hulla-balloo.com
the network of free thinkers



index



features



articles



about



contact


6985







subculture.com
George W. Bush and the Fourth Reich

Written by Jeremy Hammond on Tuesday, 8/13/2002

During these troubling times, it may be hard for some people to believe that their government is guilty of any wrong-doing. People may say that now is not a time to criticize the government during this 'state of war', that questioning the goverment is unpatriotic. If you believe that, then you are doing exactly what they want you to do. Trust the government, don't think, just follow, keep waving miniature American flags and repeat, "God bless America!"

Time to wake up, America.

Once you wake up from their fake reality, that false world, the world without thought, you can see what is actually happening. George W. Bush has pulled quite the trick. Brainwashing the nation. It's not difficult to put together the rather obvious pieces once you look at them with free eyes.

George W. Bush first came to power in the year 2000 election by receiving less votes then the loser did. Through a manipulation of the legal system, he was declared the victor. There were a number of voting irregularities reported, and I'm not talking about hanging chads. In 1933, Hitler and the Nazis did not have a majority of Germany supporting the party, but still Hitler managed to come to power through irregular methods.

On September 11 2001, several airplanes were hijacked and flown into both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Bush immediately blamed the Al-Queda terrorist organization for the strikes without providing any hard evidence and declared a "war on terrorism". He used this to "temporarily" halt civil liberties and draw more power to the executive branch. Almost magically, Bush's approval rating soared screamingly high. There were many reports that the Bush administration knew well in advance of the terrorist attack, but used it to fuel his war machine and to justify his dictatorship.

In 1933, the Reichstag(Germany's congress), was burned down. Hitler blamed a man named Marinus van der Lubbe, claiming that it was the start of a communist takeover. Hitler used this as justification to manipulate the constitution to grant himself dictator powers, and he begun to attack civil liberties. Surprisingly, his approval rating also soared high. Many people believed that Hitler hired his own men to burn down the congress, but it was later proven that the accused Marinus van der Lubbe acted alone with the congress burning, but Hitler created the communist conspiracy story to help sway the public into thinking that it was a national emergency.

Soon after September 11th, the Bush administration begun rounding thousands with names similar to the 9/11 hijackers, arabic immigrants, and other 'suspicious' people. They are being detained without being accused of a crime and without probable cause. Many were harsly interrogated and several were tortured. Their rights have been completely thrown out the window. The government said that it was in the interest of national security, that these people may be a threat to our country. And that's all they said. The government is refusing to disclose any information about their doings, saying that doing would comprimise the effectiveness on their war on terrorism.

Bush also says that are be holding secret military tribunals as opposed to conventional trials. No information about any of these trials will be released, meaning that they can get away with anything, including convicting innocent people without any evidence, or violating the accused's liberties. They can silently dispose of all the enemies of their system and no one will be the wiser.

Bush used propaganda methods to sway the public into supporting his idea to invade Afghanistan, calling it an enemy of the nation and claimed that it was linked to the terrorist attack. Bush is also accusing several nations, including Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Cuba, of sponsoring terrorism. He claimed that the United States had the right to launch pre-emptive strikes agaisnt other nations, and that the war on terrorism shouldn't be limited to just terrorists but also entire nations. And the Bush administration has been openly saying that they plan to go to war with Iraq for months now, claiming that they are secretly building weapons of mass destruction(something that we participate in on a regular basis).

Hitler used propaganda to sway the public into supporting his idea to invade Poland and other countries. Through newspapers and other media, he created the impression that these countries were threats to Germany and that it was neccesary to invade. These countries never provoked Germany in any way.

The Bush Administration created a secret government that would operate 'in case of emergency'. They also created Operation TIPS, which is an organization that recuits Americans to spy on each other and report suspicious and unamerican activity. Much like the secret police Hitler used to keep his population in control.

How much farther will the Bush administration go before people start saying "No more!" Should we wait until he commits even more horrible travesties? How many more countries do we have to crush? How many innocent people have to die before we stop the madness?

Remember, the people in Germany thought that the government was doing good also. They thought that it was Germany's right to defend itself from outside threats. They thought that Germany was the best country in the world, and it had the right to police the globe and expand it's borders. They unquestioningly trusted and praised the government.

Exactly like we do.


article discussion



posted by Cheeses Crust on Wednesday, 8/14/2002:

This isn't anything new, if anything too much credit is being given to Bush for creating the fourth reich. Suspending individual rights in "times of war" is nothing new, look at Vietnam.

As for Bush blaming the Al Qaeda immediatley following the attacks compared to the Reichstag fire, it just furthers the impression that our leaders are that much better than we are. If thhey "guessed" right on that, who's to say they aren't wrong on other issues.

As for Hitler and his cronies, he did not claim Poland as a threat. He wanted the Polish Corridor which had the important port, Danzig or Gdansk or whatever the hell it is, to connect Germany and Prussia. He also wanted the German speaking part of Poland that was directly east of Germany. This wasn't anything new to the allied countries. Hitler's popularity fell significantly as the end of the war drew near. They only reason Germans kept fighting for him was to defend their homes from the Reds and Limeys.

Let's not forget Hitler got Germany out of its depression before the war, which is the opposite of what Dubya's done. I'm sure you could find similarities between anyone regarded as a tyrant. Next we maybe hearing how Bush will plan ethnic cleansing to get rid of Arabs, like Pol Pot and Year Zero.


posted by (anonymous) on Friday, 8/16/2002:

Bush is the country's spokesperson, he doesn't have the power that Hitler had, nice try, but no cigar...


posted by someguy on Friday, 8/16/2002:

i'm gay


posted by jason santos on Sunday, 8/25/2002:

well if we are all coming out of the closet i would like to admit im gay as well


posted by mr barbecue on Sunday, 8/25/2002:

the thing with iraq was that we were supposed to be able to monitor their factories and make sure that they didnt make any weapons of mass distruction the only buildings that the weapon inspectors couldnt go in were sadams personal palaces and whenever a weapon inspector was about to go in a wherehouse sadam would magically make it a palace and all of the cameras that were placed in the factories somehow were all destroyed once the weapon inspectors left. hmmmm. . . does this sound suspicous bush for one had enough so he was going to do something about it and what happens once bush wants to fite sadam is willing to let the weapon inspectors back into iraq i think taking sadam out of power is a pretty damn good idea besides u dont see bush poisoning thousands of his own people and using chemical weapons on them


posted by Jeremy Hammond on Sunday, 8/25/2002:

Why are we allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, while we're willing to invade other countries because we think that they're also developing them?

Maybe they're just snubbing us cause we're acting like global policemen. Maybe they're developing weapons to fight us because maybe we're the bad guys here. Maybe they're doing nothing at all.

Also, Iraq has been offering to allow UN weapon inspectors in - but we're rejecting thier offer because they want us to tell them the specifics of their search procedures(which is reasonable because if you grant inspectors access to everything, that's nothing short then espionoge). Want sources? https://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=Y20W2IBNXQ0KKCRBAEKSFEY?type=politicsnews&StoryID;=1347828, https://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/world/3931091.htm, https://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=224474⟨=e&dir;=news


posted by Jeremy Hammond on Sunday, 8/25/2002:

Also, I would like to see some proof about the following statements:

"... whenever a weapon inspector was about to go in a wherehouse sadam would magically make it a palace and all of the cameras that were placed in the factories somehow were all destroyed once the weapon inspectors left"

"[Iraq] poisoning thousands of his own people and using chemical weapons on them"


posted by Cheese Crust on Sunday, 8/25/2002:

US intervetion in foreign affairs has always been decisive, excluding Vietnam. Not only that, we've given billions of dollars and tons of food/medicine/weapons to many other countries, including Iraq.

Since world war 2, the world has needed our assistance, and we've given it to them. Now we seem to be demanding that countries ask for our assistance.

Logicical reasoning and fairness don't work when something like nuclear war is on the line. You have bombs, but you don't want your enemies to have bombs, simple right? You don't win fights by making things even. Sure it's chivalrous, but smart?

Over the past few years, up until 9/11, we've been lacking in our weapon inspections of Iraq. It is a fact that Hussein used chemical weapons on a small border town in Iraq before Desert Storm. Nobody may be right, excpet in their own mind, but if we didn't enforce certain things as right, we'd be sitting here and circle jerkin' all the time.


posted by mr barbecue on Sunday, 8/25/2002:

thank you cheeses


posted by santos on Wednesday, 8/28/2002:

whoever posted that remark about me must really be talking about themselves. psychologists call this transference. it occurs when someone transfers their problems to another person. additionally, all will notice that i do not sign my name “jason santos,” but just “santos.” rest assured my dubious friend, the hulla-balloo community will accept you for your sexual preference.


posted by santos on Wednesday, 8/28/2002:

haha just kidding my hulla-balloo compadres. i thought i could trick you but obviously i can't hide the fact that i am gay i mean come on.


posted by prit on Saturday, 9/7/2002:

i think bush should be the next mr.Rogers because he likes to juice every thing up


posted by shit head on Saturday, 9/7/2002:

im nick and i like to such robs dick


posted by DREAM EVIL on Sunday, 9/8/2002:

I think Bush should attack Iraq because its gonna be like september 11 again were gonna get attacked while were sitting on our ass. We should attack them before they get the chance to go for us. And i must say that Bush is a better president then Clinton because Clinton let 7 bombings occur which led terrorists thinking thats its ok to attack america because they wont do shit. so i blame it all on clinton


posted by bob on Tuesday, 10/1/2002:

Hey there dream evil. It must be nice to live in such a simple world. First of all do yourself a favor and do a search for "Project For The New American Century." They've been plannning this attack on Iraq before Bush ever was elected. Some would argue that he wasn't really elected, and if that's true, so much for future elections, but that's another story. Your all for blowing up Iraq are you? Well let me tell you that is exactly what these terrorist would like. When the war strarts, and beleive me, you'll get your wish, we will see more terorist activity in the U.S. and an even greater loss of our freedom. I'm not writeing this for you, because I'm sure you don't have a clue, but I write for the people out there that have eyes to see and ears to hear. By the way, also do a search for General Smedley Butler if you wan to find out about war.


posted by Rodney Anonymous on Tuesday, 10/15/2002:

Look, I’m all for hiring the retarded, but is President really the job for them. George W. Bush’s administration gave 43 Million Dollars to the Taliban. Think about that.

Since we’ve failed to find bin Laden’s body, we must now invade Iraq. Young men (as well as many women and children) will die so that we can take out Saddam Hussein (Whom we placed in power, by the way). And why? Because, as George W. said, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." It’s an old fashion Hillbilly feud! Is American foreign policy now based on the fuckin’ Dukes of Hazzard?

And before any of you Democrats say “Yeah, you tell ‘em” I want you to know that I see no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans (I’m a Green). I really loved it when the Democratic and the Republican congressman got together to show their support for keeping “under God” in the pledge. Bunch of fucktards.



posted by Matt on Monday, 10/21/2002:

Bush didn't manipulate the legal system he was elected because the electoral college is in place. In my opinion the electoral college is not needed in these modern times, and was meant for when there was virtually no mass media so people wouldn't be voting blindly. And anyway, im not a huge supporter of Bush... or Gore for that matter, but bush won becase the electoral college, and i think that is really stupid that people blame bush for his or say he stole the election. I have no problem with believing bush stole the election, but not because he got less votes, because thats just how our electoral system works, presidents are elected by the electoral college.


posted by Matt on Monday, 10/21/2002:

Hey DREAM EVIL do me a favor and don't talk politics of you don't know what the hell you are talking about ok? Do a little fuckin research before you go blaming all of americas problem abroad on clinton. Thanks


posted by malcolmmasher on Sunday, 10/27/2002:

I have to agree with Matt here. Bush was not democratically elected... but he WAS elected according to the laws of the United States, which happen to include the Electoral College. We aren't a democracy. We're a "democratic republic" (democracy being... tricky... for large groups). That means your vote only counts "secondhand", as you elect senators and representatives and they pass laws.


posted by MagnaUnum on Tuesday, 11/5/2002:

Your ridiculous conspiracy theory nauseates me, xecsy. I thought better of you.


posted by bjv on Wednesday, 4/9/2003:




posted by Jackasses on Wednesday, 4/9/2003:

So this is what you fags do when your not out wearing pink?


join the discussion

allowed html tags: <B>, <I>, <U>, <A>. line breaks are converted to <BR> automatically.

name:


email:


comments:


users online: 4 guest users.

(C) 2002 Jeremy Hammond