Anndolf Coutler

Yglesias points us to this nifty “Coulter or Hitler?” quiz. I recommend that everyone give it a try.

I got 12 out of 14 correct, but that was only because I detected subtle style differences in the writing that tipped me off. Content wise, it is nearly impossible to tell the two of them apart.


Comments: 53


What a stunner, the left can’t refute Ann Coulter’s arguments, so they decide to slander her by comparing her to one of the the most notorious leftist evil men in history.

The groupthink cult of liberalism is showing it’s true colors this week.


10 out of 14. Once I got to the Communist parts, it got a bit harder, as apparently Coulter isn’t as concerned with labeling liberals as Commies as I expected. And one of the ones I accredited to Coulter, in hindsight, I should’ve known was a Hitler shot at the Jews. But I hadn’t really thought the Hitler considered Jews to engage in human acitivity.

Silly me.


How original. Rather than checking the actual link, you just decry the concept and then accuse the poster and his fans of “groupthink”.

The blind followers are showing their true colors this week.


Dude, you really need to try the Leftist Cult before you bash it. We have the BEST Kool Aid!


My guess is that if you translated Mein Kampf in a more modern idiom, it’d be even harder to tell. Content-wise, there’s a Rizla paper between them.


I got 14 out of 14 correct. It was the stylistic differences, along with having an obsession with reading about the third Reich
that helped. This similarities are amazing. Maybe Coulter is Hitler reincarnated?


13 out of 14, so suck it! And, yes, it’s only stylistic differences that seperate them…

What an evil specimen….oh, and Hitler’s bad, too.


12 of 14 here, too. Thrown off a bit by Hitler’s rants about American liberals, I guess.

I need a bleach shower now, tho.


I notice an error in one of Coulter’s quotes: “Vladimir Lenin had famously said that the act of sex should ‘be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water.'”

The fact is that Bolshevik feminist Alexandra Kollontai said that.

The fact is that Ann was sabotaged by liberal fact-checkers deliberately inserting errors into her work to make her look bad. Curse you, liberals, does you hatred of America know any limit?


If you’re wondering why I’ve been trolling extra hard today, it’s because there’s a contest going on at Netvocates. Just 200 more comments at Sadly, No! today and I win a bicycle!


12/14 here also.

So why do I feel so dirty right now?


ha! 14/14.


What a stunner, the left can’t refute Adolph Hitler’s arguments, so they decide to slander him by comparing him to one of the the most notorious evil transsexuals in modern America.

Oh, and by the way, has been around for a couple years.

The Angel of Reason

the left can’t refute Ann Coulter’s arguments

One can’t “refute” invective. How can one refute a statement like “Gary Ruppert is a moron”?

Notes toward refutation of Ann Coulter’s arguments:

Liberals (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson) were aggressive Cold Warriors committed to a strategy of containment and rollback of the Soviet Union that eventually led to the Vietnam debacle.

Hitler jailed and murdered thousands of German communists. The communists were much on his mind (unlike Coulter’s) because in Germany in the twentiesand early thirties they were the only really serious competition the Nazis had to succeed the collapsing Weimar republic.


0 out of 14. On purpose. Because Coulter and Hitler are interchangeable and I’m The Decider.


10/14 for me too, and I also picked up on the “stylistic differences”. So far nobody mentioned that the “stylistic differences” they picked up were that Hitler was much more erudite.


12/14. Coulter uses smaller words. And, yes, Hitler committed genocide, atrocities, and war crimes. Coulter just cheerleads for same.


So far nobody mentioned that the “stylistic differences� they picked up were that Hitler was much more erudite.

Well he was writing for a smarter audience…

The Angel of Reason

I’m not sure “erudite” is the word. Hitler’s style is pretty much that of an average political pamphleteer of that time. “Mein Kampf” is extremely boring, and was regarded as such by notable Nazis, like Goering. Ralph Mannheim’s preface to his translation of “Mein Kampf” gives a nice analysis of the stilted and pretentious quality of Hitler’s writing.


13 out of 14 and I should have known better on the one I got wrong. This is close to something I’ve been thinking about, which is: If you extracted
quotes from AH and other Nazis about ‘Jews,” and did a parallel colum of AC on “liberals,” how different would they be? Or how not different? TK.


12 out of 14; I was tripped up by the concern for America too. I was gonna brag, but I see that some of you got 13 or all 14 correct, so thanks for stealing my thunder, America-haters!

It seems Yglesias was all hyped about getting 12 too, so I’m not the only one…

verplanck colvin

Thanks for the education, ’cause I got 13/14 as well. Hitler seems a bit more concerned with connecting with his side (“our people”) than Ann does. Ann’s just out to hate, hate, hate.

is it bad if I can see more compassion (or at least the attempt to connect with someone) coming from Hitler?


14/14, though I had to think a few of them through. I’ve read a lot of Nazi history, so I’ve probably picked up an ear for Hitler’s style and phrasing, but even with that it was difficult to be sure on a few of them. That’s one crazy bitch.


12 out of 14.

The quotes could only be judged on style, since the content was identical. And the styles were similar enough to make it a challenge to discriminate; fortunately, Hitler’s stuff was funnier.


You know, not many people knew about it, but the Fuhrer vas a terrific dancer.


You know, not many people knew about it, but the Fuhrer vas a terrific dancer.

Und he vasn’t a bad kisser, either!


I only got 8 right.

I suck at this game. To be fair, though, it is really hard.


Unt as a painter? Ah! Two coats, one hour! Not like Chhhhhhhurchill.


Ach! 11 of 14. Out of curiousity, if you had to read one or the other, would you read Mein Kampf or the Cunt of the Rings trilogy (Godless, Treason, and whatever the other one was called)?

And the answer “I would gouge my eyes out first” doesn’t count.


Unt as a painter? Ah! Two coats, one hour! Not like Chhhhhhhurchill.

Ze fact is zat Hitler vas better looking than Churchill, he vas a better dresser than Churchill, had more hair, told funnier jokes, and could dance the pants off Churchill!


Mein Kampf has historical significance.

Coulter? The only attention this person should be getting is therapeutic.


Yeah, I got the first 7, but then my eyes glazed over and I got only 2 of the remaining seven. Man, if only we leftists would embrace our history and follow our (national) socialist forefather and slaughter our right-wing enemies: the communists, (non-national) socialists, and trade unionists.

Bad is Good! Down with government!


Meanwhile, the leftists at the New Republic shred Markos into tiny pieces:

Daily Kos is actually a rant, Kos’s own rant and then his comrades. And his rant against us, well, borders on a nut case’s. When a high-minded or, rather, high-strung moralist is accused by The New York Times of journalistic hanky-panky and then by TNR of running an ideological censorship bureau, reminiscent of the old Catholic Legion of Decency, he will go off the rails. And he did. “This is what The New Republic had evolved into–just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy.” An old professor of mine once warned me against writers who use capital letters for emphasis. Good advice she gave me. Capital letters suggest some imbalance in the mind of their employer.

It feels a bit demeaning to defend oneself against Kos. But I am one of the neo-con owners, and I am titular editor-in-chief. So here goes: The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security “reform,” against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman’s entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito.

Then again, this isn’t about left v. right.

This is about obedience to the far left socialist ideas of DailyKos.

Which is why they’re opposing liberals like Joe Lieberman and Steny Hoyer.


Keep up the good work, Gary! Soon that bicycle will be yours!


Out of curiousity, if you had to read one or the other, would you read Mein Kampf or the Cunt of the Rings trilogy (Godless, Treason, and whatever the other one was called)?

And the answer “I would gouge my eyes out first� doesn’t count.

How about gouging Coulter’s eyes out?

If I had to choose I’d go with Mein Kampf, because I’d have the satisfaction of knowing the author is dead and not getting any royalties.


The fact is that I could really use that bicycle.

It’s a bitch getting up at 4 a.m. so I can walk across town to be ready to cook up those Egg McMuffins at 6 a.m. That shit sucks.

That bicycle would be sweet, boyee!


Okay. Gary’s jumped the shark. I liked his earlier, funnier posts.


TO Gary Rupert: I don’t think it’s a bicycle they’re giving away, it’s a unicycle! The prize includes funny hat, fake big red nose, and a little horn to honk. I’d love to see Coulter on one of those. I’d like to see all the wingnuts riding around and around in circles, honking…it would come naturally.


Come now- there are some passages of Mein Kampf that actually show a keen understanding of how populist politics work; Coulter can’t touch Hitler for that type of thing.


I didn’t get any right.


Come now- there are some passages of Mein Kampf that actually show a keen understanding of how populist politics work.

True enough. Still, it’s an awful book, like reading a book of Stalin’s speeches (and I have).

But Goerge Bush is The Roxxor1111!!11. Onward to victory in Iraq!!11!!!


Martin Peretz (also Marty Peretz) is a Harvard lecturer who is co-owner [1] and editor-in-chief of The New Republic, which he purchased in 1975. Under his leadership, the magazine has generally taken hawkish and pro-Israel stances in foreign affairs, while advocating liberal and neoliberal positions on economic and social issues. Critics have accused Peretz of steering TNR towards neoconservatism. However, Peretz has long supported Democrats over Republicans, including being a major behind-the-scenes benefactor of Eugene McCarthy’s primary presidential bid in 1968. (Some see an irony in this given TNR’s later antipathy towards outspokenly antiwar and anti-Israel presidential candidate Howard Dean)

In 1995, Peretz made headlines when he successfully pressured Vice President Al Gore to rescind his offer to Harvard historian and Tennessee writer Richard Marius to be a White House speechwriter. Peretz accused Marius of anti-Semitism, citing a 1992 book review in which Marius compared the tactics of the Israeli secret police searching for Palestinian terrorists in the occupied territories to the Nazi Gestapo in occupied Europe during World War II. Gore, a former student of Peretz’s at Harvard in the 1960s, complied with his request. Many defenders of Marius – who had written a major Holocaust speech for Gore to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising and who criticized Martin Luther in a biography for the Reformation figure’s anti-Semitic writings – said Peretz’s charge was without merit.

In the movie Shattered Glass, which portrays the unmasking of writer Stephen Glass’ serial fabrications in the pages of The New Republic, Peretz was presented as a capricious figure who regularly fired his top editors and who once degraded the magazine’s staff by ordering them to circle every comma in an issue of the magazine. He was played by well-known Canadian director Ted Kotcheff.

On December 4, 1948, the New York Times published a letter to the editor signed by over two dozen prominent Jews condemning Menachem Begin and his Herut party on the occasion of Begin’s visit to New York City.

Comparing Revisionist Zionism streams to “Nazi and fascist parties”, the letter, signed by individuals like Albert Einstein and the anti-Zionists Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook. The letter began:

“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Partyâ€? (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.” (source: NY Times, December 4, 1944)



Errr, I’m disturbed.

I got 12 correct.


Still, it’s an awful book

Oh yes, it’s quite boring. But there are a few excerpts here and there that everyone should read (with the poofery and viterol redacted, of course).


Harry Hutton is disgusted with this quiz. He has one of his own, which, I must admit, is far more difficult. Who said it, Hitler or Rolf Harris?


Meh. I got 11 correct. I attributed one Coulter quote to Hitler and two Hitler quotes to mAnn. Hmm. What does that say about anything? “mAnn: She-Wolf of the SS” indeed!


Hitler jailed and murdered thousands of German communists. The communists were much on his mind (unlike Coulter’s) because in Germany in the twentiesand early thirties they were the only really serious competition the Nazis had to succeed the collapsing Weimar republic.

Historical nitpicking time! First, and simpler, point: in the late 20s, the Weimar Republic was not collapsing. It was doing fine, more or less, after 1924. Before that, Weimar wasn’t doing well, but there wasn’t a genuine threat of Communist revolution after 1919.

Second, and more complicated point: I think the claim that in the early 30s the Communists were “the only serious competition the Nazis had to succeed the collapsing Weimar Republic” is one that is widely stated, but isn’t really true. There were simply too many forces in German society that were really, really opposed to Communism for there to be any real chance of a successful communist takeover. Even the Social Democrats weren’t considering actually including the communists in government, although they did make tentative efforts to see if the communists would be willing to tolerate minority Weimar Coalition governments. Even after World War II, and with popular front politics, the SPD had to basically be forced by the Soviet army into a merger with the KPD in the Soviet occupation zone.

The real competition to Hitler was from other right wingers, specifically, some sort of military dictatorship or monarchical restoration. Remember that from 1930 on, Germany was ruled by the very conservative Catholic crypto-monarchist Heinrich Brüning, and relied on presidential emergency decrees (issued by President Hindenburg, a reactionary monarchist military officer) to get anything done (SPD toleration of Brüning’s government, due to fear that any alternative would be worse, made his activities constitutional, but they weren’t willing to actually vote for his very right wing economic policies, just to tolerate him putting them through by emergency decree). Brüning’s main support came from the army in the form of General Wilhelm Groener. In 1932, after Hindenburg’s reelection, even Brüning and Groener became too liberal for Hindenburg, and he appointed a new crazy right wing reactionary government led by Franz von Papen, which had virtually no parliamentary support, and was only able to subsist by repeatedly dissolving parliaments that would have otherwise brought in motions of no confidence. The goals of all these governments were generally to co-opt Hitler, and use the Nazi Party’s popularity as a means of maintaining their own rule.

If Hitler couldn’t be co-opted, the plan advocated at times by both Papen and his short-lived successor Schleicher, a general, was to ban both Nazis and Communists, suspend the constitution, and institute martial law. (Schleicher also hoped to detach the left wing trade unionist Nazis led by Strasser, and the SPD trade unions, and use them to create a workable majority).

At any rate, the “military dictatorship” option didn’t get through, and instead a modified form of the “co-opt Hitler” plan was put into effect by making Hitler chancellor (it was a modified form because the original form was based on the idea that Hitler was too much of a loose cannon to be allowed to become Chancellor — this version proved more correct, I think), but instead Hitler co-opted the conservatives.

But, basic point: a non-Nazi right wing authoritarian regime was always the most likely alternative to Hitler, and I think Hitler was aware of this. That a right wing authoritarian regime would replace Weimar was always by far the most likely option. What Hitler did was ensure that this regime would be his, and not one led by the traditional elites.


Hitler sounded smarter. That was the tip off for me.


12/14.Yay! Coulter was easy to spot. Hitler sounded better edumacated.

I always have to laugh at people who talk about Coulter’s “argumentts” and “points” or say dumb shit about “refuting” her.

She has no arguments. Her entire ouevre is invective, insults, and attacks. There are no points to be refuted, beyond going “am not.”


13/14. I misattributed the Hitler quote about the “complete destruction of America” to Coulter. In retrospect, the style should have tipped me off.


I don’t read Coulter and have never read Hitler but still got 10 right. A person just picks these things up. Swallows them whole or spits them out.


Coulter is a terrorist mullah who advocates violence against innocent people for ideological reasons.


It is interesting to note that no one seems to realize the definition of “liberal” today as used by Coulter is almost the complete opposite of what Hitler meant. In that era a liberal was more akin to a libertarian/conservative today, or even a *gasp* neo-con. But what the fuck, no need to get bogged down with historical realities when there is bashing to do.


(comments are closed)