Posted on 01/25/2008 3:41:35 AM PST by forkinsocket
Adolf Hitler was evil and perhaps a madman. But throughout history, there have been many evil madmen in many corners of the Earth. Few have attracted millions of passionate followers; fewer still have conquered Europe and committed genocide. So what made Hitler different and — for a time — effective?
Start with this short list: He understood propaganda, the dynamics of public-opinion formation, what it takes to persuade; He comprehended the mechanics of mass movements, how to harness the dark desires of restive crowds; And there was nothing — no matter how vile or inhuman — he would not do to achieve his ends.
This is not a matter for historians and political philosophers alone. Today, once again, free peoples have enemies who know how to manipulate words, images, and ideas, who are organizing mass movements, and who are utterly ruthless. They are openly intent on conquest and genocide. We deny the parallels at our peril.
In a recent column, I noted that in 1933 many in Britain were adamant that they would not fight a war — not even to defend themselves against Hitler’s fanaticism. A friendly critic pointed out that the memory of World War I was then still fresh. Hardly anyone in Britain was untouched by the carnage.
True, but that fails to account for this fact: More than twice as many Germans as British were killed in the conflict. So why did so many in Britain conclude that War Is Not the Answer (as the bumper sticker on many Volvos these days has it) while so many Germans — and Italians and Austrians who also lost significant numbers — were positively eager to use violence to get what they wanted?
If you agree that Hitler’s ability to nurse grievances and stoke ambitions played a decisive role, consider this: Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah, and other militant jihadists are doing exactly the same today.
Alexander Ritzmann, a former member of the Berlin State Parliament and now a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, points out that it requires a “strong narrative” to recruit members to a radical cause. The Islamists stress that Islam “was once a winner’s religion.” The Muslims began as a small group in 6th Century Arabia, yet within a few generations they ruled a territory that stretched from Spain to India. By the year 1,000, Islam was on top by all measures: health, wealth, literacy, culture, power. What went wrong?
To Islamists, it is an article of faith — literally — that Muslims lost ground because they strayed from the road of righteousness, the path trod by the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. They allowed themselves to be seduced and corrupted by the West and its vices — materialism, individualism, and lasciviousness among them.
Also, as Hitler railed against the “victimization” of the Germans by Jews and other “foreigners,” so Islamists insist that the world’s Muslims are under assault by Jews, Christians, and other “infidels.” To “defend” themselves, no acts — no matter how vile and inhuman — are forbidden. Hitler would have approved. “Terrorism,” he once said, “is the best political weapon.” With uncanny prescience, he said too: “Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.”
Hitler preached that Germans and Aryans were a master race, born to rule over others. Militant Islamism is similarly supremacist.
But Islamists offer one incentive Hitler could not: the afterlife. Those who fight and die for Islam become shaheeds — martyrs entitled to a seat next to Allah and 72 virgins. (Female martyrs spend eternity with the man of their dreams). Forty more seats in paradise are reserved for friends and family.
The 20th century’s greatest analyst of mass movements was Eric Hoffer, a self-educated longshoreman who wrote ten books and won a Presidential Medal of Freedom. In The True Believer, published in 1951, he wrote: “Though there are obvious differences between the fanatical Christian, the fanatical Mohammedan, the fanatical nationalist, the fanatical Communist and the fanatical Nazi, it is yet true that the fanaticism which animates them may be viewed and treated as one. The same is true of the force which drives them on to expansion and world domination.”
He wrote as well: “The practice of terror serves the true believer not only to cow and crush his opponents but also to invigorate and intensify his own faith.” Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, and others of their ilk may be evil and perhaps they are mad. But it is a serious mistake to underestimate them, as so many of us do.
Those who fight and die for Islam become shaheeds — martyrs entitled to a seat next to Allah and 72 virgins. (Female martyrs spend eternity with the man of their dreams). Forty more seats in paradise are reserved for friends and family.But what if the "man of her dreams" is also a martyr and wants his 72 virgins?
It's a recipe for big feuding up there in ShaheedHeaven come Judgement Day, especially with those 40 reserved seats on each side joining in the Hatfield-McCoy fray! And don't forget, the 40 reservists all have their own men-of-dreams and need-for-72-virgins too!
I don't think it will be long until the feuding breaks down to strapping on the suicide belts and blowing up the in-laws, which leaves the question, if a martyr martyrs himself in heaven, where does he go and how many more virgins are awaiting him at his next stop?
The article is spot on.
Unfortunately, there are a great many in the West who steadfastly refuse to see what is right before their eyes, and they will fall prey to the murderous determination of the mohammedans. The West is in for a blood bath, and so many within her are, for all practical purposes, already defeated and dead.
I will not be one of them.
He forgot to add Global Warming Enviro-wackos to that list. All have the same goal, control and power.
Hillary believers should be in here as well...
Christians don't belong on that list at all. The closest thing to a "fanatical Christian" would be someone like Mother Theresa. Evil has been done in the name of Christianity, esp. by govt.-affiliated established churches, but nothing in the New Testament justifies the violence and conquest seen in all the other movements listed by Hoffer, which is an inevitable consequence of their "scriptures" (Koran, Mein Kampf, etc.)
Yet some will argue that the Nazis were a Christian regime, when there’s ample and easily accessible evidence of their Nordic occult beliefs.
Every night, before my prayers, I look under by bed for islamo-fascists.
I'd pick the 'God hates Gays' folks. Mother Theresa?
Hitler had passion and consistancy of message, but wrongly placed.
And those who simply believe... Inagine no religion, it’s easy if you try.
“I’d pick the ‘God hates Gays’ folks.”
Good example.
All the other belief systems Hoffer listed have written "scriptures" which explicitly call for persecuting or killing certain groups: Jews, "the bourgeoisie," "infidels," etc. The difference is not one of style, it is absolutely grounded in the belief system itself.
I'd pick the guy who was teaching the Sunday School class I was attending at "a large Presbyterian church in Tulsa, OK" who invited me out to breakfast so he could get some information out of me, and then went on a gossip jihad to people I was doing business with at the time.
ping for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.