half isn't balance

[The Bear's Key]

• A tiny bit of iron in one's diet essential for living, yet half is deadly.

 

• Anger is good occasionally, but half your life full of anger is often worse than being fully content half your life.

 

• Moderate exercise is good, continually half the day isn't.

 

A (fictional) government that's half each of democracy and tryranny isn't balanced, neither is one where religion controls half its officials, nor where corporations dictate half of government.

 

Like in chemistry, the balance exists in universal variables and how functional/stable the resulting lab mixture is.

 

Yet a social culture, of intelligent beings, isn't nearly as predictable as a scientist's knowledge of chemical reactions. Humans throw an element of chance into the mix, but still there exists fairly universal mixtures along an optimal range of variables. For coffee drinkers, think equal amounts of coffee and sugar. Not really appealing to most coffee drinkers on Earth.

 

I've heard people equate balance with half, and it's wrong (a kind of thinking destined for abuse by many of the politically dishonest). Someone I know had phrased the issue of "balance" in journalism nicely a couple years back, when talking about a supposed media liberal bias...

 

I think that's the crux of the problem with the media today. Some things are objectively true, and some are not. If you sit a brilliant geologist next to a flat earther and give each of them equal time in the interest of "balance", you are doing your audience a profound disservice. He Said/She Said journalism is really not good for public discourse in this country.

 

I often wonder about the political air back in Nazi Germany, if during the Nazi's rise to power, citizens were saying things like, "no politics", or maybe "hey, the Press is biased, they do speak against Nazis", or perhaps "if you don't like Germany get the fick out" and their hypothetical/own versions of "USA! USA!" which by design naturally makes protestors out to be anti-nation -- a perception that the Nazis likely used in strategy vs opponents/protestors.

 

Maybe the Nazis accused the opposition party of being soft on issues best handled with a decisive and iron hand, like fighting against communism, pre-emptive war on enemies, tough against illegal foreigners, etc.

 

But most importantly, did people feel the need for giving equal weight to the major parties, for balance -- regardless of ideological stance that's dressed in patriotic clothing? It's a sentiment anyone with bad motives can put to use.

 

Anyway, the idea that half proportions are ideal in government and politics is flawed. There are many examples, I picked one anyone worldwide is most likely to be familiar with. But there are many other examples and instances.

 

What do you have to add to this concept? Or what do you think?

[Pangloss]

That you should not advocate tyranny by a different minority (liberal Democrats). Two wrongs don't make a right.

[SH3RL0CK]

I have always found it interesting that despite socialism being associated with the liberal (left) side of the political spectrum, people today almost invariably equate the Nazi (National Socialist Party) with the conservative (right) side of the political spectrum. There are good reasons for that, but in my mind various elements of the Nazi party is demonstrated in both the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA.

 

People, at least in the USA it seems to me, tend to see things as two-sided: right or wrong, black or white. Issues are rarely black and white, there are lots of shades of grey and lots of other colors too. Rather than "orange with green polka dots" the choices are between black and white and people wind up with a shade of grey. Perhaps, in our two party system with an either-or mindset, that is the closest we Americans can get to what we really want.

[Mr Skeptic]

However, at some point "balance" is subjective. For your coffee example, people might consider 0-5 sugar cubes the best "balance".

 

I'd agree that it's impossible to attempt a balance without making a judgment. Giving equal time to a creationist and evolutionist judges them as equal. Giving more time to one, judges it superior. Either way, the other side will be upset over the lack of balance. Allowing both sides to make their full case, would be far too long.

[Sisyphus]

I can't really support an OP Godwin (nor do I really follow that particular analogy), but I do agree with the basic idea. All opinions are not equally valid, though in many ways it is a necessary side effect of democratic thinking to treat them as such. And yes, some things are objectively true, but are treated as opinion and given "equal time" with nonsense. (It is frustration with this phenomenon that gave rise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement as a reductio ad absurdum.) And the fallacy of the middle is pretty common, and can be pretty easily exploited: propose something crazy, then argue down to a "compromise" that is in fact exactly what you wanted to begin with.

[The Bear's Key]

That you should not advocate tyranny by a different minority (liberal Democrats).

Exactly! Neither major or minor should be allowed tyranny.

 

I have always found it interesting that despite socialism being associated with the liberal (left) side of the political spectrum, people today almost invariably equate the Nazi (National Socialist Party) with the conservative (right) side of the political spectrum.

A title means nothing. They hated communism, and built quite a healthy base to fight against it. Hardly socialist, wouldn't you agree? Regardless, the title was likely to draw in the common people as well.

