🧩 The Evolution of Legal and Cultural Racism → Authoritarianism

Era / System	Core Idea	How It Worked	What It Led To
🇺🇸 Jim Crow America (late 1800s–1960s)	“Separate but equal” — white supremacy embedded in law	Laws defining who could marry, vote, or attend school based on race; normalized hierarchy inside a democracy	Showed the world that a modern democracy could legally enforce racial caste
⬇️
🇩🇪 Nazi Germany (1933–1945)	“Racial purity as national destiny”	Studied U.S. race laws (1934 meeting), then codified ancestry-based citizenship (Nuremberg Laws, 1935)	Democracy abolished → totalitarianism, genocide; model of what happens when racial hierarchy merges with state power
⬇️
🇺🇸 Hardline MAGA Movement (2016–present)	“Real Americans vs. others”	Nationalist nostalgia; suspicion of minorities, immigrants, and institutions; disinformation + cult of leader	Still democratic, but flirts with authoritarian logic — aims to redefine “the people” by exclusion

---

⚖️ Common Patterns Across Eras

Theme	Expression
Mythic past	“The good old days” before social change
Fear of decline / replacement	Blaming minorities or outsiders for loss of status
Legal or procedural exclusion	Laws, gerrymandering, or citizenship tests that create inequality
Leader as savior	A strongman promising to “restore greatness”
Normalization of hate	Gradual desensitization to racist or violent language

---

🧠 Key Takeaway

Each stage shows how racism can shift from culture → law → authoritarian politics.
Jim Crow proved exclusion can coexist with democracy;
the Nazis showed how that logic can become totalitarian;
and MAGA hardliners demonstrate how similar rhetoric can return under new guises.

7 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Key Takeaway

Another thread of desperation.

10 minutes ago, novacova said:

Another thread of desperation.

Sure, try reading it before commenting.

16 minutes ago, novacova said:

Another thread of desperation.

Another vacuous meaningless reply to a great thread ……you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.

Nazi junk. You haters are the Nazis. Hitler was a Marxist for 20 years ffs

26 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Nazi Germany (1933–1945) “Racial purity as national destiny” Studied U.S. race laws (1934 meeting), then codified ancestry-based citizenship (Nuremberg Laws, 1935)

 

This is actually true. The German Nuremberg laws were based on US laws, that segregated blacks. Not many people mention that.

This is clown show nonsense. So you're a racist if you want your country to reflect your own people and exclude others. Same as virtually every other country on earth including Thailand.

 

Your concept of "racism" is retarded and in fact YOU are the radical for believing something only a tiny fraction of the worlds population believes.

I give it a solid B for presentation unlike your other liberal brethren who do very shoddy work.

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

Another vacuous meaningless reply to a great thread ……you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.

That’s not water there, it’s cool-aid and it would be highly advisable to stop drinking it because it’s a real reality wrecker. 

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

This is actually true. The German Nuremberg laws were based on US laws, that segregated blacks. Not many people mention that.

KKK were Democrats

Just now, novacova said:

That’s not water there, it’s cool-aid and it would be highly advisable to stop drinking it because it’s a real reality wrecker. 

Yup there ya go straight out of its mouth!

1 minute ago, Harrisfan said:

KKK were Democrats

“Democrats” still are

Hey OP.  Did you make that presentation, or did you take it without attributing it to its owner?  Publishing something like that without attribution is plagiarism. Which is illegal. Just saying...
If you actually made that?  Nice job. 

52 minutes ago, connda said:

Hey OP.  Did you make that presentation, or did you take it without attributing it to its owner?  Publishing something like that without attribution is plagiarism. Which is illegal. Just saying...

No, it is not, plagiarism, in itself, is not illegal.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

This is actually true. The German Nuremberg laws were based on US laws, that segregated blacks. Not many people mention that.

 

Give us a break. When revisionist left wing interpretations of events suit your fancy and support your bias, you embrace them. The allegations of a tie between Jim Crow laws and Nazi German laws is tenuous. The proposal originates with an allegation that planners at a 1935 event claimed to have been inspired by laws in the USA.  The proposal  falls apart if one looks at the  timeline of Nazi legislation and the supporting documentation in relation to the  introduction of discriminatory policies in Germany. Johann Andreas Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Judenthum ("Judaism Unmasked") is one of the first offers of organized discrimination, and it was written in 1711.  The deportation of all Bavarian Jews in 1715 occurred long before the Nazi deportations. There are successive  state ordered expulsions,  attacks and regulatory practices. Whether it was Fredericks ban on Jews in berlin or Elizabeth's reign of extortion in Bohemia, the Germans had a long history centuries before the Nazis  were elected. 

 

The Nazi political platform of 1920 laid out their intent and there was no reference to Jim Crow laws.  1920 was the  public unveiling  of the Aryan First edict, which made clear that only those who were of German blood qualified for rights and jobs in the nation.  The 1933  "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" codified that sentiment. The attempt to link Jim Crow to  the Nuremburg laws was an attempt to denigrate the USA and to compare it to a Nazi regime. 

 

3 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Give us a break. When revisionist left wing interpretations of events suit your fancy and support your bias, you embrace them. The allegations of a tie between Jim Crow laws and Nazi German laws is tenuous. The proposal originates with an allegation that planners at a 1935 event claimed to have been inspired by laws in the USA.  The proposal  falls apart if one looks at the  timeline of Nazi legislation and the supporting documentation in relation to the  introduction of discriminatory policies in Germany. Johann Andreas Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Judenthum ("Judaism Unmasked") is one of the first offers of organized discrimination, and it was written in 1711.  The deportation of all Bavarian Jews in 1715 occurred long before the Nazi deportations. There are successive  state ordered expulsions,  attacks and regulatory practices. Whether it was Fredericks ban on Jews in berlin or Elizabeth's reign of extortion in Bohemia, the Germans had a long history centuries before the Nazis  were elected. 

 

The Nazi political platform of 1920 laid out their intent and there was no reference to Jim Crow laws.  1920 was the  public unveiling  of the Aryan First edict, which made clear that only those who were of German blood qualified for rights and jobs in the nation.  The 1933  "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" codified that sentiment. The attempt to link Jim Crow to  the Nuremburg laws was an attempt to denigrate the USA and to compare it to a Nazi regime. 

 

 

Hiistorical research, notably in the work of Yale law professor James Q. Whitman, demonstrates that the Nazi regime, when crafting the Nuremberg Laws, carefully studied and was influenced by existing race laws in the United States. 

 

Key areas of influence included:

 

Anti-miscegenation laws: The Nazis looked at U.S. state laws that criminalized marriage and sexual relations between different races as a primary model for their own "Blood Law" (Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor), which banned such relations between "Aryans" and Jews. The U.S. was one of the few countries at the time with such explicit laws, with 41 states having anti-miscegenation statutes.

 

Citizenship laws: The Nazis were interested in American immigration and naturalization policies, including laws from 1790-1924 that established quotas and racial criteria for citizenship, to help inform their own Reich Citizenship Law, which stripped German Jews of their citizenship.

 

Racial classification: Nazi lawyers studied U.S. systems of racial classification, particularly the Jim Crow "one-drop rule" (which classified a person as Black if they had even one Black ancestor). Interestingly, some Nazis found the "one-drop rule" to be too extreme and rigid for their purposes, opting for slightly less far-reaching definitions of Jewishness in some cases.

 

Genocide of Native Americans: Hitler and other Nazi officials admired the U.S. conquest of the West and the policies regarding Native Americans, seeing it as a model for their own plans for expansion into Eastern Europe and the displacement or elimination of local populations. 

 

In essence, the Nazis regarded the United States as an innovative world leader in codified, government-sanctioned racism and used U.S. laws as a practical legal blueprint for institutionalizing racial discrimination in Germany. 

1 hour ago, connda said:

Hey OP.  Did you make that presentation, or did you take it without attributing it to its owner?  Publishing something like that without attribution is plagiarism. Which is illegal. Just saying...
If you actually made that?  Nice job. 

