rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,724
dr_mabeuse said:
Yes, and ask the Romanovs and the Bourbons how that turned out.
The Fourth Reich
- Thread starter Colleen Thomas
- Start date
Yes, and ask the Romanovs and the Bourbons how that turned out.
Kiss My Ass
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Posts
- 2
TruthOut
Casting Aside the Separation of Powers
By John Conyers, Jr.
t r u t h o u t | Statement
Sunday 20 March 2005
By passing this bill, in this form, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard for this member to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself in under this precedent.
By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and take on the role not only of Judge, but of Doctor, Priest, Parent and Spouse.
By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a state judge and sends it to a single preselected federal court, we will abandon any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian Democracy as envisioned by the founders, and the states as "laboratories of democracy" as articulated by Justice Brandeis will lie in tatters.
By passing this legislation, in the complete absence of hearings or a committee markup, and with no opportunity for amendments, in complete violation of what we used to call "regular order," we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the Majority Party.
By passing this legislation, and taking this sensitive decision away from a spouse and giving it to a federal court, we will make it abundantly clear that all the talk last year about marriage being a "sacred trust between a man and a woman" was just that - talk.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle, and morals and values.
But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the Majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that "this is a great political issue" and that by passing this bill, "the pro-life base will be excited."?
If the president really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, why would he have signed a bill in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection?
If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the president tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid - a virtual lifeline for millions of our citizens?
When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute. Last year, the Majority passed two bills stripping the federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the Majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from state courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today we are sending a case from the state courts to the federal courts even though it is the most extensively litigated "right to die" case in our nation's history.
There is only one principle at stake here - manipulating the court system to achieve pre-determined substantive outcomes. By passing this law, it should be obvious to all that we are no longer a nation of laws, but have been reduced to a nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it doesn't suit our needs. By passing this law we diminish our nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators.
Casting Aside the Separation of Powers
By John Conyers, Jr.
t r u t h o u t | Statement
Sunday 20 March 2005
By passing this bill, in this form, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard for this member to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself in under this precedent.
By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and take on the role not only of Judge, but of Doctor, Priest, Parent and Spouse.
By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a state judge and sends it to a single preselected federal court, we will abandon any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian Democracy as envisioned by the founders, and the states as "laboratories of democracy" as articulated by Justice Brandeis will lie in tatters.
By passing this legislation, in the complete absence of hearings or a committee markup, and with no opportunity for amendments, in complete violation of what we used to call "regular order," we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the Majority Party.
By passing this legislation, and taking this sensitive decision away from a spouse and giving it to a federal court, we will make it abundantly clear that all the talk last year about marriage being a "sacred trust between a man and a woman" was just that - talk.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle, and morals and values.
But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the Majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that "this is a great political issue" and that by passing this bill, "the pro-life base will be excited."?
If the president really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, why would he have signed a bill in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection?
If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the president tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid - a virtual lifeline for millions of our citizens?
When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute. Last year, the Majority passed two bills stripping the federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the Majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from state courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today we are sending a case from the state courts to the federal courts even though it is the most extensively litigated "right to die" case in our nation's history.
There is only one principle at stake here - manipulating the court system to achieve pre-determined substantive outcomes. By passing this law, it should be obvious to all that we are no longer a nation of laws, but have been reduced to a nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it doesn't suit our needs. By passing this law we diminish our nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
They have the answer to Gandhiesque peaceful protest, now, too. Prevent publicity. If no one knows, it didn't happen. Same thing with the extraordinary cases at the borders and the ports. Just do it. Tell no one.
We hear the Canadian news and see Canadian papers, here in Maine. But if we had not, we would never have known about the fellow from Quebec who came across to get gasoline and was NOT arrested, because being arrested leaves a paper trail, but seized, and taken to a facility somewhere. Then moved, then moved again, as Canadian diplomatic moves were made to uncover what had become of him.
