Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Olympics Can't Transcend Politics. Just Ask the Nazis.

Sports, and sport broadcasting, can never be apolitical when nations are going head-to-head on the field of play.

Frank Hoermann/SVEN SIMON/picture alliance / SvenSimon/NewscomFrank Hoermann/SVEN SIMON/picture alliance / SvenSimon/NewscomThis week, all eyes turn to the Korean peninsula. Not for the regular reason—that nuclear apocalypse seems likely to begin somewhere near the DMZ. No, it's the Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang that are providing us this thaw in geopolitical tension. And all over the world, television executives are hoping Pyeongchang can restore some traditional primacy to the old media in a new media universe.

The management at NBC, America's Olympic network, very much wants American television viewers to forget all the recent warmongering, Presidential tweeting, and Matt Lauer for a few weeks. "I do think the Olympics is unique in that it transcends politics," NBC Olympics host Katie Couric told the press last month. "I feel that this is one instance when domestic politics are really going take a back seat. This is going to be a really wonderful opportunity for the country to unify, and stand together, support the athletes and really help celebrate their stories."

Clearly some Olympic stories are worth celebrating, and others aren't. NBC is probably in no mood to discuss Olympic gymnastics anytime soon, with endemic corruption within the governing body of the sport recently exposed in the Larry Nassar trial. News about the sexual abuse of athletes, and doping, and IOC malfeasance doesn't really help sell ads.

But the larger issue Couric alludes to—that the Olympics offer an opportunity to ignore our fractious national politics—represents a hope that's been continually dashed since global Olympic broadcasting began in 1936. That was the year Germany's Nazi administration assembled the world's most technologically-sophisticated broadcasting operation in order to delight a global radio audience estimated at 300 million listeners. The Nazis understood the Olympic Games offered a unique propaganda opportunity, and they seized it. Ever since, every dictator and totalitarian government dreams of impressing the world through the supposedly apolitical lens of sports broadcasting.

But sports, and sport broadcasting, can never be apolitical. To argue that sports can transcend politics is to miss the obvious fact that politics often structure our shared experience of sports. The greatest moments in American sports history—like the 1980 Miracle on Ice hockey victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War, Joe Louis knocking out Nazi Germany's Max Schmeling in 1938, and Jesse Owens winning four gold medals at the 1936 Olympic Games run by Nazi racists—were all intensified by the political context in which they took place.

Ironically, it was Nazi broadcasting advances that created the global superstardom enjoyed by Owens. But his legend wouldn't be the same had he won his gold medals in, say, Ecuador. Context matters. He won in front of Hitler, just as the 1980 Miracle on Ice hockey team won when the Soviet Union seemed ascendant and the Carter administration weak and vacillating. The Olympics have always been embedded in politics, and that's what makes them worth watching. Well, that and curling.

Both NBC and CBS struggled with how to present the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Even before those Games began, NBC downplayed advance programming and promotional opportunities because a domestic boycott movement proved enormously popular. "Keep as far away from any controversy as possible," NBC's programming chief, John F. Royal, warned his staff when preparing them for Olympics coverage. Talk of official Nazi antisemitism, or totalitarian restrictions, would ultimately be severely constricted on the American airwaves.

Instead, American listeners heard all about how great the "new" Germany had become. "Everywhere anyone goes in Berlin there is a great sense of joyful freedom," CBS's Bill Henry told a nationwide audience just before the games began. "Everybody seems to think that this is a wonderful holiday for all those who are in Berlin." The master propaganda plan developed by Josef Goebbels succeeded, and it provides the model for Olympic broadcasting as we know it today. That's why having beautiful video images beamed to our living rooms from Beijing and Sochi doesn't seem quite so discordant with the regimes that rule such locales.

Despite the praise for the Germans heard over the American radio networks in 1936, political rivalry structured the average American's radio experience that year. Listeners did not need to be told that Jesse Owens represented American athletic superiority in the face of European, and particularly German, chauvinism. Every American victory—in the swimming pool, on the track, or the basketball court—boosted patriotism and allowed Americans to overlook such obvious domestic political unpleasantries as racist segregation laws and rising political extremism.

Just as in 1936, misdirecting our national attention remains at the heart of NBC's Olympic mission. The network's programmers know we might not be able to name a single skier at this year's games, but they're undoubtedly confident that we feel American skiers should be the best in the world. In this sense, it's never really about the sports—it's all about the narrative. Those Jamaican bobsledders had no chance at a medal, thereby making their story amusing and colorful. But had ISIS assembled a bobsled team and packed them off to Pyeongchang, a new and compelling narrative of global rivalry could be packaged. And no doubt the ratings for such a contest would be boffo.

NBC needs high ratings because the 2016 Rio Olympic Games were a huge disappointment, with a 18 percent decline in viewership from the 2012 London Games. The network has paid $7.75 billion in rights fees to lock up the Olympics through 2032, making the investment in Olympic Games programming the most expensive global broadcasting rights ever purchased by a U.S. broadcaster. NBC needs all the promotional power they can muster to make these Games a success. That's why I'd advise them not to run from our fractious current political climate. Rather, NBC should embrace controversy and exploit the opportunities it creates.

And we all know just the guy on Twitter who can help.

Michael J. Socolow, author of Six Minutes in Berlin: Broadcast Spectacle and Rowing Gold at the Nazi Olympics, teaches journalism at the University of Maine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Good article! Appreciate the info on Nazi Germany Olympic games.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He left out that Nazis were socialists, so the lefties in America and around the World were ecstatic that they had Socialism in the USSR, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany.

  • mtrueman||

    "Nazis were socialists,"

    They believed in private property. Just like Stalin, right?

  • Sevo||

    "Alt-Right trolls MUST say early fascists were left-wing, because they CALLED themselves socialist."

    I'm not going to quote it again for yet one more fucking imbecile.
    Read "Wages of Destruction", Adam Tooze, and "World at Arms", Gerhard L. Weinberg before you once again make an ass of yourself.
    NAZIs are not socialist because the name says so; they were because the WERE socialist, idiot.
    OH, and fuck off.

  • Don't look at me.||

    What a loon.

  • Sevo||

    "The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal"

    This is *your* quote, you fucking idiot.
    Now read it and tell me the difference.
    Also, before you make a fool of yourself once *more*, read "The Russian Revolution", Richard Pipes. You will see that, from the date of taking power, Hitler and Lenin were nearly identical in their programs to appropriate the ownership of business to the government.

    "I am not the only one here urging you to think and judge for yourself (gasp)" Take your own advice, asshole.

  • Sevo||

    "It's Ayn Rand ... as I said Opening paragraphs!"
    I don't care where it came from, you fucking imbecile. Did you read it?
    It is a distinction without a difference. If you had a room-temperature IQ, you would see that. You don't; you're a fucking imbecile.
    STFU before you make a worse fool of yourself.

  • Sevo||

    I see you didn't bother to address my comments since fucking imbecile can't.
    Mike Hihn:
    "ALL ONE! ALL ONE"
    I've addressed yours, fucking imbecile.
    BTW, have you read any of those books? Or any others that might provide evidence for your imbecilic claims, fucking idiot?
    Just asking...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just another opportunity for North Korean agents to infiltrate South Korea and buy time for Fat Boy-Un's nuclear weapon program.

    The battle to reunite the Korean peninsula will get worse before it gets better.

  • mtrueman||

    "The battle to reunite the Korean peninsula will get worse before it gets better."

    It's already got better. North and South Korea have been cooperating on an unprecedented level.

  • Sevo||

    "It's already got better. North and South Korea have been cooperating on an unprecedented level."
    Cite missing.

  • mtrueman||

    Watch some non American TV.

  • Sevo||

    "Watch some non American TV."
    Oh, goody! "Research for Retards"!
    Cite missing, and I don't mean the Brit equivalent of Good Morning America.

  • mtrueman||

    "Cite missing,"

    I'm not an academic and am not interested in discussing citations. Don't put too much stock in what historians say, Lenin's writings are incredibly voluminous and provide a lot of fodder for academic busywork.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm not an academic and am not interested in discussing citations"
    So you spout nonsense and hope someone is impressed? Imagine my surprise!

