|
|
Post by fish on Oct 30, 2024 20:38:19 GMT 12
Why it’s dangerously misguided to ignore threat of new axis: The historian Niall Ferguson says traditional western allies face a new axis – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions. History, Ferguson argues, shows us that major conflicts typically arise from two conditions: economic volatility and imperial decline. Both are present in geopolitics today. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a vacuum in Eastern Europe. Putin’s Russia, like Germany after World War I, emerged from this collapse with a sense of humiliation and revanchist ambitions. Meanwhile, Australia’s permanent uniformed personnel has dropped to just 58,600. This is happening precisely when China tells its military leaders to prepare for war by 2027. When deterrence fails, war often follows. And so, the big question is whether the west still has the power and the will to create a credible threat against potential aggressors – and whether it can demonstrate this resolve early enough to the new axis. newsroom.co.nz/2024/10/29/why-its-dangerously-misguided-to-ignore-threat-of-new-axis/ |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 30, 2024 20:45:34 GMT 12
While I'm not a historian, I know enough to know that history always repeats. Normally after the last generation that remembers has died. As in, WW2 was just long enough ago that no one living today remembers or understands.
Globally, we have plenty of warning signs. The once great Great Britian is a shadow of it's former self. The bastion of Western democracy is a laughing stock of feudalism, fascism and partisan politics, and very likely to get worse if the one that says he's not a Nazi wins, or, infact if he looses and does what he did last time.
The Middle East is a hair's breath away from all out war. There is an active and conflagrating war in Eastern Europe. China is hungrily eyeing up Taiwan. Korea is still Korea, 70 years on. But North Korea have worked out they can get their forces free training in the latest technology and techniques curtesy of Russia in Ukraine.
We are all busy bitching about the state of our media and squabling over whether men can have babies or not, meanwhile, the new axis is tooling up.
Anyway, what to do? buy some solar panels before it all kicks off?
Buy shares in BAE systems? (whoever said my Kiwisaver should only buy ethical shares needs to be shot, which incidentally could be arrange if I owned shares in arms suppliers)
|
|
|
|
Post by jim on Oct 30, 2024 21:15:15 GMT 12
I tell the younger generation they will need to be able to deal with hardship and adversity because all the signs are it's heading their way in one form or another. we could start another thread on the woeful state of our military too ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Oct 31, 2024 5:33:03 GMT 12
This popped up in my feed, google must have decided I needed to see it. Pretty strong credentials. Well worth a listen. Sort of stating the obvious, but not something we hear from most journalists. Systematically dissecting the propaganda and lies focused on Russia by the western media and governments since WW2. Draws a lot of separate actions together into one narrative very well. I think the only way to stop the west continuing to escalate tensions is to make it politically non-viable by informing the voters of what is really going on. This applies to many issues, not just military actions. Points the finger substantially at the usual suspect, for the usual reason. Typical actions of the late stage attempts of an empire in decline to regain its power position. "Myths BUSTED! Brave German Journalist EXPOSES Ukraine/NATO War Lies." www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pZKTbgftHQ |
|
|
|
Post by em on Oct 31, 2024 8:02:44 GMT 12
We are all busy bitching about the state of our media and squabling over whether men can have babies or not, meanwhile, the new axis is tooling up. A neighbours daughter of ours way back in 2014 went on GAHT at the age of 18 . It upset us deeply at the time , we knew her since she was quite young and she was our go to babysitter . Just for context that was during John keys national Govt , the sky didn’t fall in but Russia did annex the Crimea peninsula . These topics get amplified by invested parties to create division and distraction , very affectively so judging by some of the memes posted on these forums . www.csis.org/analysis/russian-bot-farm-used-ai-lie-americans-what-nowThis was written pre-AI bot farms . gnet-research.org/2020/05/21/how-the-far-right-uses-memes-in-online-warfareJust having a punt here but if you wanted to create maximum civil unrest targeting the far right male demographic is probably your best bet . I think that is what will unfold in the coming weeks in the U.S and will be amplified online by not only Russia but N Korea Iran axis etc and whoever else stands to gain from it . |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 31, 2024 8:07:40 GMT 12
While I'm not a historian, I know enough to know that history always repeats. Normally after the last generation that remembers has died. As in, WW2 was just long enough ago that no one living today remembers or understands. Globally, we have plenty of warning signs. The once great Great Britian is a shadow of it's former self. The bastion of Western democracy is a laughing stock of feudalism, fascism and partisan politics, and very likely to get worse if the one that says he's not a Nazi wins, or, infact if he looses and does what he did last time. I can't believe you see Commie La La as a credible candidate, she is nothing more than a stalinda on steroids.
