| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Weatherwax" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:17:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ojm60l50ct4ieinpr7sqo7h2bf0rco8os@4ax.com...
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in
alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief. It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions upon
gentile converts.
--
Wax
..
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
22 Jun 2004 10:48:25 PM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbaa90$nst$07$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
The Weimar Republic had a horrible constitution. After
World War I, Germany had to rewrite its constitution.
They tried to do it on a democratic and parliamentary
basis, with new elections every year.
However, the multitude of parties, and the yearly
election made it impossible to form any effective
coralition government. Eventually, the Communists and
Nazi parties became the largest parties in Germany, but
neither was large enough to form a majority, nor were
either one willing to form a corelition government.
That forced the smaller parties to get together and
form some type of government. When a majority was
no longer posible, the government ruled by edict.
The "Reichstag" (parliament) was elected every four years
(same as it is today) - the "Reichspräsident" (President)
was elected every 7 years.
The last election (1933/03/05):
NSDAP ... 43.9 % (Nazis)
SPD ..... 18.3 % (Social Democrats)
KPD ..... 12.8 % (Communists)
Center .. 11.2 % (Conservatives)
DNVP ..... 8.0 % (German National People's Party)
others ... 3.8 %
DNVP and Center voted together with the NSDAP - so Hitler
could get the absolute power by changing some laws.
The flaws were not in the election system but in the laws
and the constitution - both allowed to make major changes
in the Law and Constitution with the majority in the Par-
liament. This is impossible today...
I do not know how long the terms of office were, but there were
Reichstag elections every year, plus the Reichstag could be
dissolved by the President at any time. The office of
"President" was elected, but otherwise had only minor powers, one
of which was to appoint the chancellor. Hitler was appointed
chancellor, but even he could not form a stable government and
had to rule by edict. Rule by edict was an emergency power
written into the Weimar Constitution, but once Hitler was in
power, everything was an emergency.
Also, if the laws include protection for minorities, and
the change of these special laws needs a 100% majority -
then the minorities are protected. And you will not find
too many people who really would vote for something like
the holocaust - this was the will and decision of a few,
not of all people. It was not even known by most people,
they only heared some rumours - not more. I think, there
only were a few thousand people (the staff in the KZ's &
the leading officials) who really did know what happened
_inside_ the KZ's for a long time - when the first facts
seeped through, it was far too late...
Laws are not enough.
Following the Cival War, the United States passed the
Fourteenth Amendment which attempted to prevent
discrimination by guaranteeing "equal protection under
the law."
For years that equal protection clause was ignored. Jim
Crow laws developed in every state. School segregation
was declared constitutional. Blacks were routinely
prevented from voting. States passed laws forbidding
the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Blacks were
prevented from moving into white neighborhoods.
All of these laws were passed with the support of racist
majorities. A racist Supreme Court let the people and the
states get away with it.
A Court (any judicial authority) can't decide against the
Law. Thus - there must have been a flaw in this Law.
There was no flaw in the law. The Fourteenth Amendment passed
because everybody agreed with "due process" and "equal
protection," they just did not consider blacks to be equal. It
was not until well into the Twentieth Century that the Court
enforced the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has now become one of
our greatist guarantees of freedom.
The people knew what was happening in Germany. They
knew that the Jews were being taken away. They saw
Jews being used for forced labor. They heard about the
death camps. They just didn't care.
No. I had this thought sometimes. I have spoken with many
people and I have heared a lot of reports. Those who were
too curious played a dangerous game with their life - the
real truth came up as it was too late (and the broad mass
of Jews was carried away to who-knows-where). People
were too stupid to see for whom they voted in 1933...
That is the common story. Everybody says they did not know what
was happening. Of course, to admit that they knew would be
admitting guilt. Either way it is an admission of guilt, after
all, if it was your friend who they carried away, wouldn't you
want to know where he was carried to? The German people did not
want to know, because it was happening to Jews.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
23 Jun 2004 01:17:43 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbaa90$nst$07$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
The Weimar Republic had a horrible constitution. After
World War I, Germany had to rewrite its constitution.
They tried to do it on a democratic and parliamentary
basis, with new elections every year.
However, the multitude of parties, and the yearly
election made it impossible to form any effective
coralition government. Eventually, the Communists and
Nazi parties became the largest parties in Germany, but
neither was large enough to form a majority, nor were
either one willing to form a corelition government.
That forced the smaller parties to get together and
form some type of government. When a majority was
no longer posible, the government ruled by edict.
The "Reichstag" (parliament) was elected every four years
(same as it is today) - the "Reichspräsident" (President)
was elected every 7 years.
The last election (1933/03/05):
NSDAP ... 43.9 % (Nazis)
SPD ..... 18.3 % (Social Democrats)
KPD ..... 12.8 % (Communists)
Center .. 11.2 % (Conservatives)
DNVP ..... 8.0 % (German National People's Party)
others ... 3.8 %
DNVP and Center voted together with the NSDAP - so Hitler
could get the absolute power by changing some laws.
The flaws were not in the election system but in the laws
and the constitution - both allowed to make major changes
in the Law and Constitution with the majority in the Par-
liament. This is impossible today...
I do not know how long the terms of office were, but there were
Reichstag elections every year, plus the Reichstag could be
dissolved by the President at any time. The office of
"President" was elected, but otherwise had only minor powers, one
of which was to appoint the chancellor. Hitler was appointed
chancellor, but even he could not form a stable government and
had to rule by edict. Rule by edict was an emergency power
written into the Weimar Constitution, but once Hitler was in
power, everything was an emergency.
A leading party (or coalition) can fail with their policies. They
no longer have the majority to make laws and such. If this is the
case, the leading party may retreat, so a new election can change
the majorities in the parliament.
Hitler intentionally abused the flaws in the Constitution and the
laws to come to power. The "Ermächtigungsgesetz" was a permission
to change laws and constitution without the "Reichstag" - it also
was the end of the "Weimarer Republik"...
