Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Are most liberals appeasers, by nature?

The favorite refrain of liberal appeasers-of-Nazism 80 years ago was, “Not all Germans are Nazis,” even after 13 years of evidence that Germany intended to wreak havoc on the world:

-1925 Hitler’s Mien Kampf was published which, like the Quran, stated Hitler’s goal: Domination

-1930 The Nazi Party becomes the largest political party in Germany

-1933 Chancellor Hitler quits the League of Nations

-1935 He declares military conscription and builds up his armies

-1936 Germany seizes the Rhineland

-1938 Germany seizes Czechoslovakia and Austria

-1938 August: Chamberlain appeases in Munich and proclaims “Peace, in our time.”

During these many years there were no marches or petitions by “moderate” Germans against Nazism, just a lot of “We Germans are a peaceful people and mean you no harm.” In the end ALL Germans united under the banner of Nazism to cause the deaths of 60 million people – MILLION! – in WW2.

Today the mantra of liberal appeasers is, “Not all Muslims are extremists.” Is appeasement a genetic condition of liberals?

10/28/10, NBC: UCSD, Harvard find “Liberal Gene” as partial answer as to why liberals think the way they do.


-Hitler, 11/8/38: "Under the rules of Parliamentary Democracy I obtained the absolute majority of votes and today I have the unanimous support of the German people. The only difference lies in the fact that only a fraction of the English votes were cast for Mr. Churchill, while I can say that I represent the whole German people."

-8/20/1933 New York Times: 90%of German voters endorsed Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has been possessed by any other ruler in modern times.

-"The Labour Party opposed the Fascist dictators on principle but until the late 1930s it also opposed re-armament and it had a significant pacifist wing." (Richard Toye, The Labour Party and the Economics of Rearmament, 1935-1939)

-“Throughout the thirties, in fact, from as early as 1933, he warned his countrymen about Hitler. In this period, he was scorned and mocked by his own party; he was called a warmonger, an anachronism from another age; indeed, it was not uncommon for detractors to

Update 2:

was not uncommon for detractors to question his sanity."

Update 3:

The Essential Man: Winston Churchill” by M. E. Berume.

14 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Like a Scientist who believes in FREE ENERGY because they think there's a way around the First Law of Energy...

    ....A Liberal is someone who believes there is a way around the First Law of Biology.

    In other words, a Liberal is basically someone who believes they have EVOLVED beyond EVOLUTION.

    Life is the competition between replicating energy machines for the available energy.

    Society is the cooperation between some of these machines to the end of winning this competition.

    Darwinism is the understanding that Life evolves as mutations which enhance the capacity to replicate, get replicated.

    Darwinism is the understanding that that this process, this competition, is INEVITABLE.

    That Life develops as those individuals & groups that are BETTER at energy acquisition & replication REPLACE//DOMINATE/ELIMINATE 'less fit' individuals & groups. The fittest survive, with fittest being defines as whoever controlled sufficient energy to replicate.

    Now basically one of the BEST survival strategies is to work as a group. It is just flat out easier to get what you need when you work together. And we have EVOLVED to do so. Humans, like so many other species, are Social creatures.

    But the FIRST law is that Life is a competition. A Liberal is basically someone who

    forgets this, or never learns it, or 'evolves beyond' it as the case may be.

    A Liberal is someone who so enjoys the warmth, good feelings & success of group action, that they come to the 'enlightened' conclusion that all this competition is unnecessary. It's needless violence & suffering based on the 'unenlightened' desire to be better than others.

    It's not that there's a 'Liberal' gene, we are all genetically inclined to be Social.

    Liberalism is more of a mental defect, and exaggeration of the sensible desire to avoid unnecessary conflict. Liberals just tend to see ALL conflict as unnecessary. They are inclined to see all violence as bad. Hence the penchant for 'appeasement'.

    Liberals don't see conflict as inevitable, they see it as a failure to accommodate the needs of others. And if you say "This Society is SUPPOSED to be concentrating on OUR needs - well a Liberal sees this as 'Unenlightened', just part of the backward mindset that causes all this competition related suffering.

    Now what's ironic is that since competition is also built into our genes, Liberals are quite capable of getting nasty, aggressive & violent - but they will direct their anger at what they consider to be the source of the 'problem' - namely their own societies failure to accommodate the World's needs & desires.

  • Sane men, men that can have faith in human life because they understand their own value, are the minority. Most people are taught they are stupid, that they can't learn what the "thinkers" learn or ever have any access because those men are "better" than they are. Most people are lazy and would rather hate someone than think about anything. So combine this laziness with the culturally taught destruction of self esteem and get millions of people either backing Hitler or turning their cheeks and he would have had no power over them if he didn't have power over their minds (convinced they were weak by those who then used their power for true evil). What do we expect when all those that have what it takes to teach people constantly just degrade everyone and speak of mental defects and all this knowledge only a special few are privy too and the rest are just too dumb? The thinkers degrade their own and everyone else's intelligence and we wonder why we are afraid of thought and people keep being used as weapons. ****.

  • 1 decade ago

    First off your whole premise is wrong because Neville Chamerlain was a CONSERVATIVE. Also, the Quran does not call for domination, it calls for peace, like the bible. Try picking up a book for a change instead of just listening to what other people say. Ignorance kills.

    Also, you are DEAD DEAD DEAD wrong about "moderate" Germans. Even a cursory reading of history lends to a discovery of The White Rose, which was a group of university intellectuals that stood up to the Nazi's and were eventually executed. There was also the Widerstand in Germany as well as other resistance networks that tried to persuade the Wehrmacht to stage a coup.

    So, next time, read a book.

  • 4 years ago

    i'm a liberal yet i became into and am against involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. strange, huh? you are able to desire to earnings historic previous to understand why Nazism became into so captivating.. Germany became into made to go through extraordinarily below the Versailles 'treaty'... It purely mandatory a charismatic chief to unite the human beings... and then it became into too overdue. that's uncomplicated to look lower back on historic previous and ask 'why did no longer you realize?' ~

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Only if it happens to match a pejorative filled profile of what's not to hate about liberals.

    If you happen to be naive about human potential for anti-human cruelty and malfeasance anyone liberal or otherwise might arrive at such a fallacious preconception about human detachment from internecine.

    Source(s): Rumination
  • 1 decade ago

    more a case of empathy; an ability that people tend to learn with maturity and experience. Kind of hard to hate when you can see their point of view and actually agree with it in many respects (understand WHY they think what they think), even if you disagree with their ultimate conclusions.

    A problem with empathy is that you can delude yourself into thinking the other will come to the same conclusion as you with the same facts, when this is often not the case, unfortunately. thus, neville chamberlain's huge mistake. he assumed hitler was, as himself, a reasonable person in essence.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    no the american revolution was a liberal revolution

    and no not all german were united behind the nazis

    the Communists and christian democrats had to be arrested as they opposed the nazis

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This is typical, right wing blog news "1 plus 1 equals a billion - why? Because I wrote it right there!"

    Source(s): And not all Germans were Nazi's, braniac. It was often Conservatives trying to not have a war with Germany - Charles Lindberg for one - in case you even know US history goes back that far.
  • 1 decade ago

    Evidently, we are whatever scary thing the right needs on any given day 'appeasers', socialists, freedom crushing fill-in-the-blanks. It doesn't matter to the right that all these philosophies contradict each other because logic has no place on the right.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Libs act like the 3k u.s military in Iraq is 1000% worse compared to the. Deaths from Mao.

    Libs are insane!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.