opozicija

Share
avatar

Posts : 17412
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: opozicija

Post by ostap bender on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:02 am

mislim prica o fasizmu pusta sa udice normalni, liberalni, gradjanski nacionalizam.


_____
navijao bih protiv zvezde i da igra protiv tima od 12 radulovica
avatar

Posts : 10149
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: opozicija

Post by Filipenko on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:04 am

Miki wrote:Svi su gledali da jebu jedni druge i koristili su ono što im je bilo dostupno u datim trenucima.

Nevezano za to, Filipenkov šajkača komunizam je estetski tako bljak.


Jel? Taj užasni komunizam na šajkači, taj neki fazon...?






ficfiric wrote:Valjda se nesto desavalo i pre rata. Ravnopravnost republika je narusena necijom prevelikom zeljom za vlascu i taj je, organizujuci puceve po republikama i pokrajinama, stavio pod kontrolu polovinu predsednistva. Nije cudno sto su se u takvoj situaciji, neki drugi opredeljivali za napustanje takve zemlje


Ni meni ne deluje da je ustav iz 1974. bio naročito dobar. No, neko je skontao da mu ipak ne ide na ruku jer zaista može da da prevlast Srbiji koja je u prilici da sa malo političkih igrarija stekne prednost u federativnim nadgornjavanjima, pa je počeo da se naoružava, diže ustanke, opseda kasarne, ubija "manjine" i priziva prošlost. Jebiga, major Tepić nije digao u vazduh kasarnu Viktor Bubanj u Nišu, niti su se organizovale deblokade kasarni po Beogradu, Užicu, Kragujevcu. Ja ne kažem da Srbija i Sloba nemaju odgovornost u procesu, ali jebem mu miša.

I naravno, No Country je Šešelj. Srao bi po Titovom grobu i sa bezbedne daljine lepio ideološke etikete. 1/1 osnivač SČP-a, SRS-a i kum Vuka Draškovića.


No Country wrote:

Мислим, доста је страшно што је та земља прошла кроз то кроз шта је прошла, а што након свега тога имамо проблем да ствари назовемо правим именима.

Naprotiv, nemamo mi nikakav problem da nazovemo stvari pravim imenima, samo što bi ti lepio etikete bilo kome i to nazivao pravim imenom. Recimo, meni da sam Šešelj, Šešelju. Šta ti smeta da nazovemo stvari pravim imenima, Šeki?

Pozdravi Danu i reci joj da crkne.


Last edited by Filipenko on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar

Posts : 1882
Join date : 2017-01-17

Re: opozicija

Post by zastitnik gotama on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:04 am

onda je manifest destiny fasizam, irish famine isto, otomansko carstvo je fasisticko, da ga jebes tretman nemaca posle drugog sv rata je fasizam.
avatar

Posts : 10149
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: opozicija

Post by Filipenko on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:09 am

zastitnik gotama wrote:onda je manifest destiny fasizam

Naravno, to su Amerikanci, to je NC majndset.


zastitnik gotama wrote: irish famine isto

Normalno, držali su u ropstvu 25% zemaljske kugle i svakog drugog čoveka na planeti, bili uzor Hitleru.


zastitnik gotama wrote:otomansko carstvo je fasisticko

Nego šta je. Ako nije, dajte nama da vladamo Turskom 500 godina i otimamo decu po potrebi, šta fali.


zastitnik gotama wrote:da ga jebes tretman nemaca posle drugog sv rata je fasizam.



Z...a...š...t...i...t...n...i...k...kako beše dalje? Čega? G...o...t...
avatar

Posts : 1882
Join date : 2017-01-17

Re: opozicija

Post by zastitnik gotama on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:11 am

pa to Nou Kantrijevom logikom...othering i sve to.
avatar

Posts : 1902
Join date : 2014-11-06
Age : 27
Location : Beograd

Re: opozicija

Post by fernoux-h on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:15 am

Miki wrote:Svi su gledali da jebu jedni druge i koristili su ono što im je bilo dostupno u datim trenucima.

+1


_____
The Politically Correct anti-racism depends on what it fights (or pretends to)—on the first-level racism itself, thus parasitizing its opponent: The PC anti-racism is sustained by the surplus-enjoyment which emerges when the PC-subject triumphantly reveals the hidden racist bias on an apparently neutral statement or gesture.
avatar

Posts : 1902
Join date : 2014-11-06
Age : 27
Location : Beograd

Re: opozicija

Post by fernoux-h on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:15 am

ostap bender wrote:@gotam: i meni je dosadno, procitaj jovica.

Pročitaj ti Jovića.

