Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[areo16]

I'd like to open a thread about Germany in the modern day and its policy about the Swastika. I'm from the US, and I'm trying to understand Germany's freedom of speech views and laws in the modern day. But especially its outlaw of Swastikas.

Of course, we all know the Swastikas history, but I'd like to hear from Germans and what they think of the law?

To put it on a level understanding I can say this: In the US, we have a strong slavery history. To compare the Holocaust with our slavery history isn't what I'm after here. One could argue that to demote someone to a piece of property, with the emotional and painful hardships that a slave would go through may even be as bad or worse than being gassed in a concentration camp.

But, most of American history is draped with slavery. However, I wouldn't think that an outlaw of the CSA (Confederate) flag would be justified. Of course our freedom of speech rights are very unique and deeply embedded in our constitution. I think history is something we should be proud of, and we can look at the good things in our past. Today, when I think of the CSA I like to think of their fighting will power against astounding odds. I also like how they challenged the Federal government and voiced their opinions, and revolted (acts Thomas Jefferson had promoted during the Revolution that would cleanse a government periodically). I thought they exercised their freedom to disagree with the government, and even bearing arms against a government they saw as unjust, just like the Continental Congress did years before.

How do Germans feel? Do you feel the same as I?

I personally feel that Germans should embrace their past. Even their Nazi past. Their military feats were astounding and it would be something I'd be proud of, other things aside. I know time will help heal wounds. But is outlawing the Swastika really sending the right message? It seems almost ironic. Didn't the Nazi government outlaw political symbols or flags that they disagreed with? I'd also think that outlawing the symbol would be disgracing the men who fought for the ideology and died for it. Not all Nazis knew of the Holocaust or were "evil". I'd feel upset if the government outlawed the CSA flag, knowing that many Americans bled for that flag.

I'd also be a bit frustrated if I couldn't play video games with Swastikas in them, because I enjoy playing historical games. Not allowing a Swastika in a game or a movie would really ruin the atmosphere for me. Because they often use other symbols, that didn't even exist. I wouldn't care for it much. I'm a history junkie though...

Anyhow, food for thought...

:hmmm:

[areo16]

I suppose we can look at the reasons why the Swastika would be outlawed to better understand why it is outlawed in Germany.
To appease those who hated what was done in the name of the Swastika (understandable).

To perhaps prevent another Nazi revolution (although considering how much the world knows the atrocities that occurred with Nazism, I don't think the world would ever let that happen again even slightly).

I can't think of any others. Help?

[Schroeder]

I don't miss the Swastika one bit. If you get a little deeper into what happened during the Nazi time it's in my opinion right to not let some modern idiots walk around with a Nazi flag which would be mocking all the people who suffered under the Swastika (the crimes even outside the Holocaust are mind blowing).

Freedom of speech is important but if this freedom is used to propagate terror and crime of that scale then it's IMHO ok to ban it for that subject. I'm aware that this is a very fine line that borders censorship but for the overall situation here I think it's acceptable in that case.

[Betonov]

The US civil war was an internal matter. Americans killing Americans due to a different idea of, bluntly putting it, level of centralization of the union. As brutal as a war can be, there was no other atrocities apart from the usual ''breaches of the Geneva convention*'' we see even today. And in times when the global media was an occasional telegram from over the seas.

Nazism was an international matter. A madman followed by madmen invading other countries in a notion that some races are superior resulting in the destruction of entire generations of Germans, Poles, Russians, Jews...
It brought shame to a country that was also blamed for one bloodbath just 20 years earlier.
Then there was the added notion of neo-nazism springing up in force and letting them have the former symbols to use as a rallying point.


* The Geneva convention was first drafted during the times of the CW, we can't really talk about the actual rules being broken during the CW

[areo16]

I don't miss the Swastika one bit. If you get a little deeper into what happened during the Nazi time it's in my opinion right to not let some modern idiots walk around with a Nazi flag which would be mocking all the people who suffered under the Swastika (the crimes even outside the Holocaust are mind blowing).

Freedom of speech is important but if this freedom is used to propagate terror and crime of that scale then it's IMHO ok to ban it for that subject. I'm aware that this is a very fine line that borders censorship but for the overall situation here I think it's acceptable in that case.

It seems you live in Germany. So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech" in the general sense of the words. It seems you feel freedom of speech should take the bench to the propagation of terror.

In most places propogation of terror is illegal anyhow. This could be considered a threat, which is a crime here in the states. So why limit the freedom of speech if the propagation of terror and the acts the Nazis did are illegal anyhow? What about the display of the swastika for educational purposes, or peaceful purposes? I realize this might be hard to grasps considering that the incidents occurred just 60 years ago. But you do think that Freedom of speech does have its limits.

[areo16]

The US civil war was an internal matter. Americans killing Americans due to a different idea of, bluntly putting it, level of centralization of the union. As brutal as a war can be, there was no other atrocities apart from the usual ''breaches of the Geneva convention*'' we see even today. And in times when the global media was an occasional telegram from over the seas.

Nazism was an international matter. A madman followed by madmen invading other countries in a notion that some races are superior resulting in the destruction of entire generations of Germans, Poles, Russians, Jews...
It brought shame to a country that was also blamed for one bloodbath just 20 years earlier.
Then there was the added notion of neo-nazism springing up in force and letting them have the former symbols to use as a rallying point.


* The Geneva convention was first drafted during the times of the CW, we can't really talk about the actual rules being broken during the CW


Did you grow up in Germany or do you live there?

[Skybird]

The name "Hitler" is banned in Germany as well, you can name your child "Adolf", but it is done almost never, but a second name "Hitler" is banned.

The simply unimaginable monstrosity of the crimes back then explain sufficiently why the symbols used to represent those committing them, are no-go now. Holocaust and the the amount of human suffering due to WWII in Europe and Russia, is second to none, in its dimension and perfidy. You cannot use the standards by which you would judge other, ordinary wars and crimes, to describe them. This dark event stands out from the background of human history. Wanting to "un-ban" it now, holds not the smallest positive gain, none.

The evilness and nothing-but-barbary-kind of nature of Nazism and the third Reich, stands beyond any doubt and must not be given any space for doubt anymore. To ban reminding symbols for them, therefore is acceptable, and in no way can be demonised as "banning free mind and free speech". To unban them , holds not a single positive gain, none.

We have growing objections to forming free opinions and free speech and free minds, encoded in social standards and this thing called political correctness and what in German I usually call Gesinnungs- und Tugendterror. Swastika and "Hitler" being banned, is not part of that.

I think, Nazi parties and organisations should be banned, too, and persecuted without any forgiveness. As I said, their barbaric basic nature and ideology history already has proven beyond even the smallest of the smallest doubts. Root it out. the argument of giving something the benefit of the doubt as long as it has not indeed fully proven to be guilty, is invalid here.

That the swastika has been hijacked and originally was a symbol of luck and happiness, cannot chnage that it last was used for the purpose of enormous horror and terror, and that it has left a branding sign on history, therefore.

To hell with all Nazi scum there is. I refuse to care for their interests and to be bothered by putting them on the list of endangered species.

:down:

[Betonov]

Did you grow up in Germany or do you live there?

Neither.

Call it an independent observation by an outsider interested in both world wars and the US civil war.

[Oberon]

I can see this going well...


Anyway, as a nation who was on the receiving end of some of the Third Reichs finest, I struggle frequently to understand the banning of the swastika, but equally I can understand the fear and worry of it being hijacked by Neo-Nazis. However, one does have to ponder that if the swastika holds such power because of its blood stained past, then what of the hammer and sickle? It is drenched in as much blood if not more than the swastika, and yet it is still perfectly permissible to use it within Russia. :hmmm:
There are other genocides, including the colonisation of the Americas if one wishes to look upon it as such, which have taken a higher death toll than the Holocaust, and yet the events are often overlooked and dismissed.

Still, it is a German internal matter, and if Germany is fine with it, then that is the main thing really. I don't fully understand it, and think that banning things only tend to make them more alluring to those already susceptible to such things, but it's not for me to decide on such matters.

[Wolferz]

Iron cross it out.:down:
Still, it was odd that the Nazis would choose a Hindu religious symbol for their moniker.
Wars are started with lies, for the express purpose of controlling resources that the aggressors don't possess.
There is nothing on this planet worth stealing or killing other human beings for. Nothing!:hmmm:

[Skybird]

I can see this going well...


Anyway, as a nation who was on the receiving end of some of the Third Reichs finest, I struggle frequently to understand the banning of the swastika, but equally I can understand the fear and worry of it being hijacked by Neo-Nazis. However, one does have to ponder that if the swastika holds such power because of its blood stained past, then what of the hammer and sickle? It is drenched in as much blood if not more than the swastika, and yet it is still perfectly permissible to use it within Russia. :hmmm:
There are other genocides, including the colonisation of the Americas if one wishes to look upon it as such, which have taken a higher death toll than the Holocaust, and yet the events are often overlooked and dismissed.

Still, it is a German internal matter, and if Germany is fine with it, then that is the main thing really. I don't fully understand it, and think that banning things only tend to make them more alluring to those already susceptible to such things, but it's not for me to decide on such matters.

Stalin is en vogue again in Russia, Oberon. ;) Germans by still a huge majority dispise Hitler. Ver ymany Russians, probably even a majority, embrace the Stalin cult. Huge differences there.

If so many Russians would not be so sympathetic to the Stalin cult, maybe the symbolism of the USSR would not be that much part of the mainstrema culture now. Or maybe it is like this: that the symbolism of USSR are used by the elites to push the popularity of Stalinist personal cult? :hmmm:

If you mention today the iperial age and the western powers' behavior in the colonies, you immediately get a public verbal beating and a substantial media bashing. If you would voice opinions of sympathy for the wars against the Southern and Northern Indians, you would face massive criticism and personal attacks.

In China, however, again the symbolism of the past - Mao and his influence - is used to protect party interests.

Re,member the anger and fury Japan causes year by year when those backward-oriented conswervatiove dwarfs visit their damn shrine, and Japan until today rejects to recognise its responsibility for certain dark chapters in the history of the war in Asia.

If I were the soul of an Allied soldier who fell at Omaha beach, and I would look down from my cloud and see that I gave my life only that people today prepare a path for Nazism again, and that they show tolerance for the very thinking that led to a war that costed me my life which I gave to fight against it, and that they claim that said thinking has a right to exist in this world - I would turn in my grave. Eh, roll over on my cloud, I mean. And I would make it my rule that if I ever get reborn, I will never fight again agaiunst Nazism, for such stupid people just do not deserve to risk one's own life for them.


Taking these examples, i think it cannot hurt to not start Nazi symbols in German public again. We have the Nazis already growing again anyway over here, we must not make the path easier for them.

That having a public debate about symbols and ideologies not automatically leads to immunity against their content and their dretsurcive mind work, you can see in the example of Islam. The publicly demonstrated sympathy and all-embracing attitude towards its claims, not only means that its many barbaric aspects get glossed over and an basic uncritical attitude toewards it is spreading and historic events are forged in its favour - it also helps to increase the number of "radicals" and "extremists" as well. That works by the same logic like pest plants do blossom if you prepare a good ground for them and give them fertilizer and a friendly climate helping their growth. How one could fight weed by not rooting it out but by tolerating it and adding fertilizer to it, escapes me as long as I can think. To me that is one of these typical Western follies. You help what is positive - nevertheless you also have to fight what is bad, you must not tolerate it in the hope that the growing positives will overcome it. All too often, they do not.

Westwern rational people all too often tick by this idea of that if they mean it well and act rationally, the other will answer by becoming well-meamnning and actingf rational as well. Have the recent years not taught us for the better? The currently actual example would be Erdoghan I. of Turkey. He has been appeased and endlessly embraced, and turned out to be the autocratic corrupot and extremely fundamentalsist bastard that I always have claimed he really is. And still he is not being banned in the EU and in Germany, but gets welcomed with open arms.

Two years ago, we had a nazo march right at the block where I live. For half a day police in hiuge strength isollated the whole district, us residents could not get in or out, thoisuands demsntrated and blocked the traffic roads and brought puiblic life to anstandstill within this zone while police tried to keep separate one or tweo hundred Nazi scumbags shouting and yelling their paroles on the crossorad 50m from my kitchen windows. All this effort, money, awareness, hype and emotion, police operation and personell on the street - just for - for what...? For a bunch of holocaust deniars and backwards-oriented imbiciles too dump and too stupid to relasie they have a brain, living at all our costs, and spitting the hand that still feeds them: the all-understanding oh so tolerant wellfare state.

Calculating the net costs against the net gains, it would have been cheaper to have their train derailed and falling from a bridge. :arrgh!:

[Gammelpreusse]

Well, in short, the Swastika stands for people that want to end freedom of speech.

The Weimar Republic had complete freedom of speech. But freedom, in all it's forms, also comes with a certain responsebility, something a lot of people tend to forget. And in Germany, this freedom was terribly abused.

So after WW2 Germany learned the lesson that democracy must be able to defend itself. This means that it activly fights everything that wants to challenge the current freedoms. the concept is called "streitbare Demokratie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie)". Radical parties of the left or right thus were banned, too.

Also, the Swastika is not outrightly banned. In the context of history, in education, historical movies and tv shows it can be used. Just not, for examples for toys, banalaties or as active political symbol. Too many people who became victims of it are still alive. What do you think a Jew wandering the streets of modern Germany suddenly seeing the Swastika again would think?

Also, the Swastika is not just an old Hindu symbol, it also is an old germanic symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika_%28Germanic_Iron_Age%29).


Germany has chosen to go this route, it was not forced on us as some like to state, what other nations do with their own past (including the messsage that delivers) is up to them.

[Oberon]

Another interesting observation and comparison that you might want to make in this thread is the nation of Japan, as well as the treatment of German history in West and East Germany.

Again, I am British so I do not have first hand experience of this matter, however I have read about it and spoken to German people, and have been able, rightly or wrongly, to draw some conclusions from this.

In Japan there wasn't any sense of war guilt impressed upon the population, the nation was demilitarised (briefly) but symbols of Imperial Japan were not banned, and the Emperor was not removed. As such, if one compares modern Japan and modern Germany one sees two very different sides of the spectrum of dealing with a difficult period of history.
Whilst Germany carries its war guilt, Japan has denied it for the most part, although it has paid reperations in many instances, it still denies many of its most brutal crimes such as the 'Rape of Nanking' and conducts historical revision in its school textbooks.

Furthermore in Germany itself, and admittedly this is a more sketchy conclusion that I have drawn, and I await confirmation or denial from those more in the know, there was a difference between how the post-war guilt was taught to East and West Germany, and that, coupled with the vast difference in economic prosperity between East and West Germany in the modern day has meant that if one were to look at Neo-Nazism in Germany you would likely find a slightly higher percentage of Neo-Nazis in the former territories of East Germany than in the West, as people were educated and society tackled the issue in a different manner.

So, it's not really a clear cut issue, few things really are, and historical revisionism takes place all over the world, and I think that as we approach the 100th anniversary of the First World War, there's a danger of it happening again as the victorious Entente look to place the blame of the war firmly upon the Central Powers, one only has to look at Max Hastings 'conclusions' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoJbvVTAC5s) on the causes of WWI to see the arguements being put forward at this centenary. :nope:

[Gammelpreusse]

Furthermore in Germany itself, and admittedly this is a more sketchy conclusion that I have drawn, and I await confirmation or denial from those more in the know, there was a difference between how the post-war guilt was taught to East and West Germany, and that, coupled with the vast difference in economic prosperity between East and West Germany in the modern day has meant that if one were to look at Neo-Nazism in Germany you would likely find a slightly higher percentage of Neo-Nazis in the former territories of East Germany than in the West, as people were educated and society tackled the issue in a different manner.


The DDR saw itself in the tradition of people who activly fought Nazism (communists, socialists), a "new" Germany" without ties to the past and as such saw now guilt in itself. Instead the "West" was to blame. This was such a strong part of eastern german (and soviet at large) self idendity that it justified much of the state's existence in itself. In ways you still see remnants of that today in the Ukraine conflict, given how often the word "fascist" is thrown around by the russian side of the propaganda game.

The BRD on the other hand considered itself (and still does) the continuation of the old german state. However, a real tackling of the past only came in the wake of the 68ers, the children that were born in the last years of the war or immidialty thereafter, who rose up in the still rather very restrictive after war years with teachers still from the Nazi era and challenged a tendency that was initially very much like that of Japan, forget and move on.

[Friscobay]

The paradox of the swastika does not take long to rear its head, even to areas as seemingly mundane as gaming.

