Youtube "Hitler speeches" for a look at the artistic motions that Hitler made while speaking. I believe that it was those motions, in part, that actually hypnotized folks into accepting what Hitler said. In Hitler's case, probably the correct translation of "Kung-Fu" into English is more like "Fung-Ku."
Since you said "in part," I'll agree. Hitler has a reputation as a dynamic speaker.
I've read English translations of parts of Hitler's speeches though, and a lot of what he said wouldn't be considered controversial even today.
Some of it was standard cheerleading of a comeback from economic problems. This is normal for politicians. "Things were bad before; now they're better. Long live Our Party!"
Some of it was bragging about the German welfare state (dating back to Bismarck). This isn't so different from how Europeans brag about their welfare states today, especially to contrast themselves with those "backward" Americans.
Some of it was complaining about liberals/capitalists. This isn't so different from things left-wing politicians still say.
Some of it was complaining about Marxists/communists. This isn't so different from things right-wing politicians still say.
Some of it was about the devious eternal Jew and conspiracies involving international financiers. This is the kind of thing you find, well, in this subforum of bitcointalk, as well as other parts of the internet where racism and conspiracy theories are able to be espoused.
Obviously I'm not saying this to support Hitler. I find the fact that his ideas are still popular to be more of an indictment of the species.
Indictment of the species is a good term. I wonder what it really means?
The guys who were setting up the United States Constitution back in the late 1700s, knew that, population-wise we needed an effective organizing of the people into a "unit" to withstand the troops of King George who were taking away freedom. This is the same basic idea that Hitler and the Nazis were working with in pre-WWII Germany - strength of unity to fight a larger enemy.
What did Hitler and his group originally want? Did they want strength for Germany? Did they want to take over the world? Were they simply out there to get as much as they could get? Was it similar for the people setting up the American Constitution?
The difference was the thinking of the American people at the time of the Constitution. Americans didn't ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was in place in the ratification. The 6th and 7th Articles of the Bill of Rights set the people individually over the government, if a jury of 12 peers can be convinced to agree with the individual. The 9th Article assures the people of all the rights that they individually had before the Constitution and Constitution government had been set up in America.
The German people, good as they might have been in areas of intricate mechanics, couldn't see the damage that not having freedom for the individual might cause them.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution separated government from the people. It gave the people a choice to be part of the government or to remain outside of the government while maintaining their rights. The Germans never had this choice. They were either in, or they were the enemy.
Today in the U.S., most people are, by their own admission, members of the government rather than simply Americans. Thus the government is able to gradually bring legalization into their lives to the point that government controls everything about their lives.
Are Americans going to wake up to the fact that they don't have to be members of the U.S. government? Are they going to see how easy it is for them to acknowledge all the rights that people had before the Constitution was formed? Or are they going to continue in the way of the German people, maintaining themselves inside the government until the government comes and controls every little activity of their lives?
Thank goodness there are some people waking up to how easy it is for Americans to put government in its place for themselves individually. Thank goodness that there are those who see how easily the people can use the government's own foundational laws, the Articles of the Bill of Rights, to make government back down, while at the same time leaving government intact, so that there can be strength of unity, albeit without aggression against the people.
To understand how this works, read everything that Bill Thornton says at his site,
http://1215.org/. Google and Youtube search on "Karl Lentz common law" to find the best and simplest ways to put Bill Thornton's stuff into action. It's right in the Constitution Bill of Rights, and it is active in the courts everyday.
