Swastika eyes
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
I often wonder about people I meet, and those who I know well, if they would have been Nazis if they had just so happened to have been born in a different milieu, and in a different time.
It's just that I've met countless people over the years who have appeared to me to be lacking in a certain fundamental quality of character, or soul, and which makes them glaringly susceptible to the malevolent influences of authority - in most any shape or form. I often find myself pondering how they would have behaved in 1930's Berlin. Would they have resisted, or rebelled? Would they have helped the Jews? Would they have become state sanctioned mass-murderers?
More often than not, I decide that they would have been only too willing to smash the skulls of innocents, if it meant they'd be promoted, and applauded by their peers.
I mean, take your average jobs-worth. Someone who bows down to authority at every available opportunity, and revels in the tiny amount of power that he/she has been given in the workplace, to the point where their better nature becomes secondary to their job prospects - most jobs-worths I've met have tended to lack even a modicum of soul, or character, or sex. And quite frankly, these people tend, in my experience, to be in the majority. Would someone like this have had the strength of character, and decency of intent to have resisted the forces of indoctrination and prejudice that were prevalent within the central cog of 20th Century fascism?
I doubt it.
I sometimes look around me and think 'How many people here possess that ingredient that would have set them apart from the murderers? Just because they happen to be in a different place, and a different time, what, if anything, makes them any different from those people who fell under the spell of propaganda and indoctrination in the 1930's, to the point that they became willing executioners?'
It's just that I've met countless people over the years who have appeared to me to be lacking in a certain fundamental quality of character, or soul, and which makes them glaringly susceptible to the malevolent influences of authority - in most any shape or form. I often find myself pondering how they would have behaved in 1930's Berlin. Would they have resisted, or rebelled? Would they have helped the Jews? Would they have become state sanctioned mass-murderers?
More often than not, I decide that they would have been only too willing to smash the skulls of innocents, if it meant they'd be promoted, and applauded by their peers.
I mean, take your average jobs-worth. Someone who bows down to authority at every available opportunity, and revels in the tiny amount of power that he/she has been given in the workplace, to the point where their better nature becomes secondary to their job prospects - most jobs-worths I've met have tended to lack even a modicum of soul, or character, or sex. And quite frankly, these people tend, in my experience, to be in the majority. Would someone like this have had the strength of character, and decency of intent to have resisted the forces of indoctrination and prejudice that were prevalent within the central cog of 20th Century fascism?
I doubt it.
I sometimes look around me and think 'How many people here possess that ingredient that would have set them apart from the murderers? Just because they happen to be in a different place, and a different time, what, if anything, makes them any different from those people who fell under the spell of propaganda and indoctrination in the 1930's, to the point that they became willing executioners?'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i think i would've just helped Jews however i could in secret, if i was German.
But if was made to go and fight, then i would've done so.
One thing i know for certain is that i would have never done anything bad to get promoted, that is going against who i am.
I find it interesting that you seem to have even less faith in human nature than I do. I didn't think that was possible.
Fear and propoganda will do strange things to people. Guess we can't know unless we're in the situation ourselves.
But anyway, here's a tune for you Byrnzie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqQ6EM7HS44
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
but then if you possess good leardership qualities and see that some people are with you, wouldn't you want to build your own group of people and go against government?
Like I see all these 'christians' every day who act all religious and stuff (no offense to anyone here) but how many of these people would've actually stood up and accepted christianity back then, when it was still new and christians were being killed? how many of these christians are actually in it because they believe or just because they were raised for generations to learn it's right? it's like that with every religion to be honest.
Even when I was reading 1984, I always wondered if I would be one of the mindless people subject to just believing anything the govt, or Party, said, or would I be one of the people that would actually see through it and have a different view?
I don't know, personally. always something to think about, i suppose. Like other people said, it's always hard to oppose a fascist regime, especially when you aren't many against them, but I don't think it's all about "rebelling" against them, but more of a "would I still have my own independent thought in my head or would I be filled with propaganda from the govt to the point where I'm just their toy".
Good leadership qualities are no good from prison or the grave. Ask Mandella or Biko.
I worry that the problem these days is different than the submission of 30’s German society…. I think there was a lot of ignorance involved because of lack of information. But maybe today, that ignorance is caused by indifference? Most people I know are too content and preoccupied to care about anything unless it’s in their face.
Demonize a race through lies and propaganda.....then systematically exterminate them.
Same thing then.....same thing now.
blind is blind is all I see...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
this is interesting. first; i feel that if atheists have the rights they enjoy; nazis should (and do) too. i use atheists as an example because they use a law about religion to get what they want.
however; as you say; look at peoples jobs. hostile take-overs; people getting screwed by corporations in the name of the almighty dollar; and the competition to get ahead. we've taken a lot from the nazis save the killing.
i can see what you're talking about; i just never looked at it that way.
i'm going to think about this a bit more and see where that takes me on this subject.
Could you clarify, please? I don't understand what you're saying.
naděje umírá poslední
you said it much better than i did.
i would like to add the peoples willingness to allow that killing; ie:the mass graves; puts them in the same class. the concesus here is that those who agreed this was wrong and participated in the war in iraq; are themselves wrong.
so aren't those against the war nazis themselves? it's early and i don't know how to articulate this; so maybe i can clear this up a little later.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
in my eyes; the freedom of religion means the freedom of the people to express whatever religion they chose. during the incident with the 10 commandments in i believe alabama; the PEOPLE ie: 87%; wanted the 10 commandments to remain. in a land that's suppose to be for the people and by the people; why don't the people have a choice? how does 13% outweigh the wishes of the people? i know what the supreme court says; but i don't agree. no religious group had a problem with the 10 commandments being posted there. the words "under God" didn't effect any other group except the atheists who sued.
so; to sum up; this group; ie: atheists; has repeatedly prevented the people from expressing their wishes; which was to have those 10 commandments posted.
if an amendment changing the wording of the right to practice any religion was put to a vote by the people; it would pass. so this small group wants to oppress those with religious beliefs and therefore are no different than nazis; save the killing.
So when a majority of Americans wanted blacks to continue to be discriminated against that should have happened according to your logic. Civil rights were for that minority of whites and blacks who wanted it to happen -- silly minority wishes.
what the hell are you talking about? 87% of the population is discriminated against because of 13%.
why are you bringing race into this? the constitution needs to be changed and if put on the ballot; it would be.
"Forgive every being,
the bad feelings
it's just me"
I see what you mean now but I disagree and I think it's ridiculous. What does a group of pissed off atheists have to do with nazism? They sued, which is their right, they won because a judge ruled that that monument violated the constitution's principle of separation of government and religion.
I mean, even if this was relevant to the discussion, which it is not, one could easily turn the whole thing around.
And it seems to me that the Christian right has in many many ways a lot more impact on American society than atheists, which means that atheists' wishes have been prevented by Christians just because they're a minority.
edit: I already left but I kept thinking that this last part isn't exactly right, it's not what I mean. I can't really explain right now, I'll think about it and post again.
naděje umírá poslední
Just pointing out how absurd your "majority rules" logic is -- sorry if it is over your head. Also, please explain how not putting the 10 commandments in a government building is discrimanatory. Thanks in advance -- gotta run.
But this goes deeper into what "You" are, and 99% of this board won't debate that. Most people are just going to accept received wisdom and never challenge. Some events happened in my life which led me to books, to wonder why people are different and why I am who or what I am. I found answers in science, very solid and largely undisputable answers. But people will cling to their received notions of self from Folkpsychology. It's a real bummer too, because they are 100% wrong.
lol...great sense of humor as always.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
majority does rule. during an election; the candidate with the MOST votes wins. not the bloke with the least.
i'm only pointing out that the majority WANTED the 10 commandments there. all laws are connected to what we call the 10 commandments; although it actually contains 619 commandments.
In what way are they connected?
You do realize that the majority (there is that word again) of the founding fathers of the United States were Deists not Theists. They derived their principles from something other than the Bible. It doesn't happen by coincidence that all cultures have fundamentally the same rules that reflect the 10 commandments. They actually come from our nature as a cooperative species. Of course not all humans are naturally cooperative, which is why laws seem necessary.
I think Adorno was onto something with his 'Negative dialectics', when he posited that any form of 'absolute truth', or idealism, is dangerous and can lead to the gas chambers.
What he was saying was that just before blacks were granted their civil rights, the majority of Americans were against granting them their rights. 13% of the American population were for granting basic civil rights to black people and 87% were against it, yet those shifty blacks were granted their rights anyway. Life is so unfair sometimes.
Also: aren't the majority of Americans for withdrawing the troops from Iraq? I guess we should be expect them back by Christmas? I'll hang the stockings.
I can understand those atheists and I think you're not trying to see it from their perspective or maybe you're interpreting it wrongly.
Picture yourself in this situation, you live in an area where 87% of the population wants very strict laws on guns and maybe even ban some fire arms. How would you feel about that? Would you just sit back and watch it happen, after all the majority wants it, why would the 13% of gun loving people try to prevent other people's wishes? Or would you fight for your constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Now, I'm not saying you would sue in a situation like that, I don't know what you would do, but to me it's not really entirely unreasonable. I mean this happened in Alabama, in the bible belt, I've seen a lot of misconceptions about atheism here and misconceptions about who atheists are, atheists on this board have been called immoral and many other things, so these atheists' fears or concerns that religion will slip into government and into law in an area where the majority of the population is pretty fundament in its beliefs, isn't so far fetched, I'd say.
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if 87% of the population wanted to ban guns and the 13% won the case.
Anyway, what I was trying to say yesterday was that I don't think these atheists did this because they want to take over the US and turn it into a godless country and throw religious people into jail or send them off to work or concentration camps. I've only been to the US once and found it extremely religious, religion is ubiquitous, god is even on your money. And I only visited New England. So I can imagine (actually I can't) that the South is even more religious. I think atheists just want to make sure there's a place for atheists in this society too, Christianity is pretty well represented (even on the money), god is mentioned all the time, I was approached three times by religious groups when I was in the States, your president believes he's on a mission from god etc.
Is it really necessary to have those commandments in a state judicial building? Really? Even though there's a separation of state and church? Isn't that pushing it a little bit, no matter how many Christians want it?
But now back to the point? Where did this come from:
I still don't see why or how that's relevant in any way whatsoever.
naděje umírá poslední
Yea, Milgram's experiment.
But hey, God gave them free-will. Experimental data is pointless because they will cleave to their free-will.
Who said anything about free will, after all were just stimulus response...right?