A post by Maynard
“Lost Horizon” was a classic movie, released in 1937 to great acclaim. Hitler was in power and preparing to launch a war of aggression; meanwhile wishful thinking prevailed in the democracies. This 4-minute clip captures a preachy scene in which a statesman espouses the glory of disarmament and the wickedness of nationalism. It’s blatantly a plea to answer the Nazi threat with love rather than arms, and worth viewing because it illustrates the “enlightened” thinking of the day; an attitude that, we now know, directly led to the violent deaths of 60 million human beings.
At the time, the advocates of “peace” thought they were doing a wonderful thing, but history shows the practical effect of their good intentions. Listen to this dialogue, and see how familiar it sounds…disturbingly like what we hear today. Have we learned from the past, or are we doomed to repeat it?
The entire movie can be watched for free via Google Video; click here. This particular clip starts at about the 10-minute mark.
It’s a democrat thing. My sister(D) and I were watching “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” the opening scene where Robin holds his arm down on the chopping block. She exclaimed that the Turk about to chop his hand off must have been impressed by that display…
http://tinyurl.com/6pq2oa
… I corrected her by stating that his reaction was probably more like, “Thanks! Makes my job easier.”
If you grovel before a bully he will have no qualms about taking advantage. Any who thinks differnetly is foolish.
Wow! This was really something, Maynard. It sounds exactly like what we hear today from the Left.
Dynamic find, Maynard. It is exactly what we should be alert to and – – should there be an Obomination – – what we should expect. “Lost Horizon” of 1937 in REALPOLITIK is everyday.It’s in Baraq’s speeches that he would limit weapons. (He should advise General Electric).
Still, the most terrifying for me – I know police states – is:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
This “civilian national security force” think: “POLICE”, would be at hand to enforce all that he (and his controllers) consider to be critical. (Frequently found in the proscriptions of police states are elements of the economy and education.)
Maynard is wrong in this respect: I think that back then (as today) many “peace” advocates knew that what they were doing would lead to mass murder. They knew and wildly approved.