Earlier this week, U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison likened the U.S. government's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks to what the German government did after the Reichstag building went up in flames in 1933.
After the Reichstag Fire in 1933, Germany's leader, Adolf Hitler, "had the authority to do whatever he wanted" and the expansion of government powers after 9/11 "kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told his audience. Ellison had a point: in both circumstances, legislation had been passed restricting individual freedoms; habeas corpus had been suspended and the ruling elite had increased their power to act against domestic subversion. Nevertheless, it was not long before the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was demanding that the Congressman apologize for his statements.
The ADL is an organization that likes to monitor anything and everything that is said about Nazi Germany, World War II, Hitler, the Holocaust, Jews, Israel, Zionism, the Middle Eastern Conflict and similar subjects. The organization also wants its views to be maintained by people of authority and credibility. Consequently, if there is a discrepancy in the way the ADL and those with authority and credibility perceive things, the ADL will first ask for an apology from the person with authority and credibility and, if that does not work, challenge that same person's authority and credibility. The goal is absolute control of both influential personalities and, through them, the public's exposure to opinion.
At first, I was confused as to why the ADL would go after Ellison; after all, the Congressman's speech had been just as critical of the response to the Reichstag Fire as the events following 9/11. Then it hit me: the anti-terror legislation after 9/11 expands the power of a regime that has the same friends as the ADL and the same views as the ADL on just about everything. With this in mind, one can begin to understand why the ADL reacted to Ellison's statement. After all, who wants what one's friends are doing to be compared to something the Nazis had done, especially when you are the ADL and you work around the clock portraying things like the Nazi consolidation of power as the epitome of evil?
On its website, the ADL claims that it is interested in "securing justice and freedom for all," which has a nice American ring to it. In truth, the ADL only cares about its power and ideological supremacy. Of course, the organization tries to mask this; that is why, in his reaction to Ellison's comment, the national director of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, played himself up to be a true American patriot. Foxman called Ellison's comparison "outrageous and offensive to all Americans" - as if the ADL leader was somehow qualified to decide that on every other American's behalf. Foxman's statement also included commentary about the "brave men and women in America" and the victims of 9/11 that even Alan Jackson would find superfluous. Foxman might as well have wrapped himself in the stars and stripes of Old Glory while he made his comments, just in case the public had any doubts as to what he hoped to convey.
There is probably a second, equally-logical explanation as to why the ADL targeted Ellison. This became apparent as soon as Foxman said that Ellison's comments demonstrated "a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and the Nazi regime perpetrated." In other words, even though Ellison was criticizing the political maneuvers which had followed the Reichstag Fire, the last thing the ADL wanted was for Ellison's comparison to be heard by Bush supporters, because it might occur to Bush's supporters that, if the Administration's reaction to 9/11 made sense in their view, then perhaps Germany's response to the Reichstag Fire was an equally justifiable and logical response to terrorism. And, indeed, the ADL has something to cover up in this respect because, contrary to popular understanding, the Reichstag Fire occurred at a time in Germany when the country's militant, radical communist bloc was likely to become insurgent and violent due to its failure to take power democratically as Hitler had managed to (for more on that topic, click here)
Of course, it is unlikely that Ellison thought about any of this; in fact, the Congressman was probably just hoping to get people to oppose Bush and the espionage of the Patriot Act because it could be compared to something the Nazis did and, via a little fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerum, look like the most evil and tyrannous thing ever because the Nazis are seen as the most evil tyrant ever. Ironically, if the Bush regime were really like the Nazi German regime - as Ellison and the Democratic Party would like you to believe - then Ellison, a non-German Muslim liberal democrat, would have lost his post long ago. Instead, he lives in a country with few restrictions regarding who can settle and serve in office and, ironically, this is the core reason why there has to be a debate over whether it is okay to spy on those in this country whose identities and interests link them to other countries or foreign-funded jihads. As a multicultural liberal democracy, the U.S. cannot confront terrorism by rooting out Muslims, as it goes against the tenets of a multicultural liberal democracy. Thus, it is likely that we will see more and more of the Orwellian surveillance state, where the prying eyes of a non-discriminatory government monitor everything and everyone equally, without discrimination. The ADL would do well as the watchdog in such a world; after all, the organization already makes everybody's business its own business. I guess we will have to wait to see what happens.
