Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
After America; What we have taken for granted
Topic Started: Nov 1 2011, 05:22 AM (627 Views)
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
After America, there is no place to go
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Great find, thanks.

It reminds me much of Eugene Richter's 1907 Pictures of the Socialistic Future (link goes to free version).
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 06:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The biggest danger too America isn't the boogeyman of creeping socialism. It's the corruption of democracy by those who seek a world of unregulated laizes faire capitalism. And, are willing to use their money (aka; enfluence) to make sure it happens. National interest, concern for workers and citizens in their view of the world is not a priority. Their ideal is economic anarchy, where the fittest are successful, and the rest are pawns in the olegarchy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Nov 1 2011, 12:41 PM
The biggest danger too America isn't the boogeyman of creeping socialism. It's the corruption of democracy by those who seek a world of unregulated laizes faire capitalism. And, are willing to use their money (aka; enfluence) to make sure it happens. National interest, concern for workers and citizens in their view of the world is not a priority. Their ideal is economic anarchy, where the fittest are successful, and the rest are pawns in the olegarchy.
Tom, you and I have discussed this for the last week. I agree, the danger is less socialism than fascism, which is what your railing against.

Where do corporations get this power but from government regulations and corruption? It's called corporatism, or crony capitalism. How would a free market give anyone such power?

I see too you are now resorting to misunderstandings of Darwinian evolution and social Darwinism I recall you arguing years ago. Evolutionary theory does not posit survival of the fittest or dominance or any of the things you say.

Oligarchy fits better with monarchy and feudalistic politico-economy which is the origin of corporatism or crony capitalism. Economic anarchy, anarchocapitialism, is the opposite, there would be no state with power.
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 08:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
What a load of crap!
Quote:
 
What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or will ever read in history books.
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote. I’ve never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.
Of course you'll never read this in the history books for the obvious reason it's not true. Force was not necessary because the Austrian people welcomed the Wehrmacht.

The German army marched into Austria on 12 March, 1938. Hitler announced the Anschluss (union) between Austria and Germany on 13 March, 1938 with the support of the Austrian people subject to a plebiscite. The plebiscite that awarded the Nazi party 98% of the vote was held a month later on 10 April, 1938. The troops and tanks were already in Austria and had been wildly cheered by millions. Does anyone think Hitler would have pulled out of Austria had the vote gone the other way?




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Responsibility, personal responsibility is forged from infancy to adulthood. It is not a natural state of existence. Discipline, self control, education, professional and nominal skills, and rational thought are all learned in life. Passed down from previous generations.

Individualism is not a natural trait in the herd, nor is freedom natural in a herd.

If you stand back and think about it, you can readily understand how populations are enslaved and why there is a tendency for most folks to go along willingly with the enslavement. Those who resist are dealt with.

Why would Americans be any less prone to enslavement?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 1 2011, 09:33 PM
What a load of crap!
Quote:
 
What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or will ever read in history books.
I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote. I’ve never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.
Of course you'll never read this in the history books for the obvious reason it's not true. Force was not necessary because the Austrian people welcomed the Wehrmacht.

The German army marched into Austria on 12 March, 1938. Hitler announced the Anschluss (union) between Austria and Germany on 13 March, 1938 with the support of the Austrian people subject to a plebiscite. The plebiscite that awarded the Nazi party 98% of the vote was held a month later on 10 April, 1938. The troops and tanks were already in Austria and had been wildly cheered by millions. Does anyone think Hitler would have pulled out of Austria had the vote gone the other way?




You've repeated what the woman said. How can her telling be crap but yours not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

Hitler DID just roll in with his tanks and took Austria by a coup de main. It was no different than his assault on Poland 18 months later... other than the fact the Austrian army did not resist the invasion. The invasion was prompted by an announcement by Kurt Schuschnigg (Austrian Chancellor) on the morning of 9 March, 1938 of a referendum to be held on 13 March, 1938
Quote:
 
ask(ing) voters whether they were in favour of 'a free and German, independent and social, Christian and United Austria'". To insure that this heavily loaded question got a resounding 'yes' from the Austrian electorate, voting was restricted to people over twenty-four years of age, thus disenfranchising a large part of the Nazi movement, whose supporters were predominantly young.
...
Quote:
 
Earlier in the evening (of 11 March, 1938) Schuschnigg had made an emotional broadcast to the Austrian people, outlining the terms of the ultimatum (that Hitler made on the Austrian goverment)... 'We are not prepared even in this terrible situation to shed blood," he said. At 5.30 in the morning of 12 March, 1938, German troops, mustered in Bavaria over the previous two days, crossed the Austrian border.
The Third Reich in Power Richard J. Evans.

Sorry, Chris, but that is NOT what the woman said. Austria WAS taken by tanks and guns.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
One more point. There is a huge difference between what happened in Austria and what happened in the Saarland a couple of years earlier. The plebiscite was held BEFORE the German army marched in and the residents of the Saarland voted 91% in favor of becoming citizens of the Third Reich. This vote was mandated by the 1919 peace treaty that ended World War I and gave the citizens of the Saarland a referendum as to which country (France or Germany) they wished to be a part of after a period of 15 years elapsed.

Saarland - first the plebiscite then the occupation.
Austria - first the occupation and then the plebiscite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 2 2011, 03:01 AM
Quote:
 
Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

Hitler DID just roll in with his tanks and took Austria by a coup de main. It was no different than his assault on Poland 18 months later... other than the fact the Austrian army did not resist the invasion. The invasion was prompted by an announcement by Kurt Schuschnigg (Austrian Chancellor) on the morning of 9 March, 1938 of a referendum to be held on 13 March, 1938
Quote:
 
ask(ing) voters whether they were in favour of 'a free and German, independent and social, Christian and United Austria'". To insure that this heavily loaded question got a resounding 'yes' from the Austrian electorate, voting was restricted to people over twenty-four years of age, thus disenfranchising a large part of the Nazi movement, whose supporters were predominantly young.
...
Quote:
 
Earlier in the evening (of 11 March, 1938) Schuschnigg had made an emotional broadcast to the Austrian people, outlining the terms of the ultimatum (that Hitler made on the Austrian goverment)... 'We are not prepared even in this terrible situation to shed blood," he said. At 5.30 in the morning of 12 March, 1938, German troops, mustered in Bavaria over the previous two days, crossed the Austrian border.
The Third Reich in Power Richard J. Evans.

Sorry, Chris, but that is NOT what the woman said. Austria WAS taken by tanks and guns.
"Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force."

The woman was telling her story to refute that.

"other than the fact the Austrian army did not resist the invasion"

That's the woman's story.

"Austria WAS taken by tanks and guns."

After they accepted it by voting.


No doubt she from her personal perspective and long memory has mixed up facts you can obtain from history books. But her story is essentially yours.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis