Trump As Hitler (theory rant from March 2016)

The gist of this particular theory is: the (world's combined) Left might prefer/want a Republican to win in 2016. Which is one theory among many. It's just as easy to theorize that they want to keep the presidency. The tidbit that pretty much inspired this theory was a report/study from a few weeks ago, before trolling Trump's hands went mainstream, that claimed Hitler had a micro-penis. Just as 'Trump Is Hitler' and 'Fascism Has Returned (though it never left)' and 'Trump Is Finally Saying Out Loud What We've Been Trying To Warn You The Racist War-Mongering Baggers Have Always Privately Believed' claims were hitting a fever pitch, Hitler, whose every aspect has been scrutinized for 70 years, suddenly had a micro-penis when Trump's hands became a mockery. Instead of being another cultural parallel like white supremacy, economic ignorance, etc. between the movements behind Hitler/Trump, this new claim about Hitler, as Trump's hands were an item, provided similarities between the men/personalities leading those movements. So I couldn't help but think that this was tailor-made to help bind the roots of Trump's motivations/inspirations to Hitler's. Someone other than Trump would be bound to Hitler in some other foundational sense. Or maybe in the same way. Maybe it was always going to be a micro-penis.

This seemed like part of a deeper psychological effort than the rote gold standard of "Republicans are Nazis". In addition to shaming Republicans collectively as Nazis, leaders/notables are shamed personally as Hitlers. I was casually aware enough of politics during Bush's presidency to know Hitler comparisons are not new so I think the timing and convenience of micro-penis implies a seedy coordination that is more sophisticated than scribbling little mustaches onto Repubs'/Cons' pictures. If I take deeper coordination as a given, then what deeper plan is it serving? IMO, just that Hitler's penis is associated with the word 'research' lends any relevant comparisons a credibility that is not normally expected from or considered in the making of "So and So is a Nazi" protest signs. So, as Trumps hands come to be mocked and he and his supporters are inherently (though casually) compared to Hitler and Nazis, along comes 'credible' information which bolsters those comparisons. Maybe I can't relate to the financial and institutional means of the masterminds of this strategy that they could and would produce credible scientific/research material for the internet's digestion just for kicks. Coordinate and fund bullshit research only for it to be churned into irrelevance by the next day's or hour's meme du jour. That seems like a waste of time IMO but maybe I don't have the resources to contemplate that kind of latitude. Assuming for the purposes of this theory that Hitler's micro-penis is not a miraculous coincidence in this stranger-than-fiction world, what is that deeper purpose? 

Defeating Trump in the election seems like the obvious and maybe only purpose but I'm not sure comparisons to Hitler, however esteemed or credentialed their origin, are any more effective than giving Trump mustaches or putting Trump's head on the bodies of Nazis in the absence of actual fucking atrocities. Godwin's Law does not exactly suggest a tendency to grade each other's Nazism responsibly. Comparing a candidate whose policies haven't been enacted, whose theoretical genocide is pending until after the election, seems as irrelevant in Godwin's universe as comparing physical features. Where the candidacy of Hitler's clone would be un-phased by physical comparisons by virtue of Godwin's Cesspool. If scientific comparisons are no more persuasive than photoshops, why bother with the expense of 'credible', pre-genocide Nazi comparisons? Why hire a few (costly) experts to support your claim of someone's Nazism when you can scribble a mustache on their picture for free? Why the extra effort on a claim as legitimate in Godwin's Cesspool as claims without that effort? If defeating a political opponent is the goal and comparing them to Hitler is a tactic, why the extra time to organize or forge research when you can shoop a mustache on Trump for the same effect? Why waste time? 

I've criticized the claim that "people are stupid" (for doing those things present company would never do) even though it can feel so right. Ultimately, the claim is untrue or at least incoherent. Someone has asked if you can explain a 'bizarre' action/event and your response is to imply that:

1) while members of your species are stupid in general, you are not counted among them
2) that all humans are stupid and you are not counted among them
3) that all humans are stupid and you're one of them. 

I doubt stupidity survived as a dominant trait through ages of evolution so 1) incoherent 2) incoherent 3) incoherent. One way or another you've introduced or promoted an untruth to the world. However humorously or sincerely or privately or publicly you claimed that "people are stupid", I don't think it is true and I'm not sure it can be true at this stage in the evolutionary ballgame. At the very least, our competence to survive is ancient. If humans act purposefully and humanity persists, it seems that we must sometimes act purposefully to survive. Stupidity is not helpful in this regard. Long story short, we are freaky genius monkeys with a knack for survival that is more deliberate than whimsical. More careful than hopeful. Maybe grant that others have a good reason for doing what they're doing even if it is not apparent to you. Suspect guile before stupidity. 

So if Godwin's Cesspool regards all Hitler/Nazi comparisons not accompanied by genocides as equally frivolous, why the extra time to lend such a claim any scientific credibility? I have reasons to think doing so was not a deliberate waste of time. Then time was the answer. 

Instead of wasting time to fluff a tenuous comparison between Hitler's and Trump's hands that would only be sacrificed to Godwin's Cesspool, maybe the suggestion that Hitler and Trump have a micro-penis in common was meant to survive Godwin's Cesspool. That the credibility of the report was not wasted on the Cesspool but is intended to rise from it. To rise from the slime of comparing Hitler to a genocide-less Trump to a vindication of that comparison when president Trump comes to be responsible for a comparable atrocity. If the micro-penis comparison is intended to rise from the Cesspool it cannot reasonably be expected to do so only in the hope that Trump might do something terrible. It could only be intended to rise from the slime in the eventuality of an infamous event. Because I doubt Trump is motivated politically for the purpose of genocide or lesser bloodthirst, it seems that a massacre in his name is anticipated and will be drawn out of him whether he likes it or not. A drone attack 'meant' for Al-Qaeda actually kills thousands of civilians. Some kind of bad intel or betrayal that leads to a massacre worthy of Nazi comparisons or some unique infamy. A massacre that now validates every warning lobbed into the cesspool and incriminates every feature Trump and Hitler share, including a micro-penis. Where a credible report that Hitler had a micro-penis, once thought to be wasted in the Cesspool of comparing Trump's murder-less micro-penis to Hitler's, is now evident of a physical similarity between two notorious criminals. 

This may start to get weird. 

Granting there's a good reason to do so, why would the plotters of a scheme to lure Trump into Hitler-esque notoriety decide to promote a micro-penis as the feature these villains share ahead of all other similarities? Why is the evil a penis and why is it small? The people behind this scheme are party to a massacre they will then blame on a scapegoat. In this instance, the scapegoat would be a Republican president and his political opposition would benefit from the sleaze cast over that president and his party. I've said the best strategy for abusive power is to promote as much untruth as possible so that their opposition is as ignorant as possible. I won't rehash that now. If such a principled, abusive power staged this fake massacre in order to vilify a president and his party then it follows that promoting micro-penises as a relevant feature of mass-murderers itself promotes as much untruth as possible. Where the greater the threat a micro-penis is alleged to pose the less likely that threat. Where the bigger the penis the likelier the threat.

Editor's Note: The content of this post was copied from a Twitter rant on March, 6, 2016. Other than some spelling changes and a new format, nothing has been changed.

UPDATE: I want to be clear about what I am saying in the final passage because, upon further review, I think it is important. I am not saying is that it is true that the bigger the penis the greater the threat. I am not saying that in order to promote untruth you would claim that the smaller the penis the greater the threat. I am saying both claims are untruth . The fact that individuals act, not groups, and we do so with our brains (or at least not with our genitalia), absolves all penises from culpability. What I am saying is that you can promote untruth by blaming any penis. And I also think it is informative of the moral compass of the position-holder when a small/large penis is blamed. That, in their minds, if their strategic/moral worldview is informed by the irrational belief (held as truth) that larger penises are indeed a bigger threat, then to promote the most untruth as possible, they would blame smaller penises.

Chupacabra

Today's Overnight Open Thread over at Ace of Spades HQ reminded me of something I took notes on a few months back and didn't end up writing about.  The first topic of that thread is about AMC's show, Walking Dead, and some asinine liberal commentary from the goatsuckers at the Washington Post.

I missed the first season entirely and only heard about it as the second season was gearing up last October. The premiere had me hooked and I thought I'd be settling in for some appointment television for the foreseeable future.  Some of the criticism about deeper-than-necessary character development and low body count was justified, but if the characters were a bunch of rape deniers/enablers, why would I care if anyone survived? I liked the show so much that I even watched the live aftershow, Talking Dead, for no additional benefit.

Everything was going along just fine...until Episode 5, Chupacabra.

Norman Reedus as Daryl Dixon

Daryl is sort of a backwoods, survival type of southerner. His last name is also either a play on Dixie, or just taken straight from the Mason-Dixon Line.  Either way, he's from the south, so his ancestors owned slaves and he has probably lynched someone or burned a cross. In this episode, we find Daryl injured after a fall, trying to climb back up a hill.  I think he has just fallen back down the hill after getting near the top.  As he lies defeated in the mud, his deceased brother, Merle, played by Michael Rooker (the other guy in Days of Thunder), appears to him in a vision. Merle is sass-talkin' Daryl to get his ass up again, basically.  This is the pertinent part of their exhange:


DARYL: I ain't nobody's bitch

MERLE: You're a joke, is what you are. Playing errand boy to a bunch of pansy-asses, niggers, and Democrats.

I finished the episode, but I swore to never watch another.  It isn't enough that Daryl is a southerner...the ghost of his brother has to use slurs to make it authentic. And to top it off, 'Democrats' rounds out the chain, to imply that Daryl and Merle are Republicans.  That 'ni**gers' wasn't edited for television either - we got to look Merle right in the face and hear him say it. Nevermind that Republicans, of all colors, freed the slaves, and still fight to this day for equality. This exchange is just another incremental brainwash of Americans into believing that it wasn't southern Democrats who fought to keep slavery, or who enacted Jim Crow laws, but it was Republicans all this time.

So, like I said, I finished the episode, grumbling, and looked forward to Talking Dead afterwards because it's a live show and thought the use of 'ni**ers' might come up.  Not a peep.

Aisha Tyler

This is Aisha Tyler: a comedian, actress, and the first black guest to appear on the Talking Dead (maybe the last, too, I also stopped watching the aftershow).  I'm not sure why she appeared after this episode - probably a big horror buff.  She has some writing credits to her name so she might be on the Walking Dead team. She and the host, Chris Hardwick, may be old friends, and someone cancelled on him and they needed a filler. I don't know.  But it's not like they just threw her to the wolves; she shared the couch with Michael Rooker (the other guy in Cliffhanger).

Michael Rooker