The Hitler gun control lie

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 23:52
VIEWED: 11924
PAGE 1 of 1

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:17 AM

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

Huh. Now I have to go look into this.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:00 AM

Hitler + Obama = 2 jews

150,000 jews ran Nazi Germany
youtube.com/watch?v=TIMikjs36NM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/obamajews.html

Hitler disarmed Germany by staging false flag sniper attacks at German radio stations by shooting patsy prisoners dressed as Polish soldiers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler
http://www.oocities.org/skull_and_bones_nazis/
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/

Smooth-talking serial killer Ted Bundy was employed as a security guard and dressed as a cop to kidnap and murder dozens of women then dug up their rotted corpses to have sex with them, and was appointed to the Seattle Crime Prevention Advisory Committee by Washington's Republican Governor Dan Evans.

Quote:
"I'm Barack Obama, the Marxist professor. I spent the last two years of high school in a daze. I drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. Look I uh, when I was a kid , I inhaled, frequently. that was uh, that was the point. Pot helped, and booze. A little blow when you could afford it. Junkie, pothead, that's where I was headed. Now you know that guy ain't shit. Sorry ass motherfuckers got nothin on me, nothin. Shit's gettin way too complicated for me. There are white folks, then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you. You can put lipstick on a pig. You ain't my bitch nigger, buy your own damn fries. That's just how white folks will do ya."
-Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro, Dreams From My Father MP3
http://www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:46 AM

PN's picture is that of an SS Einsatzgruppen killing operation that took place in Latvia in 1941. Mass shootings of civilians took place in every Nazi occupied country. There was NO gun confiscation involved in ANY of it. The German Army would have already rolled through the territory and defeated any military or organized civilian resistance. What was left was rounded up and slaughtered by the trailing Einsatzgrupppenn troops, and no personal weapons would have made any difference even if they had actually had them.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:17 AM

The argument re hitler and guns has always been nonsense. Hitler enjoyed enormous popular support from most of the german population probably up until near the end when it was clear that his military misadventures would result in the destruction of germany. People loved the fact that he got the economy ticking over and he retook areas of land considered by german people to have been stolen from them after ww1.

hitler carried out many campaign terrors, not the least amongst his own - most probably armed - cohorts in the Night of the Long Knives, many of them violent thugs themselves.

Hitler was able to ascend to power and remain in power largely due to his support both inside and out of Germany.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:55 AM

I'm not sure if it's still available online anywhere, but if you have'nt already seen it, take a look at the BBC series; "The Nazis, a warning from history".

OLDENGLANDDRY

Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:00 AM

Just found it on youtube easily enough. It's a fascinating series.

ARLO

Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:16 PM

Ah,the pathetic irony of PN jumping on the Obama = Hitler bandwagon with all ten fingers (and graphic poo) and still having to take a shot at Jews is rather reflective of his state of mind, in general. Heh.

sincerely, 1933

HERO

Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
What was left was rounded up and slaughtered by the trailing Einsatzgrupppenn troops, and no personal weapons would have made any difference even if they had actually had them.

That is true.

I note for the record that for all those deaths only one time did a German officer refuse his orders (and he was a Nazi too). It did not end well for him or his unit.

I think the Hitler gun debate is not about taking guns from the conquered peoples of Europe, its about taking them from the German people after he was democratically elected.

I note for the record that the term "assault rifle" was first used by Nazi gun control laws to describe a new class of automatic and semi-automatic rifles that were just entering the marketplace for civilians and thus posing new problems for law enforcement who were often forced to limit themselves to revolvers and shotguns (something American law enforcement was also having problems with, heck it was around this time that the FBI was still arguing that it should even be allowed to carry weapons).

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

HERO

Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The argument re hitler and guns has always been nonsense.

Hitler was not widely known for his love and respect for civil rights. But I suspect he'd be supportive of the Democrat's gun control plans.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:58 PM

Quote:
Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether

Interesting. This might actually explain a lot, because Jews were certainly not party members. The problem here does appear to be unequal regulations for different groups.

It would be like if here, people passed laws against black people owning guns because they're "dangerous", and then used that as an excuse for more and more oppression until they all got rounded up in some kind of neo-slavery. That would be an appropriate Nazi analogy.

The point is well taken CTS. Though I note certain groups in the country DO have unequal access to dangerous weapons.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
What was left was rounded up and slaughtered by the trailing Einsatzgrupppenn troops, and no personal weapons would have made any difference even if they had actually had them.

That is true.

I note for the record that for all those deaths only one time did a German officer refuse his orders (and he was a Nazi too). It did not end well for him or his unit.

Not true. It was well acknowledged that this sort of "personal" mass execution was traumatic for the soldiers (poor dears...) and a not insignificant number of them declined with no repercussions, though it was seen as cowardly. Peer pressure, bowing to authority, general antisemitism seems to have been the reasons most soldiers (regular Wehrmacht) took part. Alcohol was deployed, too. Makes it all the more sinister to think that a more wide-spread refusal to take part might have made a significant difference. The Einsatzgruppen were a different story, I believe.

Quote:

I think the Hitler gun debate is not about taking guns from the conquered peoples of Europe, its about taking them from the German people after he was democratically elected.

Considering parts of Germany were on the brink of civil war during parts of the Weimar republic, things were highly restricted before he came into power.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
What was left was rounded up and slaughtered by the trailing Einsatzgrupppenn troops, and no personal weapons would have made any difference even if they had actually had them.

That is true.

I note for the record that for all those deaths only one time did a German officer refuse his orders (and he was a Nazi too). It did not end well for him or his unit.

