ADVERTISEMENT

Are we a unified Reich in our country

I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.

Is the implication today's conservatives, populist MAGAs, etc. are secret Nazis and fascists? It seems too close to the playbook that Lukianoff broke down in the post in the chicken-and-egg thread:


Tactics in this “Just Kidding!” column of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress include questions like:

  • Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”? If you can be pegged as exhibiting any kind of “ism,” or having any kind of “phobia,” then your point of view doesn’t matter.
  • Are they guilty by association? If you can connect the speaker to someone considered morally “beyond the pale,” then you can accuse them of being guilty by association. It’s essentially the Great Untruth of Ad Hominem by proxy.
  • Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration.
  • Did the speaker violate a “thought terminating cliché”? If you can be accused of things like “dog-whistling,” “punching down,” “being on the wrong side of history,” or “parroting right-wing talking points,” no further engagement is required.
  • Can you emotionally blackmail someone? When it seems like you’re starting to lose the argument, you can always fall back on emotional outbursts and claims of harm to prevent more discussion.

In general, with Trump, I think it better to chalk up a particular stupid action to incompetence and laziness (here from his staff for not vetting the tweet they retweeted--Christ, this is really a thing, isn't it?) rather than to some evil intent. I'll repeat for the millionth time: Trump isn't Hitler, doesn't want to be Hitler, and his policies aren't fascist.
Somebody said something about a speck in your brothers eye while not seeing the log in your own eye.

Those who are trying the hardest to connect this innocuous post to the most prolific Jew killer in history are the same people who defend the current US administration that provides aid, comfort, and now even condolences for the death if a mass murder, of the biggest Jew hating regime on the planet today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and jet812
I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.
That's not something that people generally advertise. You know some; you just don't realize it.

There's a Nazi sympathizer here, who posts anonymously (obviously), with no links. Ever.

More broadly, though, Trump is talking to those (and there are many) who favor authoritarianism and/or a strongman regime, with Trump as their strongman. This language resonates with them.
 
I would offer two options. The first is not the one I accept, the dog whistle. The second is that the Trump campaign believes no press is bad press and this allows for the ever popular "the mean old lefties are picking on me".

As to @CO. Hoosier point that a German says Reich doesn't have the same meaning, that is possible. But I am not sure I have heard any German politician since 1945 use that term, which should be indicative of something. In addition, in late '22 there were 25 people arrested in a right-wing coup plot, they called themselves Reich citizens. At least to some in the German neo-nazi movement, the term has meaning.

if you stand by it and intended it leave it up
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
100%. Reich ain't neutral--only one country has ever referred itself as the "Reich" the Bizmark pre world war I (and through WWI). An overtly aggressive country was the root cause of WWI. The second of course needs no explainer--we know exactly what Reich means: 1933-1945 Germany.

If you are using that word at anytime in the 20th and 21st century, it means one thing. Why would an american use the term Reich--unless it was intentional. You wouldn't. The actual sentence said "“the creation of a unified Reich”. They doubled down the usage 3 times and actually stated “German industrial strength significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich.” That sentence of course is extremely coy and does not provide an end date--and for good reason inasmuch as Bizmark Reich failed miserably, and the Weimer republic was dog doo doo, with inflation running at over a million percent. There was no industry. No food either. Enter Hitler and his commerical works projects....

As for Trump's comments about "poisioning the blood of our country" (disucssing immigration), and referring to immigrants as vermin --these are two unmistakeable terms and phrases that you won't find anywhere other than Mein Kumph and Joseph Goebbels diary. Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw both have written magnificent books on this.

There is NO other reason to say these things unless you are making it known who you really are, then playing dumb about it....how many times would direct copying of nazi language must there before people realize this is a problem. These words and phrases are a clarion call (see what I did there @BradStevens :D) to incite.

The whataboutism in this thread is shocking.
Great post.
 
I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.

Is the implication today's conservatives, populist MAGAs, etc. are secret Nazis and fascists? It seems too close to the playbook that Lukianoff broke down in the post in the chicken-and-egg thread:


Tactics in this “Just Kidding!” column of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress include questions like:

  • Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”? If you can be pegged as exhibiting any kind of “ism,” or having any kind of “phobia,” then your point of view doesn’t matter.
  • Are they guilty by association? If you can connect the speaker to someone considered morally “beyond the pale,” then you can accuse them of being guilty by association. It’s essentially the Great Untruth of Ad Hominem by proxy.
  • Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration.
  • Did the speaker violate a “thought terminating cliché”? If you can be accused of things like “dog-whistling,” “punching down,” “being on the wrong side of history,” or “parroting right-wing talking points,” no further engagement is required.
  • Can you emotionally blackmail someone? When it seems like you’re starting to lose the argument, you can always fall back on emotional outbursts and claims of harm to prevent more discussion.