Consider the fact that there have been thousands of downloads to mods that place the correct Kriegsmarine swastika devices back where they historically belong in the SH series. I myself, instantly viewing the thing from a historical aspect rather than that of a budding ''neo-nazi'', said under my breath upon looking at a German craft for the first time in SH3, ''now this is just stupid'' , when seeing UBISOFTS famous Big White Empty Disk Where A Swastika Should Be -Flags.
Closer inspection found that even devices as small as uniform badging, had the ''eagle'' swastikas removed. Now perhaps, UBISOFT, in its Euro sales and in other nations where the swastika is banned, may not have wanted to get its SH versions deep-sixed for including them in the game. I am not sure. However, simply the fact that we head for ''correct ensign/flag'' downloads displays that we are less uptight about the device of the Third Reich, than we are in ensuring greater historical accuracy within military gaming and simulation.
That's just my two pfennigs...:hmm2:

[Tribesman]

So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech"
Freedom of speech is always limited.

[Gammelpreusse]

The paradox of the swastika does not take long to rear its head, even to areas as seemingly mundane as gaming.

Consider the fact that there have been thousands of downloads to mods that place the correct Kriegsmarine swastika devices back where they historically belong in the SH series. I myself, instantly viewing the thing from a historical aspect rather than that of a budding ''neo-nazi'', said under my breath upon looking at a German craft for the first time in SH3, ''now this is just stupid'' , when seeing UBISOFTS famous Big White Empty Disk Where A Swastika Should Be -Flags.
Closer inspection found that even devices as small as uniform badging, had the ''eagle'' swastikas removed. Now perhaps, UBISOFT, in its Euro sales and in other nations where the swastika is banned, may not have wanted to get its SH versions deep-sixed for including them in the game. I am not sure. However, simply the fact that we head for ''correct ensign/flag'' downloads displays that we are less uptight about the device of the Third Reich, than we are in ensuring greater historical accuracy within military gaming and simulation.
That's just my two pfennigs...:hmm2:

Dunno. If you had some "first hand" expirience of national socialism, or it's aftermath, your eagerness to download according mods may have been a bit dampend.

Business practices based on some national laws, on the other hand, are an entirely differrent topic to begin with.

[fireftr18]

It's one thing to ban symbols in certain circumstances. In this case, just the fear of repeating the past is understandable. The important thing is to remember the history, the atrocities, the destruction that was caused. Just as we celebrate the high parts of our histories, we need to also remember the low parts. In the US, our history lessons make a point to teach about slavery. We don't honor it, we feel it should be remembered as a low point in our nation's history. We also make it a point to teach how our Native Americans were treated. Another low point. We teach these, not because we're proud of them, but because we're ashamed, and we don't want it repeated. As long as Germany teaches about the Nazi era in history, then that is what is important.

[Friscobay]

[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;2191706]Dunno. If you had some "first hand" expirience of national socialism, or it's aftermath, your eagerness to download according mods may have been a bit dampend.




True enough, but may we infer that there should have been no representation whatever of the swastika in say, ''Saving Private Ryan'' ''DAS BOOT'' or ''Band of Brothers'' because of the fact that not a single actor or director in any of these historically-based films lived under national socialism either? It is thus not so much an ''eagerness'' as it is a simple desire to closely match modern interpretations of past historical events with accuracy when it is provided.

Like I say, it is a paradox once history is brought into the discussion.

[Catfish]

In Germany using swastikas (and i mean the black one on white ground, surrounded by red) is usual and allowed in historic or educational context.
It is forbidden to use such insignias on e.g. flags or posters, or during demonstrations though. I do not think that is such a bad idea, even after this time.
I think it is idiotic to forbid it in PC games though - after all simulations are after all educational - maybe not "Castle Wolfenstein" or such crap lol.


What i find strange is, that just of all in Russia, but also in the US, there are so much sympathizers (with the Nazis) who openly use the symbols, and obviously welcome National Socalism.
I mean, Russia ? What do they think the real Nazis thought of them ? :-?

[Gammelpreusse]

True enough, but may we infer that there should have been no representation whatever of the swastika in say, ''Saving Private Ryan'' ''DAS BOOT'' or ''Band of Brothers'' because of the fact that not a single actor or director in any of these historically-based films lived under national socialism either? It is thus not so much an ''eagerness'' as it is a simple desire to closely match modern interpretations of past historical events with accuracy when it is provided.

Like I say, it is a paradox once history is brought into the discussion.

As I said, displaying the Swastika in a historical context, just like in movies, is perfectly legal in Germany.

The problem with PC games is that they still are considered "toys" in Germany, yanno? Stuff for little children. Rather debateable, but that is the sole reason why you do not see swastikas even in an historical context here when it comes to games.


What i find strange is, that just of all in Russia, but also in the US, there are so much sympathizers (with the Nazis) who openly use the symbols, and obviously welcome National Socalism.
I mean, Russia ? What do they think the real Nazis thought of them ? :-?
Well, contrary to popular believe, Slavs were not considered "Untermenschen" per se, but just a lower form of Aryans. Fair skinned, blue eyed and so on and on. But then again, these categories were always a bit sketchy and changed according to need, like when the whole Lebensraum stuff became an active policy. And the slavic folks always had their very own superiority/minority complexes, starting with Panslawism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism).
So them folks just translated the germanic compontents of national socialism to the slavic elements.

[Aktungbby]

The OP leaves out a few items: 1: Freedom of speech is not a blanket absolution even in America. You cannot for example yell "fire" in movie theatre which was the case cited by a Justice on the subject; as it would tend to cause harmful panic and destruction or even death from trampling. 2: In the South, as in previous threads, The Confederate battle flag cannot be flown over public buildings as formerly. It appears Germany deals with the incendiary issue of the Swastika similarily. However the issue is not completely dead as the Bavarian state which holds the copywrite on Mein Kampf prepares to republish what has been a good little money-maker on Amazon in English when the copywrite expires shortly and become eminent domain. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/mein-kampf-germany-bavaria-adolf-hitler-memoir_n_1449870.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/mein-kampf-germany-bavaria-adolf-hitler-memoir_n_1449870.html) The Dec. 8, 1999, file photo shows a book store displaying Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in downtown Sarajevo. (AP Photo/Hidajet Delic with swastika on book jacket)
One of the most controversial books in history is about to come back into print in its homeland -- something that hasn't been true in nearly 70 years. On Monday, the German state of Bavaria announced plans to publish an annotated version of Adolf Hitler’s infamous “Mein Kampf,” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,829513,00.html) according to Der Spiegel.
The southern German state has held ownership of the book’s copyright since the end of World War II, the Associated Press notes, but those rights are due to expire in 2015.
“Mein Kampf” is currently banned in Austria and Russia, the Daily Mail writes. But contrary to popular belief, the notorious book is not banned in Germany -- Bavaria has simply prevented its printing in an effort to control production, the AP notes.
In January, a German magazine ignited controversy when it tried to publish excerpts from the book with critical commentary, the New York Times reports. German authorities took the matter to court, which ruled that any publication of the book violated Bavaria’s copyright.
But now, with the copyright expiration drawing near, Bavaria is publishing its own version of the book and calling it damage control. Der Spiegel reports that the book will include commentaries that condemn Hitler’s arguments. Not to be out done: In the United States the book can be found at almost any community library and can be bought, sold and traded in bookshops. The U.S. government seized the copyright during the Second World War under the Trading with the Enemy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_1917) and in 1979, Houghton Mifflin, the U.S. publisher of the book, bought the rights from the government. 15,000 copies are sold a year. Clearly in Germany, the crooked cross may be banned...but the 'bible' is about to be republished?!! I suspect...Like many celebrities, ol' Adolph of Munich will earn more Deutschmarks dead than alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg/300px-Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg)note the swastika on the jacket-shortly to be republished.

[GoldenRivet]

then what of the hammer and sickle? It is drenched in as much blood if not more than the swastika, and yet it is still perfectly permissible to use it within Russia.

There are other genocides, including the colonisation of the Americas if one wishes to look upon it as such, which have taken a higher death toll than the Holocaust, and yet the events are often overlooked and dismissed.

quite simple really

Those sides won

[Friscobay]

[QUOTE=Catfish;2191714]In Germany using swastikas (and i mean the black one on white ground, surrounded by red) is usual and allowed in historic or educational context.
It is forbidden to use such insignias on e.g. flags or posters, or during demonstrations though. I do not think that is such a bad idea, even after this time.
I think it is idiotic to forbid it in PC games though - after all simulations are after all educational - maybe not "Castle Wolfenstein" or such crap lol.


I agree. When the reader looks to the ''Download'' list here at SUBSIM and views ''most popular downloads'', he is looking at this in the No.3 slot at over 20,000.

''Accurate German Flags''.

For myself, the impetus to include such flags on the sterns of my Type VIIs or German surface ships in SH3, is solely driven by a desire for historical accuracy. The same could be said for installing TRIGGER MARU, or downloading a great mod representation of a BALAO -class periscope and gauge/dial facings , and the like. Simulation, historical re-enactment, living history, all seek accuracy in their use.:hmm2:

[Alex]

The name "Hitler" is banned in Germany as well, you can name your child "Adolf", but it is done almost never, but a second name "Hitler" is banned.

The simply unimaginable monstrosity of the crimes back then explain sufficiently why the symbols used to represent those committing them, are no-go now. Holocaust and the the amount of human suffering due to WWII in Europe and Russia, is second to none, in its dimension and perfidy. You cannot use the standards by which you would judge other, ordinary wars and crimes, to describe them. This dark event stands out from the background of human history. Wanting to "un-ban" it now, holds not the smallest positive gain, none.

The evilness and nothing-but-barbary-kind of nature of Nazism and the third Reich, stands beyond any doubt and must not be given any space for doubt anymore. To ban reminding symbols for them, therefore is acceptable, and in no way can be demonised as "banning free mind and free speech". To unban them , holds not a single positive gain, none.

We have growing objections to forming free opinions and free speech and free minds, encoded in social standards and this thing called political correctness and what in German I usually call Gesinnungs- und Tugendterror. Swastika and "Hitler" being banned, is not part of that.

I think, Nazi parties and organisations should be banned, too, and persecuted without any forgiveness. As I said, their barbaric basic nature and ideology history already has proven beyond even the smallest of the smallest doubts. Root it out. the argument of giving something the benefit of the doubt as long as it has not indeed fully proven to be guilty, is invalid here.

That the swastika has been hijacked and originally was a symbol of luck and happiness, cannot chnage that it last was used for the purpose of enormous horror and terror, and that it has left a branding sign on history, therefore.

To hell with all Nazi scum there is. I refuse to care for their interests and to be bothered by putting them on the list of endangered species.

:down:

You're into psychology, IIRC, Sky ?

http://b8.eu.icdn.ru/c/compdrag/0/36811480GQw.jpgI'm confident you've been a good student, and let your mind sink peacefully in that sea of self-hate to the point it may hardly be recoverable nowadays, but I truly hope for the best of your country, for the best of the german youth. And so I'm hoping for a re-awakening of nationalism (in all countries), following an intense overhaul of that actual educational system your country is not responsible for, and out of which it will hardly take any advantage.

The bad thing is that the educational system is pretty much the same here - there's one and only evil on the one hand, one and only martyr on the other...
It's kind of strange when you're a little boy to get to know you live so close from Hell, haha.

[Tribesman]

Well the neo Nazi has spoken, I hope Alex put you all right on the beautiful nationalist ideology of the crooked cross.
I bet education is a global jewish conspiracy:rotfl2:

[Catfish]

Sry for being off topic -

@Alex.

hmm i think i understand what you mean, but this is still crap especially today (today, that is!)

People hoarding and assisting each other as tribes or whatever in former times to reach a goal above individual laziness or against other bullies was all fine and nice, however there is a point in science and let's say enlightenment where such notions should reach a higher level, and be the base for the whole world population to feel and act as as one against a hostile universe, and work together.
Putin may not be the badest leader Russia had, but his thoughts and mind are very yesterday. There are other less backwards examples of course, which as well do not fit into modern times, any more.

Nations are the problem. As long as there is the idea of some people/nation/etnic blahblahblah being better/more valuable/more-deserving, and (ab)using this feeling to diminish others, there will be war.
As Reagan rightly said, people do not wage wars. Governments [=nations] do.

We are living on borrowed time, not only icbm-wise. Any smaller to middle asteroid can ruin the earth's ecosphere in a minute, and mankind will not survive unless we have spread, and be able to live elsewhere.
Despite our gas giants swallowing most of those snowballs, there will be 'the one', one day. We have not much time - think of it.
There is no point in one Serbia, a big Germany or a super power USA. As is no sense in a dominating China, or Russia.


I am all for internationalism, international science, and to hell with national administrations and kachos, if they hinder science and improving knowledge. :yep:

[Mittelwaechter]

Nazi insignias are not forbidden in general, but for promoting the ideology.
Again the link to the resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

We actually have a Nazi party in Germany and they are free to express their opinions.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationaldemokratische_Partei_Deutschlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

Some even vote for them and they have a few 'politicians' in communal and even state parliaments.

There have been several attempts to ban the party - one is still to be voted for by our Federal Constitutional Court.

[Tribesman]

Oh dear, I didn't provide enough arguments for the statement, though the basis of the statement cannot be in doubt neither can the truth, though apparently truth is irrelevant.
So more clarity is needed.
Alex you are a neo Nazi aren't you.
The form of nationalism you advocate is based on hatred and conspiracy theories isn't it.
Your nationalist heroes you have written about in your nation were part of the Nazi puppet regime in Vichy weren't they.
When you talk of the education system you believe the education system is part of a global jewish conspiracy which of course runs everything don't you.
You have posted all this on the forum havn't you.
You are very open about your Nazi ideology aren't you.
Apart from on occasion when you talk about the Occidental conspiracy when you want to sort of disguise your nonsense about the Jewish conspiracy.

Now to tie it all into the OP.
Everyone knows about Nazis to some extent or another, their ideology is based purely on hate and discrimination.
Jews are the cause of all the worlds problems and their removal is the solution to all the worlds problems.
Ideologies such as those by their very nature constitute incitement.
Incitement doesn't get covered by freedom of speech.

[Catfish]

Tribesman you may be right in a lot of things, but if you are really interested in propaganda, you can look for re-education and "de-nazification" (lol) in Germany, after the war.

The problem is that over-simplified propaganda always falls back on the perpetrators, sooner or later. And if the wrong people find that out ...
The truth would have been enough.

[areo16]

Dunno. If you had some "first hand" expirience of national socialism, or it's aftermath, your eagerness to download according mods may have been a bit dampend.

Business practices based on some national laws, on the other hand, are an entirely differrent topic to begin with.

Many war veterans cannot watch war films or play wargames. But I don't think that brings reason to ban such war films or wargames. I'm trying to understand your point?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman you may be right in a lot of things, but if you are really interested in propaganda, you can look for re-education and "de-nazification" (lol) in Germany, after the war.

The problem is that over-simplified propaganda always falls back on the perpetrators, sooner or later. And if the wrong people find that out ...
The truth would have been enough.
I agree. Unfortunately often the propaganda falls later rather than sooner.
when its extreme the later makes a much bigger impact.
You are right about de-nazification, it was a joke.
I must say though I disagree with Skybird form earlier. I don't agree with an outright ban, to me the best solution for the ideoliogy is to put it right out in plains sight, give it a big platform under a full spotlight and laugh at the idiots and their conspiracies and hatred, plus of course at the moment when they cross the line into illegal activity which they invariably will then apply the law of their nation to their illegal activities.

[areo16]

Well the neo Nazi has spoken, I hope Alex put you all right on the beautiful nationalist ideology of the crooked cross.
I bet education is a global jewish conspiracy:rotfl2:

I hope you're not referring to me when you say this. I take great offense to this. You shouldn't be throwing around such labels without just cause.

