I didn’t mean it as an insult. Just trying to highlight my view. I see the way the EU and UK are trying to control narratives as reminiscent of previous socialist regimes. If you create legislation and pretend to be virtuous, you can get away with a lot
So you're objecting to people calling out Trump/Musk/Vance for doing things that are a bit Nazi adjacent, but you're okay with calling the UK government and the EU a bit Nazi adjacent, and the people that trust them are unwitting Nazis. Just so I'm clear?
I would recommend you read propaganda by Robert jackall, it’s extremely good. All governments use propaganda, but IMO this was made worse here by new labour. The states has always been a mess, but I think it’s ironic that you can’t see the clearer parallels in your analogies with the maga movement. Also, do bear in mind that the Nazis weren’t socialist. Equally do your due diligence and read the legislation you disagree with, read the court judgements, even attend court. Read EU minutes, read some of ECHR (for example). Governments are not all evil. On the whole they are ineffective, and the vast majority of politicians try to manipulate so I do see what you are saying to some extent.
He wasn’t on the battlefield, he was in the Oval Office in Washington. And sometimes diplomacy means biting your tongue, sugaring the pill, and managing the conversation.
You aren’t following the logic though. The crime is not you saying things, it is incitement. They are separate. Presuming you mean murder and not culpable homicide for example, they aren’t separate
I’ve objected to it, heavily, because Trump and Vance are not doing things reminiscent of Nazism or fascism. They are in fact the polar opposite of fascists. They are advocating for a smaller goverment with less power and less taxation. With more accountability to the people. They are quite literally the opposite of what many people claim.
I will read it, it sounds interesting, thank you. I strongly agree with you that all governments use propaganda. The hard part is determining which parts are truth and which parts are propaganda. It’s quite simple for me. I believe Trump, for all his faults, is sincere in wanting the best for American taxpayers I believe he wants peace and for business to thrive globally. Which has a positive impact on the rest of the world. That’s why I defend him more than most on here.
I sadly have personal experience of the man. He hired one of my previous employers to do some work for his organisation. I didn’t really deal with him, but colleagues were unequivocal. As usual he tried to renege on the contract, but faced a much larger company with a giant legal team. He ended up paying 130% of the initial contract. I can tell you he was without morals, without honour and totally dishonest. I can only believe he is there to line his own pockets and stoke his fragile ego I’m afraid. in terms of determining truth, that’s why I would read up on the legislation and read the court judgements etc. I’ve seen you post a few things in good faith that if you did the background, you would discount.
Os, I was talking just this morning to my old history teacher. His surname is Von Reibnitz, he's in his 80s now, and he is a relative of Baron von Richthofen, otherwise known as the Red Baron. His family were snuck out of Germany when it started going tits for the Nazis by Hermann Goering, because of Goering's close relationship with the Red Baron - he wanted to protect his family so arranged their transport to the UK. He is currently equal parts terrified and appalled by the myriad similarities between what occurred in the early/mid thirties and led to the rise of Nazism, and what is happening right now in the United States. Now, I completely understand you not wanting to listen to the likes of us - we're a bunch of halfwits on a football forum. But you really should listen to the likes of him. He's forgotten more about Nazi Germany than you or I could ever know.
I'm following your argument. But your argument is sophistry. The crime is plainly saying certain things. "Incitement" is just a sub-category of speech (or perhaps expression) where that speech/expression has particular consequences. Even Parliament has openly acknowledged this. In 2018 the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote "We note the law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious."
The ECHR has nothing at all to do with the UK problems. The rest of Europe that has the ECHR has no such problem. It is all down to our judiciary's interpretation of the the rules and they are applying it differently based on the difference between our legal "constitution" and countries that actually do have a constitution! Harping on about ECHR is a buzzword clickbait thing. If we get rid of it then fine but we will have to replace it with a new set of laws which will equally be open to judicial interpretation because of the way our laws work! We do not have the same legal framework as other countries do! So if we do get rid of the ECHR to much hurrah from those that are latching on to the "because of ECHR" lines on all these stories unfortunately within months we will be asking to get rid of the UKCHR. Whatever laws are put into action are always open to judicial interpretation in this country. It is an evolving system that sets precedents and each precedent sets a base for more interpretation.
Out of interest, I asked Grok what the parallels between Nazi Germany and the MAGA movement are. It's an interesting answer that I've copied below. The worrying part is that if you look at the "Differences" section, bar (just about) the violence/genocide one and the ideological depth (debatable), they're all things that Trump is now actively out there trying to change. That's why people are concerned. I'm sure those that want to continue denying the issue will latch on only to the last line, but there we are. Comparing historical events like the rise of Nazi Germany to contemporary political movements, such as Trump and the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement in the United States, requires careful consideration of context, scale, and specifics. While no two situations are identical, some parallels can be drawn based on themes like nationalism, populist rhetoric, economic discontent, and polarization. However, significant differences also exist, particularly in outcomes, institutional frameworks, and the degree of violence or authoritarianism. Here’s a breakdown: Parallels Nationalism and "Us vs. Them" Rhetoric Nazi Germany: Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party heavily emphasized German nationalism, portraying the nation as victimized by external forces (e.g., the Treaty of Versailles) and internal enemies (e.g., Jews, communists). This created a unifying "Aryan" identity against perceived threats. Trump/MAGA: Trump’s campaign and presidency leaned on "America First" rhetoric, emphasizing national pride and framing immigrants, globalists, and political elites as threats to American sovereignty and prosperity. Slogans like "Make America Great Again" evoke a nostalgic, exclusionary vision of identity. Economic Discontent as a Catalyst Nazi Germany: The Weimar Republic faced hyperinflation, unemployment, and economic humiliation after World War I, which Hitler exploited to promise restoration and stability. Trump/MAGA: Trump capitalized on economic frustration in deindustrialized regions, blaming trade deals, immigration, and establishment politicians for job losses. His appeal resonated with working-class voters feeling left behind by globalization. Charismatic Leadership and Cult of Personality Nazi Germany: Hitler was a charismatic figure whose speeches and propaganda cultivated unwavering loyalty, positioning him as Germany’s savior. Trump/MAGA: Trump’s unorthodox style, rallies, and direct communication (e.g., via Twitter) fostered a personal connection with supporters, who often see him as a singular figure fighting a corrupt system. His persona drives loyalty beyond traditional party lines. Polarization and Vilification of Opponents Nazi Germany: The Nazis demonized political opponents (e.g., socialists, liberals) and scapegoated minorities, deepening societal divisions. Trump/MAGA: Trump and his movement have frequently labeled opponents—Democrats, the media ("fake news"), and institutions like the "deep state"—as enemies of the people, intensifying political tribalism. Erosion of Trust in Institutions Nazi Germany: The Nazis undermined the Weimar government, judiciary, and press to consolidate power, replacing them with party-controlled systems. Trump/MAGA: Trump has repeatedly attacked the judiciary, election integrity (e.g., 2020 election claims), and media, though within a democratic system that has so far constrained any total overhaul. Key Differences Scale of Violence and Repression Nazi Germany: The regime systematically used violence, censorship, and concentration camps to eliminate opposition and enact genocide (e.g., the Holocaust). Trump/MAGA: While events like the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot show willingness among some supporters to use violence, there’s no evidence of state-sanctioned mass repression, genocide, or a totalitarian apparatus under Trump. Democratic Guardrails Nazi Germany: The Weimar Republic’s weak institutions allowed Hitler to dismantle democracy entirely after 1933 via the Enabling Act. Trump/MAGA: The U.S. Constitution, independent judiciary, and free press have limited Trump’s ability to override democratic norms, even if he’s tested them (e.g., election challenges). Ideological Depth Nazi Germany: Nazism was a coherent, extremist ideology rooted in racial hierarchy and militarism, codified in Mein Kampf. Trump/MAGA: The MAGA movement lacks a unified ideological framework beyond populism and conservatism. Trump’s rhetoric is pragmatic and personality-driven rather than a detailed doctrine. Global Context Nazi Germany: Emerged in a post-war Europe with fragile democracies, enabling rapid authoritarian expansion. Trump/MAGA: Operates in a stable, long-standing democracy with global alliances (e.g., NATO) and economic interdependence that resist radical upheaval. Conclusion The rise of Nazi Germany and the Trump/MAGA movement share similarities in their use of nationalist fervor, economic grievances, and anti-establishment sentiment to mobilize support. Both leveraged a sense of crisis to polarize societies and challenge norms. However, Nazi Germany’s transformation into a genocidal dictatorship far exceeds anything seen in the Trump era, where democratic institutions, despite strain, remain intact. The parallels are more rhetorical and emotional than structural or outcome-based, reflecting broader patterns of populism rather than a direct equivalence.
A valid argument, but the EHCR has already been used to damage the UK. I assume by removing it altogether we can at least remove some of the damage caused by precedent.
Exactly even the AI knows. Comparing Trump to Hitler and the Nazis is very silly. What sort of fascist dictator has ever run on a mandate of making the state smaller and exposing corruption? He is doing the exact opposite of what a fascist dictator would do.
Cool. You either didn't read it or didn't understand. That's okay. For further context, I asked the same question regarding the EU. It managed to stop short of saying "don't be silly", but only just. Comparing the European Union (EU) to Nazi Germany involves analyzing two vastly different entities: a contemporary supranational organization focused on economic and political cooperation versus a totalitarian regime that pursued racial ideology, militarism, and genocide. Direct parallels are limited due to their fundamentally opposing goals, structures, and methods. However, some critics—particularly from Eurosceptic or populist perspectives—draw rhetorical or thematic similarities, often as a critique of centralized power or sovereignty loss. Below is an objective breakdown of potential similarities, while noting the significant differences. Similarities Centralization of Power Nazi Germany: After 1933, Hitler consolidated authority by centralizing control over German states (Länder), dissolving local autonomy under the Nazi Party through Gleichschaltung (coordination). EU: The EU centralizes certain powers (e.g., trade, monetary policy in the Eurozone) in supranational institutions like the European Commission and European Central Bank, reducing national sovereignty in specific areas. Critics argue this mirrors a loss of local control, though it’s voluntary and democratic, not imposed by force. Economic Integration and Control Nazi Germany: The regime pursued a coordinated economy (e.g., Four-Year Plan) to align industries with state goals, often through coercion and expropriation. It also sought economic dominance over conquered territories. EU: The EU integrates economies via the single market and Eurozone, harmonizing regulations and currencies. While this fosters cooperation, some liken it to economic overreach, though it’s based on mutual agreement, not domination. Vision of Unity Nazi Germany: Hitler promoted a warped vision of European unity under German hegemony, subjugating nations to a "Greater Germanic Reich" based on racial ideology. EU: The EU seeks a unified Europe through peaceful collaboration, rooted in post-WWII reconciliation (e.g., Franco-German cooperation). Critics, however, sometimes frame its expansion (e.g., eastward enlargement) as imperialistic, though it lacks the racial or militaristic underpinnings of Nazism. Propaganda and Identity Nazi Germany: Used relentless propaganda to foster a singular "Aryan" identity and loyalty to the regime, suppressing dissent. EU: Promotes a shared "European" identity through symbols (e.g., flag, anthem) and initiatives like Erasmus. While far less aggressive, some Eurosceptics call this "propaganda" aimed at eroding national identities. Bureaucratic Expansion Nazi Germany: Built a sprawling bureaucracy to enforce its policies, often bypassing democratic accountability. EU: Has a complex bureaucracy (e.g., Brussels institutions) that critics argue is opaque and unaccountable to citizens, though it operates within a legal framework and elected oversight (e.g., European Parliament). Key Differences Purpose and Ideology Nazi Germany: A totalitarian state driven by racial supremacy, anti-Semitism, and aggressive expansionism, culminating in the Holocaust and World War II. EU: A democratic, voluntary union founded to prevent war, promote peace, and ensure economic stability, explicitly rejecting the ideologies that fueled Nazism. Use of Force Nazi Germany: Relied on military conquest, violence, and repression to impose its will (e.g., annexation of Austria, invasion of Poland). EU: Operates through negotiation, treaties, and consensus, with no military component or coercive enforcement beyond economic sanctions. Democratic Framework Nazi Germany: Dismantled democracy, outlawed opposition, and ruled through a one-party dictatorship. EU: Functions within a democratic system, with member states retaining sovereignty and citizens electing representatives to the European Parliament. Human Rights Nazi Germany: Systematically violated human rights, committing genocide and enslaving millions. EU: Upholds human rights as a core principle, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and oversight by the European Court of Justice. Outcome and Legacy Nazi Germany: Collapsed in 1945 after causing unprecedented destruction. EU: Has sustained peace among members for decades, earning a Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. Context of the Comparison The similarities drawn between the EU and Nazi Germany often stem from political rhetoric rather than structural or historical equivalence. Eurosceptic voices (e.g., figures like Nigel Farage or parties like Germany’s AfD) sometimes invoke Nazi imagery to criticize the EU’s perceived overreach, bureaucracy, or erosion of national sovereignty. For example, claims of a "Fourth Reich" led by Germany within the EU occasionally surface, especially during economic crises like Greece’s debt bailout, but these are hyperbolic and lack substantive grounding. Conclusion While superficial parallels exist—centralized authority, economic coordination, and a unifying narrative—the EU and Nazi Germany differ profoundly in intent, execution, and impact. The EU is a consensual, democratic project aimed at stability, whereas Nazi Germany was a violent, authoritarian regime bent on domination. Any comparison risks oversimplification unless focused narrowly on specific mechanisms (e.g., bureaucracy), but even then, the contexts render them fundamentally distinct.
There was no need to type all this. Trump wants America to have the rest of the world economically subservient to him and be in a position where there is no longer anyone politically opposed to him.
Basically: The EU pretends to be noble and virtuous, pursuing freedom. What it actually does is implement a corrupt bureaucracy which steals citizens rights away. So the similarities are actually there in principal, but the power is taken using economic sanctions instead of actual violence so your AI friend deems this as better.
If that's what you're taking from this, I don't know what to say. It's not my AI friend by the way, it's Grok, which as you know is Elon's. I used it purposefully so you couldn't come up with some nonsense about it being biased towards Leftist Institutional Made-Up Complaint. It would do you a lot of good to try and walk in other people's shoes sometimes. I can see the things that you think are good about Trump, and have said on here countless times that some of his ideas in principle are good. Why not try, just for a day, to take a moment trying to see what might be concerning other people and acknowledging that they might just have a point.
