Roger Alies is a sick alien fuck

[DainBramaged]

And maybe one day before I get the visit the Reaper will visit him and we can have less propaganda in the world. This fuck is worse than Gobbels ever was.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/ailes-obama-far-left-socialist_n_784670.html


THIS is why we need our own propaganda team to discredit fucks like this.

[WhiteTara]

1. indeed we do.

[Zenlitened]

2. Goebbels + Charles Manson, with a dash of Orwell = Right Wing Propaganda Machine

Add in distribution channels like Beck, Hannity and their ilk, and you have a situation where American citizens are quite literally being brainwashed.

I've seen it first-hand, many people here have seen it first-hand: that transformation a loved one undergoes after plugging in to the right wing noise machine. The army of zombie drones who spout right wing talking points as if these were their own thoughts, opinions arrived at independently.

Scary stuff. Fascinating, too, in a horror-movie sort of way. But I worry about how this movie ends.

[HillbillyBob]

57. You put that so accurately.

After this last election Im at the end of my patience. I have cut off family and friends that voted for Rs. I did my best to explain reasonably and got a lot of propaganda back talk. No matter ho i put it or pointed it out i got "Well Bello says.....".

[Canuckistanian]

3. He's chief propagandist at Fox

Why would anyone expect anything other than lies and misinformation from him?

Interviewing him or reading what he has to say is useless.

[RZM]

4. Another misplaced and misguided Nazi reference

Ailes has not openly encouraged violent pogroms. Nor has he killed all of his young children. He's provided the right wing/Republican party with their own news outlet. Not a good thing, but far from Goebbels. Unrec for misuse of history.

[DainBramaged]

5. Really? Glen Beck? Hannity? Not encouraging violence?

Not misplaced at all. And if you think it is, too bad. It isn't a 'news outlet' by ANY stretch of the imagination. That snippet is not even funny, just sad that you believe that yourself.


Unrec you for naivety.

[RZM]

8. Responded to wrong post. See reply # 6 n/t

[RZM]

6. If you can't see the difference between Goebbels and Ailes . . .

Either you don't want to see it, or you can't because you don't have a good grasp of the historical events in question. I don't really blame somebody who makes such comparisons if they don't know much about the history of Nazi Germany -- after all, you can't expect informed expressions of opinion from the uninformed. But plenty of other people who do make such comparisons know full well they don't work very well, but they want to co-opt the horrors of the Nazi regime to lend their own contemporary condemnations emotional force. I feel that is very disrespectful to the many millions of victims of the Nazi regime.

If you want to hate Roger Ailes, you don't need my or anyone else's approval, but understand that it is disingenuous and disrespectful to compare him to a true monster like Goebbels (not only that, I believe you even said he was worse). I challenge you to find anything comparable to Kristallnacht that Ailes is responsible for. I'll bet you can't (I sure can't) and you must also know that Kristallnacht is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the suffering that Geobbels was responsible for. Why not just criticize Ailes on his own terms without bringing one of the 20th century's worst set of horrors into the discussion?

[DainBramaged]

9. First, I have relatives throughout Germany and the Czech republic alive and dead

who would disagree with your analysis. And being that German History was more than a hobby of mine growing up, all I can tell you is you need to find another person on this earth to defend other than Roger Alies.

Cya.

[RZM]

12. I'm not defending his actions -- I'm just criticizing the Nazi comparison

Throwing Nazi references around is dangerous. My position is that they should be used only when the continuities are very clear -- which in this case would have to include strong, public encouragement of extreme racial hatred and mass violence. I just don't see that here. If you do, that's your business. But I don't. Being a powerful right wing ass in the US in 2010 does not automatically make you a Nazi. It makes you a powerful right wing ass.

[Zenlitened]

7. Sorry, but the Nazi reference is entirely apt.

Ailes does not need to explicitly call for violence before we can draw parallels between his work and that of the propaganda apparatus of 1930's Germany.

The offense to history here is yours, for seeming not to understand it well at all.

[DainBramaged]

10. Liberals are the Jews of the 21st Century

and fools who don't see the comparison need to wash their eyes out with a little History!

The Right-wing has made Liberal so hated by the unintelligent it is sad that we allowed it to get to this point.

[RZM]

14. Mutliply the incident pictured in your post by millions and you have a valid Nazi comparison

Take it as it is and you don't. You have something reprehensible, to be sure, but nothing on the scale of Nazi crimes.

[Hannah Bell]

20. before the nazis came to power, they existed as bully-boys & propagandists.

the comparison is entirely apt.

