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.

Antonin Scalia Could Have Been Assassinated

With all due respect to RedState author and blogger, Moe Lane, I disagree with the incompetence he assigns members of the Obama administration (and maybe by extension their sympathizers and cohorts) to dismiss the possibility of them executing a plot to murder Antonin Scalia.

Let's nip this in the bud: this administration cannot even run guns into Mexico without getting caught. Scalia died of a heart attack.

— Moe Lane (@moelane) February 15, 2016

Since the only inspiration I find to use this blog anymore is in the afterglow of a Twitter exchange with someone who has considerably more political and cultural influence than I have and whose acknowledgement of my offerings to the ether features aspects I can then ridicule in the hopes of provoking further interaction across media platforms, I would like to offer a critique of the tendency to flatly dismiss the most nefarious explanations as akin to flatly guzzling them.

@obamuh I can't help but think that if Obama HAD decided to have Scalia killed he'd have instead managed to somehow bump off David Souter.

— Moe Lane (@moelane) February 15, 2016

The Drudge Report's headline last week reported in red that Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head. That the scant information available has the pristine, cryptic quality of also wrapping him in tinfoil is difficult for me to ignore. To grant this detail mundanity in an innocent or natural theory of events is to suggest that A) Scalia's eyes were covered out of respect by the first person who discovered him and that reports he was discovered with a pillow over his face are technically true of subsequent viewers and that this technicality, known (somehow) with certainty by those glossing over the pillow, was exploited in order to bait those without this super secret inside knowledge into suspecting foul play (and therefore into looking like conspiracy nuts) or that B) Scalia, as he lay dying, placed the pillow over his own face as part of either an obscure ritual or an attempt to smother himself in conspiracy.

The manner of death of a person in such a pivotal position is as scandalous as need be relative to the vogue of one's particular depravity so you can't believe everything you read. 24-hour rule. Remember, this is an election year and there is a lot at stake. Keep your eye on the ball. That's just what they'd want you to think. Let's not be hasty. So I can understand Moe cautioning his followers and readers from adopting the most sensational of possible circumstances surrounding Scalia's death, but he does so not based on evidence to the contrary or because unethical or illegal behavior would be uncharacteristic, but, in part, because a previous scandal, Fast And Furious, was exposed by virtue of an incompetence he implies would be symptomatic of all other conceivable attempts (or at least this attempt) at competence. He does not dismiss an elaborate murder plot for being an unlikely or unsupported possibility, but as something that certainly did not happen. With all things being equal, a claim as unsubstantiated as a murder plot.

Instead of crucifying Moe for thinking he can just tweet without scientific rigor whenever he pleases, I want to consider why he might have chosen the option he did. Why natural causes when murder is just as valid with the same information? Why natural heart attack instead of poison heart attack instead of no heart attack at all but that's what we're supposed to think?

In Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises describes all human action as purposeful and aimed at removing or alleviating unease for a more satisfactory state of affairs. So I wonder if the unease soothed by actively dismissing a murder plot springs from an unease to validate a motive or state-of-mind that is inconsistent with or inconceivable to the dismisser. Where a murderer's relative deviation (or perceived or necessary deviation) from one's own sense of propriety is rejected more satisfactorily as the unease of accepting the deviant as a fellow member of one's species or culture intensifies. Where flatly dismissing a murder plot absolves everyone of suspicion and liberates future pursuits from the complication or distraction of any unease not dispelled when the slightest consideration of a murder plot, in the absence of a perpetrator, implicates everyone. Where rejecting the most conspiratorial or intricate explanations might have the dual benefit of initially seeming sober and optimistic while also being the easiest to forgive in the event that the 'unthinkable' proves to be true.


TO BE CONTINUED....