I definitely agree with you on the democracy point - my whole post was mostly an attempt to explain what I perceive to be the main factors that drive Israeli democracy toward the oppression we see over the Palestinians. The nutters on the hilltop have very little influence on this drive, but the combined forces of Jewish nationalism and protective insulation go a long way toward making these policies successful in Israel's free and democratic society.

I guess, then, in an extremely limited respect I agree with you on the 4th reich thing just because of the comparison between complacent German citizens who were only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Jewish suffering and Jews who are only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Palestinian suffering.

That being said, using the term "Fourth Reich" doesn't illuminate this sort of nuance and instead it accuses Israel of many extremes of which it is not guilty. For example Nazi Germany was guilty of a truly unprecedented campaign to methodically exterminate vast populations based on their ethnicity, and they were literally bent on world domination - I have many harsh criticisms for Israel, but if you think that Israel's conduct can be reasonably compared to that then you are delusional.

In a similar vein, while I do think that Gaza in many ways is the world's largest prison, it is not in any way comparable to Nazi concentration camps. I would much rather live in present day Gaza than be in a Nazi concentration camp, for one, and secondly I think that Israel's policy towards Gaza can better be described as one of control and marginalization, whereas the Nazi's goals with concentration camps was straight up efficient extermination.

So long story short, don't fall prey to the "reductio ad hitlerum" fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) and make a more careful comparison between Israel's and Nazi Germany's respective civilian populations and I'd be more inclined to agree with your point.

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

via Wikipedia:

Der Fuehrer's Face (originally titled Donald Duck in Nutzi Land) is a 1943 American animated propaganda short film produced by Walt Disney Productions and released in 1943 by RKO Radio Pictures. The cartoon, which features Donald Duck in a nightmare setting working at a factory in Nazi Germany, was made in an effort to sell war bonds and is an example of American propaganda during World War II. The film was directed by Jack Kinney and written by Joe Grant and Dick Huemer from the original music by Oliver Wallace. The film is well known for Wallace's original song "Der Fuehrer's Face", which was actually released earlier by Spike Jones.

Der Fuehrer's Face won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film at the 15th Academy Awards. It was the only Donald Duck film to receive the honor, although eight other films were also nominated. In 1994, it was voted Number 22 of "the 50 Greatest Cartoons" of all time by members of the animation field. However, because of the propagandistic nature of the short, and the depiction of Donald Duck as a Nazi (albeit a reluctant one), Disney kept the film out of general circulation after its original release. Its first home video release came in 2004 with the release of the third wave of the Walt Disney Treasures DVD sets.

He's quite a character, he is. He does seem to fit well with what I know of Buddhism. It's not really a religion, like any other...more of an attitude (or life-philosophy, if you prefer). Most of the things that "churches" teach are not really relevant to the Buddhist philosophy.

The basic rules seem to match the basic rules of most religions, but I'm curious about how they/he propose to deal with the more difficult issues. How does he recommend dealing with the Wall Street crowd buying and corrupting the government for their own benefit (and to the detriment of everyone else)? What would he have recommended (to bring out the hoary old question) to deal with Hitler and Nazi Germany?

The little things are easy and obvious, if too often forgotten. The harder things are still important, if for no other reason than that they provide the foundation that we all must grow from.

But... but... this is America and it's exceptional! It can't be like Nazi Germany!

I'm really trying not to compare to Nazi Germany, Godwin's law be damned...

In terms of the US securing it's war prize of western europe, history suggests that the nuke was dropped primarily because the Soviet Union had an army that was in excess of 20 million soldiers and had just beaten nazi germany and taken half of europe. had the soviets decided to keep going the US would not have been able to stop them.
it had very little to do with defeating japan and everything to do with dominating global politics.

@Jaer not sure why you think morality is not involved in the law. The laws, the courts and the police agents are there to serve justice (IIRC).

via Wikipedia:
'Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness'

Also, you make the argument from a point of convenience but several of these people are willing to bear the inconvenience to make their point. Non-compliance is a form of activism and the fact that they are all let go without answering the questions or submitting to searches shows that the DHS agents understand that what they are requesting is actually outside the bounds of our rights as they are generally interpreted. They are simply seeking compliance.

Which brings me to my final point. My German girlfriend overheard the video and then came to sit by me and watch it. She was fascinated with the video and at the end, she commented on the several references to Nazi Germany.

'Americans don't really know anything. That's not like Nazi Germany, it's like East Germany. The only difference is the Stazi got results and nobody dared to resist their constant intrusions so directly.'

She should know, since she lived there until the wall came down. Non-compliance against an unjust act/request is a moral duty. Damn your convenience.

"Are we in Mexico or Nazi Germany?"

WTF... Since when is Mexico in any way comparable to Nazi Germany?

I would argue that one of the most powerful evolutionary advantages we have as a human species is human potential. By human potential, I mean traits like creativity, motivation, artistic talent, critical thinking, communicative ability, etc. It is a weird and nebulous thing, but we do know that it is not unique to any particular group of humans. It is not unique to men, nor is it unique to aryans, and it is not even unique to particular families.

I think that a decent argument can be made that creating a hospitable and reasonably equitable environment for all of these groups will maximize the percentage of humans who excel at these useful traits, creating a better world for everyone to live in.

So if your system oppresses any significant segment of the population, then there is a good chance that you will be less successful. I think that the Jewish brain drain from Nazi Germany is actually a very good example of this principle in action.

I should note that this is an evolutionary principle that is well established within certain groups. It is a massive evolutionary advantage to look out for people within your own group (tribe), which incidentally is why we have a long history of it being totally ok to kill other people's toddlers but not your own (see the Old Testament for examples). I think that now in these modern times we are realizing the benefits of extending that same principle of tribalism equity to the whole human community.

But yea, it's ultimately just a survival strategy. I have never claimed that my view of human morality has any absolute standard or guarantee of success. I can only be thankful that the society I live in has won out over the other ones.

Mind you, I still think it needs improvement - and leaving my little stamp on it is going to be a hell of a journey by the time it's over.

So why did God seem to think it was OK to murder toddlers and enslave people under certain circumstances? I thought that his absolute gold standard of morality was the only thing that was keeping us from devolving into such chaos.

Updated the list

@Sepacore - In the case of Nazi Germany, The Taliban, 1970's Chile and the confederate south, the gun owners were the tyrants. I think gun owners are more likely to support a repressive government smashing it's citizens than stopping it. Even if you don't take recent history into account, guns don't do much against tanks, drones, helicopters, SEAL teams and stealth bombers.

@aimpoint - You make a good point about growing up with guns. To those who grow up in more rural/isolated areas, guns are a useful part of life - hunting, sport, defending your property from nasty critters, etc. Those who grow up in urban/denser settings see guns as things that facilitate crime - drivebys, robbery, murder, domestic abuse, etc.

Nazi Germany - the modern poster child for tyrannical government - actually made it easier for right wingers to get guns*, while making it illegal for Jewish people to own guns. Remember that white right wing nationalist were not oppressed by Hitler. Quite to the contrary, they were emboldened and deified (as the master race) by Naziism. When Germany went Nazi, angry right wing gun owners were in the drivers seat.

If you want to change the government, put down your guns and write a song or a poem. Organize a march on the capital. Stage a hunger strike. Peacefully lock arms and allow the fascists to spray you with firehoses while the rest of the world looks on with disgust.

Violence begets violence.

Source: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act

>> ^Sagemind:

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Communist International, western democratic states were referred to as "plutocracies", with the implication being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them in ransom. "Plutocracy" replaced "democracy" and "capitalism" as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War. For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy


Are you seriously suggesting that someone who thinks this video demonstrates plutocratic tendencies are themselves antisemitic, totalitarian and/or fascist?

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Communist International, western democratic states were referred to as "plutocracies", with the implication being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them in ransom. "Plutocracy" replaced "democracy" and "capitalism" as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War. For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".

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