The Nazi Peril

It no different then Isrealite conquering Canaanites, and demonizing there god, beleif, or ideology. Like how Baal became Beezlebob, from supreme thunder god of fertility now to some lowly lord of hell.

It weird transition though with the left an right compared to earlier years. Usually the left was the voice of reason an logic while the right would just say god bless america or save the Queen in a similar sense. And now the group that motto that say shoot first an ask later is sounding reasonable then they do.

For example, all the Islamophobia is a lefty concept, and yet, in the countries that have Islamic influence, they be be rght wing, where as they are supposed to be left here, all the while Christophobia would be left in there knick of the woods.

But now, they have ether become to emotionally gripped by ether fear or pride or furthering a career, they have no stability what so ever.

Everyone is afraid there will be another Nazi government, and pretty much has been since the first time it happened.

Why? Because nobody understands how it even happened the first time. It's an unexplained phenomenon.

When nobody knows what causes a phenomenon, everything seems like a possible trigger/cause. Like burning witches in the middle ages when people get sick. People just lash out at everything that looks suspicious.

But just like the middle ages, people still got sick even after the witches had been burned.

When Nazism really does return, nobody will see it coming.

I am quite certain Trump isn't that return. I'm certain, precisely because everyone sees it coming.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: DBCowboy

Dehumanization of people seems to be a big thing these days. I've noticed people immediately leap to dehumanize groups of people they disagree with or who share different ideals. It's kinda scary. You've got exceedingly liberal people dehumanizing men or conservative viewed people. You've got conservative people dehumanizing liberals. A group of angry men who dehumanize women, groups of angry women who dehumanize men, a large number of people all over the world who dehumanize people of different religions and cultures to themselves. Scientists, corporations and politicians that dehumanize the entire human race. Everyone seems to really want to create an enemy for themselves and the easiest way to do that is to make your enemy seem inhuman.

As much as I really enjoy the internet and think it's fairly amazing, I feel like it has a large part to do with it though. Everyone has access to some of the most terrible things around and they can immerse themselves with people who share their views and feed off eachother. Even ATS is like this. It used to be conspiracy theorists and weirdos feeding off eachother now it's uhhh...I dunno a bunch of kids pretending to understand politics...or if they're not kids they sure #ing act like it sometimes. Either way, everyone can sit there and validate eachother, tune out the world and pretend everyone else is wrong and turn them into some kind of enemy.

I dunno everyone needs to kinda take a step back and remember....90% of the people you see or pass by or that are around in the world are just normal people trying to live their life. The media makes it seem like everyone's crazy and ridiculous but it's kinda blown way out of proportion. Most people are pretty alright.

These days?

Have you perhaps heard of the Three-fifths compromise?

a reply to: Greven

Do you understand the 3/5ths compromise and what it was for and why it is there? Most people don't, only what they get fed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

Do you understand the 3/5ths compromise and what it was for and why it is there? Most people don't, only what they get fed.

To be fair it's a common misconception.

What about Illinois Nazis?

originally posted by: matafuchs
What about Illinois Nazis?

I hate Illinois Nazi's.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: matafuchs
What about Illinois Nazis?

I hate Illinois Nazi's.

I hate the Grammar Nazis more.

nazis of any kind are deplorable

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well I call people who hate practical jokes 'fun Nazi's'-sorry I never have said that but it would reinforce your point.

Calling someone who doesn't agree with your point of view a nazi is as you say hyperbole with a pinch of ignorance. I remember the whole "feminazi" fiasco where somehow strong women standing up for their rights are likened to a genocidal regime.

I dare say that some of the younger folk need to brush up on history before throwing the nazi word around like confetti, and I would dare say that if I asked these folk about Auschwitz they would probably respond with 'what's an Auschwitz?

a reply to: RowanBean

I hate the Grammar Nazis more.

That g in grammar should not be capitalized-off you go to the gas chamber.

Why is this in a political forum? This is a flat out conspiracy theory. One would come up with this conspiracy reading this website over and over again.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: RowanBean

I hate the Grammar Nazis more.

That g in grammar should not be capitalized-off you go to the gas chamber.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

There are very specific conditions that have to be met before a charge of treason applies.

It's high time the government step in and properly regulate the lamestream media, hand out prison sentences to CEO's

Have a serious think about it - when you call for the type of regulation you are advocating its very Orwellian. Ministry of Truth and all that.

hint: Pravda Newspaper

Goebells control of the Press - the head of the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: DBCowboy

Nazi's were a political party that took far right ideology so far that society needed to literally add another wing to the spectrum, fascism.
Which can manifest from anything to be honest. In the case with the Nazi's it was purely based off the fact that Germany was pushed to it's limits so much they were backed into a corner and had no option but to lash out, Hitler believe it or not was a very passionate, well spoken, and amazing leader, just for the all the wrong reasons.

I don't think it will get that bad ever again.
Thing is tho, we have a new battle ground, and it's called the internet, ideologies collide, but where will it lead us? So far it's only divided us, or brought like minded people together, for good or bad, depending what you believe.

There was Pol Pott, and the millions that were killed. These days, we don't need concentration camps. It's easier to just take away jobs through offshoring, let people stay in their homes and pay them unemployment benefit. Ultimately, they kill themselves from depression, drug abuse, addiction, alcoholism, crime and that's the problem solved.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I read the book Masqueradewritten by Tivadar Schwartz Soro's. It go's into great detail as how the 1920s-1940s Nazi party divided and conquered all of their opposition; both domestic and foreign by turning citizens against citizens while the Nazis just watched, stayed in the background and pressed the buttons. That way they kept there hands clean.

Its the exact plan as being used today by the Democratic National Party.

originally posted by: Jake56
a reply to: DBCowboy

I read the book Masqueradewritten by Tivadar Schwartz Soro's. It go's into great detail as how the 1920s-1940s Nazi party divided and conquered all of their opposition; both domestic and foreign by turning citizens against citizens while the Nazis just watched, stayed in the background and pressed the buttons. That way they kept there hands clean.

Absolutely right.

originally posted by: Jake56
a reply to: DBCowboy

Its the exact plan as being used today by the Democratic National Party.

Utterly mistaken.

You are participating in those divisive efforts in this post. Democrats and Republicans are hand-puppets.

The problem is that nobody has found a satisfactory solution to the great population problem.

Known as the "Malthusian Dilemma" or "Malthusian Catastrophe".

en.wikipedia.org...

It basically states that, because populations grow in an exactly identical manner as does compounded interest, it's utterly impossible for logical person to even dream or hope of building infrastructure or growing the economy fast enough to consistently stay ahead of it for more than a generation or two.


After the problem starts to get into the intermediate or late stages, genocide of one form or another inevitably starts to creep into the public consciousness. Because it is either that, or chronic poverty. Possibly poverty that will grow worse generation after generation, so your children would live worse than you do. No parent can be happy with that, and most parents will kill for their children.

Solve that problem, and Nazism (in all its forms) would go away.

But nobody has found a satisfactory solution.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

Do you understand the 3/5ths compromise and what it was for and why it is there? Most people don't, only what they get fed.

Of course, because I understand the Constitution - which is why I have such problems with the current President.

It actually originated prior to the Constitution; taxes were raised by the fledgling national government based on the value of land, which led states to devalue their land so that they paid less taxes. The Continental Congress decided to apportion taxes based on population, but struggled on how to count slaves. Those who did not like slavery wanted slaves to count, so that taxes would be higher on slave states - putting economic pressure on slave states to end slavery.

The founders drafted the Constitution with representation based on population in the House, and with each state getting two Senators. The President was elected via the electoral college, which is based on Senators plus Representatives; therefore, sufficiently higher population states would have more votes for the President as well.

The problem of how to count slaves came up once more. The compromise came up again - but turned on its head. Instead of being detrimental to slave states, it was beneficial. By the end of the 1st Congress, there were only 65 seats in the House of Representatives. If slaves were not counted, Southern states would hold 33 seats in the House, but with the compromise, Southern states would hold 47 seats.

Due to the compromise, Southern states dominated national politics up to the Civil War; their dominance had been declining due to faster population growth in the Northern states.

If slaves were fully counted as a person for purposes of representation, the Civil War would not have occurred when it did. It's possible that it might have occurred later, as Northern population continued to grow. If slaves were not counted as a person for purposes of representation, Southern states would not have enjoyed half a century of political dominance.

Recall, what I responded to, though:

Dehumanization of people seems to be a big thing these days.

I'm merely pointing out that it's not a recent thing. Slaves were dehumanized for political power - by both sides.