Comparing America to Nazi Germany.

#27
#27
It was meant as a joke but they should have used a different styled S...

150px-Schutzstaffel_Abzeichen.svg.png


See the resemblance?
 
#31
#31
could those not be snipers that use the SS for a different meaning (like scout sniper)?

Been used for scout snipers for reserve and guard units for over 30 yrs.

The freaks popping the t tops need to look at their kiss albums.

Besides the death squad emblem was the skull and cross bones. Gonna whine about our jets now?
 
#33
#33
Here is a short article that might be of interest.


Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read.



The author of this is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.



A German's View on Islam



A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.



'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care.



I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'



We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.



The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.



The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.



Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 40 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.



The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.



And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?



History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:



Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
 
#39
#39
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.

"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

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.

"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

real_courage_is_standing_up_for_what_is_right.jpg
 
#40
#40
Good post Headed for Home.

Otherwise the thread looks like an amateur competition for the 'most inane post of the day' award.

that's not a fun game since you win every day. Sadly it drives people out of this forum that might actually contribute something
 
#41
#41
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.



real_courage_is_standing_up_for_what_is_right.jpg

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.
 
#47
#47
that's not a fun game since you win every day. Sadly it drives people out of this forum that might actually contribute something

What, you have something against winners?

No, what actually drives people out of this forum that might actually have something of substance to contribute, (particularly if it isn't considered politically correct,) is a certain group that you and other monitors facililtate.

To underline what I just posted, review the first dozen or so of the responses to my original post and take note that you are one of that group yourself. :hi:





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.

OK, I'll go back and review your issues when I get around to it, I remember one of your issues concerned Bush, and you are telling me to not go off topic?

The thread is about comparing America today to Nazi Germany of yesteryear, not about comparing presidents or even comparing political parties.






Possibly some people might read the following:

How Do You Kill 11 Million People: An Interview with Andy Andrews [Video] | Michael Hyatt

In my thirty years of publishing, I have been pitched hundreds—maybe a few thousand—times. 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 can’t 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 level—first 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 don’t be fooled by it’s size. It’s a little book that could be the start of something very big. It’s a book you will want to read for yourself and then give to others.

To tell the truth in times of universal deceipt is a revolutionary act.
Orwell
 
#48
#48
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.
 
#49
#49
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.

That is exactly what the German people thought during the 1920s and 30s.

The Food Police: Training Subjects, not Educating Citizens :: Stolinsky.com | Conservative political and social commentary

We need heroes in times of trouble. But we need self-reliant, independent citizens at all times. People can’t 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 children’s 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 child’s 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. How’s 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 don’t know what is good for them, but government officials do know. What’s 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 children’s 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 children’s “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 don’t care - or even notice - what’s happening.

The problem is not children’s 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 doesn’t alarm you, what does?

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
- Adolph Hitler

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."
- Adolf Hitler

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."
- Adolf Hitler

"Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself."
- Adolf Hitler

"The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes"
- Adolf Hitler
 

VN Store



Back
Top