Reduction ad Hitlerum
Offline It is called Reduction ad Hitlerum or Godwin's Law, and you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
The idea is simple: when you are in trouble use Hitler. While debating Richard Dawkins, Bill O'Reilly said Hitler was an atheist (as if being an atheist means you are going to go around killing everyone in your path). Dawkins countered this nonsense by saying Hitler was raised Roman catholic, and O'Reilly didnd't allow him to speak much and claimed Hitler had atheist friends, and members of his staff were atheists. Dawkins said Stalin and Hitler had mustaches too, and O'Reilly just laughed.
In another interview, this time for the BBC, Dawkins is reminded of how evil Stalin was, and he replied by saying "Well Hitler killed millions, and he was a Catholic."
First of all, let's examine this fact: Jack the Ripper murdered around 5 prostitutes in London. Pedro Alonson Lopez murdered like 320 all over Latin America. Who is more evil? What criteria is being used to judge these monsters?
Math!
Pedro Vasquez is considered the worst serial killer in history. But Ted Bundy and Vasquez were both executed, as have been many other murderers. They didn't get extra death sentences for their crimes, nor did they get one lashing for each victim. So it is obvious to me that judges don't judge people by math, but by the fact that they committed murder.
That being said, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Francisco Franco were tyrants, and that is it. The whole Reductio ad Hitlerum is nothing more than the idea that evil can be judged by how many people you can kill, as if evil equals "Death Race 2000."
Furthermore, was Hitler really an atheist? He did believe in evolution and ideas like "only the strong survives". However, Hitler also admired Martin Luther, the man who said Jews should hang from poles just like thieves. But Hitler also befriended Nietzche's sister, and even obtained Nietzche's cane from her. Unfortunately for us atheists, we weren't allowed to join the SS, and those people had nice uniforms, as Lemmy Kilminster from Motorhead claims. But hey, Hitler did ask Gestapo officers to find everything they could about Jesus because he believed Jesus was an aryan and not a jew. And Hitlerism didn't like gays much, which is sort of a Christian thing, although I have seen atheists who don't like gays either.
Another problem with Reduction ad Hitlerum is that this is a debate-tactic that uses the mind of a troubled man as a defense mechanism. Remember, this is the man who kept thinking he'd win the war even though the allies were already marching into Berlin.
And finally, perhaps the most offensive argument against Hitler ad Hitlerum stems from the word on terror. How many Muslims have been killed and tortured because of what happened on 911 and due to fear of what happen after 911? Who is responsible if it is not an administration that does not allow atheists to be among them? Are they practicing genocide? Extermination? Crimes against the human race?
The answer is "no." They are defending the USA. Well, if you read Mein Kempt, you will conclude that Hitler was saving Germany and the rest of the planet from the evil Jew. What he was doing was good, provided you bought into the delusion that the Jews were a threat to anyone. So Reduction ad Hitlerum is nothing more than a case of History being written by the victors. Had Hitler won the war, Reduction Ad Hitlerum might've been called Reduction ad Churchillism.
- Login to post comments
This reminds me of the last time someone played the "America" card on me. You can pretty much win any argument by asserting that your side is American.
Sometimes you don't even have to take a side. For example:
"Do you support the death penalty?"
"Last time I checked, we were in America."
...or...
"How do you feel about stem cell research?"
"This is America, isn't it?"
COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES
The entire idea of using Hitler to make a case is moot in my opinion. It is frustratingly difficult to prove that Hitler was religious or not. However this is missing a very important distinction.
Hitler didn't slaughter the jews because of his religious beliefs.
He killed them because of the anti-semitism that was prevalent within his culture. That we can determine it's source. The Twelfth Ecumenical Council held by the Catholic Church. Which stated that both Jews and Muslims had to wear special dress to make them distinguishable from Christians.
This ensured continued division and mistrust among the Christians to these people. Since the Jews responded to this by becoming very self-contained and studious to succeed well in life they were further mistrusted and despised.
Well what can we conclude from history? I personally think that ANYTHING that drives a wedge between people, any little thing that makes them them and us us, should be abolished. We have to learn to become one people. All of us. All of humanity. Or we're just going to keep slaughtering each other. Over, and over, and over. Can't we see what's going on by now? Can't we figure this little thing out? We HAVE to remove the wedges that divide us.
What's the ONE, single thing that causes the greatest division?
Religion.
It's time for it to go.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
No, he saw himself as a kind of god. Providence or the Aryan gods appointed him to rule over the Germanic people and increase Germanic lands. He was an egomaniac. He borrowed his technique from Catholicism and the God of the OT. His philosophy: Give your lives, money, love and all devotion to me or I'll torture and kill you. Sounds like Yahweh to me.
The religious Jews of the OT justifed genocide to move people off "promised" lands. Hitler used the same justification. So how can a religious Jew or any bible believer have anything bad to say about Hitler's methods? He was just following his religion.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Ah, Adolf Hitler. The world's biggest scapegoat.
Adolf was fucking cazy, if his 'strategies', writings and company are any evidence, and it's really hard to say one way or another what religion he was or wasn't. I doubt he himself knew (or, at least, consistently stood behind).
World War II and the Holocaust occurred due to anti-semitism in general, not just Hitler's brand of, 'The Final Solution'. The world was happy to just let what was happening happen, right up until it became personally threatening to some countries. And by then, of course, things were already out of hand.
It's fascinating to me that some people talk about Hitler like he was the sole perpetrator of the Holocaust (that, or the dynamic duo of himself and Heinrich Himmler). I mean, is there solid evidence of Adolf himself actually killing even a single Jew? The fact is, there was willing and eager participation on behalf of many that allowed Hitler's madness to bloom into what it did. The fact that anyone feels they can lay the actions of Germany right at one man's feet hardly bodes well for the idea that the average person can percieve lessons from history very well.
So, basically, I agree: the Hitler argument is irrelevent, and really needs to be halted. Adolf had no need to poison minds as the Catholic church did during the Inquisition: people were already more than prepared to expunge the Jewish from the planet.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940