[kranz]

I hope you're not referring to me when you say this. I take great offense to this. You shouldn't be throwing around such labels without just cause.
you must be new here:har:

[areo16]

The OP leaves out a few items: 1: Freedom of speech is not a blanket absolution even in America. You cannot for example yell "fire" in movie theatre which was the case cited by a Justice on the subject; as it would tend to cause harmful panic and destruction or even death from trampling. 2: In the South, as in previous threads, The Confederate battle flag cannot be flown over public buildings as formerly. It appears Germany deals with the incendiary issue of the Swastika similarily. However the issue is not completely dead as the Bavarian state which holds the copywrite on Mein Kampf prepares to republish what has been a good little money-maker on Amazon in English when the copywrite expires shortly and become eminent domain. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/mein-kampf-germany-bavaria-adolf-hitler-memoir_n_1449870.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/mein-kampf-germany-bavaria-adolf-hitler-memoir_n_1449870.html) The Dec. 8, 1999, file photo shows a book store displaying Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in downtown Sarajevo. (AP Photo/Hidajet Delic with swastika on book jacket)
One of the most controversial books in history is about to come back into print in its homeland -- something that hasn't been true in nearly 70 years. On Monday, the German state of Bavaria announced plans to publish an annotated version of Adolf Hitler’s infamous “Mein Kampf,” (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,829513,00.html) according to Der Spiegel.
The southern German state has held ownership of the book’s copyright since the end of World War II, the Associated Press notes, but those rights are due to expire in 2015.
“Mein Kampf” is currently banned in Austria and Russia, the Daily Mail writes. But contrary to popular belief, the notorious book is not banned in Germany -- Bavaria has simply prevented its printing in an effort to control production, the AP notes.
In January, a German magazine ignited controversy when it tried to publish excerpts from the book with critical commentary, the New York Times reports. German authorities took the matter to court, which ruled that any publication of the book violated Bavaria’s copyright.
But now, with the copyright expiration drawing near, Bavaria is publishing its own version of the book and calling it damage control. Der Spiegel reports that the book will include commentaries that condemn Hitler’s arguments. Not to be out done: In the United States the book can be found at almost any community library and can be bought, sold and traded in bookshops. The U.S. government seized the copyright during the Second World War under the Trading with the Enemy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_1917) and in 1979, Houghton Mifflin, the U.S. publisher of the book, bought the rights from the government. 15,000 copies are sold a year. Clearly in Germany, the crooked cross may be banned...but the 'bible' is about to be republished?!! I suspect...Like many celebrities, ol' Adolph of Munich will earn more Deutschmarks dead than alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg/300px-Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg)note the swastika on the jacket-shortly to be republished.


This is very interesting. I do not agree with banning any written material, irregardless of its contents. But I am an American.

I'm getting the sense that the Americans here have a different ideal of Freedom of Speech than the rest of the posters here. Our ideal seems to be more free than the others. Perhaps the teaching of our Bill of Rights to us since a young age has left a permanent mark on our thinking of freedoms.

I do understand why yelling "fire" in a crowded place should be outlawed, as the yelling of the word would and could directly result in physical harm to others as people would be trampling over others, in frenzy. But, I do not think yelling "Hilter", using the word itself, would create any reaction that would harm another. Yelling "Hitler" is not the same as yelling, for example "Hurt that Jew!". The latter of course being a verbal threat, and illegal in most countries.

I do understand why the CSA flag should not be flown over public buildings because it is a flag that represents a different nation than the USA. Just as much so as we should not allow British flags be flown over our public buildings. This is Merica!

[Tribesman]

I hope you're not referring to me when you say this. I take great offense to this. You shouldn't be throwing around such labels without just cause.

Are you a neo Nazi?
Have you repeatedly written about your belief in the global jewish conspiracy on this forum?
Do you regularly link to the sort of stuff that would normally be at home on Stormfront or VNN?
If the answer to those 3 is no then how can it possibly have been referring to you?

This is very interesting. I do not agree with banning any written material, irregardless of its contents. But I am an American.

William Powell is an American, he wants his book banned, something to do with its contents and how some people are using it.

[areo16]

I would now like to direct the conversation to another concerned matter of mine:
How are German World War 2 veterans treated in modern day Germany?

Let me all put this in context from my American point of view. World War 2 vets are treated as the "king of veterans" here in the states. WW2 overshadowed WW1, and Korea was seemingly forgotten. For some reason the public turned its back on the Vietnam vets, and the Gulf War veterans don't get the praises of the WW2 veterans because the Middle East wars weren't as bloody or grand as WW2. But of course, I am exaggerating this all a little bit. We do treat all of our veterans well today. Much better than we did in the 60's or 70's.

That being said, we praise our WW2 vets. They are in the news, newspapers, and the movies about the conflict always are popular. Can the same be said of the German veterans of WW2 in Germany? How were and how are they treated in modern-day Germany? Is there a since of pride? Can good things be sought from their actions during the war, even though they fought on the losing end? They did have initial victories.

:hmmm:

[areo16]

If the answer to those 3 is no then how can it possibly have been referring to you?


Because the comment wasn't quoting or replying anything. And, these labels get thrown around far too often without due diligence. That is why.

[Tribesman]

Because the comment wasn't quoting or replying anythingAn individual made a comment about education, the individual was mentioned, education was mentioned, it was the preceeding post, how could you miss it?

Further to your Americans don't believe in banning books angle.
The list of the top 100 books some Americans want banned.
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/top-100-bannedchallenged-books-2000-2009
William Powells book is on it again, plus a german tale of WW2 again.

[areo16]

http://i.imgur.com/Cjd2p.gif

btw I'm not antagonizing... I'm just having a laugh.

[areo16]

An individual made a comment about education, the individual was mentioned, education was mentioned, it was the preceeding post, how could you miss it?


What?

[Betonov]

Further to your Americans don't believe in banning books angle.
The list of the top 100 books some Americans want banned.
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/top-100-bannedchallenged-books-2000-2009


Harry Potter series is #1...
Seriously ??????????????

[Oberon]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Unholy_three.png

[Gammelpreusse]

Many war veterans cannot watch war films or play wargames. But I don't think that brings reason to ban such war films or wargames. I'm trying to understand your point?

War != War. War != holocaust. It's also a difference if only your soldiers are sent to some distant place to fight for a "just" cause or when your very own home becomes a battleground and your mere existence a matter of surivial, only to hear afterwards that during this battle some of humankinds most heideous crimes have been comitted in ->your<- name.
Not asking for you to understand it, I guess that comes down to trying to explain to a blind man how colors look like.


I would now like to direct the conversation to another concerned matter of mine:
How are German World War 2 veterans treated in modern day Germany?

Let me all put this in context from my American point of view. World War 2 vets are treated as the "king of veterans" here in the states. WW2 overshadowed WW1, and Korea was seemingly forgotten. For some reason the public turned its back on the Vietnam vets, and the Gulf War veterans don't get the praises of the WW2 veterans because the Middle East wars weren't as bloody or grand as WW2. But of course, I am exaggerating this all a little bit. We do treat all of our veterans well today. Much better than we did in the 60's or 70's.

That being said, we praise our WW2 vets. They are in the news, newspapers, and the movies about the conflict always are popular. Can the same be said of the German veterans of WW2 in Germany? How were and how are they treated in modern-day Germany? Is there a since of pride? Can good things be sought from their actions during the war, even though they fought on the losing end? They did have initial victories.

:hmmm:In regards to german soldiers, that is like asking for rape victims to be praised. Most people back then went through hell and for what? Some gangsters with grandeur complexes. Everything in regards to bravery they may have shown was tainted to the core by their very own leadership. They and their love for the nation got abused, used, that simple. Would you want to be reminded of that every year, no matter in what light it would be shown?

I remember my gradfather, a distinguished soldier, holder of the iron cross 2 class and commander of a quad 20mm AAA unit, who severd in France, Sicily and Italy, in Monte Cassino amongst other locations, breaking out in tears when asked about WW2.

Quote in regards to Hitler "That damn a**hole!"

He neither got nor wanted any appreciation for that whole affair.

Btw., the denazification after the war was not very effective in regards to actual "brainwashing". Nazis stayed on board throughout all levels of society. National Socialism was a good idea badly implemented was a regular point of view well into the 70ies. What really brought the turnaround in how the country dealt with it's past was initiated by the 68ers, as mentioned before.

[Tribesman]

Harry Potter series is #1...
Seriously ??????????????

Well its ungodly isn't it, witches and wizards and stuff.:03:
You will find much of the list is challenged on "religious" grounds, some people just don't like that aspect of freedom of speech.
Not that its an American thing(apart from the list which is of course), some people in other countries hold those same views on freedom of speech.

[Friscobay]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Unholy_three.png

Theres just gotta be some kind of Precious Bodily Fluids thing going on there...:yep:

[Oberon]

Theres just gotta be some kind of Precious Bodily Fluids thing going on there...:yep:

It happens, but in this case...well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Mental_Health_Enabling_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Public_Relations_Forum

[areo16]

In regards to german soldiers, that is like asking for rape victims to be praised. Most people back then went through hell and for what? Some gangsters with grandeur complexes. Everything in regards to bravery they may have shown was tainted to the core by their very own leadership. They and their love for the nation got abused, used, that simple. Would you want to be reminded of that every year, no matter in what light it would be shown?

I remember my gradfather, a distinguished soldier, holder of the iron cross 2 class and commander of a quad 20mm AAA unit, who severd in France, Sicily and Italy, in Monte Cassino amongst other locations, breaking out in tears when asked about WW2.

Quote in regards to Hitler "That damn a**hole!"

He neither got nor wanted any appreciation for that whole affair.

Btw., the denazification after the war was not very effective in regards to actual "brainwashing". Nazis stayed on board throughout all levels of society. National Socialism was a good idea badly implemented was a regular point of view well into the 70ies. What really brought the turnaround in how the country dealt with it's past was initiated by the 68ers, as mentioned before.

I can't understand this part. Many soldiers were not Nazis. Many died to defend their homeland. I do not understand how you cannot praise them for serving to defend the home you live in. This seems counterproductive to me to raise a generation in depression and regret. I don't think it instills the necessary morality and pride that is necessary to create a prosperous generation, politicians or businessmen. It would leave young generations searching for an identity. I don't agree with this. A middle ground should be found.

[TarJak]

Good luck with that. When the waterhole is poisoned, all who drink from it are tainted in some way or another.

That said, there are still some who think they were right to fight not only for the Fatherland, but also for Hitler and his cronies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrichsberg_gathering

[Tribesman]

I can't understand this part. Many soldiers were not Nazis. Many died to defend their homeland. I do not understand how you cannot praise them for serving to defend the home you live in. This seems counterproductive to me to raise a generation in depression and regret. I don't think it instills the necessary morality and pride that is necessary to create a prosperous generation, politicians or businessmen. It would leave young generations searching for an identity. I don't agree with this. A middle ground should be found.
Prosperous generation?
Biggest economy in Europe, 4th largest GDP in the world?

[areo16]

Prosperous generation?
Biggest economy in Europe, 4th largest GDP in the world?

You have a point. But is there a since of identity and pride?

Also, do WW2 vets get benefits from the government and are their associations like in the states to help them do things and give them assistance?

[Mittelwaechter]

No one should be praised for killing someone in the first place.

My government denies me to kill the people I want to, but enforces me to kill the people it wants to be killed? Some old politicians decide, in the economy's interest and following its orders, what's worth fighting, killing and dying for?

Burning civilians on a tanker alive with a torpedo is glorious? I need this to find my identity?
Piloting a bomber and killing women and children from a few kilometers above with explosives is an act of honour?
Killing suspects remotley controlled - without proper trial, while accepting bystanding innocent casualties as colletral damage is a foundation for a prosperous generation?

Imagine your father attacking your neigbour with some acid. Would you praise him for defending your home while trying to kill the alarmed police officer knocking at your door?

We should finally teach our youngsters that war is no option. Never!
Our fathers failed in this.

[Tribesman]

You have a point. But is there a since of identity and pride?

What do you mean by identity?
There are lots of germans living in town they all have different identities, but you can also identify a lot of them as germans just like you can identify a lot of the Americans as Americans
Pride in what?
Pride in the nation state that existed between 1933-45 or just a general local pride?
Some of the Bavarians in town do dress up in their local outfits on a sunday when they go drinking. Is that their identity or pride and how does it relate to the state which existed in the 30s and 40s?
On another note a friend has a picture of her grandfather on her mantelpiece, he just happens to be dressed as a Scharfuhrer.
Which is funny considering her politics are exceptionally liberal even by European standards.

[Aktungbby]

An individual made a comment about education, the individual was mentioned, education was mentioned, it was the preceeding post, how could you miss it?

Further to your Americans don't believe in banning books angle.
The list of the top 100 books some Americans want banned.
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/top-100-bannedchallenged-books-2000-2009
William Powells book is on it again, plus a german tale of WW2 again.

Including the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain; holding steady at # 14:doh: But our best comedians still vie for the Kennedy Center Mark Twain Award for Humor.

[MGR1]

I can't understand this part. Many soldiers were not Nazis. Many died to defend their homeland. I do not understand how you cannot praise them for serving to defend the home you live in. This seems counterproductive to me to raise a generation in depression and regret. I don't think it instills the necessary morality and pride that is necessary to create a prosperous generation, politicians or businessmen. It would leave young generations searching for an identity. I don't agree with this. A middle ground should be found.

Quite simple, really. Yes, they fought for their country, but that country was governed by an aberration. They fought for a lie, and a hideous one at that.

That aberration also caused enormous suffering, not just in those territories that Germany invaded, but also on the German population itself. The catch for the German's is that their suffering was self inflicted because they allowed themselves to be duped, or brainwashed, into supporting that aberration.

It's like my country, Britain. The British Empire is not viewed as being something to be proud of, if it is thought about at all. We suffer from a post-Imperial cringe of epic proportions. To the extent that the United Kingdom could, at some point in the future, dissolve as the last act of de-colonisation.

Mike.

[Gammelpreusse]

I can't understand this part. Many soldiers were not Nazis. Many died to defend their homeland. I do not understand how you cannot praise them for serving to defend the home you live in. This seems counterproductive to me to raise a generation in depression and regret. I don't think it instills the necessary morality and pride that is necessary to create a prosperous generation, politicians or businessmen. It would leave young generations searching for an identity. I don't agree with this. A middle ground should be found.

As you can see, prosperity and success can be generated quite well without, matter of proof Germany (and Japan) today. In fact looking into the future and seeing possebilities, adapting to the world as "it is", instead of constantly looking back and obsessivly trying to live up to precieved standarts set by former generations can be very liberating and productive.

You confuse a simple lack of praise and a good dose of self reflection and crisicism with depression and regret. There is a huge difference. There also is a lot to be proud of in Germany today and the generations that rebuild a country which was in utter ruins.

In my observation, the UK and the US are both suffering from WW2 syndrome, looking at the wrold from a position that by now is 70 years old and seriously out of date.

[MGR1]

In my observation, the UK and the US are both suffering from WW2 syndrome, looking at the wrold from a position that by now is 70 years old and seriously out of date.

Perhaps not with the UK as such, don't mistake David Cameron's cheesy remarks after that put down by that Russian official last year with general public opinion. :03: We know that we're a small, relatively insignificant nation with a dodgy and mismanaged economy. It's just that our government still harbours delusions of grandeur.

Heck, we don't even know what it means to be British these days, what with devolution and the Scottish Independence Referendum muddying the waters!

The last census gave indications that it was the ethnic minorities who were most likely to label themselves British. Us natives are starting to think of ourselves as English, Scottish, Welsh etc in increasing numbers.

Worst case scenario, the UK could break up at some point in the next hundred years.:hmmm:

But, that's digressing from the main subject of the thread.....

Mike.

[Gammelpreusse]

Perhaps not with the UK as such, don't mistake David Cameron's cheesy remarks after that put down by that Russian official last year with general public opinion. :03: We know that we're a small, relatively insignificant nation with a dodgy and mismanaged economy. It's just that our government still harbours delusions of grandeur.

Heck, we don't even know what it means to be British these days, what with devolution and the Scottish Independence Referendum muddying the waters!

The last census gave indications that it was the ethnic minorities who were most likely to label themselves British. Us natives are starting to think of ourselves as English, Scottish, Welsh etc in increasing numbers.

Worst case scenario, the UK could break up at some point in the next hundred years.:hmmm:

But, that's digressing from the main subject of the thread.....

Mike.

Small nor insignificant by what standarts? Ye olde empire? Yes. By modern industrial and prosperity standarts, compared to the rest of the world, also in regards to political soft power? No, not at all.

And I seriously doubt the UK will fall apart. The world would be poorer for it.

[Gammelpreusse]

Quite simple, really. Yes, they fought for their country, but that country was governed by an aberration. They fought for a lie, and a hideous one at that.

That aberration also caused enormous suffering, not just in those territories that Germany invaded, but also on the German population itself. The catch for the German's is that their suffering was self inflicted because they allowed themselves to be duped, or brainwashed, into supporting that aberration.

It's like my country, Britain. The British Empire is not viewed as being something to be proud of, if it is thought about at all. We suffer from a post-Imperial cringe of epic proportions. To the extent that the United Kingdom could, at some point in the future, dissolve as the last act of de-colonisation.

Mike.

Sorry, missed that post. Yeah, you nailed it pretty well.

[CCIP]

I just don't understand what there is to be proud of, besides some tactical successes and individual cameraderie under fire. And that's always been acknowledged. Otherwise, it was an offensive war started by Germany, and it ended in total strategic failure. Had they not taken up arms and followed orders, millions would've lived. It was a pointless, stupid exercise started by a fascist madman, and people should be rightly ashamed for following him. That's the only right lesson here.

