Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a combination of promises of prosperity, media manipulation, and scapegoating for the failed promises.
When you ally the political class, media, and academia in a quest for power, you have the "perfect trifecta" for imposing mass tyranny and destruction.
In case you hadn't noticed, our political class, media, and academia is all liberal, and bent on a powerful central state. The parallels are not incidental, not coincidence, and mean exactly the same thing.
The Nazis justified their avowed intention of replacing Christian services and symbols with their own by arguing that their brand of paganism was not anti-Christian but true Christianity. They saw themselves as rescueing "true religion" Whatever that might mean, from a corrupt Church and returning it to the people. while they may have had cause to criticize the wealth and power of the Church, their Orwelian doublethink did not fool anybody..
So Hitler was no way a true Christian.
This is absolutely correct. The question then becomes, why did Hitler claim at times to be a Christian?
We need to understand that Germany wasn't being pulled between Fascism and Democracy. In all honesty, had Germany not become fascist, it probably would have become communist. Hitler hated communism. Which is why almost all German propaganda was aimed at the communists(especially Trotsky). Which is also why Hitler actually tried to ally with both England and France, repeatedly, both before and after his invasion of Poland. It is also why nearly all the deaths in WWII happened in Eastern Europe.
America tries to pretend that we were the ones who won WWII. In reality, America did very little during WWII in Europe, outside of just giving money and equipment to Britain. Who spent most of the war indiscriminately bombing German cities by the order of Winston Churchill. Germany was not targeting civilians till long after the British were carpet-bombing German cities.
If we understand that Hitler's primary enemy was the "godless communists". You will recognize pretty easily why he had to at least pretend to be a Christian. He also realized to some extent that religion was simply an inevitability. Thus instead of futilely trying to ban religion altogether, he decided that he could instead use religion to further his own political agenda by manipulating the doctrine of Christianity to serve his purposes. Basically, he would create a new religion based on Christianity and aspects of paganism. This new "German religion" would separate Germans from everyone else. Thus it would unite the new German peoples under a new religious ideology.
This new ideology would be much more militant in nature than actual Christianity. Hitler even argued that Jesus was a "fighter". And that Jesus would have gladly joined the Germany army and fought to the very end to fend off the godless communists.
Obviously this isn't true. Jesus was the ultimate pacifist. But the "Just-war" theory(IE defensive war) did pave the way for numerous "Christian wars" long before Hitler ever showed up. He merely had to say that Germany was under attack. Which is exactly what he did by using "false-flag" attacks to stir up support for his invasion of Eastern Europe.
So was Hitler actually a Christian? The short answer is "No". Hitler was an atheist, or at best an agnostic. But he did support a specific version of Christianity that was partially mixed with the occult because it was useful to him politically.
That's nice, except Hitler didn't have academia on his side during his rise to power - in fact, the considered them an enemy. The nazification of German universities took place after Hitler's take-over. Nazi ideology, like all flavors of fascism, carries with it with an intense distaste for any sort of intellectual pursuits.
The support for Hitler early on came from the working class. Especially the unemployed and blue-collar workers. The "SA" was filled full of the poor and relatively uneducated men.
These groups had been the most affected by things like the blockade of Germany during WWI(where nearly a million Germans starved to death, most of them the poor working classes). The poor were also the most impacted by things like the "reparations" imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles. Where the poor Germans were increasingly impoverished and effectively turned into slaves to pay those reparations. Poor people don't invest money or generally have assets to hedge against inflation, so the hyperinflation devastated the working classes.
At the same time, the financiers(IE bankers) were much more able to weather the hyperinflation. On top of that, many of the financiers were "international bankers". Those international bankers tended to fund both sides of the war. Thus much of the war debt that Germany had to pay back to France, actually went to the bankers in Germany. A large percentage of these bankers were Jewish.
These financiers, with guaranteed money from governments in the form of war debt. Turned around and bought up as much of Germany as they could because of the depressed real-estate values. Effectively, the financiers got richer and richer, while the German working class got poorer and poorer.
The outcome was a movement to both institute a system of "socialism"(IE to redistribute the wealth from these rich financiers), and to eradicate Germany of "foreigners" who were "taking advantage" of the German people. Also, a huge backlash against the banks themselves, and a new focus on German manufacturing, and the state subsidization of German industry.
Effectively, Nazi Germany was an alliance of German manufacturers and the working classes in opposition to internationalism. Especially international finance. To the extent that it appeared anti-intellectual. It was only on the basis that intellectuals tend to be internationalists and atheists(IE communists).
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
The factors that created the Third Reich aren't likely to ever converge again like they did after the end of WWI. The factors which created the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy weren't repeated throughout Europe at the time, as most nations, no matter how conservative their leadership became, did not fall into fascism. The only exception was Spain, which fell into civil war and emerged from the war as a fascist nation, though it was neutral in the global war that followed.
In my view, the only way for something like "National Socialism" to happen in the future; Would require the poor/working classes and the manufacturers to "ally" against internationalism by painting the government as corrupt, inept, and increasingly supporting the interests of international/foreign financiers. All while domestic manufacturers are going out of business or otherwise losing profits to foreign manufacturers, and the poor/working classes feel increasingly "squeezed" by a prolonged reduction in their standard-of-living.
If the poor were "the muscle", and the manufacturers can supply the capital and organizational skills. You could again see a rise of something resembling "National socialism".
As it is now, the financiers and the intellectuals simply dominate world politics. Trying to bring us more towards "internationalism".
I'm not even a fan of Socialism or Nationalism. But I find Nationalism to be far less evil than internationalism.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-18-2015 at 08:03 AM..
And? You make my point. It is the coalition of media, political class, and academia that makes a compliant and unaware public that can be manipulated easily. That Hitler needed to remove those that disagreed is irrelevant.
That, too, is irrelevant.
We still have a political class, media, and academia who ALL, in unision, argue for a large, powerful, deeply entrenched centralized government with near infinite powers.
Who is left to educate and create opposition to the all controlling state? To provide dissenting voices?
In Germany, it was a few, who found themselves dead or enemies of the state. Try being on Obama's enemies list and see what happens. Just ask the TEA Party organizations how the IRS can suppress political action unfavorable to the official ideology.
Just ask Sarah Palin what it's like to have your father abused by the IRS to get back at you, to try to blackmail you into silence.
Ask Ben Carson what it's like to have the IRS suddenly descend on you like a banshee.
WE have an all powerful, unaccountable central government, rife with abuse and corruption, and you are defending it like a fanatical muslim defends terrorism.
lol... you sound crazy. If Hitler was in charge, Palin, Carson, etc... would be dead or in a camp somewhere.
if we tried to ask Palin or Carson about their struggle they wouldn't hear u w because we wouldn't be able to get close enough to them.
This is absolutely correct. The question then becomes, why did Hitler claim at times to be a Christian?
We need to understand that Germany wasn't being pulled between Fascism and Democracy. In all honesty, had Germany not become fascist, it probably would have become communist. Hitler hated communism. Which is why almost all German propaganda was aimed at the communists(especially Trotsky). Which is also why Hitler actually tried to ally with both England and France, repeatedly, both before and after his invasion of Poland. It is also why nearly all the deaths in WWII happened in Eastern Europe.
America tries to pretend that we were the ones who won WWII. In reality, America did very little during WWII in Europe, outside of just giving money and equipment to Britain. Who spent most of the war indiscriminately bombing German cities by the order of Winston Churchill. Germany was not targeting civilians till long after the British were carpet-bombing German cities.
If we understand that Hitler's primary enemy was the "godless communists". You will recognize pretty easily why he had to at least pretend to be a Christian. He also realized to some extent that religion was simply an inevitability. Thus instead of futilely trying to ban religion altogether, he decided that he could instead use religion to further his own political agenda by manipulating the doctrine of Christianity to serve his purposes. Basically, he would create a new religion based on Christianity and aspects of paganism. This new "German religion" would separate Germans from everyone else. Thus it would unite the new German peoples under a new religious ideology.
This new ideology would be much more militant in nature than actual Christianity. Hitler even argued that Jesus was a "fighter". And that Jesus would have gladly joined the Germany army and fought to the very end to fend off the godless communists.
Obviously this isn't true. Jesus was the ultimate pacifist. But the "Just-war" theory(IE defensive war) did pave the way for numerous "Christian wars" long before Hitler ever showed up. He merely had to say that Germany was under attack. Which is exactly what he did by using "false-flag" attacks to stir up support for his invasion of Eastern Europe.
So was Hitler actually a Christian? The short answer is "No". Hitler was an atheist, or at best an agnostic. But he did support a specific version of Christianity that was partially mixed with the occult because it was useful to him politically.
Very interesting and informative post. Thank you
I can see why my German grandpa said Hitler used black magic to control the German people.
Hitler is on record as having expressed his contempt for the volkisch occultists of the Germanenorden and their wotan worshipping brethren. If the Nazis had been the devil's disciples, why did they not proclaim their allegiance in 1940 when they had conquered most of Europe as proof that their dark lord and master was superior to the Judaeo-Christian God?
They talked of supplanting the church with their own neo pagan religion which, as any nature loving Pagan knows, is not the same as satanism quite the contrary in fact.
The Nazis consciously chose to awaken the demonic side of their people's psyche for their own selfish ends. I don't think it was the fate which put Germany on the path to self destruction, but the willingness of the people to submit to the greater will.
Esoteric doctrine states that every individual has the opportunity to make their own heaven and hell on earth during their allotted lifetime. Hitler chose the latter and in doing so proved to the world that evil is entirely man made and those who succumb to it are doomed to failure.
lol... you sound crazy. If Hitler was in charge, Palin, Carson, etc... would be dead or in a camp somewhere.
if we tried to ask Palin or Carson about their struggle they wouldn't hear u w because we wouldn't be able to get close enough to them.
Well, Palin and Carson wouldn't be dead, and it is very unlikely that they would be put into a camp.
It is certainly true that Hitler is in the same category as the communists in regards to free speech and jailing "political radicals". But neither Palin or Carson would actually be considered political radicals under Nazism. On top of that, Palin is largely just an opportunist. Not only would no one know her name under Nazism, it is unlikely she would even be saying the same things if she lived under Nazism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wellstone
Correct. If Hitler were alive in this country today, he'd be very closely aligned with the tea party. He was a conservative.
That is complicated.
Lets understand, Hitler was a "Nationalist" and a "Socialist". The tea-party tends towards nationalist, but they are not socialists. On the other hand, communists(and the political left) are socialists, but not nationalists(they are internationalists).
Hitler would hate the tea-party for not being socialist, and not standing up to the financiers and multinational corporations. And Hitler would hate the political left for not being nationalist, and for their delusional views on immigration and "multiculturalism".
In reality, Hitler was neither a tea-partier or a liberal. He would despise them both equally.
Though, one might say that Hitler would tend to be more supportive of the political right. Since he was more hostile towards internationalism/multiculturalism than he was a supporter of socialism.
In fact, I've often said the best way to achieve socialism, is to oppose internationalism. Nationalism and Socialism actually go hand-in-hand.
Despite what many like to believe. Freedom isn't really individualism. "Absolute freedom"(IE anarchy) is tribalism. And tribalism always devolves into collectivism(IE socialism).
I disagree. They're all here and in place and in full swing.
Maybe. But this is 90 years later and the world is a completely different world. Don't believe that another hitler could rise and do the same things with the same result. Many others have tried, and all failed later on in the 20th century. Less and less of the 20th century is working in everything any more.
On top of that, Palin is largely just an opportunist. Not only would no one know her name under Nazism, it is unlikely she would even be saying the same things if she lived under Nazism.
Ouch! I have said some pretty unflattering things about Ms. Palin, but that one.. - Well, it rings true. Imagine her in East Germany. The cutest little apparatchik possible...
Quote:
That is complicated.
Lets understand, Hitler was a "Nationalist" and a "Socialist". The tea-party tends towards nationalist, but they are not socialists. On the other hand, communists(and the political left) are socialists, but not nationalists(they are internationalists).
Let's also not forget that Hitler-gaining-power and Hitler-in-power were two very different political animals. The Night of the Long Knives quite efficiently did away with those pesky socialist troublemakers.
It's the eternal revolutionary problem. To carry out a successful coup d'etat, you have to be good at telling people their lives suck. To stay in power, you have to be good at telling people their lives are great. Those on your staff who are mostly good at telling people their lives suck are excess to requirements once the revolution is over. Roehm, Strasser et al. were very, very good at dipping into people's frustrations to start trouble. And Hitler did not need anyone starting trouble in 1934.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
