"When this essay comparing Hitler's rise to power with Bush, and the tactics of the present GOP with the 1930s Nazis and Stalin's communist regime was first published in July, 2001, I was the recipient of a flood of hate mail and even a couple of death threats from militant rightwingers. But the comparison hit home: the article has been been circulating all over the world, reprinted in at least five languages. Unlike the lame, even bizarre comparisons rightwingers try to make between Clinton, Dean, et al. and Hitler, the similarity between Bush's regime and the rise of the Nazis is REAL and undeniable and has evoked a shock of recognition in readers - a chilling deja vu - that has been steadily growing.
(original title)CHILLING DEJA VU: Hitler and Bush; Stalin and Bush’s Conservative Reform Movement; The GOP of 1936 and Today’s Dirty Politics
By Cheryl Seal
This article first appeared in Democrats.com in July, 2001,
http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=3524
Part 1: BUSH AND HITLER: Is History Repeating Itself?
No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about everything he had even undertaken until he discovered politics. In the world of spin and power plays, a superficial gift of gab and bullish determination could replace intelligence and idealism without missing a beat. Hitler found that the path to the top was short: Just tell a discontent people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention to keep.
In Hitler’s first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, he pledged [this is a direct quote from that address] “to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation” and invoked God’s blessing on the German government. (Hitler was a fervent Christian until his egomania superceded faith in a “higher power” - a fact too many have either forgotten or never knew, thanks to sanitized school history books). But, the Fuhrer soon proved he had no intention of being a uniter. The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had been “down with the liberals!” Once in office, Hitler made “liberals” (a mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to Hitler’s model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.
As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: “The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary]”. In addition, he noted, “Radio and press are at our disposal.”
Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an “enemy of the state.” Contrary to popular belief, the first “enemy” Hitler formally targeted was not the Jews but the Communist Party. Why? Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime. Hitler was thus the first to invoke the spectre of “the Red Menace.” He intentionally sought to provoke party activists to violent protest so, under his new aggressive laws suppressing public dissent; he could round them up and arrest them. Aware of this ploy, the Communists laid fairly low for a time, believing that Hitler was merely a puppet of reactionaries and his regime would not last.
But the Fuhrer, becoming progressively more drunk with his new power, was not so easily thwarted. To facilitate his demonization of the “Reds,” he sent provocateurs to orchestrate a staged act of “terrorism.” Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der Lubbe, who was implicated in (i.e. framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag (the equivalent of the Congressional building).
This incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed for “cracking down” on “enemies of the state.” He rallied the Germans against the “terrorists” and passed the odious “Enabling Acts,” in which the government was granted the right to bypass any due process for “suspects.” One human right after the other was revoked: the Jews were stripped of all rights, trade unions were broken, and rival parties were made illegal. In addition, Hitler began to isolate Germany from the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations.
From the start, Hitler courted the conservative Christian clergy. To their shame, historically, many clergymen became his closest allies and most effective tools, as propagandists, spies, and suppressors of dissent. The clergy’s most important role in the beginning, was to fuel anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism. Jews, according to Hitler, were “the source of every ill that had befallen Germany and of every continuing threat.” [Substitute the word “liberal” and you have the new GOP’s main party philosophy]. Historian John Weis pointed out that “Hitler inspired only those who shared his anger.”
Hitler made public dissent first all but impossible, then illegal. At first, whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall. Hitler also made sure that the media did not give provide the public with any coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was “encouraging of destructive elements.” [Recently when I asked a reporter at the Associated Press why protests are not being covered, he said reporters are instructed not to because to do so “would be encouraging of destructive displays.”]. So, what the media faithfully recorded was Hitler and Hitler supporters. To see an old German newsreel, you’d never guess there were plenty of dissenters around - at least until they were all shot or sent to concentration camps.
Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families; he especially liked being photographed with school children. At the same time, Hitler actively promoted “family values” and high moral standards. He believed women should go back to being at home with their families and not in the work force. He also believed there should be little or no separation between the state and his brand of Christianity, especially since he firmly believed that the emotional fervor of religion could be used to effectively to promote the state’s objectives.
Under Hitler, worker protections were dismantled, one by one. Soon workers were laboring for longer hours for less pay. Worse yet, all trade unions had been smashed, so there was no recourse. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats were not organized and did not offer a solid front for opposing Hitler and his initiatives. Soon, they found themselves overwhelmed by a highly organized, aggressive and fanatically single-minded army of Nazi Party appointees who did whatever Hitler told them to do without questioning. Here we end the story, because we all know what happens next: the Holocaust and World War II.
Part 2: STALIN AND BUSH’S CONSERVATIVE REFORM MOVEMENT: A Pattern of Despotism?
Joseph Stalin was successful in seizing and retaining power primarily because he was able to stack the Politburo with politicians as extreme as himself and to dictate their actions and their votes on every issue. Party dissenters were harassed mercilessly by the Politburo members who remained blindly loyal to Stalin. With a block of supporters who did not think for themselves, Stalin was able to completely reverse Russia’s policy on a number of key issues, right across the board. For example, in 1936, he completely reversed the liberal communist doctrines pertaining to family, divorce, and abortion. He made divorce difficult, made abortion illegal, and stressed “family values” [do we see a ‘dictator pattern’ here?].
Stalin’s propagandists used a three-point strategy to convince the Russian people that things in Stalin’s policy that were in fact extremely bad for the country (including the systematic round up and extermination of all “enemies of the state”) were in fact “good.”
Point One: Create arguments that how the negative thing is actually NOT bad, but is actually good. [Present day ex: convincing people that greenhouse gases will give us lush green plants, not fry the planet].
Point Two: Show how the negative thing is actually not true. [Present-day ex: Global warming does not exist].
Point Three: Show that the negative thing is actually being caused by “enemies of the state” - most likely liberals. [Present-day example: We can’t sign Kyoto because it is really a plot to ruin our economy].
