• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

World War II and the Ingredients of Slaughter

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#1
World War II began 80 years ago this Sunday after Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a “nonaggression” pact that was, in fact, a mutual aggression pact. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. Russia’s invasion of Poland, no less murderous, followed two weeks later.

On Nov. 3 of that year, Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister, gave Hitler a report of his trip to Poland. “Above all, my description of the Jewish problem gets [Hitler’s] full approval,” he wrote in his diary. “The Jew is a waste product. It is a clinical issue more than a social one.”

For several years many commentators, including me, have written about the parallels between the prewar era and the present.

There’s the rise of dictatorial regimes intent on avenging past geopolitical humiliations and redrawing borders: Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia then; China, Iran and Russia now.

There’s the unwillingness of status quo powers to coordinate their actions, confront dictatorships, stamp out regional wars and rise to global challenges. The League of Nations then; the G7 now.

There’s the upsurge of nativist rancor, protectionist barriers and every-nation-for-itself policies, along with deep doubts about the viability of liberal democracy and the international order. Father Coughlin and the America Firsters then; Donald Trump and the America Firsters now.

All that, plus three crucial factors: new forms of mass communication, the rhetoric of dehumanization and the politics of absolute good versus absolute evil.

The (relatively) new technology of the 1930s was the radio. “It is the miracle of radio that it welds 60,000,000 Germans into a single crowd, to be played upon by a single voice,” The Times reported in 1936. This was by design. Among Goebbels’s first efforts after the Nazis came to power was to produce and distribute a cheap radio — the Volksempfänger, or people’s receiver — that could bring the Führer’s voice and message into every home.

The radio made possible an unmediated, seemingly personal relationship between leader and subject. It cut out the information brokers — reporters, editors, spokesmen, pundits and so on — on whom previous generations of leaders had been forced to rely. It turned a nation into an audience and politics into a theater where emotion mattered much more than sense. In “The Nightmare Years,” the CBS correspondent William Shirer recalled being struck by the complete disconnect between the insanity of Hitler’s language and the spellbinding quality of his delivery.

Radio then, like Twitter today, was the technology of the id; a channel that could concentrate political fury at a time when there was plenty to go around.

It was also a time when ideology dictated that fury be directed at entire classes of people. The decade began with Soviet propaganda cheering Stalin’s announcement of “the liquidation of kulaks as a class” — a reference to millions of Ukrainian peasants who would die of forced starvation in the Holodomor.

The political mind-set that turned human beings into categories, classes and races also turned them into rodents, insects and garbage. “Anti-Semitism is exactly the same as delousing,” Heinrich Himmler would claim in 1943. “Getting rid of lice is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of cleanliness.” Watching Warsaw’s Jewish ghetto burn that year, a Polish anti-Semite was overheard saying: “The bedbugs are on fire. The Germans are doing a great job.”

Today, the rhetoric of infestation is back. In the U.S., Trump uses it to describe Latin American migrants. In Europe, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, chairman of Poland’s ruling Law and Justice Party, warned in 2015 that migrants carried “all sorts of parasites and protozoa,” which, “while not dangerous in the organisms of these people, could be dangerous here.”

More of this talk will surely follow, and not just from the right. The American left has become especially promiscuous when it comes to speaking pejoratively about entire categories of disfavored people.

None of this would be possible without the third factor: the conviction that an opponent embodies an irredeemable evil, and that his destruction is therefore an act of indubitable good. That spirit of certitude that dominated the politics of the 1930s is not so distant from us today. The unpopular political figures of our day are the people who seem to convey less than 100 percent true belief: the moderate conservative, the skeptical liberal, the centrist wobbler.

This 80th anniversary of World War II is an opportunity to reconsider how the world reached that dark defile, in which some 70 million people died. An opportunity, too, to remember the words of the American judge Learned Hand, on how free and civilized people can come back from the brink.

