Thread: Ex-Hitler youth's warning to America

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Possibly, of course. But when has a dictator risen to power on the winds of protecting civil liberties and peace?

I am not sure if that has happened, (so if you have an example then you can prove my wrong) but at least with Hitler and Stalin (because I don't know much detail about other dictators) both got support from saying that even if they were supressing democracy it was for other gains.

Obama's campaign promises are about actually increasing our amount of civil liberties. You can say that he may be lying, but that means that anyone can lie and we are never safe from a dictatorship (which we aren't). You just can't claim that there is a new fear of a dictatorship under Obama that hasn't existed for every other president as well.

Dictators normally seem to play on fears of the population, but I don't believe you can play off the fear of a government restricting civil liberties so the government can restrict civil liberties.


But charismatic leaders do always seem to find a way to ensnare the masses. But then again, not every single charismatic leader tries to enslave their population.

and if anyone can tell me the fears of the population that obama has been playing on, i'd like to hear them.

Originally Posted by Mabol zar Hari

Well, I guess you proved my point!

BTW, In regards to Iraq and the current situation in the USA. One can draw striking similarities to Rome of 165ish-192AD when Marcus Aurelius left Rome to his son Commodus.

But hey, history never repeats itself does it?

again, hindsight is 20/20. did you predict those similarities of the usa and war in iraq to those of rome, BEFORE they happened? its very easy to wait until something has already happened, and draw weak, loose comparisons based on a mindset that history has already repeated itself.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

i think you would agree that all americans are, at the end of the day, subjected to the policies and management of the government. therefore, when the government does things that non-leftists don't agree with, and they do nothing about it, which they don't, what does that make them? apathetic? powerless? stupid?

It makes them Serfs, as I have explained.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

you seem to be bashing "leftists" because they "accept" what their government does for them, and even want and desire their government to take care of them. yet those on the right seemingly do NOTHING to stop the policies which they claim to be so against.

We try to vote Leftists out of office, we try to educate the Serfs, and ultimately, we remeber the words of Jefferson.

[quote=nickcuse;725094]
i fail to see . . ./quote]
Correct.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

It makes them Serfs, as I have explained.

They have input into the government, hence they are not serfs.

We try to vote Leftists out of office, we try to educate the Serfs, and ultimately, we remeber the words of Jefferson.

And then you go ahead and oppress minorites by passsing stupid legislation like anti-miscegenation laws. Reaaaaal consistent.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

They have input into the government, hence they are not serfs.

Once again -- and I repeat myself, Serfs as a class are compliant in their subjugation. So the fact that they elected their Masters is what defines them as Serfs in this case. That is they elected people who promised to seize their property, abolish much of their freedom and construct a command economy.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

And then you go ahead and oppress minorites by passsing stupid legislation like anti-miscegenation laws. Reaaaaal consistent.

Excuse me, this is generally the historical purview of the Democrats -- Obama's party. Republicans pushed for emancipation, voting rights and civil rights. Do you get it? The party that embraced Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and Segregation has now been voted into power.

[quote=Oftencold;725119]It makes them Serfs, as I have explained.



We try to vote Leftists out of office, we try to educate the Serfs, and ultimately, we remeber the words of Jefferson.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

i fail to see . . ./quote]
Correct.

either you didn't read what i wrote carefully, or you're contradicting yourself. i said what does that make the NON-LEFTISTS, and you said it makes them serfs. here is what i wrote:

i think you would agree that all americans are, at the end of the day, subjected to the policies and management of the government. therefore, when the government does things that non-leftists don't agree with, and they do nothing about it, which they don't, what does that make them? apathetic? powerless? stupid?

Originally Posted by nickcuse

either you didn't read what i wrote carefully, or you're contradicting yourself. i said what does that make the NON-LEFTISTS, and you said it makes them serfs. here is what i wrote:

i think you would agree that all americans are, at the end of the day, subjected to the policies and management of the government. therefore, when the government does things that non-leftists don't agree with, and they do nothing about it, which they don't, what does that make them? apathetic? powerless? stupid?

I tried to correct your misconception. Those on the Right do perform acts to oppose the Left. We vote against Leftists and we take stock of history. We prepare, and we plan, we educate, as I'm doing now.

I was not responding to your assertion directly, because it is erroneous. You see?

Originally Posted by Oftencold

I tried to correct your misconception. Those on the Right do perform acts to oppose the Left. We vote against then left and we take stock of history. We prepare, and we plan, we educate.

I was not responding to your assertion directly, because it is erroneous. You see?

how is it erroneous? the non-leftists do nothing as "socialist" after socialist agenda is rolled out. why do you not revolt? protest? storm washington? its quite easy to sit on your high-horse, preaching about how you're trying to change things, and how you're not a serf, and not a leftist, yet you do nothing but bend over and take all the things you claim to be against.

as i said, in my book, that makes you much much worse than "leftists". the "leftists" you speak of have certain policies they actually WANT, and do what they can to get them, and when they do, they are happy about it.

the non-leftists on the other hand, allow themselves to be subjected to all the things they hate, and do nothing about it. serfs don't enjoy and relish in the life that was forced upon them, but they do do nothing about it, except maybe bitch and moan. thats sounds like a description of non-leftists to a T.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

how is it erroneous? the non-leftists do nothing as "socialist" after socialist agenda is rolled out. why do you not revolt? protest? storm washington? its quite easy to sit on your high-horse, preaching about how you're trying to change things, and how you're not a serf, and not a leftist, yet you do nothing but bend over and take all the things you claim to be against.

as i said, in my book, that makes you much much worse than "leftists". the "leftists" you speak of have certain policies they actually WANT, and do what they can to get them, and when they do, they are happy about it.

the non-leftists on the other hand, allow themselves to be subjected to all the things they hate, and do nothing about it. serfs don't enjoy and relish in the life that was forced upon them, but they do do nothing about it, except maybe bitch and moan. thats sounds like a description of non-leftists to a T.

Lets take this point by point, shall we? I shall try to keep the arguments simple, and the language basic.

• Protest: the act of mobs, the unproductive and the childish. These actions produce little beyond traffic problems and overtime for the police.
• Storm Washington: the arguments above apply, unless you refer to an armed insurrection. In that case, we would be more likely to seize actual power: industry.
• Revolt: this is the final option, the one Jefferson reminds us of. The time may come when this option is exercised. But being far more peaceful than the Left, far more considerate in action and obviously far more effective in violence, we set the bar for theis action very high.

You are again incorrect in your assertion that Serf complain publicly about their lot. They surrender their right to complain, and eventually their freedom to do so (see Fairness Doctrine.)

Once again, while individual Serfs might wish to through off the yoke that their class has embraces, as a group they are willing to be subjugated for the hope of beneficence of tyrants.

Do not assume that the Right is taking no action. But you should probably prepare yourself for the realization that you won't like the action they take.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Lets take this point by point, shall we? I shall try to keep the arguments simple, and the language basic.

• Protest: the act of mobs, the unproductive and the childish. These actions produce little beyond traffic problems and overtime for the police.
• Storm Washington: the arguments above apply, unless you refer to an armed insurrection. In that case, we would be more likely to seize actual power: industry.
• Revolt: this is the final option, the one Jefferson reminds us of. The time may come when this option is exercised. But being far more peaceful than the Left, far more considerate in action and obviously far more effective in violence, we set the bar for theis action very high.

You are again incorrect in your assertion that Serf complain publicly about their lot. They surrender their right to complain, and eventually their freedom to do so (see Fairness Doctrine.)

Once again, while individual Serfs might wish to through off the yoke that their class has embraces, as a group they are willing to be subjugated for the hope of beneficence of tyrants.

Do not assume that the Right is taking no action. But you should probably prepare yourself for the realization that you won't like the action they take.

Pal - really - I hear you here, but you and me really gotta get on the same page about some of this stuff. This is IMPORTANT.

Look - how much do you know about "strategy"? You're familiar with the concept of "defense in depth"? That's like, "Layers", yes? So, like, you put a "moat" around your castle, and that way, you can "raise your drawbridge", that kinda thing.

There's also the kinda "inverse" concept in "military" strategy, which is, "graduated" use of force. Right?

So, okay. What we're lookin' for here, is a solution with "minimal" use of force - and backtracking from that, let's just go with "minimal disruption" in general. Right? That's our "optimization criterion".

So now, we're lookin' for a model in which, the SCALE is appropriate. That's the most important part. Think of that... here - I'll give you an example. If you got a whole buncha different-sized pebbles, and you're trying to separate 'em by size, you need a "mesh" that's appropriate in SCALE for the size of the pebbles you're tryin' to separate, right?

Which leads us IMMEDIATELY to the MOST important question, which is, the METRIC. HOW do you measure the size of a pebble, so you can know what size to make your mesh? Right? Well, you can eyeball it, that you can certainly do, and if that level of PRECISION is good enough for you, and you don't mind a pile of "more or less" the same sized pebbles, then cool.

On the other hand, accuracy and such requires a "precise" metric, so, maybe we have to delve a little deeper. Well, so, you get the point.

Now in politics, the MAIN way that peoples' viewpoints differ, is right there, in that metric.

The METRIC people use, is different, and so the RESULT of that is, that when you and I are lookin' at the SAME pebble, you're gonna say it's a different size than I'm gonna say, and therefore we're not gonna be able to agree on how big that mesh should be.

THAT, is also a good reason, to have a "precise" metric.

Now, "metrics", I know all about that. Metrics, are mathematics. There is something called Measure Theory, which deals with "metrics". There is a very good book, by a fellow named John Halmos, about "Measure Theory". It takes a LONG time to read. Each page takes about a day. BUT, at the end of that, you will understand METRICS.

So, now, combine the two concepts I just fed you - "defense in depth", and "metrics". 'Kay? Now, read your words, that are quoted. See what I'm getting at?

Protest - Storm Washington - Revolution..... there's a SCALE issue there. That, is killing sparrows with a howitzer, and that's hardly a good idea.

We want the "graduated" use of force, according to a well defined METRIC, that you and I can agree on what it means, so we'll know how MUCH is necessary, to achieve our criterion of "minimal". We're trying to define what "minimal" disruption means, right?

See what I'm sayin' here? One must think in PRACTICAL terms, my friend.

"Leverage", comes in many forms. I'm kind of a "strategy" guy. I've studied something called Aikido for many years, it's a form of martial arts that emphasizes using your opponents' own energy, as "leverage". That, is "strategic" thinking. In politics, Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu, and people like that. That is "operational", that is REALITY.

Now, you just can't be runnin' around thinkin' you're gonna somehow "create" a revolution. That, is.... not possible, I don't think. Those things, they create themselves, and there's very little any person or group of people can do about it. And I mean, I REALLY don't think there's going to be any kind of "palace coup" against the "tyrant Obama". :laughing:

Nah, my friend, this is an ART, this coercion business.

Sun Tzu: "The best general, is the one who wins the battle without firing a shot". (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the concept).

I've been circling all around this business for WEEKS now, this is going to be a LOT of fun.

Pal, look - my style is, I talk to people and kinda make them see that I'm on THEIR side. No one likes coercion, the only thing that's goin' on here, is that a few people seem to have forgotten that this politics business, is a two-way street. So like, you know, there are "opponents" out there, whose "energy can be used against them as leverage", but I mean....

This is what they call in physics, the "conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy". See, so, all this political "movement" that's goin' on, needs to be put back into the BOX, so it can get structure again.

If that doesn't happen pal, we're in beaucoup trouble. There's all KINDS of people makin' noise out there, right now. Only HALF of it is helpful - probably even less than that.

See, so, the "diffusion" thing - I'm pretty sure at this point, that the model we want to use on this thing, is "fractal diffusion". That is EXACTLY the correct model for this. It's scale-independent (because of the fractal bit), and it satisfies the criterion of giving us a metric that we can agree on. I mean, it's "mathematical", right? You can write it down on a piece of paper, just like the Constitution. You and I can look at the same equation, and say, "yep, there it is".

See, so, once THAT happens, we're home free. Trust me, pal, there is NOTHING we can't do if we work together. We just gotta put a little "activation energy" into some of these concepts, so we can over the hump and into the energy-yielding part.