Jalbert, his name was. Not a Syrian, but a Francophone Canadian. Not a terrorist but a mere country boy. He was ultimately released, having never been allowed until then to communicate, and never having had access to counsel. In order to be released, he was told, he had to sign this paper, so he did. He admitted wrongdoing thereby, of course. They always want you to confess. Weeks of being disappeared. He is prohibited, because of his confession, from entering the country for gasoline in Estcourt Station ever again. Persona non grata. Also, because of his confession, there need be no apology to the Canadian government.
It was a cuse celebre in Canada, and an international incident. No sign of it in the Michigan papers.
We hear the Canadian news and see Canadian papers, here in Maine. But if we had not, we would never have known about the fellow from Quebec who came across to get gasoline and was NOT arrested, because being arrested leaves a paper trail, but seized, and taken to a facility somewhere. Then moved, then moved again, as Canadian diplomatic moves were made to uncover what had become of him.
Jalbert, his name was. Not a Syrian, but a Francophone Canadian. Not a terrorist but a mere country boy. He was ultimately released, having never been allowed until then to communicate, and never having had access to counsel. In order to be released, he was told, he had to sign this paper, so he did. He admitted wrongdoing thereby, of course. They always want you to confess. Weeks of being disappeared. He is prohibited, because of his confession, from entering the country for gasoline in Estcourt Station ever again. Persona non grata. Also, because of his confession, there need be no apology to the Canadian government.
It was a cuse celebre in Canada, and an international incident. No sign of it in the Michigan papers.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
cantdog said:
Yeah, I think what we're seeing is the right wing settling into power and starting to put their agenda in place, testing the limits and seeing what they can get away with.
What worries me is the lack of outrage in the Press. Of course, the media have been in the administration's pocket since they took office. Now that half a dozen mega-companies or so own most of the news services, there's no one to stand up to them. As long as the administration plays the Anti-Terrorism card every dso often to keep the people in line, they can do pretty much what they want.
Kassiana
Epileptic Octopus
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Posts
- 2,088
Congress may pass a law specific to you.
--They already can and do pass laws specific to people. Mostly in immigration cases. They're usually passed as "private laws," which means they are restricted in scope to one person. They're normally short, with text like the following: "Marianne Salisdottir may remain in the United States indefinitely."
Just FYI in case you never get a chance to read the other thread again and my reply there.
--They already can and do pass laws specific to people. Mostly in immigration cases. They're usually passed as "private laws," which means they are restricted in scope to one person. They're normally short, with text like the following: "Marianne Salisdottir may remain in the United States indefinitely."
Just FYI in case you never get a chance to read the other thread again and my reply there.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Op_Cit said:
No, you go right ahead.
Feel free to expouse your interpetation of history without providing any facts. I'll feel free to ignore you. Works well for all concerned.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Won't it be interesting, up the road, with a Democratic Congress.
Jane Doe in Fla tries to get an abortion, and is denied under the state law.
Congress votes that, *for Jane Doe*, the federal court may and will take over jurisdiction.
Can't you hear Rush, now?
The Republican Right are utter hypocrites.
Jane Doe in Fla tries to get an abortion, and is denied under the state law.
Congress votes that, *for Jane Doe*, the federal court may and will take over jurisdiction.
Can't you hear Rush, now?
The Republican Right are utter hypocrites.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Good monring J. Sorry I fell out n you last night.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Good morning, Colly. How you are feeling OK, given that 'rule of law' is an iffy thing, these days.
"conservatives" ha!
"family values" ha!
(does anyone think that this is an affirmation by the Evangelicals of parental rights? think again. Where there is a fatally diseased kid, and the parents would NOT prolong her suffering, these same persons will try to get aunt Matilda made guardian--*or failing that*, Mr. Dobson, or the State.
IOW, whatever means to the end (playing God with life, according to the Popes and Dobson's rules) are needed, will be used. the principle of untrammeled authority. Colly, know about Calvin's Geneva? (aka early days of the Massachusetts colony)?
"conservatives" ha!
"family values" ha!