Part 3: THE GOP OF 1936 AND TODAY’S DIRTY POLITICS: How the Former Gave Birth to the Latter
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., FDR was attempting to guide the nation safely through the depression. The outrageous treatment of American workers throughout the industrial era up until that point by the corporate “bosses” had become a major issue. Men and women worked 12-14 hours a day, had no unemployment benefits, no health insurance, no safety regulations - no job security whatsoever. In response to this sorry state of affairs, labor unions were forming, but they were being met with brutal resistance by the Bosses and their henchmen. Because FDR championed the worker’s cause and called for all manner of reforms - including the social security system - he was identified as “the enemy” of the bosses. The Republican Party, the attack dog of big business even then, was turned loose on the President with a vengeance. His every step was “dogged.”
Just as corporate America saw FDR as an enemy, many of them, including IBM and G.W. Bush’s grandfather, saw in Hitler a friend and treated this vicious genocidal maniac with far more respect and deference than they did FDR. The GOP was to learn many of its nastiest tactics from Hitler and Goebbels, including using communism as a scapegoat/enemy of the state to consolidate power just as soon as they had a Republican back in the White House (Eisenhower in 1952).
Another Hitler tactic learned by the GOP was the use of the smear. Hitler advised telling a damaging lie about an “enemy,” then repeating it over and over, no matter what proof may be offered to counter it.
The GOP poured an unprecedented amount of money into the 1936 campaign of their candidate Alf Landon. The party launched what was then dubbed the “nationwide selling campaign strategy.” To do this, observed political writer Ralph D. Casey in 1937, the party was showered with the money and vigilant efforts of “a small but determined group of businessmen.” Casey says the campaign was designed to be “an intensive, subtle, highly-organized salesmanship drive to ‘unsell’ President Roosevelt and to ‘sell’ Governor Landon and his highly-advertised common sense.” [You have to hand it to the GOP for single-mindedness: they’re still using the same buzzwords - “common sense,” et al. - after 65 years!].
The GOP “sales team” identified several key points of attack, which they have used with almost no variation in every campaign since, whether appropriate or not.
- Accuse opposition of overspending
- accuse opposition of supporting “big government”
- Identify a bogeyman - usually the communists and/or liberals [wonder who they learned that from?], although they have gotten a bit creative and now include environmentalists, anti-gun folks, and scientists on their list of “enemies of freedom”
- condemn New Deal (i.e., government social programs) as communistic or in some other way “unAmerican”
-Manipulate statistics to own advantage
- Accuse opposition of waging a class war.
Day in, day out, the GOP attacked FDR, throwing suspicions on everything he did, and said, and on everyone he had ever known. His family dog was not even exempt from political attacks! FDR had nothing but contempt for this self-righteous underhandedness. He denounced the GOP as a pack of “economic royalists” who used the flag and constitution as smokescreens. “I welcome their hatred,” he proclaimed.
It was the GOP that started the bane of our current system: paid political ads. In the 1930s, these were called “radio spots.” It was in the ugly election of 1936 that the first conservative “talk show” was set up. These programs were created expressly as outlets for GOP propaganda. “No political party has ever excelled the businesslike effectiveness of the Republicans in the distribution of their party propaganda,” observes Casey.
In the 1936 election, farmers and ranchers were courted by Republicans who shamelessly praised them for their “All-Americanism” a “rugged individualism.” At the same time, of course, the same Republicans were supporting the right of bankers to foreclose on farms and ranches and opposing efforts to provide farm relief. Even the usually non-politically-oriented “Variety” magazine condemned the ruthless GOP campaign machine. “Political parties are being reduced to merchandize which can be exchanged for votes in accordance with a well-conceived marketing plan, taking stock of income levels, race, local problems, exactly as does a commercial sponsor. This differs not one whit from the tactics employed by any corporation.”
To their credit, Americans in the 1930s were not as easily swayed by propaganda as they apparently are today. They were grateful to FDR for having placed the interests of the common man first and corporations second, for taking steps to make life less stressful and uncertain through the construction of safety nets such as relief and social security. In the end, despite the estimated over 170 million press releases spit out by the GOP and the countless millions it spent, the party could not buy its way into the White House. . Instead, FDR was given an earned vote of confidence by the American people to whom he devoted the last decade of his life. Landon lost big time, winning just two states (Maine and Vermont, which are both making up for this lapse today). Three days before he was elected, FDR said, “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I would like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces have met their master.”
How I wish he had been right.
Selected Bibliography
Special thanks to Loyola College in Baltimore, which makes JSTOR (the Journal Storage project initiated by the Mellon Foundation) available to the public.
“The 1936 Republican Campaign,” Ralph D. Casey; 1937, “Public Opinion Quarterly”
Essay by Charles W. Smith, Jr. “Journal of Politics,” August 1939
“Public Opinion Inside the USSR,” by anonymous U.S. government official, spring 1947 issue of “Public Opinion Quarterly”
“Future of Psychological Warfare,” Hans Spiel, spring 1948 issue, “Public Opinion Quarterly”
“The Ideology of Death,” John Weiss, 1996
“Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1996
”The American Pageant” by Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy (the BEST U.S. History book ever produced!)
By Cheryl Seal
This article first appeared in Democrats.com in July, 2001,
http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=3524 Part 1: BUSH AND HITLER: Is History Repeating Itself?
No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about everything he had even undertaken until he discovered politics. In the world of spin and power plays, a superficial gift of gab and bullish determination could replace intelligence and idealism without missing a beat. Hitler found that the path to the top was short: Just tell a discontent people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention to keep.
In Hitler’s first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, he pledged [this is a direct quote from that address] “to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation” and invoked God’s blessing on the German government. (Hitler was a fervent Christian until his egomania superceded faith in a “higher power” - a fact too many have either forgotten or never knew, thanks to sanitized school history books). But, the Fuhrer soon proved he had no intention of being a uniter. The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had been “down with the liberals!” Once in office, Hitler made “liberals” (a mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to Hitler’s model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.
As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His sidekick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: “The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary]”. In addition, he noted, “Radio and press are at our disposal.”
Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an “enemy of the state.” Contrary to popular belief, the first “enemy” Hitler formally targeted was not the Jews but the Communist Party. Why? Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime. Hitler was thus the first to invoke the spectre of “the Red Menace.” He intentionally sought to provoke party activists to violent protest so, under his new aggressive laws suppressing public dissent; he could round them up and arrest them. Aware of this ploy, the Communists laid fairly low for a time, believing that Hitler was merely a puppet of reactionaries and his regime would not last.
But the Fuhrer, becoming progressively more drunk with his new power, was not so easily thwarted. To facilitate his demonization of the “Reds,” he sent provocateurs to orchestrate a staged act of “terrorism.” Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der Lubbe, who was implicated in (i.e. framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag (the equivalent of the Congressional building).
This incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed for “cracking down” on “enemies of the state.” He rallied the Germans against the “terrorists” and passed the odious “Enabling Acts,” in which the government was granted the right to bypass any due process for “suspects.” One human right after the other was revoked: the Jews were stripped of all rights, trade unions were broken, and rival parties were made illegal. In addition, Hitler began to isolate Germany from the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations.
From the start, Hitler courted the conservative Christian clergy. To their shame, historically, many clergymen became his closest allies and most effective tools, as propagandists, spies, and suppressors of dissent. The clergy’s most important role in the beginning, was to fuel anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism. Jews, according to Hitler, were “the source of every ill that had befallen Germany and of every continuing threat.” [Substitute the word “liberal” and you have the new GOP’s main party philosophy]. Historian John Weis pointed out that “Hitler inspired only those who shared his anger.”
Hitler made public dissent first all but impossible, then illegal. At first, whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall. Hitler also made sure that the media did not give provide the public with any coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was “encouraging of destructive elements.” [Recently when I asked a reporter at the Associated Press why protests are not being covered, he said reporters are instructed not to because to do so “would be encouraging of destructive displays.”]. So, what the media faithfully recorded was Hitler and Hitler supporters. To see an old German newsreel, you’d never guess there were plenty of dissenters around - at least until they were all shot or sent to concentration camps.
Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families; he especially liked being photographed with school children. At the same time, Hitler actively promoted “family values” and high moral standards. He believed women should go back to being at home with their families and not in the work force. He also believed there should be little or no separation between the state and his brand of Christianity, especially since he firmly believed that the emotional fervor of religion could be used to effectively to promote the state’s objectives.
Under Hitler, worker protections were dismantled, one by one. Soon workers were laboring for longer hours for less pay. Worse yet, all trade unions had been smashed, so there was no recourse. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats were not organized and did not offer a solid front for opposing Hitler and his initiatives. Soon, they found themselves overwhelmed by a highly organized, aggressive and fanatically single-minded army of Nazi Party appointees who did whatever Hitler told them to do without questioning. Here we end the story, because we all know what happens next: the Holocaust and World War II.
Part 2: STALIN AND BUSH’S CONSERVATIVE REFORM MOVEMENT: A Pattern of Despotism?
Joseph Stalin was successful in seizing and retaining power primarily because he was able to stack the Politburo with politicians as extreme as himself and to dictate their actions and their votes on every issue. Party dissenters were harassed mercilessly by the Politburo members who remained blindly loyal to Stalin. With a block of supporters who did not think for themselves, Stalin was able to completely reverse Russia’s policy on a number of key issues, right across the board. For example, in 1936, he completely reversed the liberal communist doctrines pertaining to family, divorce, and abortion. He made divorce difficult, made abortion illegal, and stressed “family values” [do we see a ‘dictator pattern’ here?].
Stalin’s propagandists used a three-point strategy to convince the Russian people that things in Stalin’s policy that were in fact extremely bad for the country (including the systematic round up and extermination of all “enemies of the state”) were in fact “good.”
Point One: Create arguments that how the negative thing is actually NOT bad, but is actually good. [Present day ex: convincing people that greenhouse gases will give us lush green plants, not fry the planet].
Point Two: Show how the negative thing is actually not true. [Present-day ex: Global warming does not exist].
Point Three: Show that the negative thing is actually being caused by “enemies of the state” - most likely liberals. [Present-day example: We can’t sign Kyoto because it is really a plot to ruin our economy].
Part 3: THE GOP OF 1936 AND TODAY’S DIRTY POLITICS: How the Former Gave Birth to the Latter
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., FDR was attempting to guide the nation safely through the depression. The outrageous treatment of American workers throughout the industrial era up until that point by the corporate “bosses” had become a major issue. Men and women worked 12-14 hours a day, had no unemployment benefits, no health insurance, no safety regulations - no job security whatsoever. In response to this sorry state of affairs, labor unions were forming, but they were being met with brutal resistance by the Bosses and their henchmen. Because FDR championed the worker’s cause and called for all manner of reforms - including the social security system - he was identified as “the enemy” of the bosses. The Republican Party, the attack dog of big business even then, was turned loose on the President with a vengeance. His every step was “dogged.”
Just as corporate America saw FDR as an enemy, many of them, including IBM and G.W. Bush’s grandfather, saw in Hitler a friend and treated this vicious genocidal maniac with far more respect and deference than they did FDR. The GOP was to learn many of its nastiest tactics from Hitler and Goebbels, including using communism as a scapegoat/enemy of the state to consolidate power just as soon as they had a Republican back in the White House (Eisenhower in 1952).
Another Hitler tactic learned by the GOP was the use of the smear. Hitler advised telling a damaging lie about an “enemy,” then repeating it over and over, no matter what proof may be offered to counter it.
The GOP poured an unprecedented amount of money into the 1936 campaign of their candidate Alf Landon. The party launched what was then dubbed the “nationwide selling campaign strategy.” To do this, observed political writer Ralph D. Casey in 1937, the party was showered with the money and vigilant efforts of “a small but determined group of businessmen.” Casey says the campaign was designed to be “an intensive, subtle, highly-organized salesmanship drive to ‘unsell’ President Roosevelt and to ‘sell’ Governor Landon and his highly-advertised common sense.” [You have to hand it to the GOP for single-mindedness: they’re still using the same buzzwords - “common sense,” et al. - after 65 years!].
The GOP “sales team” identified several key points of attack, which they have used with almost no variation in every campaign since, whether appropriate or not.
- Accuse opposition of overspending
- accuse opposition of supporting “big government”
- Identify a bogeyman - usually the communists and/or liberals [wonder who they learned that from?], although they have gotten a bit creative and now include environmentalists, anti-gun folks, and scientists on their list of “enemies of freedom”
- condemn New Deal (i.e., government social programs) as communistic or in some other way “unAmerican”
-Manipulate statistics to own advantage
- Accuse opposition of waging a class war.
Day in, day out, the GOP attacked FDR, throwing suspicions on everything he did, and said, and on everyone he had ever known. His family dog was not even exempt from political attacks! FDR had nothing but contempt for this self-righteous underhandedness. He denounced the GOP as a pack of “economic royalists” who used the flag and constitution as smokescreens. “I welcome their hatred,” he proclaimed.
It was the GOP that started the bane of our current system: paid political ads. In the 1930s, these were called “radio spots.” It was in the ugly election of 1936 that the first conservative “talk show” was set up. These programs were created expressly as outlets for GOP propaganda. “No political party has ever excelled the businesslike effectiveness of the Republicans in the distribution of their party propaganda,” observes Casey.
In the 1936 election, farmers and ranchers were courted by Republicans who shamelessly praised them for their “All-Americanism” a “rugged individualism.” At the same time, of course, the same Republicans were supporting the right of bankers to foreclose on farms and ranches and opposing efforts to provide farm relief. Even the usually non-politically-oriented “Variety” magazine condemned the ruthless GOP campaign machine. “Political parties are being reduced to merchandize which can be exchanged for votes in accordance with a well-conceived marketing plan, taking stock of income levels, race, local problems, exactly as does a commercial sponsor. This differs not one whit from the tactics employed by any corporation.”
To their credit, Americans in the 1930s were not as easily swayed by propaganda as they apparently are today. They were grateful to FDR for having placed the interests of the common man first and corporations second, for taking steps to make life less stressful and uncertain through the construction of safety nets such as relief and social security. In the end, despite the estimated over 170 million press releases spit out by the GOP and the countless millions it spent, the party could not buy its way into the White House. . Instead, FDR was given an earned vote of confidence by the American people to whom he devoted the last decade of his life. Landon lost big time, winning just two states (Maine and Vermont, which are both making up for this lapse today). Three days before he was elected, FDR said, “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I would like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces have met their master.”
How I wish he had been right.
Selected Bibliography
Special thanks to Loyola College in Baltimore, which makes JSTOR (the Journal Storage project initiated by the Mellon Foundation) available to the public.
“The 1936 Republican Campaign,” Ralph D. Casey; 1937, “Public Opinion Quarterly”
Essay by Charles W. Smith, Jr. “Journal of Politics,” August 1939
“Public Opinion Inside the USSR,” by anonymous U.S. government official, spring 1947 issue of “Public Opinion Quarterly”
“Future of Psychological Warfare,” Hans Spiel, spring 1948 issue, “Public Opinion Quarterly”
“The Ideology of Death,” John Weiss, 1996
“Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 1996
”The American Pageant” by Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy (the BEST U.S. History book ever produced!)
Comments
Hide the following 22 comments
chilling non similarities
07.01.2004 16:07
Did Hitler submit himself to re-election?
How many concentration camps are there in the US?
How many political prisoners are there in the US?
Have any Democratic candidates been prevented from standing?
sceptic
to sceptic
07.01.2004 16:32
The other points will be overlooked.
ade
Very weak...
07.01.2004 16:45
Paul Edwards
Sceptic, Ade, Paul Edwards
07.01.2004 17:55
- The judges are political appointees. They voted down party lines to cast the only 9 votes that ultimately mattered to APPOINT G.W. Bush president in 2000. They were not meant to be voting, but looking at the facts and points of law, but judges from both factions (4 dem, 5 rep) decided to ignore their duty and follow the party/faction line.
2. Did Hitler submit himself to re-election?
- No, not as far as I'm aware. Has George Bush? No, and he can't as he's limited to two terms. This is for the simple reason that he was APPOINTED, not elected, and so cannot logically stand for RE-election. This is more than mere semantic distinction; he is an unelected leader who has had four years to try and convince the public they are going to get blown up by unseen adversaries unless they endorse the PNAC - Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org). I believe most americans are too smart to fall for this and will not endorse it, by not voting, since the 'alternative' party are so similar. Turnout will be low . . . legitimate rule?
3. How many concentration camps are there in the US?
- How do you define concentration camp? - a place where people are detained with scant pretext, possibly executed? Yes, ade, Guantanamo Bay certainly resembles a concentration camp. How would people react if the present German government rounded up 500 people from accross the world with one thing in common, their religion, and locked them up without charge facing execution ordered by military commissions that even the appointed military lawyers publically condemned? What if their religion was judaism? Would not the alarm bells be ringing?
Also, the amount of executions in Texas without fair trial (well documented by human rights groups), overwhelmingly of black people also resembles a state execution policy based on ethnicity, not criminality.
4. How many political prisoners are there in the US?
- I honestly don't know, but will try to find out. Do you know by any chance? Anyway, locking up your opponents is a quite archaic and often counterproductive form of totalitarian rule, see apardheid south africa. Why physically silence your opponents when you can simply omit them from a compliant media without looking like a fascist dictator? I'm not talking about democrats here, but opponents of the de facto one party system . . . Oh yeah actually ade, if Guantanamo Bay isn't actually a prisoner of war camp, and not a concentration camp, and the 'detainees' are specially granted a status by the most senior politician, G W Bush, how are they not political prisoners?
5. How many democratic candidates have been prevented from standing?
- Probably none, I'm sure it would have been news on threads like this so we'll assume none. But this is irrelevant. There is greater diversity of opinion within the two main parties than between them at their closest point. In fact there is sufficient policy, ideological and funding overlap that the US electoral system represents a de facto one party state with optional factions pursuing virtually indistinguishable agendas.
Paul Edwards . . . there are certainly great differences in the political backgrounds of 30s Germany and millenial USA; but a great similarity is the way 9-11 was cynically used as a 'reichstag fire', or a 'new pearl harbour', to quote the PNAC themselves, in 1998.
You all may or may not be aware that G.W.Bush's grandfather funded hitler/the nazi party until his assets were frozen on overt US entry into WWII. Bush apologists will cry, irrelevant!, but its important at least to show that the families are no strangers, and the comparisons valid in many respects. History never repeats itself exactly anyway.
T
don't worry- we've hired him
07.01.2004 18:08
The phrase that the conservative authorities used of Hitler when they brought him to power was "Don't worry- we've hired him".
historian
two points
07.01.2004 18:45
Guantanamo Bay in not in the US. Nor, I think, are any US nationals detained.
sceptic
Guantanamo Bay etc...
07.01.2004 21:06
Regardless of such technicalities, the Guantanamo Bay base/camp is under the sole authority of the US government. The currency is dollars. The reason it is 'not' on US territory proper is that it allows the US government to squirm their way through loopholes in Human Rights conventions etc... No US citizens are held there apparently, they get 'preferential' treatment. Pointing out such hypocrisy hardly excuses the US's conduct. If Hitler only locked up german jews, romany people and homosexuals in normal prisons while sending foreigners to camps, it would still be wrong on both counts.
Is there any evidence gore would have got more votes in florida? Some yes, see Greg Palast's 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' among others for a well informed if sometimes arrogant investigation. BUT THIS IS ONCE AGAIN IRRELEVANT. The fact we are discussing what might have happened if even rudimentary one party, two faction representative democracy was allowed to function simply underlines that it wasn't. Perhaps the only reason (pre 9-11) the american public accepted this is that they already know voting for either faction makes no real difference anyhow.
Sceptic, I note that you have barely challenged any of the points I made in response to your questions. Does this mean you accept my responses? Or were they meant to be rhetorical questions and i've gone and spoiled it all by engaging in informed debate?
Historian - good point, Hitler was recruited by corporate interests to be the charismatic populist leader and recruit the dissillusioned depression-era working classes from the red banner of communism to the red/black fascist one. Na-Zi is an abbreviation of National Socialist, showing the fusion of nationalist politics with utilitarian socialist rhetoric employed to gain support. Something that bush hasn't actually done, although empty promises are a bit of a political standard these days.
Hitler provided a very 'stable' political and economic environment, to euphemise in the extreme. This attracted great praise from the western business elite who, as ever, turned a blind eye to the non-financial consequences of their support for him. Among these investors was Presscott Bush, G.W.Bush's grandfather. The feeling was mutual, Hitler reportedly had a picture of Henry Ford, who he admired for his union busting and standardised mass production, on his bunker wall.
Is anyone here even aware of the US eugenics program? More than 60,000 americans were sterilised up until 1979! Why? - the mentally impaired and economically impaired (= the poor) were deemed unfit to procreate. In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr (1927), a revered american jurist:
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" (Quoted in The Guardian (UK), Sat 4th May 2002)
Hitler's fascism is far from unique. The history written by the victors has ommitted much complictity, and ignorance of the mistakes/betrayals of the past makes repetition more likely.
T
yawn
07.01.2004 21:28
1. The Supreme Court had little option. What could it do? Give it to Bush or to Gore. The evidence appeared to be on Bush's side - and despite the protestations, no one's produced serious proof the other way.
2. I don't accept your point that Bush is an unelected leader.
3. The one thing in common about the people in Guantanomo Bay is that they were fighting in Afghanistan. The reason that there aren't many jews or christians among them might be because they might be all that welcome with the Taliban.
4 and 5. Now you come to the more philosophical point [rather unrelated to Hitler] about the nature of a democracy. You are arguing that is de facto a one party state [altho to put Clinton and Bush together does seem slightly eccentric].
If you are to be elected in a two party democracy, you have to appeal to more than 50% of those who vote. This means policies which won't be rejected by that 51%. That reduces your options very considerably. A radical party almost by definition is bound to appeal to less than 50%. The only time this doesn't happen is in very extreme circumstances - e.g. in Germany emerging from massive hyperinflation.
Are you saying we shouldn't have democracy? But the major snag with a democracy is, as you have pointed out, you you end up with rather bland policies. But show me an alternative for governing 250 million people.
I'll agree with you on one thing - Guantanomo Bay is a serious blot on the record of the U.S. But that doesn't make Bush equivalent to Hitler. They're imprisoned, but they're not gassed, shot, or put to forced labour. And don't say, please, 'not yet'.
sceptic
opinionpiece
07.01.2004 21:59
Nobody knows because nobody knows how many people are arrested. And the arrested people don't have right for a lawer, family can not contact them, this is in Guantanamo, in prison in Iraq and prisons in the USA, also in the UK.
The Other Guantánamos
Britain's Dark Places
Opinionpiece:
"Here we go again. Another bone-head with a Bush-Hitler analogy. How many times have we told folks this? Bush is not Hitler, Bush is not Hitler, Bush is not Hitler. Holy cow, this is getting really frustrating. Why won't this thing die?"
Marc Ash(posted by guidoke)
history is constantly repeating itself
08.01.2004 02:39
Hitler made sure the first thing he did was get rid of guns from the public. This will be Bush's next step. Remeber it only took Bush a year to start a war, but Hitler took much longer. They both want to bring in the new world order, which Bush senior said himself. A climate of fear and martial law are used to restrict freedoms etc which is evident in both.
There are concentration camps being built in the US;
Britian is becoming just as bad. Look at all the cameras, the compulsory biometric ID cards, the government databases, the emergency powers, the snooping legislation that's been introduced over the last couple of years.
me
Rightwing Indy site "spooks" pounced on this article within 10 minutes!
