this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
259 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18789 readers
3427 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 41 points 1 month ago (3 children)

No surprise there.

Broadly, one can just take a lot of classic Nazi rhetoric and simply replace "Jews" with "immigrants" and one gets current Republican rhetoric.

And that's not a coincidence. The actual point, in both cases, is simply to establish an "other" toward which to get the rank and file to direct their frustration and anger, and in both cases because the rightful targets of their frustration and anger is the ruling class - the same people who are not coincidentally promoting and bankrolling the whole thing.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you look at who the Nazis targeted, it's almost exactly the same groups of people the Republicans target. Union leaders, communists and socialists - people who believe in working together to make things better. The physically disabled and mentally ill. The homeless and the immigrants. Sexual and religious minorities. People of other races and nationalities.

The camps didn't start as (and often weren't) places to murder people. They were places to put people, to hold them until something could be done about them, some place where they could be deported or exiled agreed to take them. But it's hard to get other places to accept large groups of people you've labeled "undesirables", so time drags on.

And if they're just sitting there, doing nothing, surely it just makes sense to put them to work in places where there isn't enough labor. Maybe those factories that don't want to pay workers enough to face the horrible and unsafe working conditions, that seems reasonable, they can contribute to society that way

And it's hard to justify "supporting" people in the camps with food, clean water, sanitation and health care, when so many of your "own" people are struggling, so you start depriving them of these things - it's not your problem, after all, it's up to the administrators to make things work with what they have. And when disease inevitably races through the camps, well, what else would one expect, "those people" live like filthy animals, they reek, they never wash themselves or their clothes, they scrabble in the dirt for scraps - they really are nothing more than animals, really.

And when you get a train of livestock in, you sort them, decide which ones go to the slaughterhouse and which ones are going to be working animals, well that's just reasonable too, isn't it ...

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And that's not a thing I say easily or comfortably. ;)

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

Yeah - I'm aware of that.

I dont think it's particularly relevant to the topic at hand though, which is the jarring similarities between the mechanics of Trump's deportation scheme and the concentration camps of the Third Reich.

That said, it certainly is telling, and not a little ironic, that the regime that Americans generally consider the ur-example of destructive autocracy actually lifted a lot of its strategies and rhetoric from earlier American sources.

Though I have no doubt that one so inclined could trace a lot of the strategies and rhetoric all the way back at least to the Borgias, and undoubtedly further than that.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, but it's more fucked up here because all the non-white folks in his crowds are 100% certain "they don't mean me. I'll be totally fine."

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

That guy in the photo is trying really hard to blend in. I wonder if he knows he'll never be one of them

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Perhaps some of these conservatives could use some re-education.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

About anything happening with the GOP and Trump right now echoes Germany in 1932/33. "Good" for them that Americans are not interested or knowledgeable in history outside their own country.

[–] silence7 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One American has been very interested:

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I know, I know. He drinks the coolaid right from the source. Still, most Americans would never recognize it. Do you still have a history channel program? Might be the best of times to get some of their productions into main stream TV.

[–] silence7 1 points 1 month ago

There is a history channel, but they tend to be focused on stuff like racist conspiracy theories claiming that the people who actually lived in various places long ago didn't do what they actually did, but that it was extraterrestrials instead.

Netflix did a decent documentary on the rise of Hitler recently.