Looking back at a world gone mad

[rigney]

On a train ride between Bremerhaven and Zweibrucken (about seven or eight hrs) at that time, and a few just days before my 21st birthday and Christmas of 1953, I was a naive hill billy kid struck by how similar the German countryside looked much like it did back home. So peaceful, beautiful and well manicured, I never once gave a thought to the guys who had just eight short years before, stormed the beaches at Normandy, or even why such an attack had been necesary. While it did take me a couple months to become acclimated and begin looking around, I soon found good reason to realize that ignorance only grows more pronounced if one allows themselves to be duped. I won't go into detail, but even after eight years, the Concertration (Death Camps) I had the privilage to visit still permeated with the smells of "HELL". Wish that little perverted Iranian bastard, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other disbelievers could have been there with me even 8 years after the fact to witness such stinking atrocities. Got this email today and thought it might be a good topic to discuss along with gun control.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2972691n

Listen to the bit about shooting victims. Didn't take long for the nazis to realize that a little sarin gas was less expensive. !7,000,000 people murdered and none of them with guns. How many might have been saved if firearms had been available? Perhaps none. Sheeple are simply sheeple until things get totally unbearable. But partisan guerilla tactics sure played hell on the Nazi economy once they got into high gear.

Edited January 31, 2013 by rigney

[Moontanman]

What point are you attempting to make here? I would appreciate it if you would elaborate.

 

The NAZI's were connected with the Muslim leaders of the time, I've done some reading on the subject and I was surprised to learn of the connections between Muslim leaders and The NAZI's of the time. To me it indicates that religion has influence but for the most part the influence comes from humans using religion to further their goals rather than god handing down proclamations. Hitler, at least in his public persona, was a religious fundamentalist, he used religion to further his own goals.

 

Possibly I shouldn't have been surprised to learn of the connection between NAZI's and Muslims, at the time Jews were being persecuted by most major religions and while modern Christianity will back away from any allegations of such sympathy for anti Jewish sentiment the fact remains that Hitler tried to deport his Jewish problem and the simple fact that no country was anxious to take Jews due to this religious condemnation of Jews is quite telling IMHO, thus deportation was not a viable "solution" to his perceived Jewish problem...

 

On top of that Germany's Jewish "problem" was due to Germany needing a scape goat for it's own internal problems. The wide spread anti Jew sentiment of the time was just what Hitler needed to blame for his countries economic woes...

[rigney]

I don't quite understand you wanting me to rearrange the subject matter. Not once did I mention the word Jew, yet you injected the word 7 times in your reply. Might I ask why? While the holocaust may have been a scheme to get rid of a particular ethnic group, several other nationalities supplied much of the cannon fodder during the cleansing. As far as elaborating further, I don't know what else to tell you. My thoughts were not so much on the fact that 17,000,000 innocent people were murdered outright, but rather how easily it was accomplished.

Edited February 1, 2013 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Well then I went in the wrong direction then didn't I? I should have asked you to elaborate before I commented. Would you like for me to delete it so it doesn't derail the thread?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Moontanman

[overtone]

 

My thoughts were not so much on the fact that 17,000,000 innocent
people were murdered outright, but rather how easily it was
accomplished.

It wasn't that easy - it was a serious logistics and engineering problem, it was a major diversion of resources during wartime, and it took the cooperation of a large fraction of the German public for several years to set up - a cooperation only obtained by way of the first truly modern propaganda effort, the world's most effective media marketing campaign to date.

 

If you want to know how that worked, review how the "rightwing authoritarian military/industrial" faction (we are no longer allowed to use its name) in the US brought us Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Homeland Security, and the Iraq War. Of course we could have resisted by armed force, with our guns, but - - - .

[rigney]

Well then I went in the wrong direction then didn't I? I should have asked you to elaborate before I commented. Would you like for me to delete it so it doesn't derail the thread?

Sal-rite !, I was just hoping to get the post off in the right direction.

 

 

It wasn't that easy - it was a serious logistics and engineering problem, it was a major diversion of resources during wartime, and it took the cooperation of a large fraction of the German public for several years to set up - a cooperation only obtained by way of the first truly modern propaganda effort, the world's most effective media marketing campaign to date.

 

Quote rigney: But I do believe it was quite easily done and could have been done much more so had Der Fuhrer not tried biting off quite so much during the late 30s.and early 40s.

