Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

:iconatheosemanon: More from AtheosEmanon




Details

Submitted on
September 18, 2010
Image Size
162 KB
Resolution
756×1202
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,614
Favourites
25 (who?)
Comments
193
Downloads
22

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×
Nazi Tea Party by AtheosEmanon Nazi Tea Party by AtheosEmanon
This is a partially a satire piece.

Just some of the similarities between the two groups. I find it funny at times when I hear the tea party say “WE ARE NOTHING LIKE THE NAZI’s”..oh really..

As I just said, this is satire, if you are going to take this to heart and start the whining in the comments, spare us both and just go do your own pic comparing liberals to communist… or atheist to eh whatever.

Great quotes I enjoyed:

Quote about fear mongering tactic.. which both the Nazis and tea party people are good at.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Hermann Goering
German Politician,
[12 January 1893– 15 October 1946]
Reichsmarschall [highest rank in the military of Nazi Germany other than the Supreme commander -- [Adolf Hitler]-- that any soldier may obtain]


Quote that makes me think of the tea party…
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”

Sinclair Lewis
[February 7, 1885 – January 10, 1951]
American novelist, playwright and short story writer.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconamericandralion:
AmericanDralion Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
It is scary.

I've seen similar with the Taliban
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Sadly I think some Tea Party people would love a Christian theocracy for America
Reply
:iconyoung-stoaty-chap:
Young-stoaty-chap Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's times like this I don't live in America. I'm sure it's a nice place but the Tea party (And there friends in the KKK) are just too crazy for me.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I made this as satire, but I agree wit. They say they are pro life but care nothing of the quality of lie. The vote to end abortions because they are pro life.... yet vote to cut school lunches for kids...
Reply
:iconyoung-stoaty-chap:
Young-stoaty-chap Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
They are "Pro-life" and support the death penalty.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
lmao, I have always said that they are just anti abortion.. once born they care not the quality of life
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012
This is bull propaganda.
Origins: Study history, NAZI got power democratically, not by coup. And all oppositional parties want to win and get power, it does not make them into nazi-likes.
Ideology: “Far right nationalists” is as different from “right wing” as usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists.
Tactics: again, all parties not currently in power blame those in power for all bad things happening. Also, you fail to mention that NSGWP fought violent street battles with their opponents, while Tea Party is non-violent.
Religious make-up: empty argument, majority of most parties in Germany of the time was Christian, just because majority of population was Christian.
Group make-up: ditto, Germany in those days Was white country, so whites comprised all the political parties.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I do apologize for the late response, I only check this site once or twice a day [sometimes more on weekends…sometimes not at all on weekends depending on my schedule, so I shall tackle your points and when you reply, I will try to address each point made when I see it.

Let us tackle your argument in pieces.

"Study history, NAZI got power democratically, not by coup"
The piece never said when or how they came to power, it said how the groups organized and came to be... it mentioned nothing about their rise to power, but okay if you wish for me to address this.. I shall..

In the 12-1924 elections the party lost 18 seats in Reichstag which bought them down to only 14 seats in the Reichstag... in the 1928 election, lost 2 more seats and went down to 12 seats in the Reichstag… in that election, as a total of the votes they managed to get less than 1% of all of the votes in that election.

In the 1929 presidential elections, the Nazi Party got just north of 280K votes, just over 1% but no where near enough to be the president and your representation that they came to power democratically, if by democratically you mean not being elected to the presidency…

In the 1930s parliament elections, or the Reichstag if you prefer that or the Bundestag as it is known as today….. the party got its biggest victory of just north of 100 seats, which was only 18% of the Reichstag .. not a clear democratic victory of control, the fact is, the nazi party in no election ever got a majority of the votes… so a bit unsure of your idea of “democratically”… while since Germany has about 5 or 6 Major parties, it did make it the second largest party but they never got a plurality or a majority of the votes..

It in 1931 there were many clashes between the Rotfrontkämpferbunds and the Nazi Party which left many dead on both sides, as you may know during this time you had the 1930s election, Hitler was the NAZI representative and Paul von Hindenburg was the Social Democratic Party representative...when the votes were counted, Hitler got 6.4M votes, Hindenburg got 8.6M votes, in the first round... In the final round, Hitler got 13.4M votes, but still lost to Hindenburg’s 19.3M votes… so once again I question your idea of “democratically came into power” when he and his party continuously lost the popular vote in each of their presidential attempts.

It was Chancellor Franz von Papen after the Nazis lost the 1932 election, who was forced to resign and who then was replace by Schleicher, who was appointed Chancellor but because the Nazi held a majority in the Reichstag … nothing was really getting done, think of American politics.. instead of President and those who have control of the house so very little getting done.. you had the Chancellor and the Reichstag and thus nothing was getting done.

Persuaded by Papen, Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor [an appointment is not being democratically elected to a position]… Papen became vice Chancellor .

While hitler, as Chancellor was Head of Government, he was appointed, not democratically elected…. Hindenburg was still over Hitler, and democratically elected as president, as well as Head of State and held control of the Armed forces.

During his time as Chancellor, into what is now referred to as the Machtergreifung … is when Hitler solidified the power of the Nazi power in the government and many new rules was implemented regarding how the Reichstag operated, and pretty much made the Nazi Party even more powerful than it otherwise would have been.. but thus far, Hitler, as far as his position was not “democratically elected” into power…

After the death of the president in 1934, the Nazis pretty much seized complete control of the government and eventually the country, hitler himself was never elected, and while the Goring of the Nazi party was in line going by the order of precedence, which AFTER him would be Hitler… neither of which were ever elected to their positions of power by the people they were to rule…

Though by your premise of the Nazis, I never said in the piece that the Nazis were never elected to any positions in their parliament, yet towards the end or the two previously elections before the president died, the Nazis lost seats in both elections… and had it not been for Hitler’s order to marginalize and minimize other parties which without such may very well, as it was looking at before the Reichstag Fire and the Reichstag Fire Decree… which then allowed the Nazis to imprison any important political person who was a threat to their power… since they could be held without charge or trial… that made it even easier for them to solidify their power and made it easier to shut down the other parties, and imprison or kill their leaders.

While in 1934 the referendum making him head of state was passed, this is after over a year of purging other parties, it is a bit disingenuous, with due respect, sir to say they came to power democratically… if by democratically you mean they shut down all of their oppositional parties, and imprisoned or killed their leaders… if by democratically you mean they had already solidified their power in the government. While they had more seats than other parties in the parliament, as what normally happens when a president dies, an election is to take place where the party heads runs for office, that never took place, thus he was never actually elected to be leader in a real election, only a show election

The only election that the Nazis did run for national office, in a real election was the 1932 election, in which they were defeated .. badly.. even if you combined the votes of the Nazis and the communist party.. Hindenburg still got more votes than the two combined.. after that, there was no presidential election again until after Hitler was out of power, and there was a referendum election after the Nazis had already all but seize control of the country… so I would have trusted the validity of his power and the validity of the party, who held more seats than other parties, which gave them control of the parliament but who were far from a majority of the parliament and who had lost a few seats in previous elections... if he were not afraid of holding a presidential election and did not shut down all of his opposition…

“And all oppositional parties want to win and get power, it does not make them into nazi-likes.”
I never said being against something makes one nazi-like., I with this particular piece, merely showed the correlation of how the parties came to be… and as the very first line states, This is a partially a satire piece…. Satire, not to be taken completely serious…. But you did but okay.

“Ideology: “Far right nationalists” is as different from “right wing” as usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists.”
Far right, thus right wing…. Lmao so the Democrat party formed in 1860… are “from” revolutionary Maoists.. Mao himself was not born until 1893… so please sir, tell me how can a party be “from” something that came over 30 years after they formed?


“all parties not currently in power blame those in power for all bad things happening. Also, you fail to mention that NSGWP fought violent street battles with their opponents, while Tea Party is non-violent.”
The party as a whole did not fight battles on street corners, just its militant wing, and this piece shows their similarities, there are several differences, thus it being something not to take too serious, thus partially satirical opening..

“Religious make-up: empty argument, majority of most parties in Germany of the time was Christian, just because majority of population was Christian.”
Yes, but a majority of those party did not say their opposition were godless and said that they were doing “god’s work” .. which Hitler has said in several speeches regarding many things from Jews to commies..

“ditto, Germany in those days Was white country, so whites comprised all the political parties.”
Though it says plainly that the tea party movement is not a racial one, and the idea of “ditto” which does not discount the concept of group majority, not national majority.
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
Hmm, you are an awesome researchy person might I say.
While being appointed to power is not being elected to it, it isn't a coup (like you claimed in the poster) either.
Perhaps it would be best to say that Nazi got into power with according to legal procedures (and by abusing them where they could).
It is similar to recent usa presedents legally granting themselves more and more dictatorial powers.

“Ideology: “Far right nationalists” is as different from “right wing” as usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists.”
Far right, thus right wing…. Lmao so the Democrat party formed in 1860… are “from” revolutionary Maoists.. Mao himself was not born until 1893… so please sir, tell me how can a party be “from” something that came over 30 years after they formed?"
Ah, a mere misundersanding sir.
I wanted to say: A is as different from B as C is different from D
I shortened it to: A is as different from B as C is from D(implied: different from, not originating from)
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Once again, I shall address your comment in parts so that you will know exactly to which I am replying to… shall we?

“While being appointed to power is not being elected to it, it isn't a coup (like you claimed in the poster) either.”
Did you read the “poster”? I hold some reservation that you even read it since I never said that they came to power in a coup, I said their main goal was to take over the government by a coup.. which Hitler did try and failed.. to which was the reason that he was imprisoned. Saying that their goal was to take over the government by a coup, does not say that is how they came to power.

Though that of course could be also stated since a coup is a seizure of power by a political faction from another faction through often violent and political means… How can you say imprisoning and killing your political rivals is not violence?

Certainly sir, you would not say that the Nazis came to power through pacifist means and killed no one to solidify their aims? The Nazis killed, imprisoned or exiled the vast majority of their political opposition, and when Night of the Long Knives happened.. surely sir you, or maybe you are saying that the Night of the Long Knives was not a violent action against the government or a violent means of a coup to solidify Nazi power?

What other reasons would one have to kill off their political opponents if not to solidify their own power? What other reason would one have to imprison their political rivals, not for anything they had done illegal since most of which [thanks to the Reichstag Fire Decree] were held without charges or trials for indefinite periods of times …many of which after the Nazis took over the entire country were sent to the camps and many of which died.

I see no other reason, other than to solidify their own power would one have to kill off their political rivals when it was known that the president was very sick and could die within a matter of weeks, since Hindenburg was out of “pocket” as they say, or because of his cancer, and him being bedridden the Nazis had taken this opportunity to solidify their power even further by… as previously stating, solidifying their power in the parliament and killing off their top political rivals, and imprisoning many of the secondary and under people of their political rivals…

By the time the president died, the Nazis had all but killed off their rivals and were quick to overtake the country, the Nazis NEVER allowed a presidential election as was customary when a president died that a year or so after that there would be an election held and the people would vote on their president.. instead the Nazis had turned the country into mostly a one party country, and after a year or so… they did the 1934 referendum. What did Hitler do after the death of the presidency? He abolished that office, making himself “Fuhrer” and solidifying the power of the party.

HE was NEVER elected democratically, as your first comment stated, or rather the Nazi Party were never elected into power democratically, they, while holding the most seats of any party, [since Germany has 5 or 6 major parties] they were no where near the majority of the parliament .. and then killing off his rivals, seizing power, and so starting his reign… I do not know where you get the claim from that they came to power democratically.

IF by Democratically you mean, good sir, that they killed off all of their rivals, shut down all other parties then asked what party in a one party system did the people want as truly democratic then I Would fear such an idea of democracy.

“Perhaps it would be best to say that Nazi got into power with according to legal procedures (and by abusing them where they could).”
Yes, but this is not democratic, sir. Especially since before such a seize of power by the Nazis, such matters of order of precedence and other bills would have to be passed by the parliament, the Nazis never passed such bills by the parliament, they merely seized the power. There were few referendum cases, where the people would be asked to vote on such measures, that also did not happen… thus the idea of “Democratically elected” to power is laughable as it is dangerous when one, with due respect, such as you charges democratically when all they did was seize power and kill off their opposition

“It is similar to recent usa presedents legally granting themselves more and more dictatorial powers.”
… has a president done such a thing? A president cannot “grant” himself such powers, there are certain presidential powers that the president may use at his disposal, but no one president merely granted themselves this power. This power was written within the context of the presidential powers in the constitution, as well as amended by the US congress over the several centuries… so I see no “similarity” of someone doing what the German constitution clearly said could not be done.. and someone, such as the US constitution changes have been in line with the congressional votes of which the US constitution allows. .. If Hitler had allowed a referendum on his changes, or allowed the Parliament to vote on them then his alterations would have been in line with their constitution at the time, he did not thus it was not.

“Ah, a mere misundersanding sir.
I wanted to say: A is as different from B as C is different from D
I shortened it to: A is as different from B as C is from D(implied: different from, not originating from)”


I never said that the tea party was a far right wing group, sir? I see no misunderstanding on my part, perhaps your part when I clearly said that both were conservative, yet specifically said that the Nazis were a far right wing group, whereas it merely says that the tea party is a right wing group.

Well, with due respect sir, even your “shortened” form would make very little sense as to say something is from something that came after it… Would be like me saying that the constitution is nothing but a Steve Jobs Apple document!!! .. since Steve Jobs, and Apple came after the constitution, it would be illogical, and absurd of a statement,… as was your statement of “usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists” to say something is from anything that came after it, is rather absurd as it is illogical … though shows a good amount of hilarity but only in its absurdity.
Reply
Add a Comment: