They Thought They Were Free (1955)(press.uchicago.edu)
press.uchicago.edu
They Thought They Were Free (1955)
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
542 コメント
> an awful lot of stuff about “national character” that is… questionable.
Yes! I recently read this book and was pretty shocked by how much was chalked up to the German character.
I came away feeling neither comfort nor increased panic relating to the current US situation. I read the book because I was hand-wringing about how complicit I am just by getting on with my privileged and comfortable life right now. I didn’t really come away with any resolution to that question or clear ideas about how I should change my behavior.
Yes! I recently read this book and was pretty shocked by how much was chalked up to the German character.
I came away feeling neither comfort nor increased panic relating to the current US situation. I read the book because I was hand-wringing about how complicit I am just by getting on with my privileged and comfortable life right now. I didn’t really come away with any resolution to that question or clear ideas about how I should change my behavior.
Anecdotally, having lived in Germany for a couple of years recently, there is a perceptible national character. The best way to understand it is to ponder the difference between a drag race and a rally race - in one, success means going as fast as possible; in the other success means getting to navigation points within a window of error. Or, with beer: in America success is discovering a new beer with a different flavor profile. In Germany, success is figuring out a way to even more precisely and consistently conforming to a centuries-old brewing standard. This, along with a kind of blunt speech that presupposes the listener to have little in the way of vanity or ego (or challenges them to not express it), is the "German character" as far as I can tell.
I suspect in part this was because they were burned very, very badly by the outward striving into the unknown that Hitler represented, and still having creativity and effort to apply turned inward to asymptotically approach perfect execution of the known.
I suspect in part this was because they were burned very, very badly by the outward striving into the unknown that Hitler represented, and still having creativity and effort to apply turned inward to asymptotically approach perfect execution of the known.
Eh, I think that's a bit overblown. In theory, Germans are famously methodical and precise, in practice the rail network is falling apart, a major bridge in my city recently collapsed due to lack of proper maintenance, and "made in Germany" is mainly an encouragement to buy local, rather than buying for quality.
My experience of Germans, having lived among them for almost a decade, and having married one of them, is that you can usually find a counterexample to any supposed German characteristic just by looking around the room. If there is any overarching theme to the German psyche, it might be a tendency to conservatism (in the sense of preferring to do things as they've always been done), but at the same time you've also got radical groups on the left and the right that are a fundamental part of the democratic fabric of Germany.
I think there are some cultural touchstones that are very German, and those have an influence on how Germans think and act, but I think this can be very contradictory and it's difficult to draw a single picture here. For example, people are very conscious of antisemitism here because of how much it's talked about in schools and the media, and that informs national foreign policy. But at the same time, Germans, like most Western Europeans, have grown up in a time of peace and see war and aggression as a cardinal sin. Both of these inform the German response to something like the situation in Gaza, but the result averages out to a policy that's broadly in line with many other liberal European states.
All in all, I think you'll get more insight from phrenology than from trying to figure out the German character in too much depth.
My experience of Germans, having lived among them for almost a decade, and having married one of them, is that you can usually find a counterexample to any supposed German characteristic just by looking around the room. If there is any overarching theme to the German psyche, it might be a tendency to conservatism (in the sense of preferring to do things as they've always been done), but at the same time you've also got radical groups on the left and the right that are a fundamental part of the democratic fabric of Germany.
I think there are some cultural touchstones that are very German, and those have an influence on how Germans think and act, but I think this can be very contradictory and it's difficult to draw a single picture here. For example, people are very conscious of antisemitism here because of how much it's talked about in schools and the media, and that informs national foreign policy. But at the same time, Germans, like most Western Europeans, have grown up in a time of peace and see war and aggression as a cardinal sin. Both of these inform the German response to something like the situation in Gaza, but the result averages out to a policy that's broadly in line with many other liberal European states.
All in all, I think you'll get more insight from phrenology than from trying to figure out the German character in too much depth.
Funnily enough, the book goes into the anti-war thing a bit. The idea put forward in the book is that straight after the war there wasn’t a great deal of anti-war sentiment, just anti-losing sentiment. But after the Cold War started, and the major powers wanted Germany militarised again, to be on the front line of a battle against checks notes other Germans on the other side’s front lines, they developed an anti-war culture pretty quickly.
Germany's "rail network is falling apart" means you are delayed a few hours on a cross-country trip, which is unimaginable luxury to people from some regions, which I think proves the point.
As I see it, they're running the system at close to capacity, so it has long queue times [1] and little spare capacity to return to normal after a disruption. It's one of several valid ways to run a system. You can have fewer trains and fewer cascading delays, or more trains and more cascading delays. In some places, the trains are on time but they only run once per day; I think I prefer the German system to that.
This is about the long-distance system. Other systems have their own properties. The BVG has not infrequent disruptions but the next train is usually only 5-10 minutes away so who cares.
[1] https://nickarnosti.com/blog/longwaits/
As I see it, they're running the system at close to capacity, so it has long queue times [1] and little spare capacity to return to normal after a disruption. It's one of several valid ways to run a system. You can have fewer trains and fewer cascading delays, or more trains and more cascading delays. In some places, the trains are on time but they only run once per day; I think I prefer the German system to that.
This is about the long-distance system. Other systems have their own properties. The BVG has not infrequent disruptions but the next train is usually only 5-10 minutes away so who cares.
[1] https://nickarnosti.com/blog/longwaits/
I'm not talking about whether Germany's rail network is better or worse than other people's rail networks, but rather whether it embodies the supposed national characteristic of being methodical and precise.
The problem with the German rail network is not that they are running too many trains (I mean, they're planning on shutting services down!). The problem is primarily that there has been a significant lack of investment in necessary repairs and upgrades to maintain existing capacity levels, let alone support the increased capacity that comes from a growing population. The two options here are not "one time but rare" or "not on time but regular" — you can have both things, and it is completely within the power of a properly-funded DB to implement both things.
The problem with the German rail network is not that they are running too many trains (I mean, they're planning on shutting services down!). The problem is primarily that there has been a significant lack of investment in necessary repairs and upgrades to maintain existing capacity levels, let alone support the increased capacity that comes from a growing population. The two options here are not "one time but rare" or "not on time but regular" — you can have both things, and it is completely within the power of a properly-funded DB to implement both things.
> This is about the long-distance system. Other systems have their own properties.
The systems are also not completely separated, so delays and failures propagate. And if you are late for work or school almost every day, it's an easy way to get a bit cynical. Or maybe use a car, which incidentally my German colleagues do. And I think it's sad Germany didn't invest in the system in time.
The systems are also not completely separated, so delays and failures propagate. And if you are late for work or school almost every day, it's an easy way to get a bit cynical. Or maybe use a car, which incidentally my German colleagues do. And I think it's sad Germany didn't invest in the system in time.
[deleted]
why things are falling apart? isn't it mostly good old Baumol's cost disease (relative productivity decreasing) coupled with the lack of economies of scale (even more productivity backsliding) coupled with spending priorities (services, aging population, "green" and climate change stuff) coupled with NIMBY issues (which again put a downward pressure on scale, and thus productivity)?
our built environment suffers from the fact that there's no Apple Autobahn, manufactured in China at Foxconn, using competitive cutting-edge tech shit in the most cost-efficient way?
our built environment suffers from the fact that there's no Apple Autobahn, manufactured in China at Foxconn, using competitive cutting-edge tech shit in the most cost-efficient way?
While reading about history can always be enlightening, I sure hope you aren't looking to a book to inform you on what is right or wrong and what your behaviour should be.
Who or what should we be discussing or consulting ethics with? Is the line drawn at the written word?
It’s easy to read your comment as meaning ‘never let others influence your opinions on right or wrong’ which is (I hope!) obviously ludicrous.
It’s easy to read your comment as meaning ‘never let others influence your opinions on right or wrong’ which is (I hope!) obviously ludicrous.
Yes, I do read books to give me different perspectives on life that help me form my beliefs about what is right, wrong and ethical. The suggestion that’s a bad idea is pretty incredible to me. Where do you think I should go for such things?
>I sure hope you aren't looking to a book to inform you on what is right or wrong
The entire purpose / point of this book is that the overly-oppressed majority is easily susceptible to becoming "NAZIS," and why National Socialist mentality ought to be actively DISCOURAGED.
But you're just going to see the swastika on the cover (which is used appropriately as the symbol of hate it represents) and you'll not even attempt discussions at preventing future Nazi-creating societies.
Good work /s
If you search my username, I have provided the couple-dozen quotes from this book that alarmed me most, in regards to society in 2020 (when I first read the book). I am not a supremicist in any capacity — I am a blue collar union electrician (so: I hate everybody equally smile_face.GIF). But I've heard it all on jobsites, and not all hate is "misdirected"...
But you're just going to see the swastika on the cover (which is used appropriately as the symbol of hate it represents) and you'll not even attempt discussions at preventing future Nazi-creating societies.
Good work /s
If you search my username, I have provided the couple-dozen quotes from this book that alarmed me most, in regards to society in 2020 (when I first read the book). I am not a supremicist in any capacity — I am a blue collar union electrician (so: I hate everybody equally smile_face.GIF). But I've heard it all on jobsites, and not all hate is "misdirected"...
To your point, the thing that jumped out at me reading this book is how familiar the German characters are. People have loved to imagine that the Nazi era in Germany was so anomalous it could never happen again. But no, the Germans were just like us.
This is my problem with a lot of literature and movies. The Nazis are always unfathomably evil, when in reality, most of them were just people doing their jobs.
I read Eichmann in Jerusalem recently, and the reality is that what Eichmann did was incredibly mundane for the most part. There is someone in ICE right now doing exactly what Eichmann was doing: Coordinating roundups of people made "illegal" by law, and then transporting them to foreign camps and foreign countries. The final solution came very far into the whole sequence of events, and Eichmann presents that he didn't like it at all, but really had no choice in the matter if he didn't want to be made a pariah or face severe personal repercussions. I would be willing to bet there are any number of people inside the US federal government who are thinking exactly that line of thought.
I read Eichmann in Jerusalem recently, and the reality is that what Eichmann did was incredibly mundane for the most part. There is someone in ICE right now doing exactly what Eichmann was doing: Coordinating roundups of people made "illegal" by law, and then transporting them to foreign camps and foreign countries. The final solution came very far into the whole sequence of events, and Eichmann presents that he didn't like it at all, but really had no choice in the matter if he didn't want to be made a pariah or face severe personal repercussions. I would be willing to bet there are any number of people inside the US federal government who are thinking exactly that line of thought.
>Eichmann presents that he didn't like it at all, but really had no choice in the matter if he didn't want to be made a pariah or face severe personal repercussions
Which by the way was largely false, for both low and high-ranking Nazis. It was usually possible to slowly or even quickly distance yourself from directly committing atrocities (or coordinating them) and get fobbed off into some low-key administrative position without fearing anything like serious punishment. The Nazi machinery was harsh towards openly voiced disobedience and discontent, but surprisingly tolerant of a "weak stomach" or a lack of what their fanatics called moral fiber (being able to protect the race by butchering innocent others).
Christopher Browning in his book about Reserve Battalion 101, mentioned in the comment right above yours, emphasizes this point about a lack of severe punishment for not participating, repeatedly about the members of that death squad.
The ugly black magic of the Nazi system was specifically that it often made previously, otherwise ordinary people internally normalize mass murder into something they could do.
The above aside, image too the kind of empty shell of fundamental human morality you'd need to be to continue sending innocent people, including women and children to their deaths in gas chambers, just so you can avoid looking bad on the social scene around you.
Which by the way was largely false, for both low and high-ranking Nazis. It was usually possible to slowly or even quickly distance yourself from directly committing atrocities (or coordinating them) and get fobbed off into some low-key administrative position without fearing anything like serious punishment. The Nazi machinery was harsh towards openly voiced disobedience and discontent, but surprisingly tolerant of a "weak stomach" or a lack of what their fanatics called moral fiber (being able to protect the race by butchering innocent others).
Christopher Browning in his book about Reserve Battalion 101, mentioned in the comment right above yours, emphasizes this point about a lack of severe punishment for not participating, repeatedly about the members of that death squad.
The ugly black magic of the Nazi system was specifically that it often made previously, otherwise ordinary people internally normalize mass murder into something they could do.
The above aside, image too the kind of empty shell of fundamental human morality you'd need to be to continue sending innocent people, including women and children to their deaths in gas chambers, just so you can avoid looking bad on the social scene around you.
> Which by the way was largely false, for both low and high-ranking Nazis. It was usually possible to slowly or even quickly distance yourself from directly committing atrocities (or coordinating them) and get fobbed off into some low-key administrative position without fearing anything like serious punishment. The Nazi machinery was harsh towards openly voiced disobedience and discontent, but surprisingly tolerant of a "weak stomach" or a lack of what their fanatics called moral fiber (being able to protect the race by butchering innocent others).
Totally agreed. I can see how Eichmann, and many other government functionaries committing evil acts willingly (historical and modern) are perfectly able to believe the lie wholeheartedly. That is all that really matters. The state supports the lie, the culture supports the lie, and the person believes it, despite proof otherwise.
That is the banality of evil. Just follow orders, and you will be fine. There are monsters (historical and modern) who do not see the issue with separating children from parents (or whatever evil you choose) over trivial paperwork, but the ugly reality is that most of the people doing the work know that what they are doing is wrong on some level, but feel shielded by the authority of the institution issuing the orders.
The examples abound (modern and historical).
Totally agreed. I can see how Eichmann, and many other government functionaries committing evil acts willingly (historical and modern) are perfectly able to believe the lie wholeheartedly. That is all that really matters. The state supports the lie, the culture supports the lie, and the person believes it, despite proof otherwise.
That is the banality of evil. Just follow orders, and you will be fine. There are monsters (historical and modern) who do not see the issue with separating children from parents (or whatever evil you choose) over trivial paperwork, but the ugly reality is that most of the people doing the work know that what they are doing is wrong on some level, but feel shielded by the authority of the institution issuing the orders.
The examples abound (modern and historical).
> Coordinating roundups of people made "illegal" by law
It's not "illegal", it's just illegal. The US does not have open borders. It's illegal to cross without a visa or some other authorization. That's a fact, and in fact the law is a very reasonable one, because people who are knowledgeable about how humans work generally understand that open borders are a bad idea.
> There is someone in ICE right now doing exactly what Eichmann was doing [...] and then transporting them to foreign camps and foreign countries.
Is this meant to make it sound like it's somehow bad? If someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. In the case of people who entered the country illegally, the sane and rational thing to do is remove them from the country. This is, in fact, one of the most logical punishments imaginable, up there with being forced to leave while trespassing and being required to return stolen property.
Your comment is real "Hitler breathed air, and this other guy breathed air, therefore this other guy is bad because he's like Hitler" levels of manipulative suggestion that's completely devoid of any sort of points or content whatsoever.
It's not "illegal", it's just illegal. The US does not have open borders. It's illegal to cross without a visa or some other authorization. That's a fact, and in fact the law is a very reasonable one, because people who are knowledgeable about how humans work generally understand that open borders are a bad idea.
> There is someone in ICE right now doing exactly what Eichmann was doing [...] and then transporting them to foreign camps and foreign countries.
Is this meant to make it sound like it's somehow bad? If someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. In the case of people who entered the country illegally, the sane and rational thing to do is remove them from the country. This is, in fact, one of the most logical punishments imaginable, up there with being forced to leave while trespassing and being required to return stolen property.
Your comment is real "Hitler breathed air, and this other guy breathed air, therefore this other guy is bad because he's like Hitler" levels of manipulative suggestion that's completely devoid of any sort of points or content whatsoever.
I recently read 'Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland', Christopher Browning.
My takeaway was the same as yours; the Germans (and everybody else) were (are) just like us.
My takeaway was the same as yours; the Germans (and everybody else) were (are) just like us.
Terry Pratchett says something very similar in Pyramids.
> interesting to see how people misremember the post-war years.
The observations about the ineffectiveness of US propaganda in post-war Germany are interesting.
But for all the flaws of Meyer's work, the book is about how people thought they were free during the sordid, infamous Nazi period. Above all, the people who saw themselves as the honest folks supporting the good principles of the dictatorship.
It is also interesting to read how people — the very same who were supporters of the dictatorship and who helped persecute the target groups — are comfortable in all their justifications.
"Sure, we knew these people who were taken away. But what could we do?"
"I didn't do anything terrible. If something terrible happened, it happened later, elsewhere."
"The Great Leader failed only because he had some bad people in his circle."
The observations about the ineffectiveness of US propaganda in post-war Germany are interesting.
But for all the flaws of Meyer's work, the book is about how people thought they were free during the sordid, infamous Nazi period. Above all, the people who saw themselves as the honest folks supporting the good principles of the dictatorship.
It is also interesting to read how people — the very same who were supporters of the dictatorship and who helped persecute the target groups — are comfortable in all their justifications.
"Sure, we knew these people who were taken away. But what could we do?"
"I didn't do anything terrible. If something terrible happened, it happened later, elsewhere."
"The Great Leader failed only because he had some bad people in his circle."
what made the stuff about national character questionable?
It requires there to be meaningful systematic differences between the people who happen to live in different countries.
so what are you suggesting causes, for example, the French to strike more often than other Western countries? or Japan to typically have particularly low inflation? or Argentina to typically have particularly high inflation?
Unless we disagree on the meaning of "national character", isn't that easy to come up with 100 other reasons to explain those economic/political differences?
what is your definition of "national character"?
That would be a trait of character that most inhabitants of a country acquire by education, mimetism or mere abituation, that distinguish them from inhabitants of most other countries; Like a taste for some kind of food or music, a respect (or lack thereof) for some social rules like the patience or reluctance to wait in line, etc. I don't believe this kind of trait can influence economics or politics in any significant measure.
such a bizarre thing to think. politics and even more so economics are literally made up of the way people act
I know it's a bit rude to say this, but I don't believe deep down you actually think this. more likely you've just got a funny idea about what's offensive or prejudiced that's blocking you from looking at this rationally
I know it's a bit rude to say this, but I don't believe deep down you actually think this. more likely you've just got a funny idea about what's offensive or prejudiced that's blocking you from looking at this rationally
Err, no.
Politics is the art of manipulating people so they act differently than what they would be inclined to. Modern politics is made possible by psychology and sociology (that and the more traditional use of violence of course), and a lot of work goes into it.
Regarding economics, I don't know where to start. Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere; certainly national policies influence it, but the idea that it is chiefly influenced by the individual characters of the inhabitants sounds like a fantasy to me; maybe a fantasy useful to justify some privileges (you know, like protestantism favoring business etc) but apart from those sociological theories it does sound very idealistic to me.
Maybe you could give your own definition of national character and show how it relates to the economy? That would help me figure out if I've been overlooking something obvious, or if you are indeed content with the idealistic fantasies i alluded to above. It would also be a more honest contribution to the discussion than just dismissing what I've said as bizarre and irrational.
Regarding economics, I don't know where to start. Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere; certainly national policies influence it, but the idea that it is chiefly influenced by the individual characters of the inhabitants sounds like a fantasy to me; maybe a fantasy useful to justify some privileges (you know, like protestantism favoring business etc) but apart from those sociological theories it does sound very idealistic to me.
Maybe you could give your own definition of national character and show how it relates to the economy? That would help me figure out if I've been overlooking something obvious, or if you are indeed content with the idealistic fantasies i alluded to above. It would also be a more honest contribution to the discussion than just dismissing what I've said as bizarre and irrational.
the reason I'm finding this hard to engage with in an ideal manner is because what you're saying feels so far from reality that I struggle to proportion my response properly. the implication of what you're suggesting is that people's actions, personalities and personal choices do not make up their economic choices, and/or economic choices do not make up a large proportion of the economy.
- the level of private consumption in a country is in massive part dictated by how much people choose to consume vs save. this is quite obviously a choice based on personality and norm
- the price level of goods is in large part dictated by what business owners believe people will pay, and how much people are willing to pay. again, both in large part dictated by personality and culture and norm
- wage rates are in large part dictated by what people demand for those jobs, and what business owners are willing to pay. both of these things are in large part dictated by average of people's personality traits in that country
more specifically, let's look at a classic economic case study, Argentina vs Japan: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/b6q69y/the_econo... this is a perfect case of two countries trying not to have their economics dictated by national character, and failing anyway.
essentially what you're trying to claim is that culture and personality does not affect how people act economically. weird and provably wrong principles someone made up one day like "Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere" is a key example of why economics is not a science, and economists are generally not trusted
- the level of private consumption in a country is in massive part dictated by how much people choose to consume vs save. this is quite obviously a choice based on personality and norm
- the price level of goods is in large part dictated by what business owners believe people will pay, and how much people are willing to pay. again, both in large part dictated by personality and culture and norm
- wage rates are in large part dictated by what people demand for those jobs, and what business owners are willing to pay. both of these things are in large part dictated by average of people's personality traits in that country
more specifically, let's look at a classic economic case study, Argentina vs Japan: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/b6q69y/the_econo... this is a perfect case of two countries trying not to have their economics dictated by national character, and failing anyway.
essentially what you're trying to claim is that culture and personality does not affect how people act economically. weird and provably wrong principles someone made up one day like "Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere" is a key example of why economics is not a science, and economists are generally not trusted
Most people in the world have very little economic agency. They don't "choose" to consume rather than to save, they just can't save. And even if the consumer were allmighty, in most countries the state itself is spending a huge portion of the money (https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/...), to say nothing about other big institutions.
And I doubt those soulless institutions let themselves be influenced by the local cultural traits.
Regarding the establishment of prices, there are so many schools of thoughts! Those who believe rarity is what matters, those who believe that the marginal price is what matter, or the time to produce, or power relationships, or a target profit rate, etc... I personnaly believe that all of this plays a role, but I regard any theory based on an allmight homo-economicus as hopeless, disproven times and times over, and mostly an ideological attempt to blame shit on the people and justify privileges.
Wages, like any prices, are rarely decided in practice. "dictated by what people demand"? In which theorical world? Most people are not even asked what compensation they expect. There is a market that decide what a "reasonable salary" should be for any job in any place, and this market is set by a lot of regulations, by the level of unemployment, the cost of living, etc, all of which are not decided by anyone.
What I'm claiming is that there exist such rules as economical rules, sociological rules, that very severely limits whatever agency individuals can have on the economy and society.
So of course one can say "any institution is just made of people", and ultimately decompose everything into individual actions. Sure, but it obscures the laws rather than makes them apparent; Like, say, you can reduce the weather as just a bunch of molecules jiggling arround, but good luck understanding weather patterns then. Is it just what our disagreement is about?
The link to outline.com is dead by the way.
Regarding the establishment of prices, there are so many schools of thoughts! Those who believe rarity is what matters, those who believe that the marginal price is what matter, or the time to produce, or power relationships, or a target profit rate, etc... I personnaly believe that all of this plays a role, but I regard any theory based on an allmight homo-economicus as hopeless, disproven times and times over, and mostly an ideological attempt to blame shit on the people and justify privileges.
Wages, like any prices, are rarely decided in practice. "dictated by what people demand"? In which theorical world? Most people are not even asked what compensation they expect. There is a market that decide what a "reasonable salary" should be for any job in any place, and this market is set by a lot of regulations, by the level of unemployment, the cost of living, etc, all of which are not decided by anyone.
What I'm claiming is that there exist such rules as economical rules, sociological rules, that very severely limits whatever agency individuals can have on the economy and society.
So of course one can say "any institution is just made of people", and ultimately decompose everything into individual actions. Sure, but it obscures the laws rather than makes them apparent; Like, say, you can reduce the weather as just a bunch of molecules jiggling arround, but good luck understanding weather patterns then. Is it just what our disagreement is about?
The link to outline.com is dead by the way.
>I regard any theory based on an allmight homo-economicus as hopeless, disproven times and times over, and mostly an ideological attempt to blame shit on the people and justify privileges.
and here we are. this is what I was trying to express. I don't believe you actually don't believe that the sum of human actions is not made up of human actions, that essentially being what you've been trying to argue
I think you believe that it's nicer and less prejudiced, less harsh, to not "blame" people for the actions of their culture, and you're artificially constructing arguments to support that emotional conclusion. I completely get it, it's difficult to conscion that a particular culture might be more prone to authoritarianism, or careful economic management, or crime, or other, but, unfortunately, that is the case. what you're missing in the equation is that culture, national character, isn't people's fault. it exists, and it dictates matters, but people aren't to blame for it. you don't choose the culture you grow up in, and it shouldn't be anathema to describe cultures because you feel like it's blaming people. people are not molecules in a box, and yes, that is where we're disagreeing, because you think that's a viable analogy when it's not, when it's provably not. and anyway, even if it were a viable analogy, molecules in a box act differently when they're different molecules
the rest of your comment is essentially just mentally delegation to outside theories, without actually using your own brain to address the reality. I'll address this paragraph though:
>Wages, like any prices, are rarely decided in practice. "dictated by what people demand"? In which theorical world? Most people are not even asked what compensation they expect. There is a market that decide what a "reasonable salary" should be for any job in any place, and this market is set by a lot of regulations, by the level of unemployment, the cost of living, etc, all of which are not decided by anyone.
>"dictated by what people demand"
first of all, this quote is out of context, and the full quote says "in large part". secondly, the reason this is so is because to a large degree, when there is demand for a job, then businesses will try to fill that demand. if people do not want to do that job, or there are not enough people educated to do that job, then--barring migration--what happens to the wages for that job? I do not have to answer that for you, I'm sure. so here we have a perfect example of culture and personality--people's particular educations and desires for particular jobs--either dictating wage levels, or dictating part of the level of migration. you may say that people's ability to dictate like this is reliant on them being comfortable and not being forced to take whatever job will keep them alive, and that's another part of the equation, but it's irrelevant, because people's cultures and personalities are still a huge part of it
>The link to outline.com is dead by the way.
the article is an economist piece in the top reddit comment in the link
and here we are. this is what I was trying to express. I don't believe you actually don't believe that the sum of human actions is not made up of human actions, that essentially being what you've been trying to argue
I think you believe that it's nicer and less prejudiced, less harsh, to not "blame" people for the actions of their culture, and you're artificially constructing arguments to support that emotional conclusion. I completely get it, it's difficult to conscion that a particular culture might be more prone to authoritarianism, or careful economic management, or crime, or other, but, unfortunately, that is the case. what you're missing in the equation is that culture, national character, isn't people's fault. it exists, and it dictates matters, but people aren't to blame for it. you don't choose the culture you grow up in, and it shouldn't be anathema to describe cultures because you feel like it's blaming people. people are not molecules in a box, and yes, that is where we're disagreeing, because you think that's a viable analogy when it's not, when it's provably not. and anyway, even if it were a viable analogy, molecules in a box act differently when they're different molecules
the rest of your comment is essentially just mentally delegation to outside theories, without actually using your own brain to address the reality. I'll address this paragraph though:
>Wages, like any prices, are rarely decided in practice. "dictated by what people demand"? In which theorical world? Most people are not even asked what compensation they expect. There is a market that decide what a "reasonable salary" should be for any job in any place, and this market is set by a lot of regulations, by the level of unemployment, the cost of living, etc, all of which are not decided by anyone.
>"dictated by what people demand"
first of all, this quote is out of context, and the full quote says "in large part". secondly, the reason this is so is because to a large degree, when there is demand for a job, then businesses will try to fill that demand. if people do not want to do that job, or there are not enough people educated to do that job, then--barring migration--what happens to the wages for that job? I do not have to answer that for you, I'm sure. so here we have a perfect example of culture and personality--people's particular educations and desires for particular jobs--either dictating wage levels, or dictating part of the level of migration. you may say that people's ability to dictate like this is reliant on them being comfortable and not being forced to take whatever job will keep them alive, and that's another part of the equation, but it's irrelevant, because people's cultures and personalities are still a huge part of it
>The link to outline.com is dead by the way.
the article is an economist piece in the top reddit comment in the link
History? Geography? Specific laws? Particular parties in power?
There are a lot of things to look at alongside mystical notions of a collective national character of a people, especially now that most of these countries have significant immigration and exposure to ideas from elsewhere.
There are a lot of things to look at alongside mystical notions of a collective national character of a people, especially now that most of these countries have significant immigration and exposure to ideas from elsewhere.
all of the things you listed make up or result from national character. besides some short interludes, for example, Japan has had the same party in power since 1955. it's a weird thing to deny the existence of. different nations act differently. it's not heresy to make generalisations, particularly in the age of nationalism when many/most people actively try to set and follow their country's norms
Isn’t that a thing called culture? National character could be another word for it, except “nation” is a modern concept and is highly volatile. Check out what’s happened to the borders of Germany over the last few hundred years.
okay then, call it culture, call it national character, it changes nothing. culture affects--dictates, even--the politics and economics of a country massively
Waiting for the country of people who fly out of their mother's wombs or whom are born in a sack on their father's backs and further those who mentally convince themselves to pass through walls.
so there not being the difference between a human and a kangaroo or a frog and a bat means that the difference between an Argentine and a Japanese person isn't real either? literally meaningless analogy
a lot of the western world learns only speaks about ww2 (let alone ww1, americans civil war, etc.).
there has been countless western and non western wars with slightly different patterns and a taste of "winner writes history".
one i find interesting is the french revolution. its also fairly recent, but not as tampered with as ww2 history. for example, there still are records of how terrible and cruel the revolutionaries were, how everyone was a royalist that needed to die and how the populace started to be ready to revolt - again - right after the change of power. thankfully, things eventually calmed down - as they were cruel, but not dumb.
either way I'd basically recommend expending the reading curriculum a bit.
there has been countless western and non western wars with slightly different patterns and a taste of "winner writes history".
one i find interesting is the french revolution. its also fairly recent, but not as tampered with as ww2 history. for example, there still are records of how terrible and cruel the revolutionaries were, how everyone was a royalist that needed to die and how the populace started to be ready to revolt - again - right after the change of power. thankfully, things eventually calmed down - as they were cruel, but not dumb.
either way I'd basically recommend expending the reading curriculum a bit.
Posted here multiple times before:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973 (02/2025, 473 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315 (11/2020, 382 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042304 (04/2022, 239 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973 (02/2025, 473 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315 (11/2020, 382 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042304 (04/2022, 239 comments)
I was reading the comments from the past times this was submitted, and I just wanted a reason to draw attention to this comment from 2020:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315#25104589
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315#25104589
We're seeking narrative to explain how and why these things are happening when narratives are how they are happening. When a species relies on inferior and limited tools, it suffers from their use. When the tool is seamless with the problem, it destroys us without us becoming aware.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/jd-vance-lie...
This article is all we need to know about fascism, the candidate admits this is the central tool they use on the path to gain unlimited power, even The Guardian grasps this but can't extricate from their use, the news is addicted to stories financially: "In a stunning admission, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, said he was willing “to create stories” on the campaign trail while defending his spreading false, racist rumors of pets being abducted and eaten in a town in his home state of Ohio."
The central problem is epistemological, the coding of explanations in mythological thought, which is narrative. The myth is the primary causal illusion. That causes that. When we add intent, which is elusive and reduces meaning subjectively, it robs any event of the true meaning load, we create propaganda without knowing it. There's the rub. If we wee the burning bush as just a brushfire, we are sane. See it as the voice of God, we're doomed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/jd-vance-lie...
This article is all we need to know about fascism, the candidate admits this is the central tool they use on the path to gain unlimited power, even The Guardian grasps this but can't extricate from their use, the news is addicted to stories financially: "In a stunning admission, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, said he was willing “to create stories” on the campaign trail while defending his spreading false, racist rumors of pets being abducted and eaten in a town in his home state of Ohio."
The central problem is epistemological, the coding of explanations in mythological thought, which is narrative. The myth is the primary causal illusion. That causes that. When we add intent, which is elusive and reduces meaning subjectively, it robs any event of the true meaning load, we create propaganda without knowing it. There's the rub. If we wee the burning bush as just a brushfire, we are sane. See it as the voice of God, we're doomed.
> even The Guardian grasps this but can't extricate from their use, the news is addicted to stories financially
The dilemma that The Guardian faces is that it neither wants to draw attention to the lie, but also doesn't want to let it stand without some counter-argument. After all, if you just ignore everything then no counter-argument is ever offered and that's not good either.
This is really the "democracy hack" they're using: you don't want to draw attention to it, but you also can't really ignore it. In a healthy system, people that employ these kind of shameless dirty tricks would be excluded by the sense of civic duty of other people of their own party, as well as enlightened self-interest because in the end this will be bad for everyone. Yet here we are.
The dilemma that The Guardian faces is that it neither wants to draw attention to the lie, but also doesn't want to let it stand without some counter-argument. After all, if you just ignore everything then no counter-argument is ever offered and that's not good either.
This is really the "democracy hack" they're using: you don't want to draw attention to it, but you also can't really ignore it. In a healthy system, people that employ these kind of shameless dirty tricks would be excluded by the sense of civic duty of other people of their own party, as well as enlightened self-interest because in the end this will be bad for everyone. Yet here we are.
The Guardian is misleading you. Vance was referring to story in the news sense, not "admitting" that he makes things up. The original video of what he said is here:
https://x.com/HunnyBplus3/status/1835326924597366869
JD Vance: "Dana, [stories about Haitians in Springfield] come from first hand accounts of my constituents. I say that we're creating a story meaning we're creating the American media focusing on it. I didn't create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield, Kamala Harris' policies did that, but yes, we created the actual focus that allowed the American media to talk about this story."
> The central problem is epistemological
Yes!
https://x.com/HunnyBplus3/status/1835326924597366869
JD Vance: "Dana, [stories about Haitians in Springfield] come from first hand accounts of my constituents. I say that we're creating a story meaning we're creating the American media focusing on it. I didn't create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield, Kamala Harris' policies did that, but yes, we created the actual focus that allowed the American media to talk about this story."
> The central problem is epistemological
Yes!
There were no firsthand accounts from his constituents. He never was able to provide a witness. You're using narrative to cover up events that never occurred or were rumors made into narratives. This is the source of the narrative illusion. "
"Multiple news reports in September 2024 detailed Senator J.D. Vance's inability to provide firsthand accounts or evidence for his claims that Haitian migrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. When asked for proof, he pointed to anonymous "firsthand accounts from his constituents," which were later refuted by city officials"
"Multiple news reports in September 2024 detailed Senator J.D. Vance's inability to provide firsthand accounts or evidence for his claims that Haitian migrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. When asked for proof, he pointed to anonymous "firsthand accounts from his constituents," which were later refuted by city officials"
That typo made my day. Interesting post overall; good food for thought.
Wow that was one hell of a read!
Spaced repetition promotes learning.
Seriously though, this is the first time I've seen it (and I visit HN daily).
Unfortunately a common occurrence here.
One very helpful workaround is to browse the HN "front page" displayed at
https://hckrnews.com
so that you don't have to worry about HN censorship / algorithm fuckery
One very helpful workaround is to browse the HN "front page" displayed at
https://hckrnews.com
so that you don't have to worry about HN censorship / algorithm fuckery
[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42943973 spent 8 hours on the front page in February.
No one sees all the major threads here, not even us. There are too many, and the turnover is too rapid.
No one sees all the major threads here, not even us. There are too many, and the turnover is too rapid.
That's why I only browse /active these days. Front page is way too sterile.
It becomes more important with each repost
It’s been 7mo and we’re not all here every day. It’s fine. I appreciate the post and discussion it sparked.
Why does it bother you?
Why does it bother you?
Linking to past threads with comments (i.e. actual discussions) is a longstanding convention here. There's no implied criticism, as other users have already pointed out.
We do treat reposts as duplicates when a story has had significant attention in the last year or so (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), but that's a separate issue.
We do treat reposts as duplicates when a story has had significant attention in the last year or so (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), but that's a separate issue.
Why are you interpreting it as a complaint, or an expression of being bothered?
Occasional reposts are well within HN's norms, and when something is reposted, it's common to link to past discussions for comparison.
Occasional reposts are well within HN's norms, and when something is reposted, it's common to link to past discussions for comparison.
Why do you think it bothers me? I wrote the original comment because previous discussions might be interesting reads.
Maybe prefixing with "Previous discussions" instead of "Posted here multiple times before" will not sound like complaining
It's really hard to find a phrase for this that people don't interpret as a complaint or criticism. It took me years before I hit on "Related", which seems just neutral enough to mostly avoid that misunderstanding (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
The phrasing was matter of fact. And there is nothing inherently wrong with reposting. Certain other websites have developed a culture opposed to it, but I have yet to see that here.
Agreed, I actually tried and go back to change the wording to exactly that, but unfortunately it was already past the editing grace period. But lesson learned for next time.
I listened to the audio book a few months back - probably the last time it appeared on HN, I'm not sure how else I would have stumbled across it. It's well worth the time.
I remember particularly the teacher's statement that (paraphrasing, it's been a while) "if I could not resist, it means that anyone else of my station or below could also not resist".
The idea that an admission of impotence is not just a personal note, but also an observation of an actionable waterline that anyone with fewer means will also be unable to rise above...
"If I am unable to do X, who else is unable to do X?" is such a powerful question to consider.
I remember particularly the teacher's statement that (paraphrasing, it's been a while) "if I could not resist, it means that anyone else of my station or below could also not resist".
The idea that an admission of impotence is not just a personal note, but also an observation of an actionable waterline that anyone with fewer means will also be unable to rise above...
"If I am unable to do X, who else is unable to do X?" is such a powerful question to consider.
>"if I could not resist, it means that anyone else of my station or below could also not resist"
"All ten of my friends gladly confess this crime of having been Germans in Germany." —p164
Related quote, with the teacher and the taylor (opposite ends of "Nazi spectrum") in agreement that the pro-Nazi mentality was pervasive.
>"Adolf Hitler was good for Germany—in my [ten] friends' view—up until 1943, 1941, or 1939, depending upon the individual" –p69
"All ten of my friends gladly confess this crime of having been Germans in Germany." —p164
Related quote, with the teacher and the taylor (opposite ends of "Nazi spectrum") in agreement that the pro-Nazi mentality was pervasive.
>"Adolf Hitler was good for Germany—in my [ten] friends' view—up until 1943, 1941, or 1939, depending upon the individual" –p69
The challenge with long form texts is that they are so often picked apart, each piece quoted and analyzed on its own, without regard for how that small piece fits into the whole, often veering from a far more nuanced argument or portrait of life.
Something I very much like about poetry, is that so much wisdom can be condensed into such succinct language. We fill the gaps with our own experiences, not relying on the author to lead us step by step. And I see poetry proliferating in modern times in song. (How else is a poet to earn a living?)
There frequently are reminders of who we are, where we come from, and whence we always return. Life is a wheel. From Black Sabbath:
Something I very much like about poetry, is that so much wisdom can be condensed into such succinct language. We fill the gaps with our own experiences, not relying on the author to lead us step by step. And I see poetry proliferating in modern times in song. (How else is a poet to earn a living?)
There frequently are reminders of who we are, where we come from, and whence we always return. Life is a wheel. From Black Sabbath:
They say that life's a carousel
Spinning fast, you gotta ride it well
The world is full of Kings and Queens
Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams
It's Heaven and Hell, oh well
And they'll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night
And when you walk in golden halls
You get to keep the gold that falls
It's Heaven and Hellhttps://youtu.be/Sfekgjfh1Rk?feature=shared
Bonhoeffer got a lot of things right.
Bonhoeffer got a lot of things right.
> "How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.
The experts, people that have dedicated their lives to understand authoritarianism have already given the alarm. Well, a specialist has even moved to Canada for god's sake.
And well, criticizing democracy is fashionable again. High profile figures started saying out loud that "maybe democracies are overrated. maybe democracies cannot deal with the world as it is now". Just listen to what people are actually saying instead of what you think they meant when they say it and you'll hear they saying that an authoritarian leader is what america needs now.
The experts, people that have dedicated their lives to understand authoritarianism have already given the alarm. Well, a specialist has even moved to Canada for god's sake.
And well, criticizing democracy is fashionable again. High profile figures started saying out loud that "maybe democracies are overrated. maybe democracies cannot deal with the world as it is now". Just listen to what people are actually saying instead of what you think they meant when they say it and you'll hear they saying that an authoritarian leader is what america needs now.
> And well, criticizing democracy is fashionable again.
Yup. I've see it a few times a week on HN at this point
Yup. I've see it a few times a week on HN at this point
By all means criticise the implementation but definitely don’t criticise the idea! America’s democracy would be greatly improved by being made more representative through electoral reform.
Yeah, but this is not what they are saying. They are saying that debate stiffle innovation. They are saying that we should get rid of all this mess and let the wise man govern.
I think about least 3/4 of the anti-democracy rhetoric I've seen here has been from people opposed to this administration.
So I wouldn't conflate opposition to democracy/embracing authoritarianism with one particular man if that is what you mean by "let the wise man govern."
It's broader than that and more worrying because there are multiple authoritarian factions who agree mainly on democracy being the enemy.
In that sense it's a similar sort of set up heading into WWII
So I wouldn't conflate opposition to democracy/embracing authoritarianism with one particular man if that is what you mean by "let the wise man govern."
It's broader than that and more worrying because there are multiple authoritarian factions who agree mainly on democracy being the enemy.
In that sense it's a similar sort of set up heading into WWII
No surprise that HN was one of moldbugs targets in the beginning.
>But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes
"…it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
Well, that resonated just a bit. Oh well, back to doomscrolling.
Well, that resonated just a bit. Oh well, back to doomscrolling.
Excerpts from this have popped up in Reddit comments quite a bit the last few years. At first it did feel out of place, but now I'm going going back and listening to Dan Carlin talk about the headspace of society before something like Nazi Germany happens. With all the Executive Orders and lawlessness from the Executive Branch and throughout our federal government with this new regime, it's pretty clear they're attempting to do their part to usher in the chaos. "They" are the ones who have the most resources who will rebuild and control after everything goes to shit, like how Europe and the US thrived after WW2 because they were the winners/rebuilders. Currently the right wants to skip the messy war part required to take control of a government and skip to the implementing changes part. Whether or not that actually happens, well right now they're trying to push the left into drawing the line.
I have no idea where our current "line" is but it's not the same as it was last time and who knows what it will look like if we have some kind of civil war out of this.
edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWvz0dR3wc
The other day I watched this interview with Dan Carlin from 4 years ago and near the beginning the interviewer says something like "I don't think any of us want to draw any comprarisons to current nations and Nazi Germany"
that caught me, because why not? Of course no one wants to actually create parallels, but do we see any? maybe we didn't see as many then, and it was more of a worry in 2021 about even thinking about the possibility of tipping MAGA into that territory. but then again after January 6th we should have seen that they basically don't have a line and are just pushing it gradually. They don't really know what to do when they get the new power either, but the people who could stop it may not even realize it because they haven't had to deal with this kind of thing before. like invading Greenland? taking it from Denmark? how do you even create a response to a suggestion like that? so nothing happens and they see what else they can do.
another edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWvz0dR3wc&t=570s
The really interesting part of the interview gets going around the 7:50 mark, but here Dan talks about the options if you're an average citizen trying to figure out what to do. A litany of poor options if you're trying to pick a side right now really resonates with me.
I have no idea where our current "line" is but it's not the same as it was last time and who knows what it will look like if we have some kind of civil war out of this.
edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWvz0dR3wc
The other day I watched this interview with Dan Carlin from 4 years ago and near the beginning the interviewer says something like "I don't think any of us want to draw any comprarisons to current nations and Nazi Germany"
that caught me, because why not? Of course no one wants to actually create parallels, but do we see any? maybe we didn't see as many then, and it was more of a worry in 2021 about even thinking about the possibility of tipping MAGA into that territory. but then again after January 6th we should have seen that they basically don't have a line and are just pushing it gradually. They don't really know what to do when they get the new power either, but the people who could stop it may not even realize it because they haven't had to deal with this kind of thing before. like invading Greenland? taking it from Denmark? how do you even create a response to a suggestion like that? so nothing happens and they see what else they can do.
another edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWvz0dR3wc&t=570s
The really interesting part of the interview gets going around the 7:50 mark, but here Dan talks about the options if you're an average citizen trying to figure out what to do. A litany of poor options if you're trying to pick a side right now really resonates with me.
> and who knows what it will look like if we have some kind of civil war out of this.
I don't understand mentions of "civil war" in the public lately (there's even a Hollywood movie about it).
There is only one party controlling the armed forces. I also doubt that any high-ranking officers would take the troops they command out of the command structure and then even order them to attack the government and other troops.
Not to mention that the new administration did some cleanup among the ranks already.
The chances for enough, or any, troops breaking away from the command are very low, no?
So who is going to fight that "civil war"? It looks to me like the government has overwhelming power. At most I see some troops refuse orders to shoot at the American people, or at other troops.
Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with.
I don't understand mentions of "civil war" in the public lately (there's even a Hollywood movie about it).
There is only one party controlling the armed forces. I also doubt that any high-ranking officers would take the troops they command out of the command structure and then even order them to attack the government and other troops.
Not to mention that the new administration did some cleanup among the ranks already.
The chances for enough, or any, troops breaking away from the command are very low, no?
So who is going to fight that "civil war"? It looks to me like the government has overwhelming power. At most I see some troops refuse orders to shoot at the American people, or at other troops.
Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with.
> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with.
We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Assuming like minded people wont self-organize is a bad starting point, and jets and tanks have a tough time doing things like enforcing curfews. That's also ignoring that such a scenario would involve portions of said military force joining the civilian resistance, including those in leadership positions.
Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Assuming like minded people wont self-organize is a bad starting point, and jets and tanks have a tough time doing things like enforcing curfews. That's also ignoring that such a scenario would involve portions of said military force joining the civilian resistance, including those in leadership positions.
Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
> We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military.
Only when the military is not serious since they are not fighting for their own lands and the civilians are backed by another country. When the military is fighting civilians in its own homeland the civilians stand no chance unless they get massive help from foreign powers.
> Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
Even if you do that its still the military that gets to decide the next leader, killing their leader does not lead to democracy. Nazism didn't end with Hitlers death, it ended with the country being taken over. Oppressive Communisms didn't end with Stalins death etc. There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader.
Only when the military is not serious since they are not fighting for their own lands and the civilians are backed by another country. When the military is fighting civilians in its own homeland the civilians stand no chance unless they get massive help from foreign powers.
> Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
Even if you do that its still the military that gets to decide the next leader, killing their leader does not lead to democracy. Nazism didn't end with Hitlers death, it ended with the country being taken over. Oppressive Communisms didn't end with Stalins death etc. There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader.
>There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader.
An excellent point. Just look at the line of succession to the Presidency right now[0]:
No. Office Incumbent Party
1 Vice President JD Vance Republican
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson Republican
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley Republican
4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio Republican
5 Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent Republican
6 Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Republican
7 Attorney General Pam Bondi Republican
8 Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum Republican
9 Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Republican
10 Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Republican
11 Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer Republican
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Independent
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner Republican
14 Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy Republican
15 Secretary of Energy Chris Wright Republican
16 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Republican
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins Republican
18 Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem Republican
Now which one is dedicated to the Constitution/rule of law?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin...
An excellent point. Just look at the line of succession to the Presidency right now[0]:
No. Office Incumbent Party
1 Vice President JD Vance Republican
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson Republican
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley Republican
4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio Republican
5 Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent Republican
6 Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Republican
7 Attorney General Pam Bondi Republican
8 Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum Republican
9 Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Republican
10 Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Republican
11 Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer Republican
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Independent
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner Republican
14 Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy Republican
15 Secretary of Energy Chris Wright Republican
16 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Republican
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins Republican
18 Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem Republican
Now which one is dedicated to the Constitution/rule of law?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin...
You cut off the supplies, and wait 2 weeks. Modern civilization collapses, gangs take over, people ask the army on their knees to return.
> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight
In the 1940s, the DoD published a field manual on how folk with "puny little guns" - or no guns at all - can fight.
In the 1940s, the DoD published a field manual on how folk with "puny little guns" - or no guns at all - can fight.
Let's see... military drones; satellite surveillance; comms surveillance; giant network of flock cameras vacuuming up facial, descriptive vehicular, and license plate movement data; small-scale tactical nuclear weapons; a huge fleet of hypersonic aircraft and extremely maneuverable helicopters; decades of urban combat experience; militarized law enforcement; the largest military in the world by orders of magnitude fighting on its own turf; complete control of utilities infrastructure, centralized resource creation for food, fuel and weapons; large stockpiles of modern chemical weapons that they wouldn't hesitate to use for a second if it was an existential threat... the world is a very very different place than it was in the 40s, and the modern US military is very very very very very different than any military was back then. Even if you can argue that our power has grown linearly with more access to guns or whatever, the US military's power has grown at a much much faster rate.
Afghanistan
Would you consider the US military presence in Afghanistan comparable to it's presence in the US? How about knowledge of the landscape, ability to understand local cultures, having local contacts, having working transportation routes, resources in place, and the fact that none of the people fighting back are going to be backed by foreign governments? These two scenarios are incomparable.
They're absolutely comparable, notwithstanding their being different. One could just as well argue that it was a lot easier for the military to do drone strikes or call in CAS on the Taliban with zero risk of political blowback. You remind me of someone who was seriously arguing with me in 2004, telling me the Iraq war would not turn into a quagmire because Iraq was arid desert whereas Vietnam was semi-tropical and forested.
You didn’t counter anything I said. You just said I was wrong and presented a couple of strawmen.
Something you didn't say, something significant, is the US military is made up of US soldiers.
A good many of those soldiers will have "Patriot Sympathies" (of many kinds).
This will lead to a great deal of information leakage, "lost" equipment going to militias, sabotage, etc.
Regardless of oaths to US military, an innate sense of duty to some personal ideal of USA will over weigh for a significant number, and a good percentage of those will remain embedded, organized, and difficult to root out.
They will also exist in various numbers from the lowliest boot to the highest general.
A good many of those soldiers will have "Patriot Sympathies" (of many kinds).
This will lead to a great deal of information leakage, "lost" equipment going to militias, sabotage, etc.
Regardless of oaths to US military, an innate sense of duty to some personal ideal of USA will over weigh for a significant number, and a good percentage of those will remain embedded, organized, and difficult to root out.
They will also exist in various numbers from the lowliest boot to the highest general.
Sure, that could be a factor. Didn’t really seem to stop soldiers from steamrolling through American cities during the civil war, doesn’t seem to stop cops from messing people up during protests, and doesn’t stop genocide in other countries. We, as a species, are pathetically easy to manipulate through in-group, out-group thinking, which honestly is much of the basis for patriotism anyway.
Why waste the effort on a gish gallop? Your original comment was full of handwaving assumptions, it doesn't deserve more.
oof… ok.
True, but it goes the other way around as well - the Taliban had absolutely no way to infiltrate the ranks and do damage to the military operations from within.
Was that a significant problem during the civil war?
Excellent question. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on that subject can tell us more.
The Taliban lost immediately and was suppressed indefinitely until the US decided to leave. It's a good demonstration of how well the US military can suppress even decentralized and suicidally fanatical movements for as long as it wants.
Suppressing them didn't cause them to stop fighting, though. In every guerrilla war the conventional army is nominally in charge, and generally never loses any sort of pitched battle. The whole military theory of guerilla warfare is to avoid shootouts in favor of hitting the enemy and running away.
A/K/A the Fabian Strategy:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy>
Old as the hills ... of Rome, that is.
Also exemplified in the Fabian Society's philosophy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society>.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy>
Old as the hills ... of Rome, that is.
Also exemplified in the Fabian Society's philosophy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society>.
No it didn't, but the US military isn't going to get bored of the US and leave.
Indeed not, but they could well get bored of who's ordering them around and make those persons leave.
You're admitting you're wrong? You're now agreeing that the US army could suppress an insurrection indefinitely and could only be stopped by a split within the military itself. A scenario that has nothing in common with what happened in Afghanistan.
Good luck with hypersonic nukes when your patrols are pecked by ambushes and FPV drones in the spaghetti of neighborhoods with opposing alignments.
Except this violence will absolutely be preceded extensive operations by the giant existing police and national guard presence that knows the neighborhoods like the backs of their hand. They would put a giant dent in that well before a single shot was fired. Would that absolutely be the case if we invaded, say, Canada? Quite likely. The US government has so much existing control on US soil that I'd eat my hat if any US city lasted a week in active conflict.
Well, I think you did a pretty good job of describing the resources that they are consolidating into that one party that controls the military. For now it's just the National Guard going into cities, but didn't they float the idea of sending Marines to LA? There's so much it's impossible to keep track of what's actually going on.
I've always been of the idea that 100 guys with guns gets wiped out with 1 bomb nowadays, so why do individuals arm themselves to the teeth and LARP in the woods? it is looking more like that's going to be a paramilitary arm, or "private consultants" to ICE and CBP. those resources aren't for nothing, and they certainly aren't for taking down the US military.
This is a WW2 figure who had a song written about him after he was martyred. It became the anthem of the Nazi party. I didn't ever hear about him in my many years in the US, until a few days ago on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
I've always been of the idea that 100 guys with guns gets wiped out with 1 bomb nowadays, so why do individuals arm themselves to the teeth and LARP in the woods? it is looking more like that's going to be a paramilitary arm, or "private consultants" to ICE and CBP. those resources aren't for nothing, and they certainly aren't for taking down the US military.
This is a WW2 figure who had a song written about him after he was martyred. It became the anthem of the Nazi party. I didn't ever hear about him in my many years in the US, until a few days ago on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
He already sent active duty marines to Los Angeles, and it was ruled illegal by a judge (after the fact) but it doesn't matter because no one with any real power cares what laws or judges say: https://time.com/7313929/trump-national-guard-la-los-angeles...