 

If you want to know how that worked, review how the "rightwing authoritarian military/industrial" faction (we are no longer allowed to use its name) in the US brought us Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Homeland Security, and the Iraq War. Of course we could have resisted by armed force, with our guns, but - - -

 

Quote rigney: I don't see where you're going with your second statement. Perhaps you might enlighten me as to how it fits into this post? Anyway, I thought these links might help show you my reasons for the post..

http://www.thirdreichruins.com/dachau.htm

http://sudeten.bizland.com/Sudetenland1.htm

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

http://olive-drab.com/od_history_ww2_ops_battles_1940blitzkrieg.php

Edited February 1, 2013 by rigney

[michel123456]

Around 1975, i visited in East germany the Buchenwald concentration camp. it is an experience I will never forget.

 

what I understand from the situation, it all begins with propaganding that some people are not humans. after that has been "explained" it gets easy. That's the way slaves were handled. Millions of black people have lived an equivalent worst experience* on the same principle. Native indians have been exterminated, and native south americans too.

IOW it is not a world gone mad. It is the awfulest side of the world and I am really afraid it may happen again if we don't beware constantly.

 

*just to get an idea have a look at the way to put slaves aboard the "aurore" ship here

[Ringer]

Read this book. Pinker does a wonderful job showing that it seems like many people are dying due to the ease with which have the ability to kill. But in percentages, very few people die violent deaths in modern times and the world is much safer for people, on average, than it ever has been.

[rigney]

Around 1975, i visited in East germany the Buchenwald concentration camp. it is an experience I will never forget.

 

what I understand from the situation, it all begins with propaganding that some people are not humans. after that has been "explained" it gets easy. That's the way slaves were handled. Millions of black people have lived an equivalent worst experience* on the same principle. Native indians have been exterminated, and native south americans too.

IOW it is not a world gone mad. It is the awfulest side of the world and I am really afraid it may happen again if we don't beware constantly.

 

*just to get an idea have a look at the way to put slaves aboard the "aurore" ship here

Putting things into perspective as I see them Mike, one slave in a "million" is a million slaves too many. While I really didn't start this thread to discuss slavery, unarmed or inadequately armed people striving to maintain a sensible decorum without arms, "forget it". How easy it is to subvert a system if you are the only one holding the clout. If native Americas or African indigents would have had firearms at the time instead of bows. arrows and spears, things would definitly be very different today. As far as the slavery issue you speak of, try the below link and thanks for your input..

http://www.theroot.com/views/100-amazing-facts-about-negro-0

Edited February 1, 2013 by rigney

[overtone]

 

While I really didn't start this thread to discuss slavery, unarmed or
inadequately armed people striving to maintain a sensible decorum
without arms, "forget it". How easy it is to subvert a system if you are
the only one holding the clout

There are always going to be lots of unarmed people. If the bad people with clout - such as the KKK or the Chicago mob (to pick US examples closer to hand than the Third Reich) - control the media, they will be able to define a poorly armed group within the society (women, for example, or Musllims) and organize an oppression of it for their own benefit.

 

The German T Party of 1933 took over with cameras and radios - it doesn't do any good to arm people if the bad guys control the targeting.

 

There will always be targets.

 

It was the gun owners of America who were sold on the Iraq War, Homeland Security, Gitmo, and the rest of the more recent Third Reich parallels. Are you advocating preferentially arming their political enemies, to balance the clout?

[rigney]

I'm not advocating the arming of any particular faction, sect or ethnic group to usurp control of this nation, but to allow every citizen (sane) who isn't a felon, the right to own a firearm for protection if they so desire. Other than our own Civil War, political power have alwys been the leading reason for change in this country, not a struggle with guns, knives and fists. While we still have the choice in this country, lets keep it that way: "At the ballot box". Without spouting venom or going off half cocked, take a long look at the two links. They make a lot of sence and lead to other links that may be of some help to you.

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

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

Edited February 4, 2013 by rigney

[michel123456]

I'm not advocating the arming (...) but to allow every citizen (sane) who isn't a felon, the right to own a firearm (...)

Oh. That's the subject of the thread.

 

Not "On a train ride between Bremerhaven and Zweibrucken blah blah blah."

Edited February 4, 2013 by michel123456

[rigney]

Oh. That's the subject of the thread.

 

Not "On a train ride between Bremerhaven and Zweibrucken blah blah blah."

Ah c'mon! Are you saying that a Hick can't wax poetic from time to time through their memory? And the bla-bla-bla is of your own choosing, either because you can't or won't understand more than a chimp seems to do. It was ae time that I was there and as I remember it. Maybe you shoud try it once in a while?

Edited February 4, 2013 by rigney

[michel123456]

In a few words, poetry apart you look like constructing an argument that the olocaust could have been avoided if people at that time were allowed to carry guns. Is that it?

[overtone]

I'm not advocating the arming of any particular faction, sect or ethnic

group to usurp control of this nation, but to allow every citizen (sane)

who isn't a felon, the right to own a firearm for protection if they so

desire.

That's what we have had in the US for centuries.

 

Staying with WWII and its aftermath: It did not stop the KKK, or the Chicago mob. It did not prevent the Iraq War launch, or the creation of Homeland Security and the Guantanamo type of prison complex. It did not gain suffrage for women, or prevent the roundup and concentration of Japanese people in WWII. The various oppressions by violence in those matters involved the cooperation of the gun owners of America, against the less heavily armed. Would things have gone better if, say, the yellow Americans had had better weaponry and more willingness to use it against the abusive State, in WWII California?

 

It may have had a role in the partial freeing of black people from various oppressions, and red people from some of hte reservation abuses. Is that what you are arguing? That Muslims and women and brown race immigrants, three comparatively lightly armed groups currently vulnerable to various oppressions and hostilities, more heavily arm themselves?

 

In considering this, a review of a dubious earlier point:

Sheeple are simply sheeple until things get totally unbearable. But partisan guerilla tactics sure played hell on the Nazi economy once they got into high gear.

Not within Germany, or Italy, or even Fascist Spain and such places: the scenes of heroic and significant resistance played out mostly among people conquered by foreigners, not oppressed by their neighbors and their own local government.

Edited February 4, 2013 by overtone

[rigney]

In a few words, poetry apart you look like constructing an argument that the olocaust could have been avoided if people at that time were allowed to carry guns. Is that it?

No! Just saying, if the six or seven million Jews and the five or six million detainees (slaves) had a means of protecting themselves other than through a vocal protest, perhaps the nazis would have paid one hell of a bigger price for their takeover. The concertration camps used to house the Japanese living in this country in 1941 were much different than the death camps of Germany and Poland. While they weren't exactly the Ritz Carlton or Hyatt, conditions were. livible. Jesus H. Christ! We had just been attacked by the Royal Japanese Fleet at Pearl Harbor killing 3,000 of our military and civilians.. Was our government going to give a very secretive society based in western California, food stamps, federal housing and other substities? Hell no! Frank Nehi, a good acquaintence of mine, plus his family lived in such a camp until 1943 when he went into the army. The rest of his kin were there in Oklahoma until sometime in 1946. Frank is about 7 or 8 years older than me, but i never once heard him talk bitter about the camp or how he and his family was treated. The detainee camp at Guantanamo for todays terrorist is much better tnan the one Frank and his parents spent their time in. Given the chance I'd denut, the bastards who killed our diplomats in Benghazi and put their asses in Gitmo forever. Yes, the K.K.K. and Chicago mobs have scared hell out of folks, but they haven't killed millions, "YET". And as long as we have a rational society, I don't believe it can ever happen.

Edited February 4, 2013 by rigney

[john5746]

I don't know, in all your stories, seems to me the common thread is white people gone mad. So, seems to me the best solution would be to replace their guns with the jawbone of an ass. That seems to be a better fairy tale than giving a gun to everyone.

[overtone]

The concertration camps used to house the Japanese living in this

country in 1941 were much different than the death camps of Germany and

Poland. While they weren't exactly the Ritz Carlton or Hyatt, conditions

were. livible. Jesus H. Christ! We had just been attacked by the Royal

Japanese Fleet at Pearl Harbor killing 3,000 of our military and

civilians.. Was our government going to give a very

secretive society based in western California, food stamps, federal

housing and other substities? Hell no! Frank Nehi, a good acquaintence

of mine, plus his family lived in such a camp until 1943 when he went

into the army. The rest of his kin were there in Oklahoma until sometime

in 1946. Frank is about 7 or 8 years older than me, but i never once

heard him talk bitter about the camp or how he and his family was

treated. The detainee camp at Guantanamo for todays terrorist is much

better tnan the one Frank and his parents spent their time in. Given the

chance I'd denut, the bastards who killed our diplomats in Benghazi and

put their asses in Gitmo forever. Yes, the K.K.K. and Chicago mobs have

scared hell out of folks, but they haven't killed millions, "YET". And

as long as we have a rational society, I don't believe it can ever

happen

So you think that maybe more heavily arming the yellow, black, red, brown, female, Muslim, and non-mob Chicago resident population of the US would not have helped much, if at all, these past 75 years or so?

 

We should obviously wait until the clairvoyants detect a future Holocaust, and then hand out the weapons.

 

Pleased to hear they took out the floor shackles, temperature applications, hoods and body suits, specialty electronic gear, interrogation dogs, and waterboarding setups, from Gitmo. And now that several years have passed, I hear that no one there is technically a "child" any more. But the original setup was not interrupted by the gun owning citizens of America; I even seem to recall that faction was active in support of the operation right alone with Homeland Security, etc. So for those opposed to the approach of tyranny, gun possession by citizens seems to be something less than a reliable ally.

Edited February 5, 2013 by overtone

[rigney]

I don't know, in all your stories, seems to me the common thread is white people gone mad. So, seems to me the best solution would be to replace their guns with the jawbone of an ass. That seems to be a better fairy tale than giving a gun to everyone.

Stories and opinions are like a-- holes. We all have one and some are unlucky enough to have two or more. You seem to be the one wanting to bring up the issue of blacks, whites and greens. People are generally just people until some a-- hole stirs them up.

 

So you think that maybe more heavily arming the yellow, black, red, brown, female, and non-mob Chicago resident population of the US would not have helped much, if at all, these past 75 years or so?

That's may be your opinion, but not what I said.

[john5746]

... How easy it is to subvert a system if you are the only one holding the clout. If native Americas or African indigents would have had firearms at the time instead of bows. arrows and spears, things would definitly be very different today. As far as the slavery issue you speak of, try the below link and thanks for your input..

 

 

No! Just saying, if the six or seven million Jews and the five or six million detainees (slaves) had a means of protecting themselves other than through a vocal protest, perhaps the nazis would have paid one hell of a bigger price for their takeover. The concertration camps used to house the Japanese living in this country in 1941 were much different than the death camps of Germany and Poland. ....

 

 

Stories and opinions are like a-- holes. We all have one and some are unlucky enough to have two or more. You seem to be the one wanting to bring up the issue of blacks, whites and greens. People are generally just people until some a-- hole stirs them up.

Some have such a big one, that they can't remember what they said.

[Moontanman]

Just for you rigney...

 

[overtone]

 

So

you think that maybe more heavily arming the yellow, black, red, brown,

female, and non-mob Chicago resident population of the US would not

have helped much, if at all, these past 75 years or so?

That's may be your opinion, but not what I said.

You have had several opportunities to speak to the question, and clarify the matter. Do you favor private weaponry possession as a defense against State oppression ? If so, would the century and a half of abusive treatment of blacks by the various State supported terrorists in the old Confederacy count as a situation that would have been improved by more heavily arming those blacks and increasing private sores of weaponry in general, or do we have a situation where the armed citizenry was an agent of State oppression - where the private weaponry was part of the problem?

 

Likewise with the reds, browns, women, and recently Muslims - but since th OP opened with WWII, we can compare directly the yellows in America: Clearly the Jews in Germany did not know what was waiting for them at the end of the line - and we doubt Japanese ancestry provides clairvoyance either. If anyone in the US had cause to take up arms against a suddenly tyrannical government, it was the American yellows after Pearl Harbor. So we can ask: if they had just had better weapons, and more of them, like their neighbors who were cooperating with the State, would the situation have turned out better?

[rigney]

You have had several opportunities to speak to the question, and clarify the matter. Do you favor private weaponry possession as a defense against State oppression ? If so, would the century and a half of abusive treatment of blacks by the various State supported terrorists in the old Confederacy count as a situation that would have been improved by more heavily arming those blacks and increasing private sores of weaponry in general, or do we have a situation where the armed citizenry was an agent of State oppression - where the private weaponry was part of the problem?

 

Likewise with the reds, browns, women, and recently Muslims - but since th OP opened with WWII, we can compare directly the yellows in America: Clearly the Jews in Germany did not know what was waiting for them at the end of the line - and we doubt Japanese ancestry provides clairvoyance either. If anyone in the US had cause to take up arms against a suddenly tyrannical government, it was the American yellows after Pearl Harbor. So we can ask: if they had just had better weapons, and more of them, like their neighbors who were cooperating with the State, would the situation have turned out better?

I have stated on several occasions that it is the constitutional right deemed by the (second amendment), of any and all sane citizens of the United States to own a defensive weapon, whether it be a rifle, hand gun, knife or baseball bat, regardless of race, creed or ethnicity. Quit trying to make it more difficult than it is. 'Course we don't want everybody to start playing with them like this. http://www.wimp.com/fastestgunman/

 

 

Just for you rigney...

 

I liked Carlins wit! The guy could make a joke or entertaining skit out of anything. Sometimes he went a bit too far, but I don't believe anyone but a Charles Manson type nut would ever take him seriously.

Edited February 5, 2013 by rigney

[john5746]

Sometimes he went a bit too far, but I don't believe anyone but a Charles Manson type nut would ever take him seriously.

He used hyperbole to make a point, but was still making a point. While I don't think our current problems stem from too much trust in government, we could use less of it when thinking of war and military spending.

[Moontanman]

Could it be more accurate to say we are looking back at a world beginning to gain it's sanity? The further you go back the more the actions you talk about were acceptable... Even worse things were not just accepted but actually thought to be admirable...