Also, if the laws include protection for minorities, and
the change of these special laws needs a 100% majority -
then the minorities are protected. And you will not find
too many people who really would vote for something like
the holocaust - this was the will and decision of a few,
not of all people. It was not even known by most people,
they only heared some rumours - not more. I think, there
only were a few thousand people (the staff in the KZ's &
the leading officials) who really did know what happened
_inside_ the KZ's for a long time - when the first facts
seeped through, it was far too late...
Laws are not enough.
Following the Cival War, the United States passed the
Fourteenth Amendment which attempted to prevent
discrimination by guaranteeing "equal protection under
the law."
For years that equal protection clause was ignored. Jim
Crow laws developed in every state. School segregation
was declared constitutional. Blacks were routinely
prevented from voting. States passed laws forbidding
the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Blacks were
prevented from moving into white neighborhoods.
All of these laws were passed with the support of racist
majorities. A racist Supreme Court let the people and the
states get away with it.
A Court (any judicial authority) can't decide against the
Law. Thus - there must have been a flaw in this Law.
There was no flaw in the law. The Fourteenth Amendment passed
because everybody agreed with "due process" and "equal
protection," they just did not consider blacks to be equal. It
was not until well into the Twentieth Century that the Court
enforced the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has now become one of
our greatist guarantees of freedom.
Ok. If people with black skin were not seen as equal (= humans?),
then it was not a flaw - it was racism.
The people knew what was happening in Germany. They
knew that the Jews were being taken away. They saw
Jews being used for forced labor. They heard about the
death camps. They just didn't care.
No. I had this thought sometimes. I have spoken with many
people and I have heared a lot of reports. Those who were
too curious played a dangerous game with their life - the
real truth came up as it was too late (and the broad mass
of Jews was carried away to who-knows-where). People
were too stupid to see for whom they voted in 1933...
That is the common story. Everybody says they did not know what
was happening. Of course, to admit that they knew would be
admitting guilt. Either way it is an admission of guilt, after
all, if it was your friend who they carried away, wouldn't you
want to know where he was carried to? The German people did not
want to know, because it was happening to Jews.
No, it is not sneaking away from feeling guilty. Their fault was:
They tolerated the visible cruelties against Jews and other mino-
rities. They closed their eyes and ears rather than to speak up.
OTOH, many people were detained and executed for speaking up, all
ordinary Germans (not members of the NSDAP) were afraid of ending
in a prison cell, in front of some guns or with a rope around the
neck. The true nature of a dictatorship. You can't even trust any
of your friends. If someone did blame you _not_ to obey the rules
you _were_ detained immediately.
Thus - we are guilty if we let any person come to the point where
s/he cannot be stopped from doing wrong. And this was the biggest
error the Germans made. What happened then were the deeds of less
than 25% of all Germans who were guilty twice: They committed the
crimes against minorities and kept the own people under permanent
pressure. You should not mismatch those who voted for Hitler with
those who committed crimes.
Not all of the 43.9% who voted for the NSDAP were members of this
party. Hitler had the best propaganda machine. The results of the
elections were not really representative, he was supported by the
"big money" (some economic leaders with profit in their mind)...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
24 Jun 2004 01:32:42 PM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbcdlf$b6m$05$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbaa90$nst$07$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
The Weimar Republic had a horrible constitution. After
World War I, Germany had to rewrite its constitution.
They tried to do it on a democratic and parliamentary
basis, with new elections every year.
However, the multitude of parties, and the yearly
election made it impossible to form any effective
coralition government. Eventually, the Communists and
Nazi parties became the largest parties in Germany, but
neither was large enough to form a majority, nor were
either one willing to form a corelition government.
That forced the smaller parties to get together and
form some type of government. When a majority was
no longer posible, the government ruled by edict.
The "Reichstag" (parliament) was elected every four years
(same as it is today) - the "Reichspräsident" (President)
was elected every 7 years.
The last election (1933/03/05):
NSDAP ... 43.9 % (Nazis)
SPD ..... 18.3 % (Social Democrats)
KPD ..... 12.8 % (Communists)
Center .. 11.2 % (Conservatives)
DNVP ..... 8.0 % (German National People's Party)
others ... 3.8 %
DNVP and Center voted together with the NSDAP -
so Hitler could get the absolute power by changing
some laws.
The flaws were not in the election system but in the laws
and the constitution - both allowed to make major changes
in the Law and Constitution with the majority in the Par-
liament. This is impossible today...
I do not know how long the terms of office were, but
there were Reichstag elections every year, plus the
Reichstag could be dissolved by the President at any
time. The office of "President" was elected, but
otherwise had only minor powers, one of which was
to appoint the chancellor. Hitler was appointed
chancellor, but even he could not form a stable
government and had to rule by edict. Rule by edict was
an emergency power written into the Weimar
Constitution, but once Hitler was in power, everything
was an emergency.
A leading party (or coalition) can fail with their policies.
They no longer have the majority to make laws and such.
If this is the case, the leading party may retreat, so a new
election can change the majorities in the parliament.
Hitler intentionally abused the flaws in the Constitution and
the laws to come to power. The "Ermächtigungsgesetz"
was a permission to change laws and constitution without
the "Reichstag" - it also was the end of the "Weimarer
Republik"...
I will agree with that, and add that when the president died,
Hitler combined that office with his office of chancellor and
made it impossible for new elections to be called.
Also, if the laws include protection for minorities,
and the change of these special laws needs a 100%
majority - then the minorities are protected. And you
will not find too many people who really would vote
for something like the holocaust - this was the will
and decision of a few, not of all people. It was not
even known by most people, they only heared some
rumours - not more. I think, there only were a few
thousand people (the staff in the KZ's & the leading
officials) who really did know what happened
_inside_ the KZ's for a long time - when the first facts
seeped through, it was far too late...
Laws are not enough.
Following the Cival War, the United States passed the
Fourteenth Amendment which attempted to prevent
discrimination by guaranteeing "equal protection under
the law."
For years that equal protection clause was ignored. Jim
Crow laws developed in every state. School segregation
was declared constitutional. Blacks were routinely
prevented from voting. States passed laws forbidding
the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Blacks were
prevented from moving into white neighborhoods.
All of these laws were passed with the support of
racist majorities. A racist Supreme Court let the
people and the states get away with it.
A Court (any judicial authority) can't decide against the
Law. Thus - there must have been a flaw in this Law.
There was no flaw in the law. The Fourteenth Amendment
passed because everybody agreed with "due process" and
"equal protection," they just did not consider blacks to be
equal. It was not until well into the Twentieth Century that
the Court enforced the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has
now become one of our greatist guarantees of freedom.
Ok. If people with black skin were not seen as equal (=
humans?), then it was not a flaw - it was racism.
Precisely. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All people . . .",
but blacks did not seem to qualify.
The people knew what was happening in Germany. They
knew that the Jews were being taken away. They saw
Jews being used for forced labor. They heard about the
death camps. They just didn't care.
No. I had this thought sometimes. I have spoken with many
people and I have heared a lot of reports. Those who were
too curious played a dangerous game with their life - the
real truth came up as it was too late (and the broad mass
of Jews was carried away to who-knows-where). People
were too stupid to see for whom they voted in 1933...
That is the common story. Everybody says they did not
know what was happening. Of course, to admit that
they knew would be admitting guilt. Either way it is an
admission of guilt, after all, if it was your friend who they
carried away, wouldn't you want to know where he was
carried to? The German people did not want to know,
because it was happening to Jews.
No, it is not sneaking away from feeling guilty. Their fault
was: They tolerated the visible cruelties against Jews and
other minorities. They closed their eyes and ears rather
than to speak up.
OTOH, many people were detained and executed for
speaking up, all ordinary Germans (not members of the
NSDAP) were afraid of ending in a prison cell, in front of
some guns or with a rope around the neck. The true nature
of a dictatorship. You can't even trust any of your friends.
If someone did blame you _not_ to obey the rules
you _were_ detained immediately.
Thus - we are guilty if we let any person come to the point
where s/he cannot be stopped from doing wrong. And this
was the biggest error the Germans made. What happened
then were the deeds of less than 25% of all Germans who
were guilty twice: They committed the crimes against
minorities and kept the own people under permanent
pressure. You should not mismatch those who voted for
Hitler with those who committed crimes.
The biggest mistake the Germans made was when they let the first
few Jews be taken away. Once the government got away with that,
then it became easier to get away with more.
Not all of the 43.9% who voted for the NSDAP were
members of this party. Hitler had the best propaganda
machine. The results of the elections were not really
representative, he was supported by the "big money"
(some economic leaders with profit in their mind)...
You can not sell refrigerators to Eskimos. No matter how good
your propergander is.
Hitler told the Germans what they wanted to hear. He got the
word out, and they voted for him. There was nothing new in
Hitler's message. Hitler did not invent the theory of the German
super race. Germans had believed that for years. Hitler did not
invent antisemitism, he merely used it.
--
Wax
Yesterday, while going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish, he'd go away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Jun 2004 05:01:59 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
The Weimar Republic had a horrible constitution. After
World War I, Germany had to rewrite its constitution.
They tried to do it on a democratic and parliamentary
basis, with new elections every year.
However, the multitude of parties, and the yearly
election made it impossible to form any effective
coralition government. Eventually, the Communists and
Nazi parties became the largest parties in Germany, but
neither was large enough to form a majority, nor were
either one willing to form a corelition government.
That forced the smaller parties to get together and
form some type of government. When a majority was
no longer posible, the government ruled by edict.
The "Reichstag" (parliament) was elected every four years
(same as it is today) - the "Reichspräsident" (President)
was elected every 7 years.
The last election (1933/03/05):
NSDAP ... 43.9 % (Nazis)
SPD ..... 18.3 % (Social Democrats)
KPD ..... 12.8 % (Communists)
Center .. 11.2 % (Conservatives)
DNVP ..... 8.0 % (German National People's Party)
others ... 3.8 %
DNVP and Center voted together with the NSDAP -
so Hitler could get the absolute power by changing
some laws.
The flaws were not in the election system but in the laws
and the constitution - both allowed to make major changes
in the Law and Constitution with the majority in the Par-
liament. This is impossible today...
I do not know how long the terms of office were, but
there were Reichstag elections every year, plus the
Reichstag could be dissolved by the President at any
time. The office of "President" was elected, but
otherwise had only minor powers, one of which was
to appoint the chancellor. Hitler was appointed
chancellor, but even he could not form a stable
government and had to rule by edict. Rule by edict was
an emergency power written into the Weimar
Constitution, but once Hitler was in power, everything
was an emergency.
A leading party (or coalition) can fail with their policies.
They no longer have the majority to make laws and such.
If this is the case, the leading party may retreat, so a new
election can change the majorities in the parliament.
Hitler intentionally abused the flaws in the Constitution and
the laws to come to power. The "Ermächtigungsgesetz"
was a permission to change laws and constitution without
the "Reichstag" - it also was the end of the "Weimarer Republik"...
I will agree with that, and add that when the president died,
Hitler combined that office with his office of chancellor and
made it impossible for new elections to be called.
Yes. It was a smart mind who made the plans for this
trickery. The Conservatives - the President Paul von
Hindenburg was a member of them - did not check what
it really was about.
Also, if the laws include protection for minorities,
and the change of these special laws needs a 100%
majority - then the minorities are protected. And you
will not find too many people who really would vote
for something like the holocaust - this was the will
and decision of a few, not of all people. It was not
even known by most people, they only heared some
rumours - not more. I think, there only were a few
thousand people (the staff in the KZ's & the leading
officials) who really did know what happened
_inside_ the KZ's for a long time - when the first facts
seeped through, it was far too late...
Laws are not enough.
Following the Cival War, the United States passed the
Fourteenth Amendment which attempted to prevent
discrimination by guaranteeing "equal protection under
the law."
For years that equal protection clause was ignored. Jim
Crow laws developed in every state. School segregation
was declared constitutional. Blacks were routinely
prevented from voting. States passed laws forbidding
the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Blacks were
prevented from moving into white neighborhoods.