 

However, at some point "balance" is subjective. For your coffee example, people might consider 0-5 sugar cubes the best "balance".

I have that covered in the OP.

 

...but still there exists fairly universal mixtures along an optimal range of variables.

 

For coffee drinkers, think equal amounts of coffee and sugar. Not really appealing to most coffee drinkers on Earth.

 

So in other words, don't try a business plan on that second one.

 

However, like you said, for people who do like sugar, there's a handful of forumlas that account for different preferences and will each generate substantial money/demand.

 

The same with law and its overall effect on society.

 

I can't really support an OP Godwin (nor do I really follow that particular analogy), but I do agree with the basic idea.

My aim is to dissect the nazis and learn exactly how German citizens allowed their growth.

 

I'm certain that people sounded the alarm. But did most listeners just say, "hey, tell it to another, I'm sick of discussing politics" or maybe "they're not being given a voice in the biased press" -- creating a mood of "the press deserves whatever happens to them".

 

And so it doesn't matter how evil the nazis were, it matters the tricks used to bypass the warnings by society's Press and fellow citizens.

Edited February 18, 2010 by The Bear's Key
quote break fix

[SH3RL0CK]

A title means nothing. They hated communism, and built quite a healthy base to fight against it. Hardly socialist, wouldn't you agree? Regardless, the title was likely to draw in the common people as well.

 

 

I disagree and suggest you research this further, many of their policies were quite socialistic in nature. For starters, look at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

 

Politically, National Socialism is a variety of fascism that incorporated elements from left-wing and right-wing ideologies... In 1920, the Nazi Party presented its 25 point National Socialist Program, its key elements being anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] Social Darwinism, eugenics, anti-semitism, anti-Communism, totalitarianism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism

 

I won't deny the Nazi party had some right wing tendencies, but in reality it was a mix of both todays conservative and todays liberal politics. Some left-leaning tendencies:

 

Though the "National Socialist leaders and dogmas were basically uncompromisingly antireligious",[44] the Nazi State primarily (but with exceptions) did not act officially in a directly anti-clerical manner except to those who refused to accommodate the new regime and yield to its power

 

Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist (especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric.[15] ... The “corporation” was attacked by orthodox Nazis as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism, with the role of Jews emphasized

Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance.”

In place of ordinary profit incentive to guide the economy, investment was guided through regulation to accord to the needs of the State...The Nazis viewed private property rights as conditional upon the mode of use.[85] If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized. Government takeovers and threats of takeovers were used to encourage complance with government production plans, even if following these plans cost profits for companies...Taxes and subsidies were also used to direct the economy.

(emphasis mine)

 

Additionally, Nazi Germany had a National Health Care Plan

 

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/

 

And strict gun-control laws

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

 

IMO, the Nazi party would not easily fit in either the political left or political right today.

[The Bear's Key]

SH3RL0CK, no one's saying they were left or right. It doesn't matter anyway for the purposes of a dissection...in how the nazis' growth snuck past the usual government safeguards, the free Press, and citizens. Who raised objections? How were they responded to by fellow citizens and government officials?

 

Put simply, what measures are in place to ensure this can't happen. Say a Nazi equivalent replaced government with the Patriot Act still going, the military all powerful/secretive, etc.

 

If they filled all branches of government, what's in place to halt quick and dirty/unknown sabotage of the main defenses against them?

 

But more importantly, even before they gained power, is the attitude of equal balance for their new party OK just because they deceived lots of followers?

 

So in other words, how are they stopped. I'd like to know the specific checks and balances in place. When there is all of a single party majority in government, it can happen easier with Democrats, Republicans, or any new party, as there's no longer a healthy separation of powers.

 

Thus, my concern isn't left or right nazis, it's how they managed the steps to power under everyone's noses. The corrupt of the world might be attracted to influence the most powerful government in the world. And that's us.

[Sisyphus]

The Nazis didn't have to sneak into power. They were voted in with a broad mandate of popular support.

[The Bear's Key]

According to who, though? The Press intimidated by nazis? How do we know for certain the nazis didn't just have an equal distribution of support -- rather than a majority?

 

Otherwise, why did nazis have to bother with Press silencing and threats to opposition if they could've gotten voted in legitimately by genuine support from most citizens and the Press?

 

I doubt it was as simple as "vote for me, I'm saying what you'd like to hear". No opposition whatsoever? Jews just happily voted for the lot of jew-haters? The powerful business entities owned by Jews had no voice in the Press and little means of mounting a negative campaign?

 

Or did angry people/citizens demand they shut up, leave the country if they don't like it, also considering one big problem is Jews according to nazi propaganda.