[DainBramaged]

23. Thugs in uniforms, a very apt comparison, encouraged by a friendly media

Hitler moves swiftly to consolidate his hold on power. At his first cabinet meeting, on the day of his appointment as chancellor, he argues that new elections must be held if the coalition fails to command an immediate majority in the Reichstag. He overcomes the qualms of Papen and his colleagues by promising that whatever the result of the election, the present balance within the cabinet will be maintained (the three Nazi members are Hitler, Goering and Wilhelm Frick).

The election is fixed for 5 March 1933. The campaign is one of unprecedented violence. Gangs of Hitler's Brownshirts are unleashed on the streets to break up the meetings of opposition parties. The police are instructed not to intervene.

During the election campaign, on the night of February 27, the Reichstag building burns down. Many assume at the time that this was contrived by the Nazis, but it seems probable that it was an isolated act of arson by a mentally disturbed Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe. Whatever the precise origin of the fire, it provides Hitler with a heaven-sent opportunity. Proclaiming it as part of a Communist plot to seize control, he passes a decree suspending all rights of the individual and giving the government emergency powers.

On March 23, at the first session of the newly elected Reichstag (using a a Berlin opera house as a temporary home), the 81 Communist members and about 20 Social Democrats are conspicuous by their absence. They are either in hiding or are already in the hands of Hitler's police.

Even without their hostile votes, Hitler cannot immediately muster the two-thirds majority which he requires for the business scheduled for the day - an 'enabling act' which will give his government the power to pass decrees independently of the Reichstag and without any restriction by the president.


In the event, with gangs of threatening Brownshirts mustered outside the building, only the Social Democrats have the courage to oppose the Enabling Act. The most significant measure in Hitler's political career is passed by the comfortable margin of 441 to 94. With this constitutional step achieved, he is an elected dictator.


Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=qhp#ixzz15ZCrdJNK


Col. Terrel of the OVFF@ 2nd Amendment Rally/March

Be very afraid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4G5185jpOo&feature=player_embedded

[RZM]

24. I'm not disputing that at all

But there's a lot more to their legacy than that. The Kentucky stomping incident probably is comparable to SA actions. But you'd have to multiply it many thousands of times over in order to get an apt comparison with the Nazis, at least in terms of scale. And scale does matter. I have no problem with comparing the asshole who did that with SA street brawlers. Where I take issue is extending the comparison to other Tea Party clowns who are wearing odd outfits and carrying stupid signs, but not engaging in violence. One useful thing about the Nazis is that they provide a definition of 'absolute zero' in terms of morality. And while the Tea Party, Fox News, and the RW in general aren't entities that I support, I hesitate to categorize them in the same terms.

[Hannah Bell]

26. originally, they were a local phenomenon concentrated in munich.

so i don't see your point much.

are we supposed to wait for concentration camps to note the similarities?

1. violent scapegoating of minorities - check.
2. dissemination of false propaganda - check.
3. support from hidden interests - check.

[RZM]

27. Your reasoning here echoes what some in the Tea Party say about Obama

In that it is rooted in the promotion of fear and the positing of unlikely and unprecedented outcomes. Do you really believe that concentration camps are in our future? You're entitled to your opinion, but how is that different from saying that the Health Care law will lead to 'death panels' and Stalinism?

[Hannah Bell]

29. there is a similarity between the early nazi party & the bullyboys on the right here.

it doesn't matter what the tea party "says" about obama, the fact is, he's not scapegoating minorities & he's not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands -- unlike even some of our elected right-wing reps are.

what the tea party "says" about obama is part of that organized propaganda effort i mentioned early -- much as the nazis attacked the legitimate government with organized propaganda.

"Do you really believe that concentration camps are in our future?"

you seem to be under the impression that noting the similarities between the early nazi party & the teaparty types means i "believe concentration camps are in our future". fail.

[RZM]

31. Here are your words:

'are we supposed to wait for concentration camps to note the similarities?'

Maybe you should clarify what you meant there - perhaps I misunderstood the point of the reference. Are you saying that you can make comparisons between the American right and the German Nazis without bringing in the horrible Nazi crimes. I guess you could, but how useful or valuable is that comparison? You know full well that Nazi crimes are intimately connected with memory of the entire movement and it my belief that this is a big part of the reason people make such comparisons -- they want to associate their enemies with the Nazis, because doing so serves to tie them to some of the worst events in the 20th century. Again, as I wrote in another post, you could compare FDR's New Deal projects with Hitler's support of Autobahn construction, but how valuable is doing so to our understanding of either leader?

You can't have it both ways here. If you think that elements on the right in America are leading us down a Nazi path, with the endpoint being dictatorship and crimes against humanity, then say so. If not, then why make the comparisons in the first place?

[Hannah Bell]

34. that *is* why the comparison is made: because bullyboy scapegoating & lies

generally end badly.

not sure why you have a problem with that.

[RZM]

36. You think scapegoating and disseminating untrue information doesn't happen everywhere, every day?

Those are all too human tendencies. And they don't always end in crimes against humanity or dictatorships.

[DainBramaged]

40. I have enjoyed your sparing with Roger's nephew today

When someone tried way too hard to change opinions or convenience those who will not be convinced that Alies and his FAUX Propaganda channel, the Koch Brothers, Wyly Brothers,Bob Perry, The DeVos family, and on and on, NONE OF THEM have an agenda oh no, they're just businessmen.


I've seen it so many times over the past 10 years it has become a running joke, and they keep coming back desparate to change ONE mind.

[RZM]

43. Why the personal insult?

Is it too much to ask that you come out and defend your position rather than taking potshots? While I don't agree with the poster I am 'sparing' with, I at least respect her willingness to address me head on and explain why she disagrees with me.

For the record, I never once argued that there is no agenda. In fact, I believe I said it's a pretty obvious right wing one. But that does not one a Nazi make.

[RZM]

11. Oh dear . . .

You do understand that Fox News is not the only game in town, right? They do not have a monopoly on public information. If a consumer does not like what Fox is selling, they are free to go somewhere else, including multiple outlets that dedicate a lot of time to debunking what Fox presents. So in terms of power, the comparison is not apt. It is not apt in terms of content either. Again, Ailes is not calling for racial pogroms or the violent removal of whole ethnic/religious groups from the United States. I don't see why one needs to make this comparison. Why not just take Ailes for what he is, which is a wealthy right winger who runs a media outlet? Why isn't that enough -- there's plenty to keep critics busy on that basis alone? Why do you have to bring the Nazis into it?

[Zenlitened]

15. See Goebbels and the Big Lie, for starters.

Beyond that, I think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of comparison. It is not to declare that one thing is exactly like another. It is to draw parallels and discuss similarities.

You maintain that there are aspects of these topics that are not identical. Well, of course not. Not yet, at any rate, which is one reason to discuss these things now, rather than waiting until catastrophe is fully unleashed.

When you ask, "Why do you have to bring the Nazis into it?" the brief answer is, "The Nazis started out small, too."

There are instructive parallels here for those willing to discern and discuss them. Crying "foul" at the very mention of "Nazi" only serves to stifle necessary discussion, and increases the danger that current trends towards stark fascism will continue.

[DainBramaged]

17. The quote (FAUX news at it's finest)

Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the “big lie” tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels explained:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html

[RZM]

19. I think my issue is the core of the Nazi identity and legacy

You're certainly right in saying that Nazism meant a lot of things and had a lot of moving parts. You're also right in that they started out small and without the Great Depression, they probably would have stayed that way. But to me, the core of the Nazi identity was racial identification and hatred and the core of their legacy is mass violence, totalitarianism, and total war. I don't think Ailes really fits into well into any of those frameworks.

To say that both Goebbels and Ailes are propagandists is perhaps a more apt comparison, but why bring in Goebbels? The world is and always has been filled with propagandists and I'm sure there are plenty that resemble Ailes much closer than Goebbels does. The problem with Nazi comparisons is that it's very difficult to divorce the memory of their crimes with the memory of everything else they did.

Think of it this way. Hitler enthusiastically supported the construction of the Autobahn, in part as a way to get people back to work during the Depression. Yet would you compare him to FDR, who promoted similar public works projects for similar reasons at the same time? I guess you could, but what's the point? Other than that, they don't have much in common. Same thing with Ailes and Goebbels. They are both media people who wanted to get their message out, but I don't see a lot of real apt comparisons besides that.

[Zenlitened]

21. On this we agree:

"...it's very difficult to divorce the memory of their crimes with the memory of everything else they did."

Difficult, yes, but vitally important that we do so. However distressing the exercise may be for some.

As we've seen elsewhere around the world and throughout human history, much of 'everything else they did' has a way of leading in a very direct line to hideous crimes.

[RZM]

25. I see what you're saying

But there's a contradiction here. You say that it's vitally important that we divorce the crimes from everything else. But in the next line, you're charting a direct path from 'everything else' to the crimes -- which isn't divorcing them at all, but 'wedding' them, as it were. Perhaps you see Fox News promoting the Republican party and the right in general as leading directly to Nazi-style fascism and 'hideous crimes' -- which in the Nazi case would be dictatorship, total war, and genocide. But I don't. Problem is, only the future will tell, so neither of us can really speak with certainty. Just a difference of opinion I guess -- and there's nothing wrong with that :)

[Zenlitened]

41. No contradiction, but I should have been more clear: It's a direct line in time...

... which, of course, is forward from present to future.

Put another way, 'everything else' is the seed, 'crimes against humanity' is the toxic fruit.

Surely you don't believe that the Nazi regime that carried out the Holocaust somehow sprang forth, fully formed, in an instant? And that thus it could not be prevented, because there was no opportunity to confront it at an earlier point in the trajectory?

:shrug:

[RZM]

46. Of course I don't think that

There were plenty of opportunities to confront it -- and knowing what we do now, most of us would certainly do so if we had the chance. Certainly plenty of Germans and later on, the leaders of the Great Powers, had chances to stop Hitler in his tracks at many points before 1939 and it's a tragedy that none of those roads were ever taken. I just don't think that right wing politicians and their supporters in America are leading us towards anything resembling Nazism today. I don't think that very many on the right want to dismantle our system or commit heinous crimes. Certainly they want power and want to implement their agenda -- but my opinion is that there is a broad consensus in the United States that democracy is the way to go and that Nazi-style crimes against humanity can never be justified. In Weimar and later Nazi Germany, I don't think those consensuses were there. That's especially true in the case of democracy, the dismantling of which was an important step in setting the stage for all that came after.

[Hannah Bell]

48. other people think different. in my short lifetime, it's fairly clear that attacks

on minorities (ethnic/racial/immigrant/sexual) increase when they are "normalized" by media. and that's what fox & friends are doing, regardless of what *you* think.

whether it eventually leads to concentration camps is beside the point. it's already leading to attacks on individuals. that's enough to call the fascists on their shit.

[RZM]

50. But people have been attacked on those grounds since the dawn of time

In the US and most other places, it used to be far, far worse. That kind of thing will always happen. You're right, it can get a lot worse when there are strong voices calling for extreme violence. But is that really what Fox does? Seems to be they spend most of their time trying to convince people to vote Republican.

[Hannah Bell]

51. no, "that kind of thing" increases when power sanctions it. yes, that's what fox

& its supporters do.

if you say they don't, you haven't been paying attention.

[RZM]

53. Well then we can agree to disagree

I will admit I don't spend much time watching Fox. But I've never seen a figure on there make open calls for violence. Open calls for voting Republican - now that I have seen just about every time I've watched for more than a few minutes. But violence? Not really.

[DainBramaged]

16. You really are defending Alies and Fox, as such our conversation is over

you can continue to try and justify your fascination with them but you won't get a response from me. OH, and my Mother would disagree too if she was alive. I'm sure she had a much better perspective on the comparison than you ever could.




Goodbye. Find someone else to convince.

[RZM]

22. I respect that you take these issues seriously

I do too. Just because we're on opposite sides of this particular argument does not mean there should be any acrimony or that the discussion should be shut down. It was you who made the comparison in the first place and all I did was take issue with it. But rather than taking it personally I wish you would have presented more evidence that shows why you believe what you do. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake -- I'm interested in hearing exactly why you feel the comparison is an apt one.

I'm not looking for people to convince here. If that were the case, I would have written a post saying that 'Roger Ailes is not a Nazi.' I'm looking to convince you because you were the one who put that comparison out there in the first place.

[Hannah Bell]

30. oh dear... the nazis didn't monopolize information when they started out, either.

we have to mention the nazis because of the similarity in tactics, message & backers.

[RZM]

33. Is Roger Ailes just starting out?

Fox News is going on 15 now. 15 years from now, I doubt they'll be in all that different of a position they are in now. And no, we do not have to mention the Nazis. The comparisons are pretty spurious, both to the Nazis in power and out of power as well. There are some superficial comparisons in terms of RW populism, which you could make with any number of other political movements that weren't responsible for the deaths of tens of millions and didn't hold power as a single-party dictatorship.

[Hannah Bell]

35. The nazi party was founded in 1919. Hitler came to power in 1933,

in the middle of the great depression.

Let's see, that's 14 years later.

[RZM]

38. That means the clock is ticking then . . .

Ailes better get on that, because if he doesn't hurry up, he's not going to make your time line. He'll need to get the Tea Party an actual leader, set up a Reichstag Fire, and ensure the passage of the Enabling Act all in the next year. Then of course he'll need to shut down public expressions of dissent (guess that means no more DU), set up concentration camps for political opponents, pass Nuremberg Laws, pull off a Kristallnacht, and launch a war of territorial and racial aggression against a neighbor within the next six years or so.

