A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them (and we believe our opponents do support them).
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. I’m being redundant here to emphasize literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind. It’s difficult to shift word meanings in writing, and I’m not sure this accomplished that goal)
Last edit
Perfect example of what I mean in comment below
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them (and we believe our opponents do support them).
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. I’m being redundant here to emphasize literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind. It’s difficult to shift word meanings in writing, and I’m not sure this accomplished that goal)
Last edit
Perfect example of what I mean in comment below
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them (and we believe our opponents do support them).
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. I’m being redundant here to emphasize literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind. It’s difficult to shift word meanings in writing, and I’m not sure this accomplished that goal)
Last edit:
Perfect example of what I mean in comment below
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them (and we believe our opponents do support them).
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. I’m being redundant here to emphasize literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind. It’s difficult to shift word meanings in writing, and I’m not sure this accomplished that goal)
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them (and we believe our opponents do support them).
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. I’m being redundant here to emphasize literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them.
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. I’m being redundant here to emphasize literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support, nor do we believe that Trump supports them.
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here). This tends to be where we get defensive, as a lot of meanings are associated to those things that we don’t support.
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
A thought experiment … let’s take a step back here.
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here)
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here)
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their scribings?)
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here)
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature? (Sub scribe ers… the people under the spell of their writings?)
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here)
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature?
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
(If any of this is troubling, reread it very carefully with double meanings in mind)
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here)
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature?
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?
What if it was true that Trump was “literally” Hitler, and “literally Hitler” just doesn’t mean what we tend to think it does?
It is painfully obvious that he is not “Hitleresque in reality” - out to exterminate people, enact eugenics, “conquer Europe”, etc. (Leave your “truth of Hitler” at the door, please. Let’s operate within the prevailing narrative, here)
What if what “literally Hitler” actually means, is that when the “Actual Nazis” who work at “The Atlantic” write about him in [their] literature, [they] and [their subscribers] would focus on literarily calling him “Hitler”, for literary propaganda purposes, in their literature?
I.e. Literally “literally”.
Since they control nearly all corporate media, it would effectively mean that he was to be called Hitler and have all his actions referred to as Hitleresque and be given character motivations corresponding to Hitler whenever he was written about in their publications, which again is all of them, as part of one of the biggest propaganda pushes in all of history.
HONK.
propaganda (n.) 1718, "committee of cardinals in charge of foreign missions of the Catholic Church,". The word is properly the ablative fem. gerundive of Latin propagare "set forward, extend, spread, increase" (see propagation).
Hence, "any movement or organization to propagate some practice or ideology" (1790). The modern political sense ("dissemination of information intended to promote a political point of view") dates from World War I, originally not pejorative or implying bias or deliberate deception. Meaning "material or information propagated to advance a cause, etc." (1929)
To put it another way, what if the phrase “literally Hitler” is all about [their] intentions, and not about Trump’s?