Well, came across this today:

Nazi Anthem Pulled From Alberta, Canada Lottery Ad
http://www.rense.com/general62/anazi.htm

They claim that it was an "accident" that it was selected to be used for the ad....but was it, really?     Or was it just more of that "pushin' the boundaries" thing, to see how far they can go?   And when they didn't get more than an inch they had to cough and ahem and pretend it was all an accident? 

Harry The Nazi January 18, 2005
   Several people have written in to ask about Prince Harry’s apparent lack of
   sensitivity in wearing a Nazi costume to a recent party. Shortly after the "official
   apology" from Clarence House stated that "Prince Harry has apologized for any
   offence or embarrassment he has caused. He realizes it was a poor choice of
   costume."
   This was a carefully staged event to begin imprinting the public with the official
   acceptance of the Nazis. The initial reaction is shock, which still is an entry way into
   the frequency of the populace. People are now talking about and seeing Nazi symbols.
   Once the initial "shock" has passed, watch for an introduction of "phase two."

Source: http://www.stewartswerdlow.com

I think the opposite is true, at least for now. Nazism at this point exists as a symbol of the worst kind of evil, and as such it is very useful for manipulating the public mind. Even though Stalin was a more prolific killer, and hundreds of previous cultures and civilizations were more cruel, Hitler and his followers have the worst reputation. Nazism is used today as a way to divert attention and outrage from ongoing evils. Rather than focusing on actual wrongdoing, (corporations poisoning the planet, pedophile priests wrecking the lives of children, megalomaniacal political leaders selling their people down the river, institutional racism, drug laws that drive prices up and make illegal dealing lucrative, economic manipulation by the elite, etc.) the leaders can just point to a swastika and say "there's the real evil".

And who can argue with them? Nazism eclipses all current evils in the public mind. The public mind is simple. It doesn't retain the "how" and "why", just the images. So as long as we don't wear swastikas and double lightning bolts while we torture POW's and raze the homes of children, we are safe. We are not evil. The caricature-like nature of Nazi evil--its cartoonishly overblown presence--ensures that comparisons to current evils will be laughed down. After all, we can never be that evil! Anybody who'd make the comparison is surely just another Chicken Little!

The banning of the swastika and other Nazi imagery is a symptom of the confused state of mind most people now live in. The virtual is leaking into the real. Rather than making an attempt to penetrate to the heart of the real, people are just accepting the virtual as real. They are treating symbols like the things they represent. The Nazis could have worn smiley faces instead of swastikas. Then we'd be banning smiley faces and patting ourselves on the back for defeating evil. The new confusion can be seen in the banning of violent video games, where a simulation of violent behavior is taken for actual violence. It can be seen in the banning of toy weapons, where a simulation of a tool of killing is taken for actual tool. And it's apparent in the banning of Nazi symbols, where the imagery of evil is taken for evil itself.

Nazism will slowly regain respect in the world after its basic tenets are swallowed by the people. We will never see the rise of the party itself, complete with the old uniforms. The world will become Nazified first, under the surface, and then people will "rediscover" and "re-examine" Nazism. If the NWO is successfully implemented, intellectuals will begin observing how similar it is to the Nazi ideal, then they will conclude that the Nazis were right, but their methods were flawed. We won't have Nazi stormtroopers on the streets, just generic stormtroopers. Nobody will wear swastikas, because it won't be necessary. The swastika will go down in history as a quaint symbol of our forefathers. It'll be revered alongside all other political symbols which the NWO will subsume.

..........and here's another way to look at this morningsun76, using the logic that thought / costumes  "shows where a person stands" (with the implication being that it *might* turn into action and thus deserves morally imperative action...)

Consider this:

The Powers That Be could very well label you and many of us Noble Realmers as terrorists, or potential "problems" that need to be put on that infamous "list" to be dealt with, due to our unconventional, boat rocking opinions.  We don't conform to the norm.  We challenge what we've been taught.  We try to help others to wake up and we stick our necks out and loudly proclaim that we don't stand for the values / lifestyle that TPTB have put in front of us.  We choose a different path.

They would look at you, me, and the rest of us as having "shown where we stand".  And being that where we stand is obviously against where they stand, they just might be feeling that action is "morally imperative" on their part to take care of this potential problem.

So, how is what you advocated any different from the mindset TPTB have against nonconformist troublemakers?

Excellent points and good question.

Basically I guess the difference is in that I'm saying that sometimes you have to respond when someone says something that you feel is wrong in an important way.  Open discussion and free speech, I think, are one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal to try to reach truth.   Disagreement and disciplined argument, I think, can be very productive.   Whereas TPTB wouldn't be interested in a discussion if they labelled us as terrorists, they'd just send men with guns to our doors and be done with it.     The pen vs. the sword, so to speak.

Consider this:

The Powers That Be could very well label you and many of us Noble Realmers as terrorists, or potential "problems" that need to be put on that infamous "list" to be dealt with, due to our unconventional, boat rocking opinions.  We don't conform to the norm.  We challenge what we've been taught.  We try to help others to wake up and we stick our necks out and loudly proclaim that we don't stand for the values / lifestyle that TPTB have put in front of us.  We choose a different path.

They would look at you, me, and the rest of us as having "shown where we stand".  And being that where we stand is obviously against where they stand, they just might be feeling that action is "morally imperative" on their part to take care of this potential problem.

So, how is what you advocated any different from the mindset TPTB have against nonconformist troublemakers?

lyra wrote:

Learn how to respect another's right to have their own opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

People that display symbols which represent the use of hostile force against others, whether it be a swastika, communist flag, or whatever, are doing a lot more than expressing an opinion.   They're telling you where they stand.

Uh huh, and......and in the case of Harry, is he actually out there, acting like a Nazi, doing things that Nazis do? (actually, we'll never know what the guy does in his free time) but so far it's safe to say that he's never been officially publicly busted engaging in Nazi-esque activities.  So...he's shown where he stands.  Now what?  Again, he has yet to so far to actually engage in Nazi behavior as far as anybody knows.

Why?  What are you "morally" fighting against?    In this case you're fighting against a costume, and somebody's opinion. 

The world is full of opinions that don't match yours, both good and bad.  That doesn't mean you have the right to tell people they can't have them.  Especially in this case where it's a *costume* and not actions.

And you can theorize that costumes *might* turn into actual action, but since that hasn't happened yet in this case, that would just be "slippery slope."   

That's exactly what it is, although it's an indicator of "bigger picture" issues.  Him and his costume and the ensuing debate is interesting if only for the fact that it does bring up an good point........the idea of someone having a right to their opinion, and, at what point, if any point, does one go "too far" in expressing their opinions.   And does Joe Public have the "right' to enforce their own morals / sensitivities / opinions / beliefs on those around them?

Learn how to respect another's right to have their own opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

People that display symbols which represent the use of hostile force against others, whether it be a swastika, communist flag, or whatever, are doing a lot more than expressing an opinion.   They're telling you where they stand.  That symbol might mean "I want to kill you," or "I intend to take your land and your right to raise your children."

I say in some instances a strong response to symbols is a moral imperative.   Silence = death.

In the case of the Prince, it seems like a stunt designed to distract people's attention and thus is probably not worthy of continued attention.

It boils down to trying to force one's viewpoints / beliefs onto others.   

I don't support Nazis, nor condone the things they did....but Harry, and anybody else, has the right to dress up as one, even praise and support them.  It's not my business.   It has no relevance to my life.   I don't have the right to tell him or anybody to not have a particular viewpoint.   I think anybody who tries to stammer out a reason for why this is some sort of abomination, why it's a "cultural insensitivity" needs to stop and think for a minute about what they're really actually saying.   What they're really saying is, "*I* personally find this offensive, therefore, *you* shouldn't wear that! (say that, think that, etc.)"   Even using the excuse that "I'm not the only one who finds this offensive!   Millions of others do too!" isn't good enough.  It doesn't matter if one or one million people find something offensive.   A person has a right to their view.  Kind of reminds me of the time back in SoCal where some (Vietnamese) video store owner in Little Saigon (Westminster) put a picture of Ho Chi Minh up in his window.   The community of Little Saigon FLIPPED.   I mean, they flipped OUT.  There were THOUSANDS of people marching up and down the street of Bolsa Avenue, and I do mean THOUSANDS, waving handmade signs and the red and yellow South Vietnamese flag, chanting, there were news helicopters flying in circles overhead and news vans and reporters everywhere, crowds gathering along the sidewalks, cars honking in support as they drove past the march.  I know because I stumbled into it and decided to hang out and take pictures!     But they flipped out and created total MAYHEM, protesting and marching for something like a week straight, because they felt their offense should dictate what another can or can't do.  It was stupid!   So the guy wants to put up a pic of Ho up in his window.  Let him!   They couldn't accept that.   THey created mayhem and threw a fit.   Totally nuts.  We see this every day, all around us on a small scale and up to the large, such as what we see with Harry.  We have to censor ourselves on a daily basis in small ways because SOMEBODY is always getting offended, SOMEBODY'S feelings are wounded.   It's ridiculous.   Big Lesson of 3rd Density:  Learn how to respect another's right to have their own opinion, even if you don't agree with it.

Isn't the swastika an ancient sanscrit power symbol - originally non-offensive in its meaning?

yes i think so. much like the snake is said to have symbolized wisdom and the word illuminati used to be a good/postive thing.

leave it to beaver to take all thats righteous and corrupt it...

Source: http://www.stewartswerdlow.com

lyra wrote:

the media was trying in vain to get everybody riled up over what some 20 year old kid in another country wore to a *private* party that was nobody's business.

for some being a member of the monarchy makes one to a certain extent the business of the people, important for the public image of the country.
there is some speculation that because england wasn't occupied during wwii the use of the symbols was less painful and serious (for example: allo allo),  and in certain contexts more jokingly.
i found it funny that even though poor harry already visited auschwitz, his dad prince charles ordered him (and his brother) to visit it once again.

Not really sure that technically speaking the business of a monarchy is the business of the people.  Unlike Democracies - where the activities of the Government are open (theoretically) to the people.  A monarchy is more vice-versa in that the people are there for the "higher ups".

Though personally speaking - I think the whole afair is kinda like how "reality TV" is viewed nowadays.  "OMG!!!!!  Did you see what John was wearing on that show!!!"

the media was trying in vain to get everybody riled up over what some 20 year old kid in another country wore to a *private* party that was nobody's business.

for some being a member of the monarchy makes one to a certain extent the business of the people, important for the public image of the country.
there is some speculation that because england wasn't occupied during wwii the use of the symbols was less painful and serious (for example: allo allo),  and in certain contexts more jokingly.
i found it funny that even though poor harry already visited auschwitz, his dad prince charles ordered him (and his brother) to visit it once again.

Don't cry for me Germany.

And note that the Harry bruhaha was publicized all over the media at the same time the no WMDs final announcement came through.

Oh, don't even get me started on the Harry bruhaha (insert a big eye roll here!)   I'm not surrprised to hear that a big announcement was happening at the same time the media was trying in vain to get everybody riled up over what some 20 year old kid in another country wore to a *private* party that was nobody's business.   Figures, huh?   sigh.