DeathofSpeech
New Member
lrkun said:HITLER!!!
Well, Hitler was dangerous precisely because he presented a lot of arguments that were at least on the surface, rational.
It only required that the German people abandon the ideals of a secular state, and dehumanize one minority at a time.
Take a nation broken by financial collapse, toss in a little fear for the security of their families, create an objectifiable target for their anger and insecurity, and then propose that government was corrupted in favor of protecting those who rot the nation from within and jeopardize security, rights and freedoms and people will be more than happy to abandon those freedoms willingly in the cause of preventing them from being exploited by the "enemy."
The "Ground Zero Mosque" debacle has become a cause celebre for fundies who insist that our government must be based in christian values as a defense against it being subverted by the values of some other group. Precisely the argument used by the likes of Emmanuel Hirsh, upon which Hitler based his rantings in Mein Kampf.
Not only did he see jews as a threat, but perceived secular christians as being the weak link that allowed the jews to bring all of Germany's post WW I ills down upon it.
The solution in his opinion was simple. The "true" pious christians would replace the government, and the state would become synonymous with true christian faith.
Those who threatened Germany from within were stripped of citizenship and humanity and became a disposal problem.
Then when this provided no relief to the economy and made matters worse, the threat was expanded to those who conspired with the enemy from outside of Germany.
...and the Nazis began "restoring" Germany by "reclaiming" surrounding land.
It all makes perfectly rational sense once you buy into the initial argument that humanity has variable valuation and rights apply accordingly.