IMO even in the West, the myth of the "good war" or "moral war" needs to be buried. World War II was a horrible excercise in mass murder, on all sides. Romanticizing it isn't what we need to do. We need to remember it. We need to know the veterans stories. We need to respect them for being human, not for anything else. And we need to take care of old, sick, traumatized people regardless of what they did during the war, or whether they were even there.

As for national pride, I fail to see what we have to gain by that, because we live in a global world today. National pride and ambition was what led everyone into WWII to begin with, so why suddenly romanticize it?

I think Germany learned the right lessons. And the results have been good. Why assume that something is missing there today?

BTW, I personally don't agree with the swastika bans in the form that they exist, but if there's public support for those, so be it.

[areo16]

As for national pride, I fail to see what we have to gain by that, because we live in a global world today. National pride and ambition was what led everyone into WWII to begin with, so why suddenly romanticize it?

You have a great point here. Any uniqueness or difference between groups give excuse for people to resort to conflict.


Again for the Germans, are the WW2 veterans treated well? Does the government give the benefits?

[Schroeder]

Again for the Germans, are the WW2 veterans treated well? Does the government give the benefits?

Veterans are treated like everyone else. They get all the benefits that everyone else gets (so no one has to starve or live under bridges). No special treatment but also not less than any other.

We don't parade them around but that is also nothing they would want (at least those I talked to).

[kranz]

Veterans are treated like everyone else. They get all the benefits that everyone else gets (so no one has to starve or live under bridges). No special treatment but also not less than any other.

not much for the glorious crusade against communism.

[Alex]

@ catfish, CCIP.
I just don't understand what there is to be proud of, besides some tactical successes and individual cameraderie under fire.
Who's talking about war and that **** called swastikas, actually ? :)
Who's talking about pride on the battlefield ? LOL. :D
Certainly not myself, I don't care about that in the least, personally I'm constantly looking forward, and will never keep repeating the same thing again and again - that is the principle of the scratched record used to rule over the Earth.

I just don't understand what there is to be proud of, besides some tactical successes and individual cameraderie under fire.
And so you should take a closer look on the economical side of the country at the time. I admit it will be hard : every barrier is in place these days to make you end up thinking the way you do.

As for national pride, I fail to see what we have to gain by that, because we live in a global world today.

Now, regarding nationalism, I'd say I'm in no position to teach a lesson to anyone out there on why it is a good thing, like I do not have enough time to clarify certain historical aspects of the country I live in, so I certainly won't pretend to know anything when it comes to other countries. But you should show more curiosity regarding the concept of nationalism : these days, most people tend to parrot the same opinion when it comes to that stuff, yeah we live on the same big mudball and everyone should hold everyone else's hand in order to overcome all difficulties everywhere, etc.
Basically watching tv makes you think that way. What you get out of this way of thinking, you as an individual, being part of that lowest social class I'm also part of ? I don't know, I don't care, and you know very well that spreading this way of thinking all around won't bring you much more than a little bit of respect from a few people who'll think you're an open-minded guy willing to establish a new world order where no racism will exist, nor any other kind of discrimination.
On the other hand, trumpeting internationalism - and cosmopolitism - values (being new ideas of the french revolution - nothing new here, guys [Tribesman wants me to shut up, I can't say more, sorry]) leaves people without their History, without their roots, without that great sense of sharing a common destiny.

I don't know why only a few care about the way tv is able to dictate what everyone's way of thinking should be, on a global scale, to the point you appear to be a reasonably open-minded guy only if you're a citizen of the world - making no differences between any people, showing how much you can keep your eyes closed on ethnic groups, religions, etc. (is that open-mindedness all in all, really ?) - whether you live in Los Angeles, Reykjavík, Yaoundé or Vladivostok.
But when one gets to notice that the concept of nation is also what the upper social class considers as "the stranglehold that needs to be broken up" (Tribesman certainly knows who I'm talking about here - and no, I'm not an antisomething, dude !), automatically people are supposed to get interested in that subject - and consequently are supposed to end up realizing the nation is the largest entity ever known to this day that is able to stand for the rights of its population, basically.

[MH]

So you are sort of Zionist.:haha:..that's cool .. cheers.:haha:

[Tribesman]

[Tribesman wants me to shut up, I can't say more, sorry])
Errrrr...... what on earth gave you that idea?
Now it could be said that a sensible person would have shut up, but a sensible person wouldn't hold to that loony ideology you follow, so that comes full circle.
As I said.....to me the best solution for the ideoliogy is to put it right out in plains sight, give it a big platform under a full spotlight and laugh at the idiots and their conspiracies and hatred.
See Alex I want you to keep posting your crazy jewish conspiracies and Nazi ideology so that people can laugh at it for what it is.

[Sailor Steve]

[Tribesman wants me to shut up, I can't say more, sorry

See Alex I want you to keep posting your crazy jewish conspiracies and Nazi ideology so that people can laugh at it for what it is.
Okay, you've both had your say. The game stops now.

[Aktungbby]

Again for the Germans, are the WW2 veterans treated well? Does the government give the benefits?

YUP! especially when the President of the United States come to town- this one got swept under the carpet of history as he laid a wreath in 1985 at the graves of Waffen SS soldiers. His remarks upon the occasion in response to criticism: "These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps" After 1943, the Waffen SS in fact did draft members due to the immense losses of elite troops in Russia and Normandy. Reagan's gesture: Still regarded as a controversial act to this day.:hmmm: http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=642&sid=1fb540864dda4fecb62180745afb8f9fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg) http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/wss/excerpt.html (http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/wss/excerpt.html)

[Tribesman]

Okay, you've both had your say. The game stops now.

I do wish you would make your mind up.
Challenge what he says, provide information and arguments.
So I follow your instructions and you go off on one again.

[Sailor Steve]

I do wish you would make your mind up.
Challenge what he says, provide information and arguments.
So I follow your instructions and you go off on one again.
Challenging what he said would involve posting research involving his current post. Providing information would involve looking up and posting links to articles that prove what you claim. Providing arguments would involve actually discussing the subject in a civilized manner.

He just claimed he's not anti-anything. You say different? Look up and post links to places where he has said what you claim. So far you have provided no information, arguments or real challenges. What you have done is mock him, and little else. You know where that gets you.

I'm giving you the chance to actually post something real. I'd suggest you take it.

[Catfish]

How are "war veterans" like Henry Kissinger being treated, in the USA ?

Just trolling. :D

[Sailor Steve]

I'm treated quite well, thank you. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

Challenging what he said would involve posting research involving his current post.
What research is required?
None whatsoever.
No hold on, I get it. if he writes....
Tribesman wants me to shut up, I can't say more, sorry
I know that is false , but I can prove it false by "researching" and quoting something relevant like .....to me the best solution for the ideoliogy is to put it right out in plains sight, give it a big platform under a full spotlight and laugh at the idiots and their conspiracies and hatred.

Though in academic interest should I amend the typos in the source material or add the little (sic) to go all latin on it?

He just claimed he's not anti-anything.
So he is a liar.

Look up and post links to places where he has said what you claim.
You are a moderator, are you able to pull up any of the anti semitic signatures he has had to remove?
That would be pretty compelling evidence wouldn't it:yep:
You know they exist and you know his long history of anti jewish and "anti occidental"posts, when knowledge of these facts is so common why would it have to be cited every time?
If I was to say the world is sort of round would I have to provide a picture of the globe or is it simply a given?

[Sailor Steve]

What research is required?
He just made a long post. If you want to respond to that you need to do so. Not call names, but respond to what he has written.

So he is a liar.
That's for you to prove. As you've been warned many times, you need to provide the research yourself, not just make fun of people.

You are a moderator, are you able to pull up any of the anti semitic signatures he has had to remove?
No, I'm not.
You know they exist and you know his long history of anti jewish and "anti occidental"posts, when knowledge of these facts is so common why would it have to be cited every time?
Because this is a public forum. If you claim something, you need to back up the claim with facts. Otherwise it's just allegations, and that is not allowed.

If I was to say the world is sort of round would I have to provide a picture of the globe or is it simply a given?
Not even close to being the same thing. If what you say is true, then it's up to you to provide the evidence. If he posts things that are forbidden here, then he gets in trouble. So far you are the only one doing that. Either way, we don't mock other members. Last warning.

[Tribesman]

He just made a long post. If you want to respond to that you need to do so. Not call names, but respond to what he has written.

Did I quote what I was responding to:yep:
Did I respond to it:yep:
Did I quote additional material to support what I wrote:yep:
Calling someone a Nazi isn't calling names, its a description of a rather disgusting political ideology.

That's for you to prove.
Already proven:yep:

No, I'm not.

But you are familiar with the material aren't you?
So why do you question its existence?
Are you just trying to be awkward.

Because this is a public forum. If you claim something, you need to back up the claim with facts. Otherwise it's just allegations, and that is not allowed.

Are you denying the truth of it?

Not even close to being the same thing. If what you say is true, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.
Exactly the same thing.

If he posts things that are forbidden here, then he gets in trouble.
So, does he get in trouble when he posts some of that neo Nazi stuff?:yep:

So far you are the only one doing that.
That's strange, I could have sworn someone had a little red marker next to one of their posts.:hmmm:

[Oberon]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1945296&#post1945296

[areo16]

YUP! especially when the President of the United States come to town- this one got swept under the carpet of history as he laid a wreath in 1985 at the graves of Waffen SS soldiers. His remarks upon the occasion in response to criticism: "These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps" After 1943, the Waffen SS in fact did draft members due to the immense losses of elite troops in Russia and Normandy. Reagan's gesture: Still regarded as a controversial act to this day.:hmmm: http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=642&sid=1fb540864dda4fecb62180745afb8f9fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg) http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/wss/excerpt.html (http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/wss/excerpt.html)


I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. They were victims too. Many of them.

[Sailor Steve]

...
I tried to warn you. Game over.

[Oberon]

*sigh*

[Aktungbby]

Indeed! in an ancient series of temples (3) from antiquity near Kibbutz Maoz Haim near Lebanon in tile on the floors http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/7-2-16/51803.html (http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/7-2-16/51803.html) Swastikas in tile!http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2007-2-16-syn1.jpghttp://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2007-2-16-syn3.jpgThe floors were paved with small stones of about 70 different hues depicting Itzhak's sacrifice, the Ark of the Covenant, inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic, traditional Jewish symbols, such as the menorah, customary national ornaments, and many different swastikas. Clearly not as big an issue then as now...:hmmm: politics politics!

[Aktungbby]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. They were victims too. Many of them.

A bit of a double standard arises though, when Washington squawks over the Japanese minister visiting the Yasokuni War shrine to honor Japan's dead...apparently German SS Dead aren't the same as the 'yellow peril's' war dead...:hmmm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine)

[TarJak]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. They were victims too. Many of them.
And many of them complicit in the offences they carried out in Hitler's name.

[Admiral Halsey]

So Tribe got thrown in the brig? This a permaban or just a temporary one? Reason I ask is because the arguments he causes always give me a good chuckle and I want to know if that source of amusement is gone for good.

[Skybird]

It seems you live in Germany. So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech" in the general sense of the words. It seems you feel freedom of speech should take the bench to the propagation of terror.

In most places propogation of terror is illegal anyhow. This could be considered a threat, which is a crime here in the states. So why limit the freedom of speech if the propagation of terror and the acts the Nazis did are illegal anyhow? What about the display of the swastika for educational purposes, or peaceful purposes? I realize this might be hard to grasps considering that the incidents occurred just 60 years ago. But you do think that Freedom of speech does have its limits.
Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

[areo16]

A bit of a double standard arises though, when Washington squawks over the Japanese minister visiting the Yasokuni War shrine to honor Japan's dead...apparently German SS Dead aren't the same as the 'yellow peril's' war dead...:hmmm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine)

I see no issue with this either. But is it me, or is our US media labeling it as these Japanese ministers are denying the Chinese atrocities just because they wish to remember the Japanese dead? I believe that is what I read.

[areo16]

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.


What you say is true. Free speech is limited by things such as proximity and time. However, my response was addressing a situation of free speech which seems to be a bit more strict than that practiced here in the states. The limitation of free speech and the level it is practiced that I am addressing is a war and crimes which were committed over 60 years ago. No such limitation exists in the US. No one is outlawed from preaching anything about WW2 here in the US, from my general knowledge. Not boasting that our system is better, its more of a boast that I was brainwashed to think that my system is ideal.

[Skybird]

What you say is true. Free speech is limited by things such as proximity and time. However, my response was addressing a situation of free speech which seems to be a bit more strict than that practiced here in the states. The limitation of free speech and the level it is practiced that I am addressing is a war and crimes which were committed over 60 years ago. No such limitation exists in the US. No one is outlawed from preaching anything about WW2 here in the US, from my general knowledge. Not boasting that our system is better, its more of a boast that I was brainwashed to think that my system is ideal.
1917 the US under Wilson released the infamous Espionage Act which widened the definition of "spionage", to allow legal prosecution of wide-spread public opposition to getting the US involved in the war in Europe.

Under Bush, also under Obama, a tight regime was implemented aiming at controlling white house correspondents and to bring them into line with their questions and researches, preventing unwanted information getting published, not to mention the intimidation of reporters by legal threats risen under the cynically so-called "Patriot" Act. Legal rules were introduced that aim at drying out reporter's information sources, to allow that the WH alone defines what the "truth" and what the real "information" is. Manipulation of the flow of information aims at brainwashing and influencing public opinion forming. - Free mind and resulting free speech means little if transparency and unfiltered information is systematically prevented.

Or think of what free speech is worth if somebody's only source of information that he bases his knowledge of political events on, is a manipulating propaganda station like FOX.

The mind using - or being banned from having - freedom of speech, is more profound. And many people today get all day long systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated.

And I do not even go into anonymous social pressure, and social standards that people "voluntarily" submit to and that again manipulate the ways of their thinking.

Freedom of speech is not at the core of it. Like a brush is a tool for the painter, free speech is a tool for the thinking mind. If the painter has no artistic talent, than being free to use brushes as he likes is of no meaning/importance for him, and what a manipulated mind thinks it has to say, is not that important, like a dilettante's painting is just an amateurish scribbling.

[Betonov]

I see nothing wrong with Reagans gesture.

They were brainwashed and that meant they were victims long before they were killed. No excuse for the atrocities but they payed for it with their lives.

[areo16]

1917 the US under Wilson released the infamous Espionage Act which widened the definition of "spionage", to allow legal prosecution of wide-spread public opposition to getting the US involved in the war in Europe.

Under Bush, also under Obama, a tight regime was implemented aiming at controlling white house correspondents and to bring them into line with their questions and researches, preventing unwanted information getting published, not to mention the intimidation of reporters by legal threats risen under the cynically so-called "Patriot" Act. Legal rules were introduced that aim at drying out reporter's information sources, to allow that the WH alone defines what the "truth" and what the real "information" is. Manipulation of the flow of information aims at brainwashing and influencing public opinion forming. - Free mind and resulting free speech means little if transparency and unfiltered information is systematically prevented.

Or think of what free speech is worth if somebody's only source of information that he bases his knowledge of political events on, is a manipulating propaganda station like FOX.

The mind using - or being banned from having - freedom of speech, is more profound. And many people today get all day long systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated.

And I do not even go into anonymous social pressure, and social standards that people "voluntarily" submit to and that again manipulate the ways of their thinking.

Freedom of speech is not at the core of it. Like a brush is a tool for the painter, free speech is a tool for the thinking mind. If the painter has no artistic talent, than being free to use brushes as he likes is of no meaning/importance for him, and what a manipulated mind thinks it has to say, is not that important, like a dilettante's painting is just an amateurish scribbling.

Yes, but your getting off track. I've stated that freedom of speech seems to be more robust in the states than it does in Germany. US does not outlaw the display of any symbols or flags in a public place unless they are a crime as to a physical threat to someone.

We all know that our freedom of speech isn't freedom, but we Americans try to test the limits day to day as we know there is a limit somewhere. The limits change according to place and time. However, the Sumpreme Court is more consistant than other judgements.

[Jimbuna]

So Tribe got thrown in the brig? This a permaban or just a temporary one? Reason I ask is because the arguments he causes always give me a good chuckle and I want to know if that source of amusement is gone for good.

Clicking on the infraction icon displays all the details.

[Schroeder]

*sigh*
I think I'll take a break...

[Skybird]

Yes, but your getting off track. I've stated that freedom of speech seems to be more robust in the states than it does in Germany. US does not outlaw the display of any symbols or flags in a public place unless they are a crime as to a physical threat to someone.