    "Don't put too much stock in what historians say, Lenin's writings are incredibly voluminous and provide a lot of fodder for academic busywork."
    And I should believe that sack of horseshit since you admit you don't know what you're posting about?
    Protip: STFU. You'll be seen as less of an imbecile.

  • mtrueman||

    "And I should believe that sack of horseshit since you admit you don't know what you're posting about?"

    You can believe whatever you like. And I'm free to post my thoughts on the issue at hand.

  • Michael Ahlers||

    The battle to reunite the Korean peninsula will get worse before it gets better.

    In the meantime, the two Koreas serve as a helpful guide for people confused by this whole socialism versus capitalism kerfuffle.

  • Flinch||

    Fast forward from Hitlers era to today and it's politics again in a different venue. The US team is proudly proclaiming it's work and aim to provide the 'most diverse' team ever. Oh? I thought the olympics was a contest of sport. I don't ever remember seeing an event for "most black" or "most hispanic" or whatever. Its fun to win, but with bozos in search of anything but talent, get set for fewer medals and poorer performance as the USOC charts a course on... how to lose by shunning excellence in favor of bean counting. It's how they screwed up fire and police departments in places like LA, and peddling this cancer of inverting diversity being a function of freedom continues to the detriment of both.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a new kind of virtue signalling that has been done before.

  • jcw||

    Fewer medals and poorer performance

    Let's use your metric. Winter Olympics Gold Medals for USA: 2002, 10; 2006, 9; 2010, 9; 2014, 9.

    Let's see if your perceived threat is actually true this year, shall we? Considering our "diversity" has probably increased since 2002 without effecting our gold medals numbers, let's go ahead and pin all our analysis on this year.

  • jcw||

    Italics fail. No gold medal for me.

  • vek||

    Well here's the thing: If they're having a more diverse group because they're theoretically excluding fewer black people that were better than saaay honkies in the past, then that would improve the performance...

    But if they're trying to include Mexican or Asian runners by cutting blacks that are better, or picking black or Mexican gymnasts over Asian ones that are better... You see where I'm going. Going by skill is the only thing that should count. Black people ARE biologically better at some stuff than others. The same can be said for Asians, whites etc. We have different biology, which has made different groups better at some stuff at the margins, hence at the extreme heights of performance you tend to see racial groupings. This is why a lot of sports are mostly blacks, whereas gymnastics is mostly Asian/white, etc.

    Technically the above is racist of course, but anyone who doesn't see it is insane...

    Reality: You can see it right in front of your face if you don't intentionally ignore it.

  • mtrueman||

    "Technically the above is racist of course"

    It's not racist because it's biological. Race is a discredited construct from the early Enlightenment.

  • vek||

    The concept of "race" being discredited/non existent always cracks me up! You can choose whatever name you like for it, but there are groupings of people who share traits. The reality is that if humans were any other species, and were categorized like we do all other species, there would be numerous sub-species of humans because the differences are so dramatic and obvious. Maybe a dozen or more by the rules we use for other animals.

    We can interbreed, hence are all the same species... But we could also interbreed with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and they were very different from modern humans.

    There is endless scientific evidence that we differ in a metric fuck ton of ways, including intellectual abilities, which consistently show certain groups scoring higher/lower than other groups on various types of tests. Blacks score higher than whites on some things, whites higher than blacks on other, Asians higher than either on some stuff etc.

    The very notion that after 100K years of divergent evolution between some groups of modern humans that there would be ZERO difference in mental abilities is ridiculous just on its face, that all scientific evidence backs it up, and is STILL ignored shows an obvious preconceived notion being pushed.

  • mtrueman||

    In Olympic events west Africans do well in sprinting, while east Africans do well in endurance. These groups of people are different as you point out. It doesn't mean they have a different 'race' or the same one. You can account for the distinction in purely biological terms, without resorting to pseudo science.

  • vek||

    Well that's why I said call it what you will, but there are genetic enclaves with differing traits.