 

And once the nazis were in command, it's unpatriotic for anyone to question our leader. The nation's at war. It's the enemy's fault, we must pre-emptive attack before they can us.

[Mr Skeptic]

The Nazis didn't have to sneak into power. They were voted in with a broad mandate of popular support.

 

People can be manipulated though, especially by limiting their access to information. This can be done in part by force, by secret deals, by exploiting social convention, etc. For example they had extensive youth programs, which allowed them a little bit of indoctrination.

 

Things can be done largely openly if no one cares, but some things do require "sneaking".

 

If Hitler had said early on that he intended to kill all the Jews and declare war on the world, I don't think he would have had much support.

[Sisyphus]

No opposition whatsoever?

 

How do you get that from "popular support?" Of course they never had universal support. But they had enough support to get into power legally, and to amend their constitution to give them more and more - and eventually unlimited - power. But it all happened totally legally. Not that they didn't forcibly quash opposition - of course they did. After they granted themselves the legal power to do so. Democratic institutions always have the power to vote themselves out of existence.

[CharonY]

In addition, the massive silencing actions only took place after they got into power. In fact, the fear of communists (which is one of the major reasons why the right-wing finally supported Hitler) had probably a bigger role in them winning the election. Together with populist propaganda of course. They actually did have brownshirts disrupting other party's meetings and similar, but their chokehold on free press was much later.

[SH3RL0CK]

 

If Hitler had said early on that he intended to kill all the Jews and declare war on the world, I don't think he would have had much support.

 

He did say so publically early on. And he still had much support, perhaps because of these statements.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_kampf

 

 

On extermination of the Jews:

 

at a Nazi party convention in 1929 Hitler argued against the "Jewish train of thought:"[18]

 

“The worst danger is that we are interrupting the natural selection process ourselves (by caring for the sick and the weak). ... The most far-sighted racial state in history, Sparta, systematically implemented these racial laws.”[18]

 

The racial laws to which Hitler referred resonate directly with his ideas in Mein Kampf. In his first edition of Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that the destruction of the weak and sick is far more humane than their protection. However, apart from his allusion to humane treatment, Hitler saw a purpose in destroying "the weak" in order to provide the proper space and purity for the strong

 

The book, released before the start of World War II, foreshadowed much of the racial policy that would spread from the domestic front in German homes to the newly acquired territory of the Third Reich.

 

and see this part:

Mein Kampf has assumed a key place in the functionalism versus intentionalism debate. Intentionalists insist that the passage stating that if 12,000–15,000 Jews were gassed, then "the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain," proves quite clearly that Hitler had a master plan for the genocide of the Jewish people all along. Functionalists deny this assertion, noting that the passage does not call for the destruction of the entire Jewish people and note that although Mein Kampf is suffused with an extreme anti-Semitism, it is the only time in the entire book that Hitler ever explicitly refers to the murder of Jews. Given that Mein Kampf is 694 pages long, Functionalist historians have accused the Intentionalists of making too much out of one sentence.

 

Granted the functionalism viewpoint also has merit.

 

 

On waging war against the whole world:

 

One of the more important debates of the book concerns the battle between the Continentists, including Hugh Trevor-Roper and Eberhard Jäckel, who argue Hitler wished to conquer only Europe, and the Globalists, including Gerhard Weinberg, Milan Hauner, Gunter Moltmann, Meier Michaelis and Andreas Hillgruber, who maintain that Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world. The chief source of contention between the Continentists and Globalists is the Zweites Buch.

 

The Globalists argue that Hitler's statement that after Germany defeated the United States, then Germany would rule the entire world clearly proves his intentions were global in reach. The Continentists argue that because Hitler predicts the war between the United States and Germany as beginning sometime ca. 1980, the task of winning this war in the 1980s would presumably have fallen to one of Hitler’s successors, as Hitler would have been at least 90 years old. The Continentists believe that Hitler, for his own lifetime, would have been content with ruling merely Europe.

 

[JohnB]

A few points.

 

1. Nazis, like most political parties don't fall easily into the Left/Right spectrum. My personal belief is that this is because that spectrum is utter rubbish.

 

A correct spectrum has Anarchy (Zero State control) at one end and Statism (100% State control) at the other. When viewed from this perspective, it's easy to see what Hitler and Stalin had in common. Both were essentially dictatorships, regardless of political name. They also fall very easily into the "Statist" end of the spectrum.

 

The only difference I see between Left and Right as currently defined is that the Left is a bit more "Statist" than the Right. Both are "Medium Statists" meaning they only differ on the amount of governmental control they think id needed, but they both like the idea of wide reaching governmental control.

 

2. The Nazis came to power at a time when the previous political parties had failed completely WRT the economy. Inflation was rampant and unemployment extremely high. The Nazis were an acceptable option to the voters because the other parties had completely discredited themselves in the eyes of the voting public.

 

3. There was widespread public discontent with Germany's treatment at Versailles. The imposts made on Germany at the end of WW 1 were totally unfair and the people knew it. If anything was able to guarantee WW 2, it was that "Treaty". It attempted to humble a proud people.

 

4. The public were discouraged early on from voicing dissent by the brownshirts. These are not visible in the newsreels, but they were there and very active.

 

Anecdotal I know but... My Great Aunt was actually at the Nuremburg rally. A young Aussie woman on holidays to Europe and she went to see the "big rally". Whenever she was asked "Did you do the salute?" she replied "Of course! The cameras don't show the brownshirts with their billyclubs beating people who weren't enthusiastic enough! I had my arm up with everybody else."

 

5. The Hitler Youth. As has been mentioned, these were formed to give young people "a sense of purpose" and "civic values". However they were not loyal to the nation or the Office of National Leader, but were personally loyal to Hitler himself.

 

Which is why (as a non American) I find things like this extremely worrying.

 

These young men don't have "hope" because of the system, the nation, or the Office of President, but because of the person. Who are they loyal to? Combat fatigues, marching, chants, it can be so easily turned into something else. These young men, insted of saying "Because of Obama, I'm inspired to...." should be saying "Because I'm American, I'm inspired to....."

See the difference?

 

"I am change. And this is what I wear."

Presumably if you don't "wear" the right colours, you are not for change? Does this make you "bad" in those eyes?

 

To be very clear here. Even though I'm nominally "right" I don't think Obama is setting up his own brownshirts. But an organisation has been created that could very easily be turned into one by somebody else. The existence of such an organisation is the danger, not what the current incumbent intends to do with it.

 

(Although his comments on needing a civillian defence force to "protect the nation" are a bit worrying. Who are they going to be "protecting" you from?

 

6. Hitler and the Nazi philosophy built upon the works of Neitzsche, revered at the time. The whole concept of "Untermenschen" came from him and so the Nazi philosophy fit in well with the ideas of someone widely respected. If they were wrong, then Neitzsche was wrong, but Neitzsche was a great thinker and therefore right, and so also, the Nazis were right.

 

I will add that the whole concept of the "Aryan" people was and is false. There never was any such race. Racism was endemic amoung Anthropologists and Archaeologists/Historians at the time. The idea was originally formulated in response the Indian Vedic Literature. It was believed that the "inferior" brown skinned people could not have created such a work and therefore a "superior" white skinned people must have invaded and written it. The "Aryan Invasion" of the middle east and the Indian subcontinent.

 

There have never been found any item, relic, writing or remains that can be identified as of "Aryan" origin. They had no jewellery, pottery, language, town, village or building styles that could in any way distinguish them from any other people. Ergo, they did not exist as a distinct race or cultural subset.

 

To give an idea of the absolute crap "science" that was in vogue during the 19th and early 20th century I quote from Wiki.

A number of later writers, such as the French anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge in his book L'Aryen, argued that this superior branch could be identified biologically by using the cephalic index (a measure of head shape) and other indicators. He argued that the long-headed "dolichocephalic-blond" Europeans, characteristically found in northern Europe, were natural leaders, destined to rule over more "brachiocephalic" (short headed) peoples.

 

The concept of certain "people" being naturally "superior" and "born to lead" was quite well ingrained in the European psyche of the time.

 

I will note that there is a parallel with modern America. How many places, mountains or towns in the US have native American names? Or does everything have a "White Man" name? Why? Does the "White" American consider himself superior? Does the legacy of "Manifest Destiny" live on in another form?

 

Could such things happen in modern times?

 

Quite easily. For dramatic representations of how, I suggest the rise of the "Nightwatch" in Babylon 5 or the growth of the "Vistor's Friends" youth movement in the series "V". Sad to say, there is no shortage of people willing to be bullies in the name of a cause.

 

The idea is simple. A is the problem. B is the solution. Anybody who isn't in favour of B is therefore an enemy. The more you convince people that A is really, really bad the easier it is to justify any tactics used against opponents of B.

 

Lord Monkton referred to certain groups in Copenhagen as "Hitler Youth" because they acted like them, out to break up or intimidate the opposition. Such are the tactics of Totalitarianism. The "cause" doesn't matter, the tactics do. "And by their deeds, ye shall know them." (Or something like that.)

 

Add to that control of the media and other areas can be from indirect inferences "By the way, Mr. Editor. How is your daughter? Is she enjoying her new school in the secluded countyside?" or from direct threats of reprisals. (Like calls for "Crimes against Humanity" trials for people who don't agree with AGW maybe?)

Edited February 19, 2010 by JohnB

[The Bear's Key]

How do you get that from "popular support?" Of course they never had universal support. But they had enough support to get into power legally, and to amend their constitution to give them more and more - and eventually unlimited - power. But it all happened totally legally. Not that they didn't forcibly quash opposition - of course they did. After they granted themselves the legal power to do so.

From JohnB's post below, it doesn't seem they did it legally.

 

Anecdotal I know but... My Great Aunt was actually at the Nuremburg rally. A young Aussie woman on holidays to Europe and she went to see the "big rally". Whenever she was asked "Did you do the salute?" she replied "Of course! The cameras don't show the brownshirts with their billyclubs beating people who weren't enthusiastic enough! I had my arm up with everybody else."

Hey JohnB, doesn't matter if anecdotal, I love hearing tales (of past ways and life) from the old people -- the smarter/wiser ones at least. It's just another window of perspective that could become lost otherwise. It's amazing today, just how much of history not found in textbooks people don't grasp.

 

 

He did say so publically early on. And he still had much support, perhaps because of these statements.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_kampf

Was the nation too much in disarray for reading time? How many people actually knew of the book and/or discussed it?

 

 

Granted the functionalism viewpoint also has merit.

Oh geez, who cares? Function or intention...the whole thing's still fairly insane either way.

 

 

1. Nazis, like most political parties don't fall easily into the Left/Right spectrum. My personal belief is that this is because that spectrum is utter rubbish.

.....

The only difference I see between Left and Right as currently defined is that the Left is a bit more "Statist" than the Right.

The second bit's unfair after what you expressed in #1. You missed an important element: government is of, by, and for the people. So a more functional governnmet is a more functional/stronger voice for us if government is actually serving its citizens.

 

What you failed to mention, and it's perhaps because you live in Australia, where religion has little interest to establish power, as religion has a far more powerful nation's government to influence and/or control in the U.S. (no offense to your nation's military capabilities ), is that the Right can be very much Statist in respect to personal morality, and too often have been.

 

If you have doubt that religion flocks to power, simply examine the world's histories of the past 2000 years for major/large empires.

 

Do we really know history? Let's examine Russia's a bit...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Russian_revolution

The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom of "religious and anti-religious propaganda". This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church.

Russia had threatened the power structure of both religion and (free reign of) private industry within Russian lands and elsewhere, a big no-no that might've caused Russia to grow a huge bull's eye target on its continued existence by the West's power brokers.

 

Just saying

 

Either way, Russia's methods (forbidding religion, private business, and individual ownership) are completely unacceptable, as is the powerful and sneaky influence by certain religion and industry players within the U.S. and worldwide.

 

Of course those players in the West are gonna have a keen interest to convince us any potential leash on their activities is "statism".

 

 

5. The Hitler Youth. As has been mentioned, these were formed to give young people "a sense of purpose" and "civic values". However they were not loyal to the nation or the Office of National Leader, but were personally loyal to Hitler himself.

 

Which is why (as a non American) I find things like this extremely worrying.

........

Ok, JohnB, since you live comfortably away from power-grabbing, religious wackos being in Australia, let's give you a bit of an introduction to groups occuring with more frequency in the U.S.

 

Before that, however, let me say the groups in your video have no power, and I'd certainly not stand idly by if they moved to take power.

 

That said, compare the following...

 

• How old the teens are in your Obama video, and the number of them.
  
• The children's ages in the videos below, and their much larger numbers.
  

Onward...

 

(first two minutes only)

 

.

 

It's not an isolated instance. My cousin's half-sister was approached by these people, who the school allowed to recruit inside. Needless to say, it pissed off my cousin yet she resisted calling them frauds, and instead had cautiously stepped back to allow her sister to think for herself. I was cautious too. A bit of a risk, yes, however it's more productive when someone gets at a conclusion by themselves.

 

And her sister realized the fraud after two meetings.

 

 

Combat fatigues, marching, chants, it can be so easily turned into something else. These young men, insted of saying "Because of Obama, I'm inspired to...." should be saying "Because I'm American, I'm inspired to....."

I only partly agree. Nationalistic people too can get fairly extreme and still not worship a leader.

 

As in the Obama video, it's a bunch of incredibly naive clowns, to me. If they act to become a real threat, it's a different story. Great to have the video released for public oversight, as in the spotlight most extreme activities don't grow well.

 

 

Even though I'm nominally "right" I don't think Obama is setting up his own brownshirts. But an organisation has been created that could very easily be turned into one by somebody else.

That's false, it's never so easy. The fanatics here in the U.S. rarely disturb me actually, I say practice your craft and be freaky angry if that's what gets you off, just don't bring it near our government. It's when they begin grabbing power and not enough people seem to care that's highly disturbing.

 

 

The existence of such an organisation is the danger, not what the current incumbent intends to do with it.

Totally untrue. Secret dealings with government, lack of press coverage, oversight denied, those add up to the real danger.

 

 

I will note that there is a parallel with modern America. How many places, mountains or towns in the US have native American names? Or does everything have a "White Man" name? Why? Does the "White" American consider himself superior? Does the legacy of "Manifest Destiny" live on in another form?

JohnB, lots of places have American Indian names. Very many. You're off-base there. I'm sure plenty don't, and maybe for the reasons you claim, but lots of places in the U.S. also do have such names.

 

 

 

Could such things happen in modern times?

 

Quite easily. For dramatic representations of how, I suggest the rise of the "Nightwatch" in Babylon 5 or the growth of the "Vistor's Friends" youth movement in the series "V". Sad to say, there is no shortage of people willing to be bullies in the name of a cause.

I tend to dislike how some of the variables used to portray the growth of tyranny are unrealistic on many shows. A lot are interesting, hit the nail on the head in various cases, and get you to think, but none actually expose the root of the problems nearly enough.

 

 

The idea is simple. A is the problem. B is the solution. Anybody who isn't in favour of B is therefore an enemy. The more you convince people that A is really, really bad the easier it is to justify any tactics used against opponents of B.

Don't miss the variables. Religion and threat of war (real or invented) historically began many of the world's real tyrannies. Name any lefty causes such as environment protection that have led to the same?

 

Pangloss recently mentioned a video, one he posted a while ago here, so now's a good time to bring it up.

 

 

Using that video's "logic", we can apply it to lefties and righties.

 

What's the worst that can happen?

 

On the left, can anything destroy the world?

 

environmental stewardship + human rights + public assistance + making hate crimes extra punishable + tax funding + anti-war + renewable energy

 

vs.

 

On the right, plenty can...

 

nuclear stockpiling + global warming disasters + little oversight on powerful industries tinkering with genetic engineering (maybe haphazardly) + unknown weapons systems (potentially biological).

 

 

However, I'd like to state that the YouTube video above is utterly flawed. Heck, religion too could say what's the worst that could happen? People accept Jesus, nothing bad. Otherwise, humanity dies (or burns for eternity, doesn't get "saved", other terrible prices great for causing humans to surrender their mind's reasoning abilities to the church).

 

 

JohnB, let's help you get to the bottom of what crucial piece you're likely missing in the debate.

 

And so, without further ado here's a couple quotes from the past telling the entire story...

 

 

So if religion dominates the debate, then perhaps that's because the religious are the ones with the power to make it about them.

Perhaps a difference in attitudes towards this matter stems from the seeming fact that the "religious right" has far less pull in Oz than the US? To us they are simply wackjobs with little to no political power.

Your vantage from Down Under maybe obscures your view to our daily reality?

Edited February 20, 2010 by The Bear's Key
tidy up

[mooeypoo]

I often wonder about the political air back in Nazi Germany, if during the Nazi's rise to power, citizens were saying things like, "no politics", or maybe "hey, the Press is biased, they do speak against Nazis", or perhaps "if you don't like Germany get the fick out" and their hypothetical/own versions of "USA! USA!" which by design naturally makes protestors out to be anti-nation -- a perception that the Nazis likely used in strategy vs opponents/protestors.

There's no need to wonder, Bear, you just need to learn about it a bit. The comparison you're making is totally unrelated to what goes on in the USA in so many levels, I'm not quite sure where to even begin.

 

You can say whatever you want about what goes on in the fringes of the US government, but the US still has freedom of press, freedom of speech and freedom of movement - things that did not exist in Nazi germany. This conversations did not exist either; in fact,you would have been escorted quite forcefully to a "nice" work camp (in the good case, death camp in the more often case) for just voicing these opinions.

 

I don't quite think we're thee yet in the US. Nor are we even getting close.

 

There are fringes everywhere, and there are always people who go with the moment and get into the whole emotional-appeal argument. There's a big difference between that (statements, during protests/groups/etc of "USA! USA!") and mass murder and totalitarianism.

 

Maybe the Nazis accused the opposition party of being soft on issues best handled with a decisive and iron hand, like fighting against communism, pre-emptive war on enemies, tough against illegal foreigners, etc.

No, the Nazis did quite a lot more than that; their methods were very different, and the social situation in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazi party was *VERY* different. There are many many reasons for the rise of Hitler to power. I really suggest you read it and get into it, it's a very intricate history that lead to this and I would - by far - not even suggest that the US is close to it; also, today, we have the Nazis to remind us of what not to do. That is, the "Never again" statement is a driving force for all the other groups to speak out and rise up against fringe-comments and attempted-actions by all those fringes who attempt to bring up racist or extreme atmosphere.

 

But most importantly, did people feel the need for giving equal weight to the major parties, for balance -- regardless of ideological stance that's dressed in patriotic clothing? It's a sentiment anyone with bad motives can put to use.

 

Hitler played on the emotions of the people and used blatant propaganda in a state that stopped being democratic and turned to tyrannical totalitarianism. There's not much comparison here. It wasn't about balance, it was about incitement to racism in the name of nationalism, race and the crushed German pride (after the versaille accords, and the very very badly run Weimar republic). Far from the USA. *Far*.

 

~moo

[The Bear's Key]

The comparison you're making is totally unrelated to what goes on in the USA in so many levels, I'm not quite sure where to even begin.

Forgeting the comaprisons is a good place to start. The main thrust of my question is what to do about equal balance if such a party were ever to arise.

 

I don't quite think we're thee yet in the US. Nor are we even getting close.

+100

 

i.e. Definitely not going that way in the conversation.

 

 

No, the Nazis did quite a lot more than that; their methods were very different, and the social situation in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazi party was *VERY* different.

A modern version of their party wouldn't ever resemble the nazis. It most likely wouldn't hate the Jewish, or any race, but perhaps the opposite, it'd recruit any color: white, black, etc.

 

You know the lesson, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?...well, that's not just a lesson the good people. The bad ones learn too.

 

Anyway, I'm not equating the U.S. to anywhere near what happened in Germany. That'd be absurd. It's unfortunate that I placed the different thoughts near one another in the OP. I just wanted to draw attention to an instance where one couldn't realistically strive to give equal bias to a major opposition party. You'd have to call a pig just that, if you were an honest reporter in news.

 

 

There are many many reasons for the rise of Hitler to power.

I disagree, and believe it's very simple. I think it's naive for anyone to think one person is so highly charismatic that everyone mobilized behind.

 

Such reasoning ignores the beatings, games, executions, propaganda. But mostly such reasoning ignores that a group of key people were involved, and if they had believed it a collossal, impossibly grand task, the plan would've never been nurtured to fruition.

 

A corrupt person likely examines the variables, finds the weaknesses, unexpected loopholes, and needles it daily, sharing with comrades as two heads are better than one. A charismatic leader is solely one vehicle.

 

So I ask what I think is not just one, but two valid questions: 1) what safeguards are in place, not to thwart something resembling anything like the nazis -- for they wouldn't -- but to prevent a group from assuming such power in the future. 2) At what point does it become ok for the Press to show bias in warning us?

 

Those are not comparisons to what happened in Germany. Just so everyone's 100% clear on the matter.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps ultimately there are no safeguards in a democracy. As Bob pointed out in the thread about torture memos, with proper motivation and sufficient time lawyers can justify anything. Maybe the only safeguard in a democracy is the quality and motivation of the people you put in charge of it.

 

That having been said, there are many safeguards and protections in the laws and the constitution, and I suppose their underlying purpose is to reduce the damage caused by people that don't live up to the ideal, or decisions that are simply made in error.

[JohnB]

Firstly.

JohnB, lots of places have American Indian names. Very many. You're off-base there. I'm sure plenty don't, and maybe for the reasons you claim, but lots of places in the U.S. also do have such names.

 

Sorry if that came out in a confrontational way, it wasn't meant as such. It was a thought that occurred to me and so I was asking. You can't turn around in Oz without seeing Aboriginal place names (even Canberra, our capital is an Aboriginal name) and I realised that I'd seen or heard of few similar in the US.

 

This might just be a perception thing and so I was asking to see if the perception was correct.

 

Sorry if it came out the wrong way.

 

Onwards:

From JohnB's post below, it doesn't seem they did it legally.

They did actually. The brownshirts were a civillian militia force given the legal power to prevent people from "disrupting" the rallies. The definition of "disruption" was left up to the brownshirts themselves. Some tactics used were illegal, but in many/most cases laws were passed to make the actions legal.

 

It's amazing what you can legally justify if you write the laws and say it's "for the good of society as a whole".

 

The second bit's unfair after what you expressed in #1. You missed an important element: government is of, by, and for the people. So a more functional governnmet is a more functional/stronger voice for us if government is actually serving its citizens.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain it well. Government is only "of, by, and for the people" theoretically in a Democracy. Many forms of government are simply there for greater power to the few. Dictatorships, Meritocracies, Oligarchies and the rest have little regard for "the people" and much regard for the ruling class.

 

I wasn't being unfair to the left in my spectrum at all. If you draw a line across a page and label the left hand end of that line is "Anarchy" and the right hand end is "Statism". Now put two short verical lines in the middle of the page close together. The one closest to the "Anarchy" end is the "Right" and the one closest to the "Statist" end is the "Left".

 

Both are roughly in the middle of the spectrum trying to find a balance between individual and government control. The "Left" simply believes that on balance, slightly more government control is better than the "Right" does.

 

Put another way. On a scale of 0% governmental control (Anarchy) to 100% governmental control (Statism) the "Right" sits at about 50% and the "Left" at about 52%. The actual and practical differences between the two are negligable.

 

As you say, the Right can be more Statist than the Left on certain issues, so it would be interesting to create a scoring table by issue and see how the aggregate scores actually work out. Personally I think the Left would come out as slightly more Statist on slightly more issues and would therefore be slightly more Statist, but as I said, the difference would be small.

 

More generally.

 

Those Jesus nuts are worrying as well. A big difference between our nations is that we down here distrust authority. As soon as somebody wants us to wear a uniform and chant in unison we get very suspicious. (We do have school uniforms and uniforms for certain occupations, but that's about it)

 

We don't have "Military" schools either. It's just not us. We've had various groups try it and get nowhere. The simple fact that the US has so many different types of these whackjob organisations shows (I think) a greater propensity towards this sort of behaviour.

 

The saving grace is of course that they cover the entire political specrum and therefore work against each other. Should an issue arise that allowed them to work together, then I think you might be in for trouble.

 

Religion and threat of war (real or invented) historically began many of the world's real tyrannies.

I disagree to an extent. I think that you are referring to the threat of "war" as the driver, whereas I see the driver being "The Threat" of war. It's just as easy to use "The Threat" of social upheaval, or "The Threat" of starvation. It's the use of "The Threat" that is the driver and not war per se.

 

If you convince enough people the stakes are high enough, you can justify anything. This is one problem I have with the eco movement. From their POV, the stakes are the "survival of the planet" and therefore anything can be justified.

 

For example "ecological stewardship" is a nebulous and undefined term. Is it more important that some human rights? Should the populace give up some rights in the name of "ecological stewardship"? Who will decide how many and which rights the populace will give up?

 

I can't speak for your greenies, but if ours got any sort of power the quality of life and the life expectancy of Australians would drop. A simple example would suffice. Ours want a "nuclear free world", to that end they would close our one and only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.

 

Lucas Heights has one purpose, to produce the short lived radioactive isotopes used in the detection and treatment of cancers and other diseases. But it's not good "ecological stewardship" to have radioactive wastes around, so I guess the sick will just have to suffer and die, won't they?

 

Both sides of the political spectrum have stupid ideas. Personally I can't see the difference between killing us off en masse by the right or one at a time by the left until we get the population down to a "sustainable" level. Both extremes would have us living in caves anyway.

 

Many "Green" organisations believe that there are already too many people on the planet and are quite happy to let vast numbers die to reduce the population. I saw an interview years ago where one of the heads of Greenpeace (?) (I must find the video and check) said "If we don't send food next time there is a famine in Africa, there will be less of them to die the time after."

 

You might want to look into why so many nations can't get funding for dams for clean water and electricity and exactly who is stopping those programs. Genocide is being practiced on this planet and it is being done in the name of "Saving the Planet".

[Sisyphus]

Just as a tangential aside, there are indeed many many place names in the United States that come from native names. For example, 22 out of 50 states:

 

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Missouri

Iowa

Wisconsin

Illinois

Minnesota

North Dakota

South Dakota

Mississippi

Texas

Utah

Ohio

Michigan

Oklahoma

Alabama

Tennessee

Alaska

Hawaii

[JohnB]

Thanks for that, my perception was wrong.

 

I had assumed that names like "Massachusetts" had come from non english speaking immigants. (Australia's early immigrants were all from England.)Again, thanks for clearing that up.