08.01.2004 04:05
In any case, guess I can consider that a dubious distinction - to be on some spook's "to be watched" list. Har har!!
Cheryl
yet again
08.01.2004 11:06
Ms Seal is perfectly entitled not to believe me, but I have no connections whatsoever with any security services on either side of the Atlantic.
Why can she not enter into debate? Could it be that her articles are indeed indefensible?
Cut the paranoia and address the issues.
sceptic
Sceptic, you're beginning to blantly lie
08.01.2004 11:22
2. You may not accept it but it is a point of fact. Bush was not elected, he was appointed. You concede this by saying "The Supreme Court had little option. What could it do?", and then deny it again. His supporters concede this fact, and merely have no problem with it. Hell, some people probably don't believe in gravity. They still fall over though I bet.
3. UNTRUE! The 'detainees' were arrested in numerous nations around the world, generally on 'intelligence tip-offs' and often at home (quite like the nightly rounding up of men of fighting age in unstable areas of Iraq thats been proudly beamed all over the networks. 10,000+ Iraqis are being held without trial or prisoner of war status).
One British detainee was arrested at his Wife's home in Pakistan. Others were arrested in Kenya. Many of the Afghan detainees were arrested after 'tip-offs' from business rivals.
4.& 5. But show me an alternative for governing 250 million people
Ok. First off; Recallable delegates. Politicians don't advance a radical agenda because as you point out it may lose votes. Instead they just say what the public (or 51% of the voting public) wants to hear and then get on with their real agenda when elected. I don't remember the PNAC featuring in Bush's campaign too heavily. Recallable delegates would mean representatives would have to stick to their word, and could be removed by their constituents if they pursued policies that the electorate would not vote for. This is a much better hybrid of direct/representative democracy than the easily media biased refferendum model, in which complex issues are distilled to a yes-no of the rulers choosing.
Secondly, a weakening of the party system. US politics was never meant to be party-political, but the founding fathers optimism soon gave way to two rival camps who agreed on at least 80% of policy. Representatives could still choose to describe themselves as 'a republican' or 'a democrat', but candidates would not need to be vetted by each party's apparatus in order to stand. This would give all citizens equal access to candidacy, permitting the public to choose candidates they most allign with. Since 86% of americans 'agree with the goals of the civil rights movement' and 83% 'agree with the goals of the environmental movement' (M Moore, 'Dude Where's my Country') - DEMOCRATIZE THE US AND WATCH THE PATRIOT ACT GET REPEALED AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL SIGNED!
Third, the issue of campaign funding would need to be looked at. The lossening of the party system may help, but often campaign contributions are direct policy purchases (see bush's exemption from lawsuit for pharmaceutical firms, tucked away in a 'national security' bill).
"Are you saying we shouldn't have democracy?" - NO - I'm Saying we should. Most 'democracies' at the moment are 'thin democracies' (see R. E. Sclove 'Democracy and Technology') that place emphasis on process and institutions rather than on empowerment of the public. I want real democracy, and so do most people I know, but theres no permitted way to say so except not voting, which is then called 'apathy'. People vote when it changes something. The differences between parties are too slight for many to care (turnout in the 1994 US house of representatives election was 38%).
So on to the distinctions between Bush and Clinton. To an american, sure there are presentational differences. Bill's so smoooooth and George seems a bit dull. George is a good christian gentleman and Bill gets blow jobs off interns in the oval office. Domestically, Clinton is certainly slightly to the left of Bush (I mean Gorbachev was more centrist than Stalin, whats the point here?). Internationally, US policy barely missed a beat between the two presidents. Remember Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan? That plant provided 100,000 people with TB drugs and half Sudan's Malaria medicine. The sanctions they are under meant they couldn't import any more when the plant was destroyed. Thousands died and continue to die as a direct result.
On the subject of Sanctions, clinton oversaw the deaths of at least 500,000 iraqi chlidren, his secretary of state Madeline Albright infamously remarking 'it was a price worth paying'. Denis Halliday of the UN called it 'genocide' and resigned in disgust. Those deaths are now blamed on saddam's 'handling of the sanctions', but this is demonstratably untrue. The Ba'athist ration distribution was praised by the UN as one of the most effecient they'd ever seen. It is however true that the same ba'athist regime gassed around 5,000 kurds to death in halabja, which was a truly horrific crime for which he should be tried.
Hang, on. Bhopal! Remember, up to 16,000 people killed by a gas leak in india 1984, four years before the halabja atrocity. An indian investigation showed the company deliberately ignored safety warnings and cut safety measures making disaster inevetable. In crimes such as these recklessness is as good as intention. Successive US presidents have sheltered Warren Anderson, the then head of Union Carbide who is wanted for trial in India.
Whoever's in office, the constant killing for convenience continues, and his hidden from all but the most inquisitive of the American people. Ask an american how many people died in the Vietnam war and they'll probably say 'around 69,000' (US military casualties), not 'up to 4 million' (total casualties, overwhelmingly civilian).
DEMOCRATIZE NOW
T
I thought it was septic tank = Yank
08.01.2004 11:47
It shows that indy media must be giving them a bit of aggro.
It's pretty obvious that there are a whole bunch of zionists plugging away on this site, but then they have endless resources and lobby every single media outlet in the world ( as revealed by a report in Holland recently where if you criticise israel in any way what ever you get a few phone calls from Israeli students asking you to justify your views.
I wonder which branch septic fell out of ...
Personally i think anyone who still refers to left and right are just showing that they are still in the sheep pen. tow different angles for fucking over the people . e
Twin Torrifagiani
Sceptic, you're lying now . . .
08.01.2004 12:15
2. Well, even Bush's supporters do. He was APPOINTED. You acknowledged this in point (1); "The Supreme Court had little option. What could it do?". You have truly mastered orwellian doublethink. Congratulations.