[Hannah Bell]

39. god. nothing to do with a precise number of years; something to do with patterns

& parallels.

history never repeats itself, but patterns & parallels are constant.

your points, relying as they do on the idea that if history doesn't repeat itself exactly, no comparisons may be made, no lessons drawn -- is completely lame.

[RZM]

47. Of course I don't think that events have to be exactly the same to merit comparisons

But I still don't feel the comparisons are warranted here. The Nazis were able to come to power in large part because the Weimar political system was so young and fragile and had dangerously low levels of basic support. Our political system is neither young, nor fragile, and has widespread support for its core structure. People, especially Tea Party types, might not particularly like the way things are going, but I think even they would admit that they appreciate living in a Democracy and don't desire a dictatorship or the physical destruction of their enemies. Maybe some do, but those are a tiny fringe at best.

[Zenlitened]

44. You're confusing history with science fiction time travel or something.

Seriously, that post you just made essentially concedes the debate, and suggests you are arguing for argument's sake. Thus trivializing the matter, which, ironically, was your complaint at the outset.

:eyes:

[RZM]

49. How so?

Is Ailes likely to destroy the American political system and usher in a dictatorship? I don't find that very likely. Like most Americans, I imagine Roger Ailes supports the core structure of our government. He just likes it a lot better when it's his people own who get voted in so they can enact policies favorable to his own interests -- and thus he uses his resources and media outfit for that purpose. Not a good thing, especially since people like you and I will never have that kind of power. But those aren't the actions of a Nazi -- they are the actions of a wealthy right-winger.

[Hannah Bell]

52. the two categories aren't mutually excluding. there were a lot of wealthy right-wingers

who were nazis.

they're the nazis' natural base.

you know, the headline today is "ailes calls obama a socialist".

fuck ailes, fuck fox news.

[RZM]

56. There were a lot of working class folks who were Nazis too

As well as people from all other walks of life. You don't get a dictatorship with broad support (which is what Hitler essentially had) without the support of people from many different groups. You're right that Hitler didn't have to do a whole lot of convincing to get big business on board, but I wouldn't say that was their 'natural base.' From what I know, the 'natural base' was disaffected middle class elements. The landed Prussian aristocracy (who comprised much of the officer corps) was actually pretty cool to Hitler, to a good degree for snooty class reasons, and Hitler did have to work to get their support -- including purging the SA and in some cases simply buying officers off. One of my favorite quotes from the period is Paul von Hindenburg's smackdown of Hitler's first attempt to get made chancellor, where he said that at best, 'that corporal' could be his 'postmaster general.'

I did see that headline and fail to see its relevance here. Ailes is an ass who says shit about Obama so people will not like him and vote for Republicans instead. That has little to do with Nazism. The Nazis were not the world's only right wing propagandists.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. His similarity to JTH is striking!

:wow:

:rofl:

[DainBramaged]

18. All he needs is a lizard OH WAIT, Hannilizard

:rofl:

[mahina]

42. Paging Swampy....

[DainBramaged]

45. Me loves the Swamp Rat

:loveya:

Hannity and Beckenstein surrounding Jabba The Ailes, too good to be true...

[yurbud]

28. Jabba was a legitimate business man who probably provided some legitimate services

Ailes is merely an amorphous, amoral piece of shit.

[NuclearDem]

32. BREAKING NEWS: Ailes "mysterious comments" at press conference

Reporters at a Fox News press conference were "mystified", said one NBC reporter, at Roger Ailes' mysterious demands for "Solo and the Wookie".

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. His similarity (in physical appearance to JTH) is certainly striking

:wow:

:rofl:

[LaPera]

54. Ailes is snidely making President Obama "different" than you & me

Just another way this republican Fox news propaganda divide & conquer, pontificating partisan republican liar Ailes is snidely making President Obama "different" than you & me - Different than the good old uninformed white folk & the good ole white boys who watch Fox news.

No, propagandist elitist corporate republican liar Ailes, you're way, way out of touch, it's the exact reason why fabrications, distortions, lies smears & smokescreens are so pervasive & permitted and encouraged on Fox "news".

Ailes you know as well as anyone the truth hurts & truth would destroy all the lying republican elitist corporate ideology and agenda...at least to any caring thinking person - Which Fox certainly does not have in it's audience by design....

Ailes, also knows extremely well that the Fox "news" hungry grazing sheep who are mindlessly, glaze-over watching Fox news 24/7 will eat anything that you throw at them and then regurgitate it as their own repeating finger pointing bullshit!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

55. Is there any time in that waste of porcine DNA's life when he can say something that is true? nt