Following coincidentally posted on Good Oil last night addressing your and others "name calling"
The Erosion of Respectful Discourse: A Disturbing Normalisation of Hitler Comparisons in Modern Politics
As the 2024 U.S. Presidential election nears, a disturbing trend in political rhetoric has significantly emerged, one that should ring alarm bells to us all: the increasingly casual use of the term “Hitler.” What once stood as a grave and specific reference to a historical monster responsible for the genocide of over six million Jews is now being thrown around like a casual hello word, predominantly by the left. This shift in language isn’t just irresponsible; it’s an assault on historical memory and the quality of our political discourse.
Hitler Comparisons in Today’s Politics
Most recently, Former President Donald Trump has been likened to Hitler, with Vice President Kamala Harris among those who have used this label. It’s essential to recognise that while Trump is a polarising figure (not a trough dwelling politician), comparing him or any contemporary political figure to Hitler is not only historically inaccurate but profoundly disrespectful to the victims of Hitler’s regime.
Dangerous Consequences of Misusing Holocaust Analogies
The Holocaust was a uniquely horrific chapter in human history, marked by Hitler’s ideologically driven campaign of mass genocide. Equating modern political opponents with such evil trivialises the incomprehensible suffering of its victims and erodes the solemn lessons that history demands we learn. These careless comparisons foster a culture of desensitisation, where extreme rhetoric is normalised and celebrated. This, in turn, reduces complex political issues to mere soundbites, making it difficult to engage in thoughtful and meaningful debate.
The Role of the Media in Stoking the Flames
While both sides of the political spectrum have occasionally indulged in such rhetoric, it is primarily the left-leaning media that has allowed these Hitler comparisons to proliferate unchecked. Mainstream media (MSM), which should be a guardian of informed discourse, often amplifies these damaging remarks rather than condemning them. The constant repetition of such analogies only serves to reinforce them, creating a toxic cycle where inflammatory language becomes the norm.
By failing to call out such rhetoric, the media sacrifices historical accuracy for partisan advantage, further eroding public trust. This selective outrage is evident, as it’s primarily directed at right-leaning figures, while similar comments made by left-leaning politicians often go unchallenged.
The Moral Responsibility of Political Leaders
Leaders on all sides of the political spectrum have a moral obligation to elevate discourse, not degrade it. The use of Holocaust analogies in political debate must be universally condemned, regardless of which side is engaging in it. These comparisons do nothing but alienate reasonable minds and widen the ideological divide, making the prospect of meaningful dialogue nearly impossible.
Political leaders should be held to a higher standard. They should focus their arguments on policies, actions, and ideas rather than resorting to hyperbolic and offensive comparisons.
Words Matter: Why We Must Be Cautious
Language shapes perception, and careless words have real-world consequences. Comparing any contemporary political figure to Hitler is not just offensive—it’s dangerous. It stokes anger, spreads misinformation, and deepens divisions in society. It also diminishes the gravity of the Holocaust, making it just another political analogy rather than the historical horror it indeed was. For those who lived through or were affected by Hitler’s crimes, the name carries a uniquely painful reality that should never be trivialised for political gain.
When political figures and media outlets allow such language to pass without challenge, they contribute to the broader decline in public discourse. The erosion of respect and empathy and the distortion of historical truth should alarm us all.
The Need for Accountability
It’s time for a serious reassessment of our political conversations. Accountability is vital for a healthy democracy but must not come at the expense of accuracy or moral decency. Public figures and media organisations must understand the devastating implications of comparing political opponents to Hitler and refrain from such rhetoric.
Conclusion
The increasingly frequent comparisons of political figures to Hitler signal a troubling decline in the quality of political debate and a profound disrespect for history. The temptation to resort to extreme analogies is amplified in times of deep polarisation. Still, it is precisely at such times that restraint and respect for historical truth are most needed. Leaders, media, and citizens must categorically reject this reckless rhetoric.
Invoking “Hitler” should never be done lightly; it must carry the total weight of its horrific meaning. We owe it to the memory of the Holocaust’s victims, the integrity of historical discourse, and the very fabric of our democracy to ensure that words retain their gravity. Not every political opponent is a genocidal dictator, nor is every policy dispute a harbinger of tyranny.
Could it be that the left is driven by a more profound fear—concerned about the possibility of Donald Trump returning as the 47th President and resuming efforts to “drain the swamp”? If so, the focus should be on constructive debate and policy-driven discourse, not reducing serious historical atrocities to partisan weaponry. The real challenge is to engage with opposing viewpoints on their merits and to foster a discourse that promotes unity, not division.
Remember Shillary Clinton dismissing voters as deplorables, now Bozo Biden is describing voters who do not support the dopeycrats as "garbage", hardly uniting their country.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Oct 31, 2024 8:14:32 GMT 12
While I'm not a historian, I know enough to know that history always repeats. Normally after the last generation that remembers has died. As in, WW2 was just long enough ago that no one living today remembers or understands. Globally, we have plenty of warning signs. The once great Great Britian is a shadow of it's former self. The bastion of Western democracy is a laughing stock of feudalism, fascism and partisan politics, and very likely to get worse if the one that says he's not a Nazi wins, or, infact if he looses and does what he did last time. I can't believe you see Commie La La as a credible candidate, she is nothing more than a stalinda on steroids.
Following coincidentally posted on Good Oil last night addressing your and others "name calling"
The Erosion of Respectful Discourse: A Disturbing Normalisation of Hitler Comparisons in Modern Politics
As the 2024 U.S. Presidential election nears, a disturbing trend in political rhetoric has significantly emerged, one that should ring alarm bells to us all: the increasingly casual use of the term “Hitler.” What once stood as a grave and specific reference to a historical monster responsible for the genocide of over six million Jews is now being thrown around like a casual hello word, predominantly by the left. This shift in language isn’t just irresponsible; it’s an assault on historical memory and the quality of our political discourse.
Hitler Comparisons in Today’s Politics
Most recently, Former President Donald Trump has been likened to Hitler, with Vice President Kamala Harris among those who have used this label. It’s essential to recognise that while Trump is a polarising figure (not a trough dwelling politician), comparing him or any contemporary political figure to Hitler is not only historically inaccurate but profoundly disrespectful to the victims of Hitler’s regime.
Dangerous Consequences of Misusing Holocaust Analogies
The Holocaust was a uniquely horrific chapter in human history, marked by Hitler’s ideologically driven campaign of mass genocide. Equating modern political opponents with such evil trivialises the incomprehensible suffering of its victims and erodes the solemn lessons that history demands we learn. These careless comparisons foster a culture of desensitisation, where extreme rhetoric is normalised and celebrated. This, in turn, reduces complex political issues to mere soundbites, making it difficult to engage in thoughtful and meaningful debate.
The Role of the Media in Stoking the Flames
While both sides of the political spectrum have occasionally indulged in such rhetoric, it is primarily the left-leaning media that has allowed these Hitler comparisons to proliferate unchecked. Mainstream media (MSM), which should be a guardian of informed discourse, often amplifies these damaging remarks rather than condemning them. The constant repetition of such analogies only serves to reinforce them, creating a toxic cycle where inflammatory language becomes the norm.
By failing to call out such rhetoric, the media sacrifices historical accuracy for partisan advantage, further eroding public trust. This selective outrage is evident, as it’s primarily directed at right-leaning figures, while similar comments made by left-leaning politicians often go unchallenged.
The Moral Responsibility of Political Leaders
Leaders on all sides of the political spectrum have a moral obligation to elevate discourse, not degrade it. The use of Holocaust analogies in political debate must be universally condemned, regardless of which side is engaging in it. These comparisons do nothing but alienate reasonable minds and widen the ideological divide, making the prospect of meaningful dialogue nearly impossible.
Political leaders should be held to a higher standard. They should focus their arguments on policies, actions, and ideas rather than resorting to hyperbolic and offensive comparisons.
Words Matter: Why We Must Be Cautious
Language shapes perception, and careless words have real-world consequences. Comparing any contemporary political figure to Hitler is not just offensive—it’s dangerous. It stokes anger, spreads misinformation, and deepens divisions in society. It also diminishes the gravity of the Holocaust, making it just another political analogy rather than the historical horror it indeed was. For those who lived through or were affected by Hitler’s crimes, the name carries a uniquely painful reality that should never be trivialised for political gain.
When political figures and media outlets allow such language to pass without challenge, they contribute to the broader decline in public discourse. The erosion of respect and empathy and the distortion of historical truth should alarm us all.
The Need for Accountability
It’s time for a serious reassessment of our political conversations. Accountability is vital for a healthy democracy but must not come at the expense of accuracy or moral decency. Public figures and media organisations must understand the devastating implications of comparing political opponents to Hitler and refrain from such rhetoric.
Conclusion
The increasingly frequent comparisons of political figures to Hitler signal a troubling decline in the quality of political debate and a profound disrespect for history. The temptation to resort to extreme analogies is amplified in times of deep polarisation. Still, it is precisely at such times that restraint and respect for historical truth are most needed. Leaders, media, and citizens must categorically reject this reckless rhetoric.
Invoking “Hitler” should never be done lightly; it must carry the total weight of its horrific meaning. We owe it to the memory of the Holocaust’s victims, the integrity of historical discourse, and the very fabric of our democracy to ensure that words retain their gravity. Not every political opponent is a genocidal dictator, nor is every policy dispute a harbinger of tyranny.
Could it be that the left is driven by a more profound fear—concerned about the possibility of Donald Trump returning as the 47th President and resuming efforts to “drain the swamp”? If so, the focus should be on constructive debate and policy-driven discourse, not reducing serious historical atrocities to partisan weaponry. The real challenge is to engage with opposing viewpoints on their merits and to foster a discourse that promotes unity, not division.
Remember Shillary Clinton dismissing voters as deplorables, now Bozo Biden is describing voters who do not support the dopeycrats as "garbage", hardly uniting their country.
Wasn’t J.D Vance the first to compare Trump to Hitler a couple of years ago ? |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Oct 31, 2024 8:21:32 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Oct 31, 2024 8:28:00 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 31, 2024 8:32:01 GMT 12
While I'm not a historian, I know enough to know that history always repeats. Normally after the last generation that remembers has died. As in, WW2 was just long enough ago that no one living today remembers or understands. Globally, we have plenty of warning signs. The once great Great Britian is a shadow of it's former self. The bastion of Western democracy is a laughing stock of feudalism, fascism and partisan politics, and very likely to get worse if the one that says he's not a Nazi wins, or, infact if he looses and does what he did last time. I can't believe you see Commie La La as a credible candidate, she is nothing more than a stalinda on steroids.
Following coincidentally posted on Good Oil last night addressing your and others "name calling"
Drawing a very long bow there CZ, and showing a lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say, or even imply I think the other one is a viable candidate. My comments were around how the 'bastion of Western democracy' is a complete basket case. I think that point is hard to argue with? I'm fairly sure that you yourself have stated Trump's foreign policy is 'disruptive' to say the least. Certainly Trump's popularity is around him being a disruptor of political norms. I get that. The main thrust of my comments is that the status quo of the world and it's superpowers are changing. Trump's disruption of the political status quo is a very good example of that. With all of that comes instability, opportunity and risk. And I'm not referring to Merican politics, I'm referring to global geopolitical dynamics. We could probably do with a separate thread on the Merican election, but it is a topic I am desperately trying to avoid. I'm keen to keep Merican politcs out of this thread so we can focus on the prospects of WWIII and what effect it will have on us. I'm assuming we wont actually be invaded by anyone, but things will get very expensive and there will be a shit-tonne of disruption. I can't really see how we or the US can trade with China if a shooting war breaks out with China, but the US (and us) are entirely dependent on China financially. All I can really think is that Taiwan gets sacrificed so that we can keep inflation under control in little old NZ. |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 31, 2024 8:32:19 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Oct 31, 2024 8:40:26 GMT 12
I can't believe you see Commie La La as a credible candidate, she is nothing more than a stalinda on steroids.
Following coincidentally posted on Good Oil last night addressing your and others "name calling"
Drawing a very long bow there CZ, and showing a lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say, or even imply I think the other one is a viable candidate. My comments were around how the 'bastion of Western democracy' is a complete basket case. I think that point is hard to argue with? I'm fairly sure that you yourself have stated Trump's foreign policy is 'disruptive' to say the least. Certainly Trump's popularity is around him being a disruptor of political norms. I get that. The main thrust of my comments is that the status quo of the world and it's superpowers are changing. Trump's disruption of the political status quo is a very good example of that. With all of that comes instability, opportunity and risk. And I'm not referring to Merican politics, I'm referring to global geopolitical dynamics. We could probably do with a separate thread on the Merican election, but it is a topic I am desperately trying to avoid. I'm keen to keep Merican politcs out of this thread so we can focus on the prospects of WWIII and what effect it will have on us. I'm assuming we wont actually be invaded by anyone, but things will get very expensive and there will be a shit-tonne of disruption. I can't really see how we or the US can trade with China if a shooting war breaks out with China, but the US (and us) are entirely dependent on China financially. All I can really think is that Taiwan gets sacrificed so that we can keep inflation under control in little old NZ. Well Fish, you don't seem to have a problem mixing US politics, particularly your Nazi reference, to your views on geopolitics so of course you are going to get rebuff on that. On being a disruptor, the world was actually somewhat more peaceful under the previous Trump presidency than Obama, remember Crimea, ISIS and Benghazi as just a few examples, and the current incredibly corrupt regime, the farcical Afghan retreat and the mess in Ukraine, never mind the Middle East, which has people talking about the world being right on the edge. My view on Trump is that, based on his previous presidency, Putin, Xi and that clown in Nth Korea know not to fuck with him, whereas they know dopeycrats are a push over and easily bought.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 31, 2024 8:44:29 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Oct 31, 2024 8:51:15 GMT 12
I can't believe you see Commie La La as a credible candidate, she is nothing more than a stalinda on steroids.
Following coincidentally posted on Good Oil last night addressing your and others "name calling"
Drawing a very long bow there CZ, and showing a lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say, or even imply I think the other one is a viable candidate. My comments were around how the 'bastion of Western democracy' is a complete basket case. I think that point is hard to argue with? I'm fairly sure that you yourself have stated Trump's foreign policy is 'disruptive' to say the least. Certainly Trump's popularity is around him being a disruptor of political norms. I get that. The main thrust of my comments is that the status quo of the world and it's superpowers are changing. Trump's disruption of the political status quo is a very good example of that. With all of that comes instability, opportunity and risk. And I'm not referring to Merican politics, I'm referring to global geopolitical dynamics. We could probably do with a separate thread on the Merican election, but it is a topic I am desperately trying to avoid. I'm keen to keep Merican politcs out of this thread so we can focus on the prospects of WWIII and what effect it will have on us. I'm assuming we wont actually be invaded by anyone, but things will get very expensive and there will be a shit-tonne of disruption. I can't really see how we or the US can trade with China if a shooting war breaks out with China, but the US (and us) are entirely dependent on China financially. All I can really think is that Taiwan gets sacrificed so that we can keep inflation under control in little old NZ. I’m wondering who the S.E Asian countries will ally with if a wider war breaks out ? . Thailand , Malayasia and Indonesia have well equipped Navies and AF’s . They are our nearest military powers with any clout and control some important air and sea routes to NZ , most importantly our refined hydrocarbons come from Singapore . |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Nov 3, 2024 8:10:03 GMT 12
|
|
