" worth if it is defeated in the oligarchic backrooms of power despite the public will?

I'm still free to speak -- read my many rants here and elsewhere! -- but note the difference in support between progressive and conservative media. The money and power behind conservative media far exceed that behind progressive media and this has the result of drowning out the progressive message. It's not heard over the shouting sludge slopped forward daily by the major media. So, yes, I am nominally free to speak my mind, but to what effect?

Go ahead, buy a T-Shirt that makes your anti-fascist point known. If you're a highschooler, you could be suspended and have an intimidating visit from the FBI; if you're in a shopping mall you just might get arrested.

So what do we have here? Yes we have nominal "freedoms" and we have deeply embraced myths about our "freedoms". But are we free? Ask Martin Luther King, Malcom X, JFK, RFK; ask Carnahan and Wellstone; ask Steve Kangas, Voxfux; ask the dead soldier in Iraq. Recall Ari Fliescher's threats after 9-11, "be careful". I hear Haliburton is rigging Gitmo to be our first death camp. What next? And will that dissolve our long-held myths?

We might not be Nazi Germany; no, we are something uniquely our own. But this "something" has got to change.

ABB in 2004!

[anarchy1999]

38. I have a favor to ask? Will you put your speech out for us here at DU?

Thanks.