Which is exactly the point. Hitler comparisons are always deliberately inflammatory. They are designed to provoke a negative response and to make someone both take notice of what you've have said, and to then try to demonise you for having the balls to make the comparison. A Hitler comparison is in itself a method of propaganda fire-fighting, particularly effective when used sparingly. Because, even though it's "not nice to say" it's often hitting very close to the mark, and people who usually take umbrage to that comparison know it is close enough to the truth. Hitler comparisons are not used to marginalise or trivialise what Hitler did in the early 20th century; they are certainly not meant to offend Jews or anyone who fought against Hitler and his armies. They are merely meant as a warning that if we continue moving forward in this direction, we are treading down a well-known, well-worn and absolutely dangerous path of hatred. The results of which will be disastrous. History often repeats itself, sadly.
Hitler was also a reformed ex-smoker, and tried very hard to demonise smokers to curb their habits. Ultimately he failed, but some of the tactics he used back then are still in use today, and only slightly modified for modern times and opinions. I view tobacco control tactics as fascist -- a boot-in-the-face totalitarian stomp on civil liberties, freedom, free expression and to happiness.
I don't expect anyone to agree with my views. I don't expect anyone to like my views. I certainly do not expect anyone to endorse my views. My views are mine. What I do is no reflection on anyone else but me. Anyone who would try to demonise others for things I've said is a giant-ass motherfucking hateful cuntscab. I'm just sayin', is all.
I've already discussed the whole Nazi thing here. Frank Davis also has additional commentary here.
 |
| Image via here and here |