We all know that our freedom of speech isn't freedom, but we Americans try to test the limits day to day as we know there is a limit somewhere. The limits change according to place and time. However, the Sumpreme Court is more consistant than other judgements.
I fail to see where I bypass the topic. I just outlined that there is more to it and that freedom of speech has a more subtle complexity to it than just this - after all very superficial - German thing on swastikas.

[TarJak]

I think I'll take a break...

Same. Shame its come to this.:nope:

[MH]

Tribesman is playing games.:)
It is all he does.

Weather he deserves the ban i don't know but he certainly should not be taken seriously.

A rest from Jewish this... Jewish that.. in every second post no matter if it has any connection with the issue at hand.
...Maybe he is trying to be internet shrink lol

Yeah.. Swastikas...what a mess.

Maybe some time in the future things will change but as long as there are people who don't want swastikas to be shoved in their faces or cant stand Wagner and so on...it is the heritage of ww2 we need to live in.
Most people don't care either way i guess...

I agree though that all the legislation in games is ridiculous.
You can commit virtual mass slaughter but swastika is no... no...

[Catfish]

A bit of a double standard arises though, when Washington squawks over the Japanese minister visiting the Yasokuni War shrine to honor Japan's dead...apparently German SS Dead aren't the same as the 'yellow peril's' war dead...:hmmm:


The former SS helped the US so much after WW2 .. from the Kameradenwerk to the OSS. All good as long as it was against the Russians.

[areo16]

I fail to see where I bypass the topic. I just outlined that there is more to it and that freedom of speech has a more subtle complexity to it than just this - after all very superficial - German thing on swastikas.

Apparently swastikas aren't that superficial if they are being banned in your country. Your widening the topic, when there is more than enough to discuss within the OP topic already.

[Bilge_Rat]

I fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue.

Freedom of speech is never totally free, you are not able to say anything, anywhere with no restriction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)

Germany has chosen to ban the swastika symbol. Big deal. Let's move on.

[Skybird]

Apparently swastikas aren't that superficial if they are being banned in your country.
That causal conclusion is illogical. The ban itself holds no info on whether the issue is superfical an issue or not. But you m ake a big deal of it, while it is not really, and certainly is no indication in itself for a crackdown on free speech.

The swastika ban simply means so little for many Germans that many of us simply prefer to not care much for the "issue" at all. It's there, fine. If it wouldn't be there, most people would not care also, except maybe the Central Committee of German Jews. NSA scandal, Snowden revelations, the intimidation of sources for reporters, global communication control and privatesphere being hacked, and Patriot Act - that is what should get your attention much more, because it does much more damage in the present, leads much further than the swastika ban, and holds much more substantial a description of contemporary society and the way it is moving in the US. Compared to that, your indignation over partial bans of Nazi symbols in Germany is theatrical, sorry. If at least you would have started about the several eastgerman counties where the Nazis have become the dominant political faction again, then at least you would have had a relevant point, but - this...?

You remind me of this saying a bit, regarding the splinter in the other's eye, while ignoring the beam in one's own. There are more serious threats to free speech and free mind, than the German swastika ban.

[areo16]

That causal conclusion is illogical. The ban itself holds no info on whether the issue is superfical an issue or not. But you m ake a big deal of it, while it is not really, and certainly is no indication in itself for a crackdown on free speech.

The swastika ban simply means so little for many Germans that many of us simply prefer to not care much for the "issue" at all. It's there, fine. If it wouldn't be there, most people would not care also, except maybe the Central Committee of German Jews. NSA scandal, Snowden revelations, the intimidation of sources for reporters, global communication control and privatesphere being hacked, and Patriot Act - that is what should get your attention much more, because it does much more damage in the present, leads much further than the swastika ban, and holds much more substantial a description of contemporary society and the way it is moving in the US. Compared to that, your indignation over partial bans of Nazi symbols in Germany is theatrical, sorry. If at least you would have started about the several eastgerman counties where the Nazis have become the dominant political faction again, then at least you would have had a relevant point, but - this...?

You remind me of this saying a bit, regarding the splinter in the other's eye, while ignoring the beam in one's own. There are more serious threats to free speech and free mind, than the German swastika ban.


Whether you think this issue is minute or not doesn't make it any less valid of a discussion. A breach of freedom of speech, no matter how small, is still a breach. You can discuss the violations of FoS that you wish, and I'll discuss the ones that I wish. Or are you trying to limit my Freedom of Speech do debate this topic?

I think alot can be learned about the ban. It goes to show that wars last much longer than the treaties or unconditional surrenders that are supposed to end them take effect. Banning a symbol or a persons name is a stepping stone to banning much greater and more important things if the people are convinced that such a ban is just.

[MH]

I think alot can be learned about the ban. It goes to show that wars last much longer than the treaties or unconditional surrenders that are supposed to end them take effect..

No..the collective sensitivity last longer than the war.
Weather it all make sense is another thing but that is how it works.
Those restrictions had been made by people who had to live through ww2 at the time , the gaming was not their concern at the time.
USA on another hand was less affected by the war , the reason why people felt more comfortable with the issue but then i would not wave red flag 50s or 60s.

Since a lot of time has passed since ww2 those issues can be revisited i guess , if enough people see them as pressing matter.
No body is limiting your freedom of speech , you debating this issue after all ..right?

[Gammelpreusse]

I think alot can be learned about the ban. It goes to show that wars last much longer than the treaties or unconditional surrenders that are supposed to end them take effect. Banning a symbol or a persons name is a stepping stone to banning much greater and more important things if the people are convinced that such a ban is just.

Welcome to that realisation. And yes, it is indeed about a much greater topic. It's all about getting rid of national socialism as a legit political force.

If the reasons for that are not obvious to you, I can try to give you a short history lesson.

[Skybird]

Or are you trying to limit my Freedom of Speech do debate this topic?


I question your motives, and/or reasonability. To focus on this little thing "banning swastikas in Germany" and make a big, up-blown deal of it, while ignoring much more actual and massive threats to and de facto limitations of free speech, that effect all the West and form political realities, is embarassing. The ban of the swastika in many contexts in Germany, means little if not even nothing to most germans, and to the world. But the erosion of the ability to think freely and independently, the erosion of the preconditions of free speech in journalistic research and the other examples I listed, means a thousand times more for our present, and does a thousand times more damage right now, and not just to one country, but all the West, and beyond.

Take a sheet of paper, or many, and start making ink drops on it. Do so until you have made several millions, a two digit number of millions, and try to imagine that every ink drop is a dead body.

Then, after many many many hours, you maybe realise why some people maybe agree with the idea to not give an ideology that stockpiled so many dead bodies any space to unfold again, and why that has nothing to do with a general assault against free speech.

Many Allied soldiers, resisting people, and innocent victims from many nations, including Germans, let their lives to overthrow the Third Reich. They must turn in their graves in despair when listening to you. Becasue they realise that their sacrifices, according to you, have been in vein.

I hereby file a proposal that Nazis should be but onto the list of species enjoying special protection and conservation rights. They too deserve our tolerance and hopes for a better coexistence.

[Skybird]

Am 10. Oktober 1945 verbot der Alliierte Kontrollrat (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliierter_Kontrollrat) die NSDAP, alle ihre Gliederungen und angeschlossenen Verbände und deren Symbole. In den Nürnberger Prozessen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberger_Prozesse) 1946 wurde die NSDAP mit allen Untergliederungen zur „verbrecherischen Organisation“ erklärt.


In der Bundesrepublik Deutschland galten zunächst sämtliche Gesetze der Alliierten zur „Befreiung des deutschen Volkes vom Nationalsozialismus und Militarismus“ aufgrund Artikel 139 des Grundgesetzes (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland) weiter. Sie wurden abgelöst, indem unter anderem Friedensverrat, Hochverrat und Gefährdung des demokratischen Rechtsstaates (§ 80 (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__80.html) bis § 92b (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__92b.html)) als Straftatbestände in das Strafgesetzbuch eingefügt wurden. In diesem Rahmen bedroht § 86a das öffentliche „Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwenden_von_Kennzeichen_verfassungswidriger_Orga nisationen)“ zum Zweck ihrer Verbreitung mit einer Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder einer Geldstrafe. Absatz 3 nimmt solche Propagandamittel oder Handlungen von der Strafbarkeit aus, die „der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Abwehr verfassungswidriger Bestrebungen, der Kunst oder der Wissenschaft, der Forschung oder der Lehre, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der Geschichte oder ähnlichen Zwecken“ dienen.
Note that what I said on property rights is effective here. The german laws rule that the use of symbols representing anti-constitutional ideologies and intentions are banned from use in the public sphere. Free speech is not about showing one's speech into others' ears just anywhere, at any time. Also, the display of such symbols in context that are educational, in defence of the constituioonal order of the state, scientific/historic research, reports in historixc documentations, are perfectly allowed.


In games, this is usually forbidden, since a game like IL-2 may be recreatinal, but is not really educational, although many gamers try to upgrade their hobby and to give it a better reputation by thinking of multiplayer sessions in propeller machines as something that "educates" :D them on historic contexts. Which is a glorious and somewhat megalomaniac self-deception, in my eyes.


Also note, that the basis for the later German legislation - has been US-American laws first imposed on Germany and later demanded for Germany by the US themselves.

[Spook27]

As an offline player of both SH3/SH4/SH5 and Il21946, I can promise you there is an enormous amount of research among serious skinners and campaign/mission makers. The Offline Community is at the heart of the Il2 mods, not the Onliners so much, but it depends on your attitude: Silent Hunter, for example, is part strategy 'game' and 'historic simulation' - Il2 is also primarily a 'simulator' rather than a 'game'.

This is such a fascinating subject with so many ways to view it, may I give you a piece from my recent book on Grand Prix Racing history?

This is directly related to a section on German engineering dominance in the 1930s and the revision of history, particularly through image retouching, that goes on today.

"Author’s note:
The German racing cars of this period usually carried a couple of ‘swastika’ markings. Actually, the infamous logo of the Nazi party was a reversed swastika, originally a Phoenician sun symbol. This is a matter of historical record and in Germany today the swastika is an illegal symbol, although display for academic, educational, artistic or journalistic reasons is allowed.

However, all over the modern world photographic reference material is now widely 're-touched' to airbrush out the swastika (look really closely at contemporary photographs and you can often see where it has been altered). It seems that despite the acceptance for reasonable depiction, within a historic context, many companies and individuals are self-censoring!

Is it right to remove certain uncomfortable aspects of history while retaining those we wish to project? Should we be able to confront the historical truth and deal with it, or is it necessary instead to consume a revised edition, and to ignore the warnings of Wells, Huxley and Orwell? Namely; where does such shameful censorship end and who decides what is safe for you to see?

During the 1930s and 1940s Nazi interest and financing of German industry and sport permeated the entire society and we should not indulge in collective amnesia. Amidst the controversy over the issue of self-censorship, born of the desire to anticipate and avoid imagined offence, it has also been pointed out by modern academics, restorers, model makers, writers, artists and many others interested in truth; that those who suppress or alter the historic record usually become the thing they fear.

Despite the good intentions of ‘Political Correctness', distortion of the historic record is itself grossly offensive and dangerous, dishonouring history and insulting the memory of its victims."


Spook27 - AKA - SAS~Monty27

[Skybird]

You know what would be educational in racing cars simulated form that era? An indepth-explanation of the engineering nad technolgy used, and the history of that technicals unfolding. A description of the cars' unique behaviors, and representing that in the game. A detailed simulation of the functions, and driving characteristics.

Whether there is a swastika depicted, teaches nobody nowhere nothing.

I found the argument that displaying swastikas is part of historic education, absurd since along time.

Same is true for SH3 or IL-2. Who cares whether there is a swastika in the flag's emblem, or a green triangle? It does nothing for your education, only reminds you of what a swastika is looking like.

What is to be known when using swastika symbols, is the context in which they were used. The ideology they represent, and what it meant and what it did. The political developments, the reasons why it ended in disaster. But that you do not learn by painting swastikas. But by reading history and political books. Or does anyone here seriously want to argue that spraying graffitis on the wall to the entrance to the subway station helps education on the technique of daVinci'S painting? Or does it help to write prose or fiction? Calculating math formulas?

You said modders spend a lot of time in research to get their models's skins right. Fine, nothing wrong with that. But a paint scheme does not give anyone more education when watching it, then I got education on aircraft technology when gluing together a plane model by Revel in my youth. It may be about immersion. But then it is immersion, still no education in an intellectual meaning.

Was Prince Harry educating when wearing his Nazi uniform on a party many years ago...? What have people elarned about that era when seeing him, different to how his uniform looked like (which was not even that accurate a copy, if I recall it correctly)...?

I think many people mistake entertainment and recreation with education here.

Same I would say on the festivities sometimes to be seen, where some historic battles are replayed by volunteers, and when being asked they say they do it because of teaching history. Nonsense. It is about the spectaculum, and about the boys in adult men wanting to play cowboys and indians again. Okay, nothing bad in that, if people want to do that. But let's call it by its real name, then: entertainment, not education. Like some people make a fetish of a pop star an arrange their whole life around it, others do the same with the Roman legions, or the Nazis, or the American civil war.

[Tribesman]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1945296&#post1945296
Thank you Oberon, Henry Fords "great" literary masterpiece was a classic example.

[kranz]

...
I assume you found the file in the cake I sent you.

[briefencounter]

Wouldn't the solution have been for UBI Soft to have included with the Silent Hunter series, the option to install the historically correct German flags from files built into the game, at the click of a mouse? The default game could show the "politically correct" flags with no need for the player to change that. If he was not offended by historical accuracy, then, again with a mouse click, the player could choose to display the swastika in his game.
Surely, for Silent Hunter fans on this forum, the debate should not be political but, rather, the debate should be be about how easy or how difficult it is for us to download the historically correct flags from the SUBSIM site. I've got 'em - I downloaded them easily and I LOVE 'em! To anybody who is offended by the swastika, don't download the sub flags.

[Spook27]

It does matter whether an emblem is correct or not. Fear of the emblem is what gives it power.

A flag is just a piece of cloth. The actions done in the name of that flag are not the same thing as the flag. There is good and bad in human nature, but censorship is never right.

[Tribesman]

There is good and bad in human nature, but censorship is never right.
Never is a strong word.
If Sir J. Saville had done a photojournal covering his charitable works in childrens hospitals do you think it should be censored?

[Spook27]

Censored for who? Evidence in a court of law? - no.

You mean published in some way? - For what market exactly? It wouldn't be on my Christmas list.

[Tribesman]

Censored for who? Evidence in a court of law? - no.

You mean published in some way? - For what market exactly? It wouldn't be on my Christmas list.
Going by the regular large numbers of convictions around the world there certainly would be a market.
So should it be published?
Do you agree with censorship or do you still hold that censorship is never right?

[MH]

Should child pornography be censored?
Ohh Yeas
Therefore censorship is good ->swastika censorship is good :yeah:

[Tribesman]

Should child pornography be censored?
Ohh Yeas
Therefore censorship is good ->swastika censorship is good :yeah:
Such great powers of comprehension you have.
Well done.:rotfl2:

[MH]

Such great powers of comprehension you have.
Well done.:rotfl2:

Bahh....

[Tribesman]

Bahh....
Don't feel so bad, your usual attempt at trolling was pretty lame.

But hey in fairness lets assume you were not just trolling and really do have massive problems with comprehending simple things.

Two positions...
Censorship is always good.
Censorship is never good.
....neither position makes any sense does it:hmm2:
-->censorship being good or bad depends entirely on the specifics of each individual case.

[MH]

Don't feel so bad, your usual attempt at trolling was pretty lame.

But hey in fairness lets assume you were not just trolling and really do have massive problems with comprehending simple things.

Two positions...
Censorship is always good.
Censorship is never good.
....neither position makes any sense does it:hmm2:
-->censorship being good or bad depends entirely on the specifics of each individual case.

Good A+.

[Onkel Neal]

Don't feel so bad, your usual attempt at trolling was pretty lame.

But hey in fairness lets assume you were not just trolling and really do have massive problems with comprehending simple things.



Tribesman, please refrain from insulting other members. That's what you keep having your posting privileges revoked. We've asked you many, many times, to be civil. Other members of this forum have to abide by the rules. You do as well.

Thank You,
Neal

[Dan D]

@Swastika use „verboten“ when not social adequate

You don't have to create the fictional example of a ban of the Confederate flag in the US, which you find would be social inadequate, for comparison reasons.

