American attorney and author Mike Godwin coined his eponymous law on Usenet in 1990
Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies) is an internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin’s law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
Generalization, corollaries, usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.
Godwin’s law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent’s argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Similar criticisms of the “law” (or “at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes”) have been made by the American lawyer, journalist, and author Glenn Greenwald.
The Fifth Column Treasonous Marxist Media as well as prominent Liberal Marxist Democrats and many imbeciles in general have taken to comparing President Donald Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy on immigration to the horrific genocide known as the Holocaust.
This disgusting and reprehensible behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged by the Marxist left because of their core ideological principal. The End Justifies the Means.
During the 1960’s a new and fresh wave of Marxist revolutionaries were cultivated in the Ivy League colleges and universities of the United States of America. These new leftist radicals were guided by the Marxist revolutionary propaganda artists Saul Alinsky. Who in 1971 wrote his seminal treatise on radical Marxist strategic tactics to be employed by Marxist radicals in the overthrowal of the United States Constitution.
This strategic book of tactics is known as “Rules for Radicals“.
Saul D. Alinsky is most widely known as the founder of modern community organizing, with his most noted work being his 1971 book, Rules For Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.
Alinsky graduated from the University of Chicago in 1930, in the midst of the Great Depression. Unable to find work in his scholarly focus — archaeology — he eventually began working as a labor organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations. In the late 1930’s, he retrained his focus toward general community organizing, focusing heavily on improving the living conditions in the poor areas in the South Side of Chicago before spreading his organization tactics to other inner-city communities across America.
Alinsky has been very influential in modern politics and with prominent politicians of today. He helped organize the initial Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) in the late 1940’s, of which Bernie Sanders was chair of during his time in Chicago in the 60’s. Sanders has been noted as using “Alinskian” tactics on state and national levels for his US Senate campaigns in Vermont and his 2016 Presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton’s 1969 BA senior thesis at Wellesley was wholly inspired by the Alinsky model of organization, for which she personally interviewed Alinsky. President Obama once did work for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky’s work.
In the wake of all that 2016 has piled onto us, from a local and personal level to a global level, it’s worth visiting Alinsky’s writings to glean some ideas that can be used or repurposed today. Radicals begins with a discussion about general class distinctions — the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores (the middle class) — and what each wants. I can go into these distinctions later in another piece. The list of rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends below should be taken in the contextual framing of this interclass struggle.
Alinsky notes the perennial question on whether, “the ends justify the means,” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, “do these particular ends justify these particular means?” He goes on to say, the person of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms; he or she thinks only of the resources available and the possibilities of various choices of action.
So, in structuring a strategy in seeking a desired end, one should first frame their ideas of what they are willing to do in order to achieve those ends in an ethical framework so as to keep their means defensible to others and, to a greater extent, themselves. Here are Alinsky’s 10 rules:
“One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.” — When we are not directly concerned, our morality overflows. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.
“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgement.” Eg., the Declaration of Independence as a glorious document, affirming human rights to us, whereas to the British it was deceitful and full of omission to the benefits the empire provided: food provided during famines, medicine during times of disease, etc.
“In war, the end justifies almost any means.” — During WWII, when Winston Churchill, a staunch anticommunist, was asked how he could reconcile being on the same side as the Soviets, he replied, “I only have one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
“Judgement must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
”Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”– If one lacks the luxury of a choice and is possessed of only one mean, then the ethical question will never arise; automatically the lone mean becomes endowed with moral spirit. After all, what else could be done?
“The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.” — Mostly a reiteration of the first rule; with more distance from a problem, the less important the problem is.
“Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.” — There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.
“The morality of a mean depends upon whether the mean is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” — The means employed with victory seemingly assured may be defined as immoral, whereas if they had been used in more desperate circumstances to avoid defeat, the question of morality would never arise.
“Any effective mean is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.” — Francis Marion, a war hero of the American Revolution from South Carolina was immortalized as “the swamp fox,” for his guerrilla tactics used against the British. Cornwallis and the British Army were made harried and disorganized by Marion’s tactics, denouncing him as a criminal. They said he lacked ethics and morality for his revolutionary guerrilla means.
“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” — Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly; whether you will move for extensive changes or limited adjustments; whether you will move by passive resistance or active resistance–or whether you will move at all. As many upstarts have alluded to in their speeches and theses–
when they have the guns, we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot; when we have the guns then it will be through the bullet
I hope you noticed in the above Medium.com quote the very specific inclusion of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as individuals with profound connections to Saul Alinsky’s radical Marxist strategic tactics. It is profoundly important to understand and grasp the full significance of this, but to also understand, that Sanders, Clinton and Obama were and are by no means outliers or the exception to the Alinsky disciple rule.
The individuals who read and now practice Alinsky’s rules for radicals infest like a cancer all levels of Academia, Government and the Media. They took Saul Alinsky’s advice to heart wherein he advised them, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”.
As you read Alinsky’s rules for radicals, especially his treatment of the concept of “The End Justifies the Means” there is only one rational or logical conclusion that any sane individual can come to. Having chosen ones desired end goal, those following Alinsky’s rules for radicals have abandoned any semblance of moral, ethical or principled behavior as a guideline to their rules of engagement in achieving that desired end.
The last time the world was given a full frontal view of that ideological justification was Hitlers Nazi Germany. So it becomes something of an ironic application of Godwins law when the disciples of Saul Alinsky accuse their political opponents of being “White Supremacist” which is of course synomous with accusing them of being Neo-Nazi’s and then of accusing them of applying Nazi Germany’s genocidal holocaust behavior and tactics.
It cannot be over-stressed what the logical conclusion of “The end Justifies the Means” is. It eventually find but one single solitary conclusion, just as the Nazi’s themselves concluded, there is no atrocity that cannot and eventually will not be justified and embraced in achieving the end goal. The greater the resistance to that end goal by those that end goal is being inflicted on, the greater the atrocity that will eventually be embraced and justified.
Suffice it to say, in Alinsky’s world, there is no atrocity that is not justifiable if it advances the cause of Marxist Socialism. Saul Alinsky was Hilary Clinton’s mentor in college, and Barack Obama’s mentor was William Ayer’s, former “Weather Underground” Alinsky terrorists from the 1960’s.
The American Liberal Left are Marxist Socialists. More importantly, they are Saul Alinsky Marxist Socialists which are an even more violent faction of Marxist Socialism. The #Antifa crowd are Alinsky Marxist Socialists. They have a single goal, the violent bloody overthrow of Capitalism and the Unite States Constitution by any means necessary.
 For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.
When you are willing to commit any atrocity to achieve your end goal, the one thing that can and will spur you on to commit ever more reprehensible atrocities, is the fear that you are losing. The Mainstream Media and the Marxist Liberal Left have evoked Godwin’s law upon themselves by comparing President Trump and his supporters to Nazi’s and the Holocaust. They have lost the debate and in doing so entered the stage where their only remaining options are those of crimes against humanity and atrocities.
They have crossed the Rubicon and begun a scorched earth campaign of vile rhetorical accusations that can only lead to actual bloody violence. I do not know what the Trump administration can do to halt or prevent the violence that the Fifth Column Treasonous Marxist Media and the Liberal Marxist Democrat Party are even now fomenting. But I can say with absolute moral authority, that if the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party are not held criminally liable for any violence provoked by their hyperbolic rhetoric, that in itself will be a crime against humanity and an atrocity.