Black Dog

So did Otto von Bismarck, was he a socialist too? Socialism is not "government doing stuff for the people." Aw sweetie, are you having a hard time following along? Get one of your caregivers to explain it, that might help. The problem, as usual, is you're simpleton who struggles to hold complex ideas in his head. You don't understand that national socialism was an ideology riven with contradictions that borrowed liberally (pun intended) from various other schools of thought. To you it has to be black and white, one or the other. Government and the people are not interchangeable in this context. Every form of socialism advocates for democracy, the Nazis rejected democracy and universal equality as liberal bullshit. Yeah that's the key distinction and another point as to why they weren't socialists. No, I'm just trying to beat you over the head with the problems with your argument, but as usual you just repeat the same bullshit over and over. Even if one could separate the good bits and the maniacal homicidal xenophobic racist tendencies (an absurd proposition given the ideology that was rooted in maniacal homicidal xenophobic racist tendencies) I doubt many socialists wold celebrate a regime that promoted class divisions, massively privatized state industries, maintained private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.

It was, I've already explained how and you have no response because you cannot explain how socialism, an ideology centred on the principles of the workers owning the means of production and eliminating the class distinctions between owners and employees, is compatible with Nazism which rejected all of that. LOL, nope. As i already said above, your argument is based on a stupefyingly absurd premise and requires completely rejecting the commonly understood definition of socialism (something you and Hitler have in common). Because fascism is an inherently right wing ideology.

The Nazis didn't adopt any socialist ideologies. Your own link above has Hitler explicitly rejecting those ideologies. they didn't believe in workers controlling the means of production. They didn't believe in equality for all and an end to class hierarchies. They may have had a few select policies that were similar to what you'd see in socialist states, but so did many western democracies and the Nazis versions were always explicitly based on advancing the Aryan race, not the general welfare of the people. Why? I don't need to move your wife.

This just shows you haven't read the report either. Maybe they'll put out a board book version just for you.

Thanks for weighing in with nothing as usual.

Have you actually read the report? The lab leak section is right at the start and is quite short, just four pages long. To me the most compelling evidence against the lab leak and for zoonotic spillover is the fact that all the early cases of SARS-CoV-2 were clustered around the wet market 10 miles from the WIV lab. That's based on data, not conjecture.

LMAO tell me another one. There's no data or direct evidence supporting the lab leak theory, it's the same conjecture we've heard over and over again. The report here literally rehashes Alina Chan's incredibly flawed five points.

Funny how you apes will believe scientists and doctors when they tell you what you want to hear. Not all of whom believe the lab leak bullshit.

"Socialism is when you have social programs and the more social programs you have the more socialism it is." It's become clear that you are simply too stupid or dishonest to actually grasp the distinctions between socialism as it was and is understood to be and national socialism as practiced by the Nazis and no amount of explaining will ever get through. Read a book.

Because your premise is full of shit. Nazism didn't "deviate" from Marxism or any other strain of socialism. It was completely unrelated and antithetical. Better question is why do you peddle this incredibly stupid and obvious myth when anyone with half a brain knows that the Nazis were right wingers. -Nationalistic -Militaristic -Believed in "traditional family values" and "law and order" and a strong leader. -Valued private property -favoured the interests of capital over labour etc etc etc.

If it's so easy why didn't you do it? Maybe you're ignorant of the fact that this story has been floating around since the early '90s when one of the victims went public. it even came up when Trump tapped her to run the Small Business Administration. WWE cofounder Linda McMahon, who runs Trump's biggest super PAC, once hired a suspected child molester on the condition that he 'stop chasing after kids.' He didn't.

Why is it so hard for Trump to find a cabinet pick who isn't a pervert or pervert enabler? Is it because like attracts like or is it just that the Venn diagram between Republicans and sex creeps is a circle? Lawsuit alleges Linda McMahon enabled sexual abuse of children

One of the big reasons Hitler consolidated the social safety net that existed at the time was to disempower unions and socialist organizations and prevent Jews and other undesirables from receiving aid. Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg saw union- controlled social insurance funds as a coffer for left-wing parties and a “source of power of the most dangerous kind” and argued that it was “primarily due to social insurance that the German worker did not lose faith in Marxism” in the postwar period. Like everything else they did, this policy was driven by their racial beliefs. they were definitionally not socialist unless you're using some definition of socialism that you just pulled out of your ass. "A type of socialist" that had virtually nothing in common with socialism as theorized and practiced anywhere else. Only if you've been kicked in the head by a horse. As one very stupid person I know here once said: nope. As i keep saying: every model of socialism has the workers controlling the means of production either directly or indirectly through democratic representation. The Nazis had neither, therefore they were not socialists.

LOl you've never even heard of that book until today. Holy f*ck, you really can't read. What were you saying about credibility, f*cktard?

He very specifically says no such thing. What he's essentially saying is that he considers the labels to be irrelevant/arbitrary. lol that's incredibly stupid. They were not left wing or liberal by any past or present definition of the terms. Words have meanings. This is what I'm talking about when i say you are a very stupid person who tried to reshape reality to fit his worldview. Unfortunately for you, dummy, facts are stubborn things. Read the interview. Look at the pains Hitler goes through to distance his ideology from marxism and Communism, the primary socialist schools of thought of the day. Look at how he redefines the term socialism for his own ends. Only a complete dope would look at that and think "oh yeah this guy is definitely claiming to be a socialist in the commonly accepted and historical sense of the term". You being too stupid to understand the implications of what he was saying in the context of the rest of the interview there is your failing not mine.

I don't think that;'s the case, I think they're mostly sad old boomers with too much time on their hands.

I've read Zitelmann's “Hitler’s National Socialism" and I think you're misrepresenting his arguments if you think he's arguing "Hitler was a socialist". It's much more complicated than that. Again, this might work if your own arguments weren't written in half chewed crayons. But alas. Hitler wasn't a socialist. He wasn't a free market libertarian either. He saw value in elements of both systems. At the end of the day, every single school of socialism includes the necessity that the means of production are held by the workers, either directly through cooperative or collective ownership or indirectly through representative democracies. Given the Nazis did not own the means of production and were not a representative democracy, they were not socialists.

LOL why would you get that from me saying I have nothing but contempt for you. lol ok sure man.

You're mistaking my contempt for anger. You're the guy wasting his life watching shit like the Sunday morning talkshows and the View and getting angry about them to the point that you come on here and tell lies.

Which is it dumbass? lol do you think anyone weird enough to be posting on "an obscure forum" is uncommitted? Furthermore, do you think your "writing" which is really just of simply regurgitating whatever slop is currently percolating in your right wing echo chamber is actually persuasive? Because to that i say: lol. I never said anything about you being lazy or unemployed, I simply pointed out you spend an awful lot of time watching and getting mad at the TV.

I think most credible historians are on my side here like Richard Evans and Adam Tooze. Who you got: Dinesh Dsouza lol? And? This is pretty funny coming from a bunch of sub-literate apes whose thought process on this can be summed up as "Hitler = Bad, Socialism = Bad, therefore Hitler = Socialist."

Makes sense given what the song YMCA is about.

Do you do anything but sit on your fat ass and watch TV all day? No wonder you like Trump, he's a kindred spirit.

A leaky FBI and a corrupt president doing crimes? Yeah that sounds about right.

LOl you didn't even read the article that was the basis of the blog you posted, did you, retardo? Because if you did, you'd know Germany had an extensive social welfare state before the Nazis came along. By your retarded logic, Otto Von Bismarck was therefore a socialist. LMAO.