WWII Survivor Warns of Socialism and Gun Control

a reply to: murphy22

No. They were the rich Germans.

I married a grandson of rich Germans who left.

Just posting to let yas know.....in Texas we have a whole different paradigm.

We can't eat breakfast if we can't shoot that rabbit from the window when we wake up....that's a rabbit omelet

To light the campfire, we set a kitchen match near the tinder and walk away.....turn and hip shoot the tip....

Gun rack in the back window I tell ya... everyone I know has a wife with a 44 mag. On Friday we all get to poppin em off about sundown.......relaying the message for miles, lasts for about 25 minutes. One more about that....I hear those guys in that area shooting till 3 am I swear.....

The cowboys that were right next Irvings Las Colinas Country Club were shooting the tails off cottontail rabbits with pistols.......true story.

So, we rest peaceable like, we know and always have coz our dads told us about registration of firearms......rest in the evenings with our reloaders and primers.....cans of Hercules powder and brinnell 25 hardened .35 meplat projectiles by the bulk over in the shop, next to the two gun vaults .....next to the 12 inch pvc pipe with end caps we'll bury if we have to with bobby's backhoe. Who will come after the 18 million Wyatt Earp types of us in the friendly state ? Drive day and night.....just to cross this state. 990 miles end to end.

That bumper sticker , you've seen it......DONT MESS WITH TEXAS. God musta printed those up.

a reply to: murphy22

So it shouldn't matter if they take guns away because I have a drawer full of butter knives?

a reply to: daskakik
Define "butter knife". And then I'll let you know, if you or I, could "use" it, the same way. Screwdriver, chisel..prybar? Ain't the right "tool". But it gets the job done. It is all good, tinhorn. But I wouldn't "feel" unarmed with a drawer full of butter knives. I'd probably, personally pick a, fork. But I could get by with a spoon... It's not the tool, it's how you'll use it. You shouldn't let them take guns away. But you should never feel unarmed without one...

a reply to: murphy22

You brought it up but to me it would be a knife use to spread butter on toast.

I wouldn't feel very confident going against an apache chopper or a tank. You must be a special kind if badass.

Yep, they'll have robotic remote trigger program...Starr...but who will protect us invincible spiritual warriors is Jesus, why Jesus Him Fine Self...

a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: audubon

Seriously, you are just flat-out wrong. Go check any decent history book on Nazism and you will find that the party is classified as 'far-right'.

Arguments like this are one of the main reasons I posted this thread. Did you even watch the lecture or did you just jump in to inject your preconceived notions? Yes, the nationalistic aspects of the Hitler regime could be classified as a right-wing thing, but you cannot simply ignore all the extreme socialist policies that were enacted, such as wealth equality and many other examples mentioned by this women. These are not just convenient labels as you claim, Hitler in fact carried out many socialist policies and used them to lure in voters, whether you want to believe it or not. There is a reason it was called socialist nationalism, to ignore the socialist part and claim it was strictly a right-wing regime is pure nonsense.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Baloney. His social tendencies only extended to "pure German" . That is not socialism, that is cultism. What we have now in the WH.

a reply to: MOMof3

The point I'm making is he used those policies to draw people in, as she explains in the lecture it took several years before they had a full blown dictatorship, it didn't simply happen over night. Hitler used a political approach which he knew would draw in voters, not necessarily because he believes in socialist ideologies and cared about the well being of people. Politicians are experts at telling people what they want to hear, promising everyone a bunch of free stuff is an easy way to draw people in while encouraging a group mentality, and I see it as a very common tactic used by modern day politicians, which is what this women is trying to warn of.

Also the other underlying point I'm trying to make here is that extreme forms of socialism, such as communist nations which try to enforce wealth equality, nearly always devolve into dictatorships. A socialist government slowly but continuously takes control over the lives of people until they live in a nanny state with no liberty at all. NK is heavily nationalistic and worship their leader as if in a cult, China has a totalitarian government that inhibits the liberty of its citizens in many ways such as the "great firewall of China", Russia has strict laws against gay people, etc. I can even see it happening in my own country, and it makes me realize how lucky the U.S. is to have a strong respect for liberty.

It's easy to take it for granted, so many people these days just think the government should control everything and they completely fail to see where that will lead, as if there's no chance such a thing could ever lead to a fascist government because they started with good intentions. It's for the greater good they say, money is the work of the devil, the free market is meaningless, the government knows what is best for us, we can build a utopia... it's no wonder at all Hitler made use of socialist ideologies because it was the best way for him to draw people in and then subdue them, it's the perfect tool for a psychopath to control people like a herd of sheep.

originally posted by: TheTory
The Fascist manifesto proposes very progressive reforms. Universal suffrage, a minimum wage, participation of labour unions, the seizure of all the possessions of religious congregations, taxes on war and wealth, economic controls for the sake of national interests, the subordination of individualism to the state...it all sounds very progressive to me.

edit on 25/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

"The Fascist manifesto proposes very progressive reforms. Universal suffrage, a minimum wage, participation of labour unions, the seizure of all the possessions of religious congregations, taxes on war and wealth, economic controls for the sake of national interests, the subordination of individualism to the state...it all sounds very progressive to me."

"Subordination of individualism to the state", that sounds like laws and our laws are guided by the constitution and a Supreme Court. The rest don't sound bad. Just a name you attached sounds bad, because someone said it was bad.

a reply to: MOMof3

Fascists were centrists that leaned to the right.

Like you said "law and order" types.

a reply to: daskakik

I didn't miss the message at all.

The message is loud and clear. The far left pose as having the best interests of the people at heart but once they get a stronghold, suddenly you're living in dystopian society. Pretty clear to me.

a reply to: MOMof3

Of course it doesn't sound bad, socialist policies always sound very attractive and appeal to our morality. Also I didn't even say socialism is always a bad thing, you are assuming that. I posted that snippet to further support my argument that socialist ideologies are very useful tools for power hungry dictators. I realize that some degree of socialism is a good thing and necessary for a functioning society, and that we must give over some power to the state to have a functioning government. What is not healthy is a complete subordination to the state, when a socialist government gets drunk on the power that socialist policies give them, and they morph into a dictatorship or nanny state. You must give over your individual liberty in favor of the collectives "greater good", that is what I mean when I say socialism encourages a herd mentality. It's the perfect way for control freaks to consolidate power whilst doing it under the guise of morality, that's what makes it so insidious.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

No, you missed it.

They were right wing all along. The right posed as the left to draw people in and suddenly you're living in dystopian society.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Freedom sounds all badass as well.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

"You must give over your individual liberty in favor of the collectives "greater good", that is what I mean when I say socialism encourages a herd mentality."

We do that when we let a few electorate choose our leaders.

a reply to: MOMof3

And when those leaders establish policies, but don't say it too loud, you might scare the herd.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

"You must give over your individual liberty in favor of the collectives "greater good", that is what I mean when I say socialism encourages a herd mentality."

We do that when we let a few electorate choose our leaders.

Letting the masses have pure democratic control over the election process would be dangerous, that is why the election process is designed the way it is, to create balance between what people want and what is actually logical. Here's a quote from the man who led Britain to victory over Nazi Germany:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

~ Winston Churchill

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Letting the masses have pure democratic control over the election process would be dangerous,

No it wouldn't.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in any other country.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Letting the masses have pure democratic control over the election process would be dangerous,

No it wouldn't.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in any other country.

Considering Hitler was elected by a 98% vote in Austria it seems like it very well can be dangerous... humans are unfortunately quite easy to manipulate, look how close they were to electing Hillary. I know you probably see absolutely nothing wrong with Hillary and that is exactly part of the problem, the masses fail to see evil even when it's right in front of their face. And that is in the U.S., probably the most right wing nation on Earth, so imagine how much easier it is for liberal politicians so smooth talk people in other nations.

In Australia our two most popular parties are the liberal party and an even more extreme progressive party known as the labour party, who have no shame when it comes to promising the world then delivering nothing. Obviously I'm not saying people should have no choice, I'm saying we cannot rely purely on the judgment of the masses. In my opinion an ideal government wouldn't have one patriarchal type leader, it would have multiple leaders each with an equal amount of power and the ability for voters to remove them from office if they do a bad job or extend their term limit if people like what they are doing.