3. WRONG. The 'detainees' at guantanamo were arrested in many nations, rarely 'on the battlefield'. One british detainee was taken from his Wife's home in Pakistan. Others were arrested in Kenya. A BBC documentary (panarama, i think) showed how the 'intelligence tip-offs' used to arrest suspects were often from rival businessmen seeking to consolidate their position. It is also imposible to see how Afghans serving in Afghanistan's conscript army can be simultaneously considered allies of Al Qaeda and detained but not considered prisoners of war. Theres that doublethink again!
4&5. The US is a 'Thin Democracy' (- See Sclove 'Democracy and Technology'). I want real democracy, not a pretence. Three easy improvements.
a) Recallable delegates. Try lying to get elected then.
b) Weaken the party system. Prevents pre-vetting of candidates and gives all citizens equal chance to stand.
c) Revise the rules on campaign donations. Too often 'donations' are a clear purchase of policy.
86% of americans 'Agree with the goals of the civil rights movement'
82% of americans 'Agree with the goals of the environmental movement'
Democratize the US and watch the Patriot Act get repealed and the Kyoto Protocol signed!
T
a two part reply
08.01.2004 13:57
T argues defects in U.S. democracy. Fair enough. But that still does not even begin to equate Bush and Hitler.
T:
1. The argument that there is 'massive fraud'. Are the democrats incapable of challenging individual results if there appears to be fraud in these areas? If there is evidence in a particular precinct/county/area/state, why do they not challenge this? AFter all, there was an eight year Democrat administration which should have been able to deal with these issues. Was Clinton incompetent in failing to ensure a 'free and fair' election?
2. By issuing the legal challenge, the Democrats ensured that ANY President would, by your definition, be 'appointed'. Thus, a failed candidate, by this logic, could issue such a challenge, then turn round and say: this man is not legitimate!
3. I'll agree that the position in Guantanomo Bay shoudl be resolved as soon as possible. These people should either be charged with whatever or released. Any Democrat candidate should make this a central plank of his platform. However, however illegitimate the detentions may be, the camp does not remotely equate with any camp set up by Hitler in the 1930s.
4&5. Recallable delegates. As in California. Schwartnegger for President! Well, if government is to function, any administration does need a certain minimum time to do anything of significance, which is presumably why the Presidential term is set at 4 years. But the Presidency is only one branch of the Governemnt. There are elections to the House/Senate every two years.
I'll agree about campaign donations. At least the UK does have some restrictions in this area.
Now, if over 80% of AMericans agree with these policies [civil rights/Kyoto], how come they have elected a Republican President, a Republican Congress, and a Republican Senate?
And if you say fraud again, I would ask again, what are the Democrats doing about it, if it is so apparently blatant? The Supreme Court ruled on the narrow issue of Florida. Are there no other areas in which appeals can be brought. What are they? Why has no one done anything about them?
sceptic
Gauntanamo bay not a concentration camp?
08.01.2004 14:40
Also, your original response to this thread did not challenge any of the original poster's points, you merely found some things that weren't consistent with the exact events of the rise of Hitler and extended that to try to say that the entirety of the original post was false. The original post was not saying that Bush is identically equal to Hitler down to every single policy, belief, action and exact timing of events. All it said was that there are chilling similarities, which does seem true. The fact that there are dissimilarities as well does not negate the original points made.
Unfortunately that is a standard (although incredibly lazy) debating technique and isn't much better than the reductio ad absurdum technique whereby you take someone's point, stretch it as far as you can to some ridiculous extreme then say that as the ridiculous extreme is quite obviously ridiculous, then the orignal argument must also be. Both techniques are childish and inherently flawed and only any use for making the person using them feel as if they have somehow 'scored points' in an argument without actually addressing any real points raised or convincing anyone else.
In the real world, arguments are won by the person who has the most convincing points which cover most of the known facts etc. not by whoever shouts loudest without saying anything except 'I'm right and you're wrong'.
Nobody who disagrees with the original post seems to have actually addressed any of the points raised by that post yet, just shouted that as Bush has not done exactly the same as Hitler in exactly the same order, then nothing about him is like Hitler.
If nothing else, Bush is a far right wing lunatic who is a danger to the free world and rules mostly by making the general public scared of all the bogeymen and therefore more pliant. And that is similar to Hitler. Bush may not be as bad (or he may be worse, it remains to be seen) but this thread is far from showing that they are entirely dissimilar.
Afinkawan
Sceptic, you argue with points i didn't make.
08.01.2004 16:50
1. I don't know, maybe the democrats are a bunch of losers who they never thought they'd win anyway. Maybe they got distracted by the post 9-11 'patriotism' of not questioning the leader. As to the massive fraud, I repeat: Read 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' by Greg Palast. If you don't like the evidence he presents against DBT, Katherine Harris et al then do some research of your own to verify/disprove his thesis.
2. WRONG. The Supreme Court could have ordered a recount instead of blocking one. This would have been unambiguous proof of the actual votes cast one way or the other. It would not however mitigate the massive fraud mentioned in (1).
3. Guantanamo does indeed resemble a concentration camp. As Afinkawan says, you seem to be confusing a concentration camp with a death camp. Dictionary definition:
CONCENTRATION CAMP n a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary personnel are held
- from the Collins English Dictionary.
Now Sceptic, I'm afraid that certainly more than 'remotely' resmbles guantanamo bay and the nazi concentration camps, which you still deny.
4&5. The events you describe are symptoms of the party system I proposed be 'neutered', so to speak. Notably you have ignored this, the main point of my democratic reform proposals. The election of schwarzenegger could just as easily be seen as a sign of the desparation of the electorate for a genuine alternative.
The figures I quoted re: american public opinion are from a survey quoted by Michael Moore in 'Dude Where's My Country'. They were from a comprehensive survey by an established mainstream polling organisation. The reason for the lack of genuine representation of the public's views is due to the 'thin democracy' of the US i described above, and I will not repeat myself. I would add certain lobbying/bribing practices to campaign funding reform though.
It really is not relevant why the democrat faction is so incompetant. Post 9-11 the two parties have ceased to even pretend they are different, except for personal political point-scoring. A fast food connoisseur could talk for hours on the differences between a Big Mac and a Whopper. They may have a point, but that would in no way mean that burgers are the only kind of food possible that anyone could possibly want. And just like the mind-trap of the 'two party' system, too much of either is seriously bad for your health.
Afinkawan: well said.
T
Bush and Hitler
08.01.2004 17:58
Concentration camps - yes, Guantanomo Bay fits the dictionary definition quite well. The German concentration camps of the 1930s [no, not the death camps] also fit it well. But because they have some features in common does not mean they are the same beast. The brutality of the German camps was several orders of magnitude worse than the treatment of the people in Cuba. I also don't think it can be denied that many who were held in Guantanomo Bay were actively involved fighting the US. Whether they should still be held as they are without charge is another matter.
How do you 'neuter' a two party system?
"a) Recallable delegates. Try lying to get elected then." Schwartnegger was indeed an unusual candidate. But recallable candidates means that you are just reducing the term of office. Whoever is Governer/President is going to have face the electorate sooner or later.
"b) Weaken the party system."
What are you going to do?
"Prevents pre-vetting of candidates and gives all citizens equal chance to stand."
So you're going to tell political parties they can't choose the candidates they want?
"c) Revise the rules on campaign donations. Too often 'donations' are a clear purchase of policy." Agreed.
All of which is our proposals as to how American democracy might be improved. A touch arrogant for non citizens. We would no doubt be somewhat irritated if Americans started telling us how to run our elections ...
Oh, and did someone mention Hitler somewhere?
sceptic
Sceptic,
08.01.2004 19:25
"I don't know, maybe the democrats are a bunch of losers who they never thought they'd win anyway." A really strong argument this one. "Maybe they got distracted by the post 9-11 'patriotism' of not questioning the leader." Ummm .. the election was in November 1999, about 2 years before 9/11."
Sceptic, you are indeed a fantstic parody of an idiot. The election was in November 2000, only 10 months before 9-11. There was still huge controversy over Bush's rise to power until the planes hit . . . then 'unity'.
"the camp does not remotely equate with any camp set up by Hitler in the 1930s"
- 'Sceptic', 13:57 08/01/04, this thread.
Only four hours later revised to:
"But because they have some features in common does not mean they are the same beast"
- 'Sceptic', 17:58 08/01/04, this thread.
Remarkable consistency! Any rational observer to this exchange would surely conclude you are trying to distract from the valid points made in the original article. (anyone who's skipped to the end of this thread, please read the orignal post, if only out of courtesy)
"I also don't think it can be denied that many who were held in Guantanomo Bay were actively involved fighting the US"
Actually it can. There would presumably be charges if there was evidence. Many, if not all of the detainees were picked up away from the battlefield. See the BBC Panorama report:
a) Recallable delegates does more than shorten the term. It means representatives who break their promises can be instantly held to account by the electorate, rather than in 4 years when you get to choose between them and the other party's liar.
Coupled with the abolition of a formal division of power along party lines (which only adds an unneccessary tier of conflicting loyalties), this would, in the event of a recall, allow the electorate to choose from a wider range of candidates than two officially vetted ones; thus creating a better hybrid of direct/representative democracy than the 'rule by refferendum' model which would simply be a media game.
Candidates would have the imperative to be honest or they lose their power, compared to the status quo of all round dishonesty, low turnouts and unnaccountability (except when people are allowed to vote every 4(2) years). Basically the state should primarily be a servant of the public, not the other way around.
Any form of representative democracy will always fail to represent everyone's view, the only democratic alternative being direct democracy. Given the amount of members of voluntary groups, associations etc... there may well be support for this. Its a more radical solution, and not one i'm an expert in, so we'll leave that debate for another day.
b) see above. All business students know that competitive industries over time tend to become oligopolic in structure. Without antitrust legislation they would become monopolistic. There is no equivalent to antitrust legislation for political parties, and so through their commonality of power, they converge. See my Big Mac/Whopper analogy above.
"So you're going to tell political parties they can't choose the candidates they want? "
I think I've explained this already. I would propose the abolition of the formal power divide between political parties. Parties could still exist as common interest political organisations, like NGOs, but their chosen candidates would stand as independents like anybody else. Democracy is for eveyone, not just career politicians (and a movie star every 20 years). What are you afraid of?
"All of which is our proposals as to how American democracy might be improved. A touch arrogant for non citizens. We would no doubt be somewhat irritated if Americans started telling us how to run our elections ..."
The American revolutionaries didn't mind Thomas Paine now did they? Or taking hints from the french revolution? Everyone has a right to comment on issues that affect them, Bush, or indeed a new Hitler, affects us all. You don't actually know my nationality either, an arrogant presumption of yours that I am non-American? Opinions should not be confined to the artificial borders of nation states (which all are barely a couple of centuries old themselves.)
"Oh, and did someone mention Hitler somewhere? "
The relevance of this to the Bush/Hitler comparison seems clear to me. Bush is an illigitimate head of state, who despite some democratic pretence has ceased power. He now confines enemies of certain ethnicities to what can, by definition, be termed a concentration camp. The similarity with Hitler is clear. It is not absolute or complete, but clear. Chilling as the initial article described these and other similarities.
T
Or rather...
08.01.2004 21:42
But Bush Jr. has always reminded me more of Mussolini: a strutting, sparrow-chested, cowardly little bully, who likes to surround himself with military symbols to make him look brave and strong. Like Mussolini, he also never picks a fight with anyone unless he's 100% sure that his army can kick their ass to hell and back with barely a scratch. Of course, Mussolini was sure about that in Abyssinia, and that little adventure didn't quite go to plan.
Bush's own Abyssinia could well be Iraq, where despite applying massive force, cluster bombs, Depleted Uranium shells, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction, it still looks as if US troops could be kicked out eventually.
The best similarity to Mussolini of all would be if the people of the US rise up against him, once it was plain that they had been following an idiot over a cliff, and hang the evil bastard from a lamp post. But that's probably hoping for too much.
Steve
Sceptic my arse
09.01.2004 00:50
Jim Royal