(does anyone think that this is an affirmation by the Evangelicals of parental rights? think again. Where there is a fatally diseased kid, and the parents would NOT prolong her suffering, these same persons will try to get aunt Matilda made guardian--*or failing that*, Mr. Dobson, or the State.
IOW, whatever means to the end (playing God with life, according to the Popes and Dobson's rules) are needed, will be used. the principle of untrammeled authority. Colly, know about Calvin's Geneva? (aka early days of the Massachusetts colony)?
thebullet
Rebel without applause
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Posts
- 1,247
I thought I'd add my two cents on this issue. I was prepared to post the Truth Out statement about the seperation of powers when I noticed someone had already done so.
Colly is right. This looks like an escallation of the power takeover. Yes there have been specific laws passed in the past, but they were almost invariably for non-controversial issues that effected only (1) a single person: i.e. a foreign national wishing entrance into the US, or (2) a corporate entity: i.e. a sleasy ass slush fund company looking for a tax break.
This fiasco today tells us that America is no longer a nation of laws. The law is whatever the president and his rubber stamp lackies say it is from one day to the next, nothing more.
We have a rubber stamp congress, a rubber stamp media. If the right wing has its way (and it always does) we will have a rubber stamp court system. And then all bets are off. Hitler never had it so good in 1932.
Colly is right. This looks like an escallation of the power takeover. Yes there have been specific laws passed in the past, but they were almost invariably for non-controversial issues that effected only (1) a single person: i.e. a foreign national wishing entrance into the US, or (2) a corporate entity: i.e. a sleasy ass slush fund company looking for a tax break.
This fiasco today tells us that America is no longer a nation of laws. The law is whatever the president and his rubber stamp lackies say it is from one day to the next, nothing more.
We have a rubber stamp congress, a rubber stamp media. If the right wing has its way (and it always does) we will have a rubber stamp court system. And then all bets are off. Hitler never had it so good in 1932.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
What I wanted to point out last night, is that tyranny can come with the rule of law, as in Massachusetts Bay colony.
As with Hitler, as legitimate legislature can vote to give 'extraordinary powers' to the leader. In the US, Abe Lincoln took extraordinary powers.
In other words, with a little care, the courts can be circumvented, and a popular 'wish' enforced, e.g, with the Prohibition amendment in the US.
There cannot be an independent judiciary, when all the cards are down; in parliamentary systems such as Britain and Canada this is recognized.
BUT even were we to grant that the US has an incredibly independent judiciary, it is arguably no mor effective than the Canadian or British parliament in protecting rights. And example would be the legal treatment of the Japanese American citizens in WWII, which was court approved, iirc.
As with Hitler, as legitimate legislature can vote to give 'extraordinary powers' to the leader. In the US, Abe Lincoln took extraordinary powers.
In other words, with a little care, the courts can be circumvented, and a popular 'wish' enforced, e.g, with the Prohibition amendment in the US.
There cannot be an independent judiciary, when all the cards are down; in parliamentary systems such as Britain and Canada this is recognized.
BUT even were we to grant that the US has an incredibly independent judiciary, it is arguably no mor effective than the Canadian or British parliament in protecting rights. And example would be the legal treatment of the Japanese American citizens in WWII, which was court approved, iirc.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Pure said:
I don't think I am feeling J. I'm either really numb or just dead inside. I would love to escape into writing, but every time I start, I can't help but think it's a waste of time. It seems everyting is pretty meaningless today.
I thought about my grandfather this morning. About the sacrifics he made in WWII for his country. About the thousands of others who gave even more. And i thought about congressional republicans wiping their collective asses with the constituion.
I should be angry. But I don't feel anything. I've based my life on the idea I have rights. I woke up today to realize I have priveledges and that they exist at the pleasure of congress now. I don't really know if I am capable of adjusting to the shattered worldview. I begin to suspect, I'm not.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Pure said:
Tyranny can come with the rule of law. In the abscence of the rule of law, it comes much easier. Without law, there can be no justice, without justice, no state. That was the opinion of William Frick. He got over it, accepting the furher Prinzip in place of the law.