    Africa itself is interesting because the genetic difference between different parts of Africa is as vast as the difference between Africans and everybody outside of Africa. Some of the southern African peoples split off over 100K years ago from those in the north, which is where Caucasians and Asians came from, which is why non Africans are far more distant from SOME Africans genetically versus others.

    As far as "race" I don't think it's a bad term, it's not pseudo science, it's just imprecise. The only reason it has gone out of vogue is because of the people trying to ignore differences and pretend we're all exactly the same.

    A more accurate and scientific term would be sub-species, which is exactly what we'd be classified as if we were saaay birds who differed as much as humans do. There would be far more sub-species going by scientific norms than there are races, so if anything that would be dividing us even moreso. For instance east vs west Africans may well be broken up as sub-species, as well as pygmy's etc.

    Race is just a term chosen to mean what everybody obviously means by it to cover the broad strokes. And as far as that goes it works... It's actually NOT as accurate as it could be, if anything it is too inaccurate to be truly useful/scientific about things. It's like saying fat vs skinny, instead of breaking it down into 10 terms for varying levels of obesity.

  • mtrueman||

    East Africans do well in endurance events because their habituation to high altitudes gives their body chemistry some advantages over those acclimatized to lower altitudes. It has nothing to do with their genes or the colour of their skin.

  • vek||

    Uhhh, they EVOLVED for high altitudes. As in genes changed, which gave them those advantages. Same basic thing as Tibetans at high altitudes. It has been proven to be hereditary in Tibetans, although I have never seen evidence of it being hereditary in East Africans, but it probably is as well.

    The "we're all exactly the same" mantra is ridiculous. Start looking through scientific literature man. Everything from muscle density, to breathing, to height, to color, to disease resistance, to heart issues, to intelligence, to EVERYTHING changes between different genetic groups. All documented beyond a chance of it all being random and not genetic.

    Like I said call it whatever you want, race/sub-species/haplogroup, take your pick... Whatever name you choose is fine to describe the different populations who share genetic traits, which make them DIFFERENT from other groups genetically.

    The science is settled on the above. The only reason it is shouted down is because of the implications some people fear. I think we're advanced enough as a species to concede small differences between groups without it automatically leading to mass genocide. I get not talking about this stuff publicly out of fear of the SJW crowd, but people need to at least accept reality for what it is in their own heads. I don't like it, but I accept it none the less, because that's what the facts say is true.

  • mtrueman||

    "As in genes changed, which gave them those advantages. Same basic thing as Tibetans at high altitudes."

    Humans don't have high altitude genes any more than they have sea level genes.

    "The only reason it is shouted down is because of the implications some people fear."

    You're not being shouted down, I'm politely disagreeing with you. I don't understand your concern. Every individual human is unique. Why expect any two groups of humans to be identical?

  • vek||

    No you're not doing any shouting, I'm talking about the many people who DO freak out like children being told Santa isn't real. If you mention that women are less suitable for front line military combat nowadays certain types of people will freak out about the obvious... Even though science/facts objectively show that they're worse in basically every area that is useful for such duty compared to men, other than maybe pain tolerance.

    You're wrong that there aren't high altitude genes. As I said they have discovered that Tibetans ARE evolved to have lungs that work differently than low landers. Here's google https://tinyurl.com/yd83erh5

    Which is my point, we ARE different, and it's provable. You seem to have bought into the false notion that we are all the same, but we aren't. It's not that that's a huge deal, or good or bad, but human groups are objectively, measurably different. Physically... And mentally, which is the one that usually really blows peoples tops.

    Every individual human is unique... But group differences are very big in some cases, and they have implications in some instances. Like that a Chinese man will probably never win a running event at the Olympics. I'm just sick and tired of people believing the lie that there are no differences, so I tend to correct that incorrect statement when I see it being made. It's part of the progressive ultra PC manipulation machine to mind fuck everybody, and I believe in truth at all costs, even when it's unpleasant.

  • mtrueman||

    Thanks for the info on Tibet, I have lived there and suffered there for a few months, but I didn't think their genes made it so easy for them. It is indeed a harsh environment.

    You said your ideas were 'technically racist.' That's why people oppose them, not because they hold that 'everyone is the same.' A racist judges people by their race, something that rubs individualists and Liberals the wrong way. This is the reason why you find some so opposed to racism, not giving the individual his due. A Japanese man has won the gold medal for marathon. Individual differences are paramount. That's the cry of the individualist and Liberal.

  • vek||

    Must have been cool to be in Tibet for a long period of time like that!

    Well, when I said that what I was about to say was racist I meant it semi incredulously, because EVERYTHING that isn't politically correct is called racist, sexist, etc nowadays, even when one is merely pointing out facts that are inconvenient. Not thinking everyone is EXACTLY the same is now racist/sexist to ~50% of the country.

    I find the outright denial of facts, mostly by the left, to be ridiculous. It's pretending that if you just ignore reality there won't be repercussions. That they then shout people down for merely mentioning said facts makes it even worse.

    I believe in treating everybody as individuals, but I don't think that is mutually exclusive with looking at statistical probabilities and the broad effects that has at the societal level. Both are a useful lens, especially in public policy that effects everybody.

    For instance the black/white income gap (and crime rates, and many other issues) is explained almost entirely by differences in intelligence test scores (blacks score an entire standard deviant below whites typically, about 15 IQ points, similar gaps on all other types of tests as well), which correlate with income very well... Which has serious implications.

    1. That it's (mostly) not white racism doing it to them. Left loses a BIG stick to bludgeon people here!

    2. If we want them to do better, they might be better helped by plans that account for the intelligence differences.

  • vek||

    3. A host of other tough questions on things, like immigration into Europe/USA en masse. Millions of people will end up the statistical norm, so perhaps only letting in exceptional people from other countries makes sense? It's individualist, which is why I'm okay with it.

    Keep in mind NO STUDY has ever been able to explain the gap without it needing to be 50% or greater inherited. They've tried over and over, and it can't be done. Smart blacks should of course be free to become doctors or what have you, but ignoring average IQ being 15 points lower across thousands of tests makes one have incorrect conclusions on the causes of the black communities problems, and the potential solutions.

    Therefore I am against ignoring unpleasant truths, because it can cause real world harm. Facts don't have to lead to genocide. Some Prog on a comment section once said when reading an article about this subject that if it were true (he was in denial), he would simply want to double down on helping them, not put Jim Crow back in place. But we can't have that honest and tough conversation until people accept the facts.

  • mtrueman||

    I really don't see this reluctance to recognize the fact that America's blacks are different from other ethnic groupings. Non racists don't like to consider a person's race to be his most essential defining feature. That seems to be the extent of the 'unpleasant truth' you identify. I don't think Liberals would argue if you pointed out that America's blacks are more likely to be caged in prisons than white counterparts. Liberals wouldn't blame it on their genes, though, or 'race,' a conception so vaguely defined as to be scientifically useless. Genes in themselves determine very little. It's in their interaction with the environment is where the action is, and this accords nicely with Liberal thinking.

  • vek||

    Well, I think your idea of how things are in the world today are quite off base from reality.

    1st off, genes are not a minor thing. They're VERY powerful. If you have the IQ of a child's 2 parents, you can predict with greater certainty their life outcomes than if you knew if their parents got divorced, what their income is, education level, or any other facts. Why? Because intelligence is 50-80% hereditary in individuals, and intelligence is the greatest predictor of life outcomes. NOT environmental factors. This is hard, indisputable, science. Environment matters a lot, but genes overcome environmental factors as well, such as with IQ scores.

    2nd, pretend that IQ differences are caused 100% by environment, this is not what all current science points to, but this is our hypothetical scenario. Go on CNN and say "Look, blacks have an IQ 15 points lower on average than whites. If you correlate IQ to life outcomes, black criminal rates, economic success, and everything else correlate exactly the same to actual black IQs as they do for whites of the same IQs. It is not racism holding them down, but lower IQs. We should therefore concentrate on improving environmental factors to boost their IQs. We should also perhaps try to push more of them into high paying vocational professions to improve economic outcomes since many don't have the intellect to pursue traditional uni degrees. This would all improve outcomes in the short term and the long term."