All of these laws were passed with the support of
racist majorities. A racist Supreme Court let the
people and the states get away with it.
A Court (any judicial authority) can't decide against the
Law. Thus - there must have been a flaw in this Law.
There was no flaw in the law. The Fourteenth Amendment
passed because everybody agreed with "due process" and
"equal protection," they just did not consider blacks to be
equal. It was not until well into the Twentieth Century that
the Court enforced the Fourteenth Amendment, and it has
now become one of our greatist guarantees of freedom.
Ok. If people with black skin were not seen as equal (=
humans?), then it was not a flaw - it was racism.
Precisely. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All people . . .",
but blacks did not seem to qualify.
Yes - now I got it. Bad thing, if people are treated
as inferior just because they're members of a tribe,
have different colour or beliefs...
The people knew what was happening in Germany. They
knew that the Jews were being taken away. They saw
Jews being used for forced labor. They heard about the
death camps. They just didn't care.
No. I had this thought sometimes. I have spoken with many
people and I have heared a lot of reports. Those who were
too curious played a dangerous game with their life - the
real truth came up as it was too late (and the broad mass
of Jews was carried away to who-knows-where). People
were too stupid to see for whom they voted in 1933...
That is the common story. Everybody says they did not
know what was happening. Of course, to admit that
they knew would be admitting guilt. Either way it is an
admission of guilt, after all, if it was your friend who they
carried away, wouldn't you want to know where he was
carried to? The German people did not want to know,
because it was happening to Jews.
No, it is not sneaking away from feeling guilty. Their fault
was: They tolerated the visible cruelties against Jews and
other minorities. They closed their eyes and ears rather
than to speak up.
OTOH, many people were detained and executed for
speaking up, all ordinary Germans (not members of the
NSDAP) were afraid of ending in a prison cell, in front of
some guns or with a rope around the neck. The true nature
of a dictatorship. You can't even trust any of your friends.
If someone did blame you _not_ to obey the rules
you _were_ detained immediately.
Thus - we are guilty if we let any person come to the point
where s/he cannot be stopped from doing wrong. And this
was the biggest error the Germans made. What happened
then were the deeds of less than 25% of all Germans who
were guilty twice: They committed the crimes against
minorities and kept the own people under permanent
pressure. You should not mismatch those who voted for
Hitler with those who committed crimes.
The biggest mistake the Germans made was when they let the first
few Jews be taken away. Once the government got away with that,
then it became easier to get away with more.
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
Not all of the 43.9% who voted for the NSDAP were
members of this party. Hitler had the best propaganda
machine. The results of the elections were not really
representative, he was supported by the "big money"
(some economic leaders with profit in their mind)...
You can not sell refrigerators to Eskimos. No matter how good
your propergander is.
Hitler told the Germans what they wanted to hear. He got the
word out, and they voted for him. There was nothing new in
Hitler's message. Hitler did not invent the theory of the German
super race. Germans had believed that for years. Hitler did not
invent antisemitism, he merely used it.
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
--
Wax
Yesterday, while going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish, he'd go away.
I like it! :)
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Jun 2004 10:40:57 PM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
< CLIP >
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
< CLIP >
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
Everything I can find indicates that Hitler was popular.
President Bush was elected president with less than a majority of
the vote in one of the most controversial elections ever. Yet,
when he took office his popularity was high. It soared to a
record height after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And despite
everything that has happened since then, Bush still has strong
support, and he may be re-elected.
I hate to compare Bush with Hitler, but when a politician comes
into power, their popularity goes up.
When Hitler came down upon the Communists, it undoubtedly
increased his popularity. Coming down on the Social Democrats
and the Jews probably made his popularity even higher. After
that, he could do whatever he wanted.
(I am reminded of a history teacher I had in college. He spoke
fluent German. Before the war he visited Germany and heard
Hitler speak. At one point in the oration my instructor was
unable to make out what Hitler said, but the crowd roared in
cheers and applause. My instructor asked the man next to him
what Hitler had said, and the man replied, "I don't know, but
wasn't it great?")
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
26 Jun 2004 07:06:13 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
< CLIP >
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
CLIP >
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
Everything I can find indicates that Hitler was popular.
Of course he was. I hope it doesn't look like I want to
white-wash the Germans - they did wrong, no doubt. What
I try to do is to analyse how this could (and did) work
in a country turning into a dictatorship. To learn from
their errors - and avoid the repetition of them.
President Bush was elected president with less than a majority of
the vote in one of the most controversial elections ever. Yet,
when he took office his popularity was high. It soared to a
record height after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And despite
everything that has happened since then, Bush still has strong
support, and he may be re-elected.
I hate to compare Bush with Hitler, but when a politician comes
into power, their popularity goes up.
I don't think it is a good comparison. I do respect the
person George Walker Bush - I just do not like what his
government is doing. But whatever he does, he _follows_
the rules of democracy. If there are faults, then these
faults are burried in the system, not the people who're
following the rules of this system.
(My note didn't mean the USA, only - it includes all of
the involved democracies.)
When Hitler came down upon the Communists, it undoubtedly
increased his popularity. Coming down on the Social Democrats
and the Jews probably made his popularity even higher. After
that, he could do whatever he wanted.
(I am reminded of a history teacher I had in college. He spoke
fluent German. Before the war he visited Germany and heard
Hitler speak. At one point in the oration my instructor was
unable to make out what Hitler said, but the crowd roared in
cheers and applause. My instructor asked the man next to him
what Hitler had said, and the man replied, "I don't know, but
wasn't it great?")
He was one of the most charismatic leaders, many people
did follow him with blind eyes - without thinking about
the consequences of his ideology. And this still is the
case all around the world. There always will be persons
with charisma and the will to rule others (and fanatics
who follow every stupidity their idols will tell them).
It is almost impossible to change this behaviour, it is
part of our ethical systems. Instead of questioning the
words - we worship them. Instead of seing extraordinary
people as the humans they are we make gods out of them.
Respect turning into idolatry and blind obedience...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
28 Jun 2004 07:17:40 PM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbjl0q$b3$01$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
< CLIP >
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
CLIP >
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
Everything I can find indicates that Hitler was popular.
Of course he was. I hope it doesn't look like I want to
white-wash the Germans - they did wrong, no doubt. What
I try to do is to analyse how this could (and did) work
in a country turning into a dictatorship. To learn from
their errors - and avoid the repetition of them.
President Bush was elected president with less than a majority
of
the vote in one of the most controversial elections ever.
Yet,
when he took office his popularity was high. It soared to a
record height after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And despite
everything that has happened since then, Bush still has strong
support, and he may be re-elected.
I hate to compare Bush with Hitler, but when a politician
comes
into power, their popularity goes up.
I don't think it is a good comparison. I do respect the
person George Walker Bush - I just do not like what his
government is doing. But whatever he does, he _follows_
the rules of democracy. If there are faults, then these
faults are burried in the system, not the people who're
following the rules of this system.
(My note didn't mean the USA, only - it includes all of
the involved democracies.)
When Hitler came down upon the Communists, it undoubtedly
increased his popularity. Coming down on the Social Democrats
and the Jews probably made his popularity even higher. After
that, he could do whatever he wanted.
(I am reminded of a history teacher I had in college. He
spoke
fluent German. Before the war he visited Germany and heard
Hitler speak. At one point in the oration my instructor was
unable to make out what Hitler said, but the crowd roared in
cheers and applause. My instructor asked the man next to him
what Hitler had said, and the man replied, "I don't know, but
wasn't it great?")
He was one of the most charismatic leaders, many people
did follow him with blind eyes - without thinking about
the consequences of his ideology. And this still is the
case all around the world. There always will be persons
with charisma and the will to rule others (and fanatics
who follow every stupidity their idols will tell them).
It is almost impossible to change this behaviour, it is
part of our ethical systems. Instead of questioning the
words - we worship them. Instead of seing extraordinary
people as the humans they are we make gods out of them.
Respect turning into idolatry and blind obedience...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
I believe that we are in general agreement. I did learn a few
things, and I thank you for the good exchange of ideas.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 09:43:54 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
< CLIP >
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
CLIP >
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
Everything I can find indicates that Hitler was popular.
Of course he was. I hope it doesn't look like I want to
white-wash the Germans - they did wrong, no doubt. What
I try to do is to analyse how this could (and did) work
in a country turning into a dictatorship. To learn from
their errors - and avoid the repetition of them.
President Bush was elected president with less than a majority
of
the vote in one of the most controversial elections ever.
Yet,
when he took office his popularity was high. It soared to a
record height after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And despite
everything that has happened since then, Bush still has strong
support, and he may be re-elected.
I hate to compare Bush with Hitler, but when a politician
comes
into power, their popularity goes up.
I don't think it is a good comparison. I do respect the
person George Walker Bush - I just do not like what his
government is doing. But whatever he does, he _follows_
the rules of democracy. If there are faults, then these
faults are burried in the system, not the people who're
following the rules of this system.
(My note didn't mean the USA, only - it includes all of
the involved democracies.)
When Hitler came down upon the Communists, it undoubtedly
increased his popularity. Coming down on the Social Democrats
and the Jews probably made his popularity even higher. After
that, he could do whatever he wanted.
(I am reminded of a history teacher I had in college. He
spoke
fluent German. Before the war he visited Germany and heard
Hitler speak. At one point in the oration my instructor was
unable to make out what Hitler said, but the crowd roared in
cheers and applause. My instructor asked the man next to him
what Hitler had said, and the man replied, "I don't know, but
wasn't it great?")
He was one of the most charismatic leaders, many people
did follow him with blind eyes - without thinking about
the consequences of his ideology. And this still is the
case all around the world. There always will be persons
with charisma and the will to rule others (and fanatics
who follow every stupidity their idols will tell them).
It is almost impossible to change this behaviour, it is
part of our ethical systems. Instead of questioning the
words - we worship them. Instead of seing extraordinary
people as the humans they are we make gods out of them.
Respect turning into idolatry and blind obedience...
I believe that we are in general agreement. I did learn a few
things, and I thank you for the good exchange of ideas.
You're welcome. I've learned the one or other thing, too -
the true point of a serious discussion.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
29 Jun 2004 04:05:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Ey2Ec.39875$OB3.10166@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
weatherwax@worldnet.net says...
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbjl0q$b3$01$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
< CLIP >
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
CLIP >
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
Everything I can find indicates that Hitler was popular.
Of course he was. I hope it doesn't look like I want to
white-wash the Germans - they did wrong, no doubt. What
I try to do is to analyse how this could (and did) work
in a country turning into a dictatorship. To learn from
their errors - and avoid the repetition of them.
President Bush was elected president with less than a majority
of
the vote in one of the most controversial elections ever.
Yet,
when he took office his popularity was high. It soared to a
record height after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And despite
everything that has happened since then, Bush still has strong
support, and he may be re-elected.
I hate to compare Bush with Hitler, but when a politician
comes
into power, their popularity goes up.
I don't think it is a good comparison. I do respect the
person George Walker Bush - I just do not like what his
government is doing. But whatever he does, he _follows_
the rules of democracy. If there are faults, then these
faults are burried in the system, not the people who're
following the rules of this system.
(My note didn't mean the USA, only - it includes all of
the involved democracies.)
When Hitler came down upon the Communists, it undoubtedly
increased his popularity. Coming down on the Social Democrats
and the Jews probably made his popularity even higher. After
that, he could do whatever he wanted.
(I am reminded of a history teacher I had in college. He
spoke
fluent German. Before the war he visited Germany and heard
Hitler speak. At one point in the oration my instructor was
unable to make out what Hitler said, but the crowd roared in
cheers and applause. My instructor asked the man next to him
what Hitler had said, and the man replied, "I don't know, but
wasn't it great?")
He was one of the most charismatic leaders, many people
did follow him with blind eyes - without thinking about
the consequences of his ideology. And this still is the
case all around the world. There always will be persons
with charisma and the will to rule others (and fanatics
who follow every stupidity their idols will tell them).
It is almost impossible to change this behaviour, it is
part of our ethical systems. Instead of questioning the
words - we worship them. Instead of seing extraordinary
people as the humans they are we make gods out of them.
Respect turning into idolatry and blind obedience...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
I believe that we are in general agreement. I did learn a few
things, and I thank you for the good exchange of ideas.
--
Wax
Hitler knew human pyschology - specifically how to control the
masses - through manipulation of information. He set things up,
especially his rallies. It was all orchestrated.
A domino effect to achieved a desired end - hero worship of Hitler
himself.
There is the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual.
Sure he persecuted them - but only because his public image was
not compatible with being homosexual. His personal history shows
he was likely to have been a homosexual - and his personal life has
shown he wasn't attracted towards women.
Hitler has a following today - because of the type of people that
worship him today, those of like mind and type as Hitler, people
aligned to the dark and negative forces at work in the world.
Good honest people saw through Hitler's manipulations - at the real
actions (murders) he's done.
Some things don't add up - that show he wasn't who people thought
he was like. He built up his army and used it.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 11:36:53 AM |
|
|
Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
In article <Ey2Ec.39875$OB3.10166@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
weatherwax@worldnet.net says...
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
< CLIP >
The Communists - and Social Democrates thereafter -
were the first ones who were persecuted. Hitler be-
came chancellor in 1933 and the first law the Nazis
adopted was the ban on the Communists. Then someone
burned down the Reichstag. The Communists were bla-
med for it (still in 1933) and detained. Later, the
Social Democrats and some church officials were de-
tained, as well. Without an opposition, the way was
cleared for the holocaust. As I said somewhere, the
Concentration Camp in Dachau was build for our Ger-
man political prisoners, not for Jews.
< CLIP >
See my above note about the Communists. Not all the
Germans shared Hitlers view - it were about 44 % of
about 60,000,000 who voted for him. Take about 1/4,
then you may have the amount of real Nazis. The re-
maining part were people who believed in lies.
Maybe you could compare it to the current Iraq war.
Millions of people were on the streets to speak up,
nevertheless - it happened. Once a government is in
power, the people have no chance to influence poli-
tical decisions of their leaders. Please don't mis-
understand me - I don't think any of the allies has
established a dictatorship, but these things happen
in democracies, as well. The big difference between
both: In a democracy, the leaders can be replaced -
in a dictatorship people are detained if they don't
like the leaders.
Everything I can find indicates that Hitler was popular.
Of course he was. I hope it doesn't look like I want to
white-wash the Germans - they did wrong, no doubt. What
I try to do is to analyse how this could (and did) work
in a country turning into a dictatorship. To learn from
their errors - and avoid the repetition of them.
President Bush was elected president with less than a majority
of
the vote in one of the most controversial elections ever.
Yet,
when he took office his popularity was high. It soared to a
record height after the 9/11 terrorist attack. And despite
everything that has happened since then, Bush still has strong
support, and he may be re-elected.
I hate to compare Bush with Hitler, but when a politician
comes
into power, their popularity goes up.
I don't think it is a good comparison. I do respect the
person George Walker Bush - I just do not like what his
government is doing. But whatever he does, he _follows_
the rules of democracy. If there are faults, then these
faults are burried in the system, not the people who're
following the rules of this system.
(My note didn't mean the USA, only - it includes all of
the involved democracies.)
When Hitler came down upon the Communists, it undoubtedly
increased his popularity. Coming down on the Social Democrats
and the Jews probably made his popularity even higher. After
that, he could do whatever he wanted.
(I am reminded of a history teacher I had in college. He
spoke
fluent German. Before the war he visited Germany and heard
Hitler speak. At one point in the oration my instructor was
unable to make out what Hitler said, but the crowd roared in
cheers and applause. My instructor asked the man next to him
what Hitler had said, and the man replied, "I don't know, but
wasn't it great?")
He was one of the most charismatic leaders, many people
did follow him with blind eyes - without thinking about
the consequences of his ideology. And this still is the
case all around the world. There always will be persons
with charisma and the will to rule others (and fanatics
who follow every stupidity their idols will tell them).
It is almost impossible to change this behaviour, it is
part of our ethical systems. Instead of questioning the
words - we worship them. Instead of seing extraordinary
people as the humans they are we make gods out of them.
Respect turning into idolatry and blind obedience...
I believe that we are in general agreement. I did learn a few
things, and I thank you for the good exchange of ideas.
Hitler knew human pyschology - specifically how to control the
masses - through manipulation of information. He set things up,
especially his rallies. It was all orchestrated.
A domino effect to achieved a desired end - hero worship of Hitler
himself.
There is the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual.
Sure he persecuted them - but only because his public image was
not compatible with being homosexual. His personal history shows
he was likely to have been a homosexual - and his personal life has
shown he wasn't attracted towards women.
Hitler has a following today - because of the type of people that
worship him today, those of like mind and type as Hitler, people
aligned to the dark and negative forces at work in the world.
Good honest people saw through Hitler's manipulations - at the real
actions (murders) he's done.
Some things don't add up - that show he wasn't who people thought
he was like. He built up his army and used it.
He was the son of a Jew, either. Does this say anything
about his hatred against Jews? Anti-semitism exists all
around the world where Jews live. It probably has to do
with the "self-contained" Jewish religion and culture -
they always were (and are) a society outside of the so-
ciety where they were living. "Closed circles" are seen
as "suspicious" by many people. Hearsay about their re-
ligious rituals practiced in Synagogues, accusations of
jealous competitors, bad talking all summed up to anti-
semitic pogroms here and there. Also, it were religious
reasons - as the NT says, the Jews were responsible for
the death of Jesus (a falsified story, but the official
version taught in churches and monasteries).
The entire ideology was pointed towards war. It was not
hidden, "Mein Kampf" included detailed plans of what he
did later on. The Nazis got their votes from the masses
of unemployed workers with lowest education - those who
didn't read his book, but went to parades and speeches.
The Communists and Social Democrats were too weak to be
taken serious by the masses. They _did_ know what would
happen, but they were the first in the KZs.
Neo-Nazis are a phenomenon you will find all around the
world. His charisma still is touching some people, even
if he committed suicide - not the way "heroes" die...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
29 Jun 2004 06:33:49 PM |
|
|
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote >
Hitler knew human pyschology - specifically how to
control the masses - through manipulation of information.
He set things up, especially his rallies. It was all
orchestrated.
A domino effect to achieved a desired end - hero worship
of Hitler himself.
There is the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual.
Sure he persecuted them - but only because his public
image was not compatible with being homosexual. His
personal history shows he was likely to have been a
homosexual - and his personal life has shown he wasn't
attracted towards women.
Hitler has a following today - because of the type of
people that worship him today, those of like mind and
type as Hitler, people aligned to the dark and negative
forces at work in the world.
Good honest people saw through Hitler's manipulations -
at the real actions (murders) he's done. Some things
don't add up - that show he wasn't who people thought
he was like. He built up his army and used it.
Harvey
I thought we were in agreement, but now you make several
statements which are unacceptable.
I agree that Hitler knew human psychology and how to control
masses. The first rule in controlling masses is to tell them
what they want to hear. Hitler told the people what they already
believed and wanted to hear. Antisemitism was not invented by
Hitler. In Germany it goes back at least as far as Martin
Luther. Ant the belief that Germans are the master race goes
back almost as far.
There is no credible evidence that Hitler was a homosexual. This
sounds like some made up slam against him. Hitler's affair with
Eva Braun looks genuine, especially considering their double
suicide. Meanwhile homosexuals in Germany were prosecuted and
imprisoned. Even if Hitler was a homosexual, that is not what
made him bad.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 04:41:48 PM |
|
|
In article <x%mEc.43094$OB3.28630@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
weatherwax@worldnet.net says...
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote >
Hitler knew human pyschology - specifically how to
control the masses - through manipulation of information.
He set things up, especially his rallies. It was all
orchestrated.
A domino effect to achieved a desired end - hero worship
of Hitler himself.
There is the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual.
Sure he persecuted them - but only because his public
image was not compatible with being homosexual. His
personal history shows he was likely to have been a
homosexual - and his personal life has shown he wasn't
attracted towards women.
Hitler has a following today - because of the type of
people that worship him today, those of like mind and
type as Hitler, people aligned to the dark and negative
forces at work in the world.
Good honest people saw through Hitler's manipulations -
at the real actions (murders) he's done. Some things
don't add up - that show he wasn't who people thought
he was like. He built up his army and used it.
Harvey
I thought we were in agreement, but now you make several
statements which are unacceptable.
I agree that Hitler knew human psychology and how to control
masses. The first rule in controlling masses is to tell them
what they want to hear. Hitler told the people what they already
believed and wanted to hear. Antisemitism was not invented by
Hitler. In Germany it goes back at least as far as Martin
Luther. Ant the belief that Germans are the master race goes
back almost as far.
There is no credible evidence that Hitler was a homosexual. This
sounds like some made up slam against him. Hitler's affair with
Eva Braun looks genuine, especially considering their double
suicide. Meanwhile homosexuals in Germany were prosecuted and
imprisoned. Even if Hitler was a homosexual, that is not what
made him bad.
--
Wax
There was a whole television documentary devoted to this issue,
and it presented credible evidence of Hitler's personal background.
That he did have a homosexual affair during his youth, that he
was not attracted to girls/women during his adult life.
I haven't read books about Hitler to be able to confirm that the
information is correct but it's all credibly and seriously presented.
Eva Braun may have been used to make Hitler to look 'normal' - she
may have been his good friend, and not his mistress?
Hitler was a psycho - history has shown that. What made him that way?
One can only guess at...
There was always rumours that Hitler was interested in Occultism,
but what his actual beliefs were? I have no idea.
There is no question that Hitler aligned himself to the dark side -
he did have the opportunity to do good but chose otherwise.
A great deceiver and manipulator.
The next 'antichrist' who is out and about today, will have these
same qualities.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jul 2004 12:13:51 AM |
|
|
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote
There was a whole television documentary devoted to this
issue, and it presented credible evidence of Hitler's
personal background.
That he did have a homosexual affair during his youth, that
he was not attracted to girls/women during his adult life.
I haven't read books about Hitler to be able to confirm
that the information is correct but it's all credibly and
seriously presented.
Eva Braun may have been used to make Hitler to look
'normal' - she may have been his good friend, and not
his mistress?
That sounds like something that would be on the FOX network. FOX
admitted the "Alien Autopcy" film it did a documentary on was a
fraud. They claim that they were taken in, however it has been
shown that they had evidence that it was a fraud at the time they
aired the show.
Hitler was a psycho - history has shown that. What made
him that way?
One can only guess at...
There was always rumours that Hitler was interested
in Occultism,
but what his actual beliefs were? I have no idea.
There is no question that Hitler aligned himself to the dark
side -
he did have the opportunity to do good but chose otherwise.
A great deceiver and manipulator.
The next 'antichrist' who is out and about today, will have
these same qualities.
The problem is, that with your total lack of knowledge about
Hitler, you are a sucker to every story you hear about him.
Hitler was quite brilliant, and knew human nature. We know a lot
about his early childhood. How the death of his mother affected
him. His interest in art. And other details.
Hitler's religious beliefs were eclectic, but he still considered
himself to be a Christian. He was interested in occultism, but
so are many other Christians. He was not into Satanism,
therefore you can forget that "dark side" comment.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
02 Jul 2004 04:07:51 AM |
|
|
In article <j4NEc.47348$OB3.43631@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
weatherwax@worldnet.net says...
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote
There was a whole television documentary devoted to this
issue, and it presented credible evidence of Hitler's
personal background.
That he did have a homosexual affair during his youth, that
he was not attracted to girls/women during his adult life.
I haven't read books about Hitler to be able to confirm
that the information is correct but it's all credibly and
seriously presented.
Eva Braun may have been used to make Hitler to look
'normal' - she may have been his good friend, and not
his mistress?
That sounds like something that would be on the FOX network. FOX
admitted the "Alien Autopcy" film it did a documentary on was a
fraud. They claim that they were taken in, however it has been
shown that they had evidence that it was a fraud at the time they
aired the show.
Hitler was a psycho - history has shown that. What made
him that way?
One can only guess at...
There was always rumours that Hitler was interested
in Occultism,
but what his actual beliefs were? I have no idea.
There is no question that Hitler aligned himself to the dark
side -
he did have the opportunity to do good but chose otherwise.
A great deceiver and manipulator.
The next 'antichrist' who is out and about today, will have
these same qualities.
The problem is, that with your total lack of knowledge about
Hitler, you are a sucker to every story you hear about him.
Hitler was quite brilliant, and knew human nature. We know a lot
about his early childhood. How the death of his mother affected
him. His interest in art. And other details.
Hitler's religious beliefs were eclectic, but he still considered
himself to be a Christian. He was interested in occultism, but
so are many other Christians. He was not into Satanism,
therefore you can forget that "dark side" comment.
--
Wax
A person's actions shows what side of life/influence they are
attracted towards. I was inferring that he did what he did, only
because he wanted to.
Like the case of a chemical genuis - who wanted to make money, so he
made drugs for income, he didn't care that his customers would die
from his batch of drugs. He knew they were flawed, that they would kill,
yet he sold them anyway. I think this was from a series titled
'The Greatest Crimes of the 20th Century'? or some such title.
Showing killers and their background, or possibly another similar type
show.
I only watched the occasional program about Hitler over the years.
Of course, the program about Hitler being homosexual is sensational,
making claims not previously 'known' about him.
The alien autopsy program shown on Fox, was discredited as being a fake,
even though it was trying to be 'real'.
The same with a program called 'The Secret KGB UFO files' which had
all the intent of being a documentary.
Things are not necessarily black and white all the time.
Manipulators can be real manipulators. Such that, a supposed documentary
can be made, and then discredited - the real purpose may be to fool
the public into believing there is nothing credible about aliens/UFOs
after all. And it works.
I was taking a Film Studies course, and the lecturer was always
pointing out that - all film/media/etc is a 'construction'.
Even so called documentaries - are 'constructed'.
They purport to be true and correct - but it is only presented as such.
Also this point is made in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by Gary Zukav,
which is about the history of science and birth of quantum physics.
Talking about models of 'reality' - that they are models which
currently best represent what reality is, and may not be exactly
what reality is.
I do believe that fact and fiction is far more blurred than most
people think it is. The official view is that they are far apart,
but information can cross over from one to another.
And has. New inventions have proved that. Just think of what was
invented in the last 100 years, 50 years, 25 years, etc.
The assumption is - that there will not be any leapfrog in the near
future, with all major changs having taken place already.
But the future is unknown.
There has been secrets kept. Such as a russian incident in which
some nukes could have been launched. There was a program which looked
at such near disasters - something titled along the lines of
'The Best Kept Secrets'.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
02 Jul 2004 03:31:36 PM |
|
|
"Your Name Here=Harvey" <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote >
A person's actions shows what side of life/influence they
are attracted towards. I was inferring that he did what he
did, only because he wanted to.
Like the case of a chemical genuis - who wanted to make
money, so he made drugs for income, he didn't care that
his customers would die from his batch of drugs. He knew
they were flawed, that they would kill, yet he sold them
anyway. I think this was from a series titled 'The Greatest
Crimes of the 20th Century'? or some such title.
Showing killers and their background, or possibly another
similar type show. I only watched the occasional program
about Hitler over the years.
Of course, the program about Hitler being homosexual is
sensational, making claims not previously 'known' about
him.
The alien autopsy program shown on Fox, was discredited
as being a fake, even though it was trying to be 'real'.
The same with a program called 'The Secret KGB UFO
files' which had all the intent of being a documentary.
Things are not necessarily black and white all the time.
Manipulators can be real manipulators. Such that, a
supposed documentary can be made, and then discredited
- the real purpose may be to fool the public into believing
there is nothing credible about aliens/UFOs after all. And
it works.
That is an ultimate in rationalization:
Conspirators make and then discredit their own documentaries in
order to discredit makers of "true" documentaries.
Do you realize how many of your arguments are based upon such
rationalizations and assumptions?
I was taking a Film Studies course, and the lecturer was
always pointing out that - all film/media/etc is a
'construction'. Even so called documentaries - are
'constructed'. They purport to be true and correct - but
it is only presented as such.
Don't tell me about film making. I took a course in movie
history once. I dropped it when I found out that I knew more
about film history than the instructor did. My family had been
in the movie business since 1913. It's into its fifth generation
now.
I even tried producing my own movie once. Got into financial
problems. I produced a small theater production of Hamlet. It
got excellent reviews.
Also this point is made in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters'
by Gary Zukav, which is about the history of science and
birth of quantum physics. Talking about models of 'reality' -
that they are models which currently best represent what
reality is, and may not be exactly what reality is.
You prefer fantasy to reality.
I do believe that fact and fiction is far more blurred than
most people think it is. The official view is that they are
far apart, but information can cross over from one to
another. And has. New inventions have proved that.
Just think of what was invented in the last 100 years, 50
years, 25 years, etc.
The assumption is - that there will not be any leapfrog
in the near future, with all major changs having taken
place already.
But the future is unknown.
Who said all the major changes have already taken place?
The last time I read something like that was in a book written in
1885. The arguement was that all of the major discoveries in
science had already been make, and only the details have to be
filled in.
There has been secrets kept. Such as a russian incident in
which some nukes could have been launched. There was
a program which looked at such near disasters - something
titled along the lines of 'The Best Kept Secrets'.
The title is obviously false. If they were really well kept
secrets, then nobody would know about them. But you fell for
it.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: D | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
