29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
izzythepush
 
  6  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 01:01 pm
@Glennn,
You're someone who likes to pretend they know something that eludes most of us, you're part of the select few who knows what's really going on. You're not, you're delusional and you spout a load of mad bollocks. That would be one thing if it was harmless nonsense about Jim Morrison and Elvis Presley, but it's not, what you're doing is nothing short of disgusting.

No good can come of quibbling the figures, so what if the Nazis did only kill half of what the official figures say. Does that only make it half as bad? It's a monstrosity regardless, and trying to whittle away at the numbers only serves to boost the anti Semites and insult the victims.

Your lies, and they are lies go a long way. The Nazis used The Protocols of Zion of proof of the international Jewish conspiracy. The fact that it was widely known to be a Russian Czarist forgery was immaterial, people believed it because they wanted to believe it, they wanted someone to blame.

You're nonsense about the 9/11 bombings is no different, in that scenario the Jews are usually to blame somewhere along the line.

Regardless of whether you believe it yourself, your motivation is anti-Semitic. It's just bigotry wrapped up in pseudo science and the only response it merits is being called out for what it is.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 01:04 pm
The Chemistry of Auschwitz
an essay by Richard J. Green 
Version 1.8.

This article is dedicated to a chemist, Primo Levi.

Abstract:
Holocaust deniers base some of their arguments on the public's ignorance of history and science. Accurate information, not censorship, is the best antidote to their claims. 1.1 to 1.5 million people, most of them Jews, were murdered at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camps. The predominant weapon of mass murder was Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide in a solid support. Early forensic analysis, shortly after World War II, supports this fact. Several pseudo-scientific reports, most notably by Leuchter, Lüftl, and Rudolf, have attempted to shed doubt on the facts. A forensic analysis by the Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow confirms the presence of cyanide in the buildings said to have been exposed to it. The arguments made by deniers are distortions of fact. The deniers misrepresent the statistics of the dead, and misinterpret air photo evidence. The properties of hydrogen cyanide from Zyklon B are consistent with its use as an agent of mass murder. The fact that Prussian blue is prevalent in delousing facilities but not in homicidal chambers is not evidence that no gassings occurred. In fact, Prussian-blue formation is extremely sensitive to conditions, and it is quite reasonable that Prussian blue formed in the delousing chambers but not all of the gas chambers used for murder. It is easier to tell a lie than to prove a lie to be incorrect; nevertheless, accurate information and not censorship is the best response.

Full text:
http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/#iii

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 02:10 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Would you agree though that the US 'fierce' defense of free speech (as compared to Europeans) could be due, at least in part, to the collective memory of McCarty's witch hunt? I get a sense of 'been there done that, and hated it'.

If true, then the American attitude to regulating free speech would be based on historical experience, like the European attitude to Nazism.


You might be making the tactical error of ascribing to those you are identifying in your concern as having less insight than one wants to believe. Meaning Americans might have seen from world history that when free speech is impinged, it just goes underground to become a secret movement.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 03:28 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Would you agree though that the US 'fierce' defense of free speech (as compared to Europeans) could be due, at least in part, to the collective memory of McCarty's witch hunt? I get a sense of 'been there done that, and hated it'.

If true, then the American attitude to regulating free speech would be based on historical experience, like the European attitude to Nazism.

Free speech is our 1st amendment for a reason. McCarthy is not necessarily viewed in my opinion as a 1st amendment issue, it is an abuse of power issue; ie, my previous reference to tRump.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 03:37 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Would you agree though that the US 'fierce' defense of free speech (as compared to Europeans) could be due, at least in part, to the collective memory of McCarty's witch hunt? I get a sense of 'been there done that, and hated it'.

If true, then the American attitude to regulating free speech would be based on historical experience, like the European attitude to Nazism.


The First Amendment was ratified in 1789, right after the US Revolution where we ceased being a European colony. McCarthyism didn't happen for another 170 years. Free Speech in the US was a direct response to the lack of free Speech in Europe. We looked at Europe and said "we don't want that".

On a side note, fascism was invented in Europe and spread through Europe by Europeans. The US saved Europe from Fascism... it is a little odd to see Europeans here try to lecture us on the topic.

Olivier5
 
  3  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 03:47 pm
@maxdancona,
This is a tangent, but do you think everybody in America had a right to free speech in 1789?

More importantly, how do you explain McCarty, if free speech is paramount in the US since 1789?

PS:

Quote:
Fascism spread through Europe by Europeans. The US saved Europe from Fascism... it is a little odd to see Europeans here try to lecture us on the topic.