“The spirit of liberty,” he said, “is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”

By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/world-war-ii-anniversary.html

Yup. Rampant manichaeism, exacerbated nationalism, demonizing certain groups of people and a narcissistic despot in power, surrounded by a mob of inconditional sychophants. Sounds familiar.
 

tigerwillow1

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
822
Likes
1,303
#2
Are these people stupid enough to believe this stuff, or stupid enough to think they'll get the masses to believe it?
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#3
Are these people stupid enough to believe this stuff, or stupid enough to think they'll get the masses to believe it?
I think they believe the masses are stupid enough to be led by the nose to the slaughterhouse by some narcissistic despot peddling nationalism and other forms of collectivism.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#4
...Yup. Rampant manichaeism, ...demonizing certain groups of people and a narcissistic despot in power, surrounded by a mob of inconditional sychophants. Sounds familiar.
You’re obviously referring to the previous occupant of the White House, Barry O. We’re still suffering the effects of his eight years of crapping over everything good and holy and subtly infecting the long healing wounds of racism. Good riddance to his wicked devilry.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#5
You’re obviously referring to the previous occupant of the White House, Barry O. We’re still suffering the effects of his eight years of crapping over everything good and holy and subtly infecting the long healing wounds of racism. Good riddance to his wicked devilry.
You obviously had to edit the inconvenient parts out of my post in order to make it suit your purposes, since the kind of "exacerbated nationalism" I mentioned (and you edited out) was not part of the Obama era, but serves Turmp just as well as it served the Nazis.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,971
Likes
12,911
Location
Montana
#6
The alternative to Nationalism is One World Government, no matter how many false accounts of history you provide.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#7
You obviously had to edit the inconvenient parts out of my post in order to make it suit your purposes, since the kind of "exacerbated nationalism" I mentioned (and you edited out) was not part of the Obama era, but serves Turmp just as well as it served the Nazis.
No, I edited the part about nationalism out of the quote because it’s true about DJT. There is nothing wrong with nationalism, unless you’re excluding large groups of people from inclusion, or adding socialism, communism, fascism or any other statist tyranny to it. DJT’s brand of nationalism is love for the goodness of the founding principles of this country, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. I agree with that nationalist sentiment, totally and exclude no one from enjoying those principles, unless they are working to destroy them. Then, they are not welcome here, anymore. And since we’re at it, let’s be totally honest here. There is nothing about Trump’s nationalism that even remotely resembles NAZI’ism. Not even close. You’re dishonest for suggesting it.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,607
Likes
14,136
Location
South Floriduh
#8
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a perfect answer... it addresses the error of Libertaurum without rancor, but with polity and clarity. What's more, it is spot on.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#9
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a perfect answer... it addresses the error of Libertaurum without rancor, but with polity and clarity. What's more, it is spot on.
Thankyou sir.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#10
No, I edited the part about nationalism out of the quote because it’s true about DJT.
Which is what I said; you edited it out because it's true about Turmp but doesn't apply to Obama. So yes, you edited it to suit your purposes.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism, unless you’re excluding large groups of people from inclusion, or adding socialism, communism, fascism or any other statist tyranny to it. DJT’s brand of nationalism is love for the goodness of the founding principles of this country, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. I agree with that nationalist sentiment, totally and exclude no one from enjoying those principles, unless they are working to destroy them. Then, they are not welcome here, anymore. And since we’re at it, let’s be totally honest here. There is nothing about Trump’s nationalism that even remotely resembles NAZI’ism. Not even close. You’re dishonest for suggesting it.
Nationalism is just anther form of collectivism. It is irrational and leads to conflict every time. You say "DJT's brand of nationalism is love". State sponsored nationalism is always force, not love. None of what he proposes can get done without the use of force, and now you see a lot of people supporting the idea that he go even beyond what laws allow to achieve his ends. Some brand of love he's peddling.
It's exactly the same kind of poison the Nazis served up to the German masses. I'm not surprised you don't recognize it, seeing how you keep gobbling it up.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#12
...I'm not surprised you don't recognize it, seeing how you keep gobbling it up.
That’s a very arrogant statement and I disagree with everything else you said there.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#13
Which is what I said; you edited it out because it's true about Turmp but doesn't apply to Obama. ...
That part was the only thing you said that applied to Trump. The nationalism. The rest of it was about someone else. And no! Nationalism does not equate to collectivism, where all the power goes to the elite, at the top and the state decides every issue in your life. The nationalism that the majority of MAGA people believe in is a reverence for the principles of freedom and responsibility, that collectivists are vehemently opposed to.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#14
That part was the only thing you said that applied to Trump. The nationalism. The rest of it was about someone else.
Really? Let's see that "rest of it" that you say must refer to "someone else". I said:

"Yup. Rampant manichaeism, exacerbated nationalism, demonizing certain groups of people and a narcissistic despot in power, surrounded by a mob of inconditional sychophants. Sounds familiar."

Are you really telling me you don't think Turmp demonizes certain groups? Or that he isn't narcissistic, or despotic? Or surrounded by mobs of unconditional sycophants? Must be talkin'bout someone else, huh?

And no! Nationalism does not equate to collectivism, where all the power goes to the elite, at the top and the state decides every issue in your life. The nationalism that the majority of MAGA people believe in is a reverence for the principles of freedom and responsibility, that collectivists are vehemently opposed to.
Nationalism is, by definition, a form of collectivism. Statism and plutocracy are separate pathologies.

I have nothing against any nationalism that doesn't pretend to force individuals to do or stop doing anything with their own lives and property, whether nationalists would approve of it or not.

Unfortunately, such a system is not called nationalism, but free market capitalism, which a lot of former "freedom-loving capitalists", now turned raging nationalist-socialists, used to support. Go figure.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,201
Likes
3,540
#15
DJT’s brand of nationalism is love for the goodness of the founding principles of this country, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I think that's projection. I don't doubt that you personally do value those things, but I think the evidence clearly shows that DJT does not. DJT has upped the ante in the drug war, he has increased government spending irresponsibly thus setting the stage for further financial calamity, he has increased unconstitutional domestic spying on the people, he has torpedoed an already weak economy with tariffs paid for by the American people, and he has made unconstitutional moves against the 2nd Amendment.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#16
I think that's projection. I don't doubt that you personally do value those things, but I think the evidence clearly shows that DJT does not. DJT has upped the ante in the drug war, he has increased government spending irresponsibly thus setting the stage for further financial calamity, he has increased unconstitutional domestic spying on the people, he has torpedoed an already weak economy with tariffs paid for by the American people, and he has made unconstitutional moves against the 2nd Amendment.
DJT has upped the ante in the drug war: Well, marijuana should be left alone, but heroin and fentanyl cause an enormous amount of damage to lives and many deaths. Plus, it’s probably the C-A’s main source of funding. It should be opposed.
DJT has increased government spending: The military needs to be brought up to par after BarryO gutted them and made them virtually ineffective. Also, at this point, not to sound like HRC, but what does it matter? The dollar’s days are numbered anyway. Might as well put it to good use, before it’s completely dead.
DJT has increased domestic spying: I’m not sure I see that one. On the people? Or on select groups of subversive elements? Just curious.
DJT has increased tariffs: Yep. There’s good and bad there. Depends on your goals.
DJT has made moves against the 2nd amendment: DJT has moved against popular gun toys, bump stocks. Let’s be honest. Bump stocks are toys, not guns, or legitimate, effective add ons. He has also said some things that make me nervous, but none of those things have come yet to fruition. I’ve heard a number of people who I respect, say he’s playing games with the democRats. Time will tell on that.
My gut tells me that DJT is as I said he was. A patriot and lover of American values and the Constitution. Again, time will tell us if my gut is right or it’s decieved me.

Edited for spelling. That stuff bothers me.
 
Last edited:

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#17
...Well, marijuana should be left alone, but heroine and fentanyl cause an enormous amount of damage to lives and many deaths...
Why should you, or any majority, get to decide what any individual can consume? Sugar, fat, alcohol, tobacco and even regular food, when consumed in excess, also cause "an enormous amount of damage to lives and many deaths". Should they be banned, too? Why not?

Once you accept the notion that any State or any majority can "ban" some substance, the subject of which substances should be banned becomes secondary. It doesn't matter what you think about what I'm drinking, smoking, snorting or smearing, and you have no right to use force to stop me from doing so -no, not even if you get other people to "vote" on it.

Again, it's a matter of principle. Pesky, pesky principles.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,178
Likes
10,145
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#18
And since we’re at it, let’s be totally honest here. There is nothing about Trump’s nationalism that even remotely resembles NAZI’ism. Not even close. You’re dishonest for suggesting it.
Have to agree. Simply supporting ones own nation's interests over the interests of other nations is absolutely not nazism.


Nationalism is just anther form of collectivism.
Any group is a form of a collective. The difference comes down to the degree of the collectivism.


State sponsored nationalism is always force, not love.
If we had state sponsored nationalism on par with the nazi's, people like the nfl kneeler, colin whatshisname would have been thrown in jail. Along with all the antifa people too. Anyone pullig that shit in nazi germany wouldn't have lasted long.
....but here in our form of what you try to call nazism, it's those that espouse the Founding principles who are being threatened by the communists in our society. That those people have their freedom is testament to the fact that we are nothing close to nazism.
As SoG said, you are being dishonest by even suggesting it.

The alternative to collectivism is individualism,
So the only forms of gov you can see is nazism and anarchy?
....and nothing in between?

Nationalism is, by definition, a form of collectivism.
As is any group of individuals forming a group. In your book, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were collectivists. After all, they started our group.


Why should you, or any majority, get to decide what any individual can consume?
We shouldn't, but what do you think would be the result of selling cocaine meth and heroin as freely as bubble gum? Do you think the effects of that would be good for our society?

Edited to add: we tried the approach of hard drugs being freely available and all it resulted in was the first heroin epidemic in the late 1800's through the early part of the 1900's. The harrison act was the result of that.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#19
Why should you, or any majority, get to decide what any individual can consume? Sugar, fat, alcohol, tobacco and even regular food, when consumed in excess, also cause "an enormous amount of damage to lives and many deaths". Should they be banned, too? Why not?

Once you accept the notion that any State or any majority can "ban" some substance, the subject of which substances should be banned becomes secondary. It doesn't matter what you think about what I'm drinking, smoking, snorting or smearing, and you have no right to use force to stop me from doing so -no, not even if you get other people to "vote" on it.

Again, it's a matter of principle. Pesky, pesky principles.
Well, I guess you could make a case for heroin. But, fentanyl? A portion the size of the period at the end of this sentence is enough to end your life, so, have at it, Libby.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,201
Likes
3,540
#20
Edited to add: we tried the approach of hard drugs being freely available and all it resulted in was the first heroin epidemic in the late 1800's through the early part of the 1900's.
That's the period of time in which the US was the wealthiest as a nation. In that period drugs were legal, gold was money, there was no income tax, and you didn't need a passport to enter or leave the country. Life wasn't a cake walk then either, but in terms of the scope of the federal government, it's amazing to me how authoritarian the US has become in the more modern period.
 
Last edited:

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,201
Likes
3,540
#21
Johann Hari made a study of drug decriminalization in Switzerland and Portugal. It's well worth listening to.
Spoiler alert for those who don't want to watch: Drug addiction went way down and so did crime overall.
 

madhu

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,090
Likes
824
#22
Individualism is privatizing the gain and socializing the consequences. The nation state is another falsehood to Re define international borders so that private gain can be maximized.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#23
That's the period of time in which the US was the wealthiest as a nation. In that period drugs were legal, gold was money, there was no income tax, and you didn't need a passport to enter or leave the country. Life wasn't a cake walk then either, but in terms of the scope of the federal government, it's amazing to me how authoritarian the US has become in the more modern period.
Johann Hari made a study of drug decriminalization in Switzerland and Portugal. It's well worth listening to.
Spoiler alert for those who don't want to watch: Drug addiction went way down and so did crime overall.
My opinion for a long time now, is that any drug that is derived directly from nature, marijuana, cocaine, opium, beer and wine and bourbon and tobacco, should be legal. Let people decide what they will allow in their bodies. My tolerance ends with synthetically manufactured substances. It might seem arbitrary, but where nature ends, my intolerance begins.
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
3,067
Likes
2,536
#24
Since Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton are all war mongering nincompoops who raise taxes and increase the National Debt, I will believe they are all self-serving scum who love money first.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,178
Likes
10,145
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#25
Johann Hari made a study of drug decriminalization in Switzerland and Portugal. It's well worth listening to.
Spoiler alert for those who don't want to watch: Drug addiction went way down and so did crime overall.
Decrim is ok, but the hard stuff still shouldn't be freely available at every corner store.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,178
Likes
10,145
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#26
My opinion for a long time now, is that any drug that is derived directly from nature, marijuana, cocaine, opium, beer and wine and bourbon and tobacco, should be legal. Let people decide what they will allow in their bodies. My tolerance ends with synthetically manufactured substances.
Synthetically manufactured, or synthetically processed?
Ie: opium or heroin? Cocaine (powder/rock) or coca leaves?

Opium poppies are one thing, but procesed into heroin it is waaay worse. Same with coca leaves vs cocaine.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#27
Synthetically manufactured, or synthetically processed?
Ie: opium or heroin? Cocaine (powder/rock) or coca leaves?

Opium poppies are one thing, but procesed into heroin it is waaay worse. Same with coca leaves vs cocaine.
Great point. But, then bourbon is distilled down into a high % alcohol substance, much more powerful than it normally would be. Things get sticky, after awhile.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#28
Great point. But, then bourbon is distilled down into a high % alcohol substance, much more powerful than it normally would be. Things get sticky, after awhile.
Of course things get "sticky" any time you're trying to set rules you pretend to enforce on others about what they may or may not consume.
Neither you nor any majority have the right to do that, period.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
4,292
Likes
3,138
#29
...If we had state sponsored nationalism on par with the nazi's, people like the nfl kneeler, colin whatshisname would have been thrown in jail. Along with all the antifa people too. Anyone pullig that shit in nazi germany wouldn't have lasted long.
...
That Turmp and his sycophants would love to throw the opposition in jail reinforces my point. Btw, the opposition includes anyone who refuses to worship the naked wannabe-emperor.

You say, almost admiringly, that "anyone pullig that shit in nazi germany wouldn't have lasted long". Ha.... Nazi Germany didn't last long, did it? Just goes to show ya.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#30
Of course things get "sticky" any time you're trying to set rules you pretend to enforce on others about what they may or may not consume.
Neither you nor any majority have the right to do that, period.
You assume too much, buddy. I don’t really give a crap what you do, as long as you don’t do it to somebody else.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,178
Likes
10,145
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#31
You say, almost admiringly, that "anyone pullig that shit in nazi germany wouldn't have lasted long". Ha.... Nazi Germany didn't last long, did it? Just goes to show ya.
The point was that those who protested against hitler and the nazis lost their freedom. That is not happening here.
Antifa members who hurt others should be locked up, but not simply because they oppose Trump.
....and guess what? They aren't. The only reason there is talk of antifa being declared a domestic terrorist orginization is due to the violence they have a history of inflicting on those they disagree with.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,787
Likes
2,569
#32
That Turmp and his sycophants would love to throw the opposition in jail reinforces my point. Btw, the opposition includes anyone who refuses to worship the naked wannabe-emperor.

You say, almost admiringly, that "anyone pullig that shit in nazi germany wouldn't have lasted long". Ha.... Nazi Germany didn't last long, did it? Just goes to show ya.

NAZI Germany was just another stop on the way to one world govt.

Hitler first made war on German's in Germany. German's had no choice either go along with the NAZI police state or get put in a concentration camp.

The Jews wanted war to secure their hold on Palestine and total control of Germany and they got it. They hired Hitler to do the job. He invaded all his neighboring countries and when the German troops were close to victory Hitler stopped them. Dunkirk, could have been the end of the western front. Capturing 350,000 British and French troops would have been a huge bargaining chip. Plus then he could have invaded Britain and secured his whole western flank. Reed wrote about wondering when the German's were going to invade even after Dunkirk, because the army had abandoned all their weaponry in France. All they had was a hodge-podge of farmers guns and some service pistols.

Then we get to Barbarossa. The German army fought their way through 5 lines of Russian troops and were in the suburbs of Moscow. When they were 18 miles from the Kremlin Hitler ordered them to stop. At that time the Soviets were sure Germany was going to take Moscow and had moved the capital to Kubyshev 420 miles east of Moscow.
Taking Moscow would have been a crushing victory for the German's. At that time Moscow was the hub of Russia almost all rail lines intersected in Moscow. All the Railroad repair shops were there. All the telegraph lines follow the rail system and they would have been cut. The west of Russia could not talk to the east of Russia.

And then think of the psychological victory. Elation for the German's and the opposite for the Russian's.

But it was not to be, because Hitler was following the script crush Germany once and for all time and crush the German people too. While he killed as many of them as possible.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,178
Likes
10,145
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#33
German's had no choice either go along with the NAZI police state or get put in a concentration camp.
Exactly. So the fact that the neverTrumpers still have their liberty, is proof that Trump is not a hitler.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#34
What makes you the designated protector of someone else?

Is there a particular crime being committed, where some justice is needed?

Justice comes out of a society which participates in liberty and justice - not because you or someone in power wrote out some law detailing how human behavior is to be controlled.

How are we going to participate in this justice when we are under an imposed theft system and can't even establish justice regarding that or the past murders and high crimes which forced drug experiments and wars on Americans and others?

You seem to be very worried about someone convincing someone else to try some substance - all the while, hardened criminals are pillaging, stealing and murdering innocents. Your take on controlling human behavior comes out like a deflection technique and completely ignores the fact that most "drug problems" arise as a symptom issue of something else and common "freedom forum" consensus in the past has placed the issue mostly in the realm of a medical condition.

Trying to control the personal behavior of others hasn't worked in thousands of years without tyranny. Is it tyranny you really want? If you like a state that controls the behavior of everyone as to what they decide to put on or in their body, NK would be the place to immigrate to.
Ya know who you remind me of? Those people on that island in Wicker Man, Christopher Lee particularly, telling Edward Woodward he was butting into everybody’s business by investigating the supposed homicide of a little girl, so they put him in the wicker man and set it ablaze. Who was he to impose his morality on those people? What business was it of his if they killed some innocent kid? You have the same attitude.
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,807
Likes
2,509
#35
... What business was it of his if they killed some innocent kid? You have the same attitude.
No I don't. The founders of our nation envisioned an armed, participating society with mostly local and state laws, not federal behavior regulations.

If someone is selling my kid drugs when the bell rings for recess, that can be handled and in many cases in my area is being handled.

Bad parents, like collateral damage, are going to be unavoidable in this current society no matter what laws you want to place onto the books, that is unless you want a one world gov't or a police state.

It seems to me you want to sacrifice liberty for your version of security.

My version of security comes from the BoR. You make it seem like it is a personal thing, trying to make me sound as if I'm from some individual account or movie you watched. Yet all along, there they are, the 2nd amendment from two centuries prior, the founding documents of this nation. Yet, no - "...it is that crazy FM again, what strange ideas about liberty and security." As if the freedom forum didn't already get beyond that topic decades ago.
 
Last edited:

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
3,067
Likes
2,536
#36

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,178
Likes
10,145
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#37
Yet with no evidence he ever will be. He's three years in. If he was planning on growing a hitler mustache, he'd have done it by now. You guys just a wee bit off the deep end with this hitler stuff.
....and by wee bit, I actually mean a lot. Lol
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#38
... It seems to me you want to sacrifice liberty for your version of security. ... .
Based only on my opposition to dangerous manufactured street drugs that are killing people at phenomenal, epidemic rates? I’m opposed to the practice of pushing a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs on everybody for everything under the sun, also. Does that make me a tyrant?
 

FunnyMoney

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,807
Likes
2,509
#39
Based only on my opposition to dangerous manufactured street drugs that are killing people at phenomenal, epidemic rates? I’m opposed to the practice of pushing a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs on everybody for everything under the sun, also. Does that make me a tyrant?

Based only on my opposition to dangerous 3-letter agencies that are killing people at phenomenal, epidemic rates, I’m opposed to the practice of pushing a plethora of supposed "law" enforcement agencies on everybody for everything under the sun, also. Does that make me a anarchist?

My theory is the same as Ben F's was... Protect your own, keep your guns close by and don't place your safety into the hands of others. Do you really think the DEA can solve this problem you seem to have with the drug crisis? Does our prison population reflect success? People incarcerated for Non violent drug related crimes has been growing by leaps and bounds, and yet the drug problem just gets worse.

The money we spend on those 3-letter agencies who claim they are there to stop the flow of drugs actually gets used to help them sell more drugs and bring more drugs in and provide more guns to organized criminals. Just as war is a business, enforcement is a business also. You want me to pay for another 3-letter mafia to supposedly be in charge of combating the drug mafias. My thinking is we should cut the funds for both those mafias to zero and the problem simply goes away. People will get to keep their tax dollars and spend their newly found free time on protecting their own. Here where I live the drug dealers that might show up down the street or at the local park or at the kid's school don't last long. People here don't need the 3-letter agencies, we are happy with the listings in the BoR.

But you seem to want to place others in charge of everyone's behavior, including my own community. Maybe you want a nanny state with laws and a police state with enforcement. But I want individual responsibility and people to protect their own. Is it my fault those people refuse to take on their own responsibility? Is it my tax dollars that should be spent so someone else can supposedly be in charge of protecting them, when what actually happens is they make the problem worse and empower criminals (making the problem worse for all of us)?

Look over the last several decades or look over the last thousand years, It's the same....

When you select security at the price of liberty, in the end you get less of both.
 
Last edited:

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,573
Likes
14,152
Location
USA
#40
Based only on my opposition to dangerous 3-letter agencies that are killing people at phenomenal, epidemic rates, I’m opposed to the practice of pushing a plethora of supposed "law" enforcement agencies on everybody for everything under the sun, also. Does that make me a anarchist?

My theory is the same as Ben F's was... Protect your own, keep your guns close by and don't place your safety into the hands of others. Do you really think the DEA can solve this problem you seem to have with the drug crisis? Does our prison population reflect success? People incarcerated for Non violent drug related crimes has been growing by leaps and bounds, and yet the drug problem just gets worse.

The money we spend on those 3-letter agencies who claim they are their to stop the flow of drugs actually gets used to help them sell more drugs and bring more drugs in and provide more guns to organized criminals.

Maybe you want a nanny state with laws and a police state with enforcement. But I want individual responsibility and people to protect their own. Is it my fault those people refuse to take on their own responsibility? Is it my tax dollars that should be spent so someone else can supposedly be in charge of protecting them, when what actually happens is they make the problem worse and empower criminals (making the problem worse for all of us)?

Look over the last several decades or look over the last thousand years, It's the same....

When you select security at the price of liberty, in the end you get less of both.
You know, FM, you’re nuts. Like I keep telling you, you assume way too much. And you’re in love with the idea of moral superiority. You worship at the altar of righteous indignation. Give it a rest, buddy.