The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

Step 1: Demonizing the Enemy

War is always sold by artificially demonizing the enemy.

Countries need to lie about their enemies in order to demonize them sufficiently so that the people will support the war.

Everyone knows that “truth is the first casualty of war“.

As Tom Brokaw said:

All wars are based on propaganda.

Posters prepared in foreign countries demonizing Americans are an obvious form of propaganda. For example, here are samples from Nazi Germany:

2qwq4d1 The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas Founding Principles

The Soviet Union:

8 The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas Founding Principles

(the American is supposed to be the guy on the left)

North Korea:

20080310 Korean%20war,%20anti%20American%202 The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas Founding Principles

Anti American Propaganda Poster The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas Founding PrinciplesThese are disturbing images, because we as Americans know that they falsely depict who we are.

But Americans have demonized our enemies as well. For example, in World War II, anti-Japanese posters such as the following were used to whip up hatred of the enemy:

WWii Poster The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas Founding Principles

Anti-German posters such as this were also widely used:

Click the image to open in full size.

And, at times, Americans have even demonized other Americans, such as during the Civil War:

copperhead cartoon The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas Founding Principles

Modern America’s Unique Form of Authoritarianism

The unique modern strain of American fascism can be traced through Leo Strauss and the University of Chicago.

Leo Strauss is the father of the Neo-Conservative movement, including many leaders of recent American administrations.  Indeed, many of the main neocon players – including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky – were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years.

The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq. See this and this. (They planned both wars at least 20 years ago.)     For example, Shulsky was the director of the Office of Special Plans – the Pentagon unit responsible for selling false intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. He is now a member of the equivalent organization targeting Iran: the Iranian Directorate.

What did Strauss teach?

Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers such as Carl Schmitt and of Machiavelli (more on Schmitt later).

Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:

A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.

(the quote is by one of Strauss’ main biographers).

Indeed, Stauss used the analogy of Gulliver’s Travels to show what a Neocon-run society would look like:

“When Lilliput [the town] was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.” (this quote also from the same biographer)

Moreover, Strauss said:

Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns.

So Strauss seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing catastrophes happen on one’s own soil to one’s own people — of “pissing” on one’s own people, to use his Gulliver’s travel analogy. And he advocated that government’s should pretend that they did not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally “not know” that Rome is burning.  He advocated messing with one’s own people in order to save them from some artificial “catastrophe”.  In other words, he proposed using deceit in order to  demonize an adversary and artificially turn him into a dangerous enemy.

Genesis of the Meme: Carl Schmitt

Painting by William Banzai 7

But to really understand Strauss – and thus the Neocons – one must understand his main influence: Carl Schmitt.  Schmitt was the leading Nazi legal scholar and philosopher who created the justification for “total war” to destroy those labeled an “enemy” of the Nazi state.

Strauss was a life-long follower of Schmitt, and Schmitt helped Strauss get a scholarship which let him escape from Germany and come to America.

Not only was Strauss heavily influenced by Schmitt, but Strauss and Schmitt were so close that – when Strauss criticized Schmitt for being too soft and not going far enough – Schmitt agreed:

Schmitt himself recommended Strauss’s commentary [on Schmitt’s writing] to his friends as one that he believed saw right through him like an X-ray.

Schmitt’s philosophy argued that the sovereign was all-powerful in being able to to declare a state of emergency.  As Neil Levi explains:

The sovereign is the name of that person (legal or actual) who decides not only that the situation is a state of exception but also what needs to be done to eliminate the state of exception and thus preserve the state and restore order.  Note the circularity of the definitions: the sovereign is the one who decides that there is a state of exception; a state of exception is that which the sovereign deems to be so.


The sovereign eliminates the state of exception to restore order, but the content of this order is historically contingent, because it is dependent on the sovereign’s will. All that matters to Schmitt is, as Slavoj Žižek puts it, “the decision for the formal principle of order as such.” Similarly, Schmitt says nothing, can say nothing, about what it is that makes a [principle] worth defending with one’s life, what substance and concrete content could or should compel one to make such a commitment to preserve this form.

Indeed, Schmitt says that “politics” is not the process of debate, making trade-offs, building consensus or letting the best ideas win.  Instead, the sovereign – through an act of will – makes a decision, and then the political system should carry it out, and the military effectuate it.

George W. Bush’s statement that he was the “decider” fits in nicely with Schmitt’s theories.

Moreover, Schmitt argued that war against one’s enemy is total – lacking any legal constraints – but the sovereign can use ever-shifting definitions of who the enemy is:

War is the existential negation of the enemy.


As with the state of exception, there are not rational criteria for distinguishing friend from enemy.  All conflict is situational conflict.

Similarly, Al Qaeda has been our “mortal enemy” since 9/11 … but now they are our close ally.

Indeed, Schmitt said that those who are like our “brothers”, who are as much the same as different from us, must be demonized so that we don’t feel any compassion for them.  They are either “with us or against us”, regardless of whether or not they are good people, or how close to us they may be.

The Georgetown University Law Center notes:

Schmitt denounces all “neutralizations and depoliticizations,” which for him are the hallmarks of liberalism. There are no neutralizations: if you are not with us you are against us and we will destroy you: “If a part of the population declares that it no longer recognizes enemies, then, depending on the circumstance, it joins their side and aids them.”

Indeed, Schmitt believed that demonization and war must be maintained for their own sake, or else a horrible world where peace and culture reined would be created:

Schmitt writes that if war became impossible, then “the distinction of friend and enemy would also cease” and what remained would be “neither politics nor state, but culture,  civilization,economics, morality, law, art, entertainment, and so on”….

A continuous “state of emergency” is required for the type of leadership advocated by Schmitt and Strauss.   In 2002, Slavoj Žižek pointed out how this continuous state of emergency works:

A notable precursor in this field of para-legal ‘biopolitics’, in which administrative measures are gradually replacing the rule of law, was Alfredo Stroessner’s regime in Paraguay in the 1960s and 1970s, which took the logic of the state of exception to an absurd, still unsurpassed extreme. Under Stroessner, Paraguay was – with regard to its Constitutional order – a ‘normal’ parliamentary democracy with all freedoms guaranteed; however, since, as Stroessner claimed, we were all living in a state of emergency because of the worldwide struggle between freedom and Communism, the full implementation of the Constitution was forever postponed and a permanent state of emergency obtained. This state of emergency was suspended every four years for one day only, election day, to legitimise the rule of Stroessner’s Colorado Party with a 90 per cent majority worthy of his Communist opponents. The paradox is that the state of emergency was the normal state, while ‘normal’ democratic freedom was the briefly enacted exception. This weird regime anticipated some clearly perceptible trends in our liberal-democratic societies in the aftermath of 11 September. Is today’s rhetoric not that of a global emergency in the fight against terrorism, legitimising more and more suspensions of legal and other rights? The ominous aspect of John Ashcroft’s recent claim that ‘terrorists use America’s freedom as a weapon against us’ carries the obvious implication that we should limit our freedom in order to defend ourselves. Such statements from top American officials, especially Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, together with the explosive display of ‘American patriotism’ after 11 September, create the climate for what amounts to a state of emergency, with the occasion it supplies for a potential suspension of rule of law, and the state’s assertion of its sovereignty without ‘excessive’ legal constraints. America is, after all, as President Bush said immediately after 11 September, in a state of war. The problem is that America is, precisely, not in a state of war, at least not in the conventional sense of the term (for the large majority, daily life goes on, and war remains the exclusive business of state agencies). With the distinction between a state of war and a state of peace thus effectively blurred, we are entering a time in which a state of peace can at the same time be a state of emergency.

Columbia Law School professor Scott Horton notes that Schmitt’s philosophy formed the basis of the famous torture memos:

Where exactly did [Department of Justice torture memo author John] Yoo come up with the analysis that led to the purported conclusions that the Executive was not restrained by the Geneva Conventions and similar international instruments in its conduct of the war in Iraq? Yoo’s public arguments and statements suggest the strong influence of one thinker: Carl Schmitt.


Perhaps the most significant German international law scholar of the era between the wars, Schmitt was obsessed with what he viewed as the inherent weakness of liberal democracy. He considered liberalism, particularly as manifested in the Weimar Constitution, to be inadequate to the task of protecting state and society menaced by the great evil of Communism. This led him to ridicule international humanitarian law in a tone and with words almost identical to those recently employed by Yoo and several of his colleagues.

Beyond this, Yoo’s prescription for solving the “dilemma” is also taken straight from the Schmittian playbook. According to Schmitt, the norms of international law respecting armed conflict reflect the romantic illusions of an age of chivalry. They are “unrealistic” as applied to modern ideological warfare against an enemy not constrained by notions of a nation-state, adopting terrorist methods and fighting with irregular formations that hardly equate to traditional armies. (Schmitt is, of course, concerned with the Soviet Union here; he appears prepared to accept that the Geneva and Hague rules would apply on the Western Front in dealing with countries such as Britain and the United States). For Schmitt, the key to successful prosecution of warfare against such a foe is demonization. The enemy must be seen as absolute. He must be stripped of all legal rights, of whatever nature. The Executive must be free to use whatever tools he can find to fight and vanquish this foe. And conversely, the power to prosecute the war must be vested without reservation in the Executive – in the words of Reich Ministerial Director Franz Schlegelberger (eerily echoed in a brief submission by Bush Administration Solicitor General Paul D. Clement), “in time of war, the Executive is constituted the sole leader, sole legislator, sole judge.” (I take the liberty of substituting Yoo’s word, Executive; for Schmitt or Schlegelberger, the word would, of course, have been Führer). In Schmitt’s classic formulation: “a total war calls for a total enemy.” This is not to say that in Schmitt’s view the enemy was somehow “morally evil or aesthetically unpleasing;” it sufficed that he was “the other, the outsider, something different and alien.” These thoughts are developed throughout Schmitt’s work, but particularly in Der Begriff des Politischen (1927), Frieden oder Pazifismus (1933) and Totaler Feind, totaler Krieg, totaler Staat (1937).


A careful review of the original materials shows that the following rationales were advanced for decisions not to apply or to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions of 1929 and the Hague Convention of 1907 during the Second World War:

(1) Particularly on the Eastern Front, the conflict was a nonconventional sort of warfare being waged against a “barbaric” enemy which engaged in “terrorist” practices, and which itself did not observe the law of armed conflict.

(2) Individual combatants who engaged in “terrorist” practices, or who fought in military formations engaged in such practices, were not entitled to protections under international humanitarian law, and the adjudicatory provisions of the Geneva Conventions could therefore be avoided together with the substantive protections.

(3) The Geneva and Hague Conventions were “obsolete” and ill-suited to the sort of ideologically driven warfare in which the Nazis were engaged on the Eastern Front, though they might have limited application with respect to the Western Allies.

(4) Application of the Geneva Conventions was not in the enlightened self-interest of Germany because its enemies would not reciprocate such conduct by treating German prisoners in a humane fashion.

(5) Construction of international law should be driven in the first instance by a clear understanding of the national interest as determined by the executive. To this end niggling, hypertechnical interpretations of the Conventions that disregarded the plain text, international practice and even Germany’s prior practice in order to justify their nonapplication were entirely appropriate.

(6) In any event, the rules of international law were subordinated to the military interests of the German state and to the law as determined and stated by the German Führer.

The similarity between these rationalizations and those offered by John Yoo in his hitherto published Justice Department memoranda and books and articles is staggering.

In that light, take another look at this Nazi propaganda poster branding America as a “terrorist” because of its “culture”:

2qwq4d1 The Demonization of Muslims is Completely At Odds with Americas oFounding Principles

Horton continues:

Carl Schmitt was … marked by a hatred of America that bordered on the irrational. He viewed American articulations of international law as fraught with hypocrisy, and saw in American practice in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a menacing new form of imperialism (“this form of imperialism… presents a particular threat to a people forced in a defensive posture, like we Germans; it presents us with the greater threat of military occupation and economic exploitation” he writes in 1932 …. He saw in the peculiarly American notion of consensus-democracy an unsustainable foolishness, and in the Jeffersonian vision of small government with a maximum space for individual freedom a threat to his peculiar Catholic values.


Yoo’s views on international humanitarian law have absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. They are a cheap, discredited Middle European import from the twenties and thirties. Viewed this way, it becomes increasingly clear where they would lead us.

A Perennial Problem

While it might be tempting to blame the implementation of Schmitt and Strauss’ ideas on George W. Bush alone, this is not borne out by the historical record.

After all, Dick Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long decades before Bush became president. Likewise, indefinite detention, widespread spying on Americans, war throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, militarization of the police, and most of the other Bush-era abuses were launched or contemplated long before Bush was sworn in.

Indeed, the demonization of the enemy through dishonest means has been going on for thousands of years.

And these Strauss/Schmitt policies are being faithfully continued by president Obama – a supposed liberal.

Painting by William Banzai 7

For example:

  • A top legal expert says:

President Obama … says that he can kill [any American citizen without any charge and] on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion.

  • The government uses arbitrary, shifting definitions of enemies.  For example, while Al Qaeda has been our “mortal enemy” since 9/11 … now they are our close ally.   Yet the government might label anyone anywhere in the world terrorists if they do what we do … without our permission.  And government agencies under the Obama administration are labeling the most mundane, normal American behavior as potential terrorism

Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the U.S. is quickly drifting into tyranny.  See this, this, this, this, this, this, thisthis and this.

We would argue that the problem of tyranny goes beyond Obama, or the Neocons or Strauss or even Schmitt.

The problem is that 4% of the the population are psychopaths.  Unless people evolve to the point where they can spot the sociopaths in our midst, we will continue to be controlled by them, and to suffer at their hands.

Why We Are Drifting Towards Fascism (And What We Can Do About It)

Ultimately, we are drifting towards fascism because the majority of people aren’t standing up for ourselves.  We are letting the authoritarians have their way.

The good news is that the longest-running sociological study ever shows that only 25% of people are authoritarians.  And most people are not psychopaths.

The truth is that we have overwhelming numbers (and see this).  If we worked together we would win.

We need not be victims to the psychopaths who would want to control us.  We can evolve and empower ourselves.

At a deeper level, if we are disconnected from out own thoughts, our own feelings and our own soul, then we will look to others to tell us what to do.  We will follow the strong leader protecting us from imagined crises and made up enemies, as advocated by Schmitt and Strauss.

Only a re-connection with ourselves, our communities and our souls will act as antibodies to the insane ramblings of those who would manipulate us in order to gain total control over society and to carry out their infantile fantasy of destroying all enemies.

Schmitt, Strauss, Yoo and all of the other boneheads who have adopted a crazed disconnection from reality are worshippers of “thanatos” … the “drive towards death” diagnosed by Freud and others. Many of them write lustfully about the beauty of the noble death on the battlefield.

Sanity lies in reconnection with the beauty of the everyday: the beauty of nature, of lovers, of children, of community, of an intellectual insight, of a brilliant engineering breakthrough, of a life of service, of art, of quiet prayer and meditation.

We need to reconnect with the beauty of life … and the fact that deep down inside (despite different clothes, languages and customs) everyone’s blood is red, and everyone wants the same basic things: a little food, a little comfort, a little love, a little inspiration.

In the end, the brutal murderers and tyrants are children. Real men stand up to fascism.

Fear makes people stupid and cowardly … and willing to follow the authoritarian leader into the depths of hell.   On the other hand, real courage and strength comes from love for life and passion.

Insanity may be contagious.  But courage is contagious as well.  And as scared as we may be of the powers-that-be, they’re even more terrified of us.

Love and courage are the antitodes: they are what make us fully human, and able to defeat the psychosis of Schmitt, Strauss and the perennial crazies who would crush humanity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • par4

    We keep drifting to the right because the left has been demonized and marginalized as a viable alternative.

    • Archimedes

      The left is no better. The radical left would have everyone in chains as eagerly as the radical right.