Inače, sve ovo me podseti na đubre od teksta koji je svojevremeno napisala Olivera Milosavljević, kao komentar Jovićeve knjige

U skladu sa ciljem da ponudi novu interpretaciju raspada Jugoslavije, autor svoju knjigu metodološki u prvom redu temelji na intervjuima sa živim članovima političke elite, a oslanja se i na memoare, dnevnike i knjige aktera, istražujući motive njihovog delovanja. Polazeći od njihovih nekadašnjih i naknadnih iskaza, a sa pretpostavkom da ljudi u politici deluju subjektivno, autor zaključuje da su svi oni bili sigurni da će spasiti Jugoslaviju, iako su njihove akcije, bez njihove volje, vodile u smeru njenog razbijanja, pa su ih i pad komunizma i raspad države iznenadili.

Zašto im veruje na reč a ne veruje njihovom delu? Zamena realnosti deklaracijama, kao što su "jugoslovenstvo" u kraljevini, "odumiranje države" u socijalizmu, "odbrana Jugoslavije" kod Miloševića, najveći je problem ovakve metodologije koja, iako se bori za "tekst i kontekst", uvek ostaje samo na tekstu.

Po autoru, sadržajna novost knjige je naglašavanje važnosti ideologije pa je ona prva koja smešta ideologiju "odumiranja države" u centar analize uzroka raspada. Tvrdi da je komunistička elita, verujući u koncept o "odumiranju države", decentralizovala njene funkcije do mere da je ona postala nemoćna da se odupre ideološkim alternativama koje su se pojavile osamdesetih godina, odnosno da se država raspala jer je proglasila unitarizam glavnom opasnošću.

Iako polazi od "odumiranja države" kao ključnog ideološkog mehanizma zbog kojeg je nestala Jugoslavija, autor navodi još niz faktora koji su neposredno vodili raspadu: Staljinova kritika jugoslovenskog nacionalizma 1948, pobuna 1981. na Kosovu, hapšenje Janše, raspad SKJ, dolazak Tuđmana na vlast... uz zaključak da raspad nije počeo izborom Miloševića, ni "antibirokratskom revolucijom", već je bio rezultat dugotrajnog procesa slabljenja države. A kako su "Jugosloveni", po njemu, hteli više države, njihova želja za državnošću je dovela na vlast one koji su im to obećali - Tuđmana i Miloševića.

Dakle, "odumiranje države", odnosno stanje ne-države, nije bilo jedino u temelju raspada, ali je simptomatično da u rangiranju ostalih uzroka ima svega, samo nema nacionalizma.

Simptomatično je da u meri u kojoj identifikuje socijalizam i jugoslovensku državu, autor identifikuje i nacionalizam sa demokratijom. Tvrdi da nacionalizam ne mora značiti mržnju, već da je očuvanje nacionalnog identiteta prioritet nacionalističkih politika. Iako zaključuje da sadržaj nacionalne države nacionalistima nije relevantan, pa da on može da bude i nedemokratski, čak i zločinački, ipak tvrdi da je pogrešno zaključiti da je nacionalizam pretežno nasilna doktrina. Smatra ga u demokratskim porecima legitimnom doktrinom koja se pojavljuje kao alternativa, a njegovu snagu vidi u unutarnjoj pluralnosti jer, kako tvrdi, uključuje liberalne, socijalističke, konzervativne i druge vrednosti u cilju stvaranja nacionalne države.

Posebno je zanimljivo kako je autor pročitao Memorandum SANU. Već na početku implicira mali značaj ovog dokumenta za jugoslovensku krizu pitanjem "jesu li akademici SANU doista imali takvu moć nad srcima i umovima mnogih Srba da su ih preusmerili od jugoslovenstva prema srpstvu i to poludovršenim dokumentom koji je u njenoj nakladi bio objavljen tek kad se Jugoslavija formalno raspala?" Kako bi upotpunio tvrdnju o minornom značaju ovog dokumenta, autor pripoveda da se puni odgovor na pitanje o raspadu ne može tražiti samo među idejama, niti samo kod njihovih tvoraca, jer su one samo proizvod konteksta u kojem nastaju. Memorandum je, po njemu, bio više opis ekonomske i političke krize nego politički program za akciju kako je kasnije opisan, tvrdi da ga je tek na desetu godišnjicu pojavljivanja u javnosti, 1996, SANU objavila u svojoj ediciji i da su mu uvod tada pisali Mihailović i Krestić, pa Mihailović i Isaković. Zaključuje da je Memorandum osudio srpski nacionalizam i promovisao opstanak Jugoslavije kao države kroz avnojski koncept, kao i da je bio mnogo kritičniji prema Kardelju nego prema Titu.

Autorova konstrukcija ličnosti Slobodana Miloševića se u velikoj meri slaže sa slikom koju Milošević sam danas gradi o sebi. Prepoznaje ga kao vođu "antibirokratske revolucije", kao "Jugoslovena i borca protiv srpskog nacionalizma" i kao "novog Tita". Osnovna intencija autora je da pokaže da je Miloševića izbacilo vreme, odnosno da je on bio sam izraz narodne volje.

Kako su njegovi ključni zaključci na tragu danas (i) u Srbiji vrlo popularnih teza o nemogućnosti utvrđivanja odgovornosti za raspad i rat, s obrazloženjima da kolektivna odgovornost ne postoji a individualnu treba da utvrđuju sudovi, ali tek pošto istoričari u budućnosti utvrde šta se stvarno desilo jer "mi nismo bili tamo", sasvim je prepoznatljiva i intencija Dejana Jovića da pokaže kako za tragična zbivanja niko nije kriv.


http://www.republika.co.rs/316-317/19.html

Jasno je zašto mi je čudno što Ostap preporučuje Jovića za čitanje. Jer ovo gore recimo kao da je Ostap pisao.


_____
The Politically Correct anti-racism depends on what it fights (or pretends to)—on the first-level racism itself, thus parasitizing its opponent: The PC anti-racism is sustained by the surplus-enjoyment which emerges when the PC-subject triumphantly reveals the hidden racist bias on an apparently neutral statement or gesture.
avatar

Posts : 10149
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: opozicija

Post by Filipenko on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:20 am

zastitnik gotama wrote:pa to Nou Kantrijevom logikom...othering i sve to.


Ma znam. Mislim, meni i dalje nije jasno na koju foru je moguće toliko apstraktno posmatrati krivicu strane X i proglašavati je za najodgovorniju dok strana Y zavodi teror širom republike, mobiliše se, naoružava, etnički i verski huška stanovništvo i slično. Ono što je Sloba radio, Franjo i Alija su radili puta deset, a Kučan i bratija puta tri. Jebote, još uvek se sećam kao klinac na putu do i od Dubrovnika kada smo išli kroz Bosnu i Hercegovinu (Bosnu kao teritoriju i Hercegovinu kao teritoriju, ne Bosnu i Hercegovinu kao nekakav državni pojam jer to ne postoji) kakve sam grafite gledao, a nisam imao ni deset godina. Naravno da postoji Slobina krivica, ali je ona ponajviše u tome što je i sam blokirao saveznu državu i doprineo tome da ona postane nemoćna da se jasno obračuna sa separatistima.

I ne, naravno da politički igrokazi i oh-kako-se-usudila-Srbija-da-prevlada-u-predsedništvu-koristeći-naše-metode nemaju istu težinu i odgovornost kao recimo opsedanje kasarni i početna ubijanja. To su prosto druge dimenzije. Kao da opsuješ ženu a ona te zakolje na spavanju.
avatar

Posts : 1902
Join date : 2014-11-06
Age : 27
Location : Beograd

Re: opozicija

Post by fernoux-h on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:26 am

Filipenko wrote:
Miki wrote:Svi su gledali da jebu jedni druge i koristili su ono što im je bilo dostupno u datim trenucima.

Nevezano za to, Filipenkov šajkača komunizam je estetski tako bljak.


Jel? Taj užasni komunizam na šajkači, taj neki fazon...?



"Šajkača komunizam" ne postoji u Srbiji 2017. Postoji internet komunizam i potreba da se bude originalan u ovim krugovima koji se formiraju po zabitima sajber prostora pa tako neki ljudi, svaki za sebe, izmišljaju svakakve eklektične ideologije - to recimo radi Filipenko na forumu. Po 99% pitanja se slaže sa većinom foruma, a onda s vremena na vreme okači smajli Staljina i divi se staljinizmu na podforumu Istorija ili nekim drugim temama koje većina ljudi ni ne čita. Pokušava da namakne sebi neki "narodski" imidž no narod je za njega onaj narod iz 1945. ili neke ranije godine.


_____
The Politically Correct anti-racism depends on what it fights (or pretends to)—on the first-level racism itself, thus parasitizing its opponent: The PC anti-racism is sustained by the surplus-enjoyment which emerges when the PC-subject triumphantly reveals the hidden racist bias on an apparently neutral statement or gesture.
avatar

Posts : 5484
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: opozicija

Post by Gargantua on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:28 am

zastitnik gotama wrote:onda je manifest destiny fasizam...

friško sa LARB, malopre videh

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-united-states-a-model-for-the-nazis/#!



Spoiler:


[ltr]The United States — A Model for the Nazis
By Stephen Rohde[/ltr]






[ltr]SEPTEMBER 3, 2017[/ltr]


Hitler’s American Model

The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

By James Q. Whitman

Published 02.21.2017
Princeton University Press
224 Pages







[ltr]This is one of two pieces on the question of immigration out today. To the read the other piece, click here.[/ltr]


IN 1925, as Adolf Hitler began to design the barbaric Nazi ideology of racial superiority in his manifesto Mein Kampf, he looked to “one state” as his model: the United States. “The racially pure and still unmixed German has risen to become master of the American continent,” he wrote, “and he will remain the master, as long as he does not fall victim to racial pollution.”

Hitler did not just see the United States as the “leader in developing explicitly racist policies of nationality and immigration” — it was his only example of a country that “already pays obeisance, at least in tentative first steps, to the characteristic völkisch [racial nationalism] conception of the state.” For Hitler, there was

currently one state in which one can observe at least weak beginnings of a better conception. This is of course not our exemplary German Republic, but the American Union, in which an effort is being made to consider the dictates of reason to at least some extent. The American Union categorically refuses the immigration of physically unhealthy elements, and simply excludes the immigration of certain races.

When Hitler came to power, Nazi lawyers, judges, and officials followed the Führer’s lead and expanded their study of systematic American racial exclusion in preparation for writing the infamous Nuremberg Laws.

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and author of several books on criminal justice, recounts this history in his disturbing and alarming new book based on detailed and scrupulous scholarship, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law. “Awful it may be to contemplate,” Whitman concludes, “but the reality is that the Nazis took a sustained, significant, and sometimes even eager interest in the American example in race law.” Based on Nazi documents and a stenographic record of a pivotal meeting on June 5, 1934, Whitman writes that less than two years after Hitler became chancellor of the Third Reich, “it was the most radical Nazis who pushed most energetically for the exploitation of American models.” Nazi lawyers “regarded America, not without reason, as the innovative world leader in the creation of racist law.”

While Hitler’s admiration for the United States’s role in promoting the now-discredited theory eugenics has been well documented, Whitman breaks new ground by upsetting a preexisting consensus among historians who have downplayed America’s influence in the development of Nazi race law. Casting a searching and unapologetic eye on the documentary evidence, Whitman rejects the “reassuring consensus” that the United States’s legal system was insignificant in the Nazis’ quest for a legal solution to “the Jewish problem.”

[ltr]At a troubling time when the United States is in the throes of a deeply divisive and ugly crisis over restrictions on immigration, exclusion of refugees, bans on travel from predominantly Muslim countries, and openly racist political rhetoric, Whitman’s chilling book forces us to examine some of the most grievous sins of America’s past through an unlikely lens.[/ltr]


[ltr]America’s Shameful History of Race-Based Legislation[/ltr]


The government of the United States was founded on a document that institutionalized racism by officially perpetuating slavery. This set the stage for a wide range of race-based legislation, policies, and practices at the federal and state levels, including Indian law, anti-Chinese and -Japanese legislation, “separate but equal” segregation, Jim Crow laws, and restrictions in civil and election laws. According to Whitman, “America was particularly notable for its creation of novel forms of de facto and de jure second-class citizenship for blacks, Native Americans, Filipinos, and Puerto Ricans.” Anti-miscegenation laws were wide-spread at the state level and would not be uniformly eliminated until the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in the aptly named decision of Loving v. Virginia.

Nazi lawyers were particularly interested in the American law of immigration, naturalization, and citizenship, and carefully studied American history. They knew that the First Congress enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly based on race, limiting naturalization to “any alien, being a free white person.” They also knew that for the next hundred years, as one leading Nazi author put it, “a liberal freedom-oriented conception led the United States to regard itself as the refuge of all oppressed peoples.” What piqued the Nazis’ interest was the period beginning in the late 1870s. The appearance of Asian immigrants prompted California to enact Chinese exclusion laws and Congress to adopt the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which was not repealed until 1943.

The Nazis were intrigued by laws like the Asiatic Barred Zone Act of 1917 that excluded anyone from a vast area of Asia as the home of “undesirables,” alongside homosexuals, idiots, and anarchists, among others, which was followed by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, which favored “Nordics” of northern and western Europe over the “undesirable races” of eastern and southern Europe. According to Whitman, from “the late nineteenth century onward the United States came to be regarded as ‘the leader in developing explicitly racist policies of nationality and immigration.’” Or as Theodor Fritsch, the man responsible for publishing the German editions of both the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the anti-Semitic writings of Henry Ford, put it in his Handbook of the Jewish Question (1907), “America, soaked in ideas of freedom and equality, has hitherto accorded equal rights to all races. But it finds itself compelled to revise its attitudes and its laws and create restrictions on Negroes and Chinese.”

The United States was also developing distinctive forms of second-class citizenship for non-whites, which the Nazis saw as useful precedents for designing second-class citizenship for Jews. According to Mark Mazower, author of Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe (2008), inside

the USA (whose racial laws and eugenics movement had earned Hitler’s praise in the 1920s) native Americans were viewed up to 1924 as “nationals” but not citizens — a distinction that late nineteenth-century American commentators acknowledged to be the prerogative of “a great colonial power”; Puerto Ricans were defined constitutionally much as the Germans later did the Czechs — they were “foreign to the United States in a domestic sense.”

According to Whitman’s copious research, what mattered most to Nazi observers in devising a legal system to control the Jews, were US developments in the creation of second-class forms of black citizenship. Blacks were officially denied citizenship status under the reviled 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. While black citizenship was guaranteed in principle by the adoption of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in practice blacks “were deprived of meaningful political rights by a host of later nineteenth-century legal subterfuges, designed to evade the strictures of the post–Civil War Constitution.” The right to vote, essential to any genuine concept of citizenship, was denied to virtually all Southern blacks, as well as in states such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, by means of literacy tests and grandfather clauses (which limited voting rights to those whose ancestors had voted before emancipation). The Supreme Court routinely validated such stratagems and consequently, according to Whitman, the “net result was that American blacks, while de jure citizens, were de facto second class.”

The Nazis saw much to admire in how the United States treated its non-white populations. A “Nordic” example that Hitler encouraged Germany and the rest of Europe to follow was the American conquest of the West, where the United States had, in Hitler’s words, “gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand,” prompting historian Detlef Junker to conclude that for Hitler, the United States was “the model of a state organized on principles of Rasse and Raum” — that is, principles of race and the acquisition of territory for a racially defined Volk.

Whitman concludes that in “immigration and citizenship the American example served not so much as a direct template, but as welcome evidence that ‘race consciousness’ had already begun to shape the law in a leading ‘Nordic’ polity.” Consequently, “American law offered the Nazis something that matters a great deal to modern lawyers: it offered them confirmation that the winds of history were blowing in their direction.”

If this isn’t depressing enough, Whitman’s revelations about how Nazi laws prohibiting race-mixing by Jews in sex and marriage borrowed from American anti-miscegenation laws will make one’s stomach turn.


[ltr]“t is with the [Nuremberg] Blood Law that we discover,” writes Whitman, “the most provocative evidence of direct Nazi engagement with American legal models, and the most unsettling signs of direct influence.” Much of the United States “was infected with the same race madness” toward blacks as the Nazis exhibited toward Jews. A German writer in 1936 cited approvingly from an 1882 Alabama court decision, which held that “the mixing of the two races would create a mongrel population and a degraded civilization.” For the Nazis, the United States offered thepreeminent model of anti-miscegenation legislation. Thirty states declared racially mixed marriages invalid and many made it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The historical record forces Whitman to conclude that “American mongrelization law represented, once again, the only body of foreign jurisprudence offering an extensive corpus of doctrine that Nazi policy makers found to investigate and exploit, and exploit it they did.”[/ltr]



Teaching By Example

On June 5, 1934, 17 Nazi lawyers, judges, professors, and officials attended a meeting of the Commission on Criminal Law Reform. A stenographic report was preserved in German archives but was not published until 1989. According to Whitman, “this pivotal meeting on the road to the Nuremberg Laws involved repeated and detailed discussion of the American example, from its very opening moments, and that American law was championed principally by the radicals.” Whitman’s vivid description of this crucial face-to-face meeting among the architects of Nazi race law, as they soberly analyze American precedents, is dramatic and startling.

After brief opening remarks by Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, the chairman of the commission, Fritz Grau, a Nazi party member who later rose to high rank in the SS, presented a staff report to address the “Jewish menace.” Proposing “an effective quarantine separating the racially foreign elements in Germany from the people of German descent,” he explicitly cited American segregation laws, urging “positive statutory measures that forbid absolutely all sexual mixing of a Jew with a German, and impose severe criminal punishment.”

Chairman Gürtner began the group discussion by displaying a Justice Ministry memorandum on “race legislation in the American states” referring to the “races that must be defended against” including “Negroes or mulattoes or Chinese or Mongols in motley variation.”

As the discussion proceeded, Karl Klee, Presiding Criminal Court Judge and professor of Criminal Law at the University of Berlin, devoted particular attention to American law as a valuable model.

American race legislation too [just like German popular attitudes] certainly does not base itself on the idea of [mere] racial difference, but, to the extent this legislation is aimed against Negroes and others, absolutely certainly on the idea of the inferiority of the other race, in the face of which the purity of the American race must be protected.

Another commission member, Roland Freisler, a dedicated Nazi lawyer who would later serve as the president of the bloody Nazi People’s Court — a “murderer in the service of Hitler,” as one biographer calls him — and participate in the infamous Wansee Conference that devised the plan to exterminate the Jews as the Final Solution, also invoked the American example. Focusing on the laws of the American states and the nature of American jurisprudence in intimate detail, he explained that “[t]hirty of the states of the Union have race legislation, which, it seems clear to me, is crafted from the point of view of race protection.” In a painfully incisive comment, he noted the “bottom line is that the Americans in reality have first and foremost desired to have race legislation, even if today they would perhaps like to pretend it is not so.”

Whitman sums up this pivotal meeting by writing that “when the leading Nazi jurists assembled in early June 1934 to debate how to institutionalize racism in the new Third Reich, they began by asking how the Americans did it.”

A key source for the Nazis was a young lawyer named Heinrich Krieger, who had just returned from Arkansas, where he had spent two semesters as an exchange student at the University of Arkansas Law School in 1933–’34. Deeply immersed in American law, he wrote an article titled “Race Law in the United States” in the journal Verwaltungsarchiv in 1934, published an English-language article in the George Washington Law Review titled “Principles of the Indian Law and the Act of June 18, 1934” in 1935, and in 1936 published his magnum opus also titled Race Law in the United States.

In his book, Krieger applauded Thomas Jefferson and the Founders for the creation of “the strongest prop for the Aryan struggle for world domination,” having previously highlighted Jefferson’s cringe-worthy 1821 declaration on the impossibility of racial co-existence: “t is certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.” Krieger also included a historically accurate account of Abraham Lincoln’s pre-1863 view that the only hope for the United States was the resettlement of the black population elsewhere, a precursor to the Nazi policy that German Jews must be driven out of the Reich. Krieger’s well-documented research would prove indispensable for the infamous Nuremberg Laws, which served the purposes of creating a new Nazi law of citizenship alongside a new law against race-mixing and intermarriage.

On September 15, 1935, at what the Nazis called the “Party Rally of Freedom,” the three notorious Nuremberg Laws — the Reich Flag Law (which enshrined the Nazi swastika as the exclusive emblem of Germany), the Reich Citizenship Law (which subjected Jews to second-class citizenship), and the Blood Law (which criminalized marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans”) — were proclaimed.


By creating a distinction between a “citizen of the Reich” (one who is “exclusively” of “German blood, or racially related blood, who demonstrates through his conduct that he is willing and suited to faithfully serve in the German Volk and Reich” and therefore “the sole bearer of full political rights”) and mere “nationals” (the category into which Jews and other undesirables were relegated), the Citizenship Law codified a combination of de jure and de facto second-class citizenship, which the United States had imposed on blacks.

In fact, the Blood Law bears the unmistakable imprimatur of American miscegenation laws to such an extent that one could substitute the term “Negroes” for “Jews”: “Marriages between Jews and nationals of German blood or racially related blood are forbidden,” and “[e]xtramarital intercourse between Jews and nationals of German blood or racially related blood is forbidden.”


The Company We Keep

At a time when our president persists in his pledge to “Make America Great Again,” one wonders what chapters in our history he wishes to exhume. Does he yearn for a return to race-based immigration and second-class citizenship? Today, many ask whether It Can Happen Here. Tragically, as Whitman’s brilliant book convincingly demonstrates, it already has. The real question is not whether It Can Happen Here but whether It Will Be Repeated Here.

Whitman regrets the “unpleasant fact” that in “the early twentieth century the United States was not just a country with racism. It was the leading racist jurisdiction — so much so that even Nazi Germany looked to America for inspiration.” The conclusion is embarrassing but unmistakable, that “American white supremacy, and to some extent Anglophone white supremacy more broadly, provided, to our collective shame, some of the working materials for the Nazism of the 1930s.”

But is our shame over the disastrous influence America had on the Third Reich almost a hundred years ago enough? Can we just close Whitman’s compelling book and move on? Is the United States today serving as a model for others around the world just as shameful as our race-based laws and policies served as a model for the Nazis?


[ltr]It is now well documented that President George W. Bush authorized, and government officials and consultants engaged in, torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of scores of detainees in our custody in violation of international law. It is also well documented that President Barack Obama failed to hold Bush accountable and instead authorized extra-judicial drone attacks in various foreign countries killing Americans and other innocent civilians. President Trump has pledged to bring back waterboarding “and a hell of a lot worse” and to load up the Guantanamo prison “with some bad dudes.”[/ltr]


What impact have these American policies had or will they have in devaluing the adherence to humanitarian standards under international law by other countries and forces around the world? Recently, Trump extolled the “unbelievable job” President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines is doing in orchestrating the extra-judicial killing of thousands on the grounds of fighting a war on drugs.

In his revealing book Spiral: Trapped in the Forever War, Mark Danner describes how it is that terrorist attacks on a single day could have led a great power into the trap of endless war and how that war has degraded the country’s values together with its security. He demonstrates that “during the war on terror the United States has disappeared people and it has tortured them, with the explicit and official approval of its leaders,” and has engaged in “widespread warrantless surveillance and assassination using remotely controlled drone aircraft.” All this and more have become “permanent parts of what the country does and thus what it is.” Danner finds one of the most regrettable consequences of the war on terror “that so many Americans are now convinced that the country cannot be adequately protected without breaking the law.” Danner convincingly demonstrates that the “birth and growth of the Islamic State exemplifies a central theme of the war on terror: that across these fourteen and more years of war the United States through its own actions has done much to aid its enemies and has sometimes helped create them.”

As a candidate, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and labeled Mexican immigrants drug dealers and rapists. As the Trump administration takes shape, with everything from restrictions on immigration, exclusion of refugees, drastic increases in immigration arrests compared to last year, bans on travel from primarily Muslim countries, to openly bigoted political rhetoric, we must ask ourselves if the United States is once again pursuing a new racist agenda which will serve as a model for other countries and groups facing these same issues.

Speaking in Warsaw, Poland, in July, Trump assumed the mantle of the Defender of Western Civilization, invoking “the bonds of culture, faith, and tradition that make us who we are.” Attacking the “lawless savages” who threaten “civilization itself,” he proclaimed the “fundamental question of our time” as whether “the West has the will to survive.” In his words, many heard a coded message to his nativist base and like-minded nationalists around the world, which his former key advisor Stephen Bannon more openly calls “the Judeo-Christian West.”

Hitler’s American Model is a spellbinding and engrossing work of history and legal scholarship, which changes not only how we think about the Third Reich and America of the past, but also serves as a serious warning about the United States of the present and the future.



[ltr]Stephen Rohde is a constitutional lawyer, lecturer, writer, and political activist.[/ltr]
avatar

Posts : 4988
Join date : 2014-12-09

Re: opozicija

Post by uskok i ajduk on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:43 am

zastitnik gotama wrote:
Peščanik

Saša Radulović se svojim spisom uključio u red branitelja Kosova, dakle branitelja jedne neodržive, esencijalističke, u moderni politički poredak neuklopive koncepcije srpske države. Vlast u Srbiji dolazi sa takvih idejnih pozicija: i ona pokušava da pronađe kompromis sa međunarodnim okruženjem kako bi ideja srpskog nacionalizma opstala, makar i na redukovanoj teritoriji. Opozicija, međutim, svojom principijelnom odbranom Kosova, svojim crvenim linijama i optužbama na račun vlasti za izdaju, ili prodaju, ili predaju Kosova u stvari Srbiju udaljava, a ne približava rešenju njene drame. Udaljava je od modernog, evropskog koncepta države.

Ево, и другосрбијанци крунисали Радула за змаја 2.0  


_____
"U novoprimljenim EU zemljama su korumpirani (policija, sudovi, političari) do koštane srži dan danas, pare što su od primitka dobili su raskrali i profućkali, nešto malo se izgradilo, bez pravog plana i preplaćeno. Ulazak Srbije u EU ne bi bio mnogo drugačiji. Naprotiv, političarska bagra ovih postsoc banana se u EU vremenom još osili. " / otto katz 
avatar

Posts : 739
Join date : 2017-02-24

Re: opozicija

Post by Miki on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:48 am

Jebem ti raspeće, umetnuo bi Radula i u temu o NFL-u.
avatar

Posts : 739
Join date : 2017-02-24

Re: opozicija

Post by Miki on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:49 am

San Mateo Dragons
avatar

Posts : 40723
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: opozicija

Post by William Murderface on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:51 am

beatakeshi wrote:K'o iz autobiografije Marine Abramović. Turobna zelena svetlost.





_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 4988
Join date : 2014-12-09

Re: opozicija

Post by uskok i ajduk on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:54 am

Miki wrote:Jebem ti raspeće, umetnuo bi Radula i u temu o NFL-u.
Тупсоне, цитат са Пешчаника је на другој страни ове теме.
Од њега је и кренула сва ова расправа о територијама.


_____
"U novoprimljenim EU zemljama su korumpirani (policija, sudovi, političari) do koštane srži dan danas, pare što su od primitka dobili su raskrali i profućkali, nešto malo se izgradilo, bez pravog plana i preplaćeno. Ulazak Srbije u EU ne bi bio mnogo drugačiji. Naprotiv, političarska bagra ovih postsoc banana se u EU vremenom još osili. " / otto katz 
avatar

Posts : 40723
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: opozicija

Post by William Murderface on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:55 am

No Country wrote:О, чекује он само тако. Него сте ви заборавили, тачније: пожурили да заборавите. Није ни чудо што вам онда траје то дотично килављење.


O, jbt.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 739
Join date : 2017-02-24

Re: opozicija

Post by Miki on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:57 am

Znam odakle je citat botino, taj tekst uopšte nije bio tema zbog Radulovića u njemu, a dočim što je diskusija krenula ubrzo nekim još divljijim putevima, i onda ti dolaziš pet strana kasnije i izvlačiš Radulovića i zmajeve i sranja.
avatar

Posts : 40723
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: opozicija

Post by William Murderface on Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:59 am

ostap bender wrote:
Bluberi wrote:Naravno da je fašista i naravno da je neupotrebljiv istorijski opis fašizma.

slazem se da je istorijski opis fasizma neupotrebljiv ali seselj jos nije tamo.


+1

Dveri su fasisti, iako ne odgovaraju istorijskom fenomenu fasizma po mnogo cemu. Ali Seselj nije, cak i po mnogo opstijem pojmu. Osim u onom mocnikovskom "koliko fasizma" smislu, gde je fasizam vec ugradjen u nacional-kapitalizam.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 5133
Join date : 2015-05-16

Re: opozicija

Post by No Country on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:00 am

ostap bender wrote:pa to nije pravo ime. za strahote kroz koje je prosla bivsa jugoslavija nije ti potreban fasizam. stavise, tokom rata se desava ubrzana demokratizacija, odrzavaju se visestranacki izbori i vodi se aktivan politicki zivot. neke elemente fasizma mozes naci, na primer, na palama i u ratnoj demokratiji republike srpske i otvorenom ustastvu herceg bosne ali i to je daleko, srecom, od istorijskog fasizma.
Пале - чек. Херцегбосна - чек. Око "убрзане демократизације током рата" би се већ тешко спорили. Није фашизам (једино) објашњење за страхоте, али јесте страхота по себи. И није узрок распада, већ последица. Фашизам је мера за говна у која смо, уз почетно одушевљење, угазили. Сада је мера лакоће заборава, и свега оног чиме се такав заборав плаћа.
Gargantua wrote:@NC

Meni se čini da ti misliš da je neko manje loš samo ako ga ne nazovemo fašistom, i da će se on nekako "izvući" ako se to ne uradi (a društvo neće, jel, pošto stvari ne naziva "pravim imenom").
Аман: Шешељ је слика & прилика, прототип & дефиниција. И уопште ми не пада на памет да доказујем нешто што је а) белодано и б) хиљаду пута опричано. Овде се ради о твојој и Остаповој потреби да се у име некаквог "историјског фашизма" (по коме се, претпостављам, квалификују Хитлер и Гебелс, а код Мусолинија већ мора да се пише елаборат?) Шешељ, а са њим и његова партија, а са партијом и читаво једно време које су та и њој сличне удруге мржње обележиле - прогласи нечим битно другачијим, мање опасним/ запаљивим, можда ипак за нијансу прихватљивијим? Парламентарац, десничар, сви су они помало такви.

Е па нису. Овај је посебан. А плус је наш.
avatar

Posts : 6455
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: opozicija

Post by Bluberi on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:07 am

Ispašće na kraju da ni Hasanbegović nije fašista, jer parlamentarna demokratija i tako to.
avatar

Posts : 40723
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: opozicija

Post by William Murderface on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:10 am

Et NC

Ma jel ti stvarno gargantui, ostapu i meni prebacujes da Seselja "pustamo s udice' jer je "nas"?

Pa jbt.

Evo neko ko nije "nas", a o kojem takodje mislim sve najgore - Tudjman takodje nije bio fasista.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 40723
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: opozicija

Post by William Murderface on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:13 am

Bluberi wrote:Ispašće na kraju da ni Hasanbegović nije fašista, jer parlamentarna demokratija i tako to.

Hasanbeg je kameleon, pogledaj sta je objavljivao i jasno je sta je - De Benoa, Tomislav Sunic itd.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 5133
Join date : 2015-05-16

Re: opozicija

Post by No Country on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:13 am

William Murderface wrote:Dveri su fasisti, iako ne odgovaraju istorijskom fenomenu fasizma po mnogo cemu. Ali Seselj nije, cak i po mnogo opstijem pojmu. 
О, јбт.

А што није, мајке ти? Јербо је тако гласовала Низоземска? Ајде, пошто је већ зајебанција узела маха - како то Шешељ није фашиста, и шта је ако није фашиста? Сад сам се сетио неке давнашње журке на којој је извесни Синиша, инвентар Кинотеке, ложио сатима извесног композитора, како је Гебелс био последњи живи хуманиста. Импресиван перформанс, очекујем ништа мање.
avatar

Posts : 40723
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: opozicija

Post by William Murderface on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:14 am

Pa sad si postavio pravo pitanje - sta ako nije fasista? Jel zato manje zlo? Nije.

To ti ljudi pricaju sve vreme.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 6455
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: opozicija

Post by Bluberi on Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:15 am

A šta je onda?

Re: opozicija

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:40 am