Not true. It was well acknowledged that this sort of "personal" mass execution was traumatic for the soldiers (poor dears...) and a not insignificant number of them declined with no repercussions, though it was seen as cowardly. Peer pressure, bowing to authority, general antisemitism seems to have been the reasons most soldiers (regular Wehrmacht) took part. Alcohol was deployed, too. Makes it all the more sinister to think that a more wide-spread refusal to take part might have made a significant difference. The Einsatzgruppen were a different story, I believe.

Quote:

I think the Hitler gun debate is not about taking guns from the conquered peoples of Europe, its about taking them from the German people after he was democratically elected.

Considering parts of Germany were on the brink of civil war during parts of the Weimar republic, things were highly restricted before he came into power.

Even Himmler himself had to back away and cover his mouth when he went to Minsk in the Ukraine to witness and experience one of the mass executions. I believe Babi Yar ravine was the worst, with over 80,000 civilians killed in two days. All across the Eastern front the SS's efforts were assisted and facilitated by local police and townspeople, all too eager to help in the round-ups.

This is a short documentary about an Einsatzgruppen operation. The organized routine and banality of the whole thing is hard to comprehend. The second part is about a German police unit (not SS) of 500 men who rampaged around Poland.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:25 PM

Thanks for the vid, Jong. Absolute nightmare fuel.

NIKI2

Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:38 PM

Thank you, CTS; nice take-apart of that favored meme. Have to remember that one.

Arlo, we expect no more (or less!) from PN; his virulent hatred of Judiasm and consistent attempts to claim everyone and anyone is a "Jew" are so normal we ignore them. Some of us ignore him completely...tho' I'm so tired of scrolling past his CONSTANT application of that Bohemian Grove photo, depicting a ceremony wherein members wear costumes and cremate a coffin effigy called “Care” before a 40-foot-owl, in deference to the surrounding Redwood trees, I could spit. I wish he'd get some new material..

I was amused by the beginning:

Quote:
This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.

Which is absolutelky on target. The fear mongering on the right has become a staple in our society and usually bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality. Sad state of affairs.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:01 PM

Quote:

Not true. It was well acknowledged that this sort of "personal" mass execution was traumatic for the soldiers (poor dears...) and a not insignificant number of them declined with no repercussions, though it was seen as cowardly. Peer pressure, bowing to authority, general antisemitism seems to have been the reasons most soldiers (regular Wehrmacht) took part. Alcohol was deployed, too. Makes it all the more sinister to think that a more wide-spread refusal to take part might have made a significant difference. The Einsatzgruppen were a different story, I believe.

Oh yes. Which is why all the "scientific" psychology tests that arose after WW2, asking how the Germans got ALL their people to bow to authority so much and determining that EVERYONE bows to authority, are such a load of garbage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Quote:
Milgram argued that the ethical criticism provoked by his experiments was because his findings were disturbing and revealed unwelcome truths about human nature. Others have argued that the ethical debate has diverted attention from more serious problems with the experiment's methodology. Author Gina Perry found an unpublished paper in Milgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set-up was to subjects involved. Milgram's unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax, a finding that casts doubt on the veracity of his results. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher," suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period."

When you base your premise on a false concept to begin with, and load your study with preselected conditions, the end result can't be called science.

I see that "not-insignificant group of soldiers who refused to participate" as the one single hope spot that our species even has.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Hitler was not widely known for his love and respect for civil rights. But I suspect he'd be supportive of the Democrat's gun control plans.

H

Well I guess it must be easy for someone like you to get inside his head.

1KIKI

Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:39 PM

"But I suspect (Hitler)'d be supportive of the Democrat's gun control plans."

Coming from someone who has been so wrong, so often, your speculation in place of an actual argument is pretty funny.

HERO

Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Coming from someone who has been so wrong, so often, your speculation in place of an actual argument is pretty funny.

Give me a break. Hitler would love Obama gun control. He'd even have a plan for confiscation...first the Jews, then everyone who disagrees with him, all the while promising no changes to people who support him...kinda like how Democrats plan their political campaigns.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

1KIKI

Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:54 PM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ... you really need to stop drinking at lunch.

ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!

KWICKO

Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:29 PM

Hitler actually relaxed gun laws and gun policy, which had been quite restrictive in the aftermath of WWI.

Hero has his facts almost 180 degrees opposite of reality, but that's no surprise given what he does for a living, is it? About 99% of everything he posts is just pure bullshit, unsourced, unverifiable, and completely made up. I have no doubt he behaves the same way in a court of law.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Oh yes. Which is why all the "scientific" psychology tests that arose after WW2, asking how the Germans got ALL their people to bow to authority so much and determining that EVERYONE bows to authority, are such a load of garbage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

When you base your premise on a false concept to begin with, and load your study with preselected conditions, the end result can't be called science.

I see that "not-insignificant group of soldiers who refused to participate" as the one single hope spot that our species even has.

I understand the flaws of the Milgram experiment, but considering that the majority of soldiers did not refuse and were not necessarily die-hard racist, murder-loving sadists infused with the will to protect the Reich from those darn dangerous Eastern European villagers of the Jewish persuasion... I find merit in his theory. I mean, these guys saw that there were no real repercussions to refusing. They did it anyway, because it was expected of them.

Milgram's results may have been skewed but the tendency is probably correct.

And it's not necessarily that the soldiers who objected did so because they thought it was ethically wrong, though I sincerely hope the majority did. I'm sure at least some of them simply couldn't cross the line of physically doing it themselves.

I don't find that idea that we are vulnerable to following authority to be disheartening in that it merely reflects a sad reality of history: a LOT of otherwise normal people have participated in atrocities against fellow human beings. Given the wrong conditions, anyone might go down a dark path. Being aware of that instead of denying the possibility seems to be a step forward.

What is generally new these days is how there is a concept of war crimes, of genocide, of discrimination and persecution as bad things now, an internationally drawn up convention detailing this, beyond the more private sphere of "my religion is against murder" or "it feels wrong". We have almost universally vilified historical instances to compare to.

This needs to become the ingrained authority that people can refer to when faced with manipulation and coercion by another. They need to be aware of the mechanics of what makes them vulnerable to unethical choices. It will take time, but what gives me hope is that it is possible.

I guess I'm mainly deeply opposed to anything that might foster the complacent, self-indulgent assumption of any single person that they are beyond manipulation or "bowing to authority". It's the opposite of awareness.

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 18, 2013 12:33 AM

Quote:
I guess I'm mainly deeply opposed to anything that might foster the complacent, self-indulgent assumption of any single person that they are beyond manipulation or "bowing to authority". It's the opposite of awareness.

I guess... I'm more concerned that this creates an argument for "this is human nature, everyone does this so it's okay, you should too."

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 18, 2013 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
I guess I'm mainly deeply opposed to anything that might foster the complacent, self-indulgent assumption of any single person that they are beyond manipulation or "bowing to authority". It's the opposite of awareness.

I guess... I'm more concerned that this creates an argument for "this is human nature, everyone does this so it's okay, you should too."

I guess I see the opposite, in that it destroys the illusion that bad things are done by bad people, that it is an "other" that good people are immune to. I never got the impression that it is an in-built excuse but rather a revelation of a human weakness with the implied responsibility to be on guard because of it, in situations a lot more complex than a self-congratulatory "I would never!"-mindset might expect.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, January 18, 2013 3:25 AM

Sometimes the good-vs-evil equation does not apply. Shortly after Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933 the Hitler Youth movement began. Young boys and girls were indoctrinated into the culture of Nazism and Mein Kampf. These children were isolated from their parents, teachers, and their churches from a very young age. As the years went by, violence and brutality became their daily lesson plan, and their un-hesitating fanatical devotion became a gauge to measure the most fit to become SS and Gestapo leaders and members. When WWII started these kids had become young adults, and they had no morality, no compassion, and no humanity inside of them. They eagerly and agressively carried out every brutal, sick, and demented action asked of them throughout the war.

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 18, 2013 6:00 AM

'Cept a lot of the funding for those kinds of studies was military, and at the time I know they were trying to solve the "problem" where only 30% of all the soldiers in WW2 ever even fired their weapons.

So I kinda don't trust those studies as being on the up and up, I think they had ulterior motives for trying those. And then Milgram outright says "it's human nature." What kind of scientific statement is that to make? Even if the breakdown really is 60% of people, which I doubt because of the evidence of the numbers game he was playing that we got, 60% isn't 100% isn't human nature. Plus it varies from nation to nation.

I think it really IS an other. It's only going to be a certain few people who will fire on an unarmed group with no provocation just because they're told to - training is what changes that. People have to become desensitized and their targets dehumanized to do that. And the people with no training who'll do that - often gleefully - they've got PROBLEMS.

Milgram's study focused on students following directions given by professors, something they've been told to do during their formative years, probably since they were five, and those students were still or recently subject to the authority of same professors. Seems like a non-representative group and non-representative situation to me.

It simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 18, 2013 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think it really IS an other. It's only going to be a certain few people who will fire on an unarmed group with no provocation just because they're told to - training is what changes that. People have to become desensitized and their targets dehumanized to do that. And the people with no training who'll do that - often gleefully - they've got PROBLEMS.

Milgram's study focused on students following directions given by professors, something they've been told to do during their formative years, probably since they were five, and those students were still or recently subject to the authority of same professors. Seems like a non-representative group and non-representative situation to me.

It simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

I guess we'll ultimately have to agree to disagree.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the capability for doing bad things is an "other" that normal people don't have to concern themselves with. I also don't particularly care if Milgram's experiment was funded by people with shady motivations because I find the results plausible and not even once did the idea figure into my mind that it relieves people of ethical responsibility, rather than emphasizes it.

(I don't disagree that there are people with pre-existing readiness to commit gruesome violence, but those don't represent the "normal" people who nonetheless committed those acts in large numbers.)

To me that shows exactly where people should be vigilant. Children and young adults need to be taught to question directions they are given by an authority if they conflict with ethical behavior, same as adults. That's what I take from this experiment. The training aspect you mentioned needs to be disrupted by that vigilance.

I don't understand how you see an impetus to shrug off that responsibility in this scenario but I respect your differing opinion even if I can't share it.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 18, 2013 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To me that shows exactly where people should be vigilant. Children and young adults need to be taught to question directions they are given by an authority if they conflict with ethical behavior, same as adults. That's what I take from this experiment. The training aspect you mentioned needs to be disrupted by that vigilance.

Good luck with that.
I've *BEEN* workin on that one for damn near thirty years, and it ain't so easy when said kids are facing an ever increasing barrage of insistence to OBEY - a whole damn lot of it from both the public school curriculum, and from mainstream media, often reinforced by parents who are ignorant of the VALUE of questioning authority, or simply do not desire their own questioned.

The first person children are ever taught to lie to, is themself.

-Frem

M52NICKERSON

Friday, January 18, 2013 12:34 PM

Don't confuse agreeing with what is being done or simply not caring, with not questioning athority.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 18, 2013 4:07 PM

Nick: Can't tell who you're talking to.

AR: Okay.

M52NICKERSON

Friday, January 18, 2013 6:02 PM

Frem. I did not quote he since my post is right under his.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 18, 2013 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Don't confuse agreeing with what is being done or simply not caring, with not questioning athority.

I ain't confusing a damn thing - just in case you missed it I pointed out a confirmed example of exactly that kind of intentional conditioning as pointed out by one of the authors of childrens programming.

Oh it's easy to get people to "agree" with you if you never allow them knowledge of any other option, or if the only knowledge they have is distorted through the filters of someone elses agenda, and for the most part apathy comes from having no power, no say, in the decision anyway.

This kind of gamesmanship isn't necessarily limited to kids either, one case around here is when some local politician proposes an idiotic, expensive, or self-enriching measure and the voters cut it to pieces, at which point they cry "lack of voter education" and claim voters were not properly informed, then raid the budget for a "voter education"(i.e. propaganda) campaign and then submit the measure again, and again...
There's been some boot to arse about that in a couple of these podunk townships already, and while I am all for the notion of investing in libraries, expensive furniture and fluff is far less useful than more capacity and efficiency, although if they'd limited that to bettering handicapped access they might have got more support.

Another one was a stunt pulled a local elementary school back in baltimore circa 1989, when I was allied to a former domestic abuse victim and helping her get her life in order.
They sent a questionaire slip back with the kids, and it read like this:

Quote:
{ } - Yes, I want the school to adopt a uniform policy
{ } - No, I do not want a uniform policy adopted at this time.

This was an absolute setup, since their intention was to then spin that to the school board and local paper that "100% of the parents desired a uniform policy" (just 'not at this time') so they could shove one down upon the students despite about 60% of the parents being AGAINST it, cause the administrator had a financial interest in the company that would have been providing them, and most of the parents were already struggling financially and it would have been another expense, since whenever that is done the cost of those uniforms spirals up hard, especially if there's only one provider with an enforced monopoly.

For kids, it's even worse, most student governments are well aware of how utterly powerless they are and what a slap in the face it is when it's pretended you have a say - and those that aren't soon learn it the moment they manage to "successfully" counter some dumbass idea of the administration only to be then utterly ignored, or in extremis, disbanded.

So lets not pretend the sleight of hand, magicians fake "choices" we offer kids these days are anything of the sort, especially since their less-than-pets legal and social status means that if they DO disagree they can't DO a bloody thing about it anyways, hence leading to said so-called-apathy.

Personally I find such manipulation by either "side" of this appalling, cause most non-ghetto kids do not have sufficient experience with the topic, and most kids in general do not yet have a broad enough knowledge of the topic and related history to make an informed decision, a point I find especially galling given the distorted all-but-fiction taught in public schools as american history.

Now if they're in possession of sufficient knowledge base and experience to argue the topic, and then choose to agree/disagree, that's on them, and I can respect it - but trotting out catchphrases they've been taught by people with agendas (from either side) is no such thing, and offensive from EITHER direction.

-Frem

M52NICKERSON

Friday, January 18, 2013 8:38 PM

Yes, the children are so controlled. When was the last time you where in a school? Of course getting kids to sit down and pay attention is part of being able to teach them. Perhaps then they would be better educated than you claim they are now.

You know how I know that what ever attempts are made to just make people submit to authority aren't working? The internet. Find me someone that never questions authority on the web. Perhaps to you it looks like submitting if people are not fighting it. You dislike any type of authority. I doubt you can understand how anyone could agree with it.

You know what I remember from school? Finding out those things I thought where true were not. Now maybe my education in the public schools in western NY state was better than most. Or perhaps I wanted to learn in school. I did not come out like many of the people I went to school went still believe some the same fallacies I started with. No one can teach a person that does not want to learn.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 18, 2013 9:19 PM

Quote:
Of course getting kids to sit down and pay attention is part of being able to teach them.

Getting them to WANT to isn't that hard.
Part of that problem comes from using a force-n-fear model instead of provoking a kids natural curiosity, one reason I am fond of Freeschools, but yes I am aware not all children do well in them and some seem to need a more rigid structure.

Quote:
You know how I know that what ever attempts are made to just make people submit to authority aren't working? The internet. Find me someone that never questions authority on the web.

Hehehehe, you just pointed out why I love the internet so much.
There's also that all the conditioning against empathy doesn't stick to well either.
Know why ?
Cause it's counter to human nature - we're not aggressive beasts you know, the notion that we need a leash 'for our own good' is and always has been bullshit since it was first offered, and the folks pushing that myth always seem to have some pretty obvious ideas about who should be holding it, don't they ?

I call it the three C's - Compassion, Communication, Cooperation.
It's our nature, who we are, and all the conditioning in the world, not matter how well executed, can do little more than suppress it, and still it leaks through.
And thanks be for that, elsewise, we'd be doomed.

The net is also pretty damn good as a knowledge base, so long as you vet and crosscheck your sources properly - back in my day (oh damn that makes me sound old!) I had to resort to Encylopedia Britannica, that was a small victory for me which ballooned into something greater.
Due to how freakin expensive they were, when me and my mother found a used set at a yard sale for dirt cheap, I begged, pleaded, cajoled, and she finally gave in - I carried them reverently home on foot a couple volumes at a time, took all day too, and I read them, cover-to-cover, being a voracious reader even then...

And came upon the word "Antifederalist".

See, my school did mention the Federalist papers, but it was insinuated that these were a mere explanation offered by "our betters" of what they were doing for our interest, ZERO mention in that curriculum about any opposition to the idea, by anyone - and it struck me like a thunderbolt, that they had LIED TO ME.
To this day I am not sure if that History teacher hated me, or treasured my opposition (it really did get the class "involved" and grades went up significantly) cause he never did pitch me out of his class despite having good reason to do so on multiple occasions... I think he might have secretly disagreed with the version of "history" he was teaching, maybe.

These days a kid can scour the internet (when they're not busy browsing porn) and find the hell out the basic facts of damn near anything, and that is a wonderful thing, one I wish preserved.

Quote:
You dislike any type of authority. I doubt you can understand how anyone could agree with it.

That is because you don't understand my concept of "Authority" - to ME, Authority comes from knowledge, competence, merit, even example - I automatically reject "Authority" which comes from force and threat, which is frankly, most of it.
Not that hard to reason with me, though some may disagree... but impossible to force me to do something I don't want to cause in extremis I will outright refuse no matter what threat one offers.

Quote:
You know what I remember from school? Finding out those things I thought where true were not. Now maybe my education in the public schools in western NY state was better than most.

I hope it was, I daresay education has improved in many places, but in others it has gone the other way, especially with this hateful lockdown mentality which causes the school to become a bastion of fear and oppression instead of liberation-through-knowledge and a celebration of education.

Quote:
No one can teach a person that does not want to learn.

W

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 18, 2013 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

I simply reject the idea of social control through force, fear and coercion.

I have only one word for those that DO NOT reject it:

M52NICKERSON

Friday, January 18, 2013 9:40 PM

The core of my disagreement with you maybe that human’s nature is one of violence as well as compassion. Man's near infinite ability for compassion is only eclipsed by his infinite ability to destroy. War has been with us for as long as we have been around. It is not a learned trait. If anything we learn to control that side of use much more then we ever learn not to care.

Authority which comes from knowledge, competence, merit, and example is nice, but you know as well as I not everyone respects those things. Many people can't even recognize those. So we have the threat of consequences if people will not follow the rules set by society.

You are right the no one maybe able to force you to do some things. They can however force the consequences of not doing them on you. That is the point.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 18, 2013 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Man's near infinite ability for compassion is only eclipsed by his infinite ability to destroy.

Less people are truly violent & bent on destruction than you might believe. It's just when they do something, it's usually big news. Thousands of people made the World Trade Center, a group of less than a hundred destroyed it.

STORYMARK

Friday, January 18, 2013 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

I simply reject the idea of social control through force, fear and coercion.

I have only one word for those that DO NOT reject it:

HA!

Excellent.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 18, 2013 10:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

HA!

Excellent.

One could find a lot of use for that jpg in these parts, I conjure.

KWICKO

Friday, January 18, 2013 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

HA!

Excellent.
One could find a lot of use for that jpg in these parts, I conjure.

Especially if they had spelled DUMB-ASS correctly...

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 18, 2013 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Especially if they had spelled DUMB-ASS correctly...

Ahh, the intentional irony factor.

NIKI2

Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11 PM

Quote:
Coming from someone who has been so wrong, so often, your speculation in place of an actual argument is pretty funny.

Quote:
About 99% of everything he posts is just pure bullshit, unsourced, unverifiable, and completely made up. I have no doubt he behaves the same way in a court of law.

That's only if you believe he ever SEES the inside of a court of law.

Quote:
Milgram's results may have been skewed but the tendency is probably correct.... I'm mainly deeply opposed to anything that might foster the complacent, self-indulgent assumption of any single person that they are beyond manipulation or "bowing to authority". It's the opposite of awareness.... a revelation of a human weakness with the implied responsibility to be on guard because of it, in situations a lot more complex than a self-congratulatory "I would never!"-mindset might expect.

I'm with Agent; I would say "the opposite of SELF-awareness".

Quote:
getting kids to sit down and pay attention is part of being able to teach them. Perhaps then they would be better educated than you claim they are now.

I also agree with Nick. Perhaps we should ask Mal4 or Mark how "easy" it is to teach kids these days, given they are teachers, rather than just saying "Getting them to WANT to isn't that hard." I'm pretty sure many, many classrooms today aren't like when I went to school, or you, Frem... Just sayin'.

Quote:
Less people are truly violent & bent on destruction than you might believe. It's just when they do something, it's usually big news.]/quote]
Chris has, in my opinion, a very valid point.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

BYTEMITE

Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:38 AM

I went to school and I believed what they told me hard. Then I walked out and then I was all like, wait a minute. America doesn't belch rainbows like they said.

KWICKO

Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:52 AM

http://aattp.org/7-famous-quotes-from-a-tyrannical-gun-grabbing-dictat
or/

Quote:

1. “Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control.”

2. “I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”

3. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

4. “With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

5. “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

6. “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

7. “This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety … While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

So who said it?

Mussolini? Nope.
Hitler? Nahhh.
Stalin? Please...
Lenin? As if.
Saddam Hussein? Lightweight.
Pol Pot? Rank Amateur.
Kim Jong Il? You wish.
Jimmy Carter? Pussy.
Bill Clinton? When would he have time, what with all the blowjobs?
Barack Obama? C'mon...

Nope. It was all said by right-wing hero and conservative saint Ronald Reagan.

And nobody on the right, not one single conservative today, wants you to remember that or think about it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 19, 2013 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The core of my disagreement with you maybe that human’s nature is one of violence as well as compassion. Man's near infinite ability for compassion is only eclipsed by his infinite ability to destroy. War has been with us for as long as we have been around. It is not a learned trait. If anything we learn to control that side of use much more then we ever learn not to care

In response, I offer this, just for thought.

Quote:
You are right the no one maybe able to force you to do some things. They can however force the consequences of not doing them on you. That is the point.

Perhaps, but that's not QUITE so easy as you make it sound since I happen to be a large fan of third-option-thinking, but that's also one of my points... IF someone is willing to absorb the natural and other consequences of what they do, then you really CAN'T stop them from doing something, or MAKE them do something, it just won't work.

-Frem

PS. For Clarity - Say "Do this or I will shoot you", and I say "Fine, go ahead and do that." and proceed to refuse, then what, you shoot me ?
Still means I don't do it, doesn't it ?

NIKI2

Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:55 PM

Wow, Frem, that graphic was fantastic. I had to pay attention so I didn't get so fascinated that I didn't get what he was talking about, but I worked at it, while still being enormously impressed by his drawing ability!

I agree with the point he made, and I wish it were possible to do as he suggests. I'm afraid I'm not that much of an optimist, however.

But thanx for the graphic!

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 19, 2013 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I agree with the point he made, and I wish it were possible to do as he suggests. I'm afraid I'm not that much of an optimist, however.

Nor am I, save for the fact that for me this is sure knowledge rather than hope.

The bastards of the world are done for, they know it, we know it, and it's all just a matter of time - my pushing is mostly cause imma impatient little bastich when it comes to the cause of humanity.

There WILL be a second Enlightenment, it may not happen in my lifetime (but I thought that about the fall of WWASPS too!) but that such will happen is no longer a matter of hope, but simply of time.

-Frem

PS. I had to watch it through twice for the same reason!

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 20, 2013 7:04 PM

Quote:
But I suspect he'd be supportive of the Democrat's gun control plans.

I know this has been addressed already, but... really???? Do you OFTEN substitute your own suppositions in place of fact, and with such absolute certainty? Wow. Do you prosecute the same way? I suspect little Johnny would have robbed the grocery store? Yikes.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Though I note certain groups in the country DO have unequal access to dangerous weapons.

I think, in the end, that is the more important point. That they DID disarm the demographic they meant to persecute. It's not necessary to disarm the entire populace to persecute a subset.

The lesson for me is to look at who they are disarming now, in the USA.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

In response, I offer this, just for thought.

Thanks Frem. That was amazing.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think, in the end, that is the more important point. That they DID disarm the demographic they meant to persecute. It's not necessary to disarm the entire populace to persecute a subset.

The lesson for me is to look at who they are disarming now, in the USA.

Apart from denying Jews the rights they accorded other citizens, I sincerely doubt that being armed would have made much of a difference for the Jewish population of Germany. They were less than one percent of the population and apparently had little to no support from the general population.

Basically, disarming Jewish people was not a "step" on the holocaust ladder. It was more of a formality along the way, while marginalizing them economically and socially were the real groundwork toward eventually deporting and murdering them.

I just honestly don't think that this is a valid comparison. I find it almost offensive.

NIKI2

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:00 PM

Quote:
I just honestly don't think that this is a valid comparison. I find it almost offensive.

I do as well. For another reason: To equate us to the time of the Third Reich is offensive to me as an America. We are nothing like them; our social structure is totally different; our history is COMPLETELY different; and we wouldn't stand for disarming one entire portion of our society for a minute. The comparison doesn't so much offend as disgust me.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:54 PM

Yeah, the kind of tyranny you guys will end up if the far right of the republicans gain any further political control will look completely different to Germany in the 30'

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:05 PM

Actually if anything we're closest to the fall of the Roman Empire, something I noticed back in the 1980s, although that paralel doesn't hold up perfectly either...

As for Reich-comparisons, some of that comes from the problem that there's no shortage of people within our Govt, our Military, and *especially* our intel agencies... who think going that way is a damn good idea and actively push for it, without actually admitting that's their intention.
Which is in some part where the comparison comes from, although economically their policies are far closer to Mussolini.

-F

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:07 PM

And there's more triumphant take away point in there as well: even with all of that arrayed against them, they still didn't give up.

There's something very much like optimism to be found in there, even if a lot of the individual stories ended tragically.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:24 PM

Byte,
absolutely! It's incredible, especially, not just that people got through this but that they did so with their humanity intact. Triumphant is absolutely the right term.

I've recently been reading an autobiographical account by a Jewish man named Cioma Schönhaus, who survived in hiding until his escape in 1944. It's a tear-jerker, not because of all the horrible things that happen around him, but because it is written with... humor. And love and joy and hope. There is such a commitment to life, not mere survival. It's humbling and inspiring in every way. Very extraordinary story.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:26 PM

Quote:
To equate us to the time of the Third Reich is offensive to me as an America. We are nothing like them; our social structure is totally different; our history is COMPLETELY different; and we wouldn't stand for disarming one entire portion of our society for a minute.

lolwut

Third Reich System: unhealthy cooperation between government and business, with special treatment for members of the Nazi party. Had a national parliament system called the reichstag - burned, replaced with a system of executive orders from a dictator using a contingency plan for emergency martial law. Dangerous xenophobic and nationalistic elements in the military foment war.

US System: unhealthy cooperation between government and business, with special treatment for members of the power elite. Has a bicameral system of two equally useless legislative bodies, forcing government running to rely more and more on executive orders from the president. Has a contingency plan in place for emergency martial law. Dangerous xenophobic and nationalistic elements in the military foment war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

Third Reich History: Early excess government centered in Austria/Hungary establishes itself as an empire. A military defeat results in Germany splitting from the empire into a republic state. On failure of the original republic due to financial ruin, a new government with a stronger central power takes over after about 11 years, and the old constitution is rendered obsolete. A few years later, Kristalnacht happens. In a build up to another war, paranoia results in minority citizens of that country to be rounded up and stuck into harsh concentration camps. Engaged in racially motivated military actions in the middle east, dividing arabic and muslim tribes against each other.

US History: Excess government centered in England establishes itself as an empire. A military defeat by revolutionaries in the US results in the colonies splitting from England into a confederacy. On failure of the initial system due to financial ruin, a new government with a stronger central power takes over after about 8 years, and the old agreement is rendered obsolete. Within a few years of that, the Alien and Sedition acts are passed. Enslaved black people for a century. In a build up to another war, paranoia results in minority citizens of this country to be rounded up and stuck into harsh internment camps. Engaged in racially motivated military actions in the middle east, dividing arabic and muslim tribes against each other.

Third Reich disarmament: Disarmed Jews.

US disarmament: Wants to disarm people with potential for violence and history of mental illness.

America is kinda fascist and terrible. This would be why I hate the political, military, and business leadership of America.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:36 PM

AR: This is true. Perhaps I focus too much on arguing whether or not the US is redeemable, and not enough on the individual stories of human spirit.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Third Reich History: Early excess government centered in Austria/Hungary establishes itself as an empire. A military defeat results in Germany splitting from the empire into a republic state. On failure of the original republic due to financial ruin, a new government with a stronger central power takes over after about 11 years, and the old constitution is rendered obsolete. A few years later, Kristalnacht happens. In a build up to another war, paranoia results in minority citizens of that country to be rounded up and stuck into harsh concentration camps. Engaged in racially motivated military actions in the middle east, dividing arabic and muslim tribes against each other.

I think this is a misrepresentation. Austria-Hungary was a separate entity from the Prussian-led German "Reich" (once a neutral term meaning 'realm') for a long time, long before Germany ever became a country. Germany never split from it, it was never a part of it. Military defeat in WW1 led to revolts inside Germany. What broke the Weimar republic apart was that it was never stable to begin with. It struggled with downright civil war between socialists, democrats, monarchists and what became nazis, especially in the early days. It had a solid moment in the middle but one large-scale financial crisis was all it took to sink the entire enterprise into absolute chaos. There was no popular backing for democracy.

The US, in comparison, struggled through the great depression without electing a fascist, racist dictator because it had a solid, popularly carried relationship to its democratic system. I'm pretty sure this is still true.

And the Jews were certainly not rounded up due to war paranoia. Both persecution of Jews (and socialists and certain Christians and homosexuals and the mentally disabled...) as well as aggressive war preparations were parallel aspects of the same underlying ideology.

I... just really don't think the comparison holds up, at all.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
AR: This is true. Perhaps I focus too much on arguing whether or not the US is redeemable, and not enough on the individual stories of human spirit.

I encourage the latter! :) You find yourself reminded why human beings can be absolutely fantastic.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:06 AM

The US tried the Articles of Confederacy first. They failed due to financial collapse of the US currency, but it was also unstable due to the different factions within the system. So the founding fathers established the United States of America, which had a much stronger central power and federal control. Federalists versus anti-federalists and etc.

I was not talking about the great depression. The great depression was never a weimar republic scenario because the US had a stable and very strong federal government at the time. But that doesn't mean that the US never experienced a Weimar republic scenario. It did.

Quote:
Germany never split from it, it was never a part of it.

This is probably the best argument against what I wrote - except, did Austria agree that Germany wasn't part of that Empire? Hitler CAME from Austria, this wasn't exactly an unpopular sentiment.

The American colonists at some point stopped believing they were really part of the the English empire - or ever were, but the English kept right on believing it. Frankly our colonies had a better claim than the Germans because we didn't even all of us have the same lingo-ethnic background.

Germany/Prussia prior to Hapsburg meddling was ruled by a bunch of little kings (more than one of them as I recall completely crazy), much like America was ruled by its governor barons and theocracies and upper class with its indentured servants.

I see very little difference between the two. But you may disagree. Just trying to point out that the argument is not as outlandish as people are depicting it. America has done TERRIBLE things, and I won't forgive or forget, no more than I will forgive or forget any other country that has done terrible things.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
AR: This is true. Perhaps I focus too much on arguing whether or not the US is redeemable, and not enough on the individual stories of human spirit.

I encourage the latter! :) You find yourself reminded why human beings can be absolutely fantastic.

Also true.

Must stop trying to argue about American fascism. It's just A THING, that I do, a lot.

I acknowledge, and apologize in advance that my opinions also tend to piss off most everyone I know, which is unfortunate, but I can't stop saying it. I guess I just don't like America. :/ I don't wish it ill, but I don't like it.

KWICKO

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think, in the end, that is the more important point. That they DID disarm the demographic they meant to persecute. It's not necessary to disarm the entire populace to persecute a subset.

The lesson for me is to look at who they are disarming now, in the USA.

Apart from denying Jews the rights they accorded other citizens, I sincerely doubt that being armed would have made much of a difference for the Jewish population of Germany. They were less than one percent of the population and apparently had little to no support from the general population.

Basically, disarming Jewish people was not a "step" on the holocaust ladder. It was more of a formality along the way, while marginalizing them economically and socially were the real groundwork toward eventually deporting and murdering them.

I just honestly don't think that this is a valid comparison. I find it almost offensive.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, France had a lot of guns. Russia had kind of a lot of guns. Hell, France was one of the largest military forces in the world at the time the Germans invaded, and had the strongest fortifications on their border of anyone save possibly China.

It took the U.S., the entire British Empire, and a whole shitload of other nations to stop the Nazis. And the Nazis were FINE with their people having guns - they actually LOOSENED gun laws and restrictions.

So a few Jews with guns really wasn't going to make the difference.

Anyone still arguing this line of "reasoning" is an idiot.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

KWICKO

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
AR: This is true. Perhaps I focus too much on arguing whether or not the US is redeemable, and not enough on the individual stories of human spirit.

I encourage the latter! :) You find yourself reminded why human beings can be absolutely fantastic.

Also true.

Must stop trying to argue about American fascism. It's just A THING, that I do, a lot.

I acknowledge, and apologize in advance that my opinions also tend to piss off most everyone I know, which is unfortunate, but I can't stop saying it. I guess I just don't like America. :/ I don't wish it ill, but I don't like it.

So look at those stories of individual inspiration and think the same thing about America. While you might not like the country much, look at it's capabilities, its promise and hope. There are inspiring stories there, too. Not many, maybe, but each one is a scrap to hold onto.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:02 AM

Let me first emphasize that I am not disagreeing with your point about US policies or political future. Merely with the historical comparison you are drawing up because it does not reflect historical fact and thus really doesn't work.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I was not talking about the great depression. The great depression was never a weimar republic scenario because the US had a stable and very strong federal government at the time. But that doesn't mean that the US never experienced a Weimar republic scenario. It did.

Ah, I did not realize. My mistake.

Quote:

Quote:
Germany never split from it, it was never a part of it.

This is probably the best argument against what I wrote - except, did Austria agree that Germany wasn't part of that Empire? Hitler CAME from Austria, this wasn't exactly an unpopular sentiment.

As an empire, Austria was generally too busy trying to keep order within its own borders to pose a great danger to its northern neighbors. It was never remotely comparable to Britain vs. its colonies.

Hitler's annexation of his homeland in 1938 was a realization of 19th century ultra-nationalist pan-German sentiment on both sides rather than anything pre-war Austrian monarchy would ever have wanted or could have reasonably attempted.

Quote:

Germany/Prussia prior to Hapsburg meddling was ruled by a bunch of little kings (more than one of them as I recall completely crazy), much like America was ruled by its governor barons and theocracies and upper class with its indentured servants.

What Habsburger meddling are you referring to, though? You are assuming something that never existed. Habsburg monarchs did not cause the formation of the German Reich in 1871, not even remotely.

And 'little kings' is misstating things, as well. It was a heterogenic mix. Saxony was a large and influential principality of renown. Bavaria was no slouch. Prussia was a military threat from the early 1700's. Austria had to ally with its hated enemy France just to keep the Prussians at bay and they still had trouble doing it. They really didn't have any political say over the various German principalities beyond sharing the Holy Roman Empire with them.

Quote:

I see very little difference between the two. But you may disagree. Just trying to point out that the argument is not as outlandish as people are depicting it. America has done TERRIBLE things, and I won't forgive or forget, no more than I will forgive or forget any other country that has done terrible things.

No, honestly, it cannot be compared because the relationship between Germany and Austria was never like that of a colony with its mother country, or even a conquered nation with its rulers because neither scenario applies. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your point about the US. I am disagreeing with the false historical equivalency.

ETA: It just occurred to me how wildly off-topic this entire post is. I do apologize.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:24 AM

Quote:
What Habsburger meddling are you referring to, though? You are assuming something that never existed. Habsburg monarchs did not cause the formation of the German Reich in 1871, not even remotely.

The Hapburgs had intentions on Germany - like every big player back then, they all had intentions on everyone else, a delicate game of tightrope and cat and mouse. They thought it was their divine providence to preserve the Holy Roman Empire - with them at the head of it. The Austro-Prussian war even in this wikipedia article is referred to as a "German civil war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War

Hitler's ideas didn't come from nowhere. He was carrying through ideas that had existed for a long while about a unified Austria and Germany. And Austria USED to rule a number of the Prussian provinces.

But, I can see we aren't going to agree about whether there are parallels between Austria/Germany and England/US.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:01 AM

Let me get my nitpick comb! :)

"German Civil War" is one of many titles of this war and only applies because several German countries allied with Austria against Prussia, not because Austria is traditionally considered a part of Germany.

The HRE was not an empire so much as a "realm" by traditional membership and was of steeply declining importance, which is why Napoleon could just do away with it so easily in 1804, the emperor did not own the member states or run their business. And he was elected. It was separate from Austria's empire.

And I already described 19th century nationalism's influence on popular opinion that eventually informed the Nazi annex of Austria.

I don't know what more to say. The relationship you are implying is simply not there. Austria was neither Germany's sovereign, even by their own definition, nor a hulking threat. Prussia-Germany, especially, was stronger than Austria, even before it actually became the German Reich. There was nothing from which Germany could have split after WW1 because it never belonged to Austria in any way. The scenario you drew up was incorrect.

That doesn't make your opinion about the US or its potential future incorrect.

So yeah, let's agree to disagree. Again. :) We do seem to have a habit of that, hehe.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:09 AM

Speakin of personal triumph within catastrophe...

One of my initial inspirations back in the late 80's/early 90's was learning of The White Rose Society.
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/WRS_pamphlets_home.html

Yes, ultimately, they failed - but they tried, and studying HOW they failed lead me to the smoke and mirrors obfuscatory tactics I used effectively for so very long, because when getting it done is more important than getting credit, when whistleblowers are treated as terrorists, well...
Of course that torch has now been passed into capable hands, so I can be a little less cagey about things, but old habits do die hard.

FYI: That 1985 BMW of mine is named Sophie, in her honor.

-Frem
PS. Read the damn leaflets - they're as accurate now as they were then.
Frighteningly so.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:46 PM

Not really wildy off topic at all, Agentrouka. The thread is about 20th century germany, after all.

Are you German? If so, your written English is amazing.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:14 PM

Indeed.

CTS was never one to let facts get in the way of a belief.

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, July 5, 2022 11:52 PM

and in other homosexual gay lesbian news

The Nazis didn’t ban all Germans from owning guns. That’s a lie spread by gun control opponents

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/06/nazis-didnt-ban-germans-owning-gun
s-thats-lie-spread-gun-control-opponents/