could those not be snipers that use the SS for a different meaning (like scout sniper)?
The interesting stuff is further down the page.![]()
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
-- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953, pg 49-50
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies".
-- Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope", 1966, p. 1247-48
Good post Headed for Home.
Otherwise the thread looks like an amateur competition for the 'most inane post of the day' award.
They make the words of Bertrand Russell prophetic.
Anyone who isn't at least slightly concerned about the centralization of power and unconstitutional exercise thereof in America must not be thinking at all.
![]()
that's not a fun game since you win every day. Sadly it drives people out of this forum that might actually contribute something
But how does this address anything to do with Nazis? Also I raised some issues in my first post, you failed to address any of them. I want to hear your actual response to what I said. Please do not go off topic.
possibly
In my thirty years of publishing, I have been pitched hundredsmaybe a few thousandtimes. But I could count on one hand the times I heard a book concept and thought, Not only should we publish this. We must must publish this. Now! Given where we are as a country, I cant think of a more important and timely topic.
In everything he writes, Andy offers perspective that leaves you seeing your world and your life in a completely different way. He mines history for examples and then applies what he has learned to his readers lives. How Do You Kill 11 Million People is no different.
Through the lens of the Holocaust, Andy examines how Hitler was able to get eleven million people to march to their deaths with so little resistance. In short, he lied to them. And, sadly, they believed it.
If the truth is what sets us free, we need to ask what it means to live in a society where truth is absent, where we are routinely lied to by politicians of both parties, Wall Street, and the media. What is at stake? Can we survive in such a culture of deception?
Our only hope, Andy argues, is an informed citizenry that demands truth at every levelfirst from themselves and second from their leaders. We must be able to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies, and hold those who lie accountable.
This is a short book. You can literally read it in less than an hour. But dont be fooled by its size. Its a little book that could be the start of something very big. Its a book you will want to read for yourself and then give to others.
Skimming some of the points on the list, I'm not why everything has to be a stepping stone or a slippery slope. I'm confident in saying that our government should be able to take some seemingly extreme measures here and there with the sole purpose of protecting its citizens without it leading to fascism.
We need heroes in times of trouble. But we need self-reliant, independent citizens at all times. People cant remain free if they are brought up to be subservient and dependent. And we seem to be doing our best to produce such people.
---------------------------------
We have multiple problems here:
1. The lunches the kids were forced to eat were arguably less healthful than the lunches their mothers had packed for them. The right to decide on questions regarding childrens health was removed from those most interested, the parents, and instead given to uninterested and uninformed bureaucrats - who based their decisions on guidelines proclaimed by other bureaucrats who were even more remote and even less interested in the individual children.
2. What a child eats is an integral part of child-rearing, which is the legal and moral responsibility of the childs parents or guardians, and not of the state. Or at least it used to be.
3. The decision of the officials was arbitrary and capricious, teaching children to obey officials without question or thought.
4. The lunches their mothers had packed were uneaten, teaching children to waste food, exactly the opposite of what we were taught as children.
5. The parents were billed for the school lunches they did not want their children to eat. Hows that for a precedent? You must pay if you try to exercise parental rights - even if you are not allowed to do so.
6. The children were taught that their parents dont know what is good for them, but government officials do know. Whats next - teaching school children to sing hymns to The Leader? Oh wait, we already do that.
7. The children were taught not to complain when their property is seized by officials, a destructive lesson for independent citizens of a free republic, but a useful lesson for docile subjects of a socialized state.
8. If I take something away from someone under an implied threat to use force if the person does not comply, this probably meets the definition of strong-arm robbery, a felony punishable by imprisonment. Yet if a government official does the same, it is not a crime, but just a misunderstanding? Really? Under what law can a bureaucrat seize private property that is not an immediate threat, such as illegal drugs or a weapon - in the absence of a court order?
9. If the childrens lunches were confiscated as punishment for talking in class, the officials would be suspended or fired. But the lunches were confiscated for health reasons, for the childrens own good. Does an impermissible action become permissible merely because the person claims to have a good motive? What tyrant ever claimed to have bad motives?
Our nation was founded on the idea that power flows upward, from the people to the states, and only then to the federal government. But now, this system has been turned on its head. Feds issue guidelines, which are put into effect by state or local officials, and enforced on the people - who have no say in the matter. And many are so used to being dependent and subservient that they dont care - or even notice - whats happening.
The problem is not childrens lunches. The problem is the dangerous notion that government bureaucrats can order children around to suit some agenda that their parents never approved.
It that doesnt alarm you, what does?