I noticed an interesting headline in the Daily Mail about a new book on Hitler’s alleged wealth. It suggested that he dodged millions in taxes.
This made me pause and think. Can you imagine some tax guy confronting a ruthless dictator about his tax liability?
Do dictators even pay tax? The English queen does not (she is paid from tax revenues), so I do not imagine Adolph feeling any urge to support “his” nation with a donation. The “royal” family might take a hint from the old boy and charge for the use of likenesses….except they probably do already.
When I become one--either dictator or queen--I will not pay any tax...
A British journalist traveled as tourist to North Korea and files a report about what he saw on his heavily controlled and choreographed tour. Such reports probably do not receive much covering in the United States,
I disagree with the comparison to Nazi Germany and not Stalin's Russia. Hitler, for all his faults and unspeakable sins against others, did not treat his own people as badly as the Kim clan treats the poor humans unlucky enough to be born in North Korea (unless they get into the Army). Stalin let millions of his fellow citizens starve to death; Hitler built houses for poor Germans. When rating dictators, one must distinguish between treatment of one's own and treatment of foreigners.
NB. Notice the uniforms of the officers: soon, these guys will have to pin their phony decorations on their trousers...
I admit that I do not spend time studying or thinking about conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists (other than to consider all to be a bit unhinged).
But, each time I notice a headline or hear a commentary, I cannot help but to notice that these people have little or no grasp of history. All references to Stalin, Mao, and Hitler (see below) are based upon historical facts, rather seem to be imagined or plucked from films. Perhaps, people writing screenplays also work on conspiracies...or vice versa. The problem is that too many uneducated or ignorant people are too easily persuaded.
The article below from Salon is simply one example to prove my point:
Everyone else seems to be using the guy's name in vain, so I'll get on the stick, jump on that bandwagon, and beat that dead horse.
It seems that this "gentleman" has become extremely popular with Fox News pundits, talk radio blowhards, and dodgy Republican politicians. His name is the default criticism of anyone that disagrees with their ridiculous positions or opinions on anything.
Of course, it's obvious from their rhetoric, that few have read any history or the man's biography. I doubt any could find Germany on a map or know that the man was Austrian. "Hitler" and "Nazi" are easy labels to hang on anything to incite a rapid crowd of bigger idiots with even less general knowledge.
What got me going on this topic? I read that Qaddafi has called the coalition forces "Nazis" and their political leaders "Hitler". This must be irony. He also has not read history. He's the one that has bombed his own people; Hitler bombed other nations, not his own. He was rather benevolent to his own citizens (except the Jews, of course), unlike Stalin, Saddam Husein, Mugabe, and Qaddafi, to name only a few.
I do not want to apologize for old Adolf, I merely want people to get their symbolism correct. I realize that blowhards in the US use Hitler, because he cannot sue them for slander. He is simple (for simple-minded speakers and listeners) shorthand for evil, even if his name has been degraded from over-use.
Hitler made one big mistake. He failed to brand his name, likeness, and symbols of power (best CI ever). He should have trademarked everything and licensed the whole lot to some US corporation. Since all the big ones (IBM, GM, Ford) were doing business with the German government throughout WWII, he had enough potential partners that understood the power of brands. Unfortunately, only idiots can reap value from his memory.