In general, with Trump, I think it better to chalk up a particular stupid action to incompetence and laziness (here from his staff for not vetting the tweet they retweeted--Christ, this is really a thing, isn't it?) rather than to some evil intent. I'll repeat for the millionth time: Trump isn't Hitler, doesn't want to be Hitler, and his policies aren't fascist.

don't overthink it. Team Trump uses certain language to reach the extreme portion of his base. both parties do. but we're honestly to believe these are all accidental references? come now. 0% chance his staff regularly stumbles upon language used by fascist Germany and plugs it in without thinking. 0%.

of course he's not hitler. only hitler was hitler. but pretty startling nonetheless?
 
Some people give Hitler credit for making the trains run on time and then give the Orange Fuhrer credit for making crab legs cheaper.
or not having open borders. or not defunding police and backing soros das. or not forgiving student loans that people contracted to pay back. or not giving away so much free shit it causes the price of everythign to skyrocket. or not attacking energy to the point that gas skyrockets. or not playing the race card at every opportunity. or not appointing people who can't define a woman. or not putting identity over merit. that type of stuff too.
 
I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.

Is the implication today's conservatives, populist MAGAs, etc. are secret Nazis and fascists? It seems too close to the playbook that Lukianoff broke down in the post in the chicken-and-egg thread:


Tactics in this “Just Kidding!” column of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress include questions like:

  • Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”? If you can be pegged as exhibiting any kind of “ism,” or having any kind of “phobia,” then your point of view doesn’t matter.
  • Are they guilty by association? If you can connect the speaker to someone considered morally “beyond the pale,” then you can accuse them of being guilty by association. It’s essentially the Great Untruth of Ad Hominem by proxy.
  • Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration.
  • Did the speaker violate a “thought terminating cliché”? If you can be accused of things like “dog-whistling,” “punching down,” “being on the wrong side of history,” or “parroting right-wing talking points,” no further engagement is required.
  • Can you emotionally blackmail someone? When it seems like you’re starting to lose the argument, you can always fall back on emotional outbursts and claims of harm to prevent more discussion.

In general, with Trump, I think it better to chalk up a particular stupid action to incompetence and laziness (here from his staff for not vetting the tweet they retweeted--Christ, this is really a thing, isn't it?) rather than to some evil intent. I'll repeat for the millionth time: Trump isn't Hitler, doesn't want to be Hitler, and his policies aren't fascist.
How many gaffes must there be before negligence becomes intentional?

How many intentional word choices must there be before coincidence becomes intent?

What has been Trump's intent with regards to his 3 very specific nazi comments and republications? We don't know what is going on in his head, but we can make assumptions based upon repeat instances of shocking "cribbing".

I think there is a larger precentage of the population than we imagine that looks with favor at the perceived accomplishments of Hitler with regards to industry, military build up, etc, that occured prior to Kristallnacht, with a certain amount of favor.
 
Our production is sky high, higher than ever.

maybe it's still not enough. maybe there is drag from his attack that contributed to elevating the prices that we're still coping with today.

you can go one by one and show me how each of the 100 are incorrect if you wish
 
I would offer two options. The first is not the one I accept, the dog whistle. The second is that the Trump campaign believes no press is bad press and this allows for the ever popular "the mean old lefties are picking on me".

As to @CO. Hoosier point that a German says Reich doesn't have the same meaning, that is possible. But I am not sure I have heard any German politician since 1945 use that term, which should be indicative of something. In addition, in late '22 there were 25 people arrested in a right-wing coup plot, they called themselves Reich citizens. At least to some in the German neo-nazi movement, the term has meaning.

And the third, is the one the Trump campaign put out: a staffer retweeted/posted it and didn't even see the word "reich." Go look at the video. CNN had to edit it, slow it down, and zoom in on the word, that was faded and in the background. Perfectly reasonable explanation, isn't it?

Re a current use of Reich, I'd never seen this but it is priceless:

 
And the third, is the one the Trump campaign put out: a staffer retweeted/posted it and didn't even see the word "reich." Go look at the video. CNN had to edit it, slow it down, and zoom in on the word, that was faded and in the background. Perfectly reasonable explanation, isn't it?