  • vek||

    The shit storm that perfectly logical and correct assertion (if you believe environment causes IQ disparity) would create would blow up half the country. The liberal/progressive set would have their heads explode, and then shout you down as racist until their voices didn't work anymore. That's the reality today.

    Despite that this would in fact still be keeping in with believing it is non genetic factors, they would STILL freak the fuck out. That IQ scores explain most issues is NOT a topic that can be discussed, even if you say it is environmental... Yet it alone dispels the notion that racism plays any significant part in why blacks are so fucked up in the USA.

    The world has lost its ability to rationally discuss these tough issues, because they are tough, and ultimately because the facts do not back up the preconceived notions of actual equality between groups. The truth is we differ biologically, and that's a very unpleasant idea. But it's what science says.

    I agree with treating people as individuals first and foremost, BUT your definition of racism (which I consider correct) is more like what it was in the 60s... Nowadays to even CONSIDER there might be differences between groups is considered racist by half or more of people. You need to pay closer attention to the world around you if you still think these things can be discussed rationally in polite conversation.

  • mtrueman||

    You're mistaken. It was a celebration of racial purity, not diversity, that characterized Hitler's Olympic games.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    No Balls = No Sports!

  • Sevo||

    The burning question remains:
    Which coddled US athlete will deliver the obligatory "Trump is a Big Poopyhead!" speech or gesture?

  • mtrueman||

    I think we may be in for a surprise this time around. The anti-Trump message will be delivered by a coddled color commentator.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    The master propaganda plan developed by Josef Goebbels succeeded, and it provides the model for Olympic broadcasting as we know it today.

    So that bastard is responsible for Bob Costas' commentaries, too? He truly was a monster.

  • JP88||

    "Everywhere anyone goes in Berlin there is a great sense of joyful freedom," CBS's Bill Henry

    At the time, American progressives were fascinated by the "fascist" experiments in Italy and Germany. Like today, progressives were over represented in the media and gave cover to the dark under belly of what fascism looked like at the 1936 Olympics. In the 1920s, the New Republic, Mother Jones and other leftist publications read by the progressives of the era praised fascism as a new "third way" to govern. A hybrid of capitalism and socialism. One of the biggest lies pulled was distorting fascism as solely a right wing movement. If nationalism is right wing, I guess it was. But the authoritarian controls on the economy were born out of the fact Hitler and Mussolini came from socialist parties before they were kicked out/left.

  • mtrueman||

    "One of the biggest lies pulled was distorting fascism as solely a right wing movement. If nationalism is right wing, "

    National socialists are right wing, international socialists are left wing. What's the problem with that? There are Trotskyists who happily call themselves International Socialists. It wasn't only left wing publications that praised Hitler. There were Hitler enthusiasts from the right as well.

  • vek||

    Correct. National versus international is the biggest distinction. Of course full on communism is a higher level of crazy than "mere" moderate intervention socialism a la fascists or modern day European countries.

    People talked up Hitler because he got shit handled. He then proceeded to handle a bunch of shit that didn't need handling of course... Like Poland, and France, and the low countries... LOL

    I think it is a fact that in some times and situations a democracy simply won't cut it. I don't think Germany was actually that bad off, but some countries have been historically. Rome realized sometimes you needed strong authority so they invented the position of Dictator for such occasions. It was used a few times as intended, and worked. If the senate had been squabbling over things it would have been worse. Germany was pretty borked, and he restored order. If after doing so he had gone hands off capitalist pig everything would have been awesome, but that wasn't his plan...

  • Sevo||

    "National socialists are right wing, international socialists are left wing. What's the problem with that?"

    Besides the fact that it's not true?

  • mtrueman||

    Another thing that's untrue is that Fascists tended to fight wars of aggression against others. Germany attacked Poland and USSR and pretty much the rest of Europe. Wars of national liberation, like Vietnam or South Africa were characteristic of the left. Cite forthcoming.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|2.10.18 @ 6:21PM|#
    "Another thing that's untrue is that Fascists tended to fight wars of aggression against others. Germany attacked Poland and USSR and pretty much the rest of Europe. Wars of national liberation, like Vietnam or South Africa were characteristic of the left. Cite forthcoming."

    Oh, this should be GOOD! I'll be looking forward to it!
    You mean like how Stalin fought to 'liberate" eastern Europe? How Hitler attempted to "liberate" Europe and Africa? How Ho Chi Min "liberated" the Vietnamese? How Pol Pot "liberated" the Cambodians? How Castro "liberated" the Cubans? How Kim Il-Sung "liberated" the north Koreans? Maybe how Mao "liberated" the main-land Chinese?
    Oh, goody! Let's see it!
    I love laughing at idiots.

  • mtrueman||

    "You mean like how Stalin fought to 'liberate" eastern Europe? How Hitler attempted to "liberate" Europe and Africa? How Ho Chi Min "liberated" the Vietnamese? How Pol Pot "liberated" the Cambodians? How Castro "liberated" the Cubans? How Kim Il-Sung "liberated" the north Koreans? Maybe how Mao "liberated" the main-land Chinese?"

    That's exactly what I mean. You've got it in one. Communists fought for National Liberation, Fascists (or rightists in general) fought against it.

  • mtrueman||

    "The self-righteous have an Entitlement Mentality ... entitled to bully, bellow and bluster."

    It also might be a job of work. It's conceivable that someone might value the disruption of civil conversation and all the juvenile invective that goes along with it.

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|2.11.18 @ 3:48PM|#
    "The Authoritarian Right, like Sevo, BELEEBS they can hide their fascism by changing its definition! Sevo is the funniest, because verbal assault is ALL HE DOES ,,, while attacking anyone who notices.
    The self-righteous have an Entitlement Mentality ... entitled to bully, bellow and bluster.
    Because no ego (like Trump) the only way they can feel manly (also like Trump)"

    Mike, it's wonderful you can contribute such a lame word salad to the conversation.
    Fuck off, asshole.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|2.11.18 @ 9:47AM|#
    "You mean like how Stalin fought to 'liberate" eastern Europe? How Hitler attempted to "liberate" Europe and Africa? How Ho Chi Min "liberated" the Vietnamese? How Pol Pot "liberated" the Cambodians? How Castro "liberated" the Cubans? How Kim Il-Sung "liberated" the north Koreans? Maybe how Mao "liberated" the main-land Chinese?"
    That's exactly what I mean. You've got it in one. Communists fought for National Liberation, Fascists (or rightists in general) fought against it."

    Wonderful, you pathetic piece of shit. Communists fought for mass murder!
    Glad you have proven yourself once again to be an imbecile.

  • mtrueman||

    "Communists fought for mass murder!"

    We can both thank God there's fascists to oppose them. Or can we?

  • mtrueman||

    The good thing about Trump is that he is following along with warming relations between North and South Korea. This is something Bush Jr. didn't do, and Obama wasn't really given the chance given the Right leaning hard line pro American/Japanese rulers of the south during his terms in office.

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|2.9.18 @ 8:27PM|#
    "Hitler's fascism was right-wing, corporatist
    Mussolini's fascism was left-wing unionist"

    Mike invents some rationale in the hopes he's seen as other than a fucking idiot.
    Mike? Fail. You're a fucking idiot.

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|2.11.18 @ 3:48PM|#
    "(smirk) Says the fascist in denial."

    So the fucking idiot in denial has no response?
    Why is that not surprising?

  • mtrueman||

    Response to what? You mean my assertion that Trump seems happy to appease communist sentiment on the Korean peninsula? It's not surprising because he probably gets his news from FOX or CNN.

  • Longtobefree||

    The olympics were started to let nations show how well their military age men could perform the tasks associated with war, in the hope of reducing actual war. The thought was if we see your guys can run faster, throw spears and rocks farther, hit harder, and wrestle better, maybe we won't attack you. Most 'original' (pre-PC) olympic sports are based on military actions and events.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online