Most importantly Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman admitted he knew it was illegal and did it anyway. So much for that oath!
Law enforcement and security aren’t really set up for scenarios where random members of the general public want to attack you.
What do you mean? That is exactly what they are trained for, you just do the same thing but even more aggressively. US cops are already pretty aggressive but you can dial that up a lot, they are already trained for this.
Tell the cops that they can shoot anyone looking aggressive and not get questioned and they will happily go out and quell any resistance, don't you think? Tell them they can put people in prison without lawyers getting in their way, that they can torture people to speak without anyone stopping them etc.
US police is very close to a fascist police already so very little has to change. Remember that the US police culture roots came from policing slaves.
Tell the cops that they can shoot anyone looking aggressive and not get questioned and they will happily go out and quell any resistance, don't you think? Tell them they can put people in prison without lawyers getting in their way, that they can torture people to speak without anyone stopping them etc.
US police is very close to a fascist police already so very little has to change. Remember that the US police culture roots came from policing slaves.
[deleted]
If the president shreds the constitution, there would likely be many in the military opposed to it.
While they are actively replacing cabinet positions with loyal outsiders that have little-to-no experience within the organizations they now run (eg Patel, Hegseth), I think it’s reasonable to assume that there remains career leaders throughout that would put country before king.
You also need to look at loyalty within the rank and file of course.
When I talk to conservative friends about this scenario they generally laugh; of course the military would choose country over king. At least for now I think there remains enough institutional integrity that this is plausible.
While they are actively replacing cabinet positions with loyal outsiders that have little-to-no experience within the organizations they now run (eg Patel, Hegseth), I think it’s reasonable to assume that there remains career leaders throughout that would put country before king.
You also need to look at loyalty within the rank and file of course.
When I talk to conservative friends about this scenario they generally laugh; of course the military would choose country over king. At least for now I think there remains enough institutional integrity that this is plausible.
Hard to say. "About six-in-ten registered voters who say they have served in the U.S. military or military reserves (61%) support former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, while 37% back Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early September." from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
The military is not composed of constitutional lawyers and the danger is that they might persuade themselves that the best way to protect the country is to support whoever has at least a façade of legitimacy, particularly if it aligns with their political preferences.
The military is not composed of constitutional lawyers and the danger is that they might persuade themselves that the best way to protect the country is to support whoever has at least a façade of legitimacy, particularly if it aligns with their political preferences.
Agreed, but I do think it’s important to distinguish:
- voted Trump because they believe the constitution protects us from his worst impulses; would support constitution over Trump
- voted Trump and would shred the constitution if they had the opportunity to
I think it’s hard to say how many are in each camp. My fear is many tell themselves they are in the first, but will actually end up in the second under the correct manufactured crisis.
But the stats and polling would need to go into a lot more detail than what you quoted to distinguish.
- voted Trump because they believe the constitution protects us from his worst impulses; would support constitution over Trump
- voted Trump and would shred the constitution if they had the opportunity to
I think it’s hard to say how many are in each camp. My fear is many tell themselves they are in the first, but will actually end up in the second under the correct manufactured crisis.
But the stats and polling would need to go into a lot more detail than what you quoted to distinguish.
Ask your conservative friends what they think of Mark Milley and his successor.
What do you think about him?
One of the best CJCS in decades, with high intellectual and military accomplishments.
But that's not the point. The point is that dropping his name will serve as an interesting litmus test for what your friends actually believe, because Trump has made it very clear that he hates the guy.
But that's not the point. The point is that dropping his name will serve as an interesting litmus test for what your friends actually believe, because Trump has made it very clear that he hates the guy.
[deleted]
bboygravity(4)
The number of different national and international situations that get compared to Nazi Germany seems to reflect a paucity of historical imagination and desire to collapse every conflict into an manichaean analogy with modern civilization's foundational battle of good vs. evil.
It might make at least as much sense to compare to Erdoğan's Turkey, Orban's Hungary, Syria's Assad and al-Julani, Chile with Allende and Pinochet, Bolsonaro and Lula in Brazil, the Spanish Civil War, Maidan and the Ukraine war, Cerén and Bukele in El Salvador, etc etc etc.
The point is, if you drew up a few dozen historical parallels that were at least as close to the current American predicament as is Germany in the 1930s, you might draw (and implicitly suggest your audience draw) more tentative and complex conclusions regarding the correct course of action. Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis", other historical analogies might caution against encouraging everyone escalating into a violent conflict as the only imaginable course of action.
It might make at least as much sense to compare to Erdoğan's Turkey, Orban's Hungary, Syria's Assad and al-Julani, Chile with Allende and Pinochet, Bolsonaro and Lula in Brazil, the Spanish Civil War, Maidan and the Ukraine war, Cerén and Bukele in El Salvador, etc etc etc.
The point is, if you drew up a few dozen historical parallels that were at least as close to the current American predicament as is Germany in the 1930s, you might draw (and implicitly suggest your audience draw) more tentative and complex conclusions regarding the correct course of action. Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis", other historical analogies might caution against encouraging everyone escalating into a violent conflict as the only imaginable course of action.
> Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis"
Does it? I haven’t thought about shooting anyone. I would like to see more widespread awareness, protesting, and a general strike.
Does it? I haven’t thought about shooting anyone. I would like to see more widespread awareness, protesting, and a general strike.
This. If you read Reddit, a whole lot of comments go from Nazi parallels (which is partly justified, but as another comment points out there are also a lot of parallels with Orban's Hungary, Erdogan's Turkey, Putin's Russia, etc.) to 'Luigi'.
There are so many non-violent approaches that would be effective. First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike, pretty much all of society would come to a standstill and it would send a heck of a powerful message. One of the issues though in the US is healthcare tied to employment, combined with fire at will. It reduces preparedness of people to protest until it's possibly too late. So, it's simultaneously important to build/strengthen unions, etc.
Aside from that, and this is true for Europe as well, we need to heal as a society. People have divided themselves in stupid 'teams', fueled by politicians, foreign interference, algorithms, etc. Not woke enough? You are cancelled. Left-wing? You are cancelled (employer contacted and fired). We have to do a little less social media and go outside and talk to other people. Even if I disagree with people politically, there often a lot of common ground (we all want food, health, to be safe, etc.), we all like to talk about some sports match, and whatnot. We don't have to agree with each other, but we can at least try to understand and care for each other. Break the stupid tribe wars.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule
There are so many non-violent approaches that would be effective. First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike, pretty much all of society would come to a standstill and it would send a heck of a powerful message. One of the issues though in the US is healthcare tied to employment, combined with fire at will. It reduces preparedness of people to protest until it's possibly too late. So, it's simultaneously important to build/strengthen unions, etc.
Aside from that, and this is true for Europe as well, we need to heal as a society. People have divided themselves in stupid 'teams', fueled by politicians, foreign interference, algorithms, etc. Not woke enough? You are cancelled. Left-wing? You are cancelled (employer contacted and fired). We have to do a little less social media and go outside and talk to other people. Even if I disagree with people politically, there often a lot of common ground (we all want food, health, to be safe, etc.), we all like to talk about some sports match, and whatnot. We don't have to agree with each other, but we can at least try to understand and care for each other. Break the stupid tribe wars.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule
> First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike
FWIW, when the best case recommendations for a restoration of civil order and the rule of law involve very large scale society-wide civil disobedience...
...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying. Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.
(And FWIW I don't necessarily disagree: the existing regime's leadership, not just the White House, seem extremely unlikely to just walk out the door if they lose an election. It was tried four years ago and failed, the resulting loyalty tests have produced a very different cabinet this time.)
FWIW, when the best case recommendations for a restoration of civil order and the rule of law involve very large scale society-wide civil disobedience...
...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying. Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.
(And FWIW I don't necessarily disagree: the existing regime's leadership, not just the White House, seem extremely unlikely to just walk out the door if they lose an election. It was tried four years ago and failed, the resulting loyalty tests have produced a very different cabinet this time.)
> Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.
Elections are not the only form democratic participation can take. We can take local action, coordinated action, talk to our representatives at various levels, and so on.
Elections are not the only form democratic participation can take. We can take local action, coordinated action, talk to our representatives at various levels, and so on.
Your suggestions aren't really addressing the things people are actually worried about here.
If leadership-aligned politicians won't dare step out of line, and those opposed are systematically marginalized by the executive, other legislators, and the courts, then what good does that do? Deliberately neutralizing the opposition's power renders the opposition's ideas, efforts, and proposals useless, and the allied politicians will never disobey, so petitioning either of them to make changes is pointless.
I'm not saying any of that is completely true right now, but people are nervous that this is becoming true.
If leadership-aligned politicians won't dare step out of line, and those opposed are systematically marginalized by the executive, other legislators, and the courts, then what good does that do? Deliberately neutralizing the opposition's power renders the opposition's ideas, efforts, and proposals useless, and the allied politicians will never disobey, so petitioning either of them to make changes is pointless.
I'm not saying any of that is completely true right now, but people are nervous that this is becoming true.
> people are nervous that this is becoming true
It seems abundantly clear that there will be no peaceful/rule-of-law transfer of executive power in January 2029 to anyone but a hand-picked Trump successor that wins an election. A democratic victory (or even a Republican primary winner that isn't appropriately selected) will be resisted at all levels of the executive, and... we'll just see. Whatever the result, the losing party will call it a coup and illegitimate, and such an administration will survive only so long as it can hold control of the government by authoritarian means.
It may even happen earlier. A lot of the kerfuffle around redistricting is being presented to right wing audiences in a way that would be very easy to spin as "cheating". What do we do if democrats win the house next year and Johnson simply refuses to seat the California delegation to keep power? Are we prepared?
Basically, the End of the American Experiment may have already occurred.
It seems abundantly clear that there will be no peaceful/rule-of-law transfer of executive power in January 2029 to anyone but a hand-picked Trump successor that wins an election. A democratic victory (or even a Republican primary winner that isn't appropriately selected) will be resisted at all levels of the executive, and... we'll just see. Whatever the result, the losing party will call it a coup and illegitimate, and such an administration will survive only so long as it can hold control of the government by authoritarian means.
It may even happen earlier. A lot of the kerfuffle around redistricting is being presented to right wing audiences in a way that would be very easy to spin as "cheating". What do we do if democrats win the house next year and Johnson simply refuses to seat the California delegation to keep power? Are we prepared?
Basically, the End of the American Experiment may have already occurred.
I'm not so quick to pull the trigger on that assessment. I think we're at point where the rubber band has ostensibly been pulled back nearly as far as it can go, and it may snap, or it might make a surprising move in the opposite direction in response to the tension. I don't think any of us peons has any meaningful control of which of those two things happens, but I think it will hinge a lot on how much big businesses are affected by the economic and political consequences of recent policy moves. No matter how much Trump might bluster about big businesses and such, he'll still fall in line if enough get pushed to the point of having to draw a line in the sand. Too bad it will probably be big business operating in pure self-interest and not some actual principled entity. Maaaaybe if there's enough economic pain among his base, that could point us towards a voter-driven repudiation to some extent. Even if they cement their power significantly, I don't think they could swing it with an outright rejection of their approach. I doubt that will happen though.
...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying.
Sorry, I was not implying they are far afield. We have seen this playbook in several nearby European/Asian countries in the last two and a half decades (I live in Europe). Of course, not all these countries did have a long democratic history, but they did show the fragility of democracy, you have to actively protect it.
Heck, even in the country where I live, which has quite a healthy democracy, a majority of parliament has just accepted a motion to request declaring antifa a terrorist organization because Trump did it as well (all Dutch experts, including former secret service personnel agree that antifa is neither an organization, nor terrorist). Some of them just to score a few points for the upcoming elections. Only a judge can declare an organization to be a terrorist organization, but it's all small steps in eroding the rule of law.
(Coincidentally, the next day 1500 right wing hooligans rioted in the streets of The Haglue the next day, burning police cars, damaging the office of a center-left political party and the parliament square.)
Sorry, I was not implying they are far afield. We have seen this playbook in several nearby European/Asian countries in the last two and a half decades (I live in Europe). Of course, not all these countries did have a long democratic history, but they did show the fragility of democracy, you have to actively protect it.
Heck, even in the country where I live, which has quite a healthy democracy, a majority of parliament has just accepted a motion to request declaring antifa a terrorist organization because Trump did it as well (all Dutch experts, including former secret service personnel agree that antifa is neither an organization, nor terrorist). Some of them just to score a few points for the upcoming elections. Only a judge can declare an organization to be a terrorist organization, but it's all small steps in eroding the rule of law.
(Coincidentally, the next day 1500 right wing hooligans rioted in the streets of The Haglue the next day, burning police cars, damaging the office of a center-left political party and the parliament square.)
[deleted]
> Reddit, a whole lot of comments go from Nazi parallels to 'Luigi'.
oof. I certainly understand where Luigi came from, but I'd also say that Luigi represents an escalation that empowers the Trump regime. The general population's latent desire to see some "justice" metered out on the "elites" pushes those elites into cozying up to Trump. Because those elites know that if Trump chooses to go after them, even the masses against Trump aren't going to be terribly concerned with their plight.
oof. I certainly understand where Luigi came from, but I'd also say that Luigi represents an escalation that empowers the Trump regime. The general population's latent desire to see some "justice" metered out on the "elites" pushes those elites into cozying up to Trump. Because those elites know that if Trump chooses to go after them, even the masses against Trump aren't going to be terribly concerned with their plight.
This is why people say that "fascism is the failure mode of capitalism." When the rich and powerful get too fat off their structural advantages and society starts coming apart at the seams, capital will align with anti-democratic, anti-freedom, bigoted, and genocidal forces to suppress change rather than relinquish some wealth and power.
They would rather rule over ashes than join us in a little bit more of an equitable society.
They would rather rule over ashes than join us in a little bit more of an equitable society.
I have nagging the suspicion that the knowledge that a good portion of the population wants them dead is a slightly more significant factor in pushing elites to the Republican side compared to the Trump administration's threats.
My point is they're not different factors, they're the same dynamic.
As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years? And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.
Meanwhile Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Part of the pressure are the populist memes that makes the masses unsympathetic to their plights, even though they are the structure of our society.
As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years? And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.
Meanwhile Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Part of the pressure are the populist memes that makes the masses unsympathetic to their plights, even though they are the structure of our society.
> As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years?
It's less about the murderer himself, and more about the high level of support he has. "Many of the rank and file in the Democratic coalition want you dead, but not to worry nearly all of them are cowards who'd never do anything about it." is cold comfort.
> And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.
Do I really need to go trough Reddit to find you people calling for the murder of "capitalists", right down to landlords and homeowners?
I'm sure the elites (if we could call them that) prefer to seem like they are being pressured by the Trump administration. It's better for business and it's safer that way. But their compliance comes a little too easy.
It's less about the murderer himself, and more about the high level of support he has. "Many of the rank and file in the Democratic coalition want you dead, but not to worry nearly all of them are cowards who'd never do anything about it." is cold comfort.
> And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.
Do I really need to go trough Reddit to find you people calling for the murder of "capitalists", right down to landlords and homeowners?
I'm sure the elites (if we could call them that) prefer to seem like they are being pressured by the Trump administration. It's better for business and it's safer that way. But their compliance comes a little too easy.
You seem to be trying to make this into a partisan thing by invoking some imagined attribution to Democrats, when the outrage against elites is clearly pan-partisan. Also if anything it's rightism that tends to encourage individualist violence (and I'm saying this not as a partisan slam, but as a libertarian who sees the virtues in both philosophies)
You've also completely sidestepped the fact that Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Sure, it's conceivable that some capitulating-institutional leaders were looking for an excuse to bring their institutions to heel, but it's not conceivable that they all were.
It seems like your goal is to absolve the autocratic authoritarians, and justify the elites cozying up to the autocratic authoritarians. So I don't see how continuing this conversation can be productive.
You've also completely sidestepped the fact that Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Sure, it's conceivable that some capitulating-institutional leaders were looking for an excuse to bring their institutions to heel, but it's not conceivable that they all were.
It seems like your goal is to absolve the autocratic authoritarians, and justify the elites cozying up to the autocratic authoritarians. So I don't see how continuing this conversation can be productive.
That 3.5% rule stopped working some time ago with the rise of technical surveillance state. There are now several notorious counter-examples.
If the oligarchs saw Trump unable to break a general strike and it was destroying the economy, maybe they would let an opposition take hold.
Thanks for the downvotes
Thanks for the downvotes
[deleted]
Have you seen social media's reaction to that murderer Mangione?
Social media is not real life. How many of those comments are bots? How many people say things online they wouldn’t say in person? The right and left are not as far apart as the internet would have us believe.
It's especially important to realize this when it's TikTok where most of that is happening, and where TikTok is the propaganda arm of China, a country that the US currently considers a frenemy at best, if not an outright enemy, and that considers the US in somewhat similar terms.
And when the algorithms on the rest of the media sites are used to drive maximum engagement for profit purposes, or maximum dissent because of the political leanings of their owner (e.g. X), social media is most definitely not the reality.
And when the algorithms on the rest of the media sites are used to drive maximum engagement for profit purposes, or maximum dissent because of the political leanings of their owner (e.g. X), social media is most definitely not the reality.
> How many of those comments are bots?
Wasn't there a group cheering in front of the courtroom when the judge dropped the terrorism charge? Those people were not bots.
> How many people say things online they wouldn’t say in person?
Ohh, so lovely of them. I wonder how Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and ultimately Paul Graham feel, to know that the only reason why a good portion of the population doesn't advocate for their death is taqiyya?
Wasn't there a group cheering in front of the courtroom when the judge dropped the terrorism charge? Those people were not bots.
> How many people say things online they wouldn’t say in person?
Ohh, so lovely of them. I wonder how Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and ultimately Paul Graham feel, to know that the only reason why a good portion of the population doesn't advocate for their death is taqiyya?
How many deaths have Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk caused, in their active campaign to destroy the climate?
Perhaps very many. Perhaps few. Perhaps none.
I'd like to sidestep the question, and ask, is lethal violence justified as a retaliation? But I'd like to ask that as an ethical, not as a strategic question.
Suppose the starts align and the omens are good. Imagine the assassination of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk would be highly beneficial to all your pet political issues. Would killing them be a good thing?
I'd like to sidestep the question, and ask, is lethal violence justified as a retaliation? But I'd like to ask that as an ethical, not as a strategic question.
Suppose the starts align and the omens are good. Imagine the assassination of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk would be highly beneficial to all your pet political issues. Would killing them be a good thing?
Elon Musk is actively poisoning people in Tennessee to make more money. I don't really care about his problems; if he's worried about his popularity he could try being nicer to other people.
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-...
https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-...
Alleged murderer*
The case against has basically fallen apart already. If he’s a murderer why does he walk free? The prosecutors will keep billing hours those. They need a scapegoat.
They dismissed the terror charge.
He is still in jail and being charged with murder.
He is not free, and the meat of the of the case - a murder charge - is still being actively prosecuted.
He is still in jail and being charged with murder.
He is not free, and the meat of the of the case - a murder charge - is still being actively prosecuted.
Some of it reminds me of the CCP, which I think is openly considered a model by some neo-authoritarians. Ubiquitous mass surveillance, social credit, and state capitalism with heavy control though regulatory pressure. I assume we will eventually see party men installed on boards of major companies, especially in media, tech, and entertainment.
The “tech right” is a major player here and a lot of those folks idolize China right now.
I think the US has been spiraling toward authoritarianism since 9/11 personally. This did not start yesterday or with the most recent election, nor is it exclusively the result of the right or the Republican Party. A lot of people to the left have also abandoned liberalism and ideas like free speech. There’s been a broad based shift away from liberalism and individualism and toward collectivism, which always leads toward totalitarianism.
Right wing collectivism comes in the form of racism and nationalism, while for the contemporary left its identity-grievance politics and a resurgence of Marxism.
“Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens?” is one of the questions I keep asking.
The “tech right” is a major player here and a lot of those folks idolize China right now.
I think the US has been spiraling toward authoritarianism since 9/11 personally. This did not start yesterday or with the most recent election, nor is it exclusively the result of the right or the Republican Party. A lot of people to the left have also abandoned liberalism and ideas like free speech. There’s been a broad based shift away from liberalism and individualism and toward collectivism, which always leads toward totalitarianism.
Right wing collectivism comes in the form of racism and nationalism, while for the contemporary left its identity-grievance politics and a resurgence of Marxism.
“Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens?” is one of the questions I keep asking.
Individualism started dying when it became clear the problems we face are now too large for any one individual to overcome. Massive institutions crush the individual. You can’t chase individualist dreams as easily as you once could. It requires a lot of money and luck, and luck has run out.
Social media also made it easier for you to be a group thinker and reap the benefits of that. Being an individual gives you no clout.
Social media also made it easier for you to be a group thinker and reap the benefits of that. Being an individual gives you no clout.
> Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens?”
You mean in the aftermath of the great recession where most people were struggling economically and saw that the rules are only for little people? The 20-teens were the time of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party - I don't see how it can be
I think individualism increased, after the teens, in a "don't trust the experts, do your own 'research'" way. Regardless of one's politics, its hard not to be a conspiracy theorist when you see a conspiracy play out in front of your eyes, at your expense. You could draw a straight line between the GFC and the growth of the "burn it all down" contingents on the left and right - indeed, a lot of "Bernie bros" became Trumpers whole remaining true to that ethos.
You mean in the aftermath of the great recession where most people were struggling economically and saw that the rules are only for little people? The 20-teens were the time of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party - I don't see how it can be
I think individualism increased, after the teens, in a "don't trust the experts, do your own 'research'" way. Regardless of one's politics, its hard not to be a conspiracy theorist when you see a conspiracy play out in front of your eyes, at your expense. You could draw a straight line between the GFC and the growth of the "burn it all down" contingents on the left and right - indeed, a lot of "Bernie bros" became Trumpers whole remaining true to that ethos.
> I think the US has been spiraling toward authoritarianism since 9/11 personally. This did not start yesterday or with the most recent election, nor is it exclusively the result of the right or the Republican Party. A lot of people to the left have also abandoned liberalism and ideas like free speech. There’s been a broad based shift away from liberalism and individualism and toward collectivism, which always leads toward totalitarianism.
On small example: The president openly ordering targeted killings started under Bush and was broadened to include US citizens under Obama.
Of course the dangerous concentration of power in the executive branch has been something the US has contended with on and off over the years. If you read The Federalist Papers, it seems clear to me that the architects of our government did not envision congress steadily abrogating its power; the expectation was rather that it would be jealously guarded by those it was granted to.
On small example: The president openly ordering targeted killings started under Bush and was broadened to include US citizens under Obama.
Of course the dangerous concentration of power in the executive branch has been something the US has contended with on and off over the years. If you read The Federalist Papers, it seems clear to me that the architects of our government did not envision congress steadily abrogating its power; the expectation was rather that it would be jealously guarded by those it was granted to.
Power tends to flow uphill, so it seems like over time it's "natural" for power to concentrate in the executive. This has to be actively fought, and we haven't been fighting it. It's analogous to antitrust in the economy.
I would recommend 'Adapt! On a New Political Imperative' by Barbara Stiegler. The movement away from classical liberalism has been going on for far longer and was by design. It is very important to explicitly separate traditional or classical liberalism from neoliberalism when discussing these things. And just to be pedantic the term liberal should also absolutely be avoided when discussing anything involve impacts from the "new left" movement.
>Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens
IMO they didn't - at least not explicitly. Individualism has been somewhat illusionary since the progressive era it is just finally coming home to roost. What happened is that the internet finally out ran the ability of the traditional media consensus methods at the national level as the internet generation aged in. So we are sort of in unknown territory where it is not clear any "expert" can play the designated role to drive the consensus required in the neoliberal system.
Where to go from there is an open question but her thesis is that the neoliberal system needs to be adapted in someway. Anyway that is largely the picture of the problem she paints. I'm not doing it justice but it is worth a read to at least place a lot of the problems people are observing in a mental and historical framework.
I think a good step is moving towards federating into smaller communities. The best of those ideas will get adopted by other communities. Basically the fediverse model applied to society. People already have this feeling intuitively and it is playing out with the push back against globalization.
>Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens
IMO they didn't - at least not explicitly. Individualism has been somewhat illusionary since the progressive era it is just finally coming home to roost. What happened is that the internet finally out ran the ability of the traditional media consensus methods at the national level as the internet generation aged in. So we are sort of in unknown territory where it is not clear any "expert" can play the designated role to drive the consensus required in the neoliberal system.
Where to go from there is an open question but her thesis is that the neoliberal system needs to be adapted in someway. Anyway that is largely the picture of the problem she paints. I'm not doing it justice but it is worth a read to at least place a lot of the problems people are observing in a mental and historical framework.
I think a good step is moving towards federating into smaller communities. The best of those ideas will get adopted by other communities. Basically the fediverse model applied to society. People already have this feeling intuitively and it is playing out with the push back against globalization.
Preach !
The political quadrant is more important than ever compared to the mess of one-dimensional politics :
Right wing is economic (neo) liberals, while fascists are top wing center : these will (like a century ago) gladly use left-wing policies and rhetoric if they bring them the power they crave above all else. Or ally with corporations when convenient.
While societal liberals are on the bottom wing, and regularly clash with anti-liberal socialists/communists (left center, but also left top).
(Proto-Antifa used to ally with Nazis to beat up Social Democrats, until Stalin had decided to change direction, it's wild how both the name and flag are still reused today despite that dirty history...)
The political quadrant is more important than ever compared to the mess of one-dimensional politics :
Right wing is economic (neo) liberals, while fascists are top wing center : these will (like a century ago) gladly use left-wing policies and rhetoric if they bring them the power they crave above all else. Or ally with corporations when convenient.
While societal liberals are on the bottom wing, and regularly clash with anti-liberal socialists/communists (left center, but also left top).
(Proto-Antifa used to ally with Nazis to beat up Social Democrats, until Stalin had decided to change direction, it's wild how both the name and flag are still reused today despite that dirty history...)
I would also remind the short of memory that during covid, the states with the most draconian restrictions were mostly left-leaning, and many were loathe to give up that control.
Control of the people comes from all sides. The end result is the same, but the methods are different, intended to make people happy to be controlled.
Control of the people comes from all sides. The end result is the same, but the methods are different, intended to make people happy to be controlled.
> I would also remind the short of memory that during covid, the states with the most draconian restrictions were mostly left-leaning, and many were loathe to give up that control.
Control of the people comes from all sides
This depiction of Covid restrictions (restrictions that were actually relatively permissive given the seriousness of the disease and the unknown nature of the virus at the time) as though they were an authoritarian power grab by malevolent politicians instead of a health policy, is part of the problem.
Maybe if people had been willing to accept a small curtailment of their personal desires for a short time for the sake of the common good, rather than framing it as a dictatorial punishment,we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re heading into now.
This depiction of Covid restrictions (restrictions that were actually relatively permissive given the seriousness of the disease and the unknown nature of the virus at the time) as though they were an authoritarian power grab by malevolent politicians instead of a health policy, is part of the problem.