Legislatures in almost half of the US states have enacted statutes that explicitly outlaw „cross burning“ in one form or another:
ALA.CODE §13A-6-28; ARIZ.REV.STAT.ANN. §13-1707; CAL. PENAL CODE §11411;
CONN.GEN.STAT.ANN. §46a-58; DEL.CODE ANN. tit.11 §805; FLA.STAT. ANN. §876.17;
GA.CODE §16-11-37; IDAHO CODE §18-7902; ILL.COMP.LAWS ANN. ch.720 ¶5, §12-7.6; LA.
REV.STAT.ANN. §14:40.4; MD.CODE ANN.,CRIM.LAW §10-304; MO.ANN.STAT. §565.095;
MONT.CODE ANN.§45-5-221; N.H.REV. STAT.ANN. §631:4; N.J.STAT.ANN. §2C:33-10;
N.C.GEN.STAT. §14-12.13; OKLA.STAT.ANN. tit.21 §1174; S.C. CODE ANN. §16-7-120;
S.D.COD.LAWS ANN. §22-19B-1; VT.STAT.ANN. tit.13 §1456; VA. CODE ANN. §18.2-423;
WASH.REV.CODE ANN.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34200.pdf

Take the cross burning ban in relation with the swastika ban for a comparison of the concepts of freedom of speech in Germany and the US.

If you look at the reasoning why some US states have banned cross burning, which btw is not „verboten“ in Germany, I could do that, I might get a ticket for polluting the air though, then I bet you will find similarities with the German legislators idea to ban the use of swastikas when it is not social adequate; like protecting the political peace so that people don't go at each others throats etc.

[Friscobay]

The former SS helped the US so much after WW2 .. from the Kameradenwerk to the OSS. All good as long as it was against the Russians.



''Our Germans are better than their Germans''

The Right Stuff [ 1983 ].

[Friscobay]

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

This may be the rule in Germany.

It is not in the US.

Indeed, from Associate Justice OW Holmes famous ''fire in a crowded theater'' comment which was a portion of the nations landmark free speech decision in 1919s SCHENCK , the US divided speech into that which can offend, and that which represents, a ''clear and present danger''. What you speak of where Neals oversight of SUBSIM is concerned, is that of the individuals willful entry into an arena where a compact is agreed upon bearing upon activity that includes the regulation of speech, [ ''Terms of Service'' and other devices used to regulate speech by owner-operators ].

That is one thing, and represents an area where speech can be regulated.

However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. Only , as in SCHENCK, of offensive speech, and that which threatens. Immediately threatens. For such reasons then, do we find that America remains the least regulated of all industrial nations in the use and advancement of free speech, and becomes the only one to codify it within its very first amendment, of the Bill of Rights. Here, ''bothering'' others, is a national pastime in this nation for whatever the socio-political reasons that trigger the start of the soapbox derbies and their attendant debates.:hmm2:

[Skybird]

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

[Sailor Steve]

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing.
Not quite true, at least not here. The protected right includes all "non-owned" properties. While you can't do it in a so-called "public" property, such as inside a federal or state government like a courthouse, outside on a street corner anyone can preach pretty much anything they like. If someone wants to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and preach against the Mormon Church, they are free to do so. Impromptu anti-government rallies take place on the grounds of the Salt Lake City government building and the Utah State Capitol from time to time, and nothing is done to stop them.

[Skybird]

The public, non-owned space yopu refer to, actually is owned, by this abstraction called "the common good" or the "the state". And the latter either allows it, or deems that the first, which is amdinstered by the latter, should accept it. In both cases, there is an owner of the place who has allowed it.

The non-owned space you mention could only be had these days if you would find an island in non-claimed internaitonal waters where no state makes any claims. As long as no pirvate person has taken possession nof this land by gouing there and making use of it and turning it that way into his/her own possession, it is not owned, and thus just anybody could do just anything there. Needless to say, that state of not being owned would soon come to an end.

States are only capable to do a lot of things because they claim to be their own possession what they have stolen from private possession before. That includes the land and property that is used to build "public" roads" on, "public" plazas and buildings, and the like, also much rural countryside is now "owned" by states. Imagine if all this would not be owned by states, but would be private property indeed - imagine how little power states and governments would have then to enforce policies against the people's will, then! No migration that is not wanted by the local residents could happen without each and every land owner explicitly giving his agreement to let foreigners walk over his lawn, so to speak. No tax-collectors could reach their victims whom they want to blackmail for protection money. No state officials and no armies could march around against the will of the land owners. On the other hand, local populations would need to come to terms with themselves, and decide in the region what kind of infrastructure to be built in order to serve everybody.

Right now, two years ago those Nazis I mentioned could march around my block and hold their yelling speeches because the state "owned" the paths and ways and crossroads they walked upon, and decided that the state should allow these thugs doing so, although the overwhelming majority of the population - almost everybody - here was totally against it. The police shielded every single house, every single lawn and garden, every single door, the sight was truly monumental. Not only did the police that way made clear that the unwelcomed Nazis were not to enter private property - but for the hours the show was going on, private people were hindered to leave their own property and walk onto the "public" road, police did not allow anybody to leave his home if he was still in there (many however had gone to demonstrations before - and during the time she show was running were not allowed to go back into their homes.

The state enforced its will upon us - we did not want to have that scum parading around here.

P.S. Ownership of the time and place could also mean that you legally lease the opportunity from the original owner to use his assets. For example you lease a townhall for an evening to hold an assembly, or you rent broadcasting time on TV. Or you use opportunities provided by< the state, like parading in the public space (which nevertheless must be gained formal permission for, a demonstration for example must be registered with the police, and a court can prohibit it under certain circumstances. Both institutions represent the state who can only act this way because he claims possession of the so-called public sphere).

[Sailor Steve]

Your earlier point was that if I wanted to exercise free speech I had to own the property or else it meant nothing. My point was that the right to freedom of speech is protected in "publically owned" land, as long as it's not disrupting others' rights to move about or conduct business. Deny it all you like, spin it all you like, we do indeed have freedom of speech in public places. Sorry if you don't.

As to your PS: Did you miss the part where I said "impromptu"? Yes, a rally that will disrupt public business must be scheduled, but even when they're not they usually are allowed to continue. Also, that doesn't address what I said about preaching on a street corner. It happens from time to time, and it's entirely legal, and protected.

[Camaero]

Are German prisons filled with people who tattoo swastikas on themselves like in the US?

[Catfish]

@ Friso bay
Our Germans are better than their Germans
The Right Stuff [1983 ]. :haha: That was a very good film.
The quote would also fit Dr. Strangelove .. :03:

I am not sure, my theory always was the US got the space jockeys, while the Soviets got the submarine ones.
But i was not referring to the scientists, more to the secret services ..


@Skybird:
There's always speaker's corner, in Hyde Park..

[Skybird]

Your earlier point was that if I wanted to exercise free speech I had to own the property or else it meant nothing. My point was that the right to freedom of speech is protected in "publically owned" land, as long as it's not disrupting others' rights to move about or conduct business. Deny it all you like, spin it all you like, we do indeed have freedom of speech in public places. Sorry if you don't.
I don'T see the issue you raise here. I said initially that like with human rights in general, the right of free speech is just vague, empty babble as long as it is not understood to be a property right. And then I explained why that is so and what that means.Now you even admit that the right of free speech is only given in the public space, and sicne the poublixc space is space expropriat5ed by the state from previous private proprietors, and since therefore the state is the adminstrator and owner of the opublic sphere and can regulate it to its liking, and has the power monopoly to make the laws that allow and ban what is to be done by people in this private space, the satate effectively is the owner, and you therefore prove me right.

If you do not believe me, you can walk to the next traffic crossroad and start yelling that you think the president deserves to be shot. You will be surprised how fast your freedom of speech in the public space is no longer tolerated by the space owner.

I have no authored this line of arguments, but I copy/follow it only, because when I first time read it, I saw the reason in it and thus got convinced by its logic. So if you want to have another endless and useless hairplitting exercise over something that should be pretty obvious to see when it gets explained and thought about, then argue with for example M. Rothbard: The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 15 "Human Rights as Property Rights", page 113 - 120. Right of free speech, Hu,man Rights, it all is vague and lacks flesh on the bones if not getting nailed down to what it really means in pragmatic reality. It makes zero sense to claim there is a right of free speech "per se." You could as well claim you have a right to pay your bill. Without possessing money, this right means nothing. And if you would want to make that right a reality, what would you do? You would go and start making money. Reiterating your claim that you have a right to pay for your bills, would mean nothing, and would get you nowhere.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.3432&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Skybird]

@ Friso bay
:haha: That was a very good film.
The quote would also fit Dr. Strangelove .. :03:

I am not sure, my theory always was the US got the space jockeys, while the Soviets got the submarine ones.
But i was not referring to the scientists, more to the secret services ..


@Skybird:
There's always speaker's corner, in Hyde Park..
And who owns Hyde Park and allows/changes/enforces/bans any rules...? Speaker's Corner, public space - there is no principal difference there. The first is part of the latter.

[Sailor Steve]

Now you even admit that the right of free speech is only given in the public space, and sicne the poublixc space is space expropriat5ed by the state from previous private proprietors, and since therefore the state is the adminstrator and owner of the opublic sphere and can regulate it to its liking, and has the power monopoly to make the laws that allow and ban what is to be done by people in this private space, the satate effectively is the owner, and you therefore prove me right.
What? I said nothing of the kind. We created our government, and though we do have our complaints about the way it is run from time to time, we do indeed reserve to ourselves certain rights, including the right to freedom of speech. Just because you are incapable of understanding this and unwilling to fight for that right yourself, doesn't mean it isn't so.

If you do not believe me, you can walk to the next traffic crossroad and start yelling that you think the president deserves to be shot. You will be surprised how fast your freedom of speech in the public space is no longer tolerated by the space owner.
I complained to anyone who would listen when several years ago a famous actor did that very thing on a broadcast television station. It wasn't the President he wanted shot, it was a public official and his whole family. This is still technically illegal, yet it was put down to him being intoxicated at the time and nothing was done.

As to your specific example, yes, there are certain limitations, just as I theoretically have the right to do anything I want, yet that doesn't grant me a "right" to deny others of their own right to life, liberty, property etcetera. No, advocating the death of a public official can concievably be construed to be planning that death, which is definitely illegal. Still, I can shout that I believe this president or that public official deserves to be removed from office, or even jailed, without fear of recrimination or reprisal. Again, all your trying to twist it to the contrary doesn't make it so. Rights are inherent, and within the context of not infringing the rights of others we understand and support that concept. I'm sorry if you don't.

I've downloaded your link, and I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be) to find out it's more Hoppe*. I promise I will read it, but from what you're recommended before I have to say that the guy, while a professional philosopher, is also highly opinionated. It's nothing but his opinion, and from what I've seen so far my own opinion is that his opinion is very much stuck in a social context that prevents him from understanding what true freedom is supposed to be.

Still, I am looking forward to reading it in its entirety.

* Or was I thinking of Popper? The all look the same to me.

[Skybird]

Well, in your naive view of government, I necessarily must leave you alone, how oine could still think like that is completely beyond me, and that is not just for the American state, but states in general, including Germany. I compare you explanation to religious fundamentalists taking all the bible literally, because, they claim, it is the word of God, and it thus must right. To me, the state is a fake show to deceive the crowds, a new form of feudalism dressed in a democratic burkha to make it appear as something different. And that view I already held long before I stumbled of the libertarian literature in the past two years. It was not that new to me - it just helped me to weave all those lose ends and single threads I ended up with from my own reasoning, into a single rope. Less the content itself but the structure it provided me with was what I benefited from. I had all the pieces, almost all. What I did not manage to achieve is to form them all into one theoretic model explaining them. Long discussions about that, later per PM, with UnderseaLanceCorporal I had on all that. Must be 6 years or longer.

[Skybird]

Popper looks to you like Hoppe? Less coffein and less alcohol, I would recommend. :03:

Hoppe hardly can be excused to be a lefty. But Popper is extremely left-leaning. Hoppe was a student of Rothbard. Rothbard shared many views of von Mises and Hayek, but he split with von Mises over ethics. Rothbard also held some controversial views during the 50s and 60s, over black rights, women rights and Jews, but to some degree distanced himself from them later, to some degree I found some criticism of him also being abusive and intentionally misleading, to give him a bad name.

Von Mises probably was the most reasonable modern economist there was, if not by influence (he is not ignored for no reason by those who benefit from the state), then by his arguments and precise analysis and predictions. Short before his death he admitted that he was too long too naive regarding the nature of democracy, and that he overestimated it tremendously in an attempt to not wanting to see how ruinous it really is both materialistically and intellectually. If he would still live today, he probably would support the views of Hoppe.

Hayek was a student of von Mises, and was ignored by the mainstream for the same reason: he showed beyond doubt why the modern understanding of economy and especially money necessarily must lead to collapse, he also contributed quite profound analysis on the disastrous nature of socialism and totalitarianism. Since Hayek's views of what money is would have meant dramatic limitations of the powers for politicians, he was bypassed completely and instead politicians chose to go with Keynes who told them that they could endlessly make money as much as they want without creating value first. That's what the voters and the politicians wanted to hear, not those heavy burdens Hayek was promising them. And so, there we are. Read my new sig. I personally would not even dare to call Keynes' ideas a theory. It simply is populist drivel. He lived well by that and enjoyed the applause for sure.

[Sailor Steve]

Well, in your naive view of government, I necessarily must leave you alone
I disagree with you, so now I'm naive? Interesting sort of dismissal.

I respect the work you've done to make your own philosophy, but it's still just one viewpoint, and not necessarily the correct one. To me it's simple. I have the right to do anything I want, so long as I don't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. Government has the power to block or even remove those rights. If they do so within the moral background of the law and for legitimate purposes, such as locking me up if I prove to be a danger to my fellow citizens, then they are acting on the behalf of the people. If they do so for unjust reasons, such as speaking out against the government and its policies, then it's time to start fighting again.

America may not have a history going back thousands of years, but we do have the unique position of having started from scratch* and creating the government we wanted. We also made sure we had it in writing that we reserved the right to do so again, if necessary.

*Not from whole cloth, as we did pick and choose from the best we could find.

[Friscobay]

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.




Of course, but you did NOT frame the discussion in this manner. You included ALL speech which offends into the private world of ''space and time''.

It does not work that way. I clearly noted the exceptions granted the ''owner-operator'' of the private realm. [ who also has the right to include gaming modifications that display German naval ensigns that bear the swastika device as SUBSIM does ]. However, ''space and time'' does not allow protection from offense in other arenas. I made this plain as well. Germanys concerns are obvious and understandable. They both lost the war and started this issue to begin with. However, their guilt, cannot in any way, shape, or form, transfer itself to an expectation that a society such as that of the US, must relinquish its own devotion to the centuries-pondered ideals of free speech simply because you continue to struggle with the legacy of Hitlers Germany. Especially given the fact that these rights, were codified long before there even was a ''Germany'', let alone that ruled by a Third Reich. It is why American flags can be burned. It is why ''Illinois Nazis'' can march in Skokie and elsewhere.

[Friscobay]

Not quite true, at least not here. The protected right includes all "non-owned" properties. While you can't do it in a so-called "public" property, such as inside a federal or state government like a courthouse, outside on a street corner anyone can preach pretty much anything they like. If someone wants to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and preach against the Mormon Church, they are free to do so. Impromptu anti-government rallies take place on the grounds of the Salt Lake City government building and the Utah State Capitol from time to time, and nothing is done to stop them.


Now here is an excellent example.


For many years, groups of humanists, atheists, and even those of other Christian sects believing Mormonism to be a fraud, have arrayed themselves in protest at SLCs Temple Square, in deference to both the freedoms of, and from, religion. [ Thomas' Paine and Jefferson, were they living men, would see no ironies in such displays ]. When I was at The U of U, I both enjoyed the practice of the Tabernacle Choir lifting its voices to the heavens singing their praises of God as well as the discussions from the non-believers out on State St bars serving 3.2 beer with neither side, threatening the other. The agreements to disagree were more prevalent.

This is the realization of the Founders ideals. In like way, we can USE the swastika as a purely historical device, without for one moment, embracing that which it stood for. Indeed, speaking of just the Mormons, was their own series ''Saints At War'' which was a documentary compilation of LDS members who served as decorated combat soldiers and sailors in the ETO/PTO. It is my belief, [ my own father was a B-17 pilot in the 8th ], that we can well know the difference between ''use'' and ''promotion''.

SUBSIM is about the former.... Not the latter...:hmm2:

[Friscobay]

@ Friso bay
:haha: That was a very good film.
The quote would also fit Dr. Strangelove .. :03:

I am not sure, my theory always was the US got the space jockeys, while the Soviets got the submarine ones.
But i was not referring to the scientists, more to the secret services ..


@Skybird:
There's always speaker's corner, in Hyde Park..


CIA V KGB?

Tough ones all the way around. The hands-down coup of coups was performed not by the CIA, but by the Soviets and the British , when the UKs entire top spy circle led by The Cambridge Five, sold out to Stalin during WWII. Indeed, the sellout helped launch the careers of veteran spy novelists John LeCarre [ ''The Spy Who Came In From The Cold'', ''Tinker Tailor, Soldier, Spy '' ], Graham Greene [ ''The Third Man'', ''Our Man In Havana'' ] and of course Ian Fleming [ ''Casino Royale'' et al James Bond ].
:hmm2:

[Skybird]

I disagree with you, so now I'm naive? Interesting sort of dismissal.
Is there a better word in Englisch to translate "naiv" ? Ingenuous (unbedarft, arglos)? Undiscerning (unbedarft, einsichtslos)? Low-brow?

To take something literally just because it is written, or to believe somebody just because he says something, is "naiv" in German , is "naive" in English. Or not?

No attack was meant.


America may not have a history going back thousands of years, but we do have the unique position of having started from scratch* and creating the government we wanted. We also made sure we had it in writing that we reserved the right to do so again, if necessary.


You people of today did that NOT. Because you lived not back then. What I called naiuve earlier is this beoleive that because over 200 years ago some people meant to design a new country today would automatically mean their principlkes are still valid. The naivety lies in ignoring the long time that has passed sionce then, the wider and wider rift between how your country once was meant to be, and how it today reallky is, and to assume that becasue somewthing isd written on a historic papyrus it still is protected from already being eroded and abused. I see massive abuse and distortions there, I massive treason of ideals writtehn down long time ago, and a system that only stage-acts as if it still is driven by the motives and still is in conformity with thgose values. Many ordinary people may htink that way indeed, loike you do, and they may design their social habits to reflect that. But the power structure, the state, the laws, the mechanisms that drive politics - to me that has little to do with old ideals of back then anymore. And I have made that point many times by now in forum debates, since over a decade! If the early presidents would see how modern Us politics are functioning and are driven behind the scene, they would cry in despair over what has come of their hopes.

[Skybird]

Friscobay, I focusse don where you said "However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. I made clear that the olublic space is not unpossessed, but is owned by somebody, is claimed by somebody, which is the state. And that the state therefore rules as claimed owner of the place what goes and what not. Therefore, free speech finds its lkmits in the need that if you use it, you still need to possess the space and the time to pratcice it, or must be given allowance by the owner to use it by leasing the opporuntiy in space and time. And you are given that byx the state - or not. The state is a monopolist in making the rules as he likes them. First problem. Second problem is that I do not automatically accept anymore the state being called the protector of the communal interest. It is not, but a tool of power abused by the few.
Regarding the first problem, you can see the problem in Turkey currently, with Erdoghan switching on and off internet services as it serves his interests, and punishing lawyers, polcie ninvestigators and state attorney doing research against him and his clan. In the West, censorship and limiting free speech usually it is done more subtle and secretive, not so much by obvious force that could be fingerprinted and condemned easily, but by shifting the censor into the thinking of people, and anchoring it in redesigning the meaning of words, manipulating public opinion and media reports, mobilising this by now terrifying thing called "solidarity" and "public interest" (like "national security" can gag just anything in the US). And what's even worse: these things spread like a pandemic. You must not ban free speech explcitly. Eroding the fundaments of the ability to make use for it and on issues that are indeed important, works even better, for it is more difficult to see and thus less easy to brandmark it as such, not to mention to fight back.

A standard tactic in cults and sects like the Moon sect as just one example is to brake resistance and free will of newcomers by complimenting them "to death", so to speak. They are never left alone, they are treated with kindness no matter what, they are always helped, they are always given a helping hand. The point is that this is done to such extreme that they never are not helped and never are not being met with kindness. You reach out for something - they are faster and give it to you. You want to go somewhere - they show you all the way. You wish for something - they just briung in the fulfillment of your wishes. You lose the ability of doing yourself becasue you are systemtically prevented form doing yourself. That is becasue you do not see the need to do yourself, and the silent aggression you maybe feel after some time is met with disbelief and consternation - has not everybody been so kind to you? Has not any wish been read from your lips? Haven'T you been met with nothign but friendliness, and meeting mkany freinds you coinstantly are around?

Formally, legally, nothing of that is limiting you, preventing you, hindering you. But of course, it does limit you, it does prevent you, it does hinder you. That's why it is being done, and believe me: it works damn well with most people exposed to this brainwashing. It works frighteningly well.

That is just one example of how you could erode freedom without formally eroding freedom. The anonymous pressure of the group, social standards, the constant sprinkling by media using key terms and ideas over and over again, legal standards, goals and views inculcated by the education system. Brute force works well. Hitler, Stalin, North Korea proved that beyond doubt. But the subtle methods I tried to hint at, are working better, and are much more difficult to resist to, to be identified, to be fought against. Doing so often leads to situations where the victims to whose help you come are turning against you, and see malice only where indeed your intention was to help and to free them. That is why these methods make Hitler, Stalin and North Korea and their use of brute force the dilletantees.

[areo16]

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

Why is it that you are interpreting our Bill of Rights into a literal meaning from which they were never meant to represent the day they were written over 200 years ago? You're describing incidents which would violate other laws like curfews, verbal threats, trespassing and disturbing the peace. They didn't write this amendment so someone could have the right to yell at the top of their lungs at someone else just 3 inches away from their ear 24 hours a day seven days a week. Nor did they put into the constitution that in order to live free someone must first breath to live , which involves breathing in and out by first inhaling and then exhaling, because these things were implied. They also have to eat once in a while and drink water at least every three days in order to live, before they can live to exercise their freedoms.

You are taking the Bill of Rights out of its context, which is a document which guards the rights of man from the abuses of government. What you are talking about has nothing to do with this. The amendments were not written to tell someone how to treat others, as if its some kind of common courtesy pamphlet.

[areo16]

Is there a better word in Englisch to translate "naiv" ? Ingenuous (unbedarft, arglos)? Undiscerning (unbedarft, einsichtslos)? Low-brow?

To take something literally just because it is written, or to believe somebody just because he says something, is "naiv" in German , is "naive" in English. Or not?

No attack was meant.



You people of today did that NOT. Because you lived not back then. What I called naiuve earlier is this beoleive that because over 200 years ago some people meant to design a new country today would automatically mean their principlkes are still valid. The naivety lies in ignoring the long time that has passed sionce then, the wider and wider rift between how your country once was meant to be, and how it today reallky is, and to assume that becasue somewthing isd written on a historic papyrus it still is protected from already being eroded and abused. I see massive abuse and distortions there, I massive treason of ideals writtehn down long time ago, and a system that only stage-acts as if it still is driven by the motives and still is in conformity with thgose values. Many ordinary people may htink that way indeed, loike you do, and they may design their social habits to reflect that. But the power structure, the state, the laws, the mechanisms that drive politics - to me that has little to do with old ideals of back then anymore. And I have made that point many times by now in forum debates, since over a decade! If the early presidents would see how modern Us politics are functioning and are driven behind the scene, they would cry in despair over what has come of their hopes.

The Bill of Rights is not treated lightly by the three branches of government here, at least not in the public eye. It takes precedence over any statute or law, and in a case its interpretations hold alot of weight. Most of us know that it is getting spat on every day, and the rights are shrinking constantly. The majority of Americans believe this. But we also believe that whatever else is not abused, we want to preserve. Interpretation of the Bill of Rights is also a very lengthy subject. However, its not as grey as religious texts.

I'm not sure why you have an impression that Americans don't know the Bill of Rights is getting abused in this country. Where did you get that idea? Part of being an American and being a patriot is fighting for a specific interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and preventing other powers from abusing those rights. But, I wouldn't expect someone who never became an American citizen to know of this same emotion or to understand the way we see our relationship with our government.

[Skybird]

You are taking the Bill of Rights out of its context, which is a document which guards the rights of man from the abuses of government.
Watching the state of things nowadays, it does a lousy job in that. Which is no wonder, since it is only ink on paper, and since many many decades open for abuse and violation. I agree with the ideals (at least with most, but where it formulates the wish for a state to govern people I necessarily disagree), but I also realise that these ideals today play no really influential role anymore, and get bypassed and violated by political actors and economic lobbies if they see their interests served by that. I see the huge discrepancy between how the world should be, and how it is.

It's not different in Germany as well. Over here, the Basic Law, laws and treaties get constantly violated, too. For opportunistic reasons, and because the actors get away with it. Same on EU level. The US story just fits into the bigger international trend. Sorry, nothing special there, but the same systematic erosion being done like anywhere else. Believing that one is the most special people in the world, does not change that, it is just a supremacist belief like so many others as well.

[areo16]

Watching the state of things nowadays, it does a lousy job in that. Which is no wonder, since it is only ink on paper, and since many many decades open for abuse and violation. I agree with the ideals (at least with most, but where it formulates the wish for a state to govern people I necessarily disagree), but I also realise that these ideals today play no really influential role anymore, and get bypassed and violated by political actors and economic lobbies if they see their interests served by that. I see the huge discrepancy between how the world should be, and how it is.

It's not different in Germany as well. Over here, the Basic Law, laws and treaties get constantly violated, too. For opportunistic reasons, and because the actors get away with it. Same on EU level. The US story just fits into the bigger international trend. Sorry, nothing special there, but the same systematic erosion being done like anywhere else. Believing that one is the most special people in the world, does not change that, it is just a supremacist belief like so many others as well.

How things ought to be and how they are are always two different things. Let's not dwell on the obvious.

What I was discussing was not us thinking as "supremacists", it was to show how we think of our Constitution and our relationship with our government. Which, considering our history which is unique (as every nation has a unique history), is special. Special being unique and different, not supremacist. Not sure how you drew that conclusion from what I said. Supremacist would be more of how the Germans saw themselves compared to the Herero and Namaqua who lived in Deutsch-Südwestafrika.

[Friscobay]

Friscobay, I focusse don where you said "However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. I made clear that the olublic space is not unpossessed, but is owned by somebody, is claimed by somebody, which is the state. And that the state therefore rules as claimed owner of the place what goes and what not. Therefore, free speech finds its lkmits in the need that if you use it, you still need to possess the space and the time to pratcice it, or must be given allowance by the owner to use it by leasing the opporuntiy in space and time. And you are given that byx the state - or not. The state is a monopolist in making the rules as he likes them. First problem. Second problem is that I do not automatically accept anymore the state being called the protector of the communal interest. It is not, but a tool of power abused by the few.
Regarding the first problem, you can see the problem in Turkey currently, with Erdoghan switching on and off internet services as it serves his interests, and punishing lawyers, polcie ninvestigators and state attorney doing research against him and his clan. In the West, censorship and limiting free speech usually it is done more subtle and secretive, not so much by obvious force that could be fingerprinted and condemned easily, but by shifting the censor into the thinking of people, and anchoring it in redesigning the meaning of words, manipulating public opinion and media reports, mobilising this by now terrifying thing called "solidarity" and "public interest" (like "national security" can gag just anything in the US). And what's even worse: these things spread like a pandemic. You must not ban free speech explcitly. Eroding the fundaments of the ability to make use for it and on issues that are indeed important, works even better, for it is more difficult to see and thus less easy to brandmark it as such, not to mention to fight back.

A standard tactic in cults and sects like the Moon sect as just one example is to brake resistance and free will of newcomers by complimenting them "to death", so to speak. They are never left alone, they are treated with kindness no matter what, they are always helped, they are always given a helping hand. The point is that this is done to such extreme that they never are not helped and never are not being met with kindness. You reach out for something - they are faster and give it to you. You want to go somewhere - they show you all the way. You wish for something - they just briung in the fulfillment of your wishes. You lose the ability of doing yourself becasue you are systemtically prevented form doing yourself. That is becasue you do not see the need to do yourself, and the silent aggression you maybe feel after some time is met with disbelief and consternation - has not everybody been so kind to you? Has not any wish been read from your lips? Haven'T you been met with nothign but friendliness, and meeting mkany freinds you coinstantly are around?

Formally, legally, nothing of that is limiting you, preventing you, hindering you. But of course, it does limit you, it does prevent you, it does hinder you. That's why it is being done, and believe me: it works damn well with most people exposed to this brainwashing. It works frighteningly well.

That is just one example of how you could erode freedom without formally eroding freedom. The anonymous pressure of the group, social standards, the constant sprinkling by media using key terms and ideas over and over again, legal standards, goals and views inculcated by the education system. Brute force works well. Hitler, Stalin, North Korea proved that beyond doubt. But the subtle methods I tried to hint at, are working better, and are much more difficult to resist to, to be identified, to be fought against. Doing so often leads to situations where the victims to whose help you come are turning against you, and see malice only where indeed your intention was to help and to free them. That is why these methods make Hitler, Stalin and North Korea and their use of brute force the dilletantees.


Heck SKYBIRD, this kind of debate has been taking place in the US as long as there has been a US. Liberal and conservative socio-political thought sees the other as the ''enemy of the people''. Yet in all of this raucous rancor, the ability to treasure the freedom of the nations citizens to engage in the widest expressions of speech without official or ideological sanction is a bedrock reason why America is patently different than other nations, whether European, Latin, or Asian or African. All of these come to an America which bears a Constitution like no other on earth, for it allows its greatest protections, most often to the things people hate more than any other. The biggest dangers to this republic, occur only when these freedoms are allowed to erode. Or when they are seized by one group or another '' in the name of'' some ideal that is not universally embraced by the nations citizens and imposed upon these. One need not be either the ''oldest'' or ''newest'' member of SUBSIM to observe such patent facts.
:hmm2:

[Skybird]

"A constitution like no other on earth"? And you wonder why I think that talking like this sounds supremacist a bit? You certainly did not mean to express that it is that bad, did you?

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did. And I disagree with the claim that the US constitution is so unique. The German one for example pretty much says the same things, and guarantees the same basic rights and freedoms. Or take the many French constitutions they have had, more than a dozen in two hundred years, they had more constitutions than there have been French republics, and currently they count it the Fifth Republic. But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself.

But by the end of the day, the abuse and exploitation, the bypassing and erosion of these basic rights is the same everywhere in the western world, in France and Germany and remaining Europe as well. America in no way is an exception there. I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime. One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic. The present proves his words to be visionary. Some days ago, the US High Court has ruled that money can buy political influence without limits, and not allowing that would be a violation of the first amendment. Well. The court certainly used another wording than I do. I only translate the obvious from Tryingtohideit into plain English.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers. It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim. The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around. For that reason, the spiritus rector of the project that led to the creation of the statue of liberty insisted already in the late 19th century, before the building began, that any memorial celebrating the American independence should be a joint project of the French and the American people.

Anyway, in the end, it all is just sheets of paper. What people do or not do, what the decide or not decide, what they chose or not chose, and what they accept responsibility for and what not, determines how events unfold and what path history follows. Paper does not blush, or as we say in German: paper is endlessly patient.

So are internet forums. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did.
On the other hand the US Constitution predates all of those.

I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime.
I would agree. It was Thomas Jefferson who pointed out "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic.
The quote is "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.", and it's attribution is to a British subject (Scottish), Alexander Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. The attribution itself is false, the first known use of the phrase coming from Elmer T. Peterson in 1951.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

That said, it's a good quote and arguably true.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers.
Not all, certainly. While writers like Descarte were influential, so were British philosophers like John Locke.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/amer-enl/

It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim.
I agree, but disagree also. While the ideas of the American Founders were born in the writings of others, it was here that they were put into action.

[quote]The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around.
Also true, but the French owe their Revolution to the one that took place here, and not the other way around.

While we can argue about the way things are today, the fact is that the American Experiment, as it was know worldwide, was indeed unique at the time, since others had talked about it but no one else had actually tried it. The Dutch had a Democracy before we did, but it was an outgrowth of what had come before. The American ideal was a conscious experiment, intentionally designed to be an Enlightenment Government.

I do agree that things today are not as the Founders dreamed, and not what they should be, but there are many here who still remember what was said and written, and who still believe in that dream.

[areo16]

"A constitution like no other on earth"? And you wonder why I think that talking like this sounds supremacist a bit? You certainly did not mean to express that it is that bad, did you?

Have you ever cared to check whether it really is so unique - by comparing it to others? The German Basic Law, first 20 articles, for example? I did. And I disagree with the claim that the US constitution is so unique. The German one for example pretty much says the same things, and guarantees the same basic rights and freedoms. Or take the many French constitutions they have had, more than a dozen in two hundred years, they had more constitutions than there have been French republics, and currently they count it the Fifth Republic. But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself.

