lictor616

What they were planning to do to the slavs was enroll the best of them in a "legion etrangere" type of deal. And the Germans were disgusted by the treatment of Ukrainians by the communists, and would never have considered extermination of any of these nations. It figures that Ukrainians and Poles who had any experience with communists, always saw Germans as liberators... and in many respects especially in Katyn and Vinnitsa, they were right i'm afraid. You realize that while you are talking of POTENTIAL genocides performed by the nazis- these genocides were ACTUALLY committed by the Soviets? 7 to 10 million Ukrainians in one year! In peace time! And you still think the nazis were worst?

I meant irredeemably in the sense: that it is unchangeable...

he made no such pronouncement- there exists no proof of direct order from Hitler to genocide Jews, Hitler wanted jews out of Germany for mainly practical reasons: Jews were prime movers of communism which he saw as a mortal threat... There was no clear attempt to genocide the slavs! that's outrageous and a propaganda line- its on par with the nonsense that Hitler wanted to kill all non-blonds.

You go ahead and do that. I was talking about the Germans seeing blacks as irredeemably different (which has no negative connotations)... but you want to go ahead and twist that to mean that I think that blacks are inferior... go ahead... as long as your just mudslinging. You can mine a country without genociding their people. You can even employ the locals give them care packages to do it... I have to explain this to you? really? I have to take you down that road?

Civil War tidbits are irrelevant here, as I was referring (for the 3rd time) to the Lincoln plan which remeber: GARNERED " million signatures FROM BLACKS. Whether the american NAzi party approved of this... I don't know, I suspect they did... rockwell and duke... you know if these people also believe in gravity... It must mean that gravity is a lie by your logic then. The original abraham lincoln plan was not at all unfeasible, in the interests of the economy they also considered shipping them to mexico an the Caribbean.

oh wholly hell brick-top has to be first...

i've answered the questions: please see how the abraham lincoln plan was also the name of a 2 million strong petition BY blacks to repatriate to africa in the 60's.

waiting for what?

good job for mentioning david duke. Again- repatriation was hugely popular among blacks in the 1960's ... remedy your ignorance of this please. Again look at the petitions which gathered 2 million+ signatures. The original ethos? It was cultural marxism. "Du Bois's thought in the cauldron of reform-minded intellectual life at the turn of the century, demonstrating that a commitment to liberal collectivism, an essentially Fabian socialism, remained pivotal in Du Bois's thought even as he embraced a range of political programs over time, including radical Marxism." http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/?view=usa&ci=9780195051742

No I haven't: SEPARATION AND NON INTERVENTION as much as possible with the natives was my answer... German colonialsm would have been more practical then British colonialism: it didn't seek (like the insane christian missionaries) to convert savages over to Christianity, it cared nothing about inculcating the values of the Vaterland to irredeemably different people: such as sub-saharan africans... The resources of the country: of any country mind you, belong to those who have the will and power to do with it what they want... If canada tomorrow became majority black, trying to tell that the resources belong to whites (or natives) wounld not be enough incentive for them to pack bags and go home... Likewise for the European. Ours is a world of struggle for limited resources... no struggle, no game... That is the law of life.

In the 60's, there was a very strong and large movement started by blacks to petition for "repatriation to the motherland africa". At the time it (1963) it had gathered 2 million signatures. The petition was called the Abraham Lincoln Plan (quite correctly in historical terms). People from the NAACP and ADL helped killed the bill... Fredrick Douglas, WEB Dubois, Maya Angelou, I know the litany as well as anyone, and forgive me dear debater, but they really were rather dry and mediocre to get through. Maya Angelou especially was a hack scribbler. WEB Dubois was absolute garbage: “A little less complaint and whining, and a little more dogged work and manly striving, would do us more credit than a thousand civil rights bills.” Little more then victim mentality sophistry, its annoying and repulsive to read... Its ugly to hear people make excuses for themselves and use cultural marxism so blatantly (as surely as his white communist adjutant did: Mary White Ovington). Its hard to tell how much of WEB Dubois work was his own, but much of his canard was "borrowed" by Frankfurt school teachings of dialectic materialism. The pressure to venerate such mediocrities as Carver, the brilliant inventor of peanut butter (well not really actually), WEB Dubois doubtless comes from the mass media, who are always grasping at straws for black pseudo savants, and usually end up making a**hats of themselves by parading truly ridiculous characters as "superhumans" and moral superiors to whites... WEB DuBois (and the work of his many communist helpers) spawned the NAACP... really? were you expecting me to salute this as a good thing? As something admirable? How did the NAACP help promote the national interests of America? This group does nothing but disrupt and make less efficient the functioning of society. They are a log rolling institution, a toxic asset: a WASTE OF SPACE- a source of weakness for a nation. As a Marcuse inspired think tank, that practices cultural marxism... they don't have a point excpet to destroy the society that they despise. TO bring this up as something praiseworthy is so imbecilic as to be almost funny. Carver advocated black reliance... great! let him join the thousands of blacks of any notoriety that believe likewise. Meanwhile, blacks are a dependency people- that get huge portions of their earnings through taxes and guilt money thanks to the victim "gibz me a dollah crackah" mentality spawned largely by such loathsome organizations as the NAACP. If you want to wow me: talk about the great Manning Johnson, the one black author who DID understand the plight of blacks, and was a major mover behind the Abraham Lincoln plan to repatriate blacks to africa. He was a TRUE champion for blacks.

The Jewish Question would have been resolved probably with the Jews being relocated to Madagascar (as Hitler's plan was). Of course many Jews would have lost positions of employment in the media in Germany, Britain etc... but the Holocaust would have had no reason to occur. Of course, many of the the communists agitating bloody revolution in the country who happened to be jews, would have been hunted down and summarily executed though, but I dont suspect that that would have been very large in scale. Either way the evidence that the Holocaust was a direct order from the Fuhrer does not exist. Historians speculate that there is... but so far no document has popped up. And whats wrong with the US dealing with its racial issues forthrightly and directly? They need to do that now before the country implodes... I suspect that something like the Abraham Lincoln Plan could have been entertained, where blacks if they so chose, could be compensated and relocated in africa. The ones who decided to stay could have remained in segregated areas... But that would have been preferable for the blacks, who today (if we are to judge from their own advocates, Jessi Jackson, the ADL, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright et al.) are terribly oppressed and suffer daily because of racism (whether invisible, institutional or manifest). There would be no log rolling social issues and billions of dollars lost in outrageous legal settlements for businesses that are suspected of "racism"... like the texaco debacle for instance. Actually it would de-clutter and simplify legal issues greatly if that came to be. In this sense America would be far more efficient: as any homogeneous country is... Japan or Korea say... Like I once noted: there can't be racism without different races! The words of WEB Dubois... would not have been given artificial importance by the diversity mongers of today who distort histroy to boost the self esteem of minority (in essence turning what should be history classes into therapeutic self esteem building sessions for blacks). And children would not have to read fanciful hogwash about "black history" and its many invented inventions. Ah yes, George Washington Carver! The Genius black scientists who "invented" corn starch and peanut butter... held up right alongside The REAL George Washington! That might have played out differently. As it turns out Carver never even invented peanut butter, peanuts were mashed into paste by Aztecs hundreds of years ago. Evidence of modern peanut butter comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached “a fluid or semi-fluid state".... I actually saw his expo at McGill last year

Why would a Fascist government require MORE resources then a capitalist one? Why is America and British hegemony easier on the resources? The Germans were masters of self sufficiency and historically dealt with lack of foreign materials (rubber, oil) by creating synthetic oils, and plastics so efficient that use of them is today widespread. Germans were models of efficiency. Oh and remember... no war... no waste of GARGANTUAN amounts of resources... hence again this solution is more economical. The Germans had a sensible policy of colonialism: in Kameroun for instance, German behavior in terms of respecting human rights of native populations was above and beyond the standard procedure of British and American colonialism. Actually Hitler was at time critical of the brutality of British colonialism- he lamented the fact that while British colonialism was stabilizing force in the world, that it needn't be done with such aggression and interference in native populations. Indigenous populations of Central america? wouldn't be forced to emulate western standards of behavior and would be interfered with only if absolutely necessary. Germans had no ambitions to germanize africans, or mestizos etc...

1/ Hitler and his administration were not completely irrational, if they could have secured their interests without going to war, and if Britain had accepted the co-prosperity proposal, war would have been doubly unproductive. To take the Molotov Ribbentrop pack as evidence of how the nazis could never honor a pact.. that is absurdity, everyone (including the SOVIETS) knew that the pact was an illusion- a temporary cease fire that inevitably would be broken. Hitler only broke it 4 months ahead of a rumored scheduled time. 2/ France had very right leaning associations at the time and was being ravaged by the "sanglants abrutis" of socialists. It also would not have endured the devastating war that handicapped its economy and made it relinquish its colonial possesions in Algeria Morocco et al. France, if it would have considered its own interests, would have done much much better to side with the nazis- not that would have necessarily been a harmonious enterprise. 3/ If Italy's capturing of an african colony for use of tis resources be expansionism... then Britain, America and Soviet Russia were expansionists too, and to a much larger extent... which makes your point a bit hypocritical. If expansionism (albeit on such a smaller scale) is supposed to be a valid reason to go to war with a country... then again its flawed argument, since you are applying it selectively to fascist states only. 4/Japan was the Britain of Asia... I don't understand the argument that its bad when Japan does it... but good if Britain does. I'll grant you that the Japanese had very mean streak in them to be sure, however none worse then communist Chinese (which are still at it today with human rights violations).

parent's right to decide certain things... you mean the right to decide to blunt and injure their children for a lifetime. That's an interesting interpretation of the Charter... Parent's individual freedoms trump personal safety and wellbeing of child... what if the parents decide to lock off a foot for esthetic reasons? As long as we're drifting into insane moral relativism.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx male circumcision is on its way out (and that a good thing too)- penis clipping is an appalling act of barbarism that should have no place in a civilized society. Circumcision of Males / Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) "It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that "circumcision" of male or female children is genital mutilation of children." The position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council The Canadian Children's Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.

Hitler wanted lebensraum to the east.. reclaim the corridor of danzig (which had been german for 500 years)and some concessions to the east... His intentions were mainly defensive: he wanted to preempt against the Soviet Union, because he felt (quite correctly) taht the Soveit Union may well come to enslave Europe if left alone... He knew about their record in Ukraine, Poland, Finland etc... he knew what murderous barbarism awaited nations which did not defend themselves... In hindsight, was he wrong to do that? The US waged a cold war for God's sake after ALLYING itself with the red beast! And yet you begrudge the Nazis for wanting that kind of security? Nonsense on stilts... you sound like a communist apparatcheck giving the party line! How do you figure that the Soviet Union was the lesser of two evils... what are your standards for judging? based on WHAT SPECIFICALLY!?!?!?!?!?, PLEASE ANSWER CONCRETELY:

funny how that didn't happen for the soviet union, which received much of its arms and funding from western governments...

Outrageously inaccurate: Communism as an Ideology has killed 119 million lives since the early 30's even center left historians and demographers like RJ Rummel acknowledge that: with all regimes confounded: "... the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these". http://www.scribd.com/doc/31098275/Communism-Democide-Genocide-Rummel what's astonishing is that communists were able to produce that body count LARGELY IN PEACE TIME... Nazi Germany killed at most 24 million people... 13 million of which were Russian regular soldiers! the overwhelming majority of the casualties of the Nazis were in war time also... and most of their casualties were soldiers (in a war that had many civilian casualties on both sides) Incidentally, the formal declaration of war was first initiated BY THE BRITISH... that's right, WW2 started with Britain!

Well the bias that allows Orthodox jewish courts is understandable when the very ethnicity is the most powerful enclave in the country. But still there were no specific religious courts that allowed but the most trifling religious leniency in these cases. Sharia law involves stoning, wife beating the lynching of homosexuals and adulterers and the like and still does to this day in regions where such barbarous courts are permitted. Fascist religious movement? There is nothing fascist about Islam, it is proletarian knavery and baseness. A primitive murder cult that may be better suited for the troglodytes of the dark ages and ancient times. And if you don't believe in a slippery slope: eat this: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16477

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a0f1c0cf-2452-42eb-bf75-b56f354f9dce&k=84150 FGM may be legalized in the very near future, already there is chatter among the crypto communists that dominate academia that Female Genital Mutilation should be tolerated in the name of diversity. Their defense is that if the government of Canada doesn't allow it, then the practice might be performed by ill-equipped immigrants, which could lead to botched clitoredectomies, infections etc. Plus, isn't intolerance for FGM... somehow... a little RACIST? Surely Canada will benefit from the strength of this type of diversity! And Why stop there? We should overturn the decision on Sharia and let some communities in the GTA and other "brown" areas expand the list of wondrous cultural customs to include ritual stoning, honor killings, child slavery... stoning of catholics, jews and all infidels... In a multicultural, multiracial, multireligious we must respect all traditions!!! Live with it bigots!

have something specific as an example?

who stole ze chicken...

uh, okay, thank you for letting me know that you are neither rational nor lucid.