# Third Reich "Pageantry"



## AWP (Apr 15, 2013)

I stumbled across this series. Colorful and frightening to be honest, particularly when you look at the scope of it all. The crowds, the banners...it is rather overwhelming.

http://life.time.com/world-war-ii/n...-myth-of-aryan-invincibility/?iid=lf|latest#2


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 15, 2013)

Good link. I can certainly understand how people fell for it.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Apr 15, 2013)

Awesome pictures.  The sheer numbers of people in some of those photos is unimaginable.  Great link!


----------



## Brill (Apr 16, 2013)

SpitfireV said:


> Good link. I can certainly understand how people fell for it.


 
Yep.





 
CAVEAT: Obama's not a Nazi however the similarities of "media management" cannot go unnoticed.  Group think can have tragic consequences.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 17, 2013)

lindy said:


> CAVEAT: Obama's not a Nazi however the similarities of "media management" cannot go unnoticed. Group think can have tragic consequences.


 
Explain this.  Every President in the 20th cetury has had big rallies.  What is it about Obama's rally that makes you draw comparisons to the Nazis?


----------



## pardus (Apr 17, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Explain this. Every President in the 20th cetury has had big rallies. What is it about Obama's rally that makes you draw comparisons to the Nazis?


 
Probably meaning something like this...


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 17, 2013)

Cool.  Except this "Obama Youth Brigade" doesn't exist http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/give.asp
These kids were doing this as part of a class presentation.  It was never sponsored or endorsed by the Obama campaign, which makes sense because it would be retarded to do so.

And if you want to trot out kids singing to the President, it can get waaaaaaaay creepier:




 
Really folks, this dog-whistle racism surrounding the President needs to stop.


----------



## pardus (Apr 17, 2013)

Deathy McDeath why are you bringing up racism? Where did that enter the conversation?

There are similarities between Hitler and Obama, mainly in the fervor of the supporters which has nothing to do with the leaders.
However, Obama also espoused the idea of a civil organization as equally powerful as the military (SA/SS), he has also pushed a very socialist agenda that is closer to National Socialism than it is to Constitutional American.

I bet I could find some similarities to Bush as well, the Patriot act springs to mind.


----------



## Brill (Apr 17, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> *PLEASE* Explain this. Every President in the 20th cetury has had big rallies. What is it about Obama's rally that makes you draw comparisons to the Nazis?


 
I fixed your quote.  I would suggest you read my post one more time in order to identify where exactly I said his rally was similar to the Nazis'.

What I did write was the German National SOCIALIST (emphasis added) Party manipulated media much like the current administration is doing.  Watch nightly "news" broadcasts of NBC, ABC, and CBS to examples.  The extreme case would be MSNBC: their stories follow lock-step with the Admin's message of rich people are evil, have cheated the system to take advantages to unavailable to middle class/poor, should "pay their fair share" (implying their are not), etc. 

It is well known that many of Obama's policies, particularly his economic and foreign policies, are typically (generalizing here) given a free pass by the MSM whereas Bush's missteps or controversial ones were openly confronted.  "It's Bush's fault."  "We inherited this economic crisis." <----Who actually initiated the idea that every American should be able to own a home? 

To be direct, I really don't give a flying f!@# what race the President is however...the mere fact that YOU brought up racism alludes to the absence of facts in your argument against media manipulation and the only thing that must be left on the table:

Anti-Obama'ites are racist.

Nice.  However...you just proved my point way better than I ever could articulate it.


----------



## Brill (Apr 17, 2013)

Yes, I know, the Politico is racist because it's a Republican mouthpiece, the authors are white males, who surely own guns, probably drive trucks, may or may not have a hound dog, etc, etc: got it. (Deathy, totally messing with you there. )

Regardless, just read the article while keeping in mind the conservative slant but also think about the points made especially in the context of the incident in Libya as well as other hot topics.  I don't recall other administrations threatening journalists (ref Woodward incident).



> President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.
> Not for the reason that conservatives suspect: namely, that a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated. Instead, the mastery mostly flows from a White House that has taken old tricks for shaping coverage (staged leaks, friendly interviews) and put them on steroids using new ones (social media, content creation, precision targeting). And it’s an equal opportunity strategy: Media across the ideological spectrum are left scrambling for access.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-the-puppet-master-87764.html#ixzz2QkE05ea7​


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 17, 2013)

Political discussions are fine. Disagreement is fine. Discussions about touchy subjects are fine. 

Keep this about whatever issue you'd like to discuss, but if this turns into something other than directly related to the OP's initial point, either take it to PM or start a new thread and go that route. I'm up for both.

But play nice, we are all friends here. Well, except for me and Freefalling We gots something so right going on *cue marvin gaye* 

DOUBLE ENTENDRE PUN THREAD POINTS


----------



## AWP (Apr 17, 2013)

Our first Brony just outed himself. "That others may sparkle."

Back to the OP, every politician has their "flair," we need to only watch the respective party conventions during an election cycle to see that. I think what is striking to me was the depth and scope of the flair used by the Nazis. Every event was a reason to set up banners, put on their dress blues (so to speak, "church clothes" or "Sunday best" if you prefer), and expose thousands upon thousands to a message. So, think about a political convention's atmosphere erupting everytime an elected offical took the stage. Imagine dozens or hundreds of soldiers with flags and banners at every event.

Maybe it is my cynical nature, maybe my advanced age of almost 40, or maybe I'm just messed up, but when I hear someone touting a person over an idea it makes my skin crawl. Reagan's face or Obama's, I make no distinction.


----------



## amlove21 (Apr 17, 2013)

Bronie. It's spelled bronie. 

I agree about the pageantry/scope of what a lot of these countries do, even our own. N. Korea, China and Japan to a lesser extent (but equal to our own proclivities). 

I don't like celebrations of these types either. I can barely stand any military "pomp and circumstance", it just creeps me out to no end. 

I have to take a shower like Cher in Silkwood after every retirement/change of command. And that's on a miniscule scale compared to an RNC/DNC convention or what we saw in Germany in the 35-45 Era.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 17, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Political discussions are fine. Disagreement is fine. Discussions about touchy subjects are fine.
> 
> Keep this about whatever issue you'd like to discuss, but if this turns into something other than directly related to the OP's initial point, either take it to PM or start a new thread and go that route. I'm up for both.
> 
> ...


 
Please don't drag Marvin Gaye into your gayfest...


----------



## pardus (Apr 17, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Maybe it is my cynical nature, maybe my advanced age of almost 40, or maybe I'm just messed up, but when I hear someone touting a person over an idea it makes my skin crawl. Reagan's face or Obama's, I make no distinction.


 
One thing that a lot of western foreigners to the USA see as weird, is Americans voting for a person instead of policies. 
In the UK/OZ/NZ to name a couple, you basically vote for the party, that party picks and chooses it's leader and can and often does replace those leaders at will. 

Just different.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2013)

I'll be the first to admit I find it weird.


----------



## policemedic (Apr 18, 2013)

I find Obama weird.  Does that count?


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 18, 2013)

Why not!


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 18, 2013)

pardus said:


> One thing that a lot of western foreigners to the USA see as weird, is Americans voting for a person instead of policies.
> In the UK/OZ/NZ to name a couple, you basically vote for the party, that party picks and chooses it's leader and can and often does replace those leaders at will.
> 
> Just different.


 
Same thing here, although I've seen a shift in thinking and attempts by parties to change the system.  Recently elected leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau is a perfect example; he is not qualified to be in the position but he was voted in for his name.  And I'm sure the party knowingly did it in hopes that the ignorant masses will vote for him in the next Federal election completely based on his name.  Fucking Liberals...


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 18, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> Same thing here, although I've seen a shift in thinking and attempts by parties to change the system. Recently elected leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau is a perfect example; he is not qualified to be in the position but he was voted in for his name. And I'm sure the party knowingly did it in hopes that the ignorant masses will vote for him in the next Federal election completely based on his name. Fucking Liberals...


 
Related to Pierre?


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 18, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> Related to Pierre?


 
His son.  

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


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 18, 2013)

As to the original post, the size and the magestry that the Nazi party presented was overwhelming. It was a function of presentation, as well as content. I was always drawn to the image of the German power and might prior to the start of, and during WW II. Prior to my PCS to Germany, I read everything I could get my hands on. It became clear how much power the media had then, and now. The 20/20 insight history provides a clear view of what was presented -v- what was reality. The time one believes that it could never happen again; it will happen again. There is a clear divide, even predictable, in who will be covering what. We are so blasted by 24/7 "total news" coverage, that it is mind numbing. An hour's worth of news is shaped, rewritten, and rebroadcast throughout the entire day. The media is deciding what we see/hear, what is important, and what the media's take is on everything. We have lost the personal ability to decide what is important, the media decides, and shapes what they think is important; then crams it down our throats 24/7. Not unlike the Nazi media did, and of late, Pravda. Again, if you think it could not/would not happen again; insures that it will happen again. I believe it is going on today.

The link to the Life page is just great, and thanks.

Back to my wee little cave here in the valley.

RF 1


----------



## Brill (Apr 19, 2013)

Red Flag 1 said:


> As to the original post, the size and the magestry that the Nazi party presented was overwhelming. It was a function of presentation, as well as content.


 
With the intended purpose to "demonstrate" or at least implant the seed into the mind of the observer, that a German (or those about to be conquered) subject cannot challenge the state.  If you do attempt to challenge, you will be labeled...an activist (Occupyer, Teapartyer, gun whacko, Shadowspear'ist, etc).

"If all your friends are supporting the State, would you jump of the bridge too?" :-"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 20, 2013)

Why did we attempt to draw comparison to Obama or any president...if we are to choose one it might be JFK.  But the biggest rally I can think of on this side of the pond was at the Lincoln Memorial when MLK delivered his "I Have a dream" speech.  I personally enjoy believe pomp and circumstance has a place in the military and it isn't practiced enough because all these ceremonies always seem to be a shit show.  However, good lord how did he marshall the resources like that, I see how the German people bought it for so long, the NAZIs certainly sold it well.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 21, 2013)

As far as Third Reich pageantry goes, I like this one the best.

"Be That Guy."


----------



## james skeans (Apr 25, 2013)

This does scare me very much. Because i do see the resemblance between Hitler and Obama. And Obama's policies are scary close to Hitlers before the war he started. like taking away gun rights and all of the camps--Im afraid we may have a long 4 years ahead of us, and hopefully we can come together. But its hard when most Americans have no clue whats going on in the world outside of the U.S. And right now it looks scary too me, because i do know what happening


----------



## james skeans (Apr 25, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> As far as Third Reich pageantry goes, I like this one the best.
> 
> "Be That Guy."


hehe--nice catch

Mod Edit: Do not repost pictures or videos when replying.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 25, 2013)

james skeans said:


> This does scare me very much. Because i do see the resemblance between Hitler and Obama. And Obama's policies are scary close to Hitlers before the war he started. like taking away gun rights and all of the camps--Im afraid we may have a long 4 years ahead of us, and hopefully we can come together. But its hard when most Americans have no clue whats going on in the world outside of the U.S. And right now it looks scary too me, because i do know what happening


 
What camps are those?


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 25, 2013)

SpitfireV said:


> What camps are those?


 
Didn't you know they are building death camps for all Kiwi's?  I think they are just South of Mordor...  Bunch of hobbits any way.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2013)

james skeans said:


> And Obama's policies are scary close to Hitlers before the war he started. like taking away gun rights and all of the camps--Im afraid we may have a long 4 years ahead of us, and hopefully we can come together. But its hard when most Americans have no clue whats going on in the world outside of the U.S. And right now it looks scary too me, because i do know what happening


 
Please elaborate on this...most interesting post.


----------



## pardus (Apr 26, 2013)

I would like to have someone, anyone, post exactly what gun rights Hitler took away.

I know (now), most don't, and that included me until recently.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 26, 2013)

http://www.infowars.com/yes-hitler-...ews-into-concentration-camps-or-gas-chambers/

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 26, 2013)

To be honest, Mara, I only really rate that third link and even he calls for more research. Interesting paragraph on page 676 (I would quote it but the formatting goes funny and is no fun to fix at 0223).


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 26, 2013)

What's with all the Kiwi hate? It's not like I said all your women are being rounded up and sent off to the waxing camps.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 26, 2013)

SpitfireV said:


> To be honest, Mara, I only really rate that third link and even he calls for more research. Interesting paragraph on page 676 (I would quote it but the formatting goes funny and is no fun to fix at 0223).


 
Why don't you "rate" it, because you don't like what it says?  That doesn't mean any of it isn't true.  I thought the second link in particular provided useful context and was backed with credible sources.

These are three of the first things that popped up when I Googled to find out the answer to Pardus' question.  I haven't put a lot of effort into it, if you have then post up your findings.  

I think there is one irrefutable truth here, though:  in 1938, the Nazis, under Hitler, began disarming the Jews.  Those are the gun rights that Hitler took away, which is a direct answer to the question asked, and the reason for the links above.


----------



## AWP (Apr 26, 2013)

Sigh...

Like a lot of historical events reduced to 21st Century soundbites, both sides are right in the debate though I think "Hitler was anti-gun" is appropriate. Somewhat.

The Germans, post WWI and pre-Hitler, tightened gun ownership and regulation in 1928. When Hitler came into being he confiscated firearms (thanks to the 1928 laws which required registration) from his political opponents. A new law in '38 solidified this position and to sum it up, "less restrictive gun laws for those in the Nazi party." So, yeah, Hitler was less restrictive for "good" Germans and used gun laws against "bad" Germans. The law in 38 also barred Jews from possessing weapons, but they were only 2% of the population. Given the rabid anti-Semitism in Germany at the time, I don't think guns would have helped their cause one bit, but the reality is political opponents were barred from gun ownership. Based on 10 minutes of reading, I can't find where firearms registration was ever overturned, so that was something the Nazis never had to press for; a little aikido on the German population.

To sum up:the general population could own guns and the rules were relaxed for age of ownership, but political opponents were barred. As long as you were on the right side, firearms ownership wasn't an issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/hitler-gun-control_n_2939511.html

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf


----------



## AWP (Apr 26, 2013)

Hitler didn't need gun control (registration, possession, or confiscation) to rise to power or consolidate his hold. He used it to eliminate a potential threat from his political rivals. He had enough of a grip on the people that he didn't need gun control, but when things went south and even the army was turning on him the people didn't have the means to rise up had they wanted to. Gun control in Nazi Germany didn't play a role in the country's future, but it did elimiate A) any potential threats and B) the people's ability to "vote with a bullet."

You can debate the efficacy of an armed populace in Nazi Germany, but that's not the point.


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 26, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Why don't you "rate" it, because you don't like what it says? That doesn't mean any of it isn't true.
> 
> 
> .


 
Don't assume that. I don't like them because one of the links is infowars which is hardly a credible source. The second one I admit I should have read properly other than looking at the dramatic title on it. The third I liked because it is scholarly and published in the proper manner. Why do you assume I didn't like what they had to say, anyway?


----------



## pardus (Apr 26, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I think there is one irrefutable truth here, though: in 1938, the Nazis, under Hitler, began disarming the Jews. Those are the gun rights that Hitler took away, which is a direct answer to the question asked, and the reason for the links above.


 



Freefalling said:


> Sigh...
> 
> Like a lot of historical events reduced to 21st Century soundbites, both sides are right in the debate though I think "Hitler was anti-gun" is appropriate. Somewhat.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly. 

Thank you gentlemen.


----------



## ebiaihi (Apr 30, 2013)

Red Flag 1 said:


> As to the original post, the size and the magestry that the Nazi party presented was overwhelming. It was a function of presentation, as well as content. I was always drawn to the image of the German power and might prior to the start of, and during WW II. Prior to my PCS to Germany, I read everything I could get my hands on. It became clear how much power the media had then, and now. The 20/20 insight history provides a clear view of what was presented -v- what was reality. The time one believes that it could never happen again; it will happen again. There is a clear divide, even predictable, in who will be covering what. We are so blasted by 24/7 "total news" coverage, that it is mind numbing. An hour's worth of news is shaped, rewritten, and rebroadcast throughout the entire day. The media is deciding what we see/hear, what is important, and what the media's take is on everything. We have lost the personal ability to decide what is important, the media decides, and shapes what they think is important; then crams it down our throats 24/7. Not unlike the Nazi media did, and of late, Pravda. Again, if you think it could not/would not happen again; insures that it will happen again. I believe it is going on today.
> 
> The link to the Life page is just great, and thanks.
> 
> ...


 
I was at the Moffitt Cancer Center for most of the day yesterday and watched the news during that time, it's the only thing to do since I couldn't get any service with my phone. It's the first time I've watched the news for hours. Your aren't lying about it being mind numbing, I felt like I was being brainwashed. The same two major stories are drilled into your head every few minutes and minor stories fill the void between the commercials and major stories.


----------