 

Obviously a cut and paste. The only thing original was the thread title, where he misspelled Jim Crow.

Democratic Party.  The party of segregation, KKK, slavery and Jim Crowe.

 

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Hiistorical research, notably in the work of Yale law professor James Q. Whitman, demonstrates that the Nazi regime, when crafting the Nuremberg Laws, carefully studied and was influenced by existing race laws in the United States. 

 

Key areas of influence included:

 

Anti-miscegenation laws: The Nazis looked at U.S. state laws that criminalized marriage and sexual relations between different races as a primary model for their own "Blood Law" (Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor), which banned such relations between "Aryans" and Jews. The U.S. was one of the few countries at the time with such explicit laws, with 41 states having anti-miscegenation statutes.

 

Citizenship laws: The Nazis were interested in American immigration and naturalization policies, including laws from 1790-1924 that established quotas and racial criteria for citizenship, to help inform their own Reich Citizenship Law, which stripped German Jews of their citizenship.

 

Racial classification: Nazi lawyers studied U.S. systems of racial classification, particularly the Jim Crow "one-drop rule" (which classified a person as Black if they had even one Black ancestor). Interestingly, some Nazis found the "one-drop rule" to be too extreme and rigid for their purposes, opting for slightly less far-reaching definitions of Jewishness in some cases.

 

Genocide of Native Americans: Hitler and other Nazi officials admired the U.S. conquest of the West and the policies regarding Native Americans, seeing it as a model for their own plans for expansion into Eastern Europe and the displacement or elimination of local populations. 

 

In essence, the Nazis regarded the United States as an innovative world leader in codified, government-sanctioned racism and used U.S. laws as a practical legal blueprint for institutionalizing racial discrimination in Germany. 

You have relied upon AI and others to summarize an hypothesis that has not stood up to scrutiny. Prof. Whitman is a "progressive" who is opposed to the Trump administration policies. (In some cases, he is rightfully critical.) However, he has his own inherent political bias. 

 

 Prof. Michael A. Livingston, a Professor of Law at Rutgers-Camden School of Law, and recognized  war crimes and genocide legal expert  has valid criticisms of the attempt to link the US Jim Crow laws to the Nazi program of discrimination.  He states; 

The internal issue relates to Whitman’s evidence and the “correlation vs. causation” problem. While establishing that the Nazis were aware of American precedents, and that these precedents had at least some influence on their deliberations, it does not tell us how significant they were as compared to other historical sources. In this respect, it must be noted that the Germans had literally hundreds of years of European anti-Semitic laws to look at, some of which had been in effect within the lifetime of the draftsmen. For example, denial of citizenship to Jews, and such subsequent regulations as the ghetto and the yellow star, had precedents in medieval and early modern Europe: they were not so much inventions as reversions to earlier practice. 

Whitman's  claim ignores the reality of the Weimar republic  reformation which liberalized German laws and removed state approved discrimination post 1919.The Nazis simply removed the freedoms that  Weimar had introduced.

 

The current trend of equating  modern era populist movements to the nazis is both lazy and tiresome.  Just as Brexiteers and Farage's reformers are labeled nazis, so too are leaders like the new PM of Japan or Italy's Meloni. It is the typical fixing of labels. People who are opposed to  some Trump policies are often called "communist".  Whitman has allowed his pre-existing sentiments to sway his conclusions.

9 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

You have relied upon AI and others to summarize an hypothesis that has not stood up to scrutiny. Prof. Whitman is a "progressive" who is opposed to the Trump administration policies. (In some cases, he is rightfully critical.) However, he has his own inherent political bias. 

 

 Prof. Michael A. Livingston, a Professor of Law at Rutgers-Camden School of Law, and recognized  war crimes and genocide legal expert  has valid criticisms of the attempt to link the US Jim Crow laws to the Nazi program of discrimination.  He states; 

The internal issue relates to Whitman’s evidence and the “correlation vs. causation” problem. While establishing that the Nazis were aware of American precedents, and that these precedents had at least some influence on their deliberations, it does not tell us how significant they were as compared to other historical sources. In this respect, it must be noted that the Germans had literally hundreds of years of European anti-Semitic laws to look at, some of which had been in effect within the lifetime of the draftsmen. For example, denial of citizenship to Jews, and such subsequent regulations as the ghetto and the yellow star, had precedents in medieval and early modern Europe: they were not so much inventions as reversions to earlier practice. 

Whitman's  claim ignores the reality of the Weimar republic  reformation which liberalized German laws and removed state approved discrimination post 1919.The Nazis simply removed the freedoms that  Weimar had introduced.

 

The current trend of equating  modern era populist movements to the nazis is both lazy and tiresome.  Just as Brexiteers and Farage's reformers are labeled nazis, so too are leaders like the new PM of Japan or Italy's Meloni. It is the typical fixing of labels. People who are opposed to  some Trump policies are often called "communist".  Whitman has allowed his pre-existing sentiments to sway his conclusions.

 

I guess that's what they call "beating a dead horse".

 

Lol.

5 hours ago, novacova said:

“Democrats” still are

 

 

 

 

A post with a trolling meme containing profane language has been removed:

• You will not post vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

8 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Nazi junk. You haters are the Nazis. Hitler was a Marxist for 20 years ffs

A classic "big lie" as espoused by Joseph Goebels - "Hitler was a Marxist, Nazis were really socialists!"

 

Do you (and others on here) actually believe it, and thus fly in the face of and reject 90 odd years of history, are you simply deluded, or are you constantly pushing it in an attempt to justify a foul political creed?

9 hours ago, Tug said:

Another vacuous meaningless reply to a great thread ……you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.

Great?  LOL

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

A classic "big lie" as espoused by Joseph Goebels - "Hitler was a Marxist, Nazis were really socialists!"

The Democrats are good at the big lie.

@ the above: sorry for your countries history but racism/fascism was and is a big part of it.

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

 

 

 

 

Which party had a Grandwizard serve in the Senate?   Does Robert Byrd(D) ring a bell?  
 

what about FDRs first Supreme Court justice?  Hugo Black.

4 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

@ the above: sorry for your countries history but racism/fascism was and is a big part of it.

Where are you from?

9 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Nazi junk. You haters are the Nazis. Hitler was a Marxist for 20 years ffs

 

Let's assume that Nazi Germany was a real white society at elite level. I see similarities between Trump and Hitler, both seem to be pro Zionists. And both Hitler and Trump seem to be Kosher certified. Did Wall Street finance Hitler? Wall Street just happens to be located in NY and the UN headquarters  too. In 1831 the gates of NY were opened to the Russian Bolsheviks that just happen to be 99 % Kosher. And a few years back we have the Russian Communist Revolution and Lenin look very Aryan, or not? And all those dollars circulating in Russia to finance the revolution at that time came from somewhere...

Here’s an excerpt paraphrased and translated from the minutes of the 5 June 1934 meeting of Nazi jurists (the “Second Meeting of the Commission on Criminal Law Reform”). The original German record is preserved in the Reich Ministry of Justice archives, and quoted in James Q. Whitman’s Hitler’s American Model (Princeton University Press, 2017, pp. 70–71).

---

🗒️ Excerpt (translated summary):

One participant [Ministerialrat Dr. Stuckart] remarked that American states have achieved a “great deal” in defining the “colored” population and prohibiting their intermarriage with whites. The group noted that in some U.S. states, even “one drop of Negro blood” sufficed to classify a person as non-white, whereas other states required a higher proportion.

Another speaker pointed out that the American definitions were inconsistent and “not entirely satisfactory for our purposes,” because they relied too much on appearance or self-identification rather than ancestry. The consensus was that Germany should develop a clearer blood-based standard—perhaps two or three Jewish grandparents—as the criterion for legal classification.

---

📚 What this shows

• They had direct, detailed knowledge of U.S. state race laws (especially anti-miscegenation statutes).

• They debated which parts might be useful and which were “too crude” or “too extreme.”

• They sought to rationalize racial classification more systematically — and the result was the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which indeed adopted ancestry thresholds almost exactly as discussed in this meeting.