I don't suppose it matters if the ruler is Adolph Hitler or King Saud or GWB. With no effective opposition in congress and the judicial brought to heel, it's rule by decree. It seems the vast majority acept the Furher Prinzip. And those who don't, like Frick, will be brought around via intimidation and threats.
grist fer yer mill, colly....
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032105Z.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51986-2005Mar20.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050319.shtml
oh hell, the list goes on, dunnit?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032105Z.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51986-2005Mar20.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050319.shtml
oh hell, the list goes on, dunnit?
Last edited:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Colly...no intention to hijack your thread on the Terri Shiavo case, although I think it can be viewed in less fearful terms than 'fascistis'; namely two opposing viewpoints with each exercising every alternative to prevale.
It is not Dr. Mab, particularly, but the 'class conflict concept' of Marxists in general, the pro union mantra of the Liberal Left with which I take exception.
Dr. Mab said, in part "...A union's only strength comes from its power to bargain collectively on behalf of its members. The right to collective bargaining was won through some very bloody struggles at the turn of the century, and is largely responsible for the existence of things we now take for granted, such as an American middle class, the 40-hour work week, the disappearance of sweat shops, child labor laws, and decent wages. Stripped of their right to collective bargain, the unions are basically terminated..."
Critics of the free market economy for over a hundred years now continue to beat the same old dead horses of the industrial revolution.
The 'middle class', everywhere, came into being as a result of the investment of capital, the creation of business and corportations and a free market place for both goods and services. Unions only hindered that process as they endeavored to halt change from physical labor to machinery, as they still do, to protect 'labor intensive jobs'.
The 40 hour work week was the result of the combined efforts of both management and labor to find a more efficient means of conducting business. Note the misguided attempts by Euro Nations to 'impose' fewer hours in a work week to 'create' more jobs while output and efficiency declined.
Child labor laws, if they achieved anything, limited jobs of 'of age' union workers and made the lives of the lower class, less eductated, even more difficult.
'Sweat shops..." Another left wing buzz word, along the lines of Capitalist Pigs and greedy businessmen.
'Decent wages...' The enforced minimum wage laws have acted both as a detriment to job creation and to higher prices for goods and services, effectively canceling the so called benefit of higher, 'decent' wages.
Inflated union wages, gained by collective bargaining, enforced by legislation have also acted adversly against free competition in the labor market. The obscenity of a union welder in an auto plant receiving $60.00 an hour for his labor while across the street, a non union worker, doing the same work, same quality output, receives $12.00 an hour.
The effect is that the high cost of union labor has caused prices to rise on union made products and driven business to seek other, less restrictive environments in which to locate.
If mankind were omniscient and all knowing, we would never have used lead in paint, asbestos in insulation, or DDT in agriculture and many other mistakes in the market place.
But we are not all knowing, we make mistakes. Rather than impose and enforce controls that limit and stifle, let us keep in mind that basic value of human life which underlies all endeavors: Human freedom.
amicus...
It is not Dr. Mab, particularly, but the 'class conflict concept' of Marxists in general, the pro union mantra of the Liberal Left with which I take exception.
Dr. Mab said, in part "...A union's only strength comes from its power to bargain collectively on behalf of its members. The right to collective bargaining was won through some very bloody struggles at the turn of the century, and is largely responsible for the existence of things we now take for granted, such as an American middle class, the 40-hour work week, the disappearance of sweat shops, child labor laws, and decent wages. Stripped of their right to collective bargain, the unions are basically terminated..."
Critics of the free market economy for over a hundred years now continue to beat the same old dead horses of the industrial revolution.
The 'middle class', everywhere, came into being as a result of the investment of capital, the creation of business and corportations and a free market place for both goods and services. Unions only hindered that process as they endeavored to halt change from physical labor to machinery, as they still do, to protect 'labor intensive jobs'.
The 40 hour work week was the result of the combined efforts of both management and labor to find a more efficient means of conducting business. Note the misguided attempts by Euro Nations to 'impose' fewer hours in a work week to 'create' more jobs while output and efficiency declined.
Child labor laws, if they achieved anything, limited jobs of 'of age' union workers and made the lives of the lower class, less eductated, even more difficult.
'Sweat shops..." Another left wing buzz word, along the lines of Capitalist Pigs and greedy businessmen.
'Decent wages...' The enforced minimum wage laws have acted both as a detriment to job creation and to higher prices for goods and services, effectively canceling the so called benefit of higher, 'decent' wages.
Inflated union wages, gained by collective bargaining, enforced by legislation have also acted adversly against free competition in the labor market. The obscenity of a union welder in an auto plant receiving $60.00 an hour for his labor while across the street, a non union worker, doing the same work, same quality output, receives $12.00 an hour.
The effect is that the high cost of union labor has caused prices to rise on union made products and driven business to seek other, less restrictive environments in which to locate.
If mankind were omniscient and all knowing, we would never have used lead in paint, asbestos in insulation, or DDT in agriculture and many other mistakes in the market place.
But we are not all knowing, we make mistakes. Rather than impose and enforce controls that limit and stifle, let us keep in mind that basic value of human life which underlies all endeavors: Human freedom.
amicus...
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Kassiana said:Congress may pass a law specific to you.
--They already can and do pass laws specific to people. Mostly in immigration cases. They're usually passed as "private laws," which means they are restricted in scope to one person. They're normally short, with text like the following: "Marianne Salisdottir may remain in the United States indefinitely."
Just FYI in case you never get a chance to read the other thread again and my reply there.
Are these laws passed as a means of reversing judicial decisions? Just wondering.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
more often, tribunal decisions.
still, having exhausted all judicial recourse, one may appeal to the legislature or executive for some kind of 'dispensation.' in Canada, you can appeal to the Cabinet minister NOT to be deported, on compassionate grounds.
note that 'pardons' have the same effect, however a pardon does not try to alter court jurisdictions!
still, i repeat (and no american has responded) parliamentary supremacy is a widely embodied doctrine, with much to be said for it. with wise and deliberate procedures it's no more conducive to tyrrany than all the grabbing of power by the executive, the 'commander in chief' as he likes to style himself.
still, having exhausted all judicial recourse, one may appeal to the legislature or executive for some kind of 'dispensation.' in Canada, you can appeal to the Cabinet minister NOT to be deported, on compassionate grounds.
note that 'pardons' have the same effect, however a pardon does not try to alter court jurisdictions!
still, i repeat (and no american has responded) parliamentary supremacy is a widely embodied doctrine, with much to be said for it. with wise and deliberate procedures it's no more conducive to tyrrany than all the grabbing of power by the executive, the 'commander in chief' as he likes to style himself.
scheherazade_79
Steamy
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Posts
- 9,677
I did some pretty extensive university research on 1930s Germany a few years back. It was fascinating stuff - almost, but not quite, as fascinating as what's going on in the US at the moment.
Colly's not being paranoid - the parallels are most definitely there.
On an aesthetic note, has anyone ever seen Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph des Willes? In the opening scenes, Hitler is shown swooping down from the sky in an aeroplane - like a kind of Messiah coming down from heaven. If this hasn't rung any bells for you yet, think back to the end of the Iraq war when a similar scene was staged by the revered President over an aircraft carrier somewhere off the coast of California.
I'm only scratching at the surface of this, because I know that whatever I say there'll be plenty of people to rubbish it - people who stick to their blind beliefs because the truth is a whole lot less patable.
Did you know that right up until the end of Third Reich there were still citizens who refused to believe that their government was gassing Jews? Even now there are plenty who'll deny it ever happened.
Isn't there anybody else out there who sees the similarities between the Reichstag Fire and 9/11? And what about Dachau and Guantanamo Bay? After all, Hitler's first ever concentration camp was initially just a place to store 'dangerous' thinkers, such as socialists, communists, labour leaders... and later on Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.
Another point of interest that's actually escaped the headlines - just as the Nazis attempted to Aryanise culture, so the US has been making it increasingly difficult for foreign musicians to get visas to tour the States. The state of play at the moment is that musicians are told to organise their tours first, and then apply for visa. Most of these visas are granted long after the planned tours should have taken place, thus shutting the rest of the world out of the US to an even greater extent.
Hitler had National Socialism. Bush has an intolerant, materialistic and thoroughly warped version of Christianity.
I have many friends in the US, but it pains me to see how they're manipulated on a daily basis into believing whatever their government wants them to believe. And trust me, some of the tactics being used would put even Goebbels to shame. Although the media never reported any direct link between Iraq and 9/11, they issued enough broadcasts / publications with "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same sentence to forge the link in most people's minds. Although Hitler was a little less subtle, he too did a good job of encouraging his people of associating Jews with everything that had gone wrong with his country from WW1 onwards.
I'm being anti-American here, because believe me, Britain isn't much better. Did anyone else notice that there was always an "Elevated Terror Alert" whenever anyone started making a public stink over the possibility of war with Iraq? Two years ago we were haunted by pictures of tanks and soldiers stationed at major airports throughout the country. What exactly was the purpose of that? If someone's going to hijack or blow-up a plane, is a tank really the best weapon to stop them? Although there are many who'd prefer to disagree with me, I propose that we were shown those scenes to frighten us into going along with a war that was completely and utterly wrong.
Incidentally, fear was one of Hitler's most powerful weapons - especially when it got to the point that people were too afraid to ask questions of their own government.
Colly's not being paranoid - the parallels are most definitely there.
On an aesthetic note, has anyone ever seen Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph des Willes? In the opening scenes, Hitler is shown swooping down from the sky in an aeroplane - like a kind of Messiah coming down from heaven. If this hasn't rung any bells for you yet, think back to the end of the Iraq war when a similar scene was staged by the revered President over an aircraft carrier somewhere off the coast of California.
I'm only scratching at the surface of this, because I know that whatever I say there'll be plenty of people to rubbish it - people who stick to their blind beliefs because the truth is a whole lot less patable.
Did you know that right up until the end of Third Reich there were still citizens who refused to believe that their government was gassing Jews? Even now there are plenty who'll deny it ever happened.
Isn't there anybody else out there who sees the similarities between the Reichstag Fire and 9/11? And what about Dachau and Guantanamo Bay? After all, Hitler's first ever concentration camp was initially just a place to store 'dangerous' thinkers, such as socialists, communists, labour leaders... and later on Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.
Another point of interest that's actually escaped the headlines - just as the Nazis attempted to Aryanise culture, so the US has been making it increasingly difficult for foreign musicians to get visas to tour the States. The state of play at the moment is that musicians are told to organise their tours first, and then apply for visa. Most of these visas are granted long after the planned tours should have taken place, thus shutting the rest of the world out of the US to an even greater extent.
Hitler had National Socialism. Bush has an intolerant, materialistic and thoroughly warped version of Christianity.
I have many friends in the US, but it pains me to see how they're manipulated on a daily basis into believing whatever their government wants them to believe. And trust me, some of the tactics being used would put even Goebbels to shame. Although the media never reported any direct link between Iraq and 9/11, they issued enough broadcasts / publications with "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same sentence to forge the link in most people's minds. Although Hitler was a little less subtle, he too did a good job of encouraging his people of associating Jews with everything that had gone wrong with his country from WW1 onwards.
I'm being anti-American here, because believe me, Britain isn't much better. Did anyone else notice that there was always an "Elevated Terror Alert" whenever anyone started making a public stink over the possibility of war with Iraq? Two years ago we were haunted by pictures of tanks and soldiers stationed at major airports throughout the country. What exactly was the purpose of that? If someone's going to hijack or blow-up a plane, is a tank really the best weapon to stop them? Although there are many who'd prefer to disagree with me, I propose that we were shown those scenes to frighten us into going along with a war that was completely and utterly wrong.
Incidentally, fear was one of Hitler's most powerful weapons - especially when it got to the point that people were too afraid to ask questions of their own government.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
What always fascinates me is how it must have felt to the Germans as Hitler took over and launched his evils on the world. Germans are not evil people, and I'm sure that most Nazi's weren't really evil either. They didn't rub their hands together every morning and cackle over the villainy they were going to do that day. They most likely honestly thought they were doing good for Germany, and the German people probably felt the same way.
What did it feel like to be for the War in Viet Nam? That was my own inititaion into the idea of my nation doing evil, and I can say that supporting the war - as I did at first - felt like patriotism and pride and a desire to see the South Viet Namese happy and free. It felt like being on the side of the right and the good. In other words, it doesn't feel evil at all.
And so what does abrogating the Constitution feel like? It feels like having compassion for a woman's life and doing the expedient thing.
In fact, that's what evil feels like in the country where it's being done: it's emotionally satisfying. It appeals to fuzzy principles like patriotism and freedom and the sacredness of life. It depends on emotion rather than reason and doesn't have much patience for facts or history or figuring things out. It's popular because it's invariably easy to understand. It seems so obviously right that no one thinks to question it.
In short, it feels pretty good.
What did it feel like to be for the War in Viet Nam? That was my own inititaion into the idea of my nation doing evil, and I can say that supporting the war - as I did at first - felt like patriotism and pride and a desire to see the South Viet Namese happy and free. It felt like being on the side of the right and the good. In other words, it doesn't feel evil at all.
And so what does abrogating the Constitution feel like? It feels like having compassion for a woman's life and doing the expedient thing.
In fact, that's what evil feels like in the country where it's being done: it's emotionally satisfying. It appeals to fuzzy principles like patriotism and freedom and the sacredness of life. It depends on emotion rather than reason and doesn't have much patience for facts or history or figuring things out. It's popular because it's invariably easy to understand. It seems so obviously right that no one thinks to question it.
In short, it feels pretty good.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Not to pick a fight, Mab...but I had a thought...reading your post...
A way back when, aka Jean Auel, and the 'flat heads' and the 'others' Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens...a fast forward to the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire as it expanded into Europe...another fast forward to the Mongols that pressured Rome...
Then the Crusades and the wallowing back and forth through the middle east, the Napoleonic Wars...Colonization by European powers, the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, even the Italians and of course, the English...
We, as was Hitler...are in a microcosm of time...There is not much of a threat from the Bush administration...not much at all and although I wish it would not, the political pendulum will most likely swing left in 2008 and you can smile again.
amicus...
A way back when, aka Jean Auel, and the 'flat heads' and the 'others' Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens...a fast forward to the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire as it expanded into Europe...another fast forward to the Mongols that pressured Rome...
Then the Crusades and the wallowing back and forth through the middle east, the Napoleonic Wars...Colonization by European powers, the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, even the Italians and of course, the English...
We, as was Hitler...are in a microcosm of time...There is not much of a threat from the Bush administration...not much at all and although I wish it would not, the political pendulum will most likely swing left in 2008 and you can smile again.
amicus...
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,724
Evil has always been easier than good. For the reasons Dr_m has stated.
One of evil's primary advantages over good is the emotions it engenders. You are conquering your enemies. Great things are happening. Soon. the world will be perfect and wonderful forever!
It's such a fucking rush, man.
And best of all, evil means never having to say you're sorry. You are right, end of question.
Good people always wonder if they could do more, or sometimes less. They feel guilty when they fail.
Evil people or those serving an evil purpose never feel guilty.
One of evil's primary advantages over good is the emotions it engenders. You are conquering your enemies. Great things are happening. Soon. the world will be perfect and wonderful forever!
It's such a fucking rush, man.
And best of all, evil means never having to say you're sorry. You are right, end of question.
Good people always wonder if they could do more, or sometimes less. They feel guilty when they fail.
Evil people or those serving an evil purpose never feel guilty.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
rgraham666 said:
That's exactly it. Evil never has any doubts. The most dangerous people in the world are not the wicked, but the ones who know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're right. The ones who talk directly to God.
Similar threads
