Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Criminalizing Conservatism Through Congressional Action, Preface.

Criminalizing Conservatism Through Congressional Action, Preface.

A post from Quora.com from earlier in the year, answering the question of the viability of criminalizing conservatism in America, deserves to be quoted extensively - including the comments to the post:







How did Germany ban Nazism after World War Two when there must still have been millions of former Nazis around?
2 Answers

Denazification was imposed on the post-war German government by the Allies. The Potsdam agreement outlined the goals and scope of denazification:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Po...

Potsdam also set up the Allied Control Commission which ran the denazification program in occupied Germany.

In the US Zone, five categories of participation were established: major offenders, activists or incriminated persons, less incriminated, followers and exonerated or non-incriminated persons. Adults were required to submit forms describing their participation in the Nazi regime and were classified according to the categories by special courts. Penalties could range from criminal prosecution to banning from professional work.

The newly established government of West Germany pushed hard to end the denazification program and the US relented in 1951. West Germany went on to pass sweeping amnesty laws pardoning almost 800,000 Germans, including tens of thousands convicted under the denazification program.


 Christopher Huang What happened culturally and socially after 1951?

Thomas Poirier Each zone had its own approach, with the 3 western allies eventually converged. Patton is famously supposed to have said that he couldn't run municipalities without them.

Michael S Goodman,

Also, public display of the cosmetic symbols of Nazism (primarily the Swastika) was (and stlll is) banned, as are groups which the authorities feel to be direct proponents of Nazism and/or of outright denial of the Holocaust, a recent such example being the now banned "Wiking-Jugend".
Thomas Poirier They even put tape over swastikas on memorabilia in open air flea markets.

Michael S Goodman ...and the same in the case of on-line catalogs of auction houses in Germany that specialize in memorabilia of that period.

----------

After a few years, the US relented in going along with Germany's quest to make sure that Nazism was buried forever. Germany's actions pose an interesting framework in outlawing Conservatism in this country.

In 2004, Germany extended the ban to the internet: "German authorities have the right to block Web pages containing extremist content, and the cross-border character of the Internet can't undermine powers vested to the federal states, (an) administrative court in Arnsberg, Germany, ruled..." (
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/98442/German_court_upholds_Web_ban_on_Nazi_content)

 
After all these years, Germany is still infested with neo-Nazis and is seeking to expel their party, the NPD. (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18429463) and (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFoQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelocal.de%2Fpolitics%2F20120323-41513.html&ei=L9HpT5jbNseY8AGPvYSRDA&usg=AFQjCNHSAoX4E3ar2UwZ2qtupT19lcZgcQ)

 







Make no mistake, ridding our country of the evils of Conservatism will prove as difficult. The corporatist aspect of Nazism is not uncoincidentally related to the tenets of Conservatism, and if vigilance is the price of liberty, Conservatism must be outlawed forever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian: Hola, me Ilamo es Brian... Nosotros queremos ir con ustedes.. uhhhh...

Bellboy: Hey, that was pretty good, except when you said, "Me llamo es Brian," you don't need the "es," just "Me llamo Brian."

Brian: Oh, oh, you speak English.

Bellboy: No, just that first speech and this one explaining it.

Brian: You...you're kidding me, right?

Bellboy: Qué?

*Family Guy*

5 comments:

  1. Hey, maybe we can place them in concentration camps, gas them, and then shove them into ovens!!

    That's exactly what they'd expect Democrats/liberals/progressives to do. We got to be more subtle and sneaky than that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your ruse in presenting yourself as a Democrat/liberal/progresive has fooled no one, Anonymous; it has only raised questions in regard to your maturity, intelligence, and an obvious propensity for a fantasy life of sadism and death.

    If you want to play with the big boys, you "(have) to be more subtle and sneaky" yourself, Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Democrats/liberals/progressives want nothing to do with your foolishness either. Case in point (from far-left political site DU):

    "joycejnr (30 posts)

    Message hidden by jury decision
    A Jury voted 4-2 to hide this post on Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:56 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.) When the original post in a discussion thread is hidden by Jury decision, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted."

    You're are as consumed by hate as they are, but even they reject you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Strange, I count 18 posts - 1/3 of them supportive, just the same as the 1/3 support on D/U's jury.

    Anonymous, this is not the first nor will it be the last time my posts were found to be obnoxious by conservative *or* liberal web sites - and if you think D/U is a "far-left' political site, you've led a sheltered web existence. D/U is a moderate forum, and as unacquainted with the idea of criminalizing Conservatism, except as a subject broached by one of their members, BanTheGOP, they are not unfamiliar with the criminal character of the Conservative syndicate.

    By the way, your fallacious slip is showing: if D/U is "as consumed by hate" as I am, wouldn't they have allowed the post to stand? To use the vernacular, "just asking." :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a postscript to the above comment, the following are quick, paraphrased replicas of the "18 comments," showing a wide spectrum of opinions, all but one which have already been addressed in the tabbed pages above, especially "Objections Reputted," and most will be addressed in future posts:

    Better to let ideas wipe out Conservatism, it's unconstitutional to do so.

    This person supports the idea.

    It's crazy, impossible, and too few liberals exist; liberalism = openmindedness. (Parenthetically he/she says that "Conservatives, OTOH, first weed out any solution which doesn't fit with their strict ideological doctrine.")

    Only Congress can do criminalize Conservatism and half the body is conservative; it's a bad pr move, people should listen to the "other side." A federal government would then tell us what we can and can't think.

    We would have to outlaw liberalism too, just leaving us with "bland centeralism."

    Conservatism is pathological, and Nazis liquidated the insane.

    The premise is insane, the premise is fake, thus discrediting this writer and the place I post to.

    He/she sees this sort of insanity all the time.

    He/she seconds the above observation.

    This person is bookmarking the site.

    The current crop of right wingers aren't Conservatives, they're Fascists.

    If a person supports (3 hypothetically) moderate positions, would make them Fascist?

    The premise would be antithetical to liberalism, and is it a joke?

    This person suspects that it is.

    Elections would work better.

    Germany has outlawed symbols and words, Xenophobia, racism, nationalism can't be outlawed.

    "Dumb" idea, and I'm overly-broadcasting my site. (From a moderator)

    Nazism and Conservatism are nowhere alike.

    ReplyDelete