The limits of Godwin’s Law

Godwin’s law, simply stated, is that any internet debate will eventually decay into one side making a reference to Nazis, the Hitler, or the Holocaust, and at that point loses the debate.

This works fine for discussions of creationism, free speech, and even libertarianism, but when discussing far-right political extremists, it can potentially be a bit stifling.

Of course, Oslo slaughterer Anders Behrig Breivik was no anti-Semitic Nazi, but his actions and goals are hauntingly reminiscent.

The scapegoating of outsiders, the hatred of the left and “Marxism”, and the justification to use terror and violence to promote an ideology are the hallmarks of fascism.

We’re so far lucky that no political leader yet has the skill, charisma, and chilling intelligence of Adolph Hitler to capitalize on these sentiments, although Geert Wilders seems to be leading the charge in the Netherlands.

Finally, similarly with Hitler’s almost faux-religiosity (an article of its own, but my basic thought is that he was marginally religious while understanding the power it held) is strongly mirrored in Breivik. I agree with Alternavox and Sam Harris that the New York Times is wrong in labeling him a “Christian Fundamentalist”, when his views were more Christian/agnostic (think lapsed-Catholic).