Maybe if people had been willing to accept a small curtailment of their personal desires for a short time for the sake of the common good, rather than framing it as a dictatorial punishment,we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re heading into now.
None of the COVID measures had any effect on public health and yet they were enforced long after that became obvious to anyone watching the graphs the government themselves published. And the nature of the virus was known within weeks of it appearing - there were no real surprises from that point on. It acted very similarly to any other respiratory virus with the only differences being the unusually steep gradient in age effects.
COVID was 100% an authoritarian power grab by public health officials. Zero percent actual health. And public health is an overwhelmingly left wing and political field, being as it is the idea that health should be managed collectively.
COVID was 100% an authoritarian power grab by public health officials. Zero percent actual health. And public health is an overwhelmingly left wing and political field, being as it is the idea that health should be managed collectively.
It's well-established scientifically that lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical measures reduced transmission and deaths considerably.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9338
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249884v...
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9338
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249884v...
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
That mostly mapped to population density, which maps to blue states because the main divide is urban vs rural.
More intense pandemic measures make more sense where density is higher.
But did we even have any true lockdowns in the US? Maybe in some cities, but we had nothing close to China or even Australia. Were there any places in the US with actual curfews where you were not allowed to leave, or anything like that?
I lived in California in the start of the pandemic and Ohio the rest of the time and neither place had true “lock downs.” I only saw businesses requiring masks and some jobs requiring the vaccine.
More intense pandemic measures make more sense where density is higher.
But did we even have any true lockdowns in the US? Maybe in some cities, but we had nothing close to China or even Australia. Were there any places in the US with actual curfews where you were not allowed to leave, or anything like that?
I lived in California in the start of the pandemic and Ohio the rest of the time and neither place had true “lock downs.” I only saw businesses requiring masks and some jobs requiring the vaccine.
What I recall from looking into this is that under half of the states had stay at home orders with the force of law. My own perspective was similar to yours - governor issued a "stay at home order" that when you read the details it was really just a strongly worded suggestion. Of course my state was still often listed in national summaries as if the order was mandatory.
But there does seem to be states where such orders were legally mandatory. Were they enforced? Would they survive court scrutiny if someone was arrested for say walking down the sidewalk in open air? Did they have massive escape hatches (eg caring for family members) ? No idea.
But there does seem to be states where such orders were legally mandatory. Were they enforced? Would they survive court scrutiny if someone was arrested for say walking down the sidewalk in open air? Did they have massive escape hatches (eg caring for family members) ? No idea.
In Indiana, there were groceries that had early morning for healthcare workers and elderly only. That helped limit spread as well.
Again, we had no real lockdowns. School was remote, which had its own really bad effects on early socialization.
I'm not at all sure what we should have did differently. Technically a hard lockdown for 6 weeks could mostly eradicate it everywhere. But a lot of people can't handle that.
What I do now know is our society and public kinda sucks, people will show up and do stuff sick, spread sickness, and not really care much. And our government has been getting steadily worse and worse as long as Ive lived. And my generation and younger ones are either in for a terrible time, or already IN a terrible time.
Again, we had no real lockdowns. School was remote, which had its own really bad effects on early socialization.
I'm not at all sure what we should have did differently. Technically a hard lockdown for 6 weeks could mostly eradicate it everywhere. But a lot of people can't handle that.
What I do now know is our society and public kinda sucks, people will show up and do stuff sick, spread sickness, and not really care much. And our government has been getting steadily worse and worse as long as Ive lived. And my generation and younger ones are either in for a terrible time, or already IN a terrible time.
There are things we could have done very differently but it’s all Monday morning quarterbacking.
I wasn't really recommending anything. Was more just observations what happened here.
The 6 week lockdown was more a potential way to slow covid and basically knock it out across the country. But I'm not sure we could even do that if we wanted to. Most people only have a few days of food in their house.
I also note that domestic abuse skyrocketed also during the vaccine-less parts of the pandemic. There was a whole lot of weird.
However with RFK and Dr Phil (cringe) as heads of respective health agencies, I know if we get a new pandemic, we're fucked. These are the same idiots that think vaccines cause autism and horse dewormer cures covid.
The 6 week lockdown was more a potential way to slow covid and basically knock it out across the country. But I'm not sure we could even do that if we wanted to. Most people only have a few days of food in their house.
I also note that domestic abuse skyrocketed also during the vaccine-less parts of the pandemic. There was a whole lot of weird.
However with RFK and Dr Phil (cringe) as heads of respective health agencies, I know if we get a new pandemic, we're fucked. These are the same idiots that think vaccines cause autism and horse dewormer cures covid.
> I would also remind the short of memory that during covid, the states with the most draconian restrictions were mostly left-leaning, and many were loathe to give up that control.
...
Some exerts from 3 different studies but you may find more if you want.
> This suggests that red states faced a more pronounced impact from COVID-19, experiencing elevated mortality rates compared to their blue counterparts.
> Red states had higher COVID-19 infection rates and deaths in 2021 compared to blue states.
> A study in June published in Health Affairs similarly found that counties with a Republican majority had a greater share of Covid deaths through October 2021, relative to majority-Democratic counties. The Yale researchers behind the new working paper say vaccine hesitancy among Republicans may be the biggest culprit.
There is a different between draconian restriction that saved lives, vs "FREEDOM" that resulted in more people dying but hey, they did not need a vaccine or mask. I hope it was worth it for those that had family *unnecessarily* die because of their own, or others "FREEDOM".
I think you confuse dictatorships with measures to help a to prevent deaths. Hey, i remember the "dictatorship" of required seatbelts outcry's. And yet, how many lives have been saved.
There is a difference between people crying how their rights are removed, vs the general good of the population. Being selfish in a society does not make you a freedom proponent, but just a selfish person. If people want to live with all the freedoms in the world, great, go live in some mountain somewhere where you have no contact with others. But the moment you have a semblance of society, there will be more and more pressure to prevent individual actions from harming others. If you want to shoot your guns out in the open like Rambo when your a individual and do not harm to others, fine, have fun. But if your shooting your guns in any society structure where you have neighbors or people around, and you actions have consequences to those around, you will always have some form of governance that will "restrict" your freedom, as now your part of a society.
The issue become dangerous when that governance is MISUSED by those that pass laws and restrictions, that are not for the global good but for their own financial or power benefits. And i feel that people misunderstand the difference between what a social governance is and a autocracy governance.
...
Some exerts from 3 different studies but you may find more if you want.
> This suggests that red states faced a more pronounced impact from COVID-19, experiencing elevated mortality rates compared to their blue counterparts.
> Red states had higher COVID-19 infection rates and deaths in 2021 compared to blue states.
> A study in June published in Health Affairs similarly found that counties with a Republican majority had a greater share of Covid deaths through October 2021, relative to majority-Democratic counties. The Yale researchers behind the new working paper say vaccine hesitancy among Republicans may be the biggest culprit.
There is a different between draconian restriction that saved lives, vs "FREEDOM" that resulted in more people dying but hey, they did not need a vaccine or mask. I hope it was worth it for those that had family *unnecessarily* die because of their own, or others "FREEDOM".
I think you confuse dictatorships with measures to help a to prevent deaths. Hey, i remember the "dictatorship" of required seatbelts outcry's. And yet, how many lives have been saved.
There is a difference between people crying how their rights are removed, vs the general good of the population. Being selfish in a society does not make you a freedom proponent, but just a selfish person. If people want to live with all the freedoms in the world, great, go live in some mountain somewhere where you have no contact with others. But the moment you have a semblance of society, there will be more and more pressure to prevent individual actions from harming others. If you want to shoot your guns out in the open like Rambo when your a individual and do not harm to others, fine, have fun. But if your shooting your guns in any society structure where you have neighbors or people around, and you actions have consequences to those around, you will always have some form of governance that will "restrict" your freedom, as now your part of a society.
The issue become dangerous when that governance is MISUSED by those that pass laws and restrictions, that are not for the global good but for their own financial or power benefits. And i feel that people misunderstand the difference between what a social governance is and a autocracy governance.
Funnily, the original (regulated and temporary!) job description of 'dictator' does seem to fit quite well.
This should be the top-voted comment of the whole thread. I used to teach history; it makes me roll my eyes when I hear comparisons between Nazi Germany and the current moment. It reflects both a lack of historical familiarity with the unique circumstances of Germany in the 1920s and 30s (including recently losing a world war), and also, as you say, a lack of knowledge of other more relevant historical examples — of which I’d also put Erdoğan at the top. It’s just a conversation-stopper and a rhetorical cudgel rather than a serious attempt at historical contextualization.
Surely the Venn diagram needs not be a circle for you to draw parallels, nor does the existence of a more direct comparison make other comparisons moot.
Surely the fact that the current ruling party has an influential faction who explicitly reference Nazi Germany as an ideal worth striving for is relevant to setting the current moment in historical context. Yes we're not LITERALLY Nazi Germany for a variety of reasons but that doesn't mean it doesn't paint a picture of what they want to do, regardless of how successful they will be or what that will look like in practice.
Personally I think the most apt historical comparison is the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, but since we don't LITERALLY live in the Middle Ages and have ethnic divisions between Greeks and Latins one might say that's not a relevant comparison either.
Personally I think the most apt historical comparison is the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, but since we don't LITERALLY live in the Middle Ages and have ethnic divisions between Greeks and Latins one might say that's not a relevant comparison either.
> Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis", other historical analogies might caution against encouraging everyone escalating into a violent conflict as the only imaginable course of action.
This is, is course, why it's the one preferred comparison.
This is, is course, why it's the one preferred comparison.
Wasnt Germany better off in the decades following WW2 than the British that defeated them?
That is largely irrelevant, they weren't in control of their own destiny at that point. What we learned in the 50s/60s was that the US leadership in the 40s/50s had a really good idea of how to build a country up and score diplomatic wins. They did amazing things in Japan and Germany.
Unfortunately, those people appear to all be dead. Now we have whatever Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to be.
Unfortunately, those people appear to all be dead. Now we have whatever Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to be.
As much as I lament the quality of leadership at the moment (and not just in the US) I am not sure that we can equate Afghanistan with Germany.
It is one thing to denazify a "modern western country" that shares most of your values, culture and religion, and that has had institutions for some time. It is another thing altogether to pull off the deal in a country that has never had a working civil society, civil institions, education, etc. Especially if you do not share it's culture or religion, and there is a part of the country that is still actively engaged in a military campaign to obstruct you.
Not saying that it couldn't be done, or that mistakes weren't made. Just that you can't compare the two like that.
It is one thing to denazify a "modern western country" that shares most of your values, culture and religion, and that has had institutions for some time. It is another thing altogether to pull off the deal in a country that has never had a working civil society, civil institions, education, etc. Especially if you do not share it's culture or religion, and there is a part of the country that is still actively engaged in a military campaign to obstruct you.
Not saying that it couldn't be done, or that mistakes weren't made. Just that you can't compare the two like that.
The US totally blew it in Afghanistan and its well-documented how most of the initiatives there failed due to corruption and mismanagement.
The underlying theory that the GP is getting at is that Japan and Germany were easy to rebuild because they had existing institutions and a society that trusted institutions. The idea is that it is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy; germany and Japan will "remember" how to be civilized, but under different leadership, Afghanistan and Iraq cannot revert to that.
It leans heavily on assumptions about countries and institutions.
It leans heavily on assumptions about countries and institutions.
It's true to an extent, but its not what happened in Afghanistan.
I don't doubt that, I was just explaining the argument. It has been recently popularized in tech circles by a viral appearance by professor Sarah Paine on the Dwarkesh podcast.
I am fully willing to believe that the US royally fucked up the rebuild of Afghanistan.
I am fully willing to believe that the US royally fucked up the rebuild of Afghanistan.
That could explain the success of rebuilding Germany, as it shared a lot culturally with the US, but what about Japan? Japan was, and to a large extent still is, a very alien culture, and yet the US rebuilt it extremely effectively.
> Unfortunately, those people appear to all be dead. Now we have whatever Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to be.
Both Japan and Germany had some semblance of democratic institutions, but they were taken over by authoritarians, often using violence:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_in_interwar_Japan
Iraq had some history, pre-Sadam, and that seems to be returning:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iraqi_parliamentary_elect...
Afghanistan has had little of it in the last few decades (since at least the Soviets rolled in), and much less in the more rural regions.
There's a difference between rebuilding institutions and creating (perhaps from scratch) a civil society.
Both Japan and Germany had some semblance of democratic institutions, but they were taken over by authoritarians, often using violence:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_in_interwar_Japan
Iraq had some history, pre-Sadam, and that seems to be returning:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iraqi_parliamentary_elect...
Afghanistan has had little of it in the last few decades (since at least the Soviets rolled in), and much less in the more rural regions.
There's a difference between rebuilding institutions and creating (perhaps from scratch) a civil society.
Afg/Iraq became places to funnel money to friends in security contracting.
East Germany definitly never was. And even West Germany was considerably behind the UK in per capita GDP in US$ after WW2.[1] It had catched up at around 1970. Since 1970 the two were roughly equivalent: some years one was ahead some years the other.[2] However, Germany is now considerably ahead of the UK in terms of per capita GDP measuered in PPP (ie. adjusted to local prices: aprox. 20% now, or 10 to 15 years (depending on your reference point).[3]
[1] https://i.sstatic.net/azSk3.png
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
[3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locat...
[1] https://i.sstatic.net/azSk3.png
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
[3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locat...
> East Germany definitly never was. And even West Germany was considerably behind the UK in per capita GDP in US$ after WW2.[1]
Germany was behind the UK even before WW2. Just the UK outproduced Germany in (e.g.) aircraft production, and that was even before the US got involved.
Adam Tooze wrote an entire book on the subject:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction
Germany was behind the UK even before WW2. Just the UK outproduced Germany in (e.g.) aircraft production, and that was even before the US got involved.
Adam Tooze wrote an entire book on the subject:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction
> Germany was behind the UK even before WW2.
Yep. -- I noticed that the first link of my comment is somehow not working. Here is another reference for those who want some numbers. It is a German publication ("Deutschland in Daten", PDF) but the relevant tables should be understandable anyway:
https://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/deutschland_in_...
For GDP per capita in "International dollar"/"Geary-Khamis-Dollar" for Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, USA in the period 1850-2019, see p. 312 and 313.
According to this publication, 1930, 1940 and 1950 the German GDP per capita was about 75% of that of Great Britain. However, there was a big dip right after 1945 shown in the second table.
The German "economic miracle" ("Wirtschaftswunder") of the 1950s and 1960s was in essence not an outperformance of other western countries in absolute terms, but a catching-up process with them. The same holds for Japan. The process lost momentum, when parity with most of the other major economies was reached.
However, the USA have always been considerably ahead since WW2. -- So much to the slogan "Make America great again". It seems to be based on a very distorted self-image of having a backward economy, for which I have no sound explanation as an outside observer. And even if it were not about the general economic situation, but about a growing disparity inside the country, then a solution to better the situation, when the country is already so much ahead economically, cannot come from outside, but must be domestic.
Yep. -- I noticed that the first link of my comment is somehow not working. Here is another reference for those who want some numbers. It is a German publication ("Deutschland in Daten", PDF) but the relevant tables should be understandable anyway:
https://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/deutschland_in_...
For GDP per capita in "International dollar"/"Geary-Khamis-Dollar" for Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, USA in the period 1850-2019, see p. 312 and 313.
According to this publication, 1930, 1940 and 1950 the German GDP per capita was about 75% of that of Great Britain. However, there was a big dip right after 1945 shown in the second table.
The German "economic miracle" ("Wirtschaftswunder") of the 1950s and 1960s was in essence not an outperformance of other western countries in absolute terms, but a catching-up process with them. The same holds for Japan. The process lost momentum, when parity with most of the other major economies was reached.
However, the USA have always been considerably ahead since WW2. -- So much to the slogan "Make America great again". It seems to be based on a very distorted self-image of having a backward economy, for which I have no sound explanation as an outside observer. And even if it were not about the general economic situation, but about a growing disparity inside the country, then a solution to better the situation, when the country is already so much ahead economically, cannot come from outside, but must be domestic.
It’s something of a red herring. Britain got the largest slice of the Marshall Plan money, they just wasted it on things like trying to maintain the Empire. One thing you’d learn from the book is Germany definitely wasn’t in a good shape in 55.
> they just wasted it on things like trying to maintain the Empire.
they just wasted it on things like nationalizing the coal, gas, electricity, rail, air transport and steel industries.
they just wasted it on things like nationalizing the coal, gas, electricity, rail, air transport and steel industries.
Apart from the Suez crisis and the Rhodesian embargo was there any serious British attempt to maintain the empire after the second World War?
Mau Mau, Malaya, Kenya
Those were efforts at preventing British colonies from becoming Soviet colonies, weren't they?
There was no effort to keep either Kenya or Malaysia as British. In Malaysia, the war continued after independence.
There was no effort to keep either Kenya or Malaysia as British. In Malaysia, the war continued after independence.
The entire effort by the British was to keep them as possessions. The wars continued after independence because non-communists took power.
Nah, that’s really more a recent phenomenon, and is more to do with Britain’s weak growth over the last 20 years than anything else.
You probably only mean economic growth, otherwise that's hard to imagine
I suppose it's easier to achieve "growth" in percentage terms when you're starting from a low baseline (because your entire country got flattened by invading armies.)
Certainly not the ones occupied by the Soviet Union.
Which Germany?
The Allies defeated Germany, not the British.
And definitely not those cheese-eating surrender monkeys[0], amirite?
Wow! That was hard work. I'm hungry. Gonna go get me some freedom fries. Yum!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkey...
Wow! That was hard work. I'm hungry. Gonna go get me some freedom fries. Yum!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkey...
Do you understand what I was trying to say?
It turns out that the British were one of the allies and about 380,000 of them died fighting the Nazis, so they have a good claim to having defeated Germany, with help from their friends.
Yes, I am not downplaying the role of the British and hoped no one would take it that way. The British were the first on alert as far as I know, and without them it would have been a whole lot worse.
USA swoops in towards the end (a large cost as well, but not as much of it and not on their doorstep) and takes a big role in creating the new world.
USA swoops in towards the end (a large cost as well, but not as much of it and not on their doorstep) and takes a big role in creating the new world.
If we're going by those numbers, Germany was defeated by the USSR, and the British were the friends who helped.
Reassuring to hear that the british consider soviets their friends. Not joking.
[deleted]
From June 4, 1940 to June 22, 1941 Britain faced Hitler alone.
I'm not saying they didn't. But Britain didn't defeat Germany alone, and certainly didn't get the entire share of control after Germany was defeated. And after that the further decline of the UK showed that the power was shifting into the hands of those with wealth anyway, and here we are.
Since around Nixon (maybe?) there has been a gradual post-WW2 deregulation that really accelerated under Reagan and now with Trump its accelerating again. More and more keeps shifting into the hands of unelected, wealthy individuals who see that their power keeps growing and growing and as far as I can tell, won't stop until they have it all. It doesn't make any sense to me why that looks like a stable world to them, but the one thing that is certain is that there is no 2nd amendment that will stop the billionaire club.
Since around Nixon (maybe?) there has been a gradual post-WW2 deregulation that really accelerated under Reagan and now with Trump its accelerating again. More and more keeps shifting into the hands of unelected, wealthy individuals who see that their power keeps growing and growing and as far as I can tell, won't stop until they have it all. It doesn't make any sense to me why that looks like a stable world to them, but the one thing that is certain is that there is no 2nd amendment that will stop the billionaire club.
[deleted]
Mostly because the Allies took over and invested a bunch of money into them developing in ways that didn't involve fascism.
That's not even remotely what happened
History disagrees with your bold statement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
No it doesn't.
They didn't "invest", they took everything that wasn't bolted to the ground, and then they took that too. A third of the country was taken away and millions of Germans displaced.
My father worked as a mechanical engineer in West Germany after the war. He told me the French removed all the machines from the factories and took them to France, then the Americans installed much better new machines in their place.
The Marshall Plan was a real thing.
My father also told me that before the Americans decided on the Marshall Plan, they considered other plans (also named for American generals IIRC) one of which involved sterilizing all German men.
The Marshall Plan was a real thing.
My father also told me that before the Americans decided on the Marshall Plan, they considered other plans (also named for American generals IIRC) one of which involved sterilizing all German men.
hollerith says >My father worked as a mechanical engineer in West Germany after the war. He told me the French removed all the machines from the factories and took them to France, then the Americans installed much better new machines in their place.
The Marshall Plan was a real thing. <
So damned funny!!8-)) The phrase "Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory!" comes to mind.
The Marshall Plan was a real thing. <
So damned funny!!8-)) The phrase "Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory!" comes to mind.
France received aid from the US, too. An unreliable source I just consulted says France got twice as much as West Germany got from the Marshall Plan.
But yeah, transporting those old machines back to France was probably a waste of Paris's time.
But yeah, transporting those old machines back to France was probably a waste of Paris's time.
Give us your truth on it then I genuinely interested.
Everyone in this thread is reading this in relation to the current US government. But some other interesting parallels are the current Israeli government, and more speculatively, A(G)I.
IR is more complex. They know very well what it's leading to, since it's part of their founding history. Half the population do go out on streets to rotest, while the other half go out to protest the protests. So it is the opposite of the lack of awareness/too busy with life and changes etc the article talks about.
meanwhile, this is very pertinent to USA current climate. But interestingly, people will repost this, comment, vote, but nobody will ever think of discussing impeachment.
meanwhile, this is very pertinent to USA current climate. But interestingly, people will repost this, comment, vote, but nobody will ever think of discussing impeachment.
He’s been impeached twice already and the GOP has chosen party over constitution and country twice. The handful of token GOP senate votes for conviction don’t matter. With a GOP house, an impeachment stops there without going to the Senate, there’s already been a House vote to impeach this year that failed. A bunch of Democrats voted against it.
One man had the chance to make the Jan 6th impeachment stick. If McConnell had maintained his integrity, I have no idea who would be president now, but it wouldn’t be Trump.
The part I found relevant for Israel was the bit about how war is a catalyst that lets the leaders justify anything on the basis of necessity, including things they wanted all along for ideological reasons.
> Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong.
> Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong.
Sort of pertinent for any boiling the frog or salami tactics situation where something profoundly negative is gradually introduced into society so as not to raise alarm.
To add a little nuance, no one was free from 1939-1945, not even in the democracies.
Since the organizing principle of the United States has been war, cold and hot, since about that time, one could argue we haven't been free since then.
Since the organizing principle of the United States has been war, cold and hot, since about that time, one could argue we haven't been free since then.
and remember there was a NAZI RALLY AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
1939, twenty-thousand attended
while all that was going on, it was normalized
in the end took 15 million military killed
38 million civilians killed
to stop it finally
when in 1930 it simply started by making all other political parties illegal
making all jews illegal immigrants so they could not have jobs, healthcare or even shop eventually
group after group made illegal so they could be disappeared
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/artifact/chart-of-...
1939, twenty-thousand attended
while all that was going on, it was normalized
in the end took 15 million military killed
38 million civilians killed
to stop it finally
when in 1930 it simply started by making all other political parties illegal
making all jews illegal immigrants so they could not have jobs, healthcare or even shop eventually
group after group made illegal so they could be disappeared
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/artifact/chart-of-...
> They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©1955, 1966, 2017 by the University of Chicago.
Such books will no longer be published if universities are not free.
And if freedom begins to disappear, even those who believe themselves safely conformist are not safe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
Such books will no longer be published if universities are not free.
And if freedom begins to disappear, even those who believe themselves safely conformist are not safe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
>Such books will no longer be published if universities are not free.
That depends on which are the ways in which they are not free.
Government influence is categorically worse because of its very nature, but I'm trying to think of a more consequential influence in the US than the leftist hegemony in universities and coming up with nothing.
That depends on which are the ways in which they are not free.
Government influence is categorically worse because of its very nature, but I'm trying to think of a more consequential influence in the US than the leftist hegemony in universities and coming up with nothing.
hagbard_c(8)
Universities will not be safe from government meddling until they comprehensively stop taking money from the government first. Until such a point, they run the real risk of censorship and becoming the agents of the very thing that they are warning about.
Worth drawing a distinction between governmental support for science and for the humanities.
The first does a lot of relative low mark-up contract work requested by governmental agencies. Governments and all of us would like to see cancer and Alzheimer disease cured.
The request for “bids” (aka grant applications) from NIH, DoD (now DoW) and NSF is what has greatly expanded research-focused universities and msde the USA the greatest source if cutting-edge science since WW2 (now relative success is shifting rapidly to China).
The recipients of these small but numerous contract to big medical schools usually are totally agnostic about politics—at least at work.
Turns out even autocratic-leaning politicians and the public are almost universally interested in learning how to live a long healthy life.
In contrast, the humanities are not a bread winners for universities. These faculty are ultimately paid by tuition or red or blue state support. These much more socially saavy and interested faculty mainly teach, and if they are lucky, have some modest time to think, read, and write. They are not beholding to government funds. They can speak truth to power.
So if a university like Columbia is brought to heel by the administration it is mainly due to the addiction of university administrators for the relative modest overhead they receive for NIH compared to that any corporation would accept for the same work.
And the ultimate source and cause of that addiction of administrators now willing to bend the knee to retain their federal funding overheads is the hard and intense work of their research scientists.
The first does a lot of relative low mark-up contract work requested by governmental agencies. Governments and all of us would like to see cancer and Alzheimer disease cured.
The request for “bids” (aka grant applications) from NIH, DoD (now DoW) and NSF is what has greatly expanded research-focused universities and msde the USA the greatest source if cutting-edge science since WW2 (now relative success is shifting rapidly to China).
The recipients of these small but numerous contract to big medical schools usually are totally agnostic about politics—at least at work.
Turns out even autocratic-leaning politicians and the public are almost universally interested in learning how to live a long healthy life.
In contrast, the humanities are not a bread winners for universities. These faculty are ultimately paid by tuition or red or blue state support. These much more socially saavy and interested faculty mainly teach, and if they are lucky, have some modest time to think, read, and write. They are not beholding to government funds. They can speak truth to power.
So if a university like Columbia is brought to heel by the administration it is mainly due to the addiction of university administrators for the relative modest overhead they receive for NIH compared to that any corporation would accept for the same work.
And the ultimate source and cause of that addiction of administrators now willing to bend the knee to retain their federal funding overheads is the hard and intense work of their research scientists.
It’s my understanding that the humanities doesn’t get much in government grants to begin with, but when the sciences have a finance problem, they cut the humanities for some reason.
I'm not aware of humanities getting get to fund the sciences, at least in the UC system. But in many places with highly complicated accounting, the sciences can sometimes indirectly fund humanities through the overhead rate that universities charge. These are highly negotiated rates between the government and the universities, so there has to be a bit of confusion on what money keeps which buildings going.