      The only option is to begin dismantling the state.

      Leave no levers of power for the insane of left or right to grab, and they will just drift away and do the only thing they are truly qualified to do: sweeping streets and picking up garbage from public parks — leaving the rest of us to tend to our lives, families and businesses without the meddling of the extremists.

      • Robert Mockan

        You say ‘..they will just drift away..”. The problem is that they never do. In history every resistance movement that tries to remove levers of power, and really threaten the insane with loss of control and power, always resulted in the insane trying to kill the resistance leaders. That is why they always focus on creating surveillance grids and police states wherever and whenever their tyranny is imposed. The tools being applied today to implement their agenda include technology that is purposely kept decades in advance of anything visibly used in society. That is part of the ploy to keep people ignorant of the level of danger, of losing all their individual liberty and ability to form any organized resistance, that exists. Unless people act, to destroy the insane oligarchs, while the small, and quickly closing, window of opportunity remains open, then this time individual liberty may be lost, forever.

        • adsicks

          Didn’t The Renaissance and the Protestant Movement turn the tide of a Catholic Church that had become much like the US Government is today?…or am I wrong, was their a violent revolution in Europe that I don’t know about…Maybe Germany counter-attacked Rome for coming after Martin Luther, so forgive me if I am ignorant of that…

        • 8Ball

          Hello Robert…

      • rawiron1

        Correct. It’s the SA Brown Shirt Communist Demokrats vs the SS Black Shirt Fascist Republikans.

    • MJ

      Drifting to the right? Huh?
      Fascism is another of the children of Socialism … just like Communism, Bolshevism, Leninism, Marxism, Hitlerism … These are all to the LEFT.

      “The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student sees in them only one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power … In Russia and Germany, for example, we have lately seen the State moving with great alacrity against infringement of its monopoly by private persons, while at the same time exercising monopoly with unconscionable ruthlessness.” — Albert Jay Nock

      • InnerCynic

        I don’t know why in the hell this notion of “left and right” keeps sticking in peoples noggins but whether you want to call it “fascism or marxism etc” what it truly boils down to is statism versus YOU! So put the left right nonsense aside and see it for what it is: and evil charade. If you keep nit-picking over this then they have you where they want you: angry and ignorant.

  • PB


    Love your work. I did some work on Strauss about 30 years ago in graduate school. I don’t care for him and especially don’t care for some of his “followers.” However I think one of your quotes is out of place.

    “Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns.”

    Strauss was referring here to the new political science and its efforts to be value-free and morally neutral in its research. He thought that the emphasis on quantitative techniques to discover truth from human behavior was dangerous and wrong. He despised these folks and was simply comparing the thinkers that he despised with Nero, the emperor who fiddled while Rome burned.

  • Education and knowledge about the US modern fiat monetary system is an absolute necessity for real democracy.

  • Rehmat

    The US is drifting to facism because it has been controlled by powerful foreign lobby groups and Christian exteremists. A 2010 study by the Center for American Progress (CAP) has revealed that seven US charitable organization have spent $42.6 million during 2001-2009 to spread hatred toward Islam and Muslims. And who lead this Crusade against Muslims? By far too many Israel-Firster Zionist Jews! For example, Daniel Pipes of Middle East Forum, David Horowitz of FrontPage magazine, Yerushalmi of Anti-Sharia compaign, Pamela Geller, a blogger and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism who claims that Bush, Obama and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are too soft on Muslims.

  • Fred

    They may write lustfully about a noble death on the battle field, but you wont catch those chicken hawks any where near that battle field themselves.

  • Tammy

    We are drifting toward Fascism because -after 40 years of government-run edjewkashun- people are too stupid to be free. The global counterfeiting central bankers (aka, Psychotic Terrorists) want global Fascism. Wouldn’t you?

  • Harold Smith

    (1) “America” is not “drifting” towards fascism; rather it is being purposefully and relentlessly driven there.
    (2) “America” is being driven towards fascism because Jews have subverted our political process and subsequently staged a false-flag terror attack. The false-flag terror attack was then the pretext to end the rule of law, consolidate power in the executive branch, erect a domestic police state, and begin to implement the Jewish supremacist PNAC agenda for world rule by using U.S. military, economic and political power to beat the independent world into submission.
    (3) Jews like Leo Strauss do the evil they do simply because they’re Jews. Long-winded superfluous rhetoric cannot hide that basic fact.
    (4) Put simply, the Jewish collective has launched a race war – for control of the world – against the non-Jewish balance of humanity.

    • This kind of dumb is not helpful.

      • Harold Smith

        Well then Shlomo, maybe you and your fellow Jewish supremacist tribesmen should stop it.

    • tl;dr JEWS DONE CAUSED 9/11, WAEK UP SHEEPLE hurr derp

      Cool story, bro.

    • Jericho

      Wow…Racist much?

  • Robert Mockan

    The WashingtonsBlog article is clear, relevant, and informative. But unfortunately the reader audience remains the choir. These kind of articles are not reaching the ignorant who can learn from them, and who are needed to increase the number of people who chose to resist tyranny.
    Not having enough people working together and taking physical action to overcome tyranny is causing even knowledgeable Americans to suffer symptoms of paralysis through analysis.

  • Walter D

    “Put 10 Libertarians into a room and you’ll come out with 11 opinions”. Another blogger stated that the “neo-cons” originated in Chicago via a schism within the communist followers. Whatever,….we usually compare any “bad” actors with the most dreadful of all “bad” actors: Hitler. Whether we are of left or right persuasion. Gee, I can’t think of any other “bad” actors who murdered their own people, or murdered other people, or who are now murdering…….yea, it’s Hitler

  • jsolbakken

    Real Men Stand Up To Fascism, INDEED! That is precisely why I am not and can never ever ever ever be “anti-war.” War propaganda is like cheerleaders at a football game. They can catalyze an exuberant response but they cannot manufacture one where no interest exists in the first place. For example, if Americans had not already decided they wanted to go to war with the Empire of Japan on December 8, 1941, all the silly propaganda in the world would not have convinced them. In fact, it looks more like the ANTI-WAR PROPAGANDA was working right up until the day the Japs attacked us. (Using the Japs of 1941 as one example.) See how it can work both ways? See how I can thoroughly MISTRUST YOU who push “peace, peace,” when there ain’t no peace and you damn well know it? “Peace Propaganda,” has, ironically, ALWAYS been part of the fascist program for total victory. So good job setting us up like bowling pins, you crypto-fascist!!!

  • InnerCynic

    The bitterly ironic thing, about these propaganda posters above, is that they weren’t all that far off after all. It’s only taken the American public “dinosaur” this long to wake up and realize what’s going on. And yet scores of people are still in self denial about the evil lunatics from both sides of the oligarchical spectrum.

  • john

    Wasn’t USA over when Congressman Davy Crockett began voting for other people to pay for free stuff for Crockett’s friends? In 1 Sam 8 we see people want free stuff, no matter what.

    And those who want to see our problems as a jewish conspiracy, if they are so in charge how come it always turns out so bad for them? More sense to think the bad guys use some Jews as front men.

    We need anarchy.

  • Hans

    The language on the first poster is Danish, not German, just for correctness’ sake. As far as I can read it, it says: “The United States wants to save Europe’s culture from doom. But what gives them the right?”. And then it shows the hodge podge monster made up of the US’s own shortcomings and hypocrisies, bombing cities. Interesting. It definitely has greater depth than the other, cruder examples, depicting the enemy as troglodytes etc. I would recommend to ascertain if this poster is really a Nazi Propaganda piece or rather something homegrown Danish. To uphold scholarly standards. It would have been a reaction to the mass bombings by the Allies.

    • Martin

      Actually it’s Norwegian. Danish and Norwegian are very closely related. Anyway, your translation is correct.

  • amerikagulag

    Agreed with Robert. The sheep still remain glues to their football games. Nothing will wake them up until cheap beer is no longer available.

    And the term ‘drifting’ toward fascism is not really accurate. It’s more like FLYING at mach III. I would call it totalitarianism though.