Appears to me that the following is a fairly accurate recounting of events that led to the democratic republic of Germany becoming a dictatorship. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp I fear something very similar is happening here and that the forces striving to turn the US into a dictatorship have already succeeded immensely and will do anything, ANYTHING, to make sure the process continues in the direction of creating a global master dictatorial fascist state. I guess some don't see any danger there. Let me phrase it differently. I fear that humanity has a tendency to put control of the greatest weapons into the hands of those least likely to have the responsibility and wherewithal to find other means to negotiations. Insanity grows and prevails over the masses of the population in supposed control and using most of the energy on the planet. I think rather than just another set of bosses in a new similar experiment, it is just about time to try something "entirely different," something that strives to decrease dependence on bosses, something that is a sharp jump in larger masses of humanity collaborating ever more effectively. Yup, I do believe such an experiment is coming and it will be none too soon. The passing of these fleeting fantasies have been so rough in the past, one can feel damned if one does or doesn't seek the ideal. I say, go for it. Find it fast. Get it going. Criminy.
??? There are no parallels between 1932 Germany and 2004 America. For starters, Germany's economy was basically in the toilet. That article completely ignores that factor, and only talks about the nuts-and-bolts of the actual political process. But that's a tremendous oversimplification. Germany had been in terrible turmoil since the ending of World War I in 1918, because of the extremely high war reparations they were required to pay, and also because of the humiliation of the loss. There was horrendous inflation and unemployment. Not even the most pessimistic economist would describe America's economy today as "in the toilet". As a matter of fact... Link. People in 1932 Germany wanted someone to rescue them, to solve their problems, and Hitler and the Nazi party filled that gap. There's no parallel to that in America today--where do you see the entire American nation in terrible turmoil, so desperate for answers and help that they'll follow anybody who promises to save them? I don't see that at all. The American people seem fairly divided between Bush and Kerry; neither of them is turning out to be some new Messiah that the American people will pin their hopes on and sweep into office with a huge majority. And Hitler wasn't elected in 1932. He was actually defeated for President. But he was appointed Chancellor in 1933 by another politician. There's a huge difference. We don't have any comparable political machinery here in the U.S. And in 1932, the Nazi party had actually lost ground with the voters. The German people weren't electing the Nazi party--they just got stuck with them because Hitler got appointed Chancellor. But once the Nazis were there, people followed them, because they promised answers. So no, there aren't any parallels.
Not even a smidgen? Bush was elected and not appointed? Oh yeah, I forgot, supposed to "get over it." Apparently part of Hitler's excuse for grabbing power was to fight terrorists, no parallel there? And the denial of the German people, no parallel there? Was Bush complicit in 9/11? Why did he authorize the Bin Ladens to fly when no one else was allowed before they were at least interviewed by authorities? I don't know, I guess I'm just being paranoid and a few tens of thousands dead civilians is no parallel so far.
No matter how paranoid you wanna be about the Florida thing, it remains a fact that GWBush did in fact win half the votes. The best Hitler could do, after a three-way tie and a subsequent runoff, was still only just 36.8%, or just over a third. Cite: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html That was the whole reason why the Florida thing was so crucial--because they were so close together. A few thousand votes in Florida made the difference. Now, you can argue that Bush was not "elected" if you want to, but the fact remains that nearly 50% of Americans did vote for him. I don't see any "denial" on the part of the American people. For the last four years, as a matter of fact, I've seen nothing but vigorous, loud, occasionally cranky and profane, public debate, right out in front of God and everybody. Denial? When people are STILL screaming blue murder about Florida 2000? And about Homeland Security? And about the Iraq War? This must be some new use of the word "denial" that I am not familiar with. As for the rest of it, in order to have your parallels, you're going to have to make sure that your tinfoil hat fits really, really good. If you're going to drive off the road into Fahrenheit 9/11 territory and have it all be a giant Saudi/Halliburton/Bush conspiracy, it tends to be a bumpy ride, and those tinfoil hats need a chinstrap or something to keep them on. BTW, how was the movie?
I understand that the voter roles in Florida were unprecedently purged of many democratic votes via black listing, quite liberally and literally, the felon records, thousands of votes that would have been predominantly democratic. You can say he won the votes but I do not believe you can rule out the very real possiblity that dirty tricks were involved to make that the case (and to stop the recount in its tracks through engineered demonstrations and the US supreme court nullifying the Florida supreme court). Fifty percent of Americans did not vote for him, look at your data, it is more like 50% of 40% or one fifth. Public debate? I listen to Pacifica radio, I catch the Bernie Ward and Ray Taliafaro talk shows on KGO here in the San Francisco Bay area. I also watch Fox news, CBS, NBC and ABC (my job involves a lot of TV exposure). Did you see the study of the lies that people have swallowed directly in relation to the news sources they depend on? That is not public debate. The vast majority of news sources that people depend on swill for Bush and the neocons. That is public disinforming, propagandizing, you have no debate when the "facts" as people see them are twisted and false. Look, you may choose from your limited perspective to swallow the propaganda, to be a dupe to serve the insane elite who are making war on the most destitute, the most desperate to secure disparity, to enforce that the ivory tower pundits can continue in their sequestered arrogance. That is your perogative, but, if you are working from limited information and largely controled by lies, your choice of what you believe is no choice at all. Your firm belief in the sanctity of those who pursue the hegemony of a dynasty and their corporate lackies and cronies, that makes you just another dupe. I do not believe in America. I believe there is thinking life on this planet and it is gaining in its power wielding abilities. As long as efforts are channeled to protect the powerful and wealthy and their adopted cultural bias, nation states will tend towards fascism. Power corrupts. As far as any tin foil hats, me thinks you got your head encased in shit and I doubt if you can find the wherewithal to cleanse your vision of the caca. You can catch my opinion of the movie at Anti Fahrenheit 9/11 Thread that Backfired
This seems to me to belong on the Politics board, despite the pretext of making a reference to Hitler. Let me know if I'm wrong, though. I'll start attacking Kerry on the Physics and other boards.
The link referred to in the first post is stirictly history, or at least another attempt at it which appears fairly accurate. Whether or not we learn from it may have to do with one's bias.
I still think an attempt to draw a parallel between Bush and Hitler belongs on the Politics board, particularly, since it is likely to result in purely political discussion. I now feel more free to make very provocative attacks on liberals on any board on the site, provided I segue into it with some perfunctory reference to the board topic. However, I've said my piece, and shall not speak of this again.
In point of fact, it's only far-left ideologues who keep the election issue alive, wildly spinning the most suggestive flights of fancy out of the the slightest discrepencies common to any election. My own ballot box was one of the ones that Jesse Jackson claimed was used to disenfranchise blacks (you can probably count the number of blacks in my district on two hands with enough fingers left over to tie your shoelaces; this is a mainly hispanic and white area). Turned out the boxes were found a couple of hours later in the delivery truck, *still sealed*. And when they were counted, the district went for Gore! And this sort of discovery was *common* when those claims were dissected. Chips, you recently said: How is it "finding clarity" when you're spinning everything the same direction no matter what the truth actually happens to be? Now you even go so far as to say, in what I must say is one of the best left-wing rants I've ever read, by the way (not being sarcastic -- this is a fine piece of writing, and my hat is off to you): Wow, that's very well said. But it's totally ideological. Anyway, I'm not trying to attack you. If you want to be a left-wing ideologue pretending to be a voice of reason and truth, more power to ya. Just don't expect people to view your postings as some sort of voice of reason and logic and truth. (grin) At any rate, I certainly agree with THIS: But I would add that bias is a denial of truth. Set it aside, and it's amazing what you can learn. The truth really IS out there.
No, there is no truth, only approximation. If you only listen to biased sources your approximation will be biased. My perspective is not main stream media but then, I grew up with Vietnam being offered as a way for me to learn how to live, by killing wantonly. We had to dissect the common fallacies which still persist to today for those who still believe we were fighting communism. If you claim you have the truth and I or others don't then I find that is strong evidence that you have been swamped by the propaganda, thick and heavy and most common. Truth is what a minority pursue, are fortunate enough to have the balls to pursue but no one has it exactly, no one. Not even if they fall within your defintion of right or left. I think the right are basically wrong and that leaves what is left, a closer approximation to truth. Aren't these terms fun for how they allow us to make nonsensical statements?
Agree with the latter, disagree with the former. You certainly have a point about listening to varied sources, which you mentioned earlier, but there's something to be said of the ear of the listener as well. Ideologues hear what they want to hear, no matter what source they're listening to. Independent-minded people, people who seek the truth and keep an open mind about what it is, and don't care where it comes from, will find that truth. Notice I said independent-minded people. Not moderates. I believe that someone can be conservative or liberal without becoming an ideologue. It's called "keeping an open mind". Ideologues also fail to comprehend the value of the opposing side of a disagreement. They're just the enemy, in need of demonization. Open-minded people don't see it that way.
Bush calls himself the "war" president. Wow, that's not fascist at all. The threat to the Germans was hunger, our threat is terrorism. Terrorism is Bush's trump card, when all else fails, we're at war and support your president. Go nationalism. There are striking parallels between Hitler and Bush, but I doubt that Bush has enough brainpower to creat a dictatorship. We also still have the right to bear arms- something the Germans lost. America also lacks the hardcore nationalism that Germany has, I doubt Bush could garner enough support to start another war or rewrite the Constitution. America is not yet in a dire place where we'd cling for Brown Shirts and blame the Muslims for our woes. Give it a decade or two.
Seems to me that your approach is to demonize who you find to be ideologues. Independent-minded people better damn well care where their data is coming from or they wont have any claim to being independent-minded. My whole approach in this thread is that history tells us some real bad shit is possible. If we want to only look at the self-glorification from the corporate media of how we are the freedom fighters destined to rule the world out of our compassion and superiority, then, we don't learn from history. Instead, we repeat it. Bush is still in office. I doubt if the atrocities will abate or decrease while he is there but then, people are not aware. They don't know we set up Saddam Hussein to kill his own people besides being the major force that put him in power. They wont see the data that the gassing Saddam is accused of is not supported by the facts as the remains of the atrocity pointed clearly to Iranian gas. They will not be aware that drug money shores up the major financial institutions and that part of the reason why we wanted to invade Iraq was to bring back the heroin trade to unprecedented levels. The facts are spun, distorted, left out of the picture by those who can do no wrong, by those who will admit no wrong, by those who know the truth despite the evidence. No one is innocent and no one is guilty, hard to retain that when you're following an ideology that tells you there are bad guys and good guys. I claim that the fascist state is one that is ruled by a despotic insanity and if one digs beneath all of the praise and propaganda, I do believe there is cause for alarm that the US is going down a path that is not good for anyone, even the crazies who defend the insanity. Isn't partly a definition of insanity that the victim does not know of their own efforts to undermine their own welfare, let alone the welfare of others? Lots of information out there. I do believe the more money that is behind a news source the less dependable it is. Most of the US population is spoon fed opinions and "facts" from the largest monetary concerns on the planet. Their swallowing of the crap is not good for them or any one in the final analysis. Categorical denial of other opinions is not a sign of sanity or independent thinking.