The problems at the University of Chicago seem especially bad and I don’t entirely trust this article, but for what it’s worth:
> The reason today’s Dean of Humanities wants to send students to other universities to learn subjects that she would like to cancel, or use ChatGPT to teach subjects tomorrow that humans teach today, is to drive the “marginal cost” of teaching students from 20 percent of their tuition down to 10 percent. Future applicants should know that the University plans a further expansion from around 7,400 students to 9,000 ... and has simultaneously announced an intent to hold the number of research faculty constant. Perhaps we can drive the cost of educating students below 10 percent? Perhaps that is what the president and provost and dean of humanities mean when they say that we need to position ourselves as leaders in the field.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-crisis-of-the-univers...
It would be nice to read something more in-depth about university finances. Can humanities courses be funded by tuition alone or not?
> The reason today’s Dean of Humanities wants to send students to other universities to learn subjects that she would like to cancel, or use ChatGPT to teach subjects tomorrow that humans teach today, is to drive the “marginal cost” of teaching students from 20 percent of their tuition down to 10 percent. Future applicants should know that the University plans a further expansion from around 7,400 students to 9,000 ... and has simultaneously announced an intent to hold the number of research faculty constant. Perhaps we can drive the cost of educating students below 10 percent? Perhaps that is what the president and provost and dean of humanities mean when they say that we need to position ourselves as leaders in the field.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-crisis-of-the-univers...
It would be nice to read something more in-depth about university finances. Can humanities courses be funded by tuition alone or not?
By "UC" I was referring to the University of California system, which is massive, and generally what UC means in the scientific world is travel in.
The University of Chicago is a very prestigious institution due to its historical reputation, but the administration in recent years seems to have both ruined its future with terrible financial decisions, even before the pressures of Trump.
The University of Chicago is a very prestigious institution due to its historical reputation, but the administration in recent years seems to have both ruined its future with terrible financial decisions, even before the pressures of Trump.
> Governments and all of us would like to see cancer and Alzheimer disease cured.
i think an important question is "who is this "all of us" you speak of and who made you god to pronounce it"
you are making an arbitrary distinction because vibes, because it's a cause you care about. it's irrelevant. if you take money for Alzheimer's research, you owe the government one (because that money is extracted from the people in a way you could never have done yourself). if you take money from, say a 501c3, it's a completed transaction of services.
i think an important question is "who is this "all of us" you speak of and who made you god to pronounce it"
you are making an arbitrary distinction because vibes, because it's a cause you care about. it's irrelevant. if you take money for Alzheimer's research, you owe the government one (because that money is extracted from the people in a way you could never have done yourself). if you take money from, say a 501c3, it's a completed transaction of services.
Not sure I understand your point. Add a qualifier if you want. It is not taking money as much as responding to a request for proposals.
[deleted]
What a strange assertion.
It's not the case that the government is necessarily run by authoritarians cracking down on speech they disapprove of at colleges by threatening to withhold other funding. This is a novel development.
We can surely go back to funding schools without such strings attached.
It's not the case that the government is necessarily run by authoritarians cracking down on speech they disapprove of at colleges by threatening to withhold other funding. This is a novel development.
We can surely go back to funding schools without such strings attached.
"live by the sword, die by the sword". even if it was a novel development it was entirely foreseeable.
This kind of reasoning works for private companies, not for the government.
It is true that if you are accepting money from Coca Cola, it will limit your ability to do work that goes against the interests of Coca Cola. To be independent, just stop accepting money from them.
But it only works because Coca Cola can't do much against an independent group. Of course, you need to be careful, which typically means hiring a good lawyer, but you should be fine. And the reason you should be fine is because the government is there to protect you, at least to some extent.
But you can't be independent from your government, unlike Coca Cola, they can raid your house and put your in jail if you do things they don't want you to do, and they have no one to answer to but themselves. Government censorship doesn't depend on whether you are getting paid or not.
It is true that if you are accepting money from Coca Cola, it will limit your ability to do work that goes against the interests of Coca Cola. To be independent, just stop accepting money from them.
But it only works because Coca Cola can't do much against an independent group. Of course, you need to be careful, which typically means hiring a good lawyer, but you should be fine. And the reason you should be fine is because the government is there to protect you, at least to some extent.
But you can't be independent from your government, unlike Coca Cola, they can raid your house and put your in jail if you do things they don't want you to do, and they have no one to answer to but themselves. Government censorship doesn't depend on whether you are getting paid or not.
by that argument coca cola can certainly hire goons to come get you.
how far do you want to take your strawman?
how far do you want to take your strawman?
But they won't, because the government won't let them. Even Coca Cola is not above the law.
But government hired goons (aka the police) are the law. In free countries, their role is limited to things like making sure that you won't be bothered by Coca Cola goons, but in less free countries, they are going to hit you for saying things the government doesn't want you to say.
But government hired goons (aka the police) are the law. In free countries, their role is limited to things like making sure that you won't be bothered by Coca Cola goons, but in less free countries, they are going to hit you for saying things the government doesn't want you to say.
you're historically wrong.
monasteries were financialy independent. when the "government changed" and the new rulers had no use for the church, all of them were raided and plundered.
it's very dangerous to have resources and not be politically positioned. you become a target more than a fortress. it's the one thing preppers don't get.
universities are facing the same problem as monasteries faced. they are huge bags of money already. excluding the UCs they are already rich and take government money more for the associations than the actual money.
monasteries were financialy independent. when the "government changed" and the new rulers had no use for the church, all of them were raided and plundered.
it's very dangerous to have resources and not be politically positioned. you become a target more than a fortress. it's the one thing preppers don't get.
universities are facing the same problem as monasteries faced. they are huge bags of money already. excluding the UCs they are already rich and take government money more for the associations than the actual money.
nobody claimed absolute immunity from everything that the government does anywhere. enjoy beating up your strawman.
I don't know why you think financial independence would free them from government meddling. That happens to be an easy tool that Trump has used, but it isn't the only one available. Ultimately the government can simply pass laws to make Universities do whatever they want.
Reading this, you can see how the political ideology of trumps supporters was so easily manipulated, and how effective the radicalisation of the right has been.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" -James Madison
[deleted]
47392725292(1)
I know this is made to be an analogy with America, but people there still think much about politics at least at this moment, despite the recent chaos slowly becoming expected and mundane. I think the point of the passage is not to allow things to slip and not to simply accept the chaos, but the good news is there's still time, for the most part.
no the point is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about their perceived political enemies
I think it has been happening for a while now cancel culture had a very negative effect on academia Jordon Peterson and Warren Smith being examples of that. I much appreciate Dr. Sam Richards who walks the fine line of trying to be centerist but he did comment recently how he does gets hate from both sides. Now I know this is going to be down voted because some will say I am both sidesing this when it's clearly one side right now. This is true I think that's however not a great argument to start a conversation. the founding fathers gave us a great foundation to work with it just takes open dialogue to convince enough of the other side that their is an actual good counter argument. The violence we have seen in the past couple months is only going to entrench positions because each side will want the result of that violence to have been meaningful furthering solidifing the separation. Currently I think American agree on the vast majority of things social media just does it's best to highlight our differences but the average person has mostly the same culture and the same day to day issues so I actually am hopeful.
The US has always been a very moralistic country. From banning alcohol and burning witches to its long struggle to accept differences (in skin color, gender or even the definition of freedom). “Cancel culture” is part of America since its foundation. It’s a moral tug of war.
It’s a different thing altogether to have the government itself weaponize “cancel culture”, however. As much as right wing people like to scream that “democrats are the same”, there’s little evidence of the same level of systemic abuse and disregard for institutions in the name of revenge (“if the left cancels, I can cancel too”). It’s a flight from moral infighting to authoritarian rule.
It’s a different thing altogether to have the government itself weaponize “cancel culture”, however. As much as right wing people like to scream that “democrats are the same”, there’s little evidence of the same level of systemic abuse and disregard for institutions in the name of revenge (“if the left cancels, I can cancel too”). It’s a flight from moral infighting to authoritarian rule.
> little evidence of the same level of systemic abuse
You not looking for it doesn't mean "little evidence."
It's well documented that the previous administration pressured social media to silence views it didn't like, as well as instances of debanking conservative organizations.
That's not to say this administration doesn't throw its weight around, too, but to think it's only one side make you complicit in the problem.
You not looking for it doesn't mean "little evidence."
It's well documented that the previous administration pressured social media to silence views it didn't like, as well as instances of debanking conservative organizations.
That's not to say this administration doesn't throw its weight around, too, but to think it's only one side make you complicit in the problem.
Some individuals from the previous administration asking a donor to do something is not exactly the same thing as the president FORCING someone to do it and demanding bribes or else they’ll impose fines on the business (which he then proceeds to do anyway, eg with Nvidia)
You’re quite literally a character from the book in this post, if you think they’re equivalent (your argument is verbatim what one of the nazis interviewed uses to justify having supported hitler)
You’re quite literally a character from the book in this post, if you think they’re equivalent (your argument is verbatim what one of the nazis interviewed uses to justify having supported hitler)
They were making large overreaches and censorship, thinking anything else also makes you a person from this book.
This report was written when Biden was still in power, it details how they did pressure companies to censor material and not just friendly suggestions:
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizati...
Authoritarianism getting dialed up and voters having less power is bipartisan, this cannot get fixed by just changing one side. As long as democrats keeps ramping up republicans will feel like they have to ramp up as well, and vice versa, democrats ramp up since they feel republicans ramp up. You can't get out of this by just changing one side.
This report was written when Biden was still in power, it details how they did pressure companies to censor material and not just friendly suggestions:
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/weaponizati...
Authoritarianism getting dialed up and voters having less power is bipartisan, this cannot get fixed by just changing one side. As long as democrats keeps ramping up republicans will feel like they have to ramp up as well, and vice versa, democrats ramp up since they feel republicans ramp up. You can't get out of this by just changing one side.
So you think “both sides are the same” and that democrats “ramping up republicans” legitimizes what the government is currently doing, all based on a report by the judiciary that’s controlled by the current administration?
Why would I think that? I just dislike how Americans refuse to criticize their own side when they do bad things and I feel that is the biggest problem you have.
Most people don't switch side over small differences, so as long as Democrats continue to follow Republicans into becoming worse and worse nothing will change.
And why do I complain about Democrats? Because you should try to convince the reasonable one, you can't change Trump, but you can maybe change Democrats. But as long as Democrats continue to play along you are doomed, if not this term it will be the next or the one after that, but at some point it will happen.
And no, no amount of "Trump is the devil, see all he has done" will make people stop voting for him. You have to improve the democrats, not throw more shit at Trump. The 2024 election was lost by the Democrats, it was not won by Trump. Trump didn't get more votes in 2024 than 2020, but he won anyway since democrats got so many fewer votes.
Most people don't switch side over small differences, so as long as Democrats continue to follow Republicans into becoming worse and worse nothing will change.
And why do I complain about Democrats? Because you should try to convince the reasonable one, you can't change Trump, but you can maybe change Democrats. But as long as Democrats continue to play along you are doomed, if not this term it will be the next or the one after that, but at some point it will happen.
And no, no amount of "Trump is the devil, see all he has done" will make people stop voting for him. You have to improve the democrats, not throw more shit at Trump. The 2024 election was lost by the Democrats, it was not won by Trump. Trump didn't get more votes in 2024 than 2020, but he won anyway since democrats got so many fewer votes.
Concerning
Maybe there’s better examples, but last time I checked some debunking examples they were well explained, unlike how political agitators complained about it. It was basically thinking they could break laws and get away with it complaining.
> It's well documented that
Show us, then. There's nothing as egregious as what the right is currently doing to be found in the archives, and you know it.
Show us, then. There's nothing as egregious as what the right is currently doing to be found in the archives, and you know it.
Go read the emails the administration was sending to Twitter demanding people be taken down left and right. Or if you want a wider view than just the US, look at what European governments demand from social media companies. It's all censorship of the right by the left, zero in reverse.
But it's true that the left does not need to overtly threaten from the top as much because they already purged all the institutions of anyone who would resist them, so they can just coordinate directly across institutional lines. They don't need to threaten when they have plenty of insiders willing to do the work for them for ideological reasons, without being threatened.
But it's true that the left does not need to overtly threaten from the top as much because they already purged all the institutions of anyone who would resist them, so they can just coordinate directly across institutional lines. They don't need to threaten when they have plenty of insiders willing to do the work for them for ideological reasons, without being threatened.
> Go read the emails the administration was sending to Twitter demanding people be taken down left and right.
They used twitter’s appeal process at the time. Twitter was never forced to take anyone down. The emails prove that, in fact. Twitter was a fairly neutral player (as much as social media platforms can be neutral) and tried to abide by US free speech rules plus their TOS (which is what extremists try to misunderstand: companies don’t have to abide by “free speech”, they’re private enterprises and have terms of use).
> look at what European governments demand from social media companies.
European governments follow European laws and require companies operating in Europe to comply. It’s not complicated.
Your worldview seems to be that anyone that’s not MAGA is “the left” and the whole world should follow American laws. That’s not how any of it works. You’re letting your brain be hijacked by fear and identity politics. It’s not healthy for you.
They used twitter’s appeal process at the time. Twitter was never forced to take anyone down. The emails prove that, in fact. Twitter was a fairly neutral player (as much as social media platforms can be neutral) and tried to abide by US free speech rules plus their TOS (which is what extremists try to misunderstand: companies don’t have to abide by “free speech”, they’re private enterprises and have terms of use).
> look at what European governments demand from social media companies.
European governments follow European laws and require companies operating in Europe to comply. It’s not complicated.
Your worldview seems to be that anyone that’s not MAGA is “the left” and the whole world should follow American laws. That’s not how any of it works. You’re letting your brain be hijacked by fear and identity politics. It’s not healthy for you.
The Twitter files revealed the government communication to Twitter was a continuation/mirroring of communication from the previous Republican regime making requests of Twitter.
Purge? Which administration threw out all of our civil service rules and purged people as soon as they had power? Which is telling the DOJ PUBLICALLY 'there are the people you need to get convictions against because it's making us look bad? Hint, it wasn't the previous administration.
Your second paragraph is a direct indictment of the CURRENT Right wing administration, who have incorporated exactly what you condemn as part of their current plans, spoken out loud that is their plan, and have executed on this plan.
Forget the past, if what you say is bad and should be prevented, I'm here, now, agreeing with you so lets condemn this shit! We can rehash the past come next election, but let's take care of ongoing/current business today.
Purge? Which administration threw out all of our civil service rules and purged people as soon as they had power? Which is telling the DOJ PUBLICALLY 'there are the people you need to get convictions against because it's making us look bad? Hint, it wasn't the previous administration.
Your second paragraph is a direct indictment of the CURRENT Right wing administration, who have incorporated exactly what you condemn as part of their current plans, spoken out loud that is their plan, and have executed on this plan.
Forget the past, if what you say is bad and should be prevented, I'm here, now, agreeing with you so lets condemn this shit! We can rehash the past come next election, but let's take care of ongoing/current business today.
> there’s little evidence of the same level of systemic abuse and disregard for institutions in the name of revenge
If you think that, you've not been paying attention. Both sides doing it is disgusting and I think the right does it more than the left (at this point in time), but the left DOES do it.
If you think that, you've not been paying attention. Both sides doing it is disgusting and I think the right does it more than the left (at this point in time), but the left DOES do it.
Great argument, congratulations
[deleted]
Jordan Peterson is very much proof that "cancel culture" as it exists in the right's collective imagination never existed. A completely clueless guy that holds backward views from centuries past, that can still find an audience and be hailed as a "great intellectual" among the equally clueless people he appeals to.
Reading this in China, it's hard not to see the similarities with the cultural revolution, but there seems to be a big difference with how the trauma lasted among those who survived. At least in China, the primary shared memory is that everyone was a common victim, that the cultural revolution was this brutal madness and frenzied state that was exacted on everybody, even if you were also a participant and threw some tomatoes at a struggle session here or there. But in Germany, it's more of a feeling of mass cowardice and shame. That so many people "let" the events unfold, because they had an opportunity to stop it or prevent it from snowballing. I have a gut feeling that in 20 years, Americans will feel like latter.
But I also question that because out of the last 30 or so historical examples we have of fascism's rise, there's never been one instance of deposing it non-violently once it's been given power. Germany, France, Italy, Portugal's Estado Novo, Spain's Franco. I think the lone exception might be Finland's Lapua movement. So maybe there is nothing that could've actually been done. I don't know, these days I look around and I feel like it's inevitable.
But I also question that because out of the last 30 or so historical examples we have of fascism's rise, there's never been one instance of deposing it non-violently once it's been given power. Germany, France, Italy, Portugal's Estado Novo, Spain's Franco. I think the lone exception might be Finland's Lapua movement. So maybe there is nothing that could've actually been done. I don't know, these days I look around and I feel like it's inevitable.
Wasn't the end of Estado novo famously low-violence? It's called the Carnation Revolution because there were a lot more flowers than bullets.
The overall statistics are undeniable, though. I take some comfort in the fact that no two macropolitical situations are ever really identical, and in my naïve belief that overall, humanity still learns a tiny little sliver from the past.
The overall statistics are undeniable, though. I take some comfort in the fact that no two macropolitical situations are ever really identical, and in my naïve belief that overall, humanity still learns a tiny little sliver from the past.
I wonder how many people interpret this based on “the other side” rather than objectively?
As a German outside observer I can tell you there is only one side going down the facist path.
The "other side" isn't great either. Would be great to have a sane alternative, I guess.
The "other side" isn't great either. Would be great to have a sane alternative, I guess.
I think the sane alternative has long been modeled by the US Constitution.
The real test is how any model handles corruption and expunges it because no matter the ideology, people are in charge and people are corruptible.
The only real model that can work is one that minimizes the power of those in charge.
The real test is how any model handles corruption and expunges it because no matter the ideology, people are in charge and people are corruptible.
The only real model that can work is one that minimizes the power of those in charge.
The US constitution is outdated and vulnerable. Modern constitutions like Germany’s basic law are a lot more resilient. We are watching the US constitution fail right now, it didn’t even take smart men to start dismantling it. I hope I’ll be proven wrong, but what indications do you see right now that the US constitution is performing as intended?
I’m unfamiliar with German basic law, but considering the lawlessness we’re seeing play out in the US right now, I’m curious how/why modern constitutions are less vulnerable?
By this I mean: it’s not as if the things we see playing out are lawful. Is there a structural difference that somehow prevents the same kind of lawlessness?
Put another way, what stops a movement that decides to ignore Germany’s constitution from ignoring it should they somehow gain power?
By this I mean: it’s not as if the things we see playing out are lawful. Is there a structural difference that somehow prevents the same kind of lawlessness?
Put another way, what stops a movement that decides to ignore Germany’s constitution from ignoring it should they somehow gain power?
For starters, Germany does not give a single person the right to be king with decrees and military leadership.
Also (though not an issue with the law itself) it's really dangerous only having two parties at the helm.
Also (though not an issue with the law itself) it's really dangerous only having two parties at the helm.
> For starters, Germany does not give a single person the right to be king with decrees and military leadership.
Separation between civilian leaders and military leaders is a big one, yeah. When the same person controls both the military directly and the executive branch of the civilian government directly you don't have any way to punish him without his subordinates overthrowing him since he controls all the power.
Separation between civilian leaders and military leaders is a big one, yeah. When the same person controls both the military directly and the executive branch of the civilian government directly you don't have any way to punish him without his subordinates overthrowing him since he controls all the power.
Constitution is just a social contract, it’s not a law of physics. Without people wanting to preserve it, it’s just words on a piece of paper with no real power. With a majority in the Supreme Court, the Constitution can be interpreted however one wants.
1. When Trump lost to Biden, many Republicans including Mike Pence certified Biden's win as prescribed by the constitution.
2. Trump knows the military will not participate in a coup.
3. Trump will not run for a third term. If he does, he will loose because Americans knows it's unconstitutional.
So Americans know that all the dirty laundry will come out when the next president takes office.
2. Trump knows the military will not participate in a coup.
3. Trump will not run for a third term. If he does, he will loose because Americans knows it's unconstitutional.
So Americans know that all the dirty laundry will come out when the next president takes office.
1. There's barely any normal republicans left, its all MAGA now that would hang Pence like they wanted to in 2021.
2. Likely true, but they don't really need the military as ICE which now employs all the armed racists they need, like Jan 6 people.
3. He's floating the idea, even talking about not having elections if they're in a war like Ukraine, even though its not in the constitution. Either way they're going all in on rigging elections so Vance will take over.
2. Likely true, but they don't really need the military as ICE which now employs all the armed racists they need, like Jan 6 people.
3. He's floating the idea, even talking about not having elections if they're in a war like Ukraine, even though its not in the constitution. Either way they're going all in on rigging elections so Vance will take over.
Which foreign country is going to invade one third of USA ?
(Never mind, Trump never cared about little details like these...)
(Never mind, Trump never cared about little details like these...)
The problem is norms are being destroyed.
It’s not all new with Trump (governing by executive order, ignoring duly enacted laws, strong arming media companies, etc.). But while earlier administrations might have done those things on the margins, Trump takes them to 11 (in the spirit of the new Spinal Tap) and makes them the central and primary means of administration.
With the norms destroyed, we potentially lose our nation of laws, and become a plutocracy with different juntas every few years.
It’s not all new with Trump (governing by executive order, ignoring duly enacted laws, strong arming media companies, etc.). But while earlier administrations might have done those things on the margins, Trump takes them to 11 (in the spirit of the new Spinal Tap) and makes them the central and primary means of administration.
With the norms destroyed, we potentially lose our nation of laws, and become a plutocracy with different juntas every few years.
The US Constitutional government is meant to be slow, methodical and gridlocked. It is supposed to take enormous compromise to get any decision created into law.
This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals.
THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat, our methods are justified. THEY have been doing this to us for years, now this is our chance to fight back.
THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat, our methods are justified. THEY have been doing this to us for years, now this is our chance to fight back.
Yes, and then they call this openly a Reichstag fire moment and people still don't get the parallels.
And back then there was a proper systems conflict. People like Krupp actually had to fear being disowned by communists.
And back then there was a proper systems conflict. People like Krupp actually had to fear being disowned by communists.
The elevation of Charlie Kirk to sainthood rhymes with Horst Wessel’s death being used to make legitimate targets of all enemies of the German state.
Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view?
When you take a step back it becomes very clear that this escalating messaging is being push onto both sides of the political isle to create these feelings.
I remember in the span of two weeks seeing almost identical posts urging people to train because you are going to have to fight. The wording was almost identical only one post said “leftists” and the other “fascists”.
My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?
When you take a step back it becomes very clear that this escalating messaging is being push onto both sides of the political isle to create these feelings.
I remember in the span of two weeks seeing almost identical posts urging people to train because you are going to have to fight. The wording was almost identical only one post said “leftists” and the other “fascists”.
My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?
In what way are democrats (or, “leftists,” if you must) authoritarian?
Requiring face masks in a pandemic (which happened under the trump admin, in case anyone forgot) is not the same as masked goons throwing brown people into vans.
Requiring face masks in a pandemic (which happened under the trump admin, in case anyone forgot) is not the same as masked goons throwing brown people into vans.
As a libertarian, I see authoritarianism as the imposition of top-down control, often fine-grained, onto individuals' lives. The reflexive reaching for government/law to solve problems. The war on drugs. Mass surveillance, regardless of its goals or who is in charge. The crushing weight and lack of justice in the criminal justice system. The draconian copyright regime.
This makes the Democratic [establishment] bureaucratic authoritarians, while the current Republican [establishment] are autocratic authoritarians.
Obviously I would prefer anti-authoritarianism - a goal of reducing government control in our lives (including corporate de facto government). I think so would most people, but for being lured in by partisan messaging. Authoritarian singular-perspective narratives always sound so simplistically compelling.
But while the autocratic authoritarians weren't in power, it was all too easy to point to the bureaucratic authoritarians as a creeping problem. So now we have autocratic authoritarianism "good and hard". Between the two, I'd prefer bureaucratic authoritarianism as it at least keeps the worst impulses in check (eg the capricious tariff taxes, the naked corruption/bribes, politicizing departments to go after political enemies, wanton cruelty against immigrants for circenses, etc). The only real question is whether at least some of our institutions will hold out so that we can collectively decide to change course, or if it's just set now.
As far as the mask issue, I want to live in a world where they weren't mandated, but yet most everyone wears one out of enlightened self interest. The traditional Republican message would have been "wear a mask to protect yourself". The fact that it was self-harming contrarianism instead has more to do with edgelordism and foreign influence campaigns.
This makes the Democratic [establishment] bureaucratic authoritarians, while the current Republican [establishment] are autocratic authoritarians.
Obviously I would prefer anti-authoritarianism - a goal of reducing government control in our lives (including corporate de facto government). I think so would most people, but for being lured in by partisan messaging. Authoritarian singular-perspective narratives always sound so simplistically compelling.
But while the autocratic authoritarians weren't in power, it was all too easy to point to the bureaucratic authoritarians as a creeping problem. So now we have autocratic authoritarianism "good and hard". Between the two, I'd prefer bureaucratic authoritarianism as it at least keeps the worst impulses in check (eg the capricious tariff taxes, the naked corruption/bribes, politicizing departments to go after political enemies, wanton cruelty against immigrants for circenses, etc). The only real question is whether at least some of our institutions will hold out so that we can collectively decide to change course, or if it's just set now.
As far as the mask issue, I want to live in a world where they weren't mandated, but yet most everyone wears one out of enlightened self interest. The traditional Republican message would have been "wear a mask to protect yourself". The fact that it was self-harming contrarianism instead has more to do with edgelordism and foreign influence campaigns.
What you wrote can be even an anarchist view. What’s the difference in your point of view? How should a government solve problems without laws? What other options are there? Besides ignoring, obviously. I’m absolutely not familiar with the tools of an imagined truly libertarian government (AFAIK this never happened).
You can run down the policies of either major party and find topics where they advocate against government intervention, or at least a light touch. So the idea that we could have less government intervention isn't really a unique or rare one.
It's not a matter of imagining some "truly libertarian" government, as that is an artifact of US "Libertarianism" which is itself fallacious (it mostly just renames "government" to "corporations"). It's a matter of which ideals to strive towards.
It's not a matter of imagining some "truly libertarian" government, as that is an artifact of US "Libertarianism" which is itself fallacious (it mostly just renames "government" to "corporations"). It's a matter of which ideals to strive towards.
> Similar to calling everyone Nazi’s and fascists who has an opposing point of view?
Well, the actual neo-Nazis do support one particular party (and it's not the Democrats); see (e.g.) Charlottesville, 2017:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
And it was (is?) official Republican strategy to court racists:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
As The Simpsons once joked “Fox News: Not Racist, But #1 With Racists”:
* https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/07/24/simpsons-creator-matt...
Well, the actual neo-Nazis do support one particular party (and it's not the Democrats); see (e.g.) Charlottesville, 2017:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
And it was (is?) official Republican strategy to court racists:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
As The Simpsons once joked “Fox News: Not Racist, But #1 With Racists”:
* https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/07/24/simpsons-creator-matt...
You must separate actions from words, and government actors from private citizens, and powerful monied interests from powerless randos.
If you don't do this your brain will remain cooked.
There are no "Leftists" in government. No, Bernie and AOC do not count. Soc Dems are nice, don't get me wrong, but the vanguard they are not.
There is no "Leftist" billionaire funding propaganda, no the boogyman 'Soros' doesn't count. He's very much a 'liberal' capitalist, just ask the UK.
There is no major US media outlet or platform owned by a "Leftist". If you insist that actually Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, or Pelosi are leftists, please please just stop talking about politics.
Again, I'm begging you to separate "things pseudonymous people say online" from "things government officials say and do"
Let's try an example: "Fascists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies" or "Leftists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies"
Which of these statements is true?
There are no "Leftists" in government. No, Bernie and AOC do not count. Soc Dems are nice, don't get me wrong, but the vanguard they are not.
There is no "Leftist" billionaire funding propaganda, no the boogyman 'Soros' doesn't count. He's very much a 'liberal' capitalist, just ask the UK.
There is no major US media outlet or platform owned by a "Leftist". If you insist that actually Biden, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, or Pelosi are leftists, please please just stop talking about politics.
Again, I'm begging you to separate "things pseudonymous people say online" from "things government officials say and do"
Let's try an example: "Fascists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies" or "Leftists are sending the US military and an unaccountable masked federal police force into cities to quell dissent and hunt down their ideological enemies"
Which of these statements is true?
> My only question who is pushing the messaging and who does it benefit?
You get 0 "both sides gotcha" points for this one because there is a clear answer when it comes to right wing messaging, and it has been the same since the 19th century, long before modern conservatism existed. It's big business owners and anyone else who stands to gain from an oligopoly economy backed by an authoritarian state that punishes and suppresses anything that could destabilize said oligopoly. There's no conspiracy theory here.
Meanwhile who is pushing the horrible left wing messaging that racism is bad? A bunch of professors and kids on social media?
You get 0 "both sides gotcha" points for this one because there is a clear answer when it comes to right wing messaging, and it has been the same since the 19th century, long before modern conservatism existed. It's big business owners and anyone else who stands to gain from an oligopoly economy backed by an authoritarian state that punishes and suppresses anything that could destabilize said oligopoly. There's no conspiracy theory here.
Meanwhile who is pushing the horrible left wing messaging that racism is bad? A bunch of professors and kids on social media?
>who is pushing the horrible left wing messaging that racism is bad?
It's those triple-damned Demonrats! In between molesting and eating babies, they go on and on about "multiculturalism" and "systemic racism" and all kinds of other ridiculous crap.
Yes. The darkies are inferior and need to be firmly controlled and/or exterminated. No sane person thinks any different. Those people aren't really people, are they?
They're subhuman animals who need to be dealt with. The fact that they can touch our women should be an immediate death sentence.
Hell, I'm not really sure why we're even bothering with these "deportations." Just shoot on sight for heaven's sake. Just the way Jesus says we should!
It's those triple-damned Demonrats! In between molesting and eating babies, they go on and on about "multiculturalism" and "systemic racism" and all kinds of other ridiculous crap.
Yes. The darkies are inferior and need to be firmly controlled and/or exterminated. No sane person thinks any different. Those people aren't really people, are they?
They're subhuman animals who need to be dealt with. The fact that they can touch our women should be an immediate death sentence.
Hell, I'm not really sure why we're even bothering with these "deportations." Just shoot on sight for heaven's sake. Just the way Jesus says we should!
Are you just going to ignore the 2016-2024 state-directed viewpoint censorship on social media?
I think the appropriate response to a lack of due consideration to the bill of rights should be doubling down on the bill of rights. not setting it on fire as show of oneupmanship
Now we have 2025-? stare censored social media. Of all the hypocrisies, people screaming "but what about THEM" while ignoring what people in power NOW are doing is the most insufferable
Perhaps you are not aware that the “other side” declared Constitutional amendments by fiat, assassinated American citizens with drone strikes, lied to the courts to imprison influential Twitter users, used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress, dramatically expanded the surveillance state, declared by EO they simply wouldn’t enforce some laws on favored demographics, ordered social
media companies to censor and ban users, locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes, and engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies.
Authoritarianism is not a “one side” problem in the US and until we collectively figure that out each side will continue increasing it, all in the name of stopping the other sides’ extremists.
Authoritarianism is not a “one side” problem in the US and until we collectively figure that out each side will continue increasing it, all in the name of stopping the other sides’ extremists.
The "same side" does all of that but also a bunch more bad stuff.
The equlibrium that is always reached in a first-past-the-post voting system is two parties that are mostly the same, and you vote for a party that's only slightly more of what you want (because those are the options) and your vote tells both parties which direction to move in, to chase more votes.
If the party that drone strikes its own citizens and imprisons Twitter users consistently gets more votes than the party that drone strikes its own citizens, imprisons Twitter users, and builds concentration camps, then the latter party will quickly figure out that the only way to win is to drone strike its own citizens, but not imprison Twitter users, or build concentration camps. And then the former party (now losing) figures out that doing none of the above is the way to win, but maybe they still tap all communications. And so on...
We got to the point we're at today step by step, with people voting for one new measure at a time, and parties taking notice of what measures people consistently vote for. The current parties did not spring fully-formed out of Zeus's forehead.
The equlibrium that is always reached in a first-past-the-post voting system is two parties that are mostly the same, and you vote for a party that's only slightly more of what you want (because those are the options) and your vote tells both parties which direction to move in, to chase more votes.
If the party that drone strikes its own citizens and imprisons Twitter users consistently gets more votes than the party that drone strikes its own citizens, imprisons Twitter users, and builds concentration camps, then the latter party will quickly figure out that the only way to win is to drone strike its own citizens, but not imprison Twitter users, or build concentration camps. And then the former party (now losing) figures out that doing none of the above is the way to win, but maybe they still tap all communications. And so on...
We got to the point we're at today step by step, with people voting for one new measure at a time, and parties taking notice of what measures people consistently vote for. The current parties did not spring fully-formed out of Zeus's forehead.
Got sources for any of that?
Constitutional amendments by fiat:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/biden-dec...
Assassinated Americans with drone strikes: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-kill...
Lied to the courts to imprison Twitter users: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.967...
Used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief...
Expanded mass surveillance: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gov...
EO declaring that some laws would not be enforced on favored demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACA
Ordered social media companies to censor and ban users: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe...
Locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes: referring to the BLM protests
> engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies. Another reference to the Mackey case and the novel legal theories required prosecute Trump in NY, and the now known to be false constructiion of the Russia narrative.
Look, many or all of these things may have been for a good cause, a good end. But the problem we're talking about is the means. Now people are using the same means for different ends. Everyone has to agree authoritarianism is bad even when it’s for really good ends or this will continue to escalate.
Assassinated Americans with drone strikes: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-kill...
Lied to the courts to imprison Twitter users: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.967...
Used intelligence agencies to spy on Congress: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief...
Expanded mass surveillance: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/obama-on-mass-gov...
EO declaring that some laws would not be enforced on favored demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DACA
Ordered social media companies to censor and ban users: https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe...
Locked people down unless they were protesting for approved causes: referring to the BLM protests
> engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of their enemies. Another reference to the Mackey case and the novel legal theories required prosecute Trump in NY, and the now known to be false constructiion of the Russia narrative.
Look, many or all of these things may have been for a good cause, a good end. But the problem we're talking about is the means. Now people are using the same means for different ends. Everyone has to agree authoritarianism is bad even when it’s for really good ends or this will continue to escalate.
This post from 2003 has made the rounds several times in recent years...
"The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
...and I recall people reading it and saying they don't see how Donald Trump ticks the boxes.
It's all very tedious to complain about when half the electorate supports it. It makes one feel like a nag and a broken record.
"The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
...and I recall people reading it and saying they don't see how Donald Trump ticks the boxes.
It's all very tedious to complain about when half the electorate supports it. It makes one feel like a nag and a broken record.
There are clearly very many countries that tick most of those boxes. Including some that i wouldn't necessarily define as fascist. Prominent examples are China, Russia, Iran North Korea and other middle eastern countries. I'm not saying this list is incorrect, per se, but it is vague to the point of uselessness.
I mean, as far as fascist states go China, Russia and North Korea are pretty up there?
In the original "14 points" [0], the author explains this is not an exhaustive checklist that makes something fascist if it ticks all of the items, and gives motivation for such a list. Go read it if you have time to, it's rather short and well written.
> Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.
> But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
[0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
> Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.
> But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
[0] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
Authoritarianism is IMO the common thread whether you’re talking about fascism or communism.
At the root, there’s either principled freedom or control.
At the root, there’s either principled freedom or control.
1930s fascism can never occur again. It was a product of its time.
But the psychology behind fascism stems from deep human quirks and is something eternal.
All those nations, except perhaps China, share the DNA. If we didn't already have names for their systems, we probably would describe them as fascistic.
What Trump has turned the American government into is closer to Fascism than to Liberal Democracy, no?
In future highschool textbooks Trump Fascism will have its own name ("Trashism" perhaps?) but it will be placed in the same chapter as the others.
But the psychology behind fascism stems from deep human quirks and is something eternal.
All those nations, except perhaps China, share the DNA. If we didn't already have names for their systems, we probably would describe them as fascistic.
What Trump has turned the American government into is closer to Fascism than to Liberal Democracy, no?
In future highschool textbooks Trump Fascism will have its own name ("Trashism" perhaps?) but it will be placed in the same chapter as the others.
It's inaccurate to blame Trump. He is a greedy egotistical idiot. Blaming Trump is like blaming a rock that hit you in the head. Look up and pay attention to who threw the rock. Blame them.
The Trump presidency is the culmination of a roughly 45 year campaign to return the United States to the Gilded Age, and to ensure it stays that way until it's bled dry and nothing remains of its corpse. The political and social problems that led to his second election have been a long time coming.
What's interesting is that the gaps in our political system that allow him to do so many illegal and distasteful things have always been there. The framers of the constitution never anticipated all three branches of government colluding together in alignment and bad faith, with the vociferous support of roughly half the voting population.
The Trump presidency is the culmination of a roughly 45 year campaign to return the United States to the Gilded Age, and to ensure it stays that way until it's bled dry and nothing remains of its corpse. The political and social problems that led to his second election have been a long time coming.
What's interesting is that the gaps in our political system that allow him to do so many illegal and distasteful things have always been there. The framers of the constitution never anticipated all three branches of government colluding together in alignment and bad faith, with the vociferous support of roughly half the voting population.
A country doesn't become fascist solely because of one man. If my previous comment implies that, I worded it poorly.
If I blame anyone it's the American electorate.
It's tempting to continue and discuss which phenomena I blame for the poor judgment of the average American, but that would triple the length of my comment.
If I blame anyone it's the American electorate.
It's tempting to continue and discuss which phenomena I blame for the poor judgment of the average American, but that would triple the length of my comment.
The American electorate, especially the group that voted for Trump, has been abused by their federal and often also state governments, sometimes for decades. Not everyone is a good person and not everyone can be "saved" for lack of a better term. But by and large their support for Trump is rooted in desperation, and they have been cruelly manipulated by a powerful propaganda machine. Many of Trump's supporters already are or soon will be his victims.
Maybe desperation is warranted, or maybe social media has distorted reality.
Either way, it's beside the point: if there is one lesson to remember from the 20th Century it is 'never support an authoritarian'.
Either way, it's beside the point: if there is one lesson to remember from the 20th Century it is 'never support an authoritarian'.
[deleted]
> Maybe desperation is warranted, or maybe social media has distorted reality.
Some parts of the country never really recovered from 2008. Obama took the smug liberal approach of telling people it was all over when it clearly was not all over. The country was primed for the Tea Party to step in and offer the promise of a remedy. You and I both know that the remedy was bunk, and it was just a rebranding of the same old far right, who saw that the Evangelical Christian movement that they were previously allied with had lost influence. And so into the propaganda brainwashing funnel went millions and millions of people.
Right wing media was already powerful and influential long before Trump started his own social media company and Zuckerberg switched sides. Blaming social media doesn't make sense either, because if it wasn't for social media, it would've been something else.
Some parts of the country never really recovered from 2008. Obama took the smug liberal approach of telling people it was all over when it clearly was not all over. The country was primed for the Tea Party to step in and offer the promise of a remedy. You and I both know that the remedy was bunk, and it was just a rebranding of the same old far right, who saw that the Evangelical Christian movement that they were previously allied with had lost influence. And so into the propaganda brainwashing funnel went millions and millions of people.
Right wing media was already powerful and influential long before Trump started his own social media company and Zuckerberg switched sides. Blaming social media doesn't make sense either, because if it wasn't for social media, it would've been something else.
The points about America can be discarded wholesale because 21st century authoritarianism is a global phenomenon.
Social media became a major force after 2010, and indiscriminately affects nations around the world.
Since the nations with rising authoritarian movements have little else in common, social media clearly is the cause.
Social media became a major force after 2010, and indiscriminately affects nations around the world.
Since the nations with rising authoritarian movements have little else in common, social media clearly is the cause.
I don't think it follows at all that social media is the cause. It's clearly an enabling factor, especially in places that didn't already have a healthy right wing media like the USA. The common cause is long-standing discontent over economic issues, unaddressed by liberal or center-left institutions, and a right wing eager to regain power by fomenting culture war.
There is long-standing discontent over economic issues, yet the people are equally furious about toxic 5G radio towers, and a thousand other delusions.
The public, before social media, was better informed about the world. They have access to much more information now, but that means little when the information they consume first has been sharted out the asshole of some idiot podcaster.
For various reasons, social media incentivizes knee-jerk antiestablishment takes: "Get angry! The MSM is hiding the horrible truth we are about to share with you! Like and subscribe or be kept under their control!" That is why any nation with social media, and a sufficient number of gullible citizens, tends towards violent revolution and pugilistic leadership.
The public, before social media, was better informed about the world. They have access to much more information now, but that means little when the information they consume first has been sharted out the asshole of some idiot podcaster.
For various reasons, social media incentivizes knee-jerk antiestablishment takes: "Get angry! The MSM is hiding the horrible truth we are about to share with you! Like and subscribe or be kept under their control!" That is why any nation with social media, and a sufficient number of gullible citizens, tends towards violent revolution and pugilistic leadership.
That's the nature of fascism, it molds itself to fit different societies. German fascism would never have worked in America, American fascism is draped in the flag and holds the cross.
Also see Umberto Eco's 14 characteristics of fascism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
Amezarak(5)
I have come to conclude that there are both reasonable and unbalanced individuals on the extreme ends of both sides. When Obama was elected I had paranoid relatives telling me he was going to pilfer their 401k and bankrupt the country. Well, that never happened. When Trump was re-elected it was, “He is going to tear down democracy! He’s going to put gay people in concentration camps!” Last I checked we still have free elections, and nobody cares whether you’re gay. And we see political violence targeting both major parties. This also is not new. So I think this isn’t a result of anyone’s politics, but rather individual temperance; the voices we choose to amplify and listen to.
[deleted]
The shocking thing isn't that fascism would come back. The shocking thing is that the people I thought were smart would allow it to normalize so fast and give up without a fight. And that even some people I know are apparently fascists at heart - they just needed "permission" to show themselves.
For most of my teens I wondered what side I would have been on in 1930s Germany. If I would have had the courage to stand up to fascists. Even when they emerge among your friends. I used to wonder what side other people would end up on. Who would recognize fascism for what it was. Who would have the guts to call people out.
I read extensively about fascism. About the war. About the camp. About where all this came from.
Almost everyone has disapponted me in the past year. Not only the shits who turned out to be closeted fascists, but the cowards who do not dare to speak up. Because this time there was no excuse. Our history should have warned about this. And we failed. Almost all of us. Almost everyone makes excuses for themselves. For why they can't stand up to this.
The excuses are worse than the stupidity.
I do not despise people for being stupid. I despise people for being having had every opportunity to not repeat past mistakes and still
For most of my teens I wondered what side I would have been on in 1930s Germany. If I would have had the courage to stand up to fascists. Even when they emerge among your friends. I used to wonder what side other people would end up on. Who would recognize fascism for what it was. Who would have the guts to call people out.
I read extensively about fascism. About the war. About the camp. About where all this came from.
Almost everyone has disapponted me in the past year. Not only the shits who turned out to be closeted fascists, but the cowards who do not dare to speak up. Because this time there was no excuse. Our history should have warned about this. And we failed. Almost all of us. Almost everyone makes excuses for themselves. For why they can't stand up to this.
The excuses are worse than the stupidity.
I do not despise people for being stupid. I despise people for being having had every opportunity to not repeat past mistakes and still
If almost everyone has disappointed you, then perhaps the issue lies with your expectations. Just like the boiling frog, perhaps our evolution has not prepared us to take courageous action in situations like this.
This is not a frog boiling situation. This is much, much faster.
> "Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better.[...]"
I read this book a few years ago and I can't stop thinking about this line of discourse (there's more of this subject in the book). I've felt this exceptional frustration and disgust towards the (in my opinion) wildly underreacting non-fascist millions in the States, more so than the fascists themselves, which seemed contradictory.
The closest I've come to communicating why is that one group is on script while the other isn't. For example, a deadly airborne disease is awful, but the truly scary thing to me would be witnessing doctors and immunologists just kind of shrugging their shoulders.
I grew up with this belief that for all their loud, obnoxious quirks and faults, Americans do not fuck around when it comes to their principles of liberty and freedom. I always admired that. I remember thinking it was a feature that they're so quick to protest and make a scene. I had, without any doubt in my heart and soul, anticipated total disaster. I was expecting to see protests and riots and fires and further uncelebrated but deemed necessary violence in response to the slow ablation of freedom and liberty.
It's quite possible that I'm wrong and that total disaster is premature. But never before have I felt this certain about an "everyone else is wrong" belief. It's scary and somewhat lonely. Reading this book made me feel much less lonely, and much more scared.
I read this book a few years ago and I can't stop thinking about this line of discourse (there's more of this subject in the book). I've felt this exceptional frustration and disgust towards the (in my opinion) wildly underreacting non-fascist millions in the States, more so than the fascists themselves, which seemed contradictory.
The closest I've come to communicating why is that one group is on script while the other isn't. For example, a deadly airborne disease is awful, but the truly scary thing to me would be witnessing doctors and immunologists just kind of shrugging their shoulders.
I grew up with this belief that for all their loud, obnoxious quirks and faults, Americans do not fuck around when it comes to their principles of liberty and freedom. I always admired that. I remember thinking it was a feature that they're so quick to protest and make a scene. I had, without any doubt in my heart and soul, anticipated total disaster. I was expecting to see protests and riots and fires and further uncelebrated but deemed necessary violence in response to the slow ablation of freedom and liberty.
It's quite possible that I'm wrong and that total disaster is premature. But never before have I felt this certain about an "everyone else is wrong" belief. It's scary and somewhat lonely. Reading this book made me feel much less lonely, and much more scared.
The right in the US has convinced people that the only way to protect their own freedoms is to let them take the freedom from everyone, and allocate out appropriate permissions to the right people afterwards.
There's also a spirit of "I don't care as long as they get hurt more" that's stronger than ever.
The party of self-sufficiency and pulling yourself up into a better life with minimal oversight from government has become the party of cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
It's ridiculous.
There's also a spirit of "I don't care as long as they get hurt more" that's stronger than ever.
The party of self-sufficiency and pulling yourself up into a better life with minimal oversight from government has become the party of cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
It's ridiculous.
Americans do not fuck around with loud proclamations but actions are harder. Don’t doubt that there are actions, though. But our media landscape is extremely fragmented and successful organizations of people are not covered. There are plenty of loud, mass protests happening everywhere in the country. But also understand that successful organizations that do get media attention are cracked down on. Not so long ago Los Angeles had mass demonstrations against ICE raids and the federal government literally sent in the military against its own people. Particularly conservative media covered these protestors as anti-American for their protesting, and this narrative made it so far as brought up repeatedly in spaces like Hacker News. Somehow optics of the protestors matters more than the actions of the government.
The people are fractured, the people who are trying to fight for their fellow Americans are depicted as anti-American and enough Americans are buying it that the fractures continue.
The people are fractured, the people who are trying to fight for their fellow Americans are depicted as anti-American and enough Americans are buying it that the fractures continue.
I saw widespread violence, property damage, and theft (including from immigrant-run businesses) in media coverage of those "protests". What do you think should have been done to stop those things?
> Particularly conservative media covered these protestors as anti-American for their protesting
I'm not from US, but isn't this obvious: I pay taxes hoping for police to do their job and handle criminals. Now some people are protesting and disrupting police job - I won't be happy about that.
I'm not from US, but isn't this obvious: I pay taxes hoping for police to do their job and handle criminals. Now some people are protesting and disrupting police job - I won't be happy about that.
> I was expecting to see protests and riots and fires and further uncelebrated but deemed necessary violence in response to the slow ablation of freedom and liberty.
To what % are you confident thst you would be one of the first participants in these, were the same to happen to your own country?
To what % are you confident thst you would be one of the first participants in these, were the same to happen to your own country?
I’m not sure that’s all that relevant other than thematically. And I’m not sure anyone can have confidence in that. I suspect most people are very overconfident. But I’ve been to pretty much all the major protests of my life (I’m only 6 hours from Ottawa and 2 from Toronto) (except Québec referendum rally: I was 9), and I’ve given an average of 1% of my income to Ukraine these past 3 years. So I’d like to hope I would be one of the first. But nobody can be sure how they’d actually respond, right?
It's basic primate psychology, status is the key. It divides the society well-enough that if a majority are not inconvenienced, then the doublespeak creates a denial at all scales. Even things that are obviously absurd like vaccine denial aren't about across the board policy, the exclusive high status can still gain them. The policy and others are used as a political wedge to create eugenics, racism, whatever the underlying status-bias curve that gains them the weird pluralities to maintain a semblance of power.
Humans are dark matter communicators. We code all the top-down biases seamlessly in news stories, speech, novels, movies, always as a by-product of social and virtue signaling. Even altruism comes with a handicap principle. Ultimately we are followers, not leaders, or adventurers, that would be chaos. If the leaders can fool the populace by mixtures of narratives, and sleight of hand oppress on behalf of enough pluralities status, the audience id placated and inert.
Humans are dark matter communicators. We code all the top-down biases seamlessly in news stories, speech, novels, movies, always as a by-product of social and virtue signaling. Even altruism comes with a handicap principle. Ultimately we are followers, not leaders, or adventurers, that would be chaos. If the leaders can fool the populace by mixtures of narratives, and sleight of hand oppress on behalf of enough pluralities status, the audience id placated and inert.
> I grew up with this belief that for all their loud, obnoxious quirks and faults, Americans do not fuck around when it comes to their principles of liberty and freedom.
This is exactly the problem. Americans see their own country as perfect example of freedom and liberty, and the idea that they might be wrong never crosses their minds. When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile to personal freedom, you get a syntax error at best.
One of the things that Trump is doing is pointing to general "wokeness", "cancel culture", and so on, and labeling them as censorship. The trick is that he's not exactly wrong. Most Americans have their entire livehoods tied to their employers, which usually are emotionless corporations that can fire said Americans at will. This means that, if you express an undesirable opinion, you can and will be fired, and self-censorship is a vital element of American culture. Many Americans celebrated this as a feature that allowed them to maintain social cohesion. Now that the tide has shifted and the list of socially acceptable opinions has changed, same Americans are suddenly very upset because they cannot voice their opinions.
It's not that Americans suddenly stopped valuing freedom and liberty. They never did, but you never noticed, because you never tried to cross the boundary. You can interpret this in two ways - either be sad that your vision of America isn't real, or be happy that for all bad things that Trump is doing, it's not a fundamental change in American society.
This is exactly the problem. Americans see their own country as perfect example of freedom and liberty, and the idea that they might be wrong never crosses their minds. When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile to personal freedom, you get a syntax error at best.
One of the things that Trump is doing is pointing to general "wokeness", "cancel culture", and so on, and labeling them as censorship. The trick is that he's not exactly wrong. Most Americans have their entire livehoods tied to their employers, which usually are emotionless corporations that can fire said Americans at will. This means that, if you express an undesirable opinion, you can and will be fired, and self-censorship is a vital element of American culture. Many Americans celebrated this as a feature that allowed them to maintain social cohesion. Now that the tide has shifted and the list of socially acceptable opinions has changed, same Americans are suddenly very upset because they cannot voice their opinions.
It's not that Americans suddenly stopped valuing freedom and liberty. They never did, but you never noticed, because you never tried to cross the boundary. You can interpret this in two ways - either be sad that your vision of America isn't real, or be happy that for all bad things that Trump is doing, it's not a fundamental change in American society.
> When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile to personal freedom, you get a syntax error at best.
Alright, I'll bite. Mind elaborating more?
As a follow up question, are you talking more about positive or negative freedoms? I e. freedom-to vs freedom-from?
Alright, I'll bite. Mind elaborating more?
As a follow up question, are you talking more about positive or negative freedoms? I e. freedom-to vs freedom-from?
I imagine one example is the imposition of their values on LGBTQ/trans/etc. It’s very much a “stop you from having personal freedoms” padded with very, very weak strawman arguments for why they’re protecting themselves or kids from imaginary bogeymen.
Thank you for illustrating my point. I dedicated entire following paragraph to explaining that you're not free if exercising your lawful freedom costs you your job, but you didn't even read it. It's not that you didn't understand it, you didn't even read it. Literal syntax error.
To answer your follow-up question: I understand "freedom" as "freedom to". This trivially includes "freedom from" through "freedom to choose not to participate in something".
To answer your follow-up question: I understand "freedom" as "freedom to". This trivially includes "freedom from" through "freedom to choose not to participate in something".
I have it on my shelf. Fascinating to read the perspective of regular citizens who organized themselves to do something terrible. Likely to remain relevant for as long as people can read it.
Tremendous.
People say to me, "Donald, I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say." And they're right! They right! They said nothing, they thought of nothing to say.
People say to me, "Donald, I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say." And they're right! They right! They said nothing, they thought of nothing to say.
This is a very intense piece, but misses some critical points. Germany after WWI was suffering terribly under reparations that European Allies and the US insisted on. Previously wealthy professionals went broke and begged in the streets for scraps. When Hitler swept aside reparations there was a great economic updraft as Germans rebuilt their economy and got back to work. The politics of the time was driven by the economy. The US appears to be entering into a period of stagnation and a breakdown of global trading upon which it had become dependent and that is a very different situation with economic factors hitting politics in ways unlike past crises.
The German economy was a house of cards waiting to fall, there was no real economic boom that could be sustained. When they annexed Austria they looted their gold reserves and continued to do so through Europe to sustain their economy.
There really needs to be a Second American Revolution. It should be bloodless and as simple as 90% of the country showing up to take back the wealth that was stolen from the middle classes during the neoliberal assault. The popular momentum exists for this project in both the MAGA camp and lefties that support Sanders. It seems like the only alternative is liberal authoritarianism which we're seeing from Vance and Peter Thiel. We still have a chance. Let's use it.
This isn't a drill. Let us assemble the Rebel Alliance.
This isn't a drill. Let us assemble the Rebel Alliance.
Ah yes, the syllogism of thieves strikes again. - You have it. I want it. Therefore you must have stolen it from me and I am justified in taking it "back".
Have you read history at all? "Revolutions" by entitled thieves who feel that every transaction they agreed to is somehow retroactively unfair because somebody else has more money is the surest way to kill an economy. Nobody wants to do trade with cannibals.
Have you read history at all? "Revolutions" by entitled thieves who feel that every transaction they agreed to is somehow retroactively unfair because somebody else has more money is the surest way to kill an economy. Nobody wants to do trade with cannibals.
Wah, wah, wah brainwashed member of the Adam Smith Society that never actually read, "Nations" obviously chiming in.
The American people are entitled to what was taken from them-- competent public education, accessible higher education and healthcare, laws preventing gross concentrations of wealth through the enforcement of anti-trust law (VC groups I'm looking at you), and for we computer dorks the use of ARPA funding to produce novel new technologies. Most or all of this is non-controversial for most Americans.
http://rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-histo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._R._Licklider
The American people are entitled to what was taken from them-- competent public education, accessible higher education and healthcare, laws preventing gross concentrations of wealth through the enforcement of anti-trust law (VC groups I'm looking at you), and for we computer dorks the use of ARPA funding to produce novel new technologies. Most or all of this is non-controversial for most Americans.
http://rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-histo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._R._Licklider
You talk like it's the case that people with wealth never actually stole it. Yes I've read history thanks, and there are plenty of cases where it turns out for the better for the majority of people. Judge each case on its merits instead of citing fatuous truisms.
It's not a myth. This is a report from the RAND Corporation which is more than reputable which details the the effects of a massive wealth transfer that's been occurring since the early 1970's. With all due respect you haven't, "read" history beyond watching YouTube videos about the Roman Empire kiddo.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html
https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html
with a comment like this we can tell you’ve “history books” as much as I’ve went on a date last night with Taylor Swift :)
You’re on a very slippery slope yourself there. Did the native Americans "agree" to the transactions that took their land away, land they never considered something you could own in the first place? Did the African tribes converted to Christianity by colonists agree to give up their way of life? Did the peasants in feudal times agree to being servants of the aristocracy? Did the tribes in early Europe agree to submit to the Romans?
Throughout history, people have been coerced into a subordinate position by the stronger party, without much choice over their fate other than to give in to pressure. Until that pressure grew too strong under the greed of the privileged, as it always does eventually, giving way to revolution.
Throughout history, people have been coerced into a subordinate position by the stronger party, without much choice over their fate other than to give in to pressure. Until that pressure grew too strong under the greed of the privileged, as it always does eventually, giving way to revolution.
The camel's back is breaking and we're already half way to right wing populist authoritarianism. Meaningful piecemeal reform is necessary but will take decades. We need a Carnation moment. People need to feel like they have a meaningful future again. This will either come as a light civil war or a mass popular movement. Choose blood. Choose not. Choose a revolution for some or a revolution for everyone. Choose soon as the time is limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_(German)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_(German)
If you’re interested in this topic, I really recommend reading How Fascism Works, by Jason Stanley. [1] It’s a remarkable book - slim, easy to read, and enlightening. What was most astonishing to me was that there is a playbook: ever wonder why these regimes always target LGTBQ people, for example? It’s explained here, along with everything else you need to know about the mechanics of prosaic, predictable type of government.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Fascism_Works
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Fascism_Works
To save some people a click:
> According to a New York Times review, Stanley's book—a "slim volume"—"breezes across decades and continents" and says that Donald Trump "resembles other purveyors of authoritarian ultranationalism."
> According to a New York Times review, Stanley's book—a "slim volume"—"breezes across decades and continents" and says that Donald Trump "resembles other purveyors of authoritarian ultranationalism."
Anyone else with ADHD struggle to parse this?
"when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."
Remember that, then they attack the immigrants, the woke people, the trans gender and the leftist...
Remember that, then they attack the immigrants, the woke people, the trans gender and the leftist...
I think this is interesting, but perhaps for reasons other than intended. I think it shows the formation of the post-war mythology that Germans used to explain to themselves how their family members or parents were good people, and did not deserve any punishment, despite the involvement in the most genocidal movement in modern history.
When you read these accounts, it always feels like no one had any agency or knowledge what's going on, that Hitler was basically a lone wolf who installed himself in power against the wishes of the nation, that had some outlandish ideas that no good German believed in, and that then he and a small band of his supporters somehow forced everyone to comply.
And to be clear, it was a totalitarian state, but it also wasn't North Korea and no Soviet Union. If nothing else, you could always leave. Many countries wouldn't take fleeing Jews, but as a dissenting German, you'd be welcomed with open hands almost everywhere.
So yes, of course there were people who hated the regime, and just decided they didn't want to or couldn't rock the boat. But a significant portion of the population approved of what was happening. Hitler was wildly popular. Millions of people enthusiastically bought into what he was selling. Germany perceived itself as a wounded lion after WWI. They felt they had a rightful claim on their "living space". And antisemitism in Europe needed no marketing. Tellingly, purges of Jews continued even after the war in the Soviet sphere of influence.
My point is, for every person who genuinely had no choice, there were ten who definitely had it, who more or less approved what was happening, and who would have been proud of it had Germany won the war.
When you read these accounts, it always feels like no one had any agency or knowledge what's going on, that Hitler was basically a lone wolf who installed himself in power against the wishes of the nation, that had some outlandish ideas that no good German believed in, and that then he and a small band of his supporters somehow forced everyone to comply.
And to be clear, it was a totalitarian state, but it also wasn't North Korea and no Soviet Union. If nothing else, you could always leave. Many countries wouldn't take fleeing Jews, but as a dissenting German, you'd be welcomed with open hands almost everywhere.
So yes, of course there were people who hated the regime, and just decided they didn't want to or couldn't rock the boat. But a significant portion of the population approved of what was happening. Hitler was wildly popular. Millions of people enthusiastically bought into what he was selling. Germany perceived itself as a wounded lion after WWI. They felt they had a rightful claim on their "living space". And antisemitism in Europe needed no marketing. Tellingly, purges of Jews continued even after the war in the Soviet sphere of influence.
My point is, for every person who genuinely had no choice, there were ten who definitely had it, who more or less approved what was happening, and who would have been proud of it had Germany won the war.
> Tellingly, purges of Jews continued even after the war in the Soviet sphere of influence.
How much of that was specifically because of Stalin ? (Noticeable changes after his death ?)
How much of that was specifically because of Stalin ? (Noticeable changes after his death ?)
history does not repeat itself it rhymes
This has been true in the USA since approximately 1965, at least. Analysis has shown the general public has absolutely no say in policy making; literally everything is for this or that influential “special interest.”
This is borne out in the erosion of what we now euphemistically call the middle class along basically every dimension that matters.
Some of the heat here is on account of members of this community are, or at least are used to being, special interests that have had a powerful voice in previous administrations and less of one in the current one. But let’s not pretend this is some sort of creeping fascism, it’s just a different faction of elites making their own plays.
This is borne out in the erosion of what we now euphemistically call the middle class along basically every dimension that matters.
Some of the heat here is on account of members of this community are, or at least are used to being, special interests that have had a powerful voice in previous administrations and less of one in the current one. But let’s not pretend this is some sort of creeping fascism, it’s just a different faction of elites making their own plays.
Look at Russians right now.
The vast majority of them do their jobs, pay their taxes, and consider themselves patriots and good people because they help their families and motherland, and are polite and well-meaning.
While their jobs help the military machine that murders thousands of innocent people every week, their taxes fund that machine, and their complacency keeps the system stable for decades, costing not only their enemies, but also themselves and their own kids their futures.
When starvation, war, and political terror come, they will consider themselves innocent victims of another unearned, unavoidable political tragedy - not understanding their own decades of inaction brought it on them.
And America isn't that far behind.
Not thinking objectively, living unconsciously, engrossed in short-term matters - is the worst sin that leads to all the other sins. It's how it happened in Belarus, Russia and it's how it's going to happen in US.
The vast majority of them do their jobs, pay their taxes, and consider themselves patriots and good people because they help their families and motherland, and are polite and well-meaning.
While their jobs help the military machine that murders thousands of innocent people every week, their taxes fund that machine, and their complacency keeps the system stable for decades, costing not only their enemies, but also themselves and their own kids their futures.
When starvation, war, and political terror come, they will consider themselves innocent victims of another unearned, unavoidable political tragedy - not understanding their own decades of inaction brought it on them.
And America isn't that far behind.
Not thinking objectively, living unconsciously, engrossed in short-term matters - is the worst sin that leads to all the other sins. It's how it happened in Belarus, Russia and it's how it's going to happen in US.
While I see what you’re saying I think it’s taking the “outside view” of things. It’d be great for those people to down tools and protest, but what would they gain?
It’s difficult to know when to down tools and make noise. If they avoid the almost certain ruin of dissidence and just keep working and living, there’s a chance things blow over, and their families get a better future.
It’s difficult to know when to down tools and make noise. If they avoid the almost certain ruin of dissidence and just keep working and living, there’s a chance things blow over, and their families get a better future.
The problem is that essays like this are always written, preserved and propagated with the benefit of hindsight, producing the mistaken feeling that an actionable lesson is contained within.
"A bad thing happened. We had been a little uneasy, but did not act on it. Well, of course it was hard to act on mere unease. Still, if only we had acted on it sooner...". And thus, what we take away is a simple lesson and call to action - are you feeling uneasy now? If so, it is time to stop and work to derail society from whatever track it is on.
Something that never makes it into these essays are all the times when people felt uneasy and overwhelmed, and yet nothing happened that in our backward-looking perspective ought to have been prevented. Were those feelings of unease distinguishable, to those who had them, from those experienced by the protagonists of this essay?
Something that is discussed even less are all the instances where people experienced the same unease and alienation and did act on them. The story of Nazi Germany is told as one of evil purpose-driven agitators, their evil enabling cronies, and a whole host of good people who were vaguely uneasy but did nothing. A parallel story unfolded throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, though. Germany had lost an existential war, and was under crushing pressure from the victors which wanted to be paid their dues in flesh. Society was tearing at the seams, the massive country to the East had fallen to a totalitarian revolution and rumours of repression and atrocities were trickling in every day even as their sympathisers engaged in street violence and made no secret of wanting to establish the same system at home. First the global financial crisis destroyed whatever semblance of stability and prosperity was left, and then government was paralysed due to lack of majorities even as a repeat loomed. Then, too, good people were vaguely and then increasingly uneasy - and then they decided to actually do something about it. That something was a last-ditch stabilising effort by setting aside factionalism and forming a unity government of anti-communist parties. The rest is history.
As far as more modern comparisons are concerned, I find it difficult to read this essay and not draw a comparison to the COVID years. "Receiving decisions deliberated in secret"? "Believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand"? "or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security"? "Demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before"? Unfortunately, for the Terminally Online, that period has now receded into history as a cute extended staycation that normalised remote working. This obscures the extent to which, right now, the US may be experiencing the results of good "big men" (on the other side) having decided to act on their increasing sense of unease.
"A bad thing happened. We had been a little uneasy, but did not act on it. Well, of course it was hard to act on mere unease. Still, if only we had acted on it sooner...". And thus, what we take away is a simple lesson and call to action - are you feeling uneasy now? If so, it is time to stop and work to derail society from whatever track it is on.
Something that never makes it into these essays are all the times when people felt uneasy and overwhelmed, and yet nothing happened that in our backward-looking perspective ought to have been prevented. Were those feelings of unease distinguishable, to those who had them, from those experienced by the protagonists of this essay?
Something that is discussed even less are all the instances where people experienced the same unease and alienation and did act on them. The story of Nazi Germany is told as one of evil purpose-driven agitators, their evil enabling cronies, and a whole host of good people who were vaguely uneasy but did nothing. A parallel story unfolded throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, though. Germany had lost an existential war, and was under crushing pressure from the victors which wanted to be paid their dues in flesh. Society was tearing at the seams, the massive country to the East had fallen to a totalitarian revolution and rumours of repression and atrocities were trickling in every day even as their sympathisers engaged in street violence and made no secret of wanting to establish the same system at home. First the global financial crisis destroyed whatever semblance of stability and prosperity was left, and then government was paralysed due to lack of majorities even as a repeat loomed. Then, too, good people were vaguely and then increasingly uneasy - and then they decided to actually do something about it. That something was a last-ditch stabilising effort by setting aside factionalism and forming a unity government of anti-communist parties. The rest is history.
As far as more modern comparisons are concerned, I find it difficult to read this essay and not draw a comparison to the COVID years. "Receiving decisions deliberated in secret"? "Believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand"? "or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security"? "Demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before"? Unfortunately, for the Terminally Online, that period has now receded into history as a cute extended staycation that normalised remote working. This obscures the extent to which, right now, the US may be experiencing the results of good "big men" (on the other side) having decided to act on their increasing sense of unease.
> Receiving decisions deliberated in secret"? "Believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand"? "or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security"? "Demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before"
It's awfully funny that your comparison is to the COVID years! There were a million deaths from COVID. It's almost as if those people don't exist anymore, all those people that died, that their lives were nothingness and not worth fighting for.
Was COVID something new? Yes. It killed a million people in the US because it was new. Is that similar to Nazi Germany's fear of the threat of Jews? To Nazi Germany's sudden decision to invade Poland? Why is COVID your touchpoint of something similar to that, and not something like 9/11, which killed far fewer people, but was enough to send the country to war, with lots of deliberations in secret and secret evidence that proved to be faked?
Nothing was faked with COVID, it was all out there in the open. People who actively lied and spread misinformation got tagged as doing so on some but not all platforms, but they could still speak just fine and have their views weighed against the warnings of the platform which was giving them the means to communicate their misinformation. It's not like a popular broadcaster who said something that the President disliked would get fired because the executives were getting strongarmed into firing the person.
I find your comment quite disturbing, and it is making me reassess just how far down the hole the US has gone. We are far closer to Nazi Germany than I had assumed. That a person that can form full sentences like you do, in paragraphs of thought, and still type these thoughts out. Perhaps its because I was a scientist and could evaluate all the information that was out there in the public, it wasn't a mystery, the basis for decisions was 100% transparent and open for anybody to see. For others, that listened to lies and never got the information or disregarded it as unintelligible, perhaps what you describe might make sense. But I suspect that there are many people like you, and it scares the hell out of me.
It's awfully funny that your comparison is to the COVID years! There were a million deaths from COVID. It's almost as if those people don't exist anymore, all those people that died, that their lives were nothingness and not worth fighting for.
Was COVID something new? Yes. It killed a million people in the US because it was new. Is that similar to Nazi Germany's fear of the threat of Jews? To Nazi Germany's sudden decision to invade Poland? Why is COVID your touchpoint of something similar to that, and not something like 9/11, which killed far fewer people, but was enough to send the country to war, with lots of deliberations in secret and secret evidence that proved to be faked?
Nothing was faked with COVID, it was all out there in the open. People who actively lied and spread misinformation got tagged as doing so on some but not all platforms, but they could still speak just fine and have their views weighed against the warnings of the platform which was giving them the means to communicate their misinformation. It's not like a popular broadcaster who said something that the President disliked would get fired because the executives were getting strongarmed into firing the person.
I find your comment quite disturbing, and it is making me reassess just how far down the hole the US has gone. We are far closer to Nazi Germany than I had assumed. That a person that can form full sentences like you do, in paragraphs of thought, and still type these thoughts out. Perhaps its because I was a scientist and could evaluate all the information that was out there in the public, it wasn't a mystery, the basis for decisions was 100% transparent and open for anybody to see. For others, that listened to lies and never got the information or disregarded it as unintelligible, perhaps what you describe might make sense. But I suspect that there are many people like you, and it scares the hell out of me.
There's little point in retreading all the old arguments about COVID here (whose mind is going to be changed at this point?), but just to illustrate the sort of things I am talking about, there was the early whiplash in government messaging about mask-wearing[1], where the relevant officials outright stated after the fact that they were issuing instructions that were at least deliberately vague about the motivations in order to further an interest (prioritising supply for medical professionals) that was not communicated to the public; and the argumentative contortions[2] to exempt certain classes of political protest from the restrictions that were imposed on everything else.
I'm sure that if you were tapped into certain strands of "the conversation" on Twitter at the time, you did not feel like any of these decisions were made behind your back for inscrutable reasons! I'm also sure that all the way from 1918 through to 1945, there were certain strata of society that were looped into the decision making and never once got the feeling that they were being governed "by surprise". In neither of those situations was this the case for the majority of the affected population, though, and appealing to your own rarefied status as a "scientist" hardly helps the argument that your own experience is any evidence that government during COVID happened by consent.
> Was COVID something new? Yes. It killed a million people in the US because it was new. Is that similar to Nazi Germany's fear of the threat of Jews? To Nazi Germany's sudden decision to invade Poland? Why is COVID your touchpoint of something similar to that, and not something like 9/11, which killed far fewer people, but was enough to send the country to war, with lots of deliberations in secret and secret evidence that proved to be faked?
Editing to replace a section here, because I was unhappy with the (lack of) clarity in my original text. I am not just meaning to make a two-way comparison between COVID and one or another of the German periods. We are looking at four distinct situations here:
(1) The Weimar interbellum (1918~1936). Well-meaning people were beset by a creeping unease over instability and communism (which by 1933 had already killed on the order of ten times your COVID figure). They chose to act on it by enabling Hitler's rise to power.
(2) The Nazi era (1936~). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Their claim to legitimacy is ultimately rooted in the threat of communism, which is very dangerous, but the connection to many measures they take is tenuous (though "understood" by some set of people "in the know"). Well-meaning people were beset by creeping unease, but they did not act upon it. Bad outcomes.
(3) The COVID period (2019~2023?). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Their claim to legitimacy is ultimately rooted in the threat of COVID, which is very dangerous, but the connection to many measures they take is tenuous (though "understood" by some set of people "in the know"). Well-meaning people were beset by creeping unease. They chose to act on it by enabling Trump's rise to power.
(4) Trump II (2025~). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Well-meaning people are beset by creeping unease. (What's next?)
Looking at the first three cases where outcomes are known, do you actually see some pattern that looks like it'd yield a good rule for when unease should be acted upon by well-meaning people? Given these examples and your alignment of course you would be tempted to say "when they are left-wing", but it's not like we can't find relatively left-coded examples similar to (1), or right-coded examples similar to (2). I would go looking to spin a narrative around the French Revolution, or the two phases of the Russian Revolution (which might well be parseable as a case of left action against the Empire, followed by a case of right inaction against the Bolsheviks), but this would require some more research to do at a reasonable level of quality.
> But I suspect that there are many people like you, and it scares the hell out of me.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I am not American or in the US anymore (though I spent many years there as a PhD student, including through the COVID years).
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-becaus...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
I'm sure that if you were tapped into certain strands of "the conversation" on Twitter at the time, you did not feel like any of these decisions were made behind your back for inscrutable reasons! I'm also sure that all the way from 1918 through to 1945, there were certain strata of society that were looped into the decision making and never once got the feeling that they were being governed "by surprise". In neither of those situations was this the case for the majority of the affected population, though, and appealing to your own rarefied status as a "scientist" hardly helps the argument that your own experience is any evidence that government during COVID happened by consent.
> Was COVID something new? Yes. It killed a million people in the US because it was new. Is that similar to Nazi Germany's fear of the threat of Jews? To Nazi Germany's sudden decision to invade Poland? Why is COVID your touchpoint of something similar to that, and not something like 9/11, which killed far fewer people, but was enough to send the country to war, with lots of deliberations in secret and secret evidence that proved to be faked?
Editing to replace a section here, because I was unhappy with the (lack of) clarity in my original text. I am not just meaning to make a two-way comparison between COVID and one or another of the German periods. We are looking at four distinct situations here:
(1) The Weimar interbellum (1918~1936). Well-meaning people were beset by a creeping unease over instability and communism (which by 1933 had already killed on the order of ten times your COVID figure). They chose to act on it by enabling Hitler's rise to power.
(2) The Nazi era (1936~). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Their claim to legitimacy is ultimately rooted in the threat of communism, which is very dangerous, but the connection to many measures they take is tenuous (though "understood" by some set of people "in the know"). Well-meaning people were beset by creeping unease, but they did not act upon it. Bad outcomes.
(3) The COVID period (2019~2023?). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Their claim to legitimacy is ultimately rooted in the threat of COVID, which is very dangerous, but the connection to many measures they take is tenuous (though "understood" by some set of people "in the know"). Well-meaning people were beset by creeping unease. They chose to act on it by enabling Trump's rise to power.
(4) Trump II (2025~). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Well-meaning people are beset by creeping unease. (What's next?)
Looking at the first three cases where outcomes are known, do you actually see some pattern that looks like it'd yield a good rule for when unease should be acted upon by well-meaning people? Given these examples and your alignment of course you would be tempted to say "when they are left-wing", but it's not like we can't find relatively left-coded examples similar to (1), or right-coded examples similar to (2). I would go looking to spin a narrative around the French Revolution, or the two phases of the Russian Revolution (which might well be parseable as a case of left action against the Empire, followed by a case of right inaction against the Bolsheviks), but this would require some more research to do at a reasonable level of quality.
> But I suspect that there are many people like you, and it scares the hell out of me.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I am not American or in the US anymore (though I spent many years there as a PhD student, including through the COVID years).
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-becaus...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...
This book's cover/spine features swastika — definitely controversial on a bookshelf, but can lead to some aggressive questioning ["why own this?" e.g.]. Unfortunately this detracts from the truths within this book (that National Socialist Ideology is attractive to the majority in a fascist regime change-over; you cannot fault ill-informed "nazi citizens" for their patriotism).
Instead of me rambling on about this for the dozenth time, I'm just going to provide some of my favorite passages from the book:
>"My faith found that of God in my ten Nazi friends ... they were each of them a most marvelous mixture of good and bad impulses, their lives a marvelous mixture of good and bad acts. I liked them. I couldn't help it." —xiii
>"Only one of my ten Nazi friends saw Nazism as we—you and I—saw it in any respect. This was Hildebrandt, the teacher. And even he then believed, and still believes, in part of its program and practice, 'the democratic part.' The other nine, decent, hard-working, ordinarily intelligent and honest men, did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now. None of them ever knew, or now knows, Nazism as we knew and know it; and they lived under it, served it, and, indeed, made it." —p47
>"In good times, you work with reward. But in bad times and good, you work. These are good times. The regime?—the regime promised the people bread, and I bake the bread." —p32, quoting a 51 baker, Nazi party manager, in 1933
>"When I asked Herr Wedekind, the baker, why he had believed in National Socialism, he said, 'Because it promised to solve the unemployment problem. And it did. But I never imagined what it would lead to. Nobody did.' " —p47
>"The lives of my nine friends—and even of the tenth, the teacher—were lightened and brightened by National Socialism as they knew it. And they look back at it now—nine of them, certainly—as the best time of their lives; for what are men's lives? There were jobs and job security ... what does a mother want to know? She wants to know where her children are, and with whom, and what they are doing ... so things went better at home, and when things go better at home, and on the job, what more does a husband and father want to know?" — p48
>"...'in 1938, during a Nazi festival ... the entusiasm, the new hope of a good life, after so many years of hopelessness, the new belief, after so many years of disillusion, almost swept me, too, off my feet. Let me try to tell you what that time was like in Germany: I was sitting in a cinema with a Jewish friend and her daughter of thirteen, while a Nazi parade went across the screen, and the girl caught her mother's arm and whispered, `oh, Mother, Mother, if I weren't a Jew, I think I'd be a Nazi!` No one outisde seems to understand how [attractive Nazi ideology] was.' " —p51, quoting an anti-Nazi German imprisoned for hiding Jews
>"The German community—the rest of the seventy million Germans, apart from the million or so who operated the whole machinery of Nazism—had nothing to do except not to interfere." —p56
>"You look every man in the eye, and, though your eyes may be empty, they are clear. You are respected in the community. Why? Because your attitudes are the same as the community's. But are the community's attitudes respectable? That's not the point." —p60
>"Adolf Hitler was good for Germany—in my friends' view—up until 1943, 1941, or 1939, depending upon the individual" –p69
>"All ten of my friends gladly confess this crime of having been Germans in Germany." —p164
>" 'Many of the students—the best of them— understood what was going on in all this. It was a sort of dumb-show game that we were all playing, I with them. The worst effect, I think, was that it made them cynical, the best ones. But, then, it made the teachers cynical, too. I think the classroom in those years was one of the causes of the cynicism you see in the best young men and women in Germany today ... the young people, and yes, the old, too, were drawn to opposite extremes in those [earlier] years ... it is a very dangerous mistake, to think ... that Germans came to believe everything they were told, all the dreadful nonesense that passed for truth' " —p192, a teacher reflecting on students
>" 'Understand, I was proud to be wearing the insignia. It showed I belonged ... still—I didn't want those Jews from our town to see me wearing my insignia ... it hurt me to have Jews see me wearing them.' " —p200
>" 'It is easy these days to say anti-Nazi and even to believe it. Before 1933 I certainly was, but then—only again after the war.' " —p201
>" 'You say Totalitarianism. Yes, totalitarianism; but perhaps you have never been alone, unemployed, sick, or penniless, or, if you have, perhaps never for long, for so long that you have given up hope; and so it is easy for you to say, Totalitarianism—no. But the other side, the side I speak of, was the side that the people outside Germany never saw, or perhaps never cared to see. And today nobody in Germany will say it. But believe me, nobody in Germany has forgotten it, either.' " —p223
>"The six [most] extremists all said of the extermination of Jews, 'That was wrong' or 'That was going too far,' as if to say, 'The gas oven was somew2hat too great a punishment for people who, after all, deserved very great punishment.' My ten friends had been told, not since 1939 but since 1933, that their nation was fighting for its life." —p183
>"Men under pressure are first dehumanized and only then demoralized, not the other way around. Organization and specialization, system, subsystem, and supersystem are the consuqence, not the cause of the totalitarian spirit. National Socialism did not make men unfree; unfreedom made men National Socialists." —p277
>" 'It doesn't matter whether you call it a democracy or dictatorship or what, as long as you have discipline and order.' The sensitive cabinetmaker ... and the insensitive bill-collector ... said the same thing. Neither morality nor religion but legality is decisive in a state of perpetual siege. And the attest of legality is order; law and order are not two things but one." —p284
>"There were only people, all of them certainly guilty of something, all of them certainly innocent of something, coming out from under the broken stones of the real Thousand-Year Reich—the Reich that had taken a thousand years, stone by stone, to build ... how could they understand the world of broken stones that once were houses? Houses mean people. The war against houses was a war against people. 'Strategic bombing' was one of war's little jokes; the strategy was to hit ... houses" —p296
----
There're dozens of typos above, typed while drinking my morning coffee.I hadn't skimmed through they thought they were free [author's styling] since first reading this extremely challenging book, six year ago.
----
Whenever I've recommended to IRL friends (seeing "the book on your bookshelf with a swastika on it!"), nobody wants to read about Nazi's... but this book is about why such ideologies are so attractive, and why ought be avoided.
Read this book, but if the topic interests you Ordinary Men by Chris Rush expands much further on this topic, following a geriatric brigade of conscripted laymen "Nazis."
¢¢
Instead of me rambling on about this for the dozenth time, I'm just going to provide some of my favorite passages from the book:
>"My faith found that of God in my ten Nazi friends ... they were each of them a most marvelous mixture of good and bad impulses, their lives a marvelous mixture of good and bad acts. I liked them. I couldn't help it." —xiii
>"Only one of my ten Nazi friends saw Nazism as we—you and I—saw it in any respect. This was Hildebrandt, the teacher. And even he then believed, and still believes, in part of its program and practice, 'the democratic part.' The other nine, decent, hard-working, ordinarily intelligent and honest men, did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now. None of them ever knew, or now knows, Nazism as we knew and know it; and they lived under it, served it, and, indeed, made it." —p47
>"In good times, you work with reward. But in bad times and good, you work. These are good times. The regime?—the regime promised the people bread, and I bake the bread." —p32, quoting a 51 baker, Nazi party manager, in 1933
>"When I asked Herr Wedekind, the baker, why he had believed in National Socialism, he said, 'Because it promised to solve the unemployment problem. And it did. But I never imagined what it would lead to. Nobody did.' " —p47
>"The lives of my nine friends—and even of the tenth, the teacher—were lightened and brightened by National Socialism as they knew it. And they look back at it now—nine of them, certainly—as the best time of their lives; for what are men's lives? There were jobs and job security ... what does a mother want to know? She wants to know where her children are, and with whom, and what they are doing ... so things went better at home, and when things go better at home, and on the job, what more does a husband and father want to know?" — p48
>"...'in 1938, during a Nazi festival ... the entusiasm, the new hope of a good life, after so many years of hopelessness, the new belief, after so many years of disillusion, almost swept me, too, off my feet. Let me try to tell you what that time was like in Germany: I was sitting in a cinema with a Jewish friend and her daughter of thirteen, while a Nazi parade went across the screen, and the girl caught her mother's arm and whispered, `oh, Mother, Mother, if I weren't a Jew, I think I'd be a Nazi!` No one outisde seems to understand how [attractive Nazi ideology] was.' " —p51, quoting an anti-Nazi German imprisoned for hiding Jews
>"The German community—the rest of the seventy million Germans, apart from the million or so who operated the whole machinery of Nazism—had nothing to do except not to interfere." —p56
>"You look every man in the eye, and, though your eyes may be empty, they are clear. You are respected in the community. Why? Because your attitudes are the same as the community's. But are the community's attitudes respectable? That's not the point." —p60
>"Adolf Hitler was good for Germany—in my friends' view—up until 1943, 1941, or 1939, depending upon the individual" –p69
>"All ten of my friends gladly confess this crime of having been Germans in Germany." —p164
>" 'Many of the students—the best of them— understood what was going on in all this. It was a sort of dumb-show game that we were all playing, I with them. The worst effect, I think, was that it made them cynical, the best ones. But, then, it made the teachers cynical, too. I think the classroom in those years was one of the causes of the cynicism you see in the best young men and women in Germany today ... the young people, and yes, the old, too, were drawn to opposite extremes in those [earlier] years ... it is a very dangerous mistake, to think ... that Germans came to believe everything they were told, all the dreadful nonesense that passed for truth' " —p192, a teacher reflecting on students
>" 'Understand, I was proud to be wearing the insignia. It showed I belonged ... still—I didn't want those Jews from our town to see me wearing my insignia ... it hurt me to have Jews see me wearing them.' " —p200
>" 'It is easy these days to say anti-Nazi and even to believe it. Before 1933 I certainly was, but then—only again after the war.' " —p201
>" 'You say Totalitarianism. Yes, totalitarianism; but perhaps you have never been alone, unemployed, sick, or penniless, or, if you have, perhaps never for long, for so long that you have given up hope; and so it is easy for you to say, Totalitarianism—no. But the other side, the side I speak of, was the side that the people outside Germany never saw, or perhaps never cared to see. And today nobody in Germany will say it. But believe me, nobody in Germany has forgotten it, either.' " —p223
>"The six [most] extremists all said of the extermination of Jews, 'That was wrong' or 'That was going too far,' as if to say, 'The gas oven was somew2hat too great a punishment for people who, after all, deserved very great punishment.' My ten friends had been told, not since 1939 but since 1933, that their nation was fighting for its life." —p183
>"Men under pressure are first dehumanized and only then demoralized, not the other way around. Organization and specialization, system, subsystem, and supersystem are the consuqence, not the cause of the totalitarian spirit. National Socialism did not make men unfree; unfreedom made men National Socialists." —p277
>" 'It doesn't matter whether you call it a democracy or dictatorship or what, as long as you have discipline and order.' The sensitive cabinetmaker ... and the insensitive bill-collector ... said the same thing. Neither morality nor religion but legality is decisive in a state of perpetual siege. And the attest of legality is order; law and order are not two things but one." —p284
>"There were only people, all of them certainly guilty of something, all of them certainly innocent of something, coming out from under the broken stones of the real Thousand-Year Reich—the Reich that had taken a thousand years, stone by stone, to build ... how could they understand the world of broken stones that once were houses? Houses mean people. The war against houses was a war against people. 'Strategic bombing' was one of war's little jokes; the strategy was to hit ... houses" —p296
----
There're dozens of typos above, typed while drinking my morning coffee.I hadn't skimmed through they thought they were free [author's styling] since first reading this extremely challenging book, six year ago.
----
Whenever I've recommended to IRL friends (seeing "the book on your bookshelf with a swastika on it!"), nobody wants to read about Nazi's... but this book is about why such ideologies are so attractive, and why ought be avoided.
Read this book, but if the topic interests you Ordinary Men by Chris Rush expands much further on this topic, following a geriatric brigade of conscripted laymen "Nazis."
¢¢
> I was sitting in a cinema with a Jewish friend and her daughter of thirteen, while a Nazi parade went across the screen, and the girl caught her mother's arm and whispered, `oh, Mother, Mother, if I weren't a Jew, I think I'd be a Nazi!` No one outisde seems to understand how [attractive Nazi ideology] was.' "
It pays off to point out that actual Jews and opposition left completely different writings and opinions. They did not felt free, in fact. By the 1938, they were thoroughly victimized and fully aware of it.
There was a lot of fear in Germany itself.
The above are opinions and feelings of Nazi, basically. It make sense to write and analyze those, but they dont speak for non-nazi germans, they dont know former opposition, Jews or minorities actually felt and thought.
It pays off to point out that actual Jews and opposition left completely different writings and opinions. They did not felt free, in fact. By the 1938, they were thoroughly victimized and fully aware of it.
There was a lot of fear in Germany itself.
The above are opinions and feelings of Nazi, basically. It make sense to write and analyze those, but they dont speak for non-nazi germans, they dont know former opposition, Jews or minorities actually felt and thought.
Correct, the above quotes are from a book which uses German citizens' POVs to explore the dangerous allure of National Socialism to a majority-in-crisis (some using Nazis' own words). A Jew recommended this fantastic book to me [if that matters to you] after he and I had discussed Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning.
>"if I weren't a Jew, I think I'd be a Nazi!" —p51, an anti-Nazi German, imprisoned for hiding Jews, quoting a Jewish girl he'd overheard telling her own mother.
Was there a reason you cited that particular quote..?
It's interesting, from that of certain famous Jewish POVs, that both Albert Einstein & Henry Kissenger also lamented similarly, well into their old ages (only being Jewish because of birth into Its customs).
I'd love to have real conversations [which is something this book assists readers with, regardless of "Nazi perspective only" as you somewhat-erroneously proclaim]. This is a book about ending hate.
>"if I weren't a Jew, I think I'd be a Nazi!" —p51, an anti-Nazi German, imprisoned for hiding Jews, quoting a Jewish girl he'd overheard telling her own mother.
Was there a reason you cited that particular quote..?
It's interesting, from that of certain famous Jewish POVs, that both Albert Einstein & Henry Kissenger also lamented similarly, well into their old ages (only being Jewish because of birth into Its customs).
I'd love to have real conversations [which is something this book assists readers with, regardless of "Nazi perspective only" as you somewhat-erroneously proclaim]. This is a book about ending hate.
German citizen and German nazi sympathizer are two different things. They are overlapping, obviously, but they are not nearly the same thing. As in, German citizens were not free nor felt free by 1938 - very dominant feeling was fear. Evans quotes a non Jew German who said that living inside Reich meant living in constant fear (of being denounced due to either saying something wrong or just simply because someone wants to harm you).
1.) Notably, German Jews were German citizens, fought in WWI and actually frequently patriots. Likewise their non Jew partners. But beyond that, German political opposition were not free nor felt free, but they definitely were German citizens too. It is present in their writings.
2.) As for Jews, we have literal diaries (most notably by the Victor Klemperer) show fear, disgust and hate toward former friends Germans that went Nazi. In statistics, we see Jews committing suicides in larger numbers and running away.
> Was there a reason you cited that particular quote..?
Because that annoyed me the most. It is very cherry picked example that creates completely wrong picture of what Jews were saying and writing at that time.
> only being Jewish because of birth into Its customs
Nazi defined Jewishness per blood, if you had one grand parent who was Jew, you was Jew. They did not used religious definition and they did not cared about lifestyle.
1.) Notably, German Jews were German citizens, fought in WWI and actually frequently patriots. Likewise their non Jew partners. But beyond that, German political opposition were not free nor felt free, but they definitely were German citizens too. It is present in their writings.
2.) As for Jews, we have literal diaries (most notably by the Victor Klemperer) show fear, disgust and hate toward former friends Germans that went Nazi. In statistics, we see Jews committing suicides in larger numbers and running away.
> Was there a reason you cited that particular quote..?
Because that annoyed me the most. It is very cherry picked example that creates completely wrong picture of what Jews were saying and writing at that time.
> only being Jewish because of birth into Its customs
Nazi defined Jewishness per blood, if you had one grand parent who was Jew, you was Jew. They did not used religious definition and they did not cared about lifestyle.
And yet, every government does _not_ stumble into fascism.
So, what stops them ?
So, what stops them ?
Free societies are not ruled by decree.
Free societies are not ruled through masses.
Who gets to rule, then, and why? Your position that the masses shouldn't rule is at odds with a government legitimized by the consent of the government. Why should I or anyone else obey a government I don't consider legitimate?
Five essential questions of democracy (Tony Benn):
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
The problem is one of scale, at the macro level.
The upside to large countries is that they are economically and militarily stronger, on average. This is leads to a high resistance to outside influence. The downside is large enough (arbitrary) populations encompass multiple ideologies and understandings of the world, which lead to infighting and ultimately destabilization. Note the 3.5% rule, among cultural drift and competing economic incentives.
On the flip side, a small concentrated population is more stable internally, but is fragile to outside influences.
The short answer is the masses are precisely who should rule. The long answer is that they can't if you want the nation to be independent. I posit, there is no optimal balance. There are only different choices that ultimately lead to ruin.
The upside to large countries is that they are economically and militarily stronger, on average. This is leads to a high resistance to outside influence. The downside is large enough (arbitrary) populations encompass multiple ideologies and understandings of the world, which lead to infighting and ultimately destabilization. Note the 3.5% rule, among cultural drift and competing economic incentives.
On the flip side, a small concentrated population is more stable internally, but is fragile to outside influences.
The short answer is the masses are precisely who should rule. The long answer is that they can't if you want the nation to be independent. I posit, there is no optimal balance. There are only different choices that ultimately lead to ruin.
A ruling technology maybe. Open source, auditable.
Those who watch the Watchers.
Switzerland is obviously ruled by the masses, and that is freedom for those masses, so I think what you say here is quite false.
I can't tell if you're being ironic.
It's not sarcasm. I believe that the mass of Swiss people rule Switzerland in practice and have the ability to overrule their government if it proposes a measure they dislike.
Which unfree society is ruled by the people? (not in name like north korea or soviet). Swizerland?
[deleted]
Oh the masses didn't like that.
Keep on like that and you'll be accused of unscientificness.
Keep on like that and you'll be accused of unscientificness.
mrangle(1)
This felt so insightful, but then they started going on about jews, and I realized it’s from ‘55.
No, they noticed. 90 years ago, 2/3 of the world's books were in Germany. They were educated and literate and knew what they were doing and what was happening. Germans were acutely aware of the reality of the day to day situation and their previous history in WW1.
I just read the book last week. What you said is not true in any useful sense. “Germans were acutely aware…” tries to reduce an entire population and years into one statement. Reality has much more color.
For the germans interviewed in the book, it seems to be true that many had read or heard about the camps or other atrocities, but (1) not the “final solution” which was not in the press and (2) there seems to be heavy desensitization from 1933-1955 when the book was written.
Aside from the tailor that had started the fire at the synagogue, the other 9 interviewees had not directly witnessed atrocities being committed, and instead focused on their personal hardships during the war.
Even though they may have been literate, the people in Mayer’s book were ignorant of the specific realities. Perhaps willfully ignorant, yes, but the nazi regime really did not give any opportunities otherwise.
—
not an expert, just reporting my notes from the book.
i highly recommend all americans read it, its not a long book. it feels eerily familiar, even though many circumstances are drastically different.
For the germans interviewed in the book, it seems to be true that many had read or heard about the camps or other atrocities, but (1) not the “final solution” which was not in the press and (2) there seems to be heavy desensitization from 1933-1955 when the book was written.
Aside from the tailor that had started the fire at the synagogue, the other 9 interviewees had not directly witnessed atrocities being committed, and instead focused on their personal hardships during the war.
Even though they may have been literate, the people in Mayer’s book were ignorant of the specific realities. Perhaps willfully ignorant, yes, but the nazi regime really did not give any opportunities otherwise.
—
not an expert, just reporting my notes from the book.
i highly recommend all americans read it, its not a long book. it feels eerily familiar, even though many circumstances are drastically different.
Mein Kampf was published 1924 and distributed broadly.
There was not much hidden, the goal of making a big war in the east to conquer new land for the Aryans was there in big letters in the open.
His views towards jews likewise.
So they knew. Maybe largely did not wanted to know. And they did celebrate the victories of the german army as their own. They only stopped celebrating after the victories stopped happening and it was more and more clear that the war will be lost.
There was not much hidden, the goal of making a big war in the east to conquer new land for the Aryans was there in big letters in the open.
His views towards jews likewise.
So they knew. Maybe largely did not wanted to know. And they did celebrate the victories of the german army as their own. They only stopped celebrating after the victories stopped happening and it was more and more clear that the war will be lost.
Yes.
Also, Project 2025 was openly published. Anybody could read it. They aren't hiding the goals.
People just don't want to bother with it.
Also, Project 2025 was openly published. Anybody could read it. They aren't hiding the goals.
People just don't want to bother with it.
PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published an interesting 'report' in 2000
In their defense, there is an inexhaustable supply of "take over w my ideology material."
This is a confluence of many conditions. Some long-focused efforts, some architecting and annealing of interests, some individual greed, some long-lasting effects of trauma, and some massive ignorance.
One of the only good points is that the American people are stubbornly allergic to authoritarianism. Yes there are exceptions, but mainly carved out by people trading it for self-interest. Many good surprises like Tucker Carlson's opposition to squashing free speech and the Republican's long-lasting distaste for pedophilia are still out there.
The post above pointing out how we're diff to Nazism is on point. There have been many more authoritarian plays since then. Americans remain conveniently ignorant of them.
Also we're being economically crushed and everyone feels it. Although racism is a powerful tool by this movement, it's actually centered around impoverishing everyone and the dizzying egos of its leaders.
This is a confluence of many conditions. Some long-focused efforts, some architecting and annealing of interests, some individual greed, some long-lasting effects of trauma, and some massive ignorance.
One of the only good points is that the American people are stubbornly allergic to authoritarianism. Yes there are exceptions, but mainly carved out by people trading it for self-interest. Many good surprises like Tucker Carlson's opposition to squashing free speech and the Republican's long-lasting distaste for pedophilia are still out there.
The post above pointing out how we're diff to Nazism is on point. There have been many more authoritarian plays since then. Americans remain conveniently ignorant of them.
Also we're being economically crushed and everyone feels it. Although racism is a powerful tool by this movement, it's actually centered around impoverishing everyone and the dizzying egos of its leaders.
I like a lot of what you are saying. But sadly I think it is an older view. Maybe this was true in 80's before social media.
"American people are stubbornly allergic to authoritarianism"
Literally 40%+ of Americans have voted for Authoritarianism. It's viewed as being 'tough'.
"American people are stubbornly allergic to authoritarianism"
Literally 40%+ of Americans have voted for Authoritarianism. It's viewed as being 'tough'.
There is no anti-authoritarian party. Are lockdowns not authoritarian? Do mandates to take an experimental vaccine not violate bodily autonomy? How quickly everyone forgets the widescale censorship and lawfare. Snowden had to flee the country and Chelsea Manning was imprisoned during the Obama presidency.
On a more pragmatic level, take the one-party state of California, and the absurd burden of its regulations. These largely prevent the construction of anything new, as seen in the infamous high speed rail project, and the restricted supply of new housing, pricing many young people out of ever owning a home. Perhaps you don't think regulations are authoritarian, yet they're enforced with the power of the state, which wields the monopoly on violence.
On a more pragmatic level, take the one-party state of California, and the absurd burden of its regulations. These largely prevent the construction of anything new, as seen in the infamous high speed rail project, and the restricted supply of new housing, pricing many young people out of ever owning a home. Perhaps you don't think regulations are authoritarian, yet they're enforced with the power of the state, which wields the monopoly on violence.
One side wants to impose restrictions to avoid loss of life and breakdown of the hospitals. The other wants some people to not exist anymore and are building camps to accomplish that.
Shut the fuck up about both sides being the same.
Shut the fuck up about both sides being the same.
And make one side rich.
One side: hey lets try to save people.
Other side: hey, how can I make rich people more rich at my own expense.
Totally equal.
One side: hey lets try to save people.
Other side: hey, how can I make rich people more rich at my own expense.
Totally equal.
"one-party state of California"
Or Texas. Lets not forget if we are calling both sides the same. There are states with one party. Alabama? Mississippi?
Or Texas. Lets not forget if we are calling both sides the same. There are states with one party. Alabama? Mississippi?
No, they dont mind it or agree with it. They prioritise harm to who they perceive ennemies and projwct 2025 delivers that.
[deleted]
You had to take him seriously but not literally.
Nah, better not literally:
" Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc."
(from Mein Kampf, Chapter 11)
But if no one would have taken him serious, there would not have been a problem. But people did take him serious, they seriously believed he was some kind of messias send from god to save his troubled great country.
" Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc."
(from Mein Kampf, Chapter 11)
But if no one would have taken him serious, there would not have been a problem. But people did take him serious, they seriously believed he was some kind of messias send from god to save his troubled great country.
What I took away from the book was that all these people were very eager to say variants of 'das haben wir nicht gewusst' when at the same time they also describe how the jews were systematically removed from their society and every part of civil society was taken over by the nazi's.
I would add to your statement that almost everyone should read it. It's unnerving to read how 'normal' all these people were in some way and how 'easily' it all happened because the population generally disliked jews.
I would add to your statement that almost everyone should read it. It's unnerving to read how 'normal' all these people were in some way and how 'easily' it all happened because the population generally disliked jews.
Based on history books I read (mostly from Richard Evans), they knew. Nazi violence and concentration camps were public knowledge, because the regime needed to generate the fear. Germans prior war were in fact scared a lot.
This particular book is a out what nazi sympatizants and nazi themselves were saying after the war. It is what it is, but there was real motivation to not have own culpability in destruction of Germany in the open. (Which is what they have seen as tradegy, not the holocaust itself all that much)
This particular book is a out what nazi sympatizants and nazi themselves were saying after the war. It is what it is, but there was real motivation to not have own culpability in destruction of Germany in the open. (Which is what they have seen as tradegy, not the holocaust itself all that much)
It's a contentious issue and many historians disagree. However, even many Jews at the time didn't really know what was going on, as evidenced from letters and diaries of the time. Many Jews genuinely thoughts they were Ghettos or concentration camps, which were surely horrible and surely people needless died there, but are far removed from outright extermination camps. So based on that I'm somewhat inclined to believe many didn't really "know" about the extent of the Holocaust.
Of course it's easy to say in hindsight they "knew" or "could have known", but in hindsight everything is easy, right? There were rumours about Jimmy Saville going back to the 70s, but did the British public really "know" what he was up to? Evne Mark Lawson, one of the few people who actually did stop and report a sexual assault (in 2006, see [1]) didn't really know the full extent of things, not really. He may have suspected, but that's not the same.
Another thing is that during the first world war there was a lot of (mostly British) propaganda about atrocities Germans were supposed to have committed, from raped and crucified nuns to Germans killing children for sport to the infamous "German Corpse Factory". This was widely reported and believed during the war, but after the war this all turned out to be a huge load of bollocks. It severely undermined the trust in the media.
There was 21 years between the wars – that's less time than the start of the Iraq war and today. Imagine what your response would be if the US government would say "we found weapons of mass destruction in $country, here as some vague satellite photos as evidence, we have no choice but to invade".
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/apr/01/the-day...
Of course it's easy to say in hindsight they "knew" or "could have known", but in hindsight everything is easy, right? There were rumours about Jimmy Saville going back to the 70s, but did the British public really "know" what he was up to? Evne Mark Lawson, one of the few people who actually did stop and report a sexual assault (in 2006, see [1]) didn't really know the full extent of things, not really. He may have suspected, but that's not the same.
Another thing is that during the first world war there was a lot of (mostly British) propaganda about atrocities Germans were supposed to have committed, from raped and crucified nuns to Germans killing children for sport to the infamous "German Corpse Factory". This was widely reported and believed during the war, but after the war this all turned out to be a huge load of bollocks. It severely undermined the trust in the media.
There was 21 years between the wars – that's less time than the start of the Iraq war and today. Imagine what your response would be if the US government would say "we found weapons of mass destruction in $country, here as some vague satellite photos as evidence, we have no choice but to invade".
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/apr/01/the-day...
No shit they claim to not have known. No one would say "oh yea I knew they were killing children but i didnt care"?
You don’t know and you can’t know what it was like. The least you could do is try to listen to the people who were there and perhaps do at least a little bit of introspection and consider what you could’ve done differently, knowing what the consequences for troublemakers were. But that seems to be beyond you?
I think OP is talking about the rise of the Nazis rather than the period where the Nazis were already in control and resistance was much more difficult. Although, in fairness, Hitler was already chancellor ‘90 years ago’.
Seems unlikely Germany owned 66% of the world books in 1935.
I'm not counter claiming the rest, but that fact seems off.
I'm not counter claiming the rest, but that fact seems off.
Did you even read the article? They explicitly point out that it was the learned class that was so busy with their other important things that they missed all of it. The whole thing is about how that played out.
"They were educated and literate and knew what they were doing and what was happening"
can be hard, it's happening right now, and a lot of people are really all in, love it. or ignoring it, or sinking into streaming services to distract themselves.
Take your average house frau today, and they think Trump rounding people up is just good old law and order.
People aren't thinking everything through, that's how the overwhelming distractions work.
can be hard, it's happening right now, and a lot of people are really all in, love it. or ignoring it, or sinking into streaming services to distract themselves.
Take your average house frau today, and they think Trump rounding people up is just good old law and order.
People aren't thinking everything through, that's how the overwhelming distractions work.
csomar(6)
The common ground Republicans and Democrats can find is that neither wants the power of government used against them or their rights. The best way to stop the government from being used against either party is to shrink the government until it is a threat to neither party. Lower taxes, less spending, and no regulations infringing on rights or freedoms.
This is one solution to the problem. But it isn't as if its the only solution or one that has no downsides.
I mean from a very trivial point of view, government spending constitutes a large amount of GDP.
What this comes down to, in my opinion, is the question of democratic allocation of resources and labor. Most people believe that there is a role for democracy in the allocation of resources and labor, which is to say that we think that certain societal goals (for example, defense, the care of the elderly or the poor, etc) should not be allocated to by markets but by democratic will.
This seems to be something almost all Americans agree on (though what things should be handled this way and how is contentious).
But to simply shrink the government away has the effect of decreasing the power of democracy to allocate resources, transferring that power to (in an ideal case, anyway) markets.
The fact is, most people do not want to live in a pure free market society, as far as I can tell. They want government services, they want safety nets, they want the air they breathe to be clean and safe. They want the power to decide that sometimes its worth spending money on stuff even if no one accumulates profits in the process.
I mean from a very trivial point of view, government spending constitutes a large amount of GDP.
What this comes down to, in my opinion, is the question of democratic allocation of resources and labor. Most people believe that there is a role for democracy in the allocation of resources and labor, which is to say that we think that certain societal goals (for example, defense, the care of the elderly or the poor, etc) should not be allocated to by markets but by democratic will.
This seems to be something almost all Americans agree on (though what things should be handled this way and how is contentious).
But to simply shrink the government away has the effect of decreasing the power of democracy to allocate resources, transferring that power to (in an ideal case, anyway) markets.
The fact is, most people do not want to live in a pure free market society, as far as I can tell. They want government services, they want safety nets, they want the air they breathe to be clean and safe. They want the power to decide that sometimes its worth spending money on stuff even if no one accumulates profits in the process.
The system you describe is majority rule, which often abuses minority rights. It is better to have a constitutional democracy with very limited government powers.
Isn't it quite difficult to know what is better, even if the question weren't subjective?
It is very hard to conduct randomized controlled and double blinded trials on forms of government. I don't think people can even agree on how to measure how good a government is.
It is very hard to conduct randomized controlled and double blinded trials on forms of government. I don't think people can even agree on how to measure how good a government is.
Korea is that trial. As is China vs Taiwan and Hong Kong pre China takeover.
No one cares about these examples because no on is arguing that China's system is better than Taiwan's or that North Korea (!) is better than South Korea.
What we are actually discussing is whether, for example, Denmark is better than France or the U.S.
What we are actually discussing is whether, for example, Denmark is better than France or the U.S.
I highly recommend actually reading it and understanding what it is and isn’t. Mostly I learned that there’s no simple answers, but also that people and even political movements were just as slippery then as they are now. But you may come away with something completely different. It’s an odd but interesting book.