But by the end of the day, the abuse and exploitation, the bypassing and erosion of these basic rights is the same everywhere in the western world, in France and Germany and remaining Europe as well. America in no way is an exception there. I would claim that it also is inevitable in a democracy, for it carries the seed of its own destruciton within itself. the reason is power accumulation, democracy fostering and turning into socialism unavoidably, the forming of elites who monopolise their political and economic power, the destruction of money, and the pinciple of voter bribery that dominates democracy from all beginning on and turns everybody participating in it into a complice in crime. One of the early US presidents said that once people find out that they can vote their money, it will be the beginning of the end of the republic. The present proves his words to be visionary. Some days ago, the US High Court has ruled that money can buy political influence without limits, and not allowing that would be a violation of the first amendment. Well. The court certainly used another wording than I do. I only translate the obvious from Tryingtohideit into plain English.

I also want to remind of that in the founding era of America, the concepts debated amongst the intellectual elites on the Eastern coast, not really were originally American, but all based on and led further concepts forethought by French thinkers. It's often claimed that America were the cradle of democracy, well, not only have a I problem with democracy itself, but also with the historical truth of that claim. The US owes more to French thinking, than the other way around. For that reason, the spiritus rector of the project that led to the creation of the statue of liberty insisted already in the late 19th century, before the building began, that any memorial celebrating the American independence should be a joint project of the French and the American people.

Anyway, in the end, it all is just sheets of paper. What people do or not do, what the decide or not decide, what they chose or not chose, and what they accept responsibility for and what not, determines how events unfold and what path history follows. Paper does not blush, or as we say in German: paper is endlessly patient.

So are internet forums. :D

You are leaving out vital information. The Bill of Rights is unique. America did have a big influence over the creation of the German Federation and Basic Laws. The Bill of Rights also had a great influence over the French Rights of Man. The American Bill of Rights had a large influence over the French Revolution. But this all still leaves the American and Basic Law and Rights of Man unique documents. They are not the same documents, but are similar. Similar, but still unique.

"But from late 18th century on, they also had the separate declaration of human and civil rights, which effectively guarantee pretty much the same as the German and American basic rights and freedoms. It has preceded several of those constitutions, and also precedes the current one, means: it is as binding as the constitution itself."

This is incorrect. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen does not predate the US Constitution.

[Skybird]

the bill of rights would have been impossible to imagine without the intellectual input from European and especially French mentors who preceded it, and whose thoughts formed a basis on which Am e rica'S ideas then based on and owed to. This influence usually gets completely ignored or denied (telling by experience), but French iontellectual culture has been popular to be debated amongst American intellectuals and politicians of the very early American era.

On the declaration of human and civil rights, I thought the context in which I wqrote it made it clear that I meant the series of French constitutions there have been. The declaration preceded them all. It was written in 1798, the first French constitution is from 1791.

It's not a competetion running for who had the first written document, however. I talked about the general intellectual influence that some Frenchmen had on the minds in the New World. It's about a cultural climate in which ideas blossom and get developed further due to the climate being what it is, and not being somehow repressive. I assume that the beginning of a nation had plenty of freedom left to allow such ideas blossoming that in established regimes in the old world faced tougher resistence. Therefore, the formal race of who wrote his historic papyrus scrolls first, was "won" not by France, by America. But that simply does not mean that much and is of academic interest only.

Britain until today has no formal constitution, as far as I know, and nevertheless its tradition of moral philosophers did fine and influenced great parts of the world back then, and even in modern time (except those stubborn, emotional Germans who were too irrational for that sane reasonability). As follow historians' arguments that trace that German speciality back to the social-cultural losses during the 30-years-war and see that as the reason why in Germany was no real enlightenment but the era of Romantik, and later the Nazis.

Schwülstige Emotionen. Mörderisch. I prefer the British enlightenment and the cultural and intellectual climate it created over the German Romantik any time. It just appeals more to my head-heaviness and desire to have reasonable explanations instead of instincts and collective emotions deciding my actions.

[Skybird]

The quote is "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.", and it's attribution is to a British subject (Scottish), Alexander Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee. The attribution itself is false, the first known use of the phrase coming from Elmer T. Peterson in 1951.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler


Hm, I wanted to hint at this quote, I looked it up on my books again and then found the translation via google. It's is Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

And I now add this, since it was the same page in that book:

John Adams, 2nd president of the US. "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."


Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

H.L. Mencken, journalist and essay writer 1880-1956: "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."

F. Bastiat, French political philosopher and libertarian theorist 1801-1850: "
The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. "

I have all that as German quotes as in F. Karsten, K. Beckman, Munich 2012. I then found via Google the English translations.

And finally, this one I translate myself:

Aristotle: "Absolute democracy is, like oligarchy, a form of absolute tyranny imposed on a very huge group of people."

Just because I had it all on one page, in one place. Of course, there are so many more good ones.

[Sailor Steve]

Hm, I wanted to hint at this quote, I looked it up on my books again and then found the translation via google. It's is Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Again, there is no attribution to Franklin earlier than 1998, and it does not appear anywhere in his writings. That's okay though. It's a good quote and arguably true. Also, Franklin was never president.

John Adams, 2nd president of the US. "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
Adams did indeed write that, in a letter to John Taylor, dated 1814. In that same letter he also said "Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power.”

Adams, unlike his friends Jefferson and Madison, was a firm believer in a stronger government, and prefered the ruling class be elite, not elected from the common people.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Earliest attribution is 2004. There is no evidence that Jefferson ever said anything like that.

H.L. Mencken, journalist and essay writer 1880-1956: "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
Menken was also a humorist, as attested by the series of quotes I'm currently putting into the Favorite Quotes thread. Everything he says should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, 11 Nov. 1947.

Yes, even a Democracy (or Republic, if you prefer) needs to be watched all the time. That said, what would you have in its place? A new monarchy? Totalitarianism? Anarchy? It's easy to tear something down; not so easy to erect something better in its place.

Also, if you're using quotes to support an argument it's a good idea to verify the source first. :sunny:

[Skybird]

I have turned into a zero state or zero government guy, as should have become clear over the past months and years. The criticism against both feudal and democratic state orders, is too fundamental and too destructive as if I could make compromises with it anymore. Note that Hoppe too condemns both feudalism and democracies. even worse, I think the likelihood of demicracy bringing bad perosnnel into controlling power is greater than the cfhance in a monarchy. Due to the implicaitons of the election mechnsim, you have extremely high chances, that the worst of the worst, the lowest charcters, the greatest cheaters liars, the most unscrupulous liars, the most immoral egoists come to power. And qualification is no argument in all this anyway. A monachy, on the other hand, "owns" land and people, and thus has an interest in keeping its property in good shape and manage it wisely. At lerast it shoudl have, and if that is the case, muzch more effort is donbe to make sure the next ruling generation indeed is sufficiently qualified. Of course, the monarchic system however gets haunted by corrupted gangsters, too, and history is filled with monarchs having caused havov on their nations and people. I would only argue that the chance to occasionally get a good administrator at the top is greater in a monarchic syste, than in a democracy, especially in the degenrated culture we have today the chance that political elections will give us responsible leaders, is zero. Because those telling the grim truths do not get elected, and do not get supported by established parties and lobbies, and voters prefer to vote for those making them better promises. It's all about voter bribery, as I have often said now, and by that making every voter a complice in crime who therefore has no right to complain, to criticise, to resist. In other words: it all is about preserving power and control for the elite at the top, and delaying the judgement day when our collapsing system will have no more space to evade. The power m onopoly and the monopoly of orinting money are the two most important tools for that. And if you think you can change that by going to the next elections and vote for the other guy, then I really cannot help you. I don't say it is naive, but I silently think it is. :O:

I do not trust politicians and states, nor symbols or paroles, and my state of alertness is the higher the greater the group is by which it is triggered. Crowds of people are nothing but herds of cattle, easy to be led around. Also, to me, human intelligence and its resulting behavior and decision-making, and group size, are inversely proportional. By my life experience so far, I have no reason to step away from that assessment.

On quotes, for an academic paper you of course have different standards for source validation, than in private, and when the same quotes get printed in several different books, in several languages, and on the web get quoted up and down anyway, it becomes difficult to not realise what may or may not be historically original. In the end, while it might be correct to attribute a quote to "Anonymous" or somebody else, or like you did: giving a totally different quote replacing the first, which is different in wording and syntax, even in length and number of sentences, in the end it is the content that counts as long as the theme debated is not the historical figure assumed to be behind the quote, a person that then may appear in a different light

Such disputes about to whom a given quote is to be attributed, also are not new, nor are they rare.

[Skybird]

BTW, I disagree with the quote'S prediction as you give it. Where it says

"with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I would say differently:

"with the result freedom and wealth get eroded because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always be followed by growing sanctions by the government against the citizens, enforcing growing expropriation, devaluation of currency, growing totalitarianism to keep in control, and a socialist basic order and mass impoverishment as the final result."

[areo16]

On the declaration of human and civil rights, I thought the context in which I wqrote it made it clear that I meant the series of French constitutions there have been. The declaration preceded them all. It was written in 1798, the first French constitution is from 1791.

????


It's not a competetion running for who had the first written document, however.

Then get to the point, pal. Because you need to decide which came first, the French or the American constitution. I'm confused as to what you think at this moment.

[Skybird]

For the third time now: the philosophical-idealistic basis and the resulting cultural climate that allowed the thinking behind the constitutions, may it be the American one or the French declaration of human and civil rights, precedes the writing of said documents, and is not an original American quality, but has been envisioned and prepared by French front thinkers, and probably some other influential guys as well. You are under the - most likely wrong - impression that whoever wrote a constitution first, was necessarily the one inventing all by himself the idealistic basis on which that thinking based. And that is very unreasonable to assume, not just in this example, but in history in general. No thinking falls just out of the blue sky, but has a history leading to it. The situation in early America allowed to pick up these early ideas and to lead them further, benefiting from the lack of European-wide suppression of certain thoughts. That does not change the fact that the ideas and ideals nevertheless had started to find their way into some thinkers mind. And that goes beyond just mere idealism, but also includes economic and financial concepts developed by some Belgian and French that influenced the thinking of some of the founding fathers as well.

It is absurd to assume that any place there is is isolated from the rest of the world and breeds all stuff happening there all by itself. History and tradition never just pops up surprisingly and out of the blue.

That denies maybe some beloved unique feature of some Americans' self-description, nevertheless I'm stating the obvious only. Not to mention that the concept of democracy precedes French and American constitutions by over two thousand years and more anyway. And for the most of that time, it had a very low reputation. The modern praise for it is hardly older than just one century. And to me, it is not only a young but also a highly questionable concept that threatens to destroy right those achievements we usually attribute to it - for reasons wiser minds have already foreseen two or three millenia before. Also, the material wealth of Western nations is not due to democracy, but capitalism and trade. Capitalism is not successful due to democracy ruling, but right because it is so strong a power and attractive for free people that it even works when being massively hindered, defamed and exploited by democracy.

When that no longer is the case and "democracy" has successfully gagged even the last capitalist influence and reason - then the transformation into totalitarian socialism is completed.

Straying off a bit here, now compare the state of things and the highly visible trends in the US, its clear shifting towards the European vision of state socialism, consider the drowning in debts and devaluation of money and the follow-up expropriation that means, consider the massive demographic and ethnic changes in population satructure and the different demands and goials directed at polticians who want to get elected - and then anybody seriously tell me that that is just a minor slip and does not mean a major, huge gap between the US how it is, and the ideas how it hopefully would be as expressed in those old historic documents.

The EU violates and betrays its own laws and treaties, and its people. German parliament and government betrays and violates demands of our laws and the Basic Law. Constitutional organs are corrupted by now and all are brought into line to help in that abuse. And I cannot see that things are running differently in the US: the same betrayal, the same abuse and corruption.

[Sailor Steve]

I have turned into a zero state or zero government guy, as should have become clear over the past months and years...

I do not trust politicians and states, nor symbols or paroles, and my state of alertness is the higher the greater the group is by which it is triggered. Crowds of people are nothing but herds of cattle, easy to be led around. Also, to me, human intelligence and its resulting behavior and decision-making, and group size, are inversely proportional. By my life experience so far, I have no reason to step away from that assessment.
I understand that, and even your reasoning. I have myself said that I believe no government is the best government, and the best government is no government. Of course that's also impossible, as people will always want to form a government in order to pass laws to protect themselves from each other.

On quotes...it becomes difficult to not realise what may or may not be historically original.
Quite true. I use unproven quotes in my sig all the time. On the other hand I did qualify my statement with "if you're going to use the quote to support an argument", and I stand by that. You used first "one of the early US presidents" and then Jefferson and Franklin, seemingly for the purpose of showing that our Founding Fathers agree with you. The fact that they didn't say that undercuts you argument. Perhaps in this case "Anonymous" might have been better.

[Skybird]

I saw no reason to use "Anonymous" when I see it linked to one and the same name all the time, in books and on webpages - and many of them. The term "the founding fathers" I only use because I notoriously forget what quote is attributed to whom, and there are so many quotes - artificial ones or original ones - that are worth to be known, so when I give such a quote from early presidents or founding fathers I often just say it is by "one of those boys from that gang". Understand it as pragmatism, please, no foul intention there.

I assume that such quotes got "modernised" in an act of creative freedom by somebody. In case of the Frnaklin quote, that is obvious, your version is much longer and sounds old-fashioned than n the version I gave. The Jefferson quote is quite popular and I have it in two other books as well, I also found it in the past in two German blogs , also in quote collection websites. I assume there is something that was said by the man that also served as an original on which this "modernised" quote is basing on. My knowedge on Jefferson is in no way complete, but the summarised biography I have read gives me the impression of a man who nevertheless could very well have said it the way it usually gets quoted.

Anyhow, lets move on.

[Sailor Steve]

I assume the quotes, like many, were not said by the people they are attributed to, but falsely claimed by someone somewhere to give weight to an argument, and then embraced by everybody who liked the quotes and wanted to believe them. I say nothing about Jimbuna's many Churchill "quotes" in the Favorite Quotes thread, but you can bet that if he used one of them to prove a point I'd be all over him too.

Meanwhile, I apologize for diverting from your original point, which is the failure of Democracy. I disagree with you, but it's a good point of discussion. :sunny:

[areo16]

That denies maybe some beloved unique feature of some Americans' self-description, nevertheless I'm stating the obvious only.

You are stating the obvious. This still does not mean the US Constitution is not unique, as you stated earlier. It is unique.

[Jimbuna]

I assume the quotes, like many, were not said by the people they are attributed to, but falsely claimed by someone somewhere to give weight to an argument, and then embraced by everybody who liked the quotes and wanted to believe them. I say nothing about Jimbuna's many Churchill "quotes" in the Favorite Quotes thread, but you can bet that if he used one of them to prove a point I'd be all over him too.

Meanwhile, I apologize for diverting from your original point, which is the failure of Democracy. I disagree with you, but it's a good point of discussion. :sunny:

Oi! Keep me out of this bun fight, I much prefer pies :smug:

[Skybird]

You are stating the obvious. This still does not mean the US Constitution is not unique, as you stated earlier. It is unique.
You remind me of a dog chasing its tail and then wanting to tell me it were running down a straight line.

If after I think three explanations what I am about and three efforts to point out that the thinking in the constitution did not just fell out of the blue sky, you still have not understood me, then a fourth time obviously promises to be in vein.

[Skybird]

Meanwhile, I apologize for diverting from your original point, which is the failure of Democracy.

No need to, really.

[Betonov]

Democracy has just one fault.
Voters prefer bling to brain.
Garmin M.K. Betonov



In a thread this long, of course I'll interfere :O:

[Penguin]

Getting back to the original question:

Germans think the sight of a Swastika will cause a stiff right arm - just as Americans think the sight of a nipple will make their kids turn blind.
Penguin von Wiseguy
:know:

[Catfish]

^ Seems real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HWbxQQMPpw


I wonder how americans reproduce, in any american films they keep on their underwear or more - or is it true a girl can get pregnant by kissing ?

:O:

[Betonov]

Catfish, I see you never watch HBO :O:

[Subnuts]

Catfish, I see you never watch HBO :O:

Still trying to figure out how, after three seasons of Game of Thrones, not a single female character has managed to get pregnant, and bastard children are still a huge deal. :hmmm:

[Betonov]

You see in Westeros the seasons are long a few of our years
Must be the same for menstrual cycle

[TarJak]

The pigs gut condoms are obviously very effective.

[Penguin]

The pigs gut condoms are obviously very effective.

Especially if you don't remove the swine.

[TarJak]

Especially if you don't remove the swine.:har:

[Jimbuna]

Especially if you don't remove the swine.

:D:D:D

[Schroeder]

Especially if you don't remove the swine.
Quote of the year!:har: