Moore Boorish Behavior

I really don't have much to say today, so I'll just spout off about things I really don't know anything about. Hey, everyone else does it, so why can't I?

Kelvin 260.22/261.33

I have no plans to see Michael Moore's new film. I've read enough reviews (thanks to Sneaking Suspicions via Instapundit), and I know enough about the topics he discusses, to know that I'll get nothing useful from the film. Mr. Moore, in my opinion, is nothing but a first-rate liar who happens to own a movie camera. He's guilty of all of the things he accuses the Bush administration of - most especially ignoring and distorting the truth to further a personal agenda.

It's an axiom of the extreme political left that George Bush and Dick Cheney planned to go to war against Iraq no matter whether any real justification for war existed or not, and that the administration invented whatever justification it believed it needed in order to sell the war to the American public.

Isn't this exactly what Michael Moore does in his film? He completely ignores contrary evidence, invents or implies connections where none exist, and relies on conspiracy theory and innuendo to make his points, rather than reasoned arguments based on facts. He does all of the very things he accuses President Bush and the Republicans of doing.

In psychology, this phenomenon is known as projection. It's a common psychological defense mechanism wherein one attributes unacceptable thoughts, feelings or motives of one's own onto someone else in order to protect oneself from the psychological consequences of them.

It seems to me that this theory fits Michael Moore rather well. He knows he's a dishonest bully, but admitting it will bring his media notoriety to a crashing end, so what does he do? Of course, he does what many other people would do: he accuses his targets of the exact behaviors he exhibits.

In every film he's made, he's done this very same thing. For example, in his film Bowling for Columbine there is a scene in which he went into a bank, opened an account, and walked out with a rifle. His premise was that guns are far too easy to obtain in the United States. All you have to do is open a bank account, for crying out loud! In fact, that scene was staged, arranged ahead of time by Michael Moore, who duped the bank's management into letting him film the scene the way he wanted it. It was completely and utterly dishonest, and contributed nothing to the important and complex debate over Second Amendment rights versus public safety, but it did fit Moore's preconceived ideas about guns.

From where I sit, it looks like Moore's dishonesty is part of a larger pattern of the leftists (I won't say "Democrats" because there are many honest and moderate Democrats, e.g. Joe Lieberman, that aren't part of the problem I'm addressing) to substitute hatred and extreme rhetoric for thinking and rational argument.

Sieg Heil, Herr Bush?

Some of  the left's extreme rhetoric deserves a rebuttal. It seems to me that the leftists are projecting disgustingly offensive attributes onto the right to a disturbing degree lately, and people need to speak up against it.

An example: our former vice president, Al Gore, recently had this to say:

The administration works closely with a network of rapid responders, a group of digital
brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors and publishers and advertisers, and are
quick to accuse them of undermining support for our troops.

Another example: This site has products you can buy that directly compares George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler and the U.S. under his administration to Nazi Germany.

Don't they know or care how offensive that is? Don't they care that they are minimizing the real Holocaust, the one where around 6 million people were systematically exterminated?

Let me ask a simple historical question: do you honestly think a member of the German government prior to Hitler's takeover would be allowed to oppose Hitler like Al Gore opposes George Bush, with such offensive and extreme language?

Well, let's take a look at some real history to find out, shall we?

On 8th November, 1923, the Bavarian government held a meeting of about 3,000 officials. While Gustav von Kahr, the leader of the Bavarian government was making a speech, Hitler and armed stormtroopers entering the building. Hitler jumped onto a table, fired two shots in the air and told the audience that the Munich Putsch was taking place and the National Revolution had began.

Leaving Hermann Goering and the SA [the real brown shirts!] to guard the 3,000 officials, Hitler took Gustav von Kahr, Otto von Lossow, the commander of the Bavarian Army and Hans von Seisser, the commandant of the Bavarian State Police into an adjoining room. Hitler told the men that he was to be the new leader of Germany and offered them posts in his new government. Aware that this would be an act of high treason, the three men were initially reluctant to agree to this offer. Hitler was furious and threatened to shoot them and then commit suicide: "I have three bullets for you, gentlemen, and one for me!" After this the three men agreed.

And how about Hitler's support for democracy? Well, there's this:

Hitler demanded that he should be made Chancellor but Paul von Hindenburg refused and instead gave the position to Major-General Kurt von Schleicher. Hitler was furious and began to abandon his strategy of disguising his extremist views. In one speech he called for the end of democracy, a system which he described as being the "rule of stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of weakness, and of inadequacy."

Now, has the Bush administration had Al Gore arrested and threatened him with any form of violence? Of course not! Even the thought of it is ridiculous, and the left knows it. The only reason that Al Gore and other leftists can get away with their extremist rhetoric is because George W. Bush and other conservatives that disagree with them are anything but brown shirts.

Left-wing election meetings were broken up by the Sturm Abteilung (SA) and several candidates were murdered. Newspapers that supported these political parties were closed down during the 1933 General Election.

Has George W. Bush thrown any of his political opponents into concentration camps? No, but Hitler did.

Hitler was now dictator of Germany. His first move was to take over the trade unions. Its leaders were sent to concentration camps and the organization was put under the control of the Nazi Party. The trade union movement now became known as the Labour Front.

Soon afterwards the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party were banned. Party activists still in the country were arrested. A month later Hitler announced that the Catholic Centre Party, the Nationalist Party and all other political parties other than the NSDAP were illegal, and by the end of 1933 over 150,000 political prisoners were in concentration camps.

Has George W. Bush had any gays thrown into concentration camps? No, but Hitler did:

It was not only left-wing politicians and trade union activists who were sent to concentration camps. The Gestapo also began arresting beggars, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics and anyone who was incapable of working. Although some inmates were tortured, the only people killed during this period were prisoners who tried to escape and those classed as "incurably insane".

The left's comparison of Republicans and George W. Bush  to Nazis is revolting. It's just mud-slinging of the most disgusting and vile kind. If the supporters of the left want to be taken seriously, they need to stop it, and instead, convince the American people that their ideas for the country and for the world are better.

Michael Moore is just a liar and opportunist, using the left's hatred of President Bush to make an easy buck with a movie that panders to their emotions. I don't expect much from him.

Al Gore, on the other hand, is a former senator and vice president of the United States, and a professional politician. He should know better.

Permanent link