Ben Carson Goes Full Godwin Again

Ben Carson sure knows how to appeal to the far right base. You do it by declaring that everything Obama does is just like Hitler. In an interview with JD Hayworth, he said that if you want to understand Obama you should “read Mein Kampf and read the works of Vladimir Lenin.” Oh, and that nutty Cleon Skousen book The Naked Communist. Because Obama’s both a communist AND a fascist.


"Oh Sarah, don't you realise that in the age of Trump you're barely an afterthought? ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"Well, that could have happened too. Lord knows its possible"

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"The "questions at hand" are whatever I want them to be.Spoken like a True Christian, ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial
"Psst Sarah - a word in your shell-like about the Streisand Effect..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ebotebo

    This clown is a shitstain, wack-a-loon!

  • sh3baproject

    i wish to nominate carson for the godwin award. where do i put the paper with his name, in the box shaped like hitler’s moustache?

  • some bastard on the internet

    He’s totally right, you know. Why, as I write this, I’m sitting in one of Obama’s concentration camps that he has stashed in Hawaii! And tomorrow, I’m going to be waterboarded (the friendly long-haired guards here call it “surfing” for some reason)!

  • Loqi

    But Obama *is* a Communist fascist. Just like he’s an atheist Muslim, was born in both Kenya and Indonesia, and was sired by Malcolm X, Frank Marshall Davis, and Barack Obama Sr. Why, there’s no end to the mutually exclusive things that Obama is.

  • Modusoperandi

    Loqi “Why, there’s no end to the mutually exclusive things that Obama is.”

    To be fair, those are all side effects of him being a brilliant idiot and incompetent mastermind.

  • moarscienceplz

    Because Obama’s both a communist AND a fascist.

    Obviously, it’s absurd to apply those terms to Obama. But, I’ve never gotten why these terms in general are considered polar opposites. If you only define communism as Marx would have, OK, those two are very different, but since most people think of the Soviet Union or Maoist China when they think of communism, just how are those two systems distinct from fascism?

  • Modusoperandi

    moarscienceplz if memory serves, while fascism and communism both fall under totalitarianism, the former doesn’t have the State own the means of production and the latter [at least pretended] to steer towards economic equality, plus Communism focused on class lines, while Fascism divided along the lines of “our country” and “everybody else” (the Commies would take your store because you were bourgeois, while the Fascists would burn it down because you were weren’t pure, say, Italian. Both would loot if if you were Jewish, so at least they could agree on something).

  • dhall

    #6 – moarscienceplz – Fascists are very much pro-capitalist/business and generally work with big business leaders while being anti-labor union and workers’ rights, and they’re generally very conservative socially–traditional gender roles, for instance. They also have no trouble using religious beliefs and the religious leadership as a means to keep people under control and to advance their agendas, and many fascists have been religious, or very good at pretending to be. They usually worry about racial purity, and are jingoists when it comes to nationalism.

    Communists are anti-capitalist and will take “the means of production” away from the capitalists by nationalizing all but small businesses, in an attempt to destroy class divisions and redistribute wealth, and also establish large, communal farms rather than allow private property. They will also promote atheism, as Marx and other communists believed that religion was merely the way to compel the working class to put up with lousy lives here and focus on some wonderful afterlife. There’s actually never been a genuine communist country in history because the attempts never get past the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Supposedly, after everyone has been trained or retrained, the government itself is supposed to dissolve, as it’s no longer needed, and everyone is supposed to do whatever they’re best suited for, while being paid what they need. In that respect, they’re not nationalistic, and generally more egalitarian. But all attempts to create a true communist system have failed, as there’s no real incentive to innovate, or even to work hard and competently, which was what happened to the USSR and Soviet Bloc: they rotted out from the inside. China has chosen a capitalist economy to save itself from the same fate.

  • Michael Heath

    dhall writes:

    Fascists are very much pro-capitalist/business

    It’s my observation that fascists and corporatists, a type of fascist, are not pro-business. They instead favor particular business sectors at the expense of other business sectors with no concern about over business growth rates. Fascists favor sectors that are in the mature stage of a product life cycle, which is when those sectors are cash cows, e.g., oil and coal.

    Because such sectors are cash cows, they use their money to buy politicians in order to both create barriers to entry for competing business sectors and push some of their costs on to taxpayers. Again, oil and coal are two prime current examples. A good historic example of a business sector favored by fascists would be military contractors.

    I bring this up because to be truly pro-business is to advocate for policies that both optimize economic growth and median discretionary income growth trends; the latter because that’s an important component in optimizing over all growth. This is a perfect example of how false Mitt Romney’s claim when it came to arguing he was both pro-growth and pro-business; he was demonstrably neither based on the policies he advocated.

    Of course fascists deny my description. But when have we ever observed the right wing’s rhetoric matching their behavior?

  • jws1

    Heath: woulda been nice to see Obama bring this up in one of their debates.

  • dannorth

    Ed reports regularly about the fundamentalists seeing anything unusual as a portend of the Apocalypse .

    But surely Modus actually talking sense must be one of the most ominous ones.

  • dogmeat

    Also, in a political context, looking at a spectrum:

    Radicals |——-| Liberals |——| Moderates |——| Conservatives |——| Reactionaries

    Fascists are reactionaries while Communists are radicals. If you think about the rhetoric of the Nazis, Mussolini, etc., they spoke of restoring the greatness of their respective countries by turning the clock back and returning to “the good old days.” Communists, in the textbook sense want to wipe away the old system and create a new, “perfect state.”

    In the sense of Stalin and the Soviet Union, you have a totalitarian state that looks a lot like Hitler’s totalitarian state, but in a fundamental sense they were very very different which is why they could both “trust” each other (the 1939 pact) and despise each other (’41-45) pretty much at the same time.

  • dogmeat

    A sidebar that I failed to mention above, if you’re not familiar with it, that spectrum and the fuzziness of the lines between the groups, it helps one to understand why liberals sometimes like some Communist ideas (the 20s-30s and the 60s) but generally tend to fall away from them in the long run as well as why conservatives were the ones that worked with the Fascists in most of the states where they gained a toehold. It also explains the relationship between the Tea Party and the Republican party today as well as why a number of more moderate Republicans are exiting the party (stage left even).