After the Reichstag Fire in 1933, Germany's leader, Adolf Hitler, "had the authority to do whatever he wanted" and the expansion of government powers after 9/11 "kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told his audience. Ellison had a point: in both circumstances, legislation had been passed restricting individual freedoms; habeas corpus had been suspended and the ruling elite had increased their power to act against domestic subversion. Nevertheless, it was not long before the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was demanding that the Congressman apologize for his statements.
The ADL is an organization that likes to monitor anything and everything that is said about Nazi Germany, World War II, Hitler, the Holocaust, Jews, Israel, Zionism, the Middle Eastern Conflict and similar subjects. The organization also wants its views to be maintained by people of authority and credibility. Consequently, if there is a discrepancy in the way the ADL and those with authority and credibility perceive things, the ADL will first ask for an apology from the person with authority and credibility and, if that does not work, challenge that same person's authority and credibility. The goal is absolute control of both influential personalities and, through them, the public's exposure to opinion.
At first, I was confused as to why the ADL would go after Ellison; after all, the Congressman's speech had been just as critical of the response to the Reichstag Fire as the events following 9/11. Then it hit me: the anti-terror legislation after 9/11 expands the power of a regime that has the same friends as the ADL and the same views as the ADL on just about everything. With this in mind, one can begin to understand why the ADL reacted to Ellison's statement. After all, who wants what one's friends are doing to be compared to something the Nazis had done, especially when you are the ADL and you work around the clock portraying things like the Nazi consolidation of power as the epitome of evil?
On its website, the ADL claims that it is interested in "securing justice and freedom for all," which has a nice American ring to it. In truth, the ADL only cares about its power and ideological supremacy. Of course, the organization tries to mask this; that is why, in his reaction to Ellison's comment, the national director of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, played himself up to be a true American patriot. Foxman called Ellison's comparison "outrageous and offensive to all Americans" - as if the ADL leader was somehow qualified to decide that on every other American's behalf. Foxman's statement also included commentary about the "brave men and women in America" and the victims of 9/11 that even Alan Jackson would find superfluous. Foxman might as well have wrapped himself in the stars and stripes of Old Glory while he made his comments, just in case the public had any doubts as to what he hoped to convey.
There is probably a second, equally-logical explanation as to why the ADL targeted Ellison. This became apparent as soon as Foxman said that Ellison's comments demonstrated "a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and the Nazi regime perpetrated." In other words, even though Ellison was criticizing the political maneuvers which had followed the Reichstag Fire, the last thing the ADL wanted was for Ellison's comparison to be heard by Bush supporters, because it might occur to Bush's supporters that, if the Administration's reaction to 9/11 made sense in their view, then perhaps Germany's response to the Reichstag Fire was an equally justifiable and logical response to terrorism. And, indeed, the ADL has something to cover up in this respect because, contrary to popular understanding, the Reichstag Fire occurred at a time in Germany when the country's militant, radical communist bloc was likely to become insurgent and violent due to its failure to take power democratically as Hitler had managed to (for more on that topic, click here)Of course, it is unlikely that Ellison thought about any of this; in fact, the Congressman was probably just hoping to get people to oppose Bush and the espionage of the Patriot Act because it could be compared to something the Nazis did and, via a little fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerum, look like the most evil and tyrannous thing ever because the Nazis are seen as the most evil tyrant ever. Ironically, if the Bush regime were really like the Nazi German regime - as Ellison and the Democratic Party would like you to believe - then Ellison, a non-German Muslim liberal democrat, would have lost his post long ago. Instead, he lives in a country with few restrictions regarding who can settle and serve in office and, ironically, this is the core reason why there has to be a debate over whether it is okay to spy on those in this country whose identities and interests link them to other countries or foreign-funded jihads. As a multicultural liberal democracy, the U.S. cannot confront terrorism by rooting out Muslims, as it goes against the tenets of a multicultural liberal democracy. Thus, it is likely that we will see more and more of the Orwellian surveillance state, where the prying eyes of a non-discriminatory government monitor everything and everyone equally, without discrimination. The ADL would do well as the watchdog in such a world; after all, the organization already makes everybody's business its own business. I guess we will have to wait to see what happens.