What? You must have misread me. Of course Fascism is European and nobody is trying to pin anything on you.
BillW
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 04:17 pm
@maxdancona,
Thomas Jefferson once stated, "A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free." Our Founding Fathers shared that attitude. They knew that if American citizens failed to share information and were unable to speak freely, they would be worse off than they had been as subjects under Britain's King George III.
Our Founding Fathers were former colonists under a tyranny that controlled information and freedom of expression. King George III suppressed free speech, especially speech critical of the Crown or the government.
As the Founding Fathers debated what the new Nation of America should look like and stand for, they were determined free speech would be a basic right for all of us.
After the States ratified the Constitution, our Founding Fathers set out to enact a declaration of rights. They knew that this was essential for our country. That declaration of rights later became the Bill of Rights, which includes the first 10 amendments.
The Bill of Rights, Mr. Speaker, limits government control over us. The government does not have any rights. Government has power. It has the power we give it when we give up our rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights. This is an important concept that unfortunately many Americans fail to understand.
And the first amendment is first because it's the most important. The first amendment states in part: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Without the first amendment of free speech, freedom of the press, religion and assembly, the rest of the amendments are meaningless. The purpose of the first amendment is to permit free and open discussion about important public affairs. This is exactly what was forbidden under King George, so it makes sense that this was most important to our Founders.
The Founding Fathers intended free speech to include criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that are distasteful or even against public policy or even controversial issues. Freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference of the government.
For over 200 years, the first amendment has endured without substantial alterations or limitations. This is a testament to the first amendment's importance. There are a few instances, however, in our history where the first amendment has been set aside, including a few instances of government censorship, such as sedition acts and wartime censorship.
The most volatile and controversial types of speech are political speech and religious speech. That's why they should be protected the most, because they are so controversial.
Congress would do well to stay out of the speech control business, especially trying to control the open and free discussion of America's two controversial and passionate pastimes, which are politics and religion. And besides, the Constitution forbids a speech police by Congress.
George Washington said it very well when he said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be, led like sheep to the slaughter."
And, finally, Voltaire, who lived right at the time that our revolution began, he said, "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It's important and incumbent upon Congress that we make sure that we have open, free and even volatile, if necessary, discussion of America's issues, which are politics and religion, because that is the type of country we are, and that is what our Constitution and the first amendment stand for.
And that's just the way it is.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 04:24 pm
On the basis of the amount of blood and treasure they expended, the Soviets saved Europe from fascism. People are such dicks when it comes to ideas such as that.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 05:37 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Quote:
The US saved Europe from Fascism...
.


who thinks that?
really?
crazy
ehBeth
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 05:40 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Would you agree though that the US 'fierce' defense of free speech


American free speech is an illusion. It only applies to some people. It is not encouraged outside of people who look like the people who wrote the Constitution.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:41 pm
@ehBeth,
Who doesn't think that?

If the US had not entered WWII, what do you think would have happened in Europe?

Maybe Setanta is right, and Stalin would have set everything right Wink .

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 08:12 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:


American free speech is an illusion. It only applies to some people. It is not encouraged outside of people who look like the people who wrote the Constitution.


This is nonsense. Free speech is a legal right that has protected ethnic and religious minorities . Fredrick Douglass was a big proponent of free speech.


Quote:
To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickd390807.html



Anyone with any knowledge of the American civil rights movement knows and appreciates the role of the First Amendment.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 12:55 am
One of the consequence4s of hate speech.

Quote:
A suspect has been arrested in the US state of Louisiana for the murders of two black men, which authorities said were "racially motivated".
Baton Rouge police have also charged Kenneth Gleason with attempted murder after shots were fired at an African-American family's home.
Investigators say they discovered the 23-year-old's DNA on pistol shell-casings found at the crime scenes.
A lawyer for Mr Gleason, who is white, said his client denies the charges.
During a search of the suspect's home over the weekend, authorities discovered a speech by Adolf Hitler, as well as cannabis and human growth hormone, US media report.
Bruce Cofield, 59, and Donald Smart, 49, were both shot in separate incidents while walking on the streets of the Louisiana state capital last week.
Mr Cofield was homeless, and Mr Smart had been walking to his job as a dishwasher at a cafe popular with Louisiana State University students.
Authorities believe the two victims were first shot from a car before the attacker walked over and continued firing at them as they lay on the ground.
The attacks happened two days apart, and police say they believe neither man had any previous interaction with Mr Gleason.
Police also believe Mr Gleason may have opened fire on the home of a black family in his neighbourhood, where he lives with his parents. Nobody was injured in that attack.
Baton Rouge Interim Police Chief Jonny Dunnam said on Tuesday: "I feel confident this killer probably would have killed again, and could have potentially created a tear in the fabric that holds this community together."
Mr Gleason had just posted bail for unrelated theft charges when he was arrested for the killings.
He has been booked on two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated criminal damage to property and illegal use of weapon, according to the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office.
East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore said his office will seek the death penalty.
Christopher Alexander, a lawyer for Mr Gleason, said his client "vehemently denies guilt, and we look forward to complete vindication".
It is not the first time the Louisiana state capital has been rocked by racially charged shootings.
In July 2016, a black gunman gunned down six police officers in the city, killing three, days after the fatal police shooting of an African-American man, Alton Sterling.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41324716
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 04:16 am
American fascism. Thought-provoking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/03/americanism-us-writers-imagine-fascist-future-fiction

Excerpt:

American authoritarianism has always been entangled not only with patriotism, but with the country’s two most familiar belief systems: religion and business. “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross,” someone once observed, who might have added that it would also be waving a dollar bill. That person was not, as is often reported, Sinclair Lewis in his 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, a furious satire of the idea that American exceptionalism might inoculate it against fascism. But Lewis’s novel does make a similar (if less pithy) observation, declaring that in America, fascism’s most dangerous supporters would be those “who disowned the word ‘fascism’ and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of constitutional and traditional native American liberty”. American fascism will necessarily be shaped by capitalism – or, as Lewis memorably puts it, “government of the profits, by the profits, for the profits”.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 04:28 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
One of the consequence4s of hate speech.


Really? So then... in countries that don't have free speech there is no racial violence?

There are about 44,000 hate crimes in the UK each year.

This anti-US snobbery from Europeans is a little trying.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 04:58 am
@maxdancona,
Stop being so pathetic, you claim your free speech is so wonderful and then get upset when it's shown not to be the case. Your figures, as usual are unsourced, and given your track record of deceit are to be taken with substantially more than a pinch of salt.

Nobody's being snobbish, that's your own issues coming to the surface. Nobody claimed Europe was a Utopia, but we don't have Nazis marching in the street and a prime minister who supports them. As for homicidal police, it's a drop in the ocean compared to what's going on over there.

Quote:
FIREARMS cops attend thousands of incidents each year but it's rare for officers to open fire with no more than six people killed in any year since records began.

So far in 2017 there have been five fatal shootings in England and Wales - here's why.
In the first seven months of 2017 there have been eight shootings by police in England and Wales of which five have been fatal.

In the 12 months to April 2017 six people were killed - two of which were shot in 2017.



This was the highest number of fatal police shootings since records began in 2004.

The six people included in the 2016/2017 figures was Westminster Bridge terrorist Khalid Masood.

The 12 months to April 2016 saw cops discharge their weapons just seven times, with three people killed.

Dame Anne Owers, Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said: “While the number of fatal police shootings has risen this year, this is in the context of many thousands of authorised firearms operations - 14,700 in 2015/16.

"The deaths happened across six forces, and one was terrorism-related. It is important that each incident is thoroughly and independently investigated, to provide public reassurance.

"Investigations into three of the 2016/17 incidents are complete and, as in the great majority of firearms investigations, we have found no indication of misconduct by any firearms officer."


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4103923/police-shootings-uk-2017/

Unlike you I provide sources.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 06:29 am
Hightor just left a link to a very interesting piece from NYT which I think might tie along with this thread.

Here
Olivier5
 
  2  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 07:18 am
@maxdancona,
So Max, how do you explain McCarty, if free speech is paramount in the US since 1789?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 07:49 am
Free speech is our right, except when it isn't. Nothing hard about that.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Wed 20 Sep, 2017 07:53 am
@izzythepush,
I realize I seem on both sides of this issue, but it truly is complicated. Hate speech might very well have caused the hate crime. Or it might not have. However, unless the hearer was listening to a speech which said or implied to go out and kill (kind of like white jihadist I guess) the people they hate, then the individuals are solely responsible for their own actions.

If someone gave a speech condemning alt-right groups/kkk/white supremacy and then later someone who attended that speech went out and killed a member of an alt-right group, would it be the fault of the speaker even though that speech did not contain any message of violence?

The only problems I have with antifa is they seem to desire to restrict speech they do not agree with and they seem to justify and encourage violence. Other than those two means to an end, I agree this alt-right or alt-light needs to fought against their attempt to make it mainstream, just not legally.

As BillW posted:
Quote:

And, finally, Voltaire, who lived right at the time that our revolution began, he said, "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:57:23