Exactly this. Everyone jumps to Germany invading countries and the Holocaust, but it all started with propaganda and control.

The US is following the playbook by the letter. The biggest difference between nascent Nazi Germany and the US today? We've had 80+ years to build up military power which we'll use to crush any who stand against us, while Germany was still fighting against crippling debt and hoping not to generate too much notice as they built up their military power. While the Nazi's had to coax, cajole, and bully the media into speaking or reporting on them favorably, this administration has managed to get the media to eagerly accede to demands that haven't been made. The government shuts down, President ~~Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho~~ Mayor McCheese will declare a state of emergency that includes the criminalization of the opposition party for causing the shutdown, then he'll cite whatever war Secretary ~~He~~Pronoun Removed-Man has started as the reason for a full martial law implementation and the military annexation of Canada for "Secure the Borders!". In this scenario US=Germany, Canada=Poland, and we just skip the Sudetenland and The Anschluss (though to the administration, they'll expect that the annexation of Canada will equate to The Anschluss) and go right to the need for "Lebensraum"

We’re farther along masked men are “disappearing” people and they can’t be found. I’d say we’re moving much faster

I don't know why you have to be a dick in your response to me but I will return the favor in my response.

Well maybe you shouldn't assume someone doesn't know the history because you don't understand what they mean.

Some quick steps to understand subtext:

1. As it is obvious that a website can be used for anything, the description of wild is not actually describing the act.
2. If it is not describing the act, what is it describing? Clearly it is describing an ability. The ability of whom? As the "what" is already excluded as an option. The government's abilit to do that!
3. Obviously the government can do that though... so maybe the ability is not the ability to do it but the lack of consequences that one has to face when doing it.
4. consequences? From whom? The public.

So let's read it again, "it is wild that the public let the government publish obviously partisan propaganda over public channels like that".

But why would the author expect the public to show a reaction to this behaviour? Mhm maybe because he is aware of the history and he assumes that the general public has the vague understanding, due to history, that the government shouldn't be used to push partisan propaganda.

But please, be proud of how smart you are and how you know history while failing to understand the subtext of a simple sentence.