Re a current use of Reich, I'd never seen this but it is priceless:

exactly. this more of the bloodbath nonsense
 
I would offer two options. The first is not the one I accept, the dog whistle. The second is that the Trump campaign believes no press is bad press and this allows for the ever popular "the mean old lefties are picking on me".

As to @CO. Hoosier point that a German says Reich doesn't have the same meaning, that is possible. But I am not sure I have heard any German politician since 1945 use that term, which should be indicative of something. In addition, in late '22 there were 25 people arrested in a right-wing coup plot, they called themselves Reich citizens. At least to some in the German neo-nazi movement, the term has meaning.

It is the German phrase for the eastern realm-- Austria. And antiquated

I hope you aren't suggesting that when the video specially refers to GERMANY and mentions "Reich" that it means Austria.....

Find me an example of an American using the phrase "the Reich" and have it not be referencing 1933-1945 Germany.
I have never seen the word Nazi as synonymous with Reich. I think have more closely associated Reich with Germany.

I agree that people, including me, have used Germany, Reich, and Nazi to mean our WWII enemy. But when discussing the horrors of the Holocaust, most learned people will use Nazis, and not Germans or members of the Reich.
 
don't overthink it. Team Trump uses certain language to reach the extreme portion of his base. both parties do. but we're honestly to believe these are all accidental references? come now. 0% chance his staff regularly stumbles upon language used by fascist Germany and plugs it in without thinking. 0%.

of course he's not hitler. only hitler was hitler. but pretty startling nonetheless?
His staff didn't create the video. That background language was part of, or generated by, some video creator app.


You think that app is some Nazi plant?
 
Somebody said something about a speck in your brothers eye while not seeing the log in your own eye.

Those who are trying the hardest to connect this innocuous post to the most prolific Jew killer in history are the same people who defend the current US administration that provides aid, comfort, and now even condolences for the death if a mass murder, of the biggest Jew hating regime on the planet today.
Got it--you are perfectly fine with a presidential candidate that quoting Mein Kumph and Joseph Goebbels almost to a T and then endorsing a post glorifying and "Creating a unified Reich"....I have yet to read from you anything resembling a "yeah, these comments are pretty shitty to make and endorse'. We did, of course, get the "but, look at Biden"....
 
His staff didn't create the video. That background language was part of, or generated by, some video creator app.


You think that app is some Nazi plant?
can you imagine what some of his junior staff must be like tho 😅 😅 😅 😅 that would make for a great reality show
 
I have never seen the word Nazi as synonymous with Reich. I think have more closely associated Reich with Germany.

I agree that people, including me, have used Germany, Reich, and Nazi to mean our WWII enemy. But when discussing the horrors of the Holocaust, most learned people will use Nazis, and not Germans or members of the Reich.
"the Reich" is a place and a concept--a special characterization of what Germany was and could be. "Nazi's" and "Germans" are people---they of course couldn't be used interchangeabley with "the Reich".
 
Reich is a neutral word. This is a dumb thread started by a poster who runs on feelings quoting a reporter who mines news for an anti-trump spin who works on a news platform whose mission statement is to promote anxiety and anger about Trump.
Just trying to equal out all the ridiculous threads when Biden makes a gaffe and all the Trumpers go insane here. But not a word when Trump and Co make Nazi references. Good job, COH!
 
How many gaffes must there be before negligence becomes intentional?
How long have you been litigating?

How many intentional word choices must there be before coincidence becomes intent?

What has been Trump's intent with regards to his 3 very specific nazi comments and republications? We don't know what is going on in his head, but we can make assumptions based upon repeat instances of shocking "cribbing".

This wasn't a word selected by Trump, or even by his staffer:


I think there is a larger precentage of the population than we imagine that looks with favor at the perceived accomplishments of Hitler with regards to industry, military build up, etc, that occured prior to Kristallnacht, with a certain amount of favor.

Re the people who are looking with favor upon Hitler, I've never met them and I read a lot but haven't seen much of that (since Marge Schott?). Any polling data out there about this?
 
Just trying to equal out all the ridiculous threads when Biden makes a gaffe and all the Trumpers go insane here. But not a word when Trump and Co make Nazi references. Good job, COH!
See, that's fair.

Although, this wasn't a Nazi reference. The reich referred to there was from WW 1 era. If you want to go after him, go after the notion that reich can be translated as "empire" (not that Trump or his staff know that, I'm betting) and we Americans typically shy away from that word.
 
I think there is a larger precentage of the population than we imagine that looks with favor at the perceived accomplishments of Hitler with regards to industry, military build up, etc, that occured prior to Kristallnacht, with a certain amount of favor.
Yep. Have owned several Volkswagens and never gave Hitler a thought about any of them.
 
Yep. Have owned several Volkswagens and never gave Hitler a thought about any of them.
DB2019NR00262_web_1600.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
How long have you been litigating?



This wasn't a word selected by Trump, or even by his staffer:




Re the people who are looking with favor upon Hitler, I've never met them and I read a lot but haven't seen much of that (since Marge Schott?). Any polling data out there about this?

Long enough to know that when you keep making faux gaffes over and over, it becomes an intent or reckless indifference.

I never said trump made that quote--I said it was republicated.

There was a poll that came out in 2022 along with a study that indicated that 20-25% of republican voters identified themselves as being white nationalists and supporters of proud boy type stuff. I can't find it but will dig it up. That would be a significant portion who would, more likely than sympathy with certain (but not all) elements of the nazi party from 1933-1938 or 1939
 
Last edited:
Long enough to know that when you keep making faux gaffes over and over, it becomes an intent or reckless indifference.

I never said trump made that quote--I said it was republicated.

There was a poll that came out in 2022 along with a study that indicated that 20-25% of republican voters identified themselves as being white nationalists and supporters of proud boy type stuff. I can't find it but will dig it up. That would be a signifiant portion who would, more likely than sympathy with certain (but not all) elements of the nazi party from 1933-1938 or 1939
That would be almost 20 million people. I find that hard to believe.

I think reckless indifference is accurate and applies to much of trump’s life/actions/behavior
 
That would be almost 20 million people. I find that hard to believe.

I think reckless indifference is accurate and applies to much of trump’s life/actions/behavior
I find it likely too high as well, but 10 mil wouldn't surprise me. Likely 10 mil ultra leftists. Usually always some kind of equilibrium on average.

My point is how does one quote almost the exact phrase from Mein kumph and say "I had no idea".
 
And the third, is the one the Trump campaign put out: a staffer retweeted/posted it and didn't even see the word "reich." Go look at the video. CNN had to edit it, slow it down, and zoom in on the word, that was faded and in the background. Perfectly reasonable explanation, isn't it?

Re a current use of Reich, I'd never seen this but it is priceless:


Mel Brooks has more content that I ever realized
 
How long have you been litigating?



This wasn't a word selected by Trump, or even by his staffer:




Re the people who are looking with favor upon Hitler, I've never met them and I read a lot but haven't seen much of that (since Marge Schott?). Any polling data out there about this?
Do you really think Trump is above throwing a junior staffer under the bus if need be?

Wouldn't be the first time someone took a fall for him. I'm sure he barely knew him/her lol

If Biden had a staffer that posted something like that, then I'm guessing it would be major news and Biden wouldn't skate by claiming it was just a staffer. Of course, it would probably just lead to "look, biden is so senile, he doesn't even know what his staff is doing"
 
And the third, is the one the Trump campaign put out: a staffer retweeted/posted it and didn't even see the word "reich." Go look at the video. CNN had to edit it, slow it down, and zoom in on the word, that was faded and in the background. Perfectly reasonable explanation, isn't it?

Re a current use of Reich, I'd never seen this but it is priceless:


That may well be it, but how often has Trump/Trump's campaign retweeted a Nazi or a Nazi message? Does he ever run out of the chances to explain it away as a simple mistake? At some point they have to tell their people to check everything and make sure this doesn't happen again. If not, it is fair to wonder why they don't care.

I've never thought Trump a Hitler, much more a Mussolini. For his many faults, and he had them, history never gave Mussolini the credit he did deserve. When Hitler moved into Austria, Mussolini went to France and Britain and suggested the three countries jointly move to stop Hitler then and there. When he was rebuffed, he switched jerseys. Stalin pretty much made the same offer in the Sedetenland crisis.
 
His staff didn't create the video. That background language was part of, or generated by, some video creator app.


You think that app is some Nazi plant?

Still plenty of "holy shit" moments even if we find ways to excuse this one. Trump hired Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, dudes well known for their white nationalist leanings. Should we blame staff lackeys for not vetting enough? LOL. More realistic to think they were hired for that very reason.

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT