Skip to main content

Hey, kids!  How many things can YOU find wrong in this picture?
I frequently do not engage with my "republican" / "conservative" friends - for the simple reason that I abhor pissing contests and bullying and bald-faced lying.  It's called 'pick your battles', and it's frequently the only thing that keeps me from beating my head into the sidewalk.

Not that all that is rare, y'know - it's that everybody else is ashamed and embarrassed to be caught in and chastised for such behavior...but not these...persons.  Consequently, I spend very little time arguing with them on Facebook, as it's a lot like juggling napalm:  nothing affects them, and I end up covered in burns.

Then out of the blue, a perfect moment arose:  a strongly 'conservative-aligned' friend (but a real friend nonetheless) posted this pic (above)...join me below the romantically inclined clefs for the set up - and, of course, the smackdown (I hope...)

Like I said, my friend is a real friend, and I've known her for some 15 years.  In recent years, she has made the acquaintance of one of my wife's friends - who, near as I can tell, is not a real friend to anyone.  Where my friend is passionate and "balls to the wall" (okay, actually, "tits") and willing to engage, he is distant, prickly, snobbish, and rarely advances any conversation beyond the lamest of old jokes and caustic, drive-by digs;  he seems quite interesting until one tries to get closer, when one finds that he's only offering the most superficial interactions.  After MANY attempts to establish any kind of worthwhile interaction with the man, I gave up on him several years ago.  Thanks to his political views, ALL his conversation on anything political is not only shallow, but nasty in tone and dishonest in feel.

I steer clear of him for the same reason I don't groom badgers.  Her, OTOH, I have gotten thru to before, and I'll keep trying.  Which brings me to her FB page, and that ridiculous "meme".  After an unusually long contemplation, I decided I had to dig in and expose it to her:  whatever else she may be, she is scrupulously honest.

So after refreshing myself on my inter-war German history, I put on the hazmat suit & dug in.

First, Hitler didn't say it, in 1935 or any other year.  The Treaty of Versailles imposed much harsh on Germany following WWI, AND DISARMING THE POPULACE WAS ONE OF THEM. Weimar Republic. PRE-Hitler. The ONLY reason.

Making up fake new 'Hitlerisms' for CURRENT political purposes because Hitler is "good theater" is, well..dishonest, vicious, and ENTIRELY worthy of Hitler and his propaganda ministry.

Another fact: Hitler RELAXED GUN RESTRICTIONS in '38, during the run-up to the war he was 'forced' into by 'THEM'. In other words, he did the exact opposite of the bogus claim now making the rounds (aka this shared post).

The meme-ifier should be ashamed of himself for passing this thing around. He should just call Obama a n....r and get it out of his system. I know you're not stupid, darling, and I know you're fiercely proud of our nation, but hating the imaginary liberals for made-up nonsense makes all Americans look bad.

I bring this to your attention because I know you are fiercely independent and scrupulously honest, and because I know you would never knowingly promote a lie.

So far, so good:  short-ish, sweet-ish, and directly to the point.  But that's not important now.

While her response was slow in coming, it was genuinely heartfelt, engaged, and not at all wing-nutty.  But what's this?  Our other player takes the stage, his condescending slink lacking only decent mustachios to twirl...and with a flourish of his cape (yes, he actually DOES wear a cape IRL) he begins:

No, that wasn't the scope of my point. The matter of disarming a population by the government is generally done out of fear that the population will overthrow thst government. The Weimar gun laws were done for that reason by an essentially leftist Socialist regime especially to lessen the liklihood of a National Socialist coup (think Beerhall Putsch) being attempted a second time. Hitler was a very popular leader irrespective of his methods and the policies enacted by the Reichstag underscore the fact that he wasn't worried about a mass uprising against his policies.
...and after I admonish him for his false equation of the Weimar govt. with "OMG_SOSHUL_IZZUMS!1!!" he retorts.
Ok...if you want to digress into semantics rather than facts. Let's call Weimar a 'Liberal Democracy'. Also the 'pack of lies' that I quoted was nothing more than a recitation of the laws as they developed. I try not to editorialize.
I have rarely seen someone set themselves up so perfectly.  Not only could I not resist the temptation, but this seemed almost a sign...neon, and it said, "GAME ON".

Our text for today:

Having said that, allow me to take exception to what you DID say:

Yesterday, @ 10:17 AM, you posted:
"The matter of disarming a population by the government is generally done out of fear that the population will overthrow thst government. The Weimar gun laws were done for that reason by an essentially leftist Socialist regime especially to lessen the liklihood of a National Socialist coup (think Beerhall Putsch) being attempted a second time....."

This is not true. Not a word of it. The law that you're talking about (that is, the only German law passed between the end of WW1 and the end of WW2 that does what the bogus Hitler "quote" celebrates), "Regulations on Weapons Ownership", was passed and enacted in October, 1919 - not 1935, and not in fear of the NSDAP, which did not exist at that time (hell, hitler hadn't made it home from the front by then!). It was NOT done out of fear of a popular overthrow: it was one of the terms of the Versailles Treaty, as I mentioned before. It may be that such things are "generally" enacted out of fear (although that is an extraordinary claim...and as such, it requires extraordinary evidence); however, THIS was not so done.

Continuing, you present the equally unsupported assertion that the Regulations were enacted "by an essentially leftist Socialist regime". While there are certainly semantic quibbles that could be made about this, I think it more useful to consider the substance of your applied meaning. First, though, may I remind that the Versailles Treaty was ENORMOUSLY unpopular all over Germany, and across all parties from the extremes to the center: The Weimar government was in considerably MORE danger from the populace as a consequence of the Versailles enactments - not less!

It is true (though unasserted) that the lead party in the formation of the Second Reich were called the Social Democrats. It is also true (also unasserted) that "Social Democratic" parties proliferated in capitalist, self-governing Europe following the catastrophe that was Hitler's war. It is NOT true that "Social Democratic Party" meant "leftist Socialist regime" in 1919, which is your implication. THAT meaning has been manufactured since the demise of the John Birch Society, but not, apparently, before that. By the time Reagan left the White House, that unilateral redefinition had been cemented in place (along with the meaningless canard, "socialist regime"), so while you may very well think that now, it didn't mean that in 1919, and without evidence to the contrary, it's HIGHLY arguable that it has EVER meant that in fact.

You conclude by saying this so-called 'regime' acted "especially to lessen the liklihood of a National Socialist coup (think Beerhall Putsch) being attempted a second time." And as I noted previously, the historical record is clear: there WAS no Nazi Party in 1919, and so the government COULD NOT have been afraid IN 1919 of something that would not happen until November, 1923.

Allow me to repeat: since the Nazi Party did not exist until the year after the 1919 Regulations, and since the FIRST (and only) putsch wasn't until 3 YEARS after that, this is not merely WRONG, it's NOT POSSIBLE. So, aside from your introductory sentence in that paragraph ("No, that wasn't the scope of my point" - which I'm taking on faith), there is, sorry to say, not one true thing in that entire comment. I cannot help but wonder WHO set you up with this magpie's nest of tinsel and garbage? As we are both PROUD men, I am sure you agree that it is better to have the painful truth in prophylactic dosage, than to unknowingly play the fool.
"Those are all mistakes, Otto - I looked them up!"

Oh - the pizza resistance? 11 hours ago (time is now 19:11, mark):
"Also the 'pack lies' that I quoted was nothing more than a recitation of the laws as they developed. I try not to editorialize."

Well. That quote was most-if-not-all of the Nazi's DE-Regulation act from 1938 (NOT "the lawS as THEY developed", as you say, but just the one (and I know this because I JUST FINISHED READING THE DAMNED THING)). The only conclusion I can come to is that you've been very effectively lied to - and by someone who cares nothing at all for your credibility. So: who has done this thing to you? I cannot believe that you KNEW your comments were not, ARE NOT TRUE - yet I find it equally impossible to believe that you could have been so gulled / misled / 'conditioned' that you can no longer tell the difference between a fact-based political argument and full-on Munchausen's...I am shocked, and speechless. If it were me who'd been used this way (and, in the past, it has been me), I'd be livid with rage at the perpetrators. I suspect the bitter truth to be that the Klan/Bircher axis has been far more effective than I'd imagined - and for a far longer period than I'd imagined.

At this stage, I actually anticipate losing my friend over this - and I don't just mean on FB.  She has shown an extremely prickly sense of what is and is not 'appropriate treatment / respect...yet she is completely indifferent to the meaty and substantial insults she metes out off-handedly;  however, I'm pretty much done with "letting others have their own opinions" when their opinions are provably false, deliberately belittling or humiliating...or when their behavior qualifies as bullying.

EPILOGUE

All in all, not as satisfying as I'd hoped: mostly a general bristling at the notion that I'd take it upon myself to FACT-CHECK something SHE saw fit to share.  It has taken me DAYS, and it has been quite draining....and really, is there anything more 'small beer' than Facebook?  I have at least not stuffed it, and instead have spoken out.

I do hope you'll pardon my prideful display here, as my real purpose is to bleach out and detoxify that stinking 'Hitler/Guns' trash going around.  I think it would be a WONDERFUL thing if we could come up with solid, fact-based responses to nut-wing talking points.My friends - my fellow Kossacks, I implore you to TAKE OUT THAT TRASH!  And if reading this gives you ammunition or ideas or whatever to that end, my sharing this has been entirely worthwhile.

I'm also hoping to learn how to write a diary that folks will read and recommend, so any and all pointers and 'structural' advice will be gratefully received.

Thank you for your patience.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm tagging this diary (8+ / 0-)

    So when that crap comes up from my R/W "friends" I can simply send them a link to you and your very concise retorts.  Thanks for the leg work.

    My Brothers Keeper

    by Reetz on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:33:55 PM PST

  •  Nicely done (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook, mint julep, Smoh

    Unfortunately, I get the feeling you are going to have to be doing this a lot. We've only now really started to go down the Godwin path.

  •  I think your diary was fine, and I agree with the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MRA NY, SilentBrook, Smoh

    point you made. I have been hearing the Hitler crap for a while, but not without any truth behind it. People are totally ignorant of the fact that fascism tends to the right, though it draws some ideology from the left for the purpose of making a populace dependent on the State. People just throw in Hitler to make people associate whatever they are talking about with a truly horrible person.

    As I had to point out to my father, who actually should know better, he should want Hitler's gun policy for the US if he is a big fan of RKBA since the Nazi party relaxed gun restrictions immensely and made them widely available. That pretty much shut him up, at least on that topic.

    •  The NRA should love 1945 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Nose

      the final year for Hitler which saw him handing out a bewildering array of weapons to the German citizens for homeland defense, with weapons and ammo from every ally and conquered country.   In the final days, 10 year olds were handed Panzerfausts and hustled out to greet the Russians.  LaPierre would have loved that (snark alert here; please recognize)  

  •  the defense of the truth (8+ / 0-)

    isn't a waste of time.   Two people, not just one, now know the truth.  If one wants to deny the truth,  you can't help that.

    •  sadly, "a lie gets halfway around the world..." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, chmood, jfromga

      "... before the truth gets its boots on."

      Variously attributed to Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, and others, but true whoever said it.

      It's like playing whack a mole with these people. You spend hours documenting precisely how their latest insane claim just isn't true. Then five minutes later they come out with another insane claim, which if you can't instantly refute it they say "proves" that they are right.

      I have no idea what planet they live on but I have the distinct impression it's not the same one I inhabit.

  •  I feel your pain (6+ / 0-)

    I have spent countless hours trying to have a civil discourse via FB with not just friends, but family, on the gun control issue.  And like you, I have found falsehood after falsehood.  But these otherwise intelligent and good-meaning people have their ideologies so set in stone that questioning their facts is seen as a personal attack on them.  I do believe in fighting the good fight, and seeking out truth.  But at some point I have to admit some people don't like the truth, especially when it negates beliefs they've held for all their lives.  And these same people embrace "facts" they are given without question when those "facts" prop up ideas they so desperately want to believe are true.

  •  finally a correct history (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Nose

    after months of revisionism by various RW groups.  Yep, it was Versailles and the Allies who feared an armed citizenry in Germany because a large number of German males were vets or at least had military training and there was a strong militaristic tradition in Germany.  There was a fear of private militias forming which could be forged into a new German army to threaten European peace.

    Irony is that by various mechanisms, this is exactly what happened but then the RW still thinks Hitler was elected Fuhrer by an electoral landslide so who needs no stinkin' facts?  

  •  The "pizza" resistance, eh? (0+ / 0-)

    Why even bother engaging with someone so profoundly ignorant.  My sides are still hurting from laughing so hard.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:09:32 PM PST

  •  Since you asked ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chmood

    Lots of people read diaries early in the morning before coffee has kicked in. Others are reading late at night when they are tired. At times like these, sentences like this one are almost impossible to follow.

    The law that you're talking about (that is, the only German law passed between the end of WW1 and the end of WW2 that does what the bogus Hitler "quote" celebrates), "Regulations on Weapons Ownership", was passed and enacted in October, 1919 - not 1935, and not in fear of the NSDAP, which did not exist at that time (hell, hitler hadn't made it home from the front by then!).
    Another time that such a sentence makes reading a chore is the middle of the day.

    I did like the diary and think the information you provide will be useful, but I found many of your sentences unnecessarily complex and self-conscious.

    •  Thank you for pointing this out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tapestry

      I write a lot, but frankly I'm more of a talker, and when something gets as complex as this piece has been, I tend to write the way I talk.  NOT a perfect solution, as you observe.  the punctuation gets a bit baroque, and the result is sometimes too much like spaghetti code.

      Exactly the kind of feedback on style that I was hoping for, and I will put it to use - heck, I may decide I haven't had enough for one week and start another diary today.

      I hope you'll comment on all my stuff.  Thanks again!

      Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
      Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

      by chmood on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:25:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for making my day! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chmood

    What a wonderful diary.  The time and anxiety spent creating this informative diary needs to be celebrated.  I have a well developed heart for progressive thinking, but I am not good at articulating facts the instant they are needed.   Your diary gave me important information.  Thank you.

  •  reminds me of (0+ / 0-)

    Well done!

    "We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union."

    by voodoochild62 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:23:48 AM PST

  •  Gosh, y'all, I'm (practically) speechless (0+ / 0-)

    Such an outpouring of support is almost overwhelming, but it couldn't come at a better time.  I can't tell you what it means to me to be able to make a contribution, and have that contributions seen and appreciated.

    I take real strength an genuine encouragement (and a tangible sense of relief) from all you kind words.  I will do more, and I will strive to do better.

    From the bottom of my now-very-full heart, thank you.

    Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
    Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

    by chmood on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:32:37 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site