Rand Paul Racist or Flip Flopper?

[Jack Weber]

I believe that a fascist victory would have meant more of peace time Germany, i.e: peaceable intentions with Britain (Hitler believed it was essential for the English to maintain and strengthen their Empire) and America, it would have meant that the Western ideals of science and rationality would have taken precedence over Christianity, Marxism and political correctness... the German view on such things as animal rights, environmental protection and women's rights would have translated easily into modern times.

Its also quite reasonable to believe that the third world would have known no population explosion, since the Nazis, would not have committed the liberal folly of sending aid and knowhow to third worlders thus showing them how to maintain much larger populations (which very reasonably would have lead to a great alleviation of environmental destruction).

There would, furthermore, not have been the squandering of wealth and general retardation of eastern europe (and Russia too mind you)- there would have been no communist lag. And the world would be Bi-polar with a germano-british and american hegemony, there is no reason to believe that relations would have been amicable (yet competitive) between the two. Cities in Europe and America would have never been occupied by cultural marxists, and so a homogeneity similar to Japan (with a similar orderly and functioning) could have been achieved, so places like detroit, or new orleans, or any other third world jungle- would have been almost unfeasible... there would be no third world immigration problem, no occupational hazard, no prospects for racial tensions.

Culturally, rock and rap would doubtless not have emerged...

The technological and scientific prowess of Greater Germany would not have been aborted, and with proper funding... who knows what marvels we'd be enjoying right now...

As in prewar Germany, unemployment would be drastically reduced, and the economy would doubtless be middle class driven.

No cold war, no weapons buildup, no nagasaki, no hiroshima, no EU... the difference would have been profound and I think for the most part: preferable to the outcome that occurred

Well...That's interesting,I suppose.However,and as usual,there are a few historical ommissions that you've overlooked...

1.You've just made the frankly ridiculous asumption that Herr Schicklegruber woud honour any non-agression pact,or even formal co-operation,between NAZI Germany and the United Kingdom.There's no evidence that he would have since there is ample evidence that his signature was'nt worth the ink it was written in.As it relates to international agreements,he's pretty much one of history's great bald face liars.

2.You make the mistaken assumption that somehow the NAZI's and France would get along swimmingly.Highly unlikely,seeing one of Schickelgruber's main motivations for invading France was to right the wrongs of the "November criminals of 1918".I realize that quote also applied to those Germans he felt sold the country out,however,it was also aimed at the French,whom he despised.I don't see that being an amicable relationship whatsoever.

3.You have not assessed the expansionist ideals of fascists,not only the NAZI's,but in Italy.Consider the Abyssinian campaign of 1936,where Mussolini sent in troops to occupy Haille Selassie's Ethiopia.This is where he authorized the use of Mustard Gas and attacked bushmen armed with spears by aerial assault and armoured infantry.You did not consider Musolini's expansionist activities in Libya,where he did many of the same things.You have not considered the NAZI's North African campaign,which with Italy's help,was all about "empire expansion"

4.You have not considered,what so ever,the Shinto-Fascist Japanese under Hirohito,and their well known expansionist plans on empire growth.If you had,you would have realized that they planned on,not only on conquering China entirely,but crossing the Himylayas and attacking the entire Indian subcontinent.This now brings into consideration the question of who divies up the Middle East oil.

You have'nt adressed the issues of the sub-Saharan African population at all.You do realize this Fascist global empire is going to require many natural resources,and Africa is perhaps the richest continent on the planet,as it related to these things.What were they going to do about that?

How 'bout the indigenous and Mestizo populations of Central and South America?

You still have'nt resolved the issue of the "Jewish Question"in Europe...Unless you agree with Adolph Eichmann's idea?

But let's say,through some Machiavellian Kismet,this all works itself out...

No Cold War...Spectacular!

Now the United States must come to grips with the racial issues it had/has more forcefully and more directly.The words of Marcus Garvey,W.E.B. DuBois,Thurgood Marshall,and,George Washington Carver,and dare I say,Fredrick Douglas,become more vibrant because they cannot be dismissed through the focus or fog of war.Unless,of course,you're either advocating for the status quo of Jim Crow segregation?

Or is it "repatriation" to Africa?

[Bonam]

You're still dodging the obvious answer to my question: judging by the historical record: Germany Peace time vs Communist States Peace time, which were better? which was less conducive to democides, genocides and misery?

The answer unambiguously: should be GERMANY. UNDENIABLY SO!

Nazi Germany in its short existence gave rise to a war that claimed more lives than all the atrocities of the USSR in its ~73 year history.

Even in war time: in so far as looting and rape and unnecessary brutality was concerned: the best behaved army on the battlefield were again: the Germans.

Might wanna tell that to the ~14 million Russian civilians brutally slaughtered by Germany during the war.

Russians were INSTRUCTED as an ORDER: to rape ANY and EVERY woman on sight

Apparently unlike the Germans who did it for shear enjoyment, on the Eastern front anyway.

again... i don't understand how one could see the Communists as being the "lesser evil"... the proof is obviously overwhelming that the Germans were far better behaved, far more rational, far more humane.

From 1933 to 1945, Germany caused the deaths of ~50+ million people, mostly people of other nations. From 1918 to 1991, the USSR caused the deaths of ~30 million, mostly of its own people. Don't get me wrong, the communists were definitely evil, very evil, but Hitler was even worse.

OH! And by the way: German antipathy towards jews was not (as the history channel loves to tell us) completely nutty and not based in blind hatred. I know TV likes to portray jews as blameless victims who were despised not because of their own actions: but because of insane random unrelated hatred.

You've made this argument before but it remains nonsense as always. The fact that a few individual Jews here and there may have had influence in the American administration or whatever is hardly relevant. A few individual white people were involved in those events as well. Why didn't Germany set out to kill all white people too? Reality is Hitler needed a scapegoat, and moreover was an insane maniac, and was able to make his hatred of Jews a national policy.

Then there were niggles; the quite hateful religion who teaches that only jews are humans, the blood libel that Germans suffered in earlier times, the fact that prostitution and drug trafficking was for all practical purposes a Jewish industry:

All blatant Nazi lies.

Hitler in Mein Kampf noted for instance that: (while on the subject of social vices including prostitution and white-slave traffic in Vienna):

"I recognized the Jew as the cold-hearted, shameless and calculating director of this revolting vice traffic in the scum of the big city, a cold shudder ran down my back..."

Yes cause obviously Hitler is a great authority. Especially on matters Jewish...

Seriously, you've gone even further off the Nazi deep end than you were before.

[Jack Weber]

Whoa is lictor argueing that the Nazis winning would be a good thing. I think his absence has left him even more unhinged.

Pretty much...Well,more to the point...We should have sided with the NAZI's to defeat Stalin,instead of Stalin to defeat the NAZI's...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Pretty much...Well,more to the point...We should have sided with the NAZI's to defeat Stalin,instead of Stalin to defeat the NAZI's...

Stalin was bat-shit crazy but at least he left us alone for the most part. Hitler wanted to take over the world and wipe out pretty much everyone who wasn't white. I'm quite happy with the choice as I don't think my family is white enough for the Nazis. We picked the lesser of two evils and it just so happens the lesser evil had an unworkable economy that lead to it's own downfall, hate to say it but that was not the case with Nazi Germeny, their economy was pretty damn solid.

[Jack Weber]

Stalin was bat-shit crazy but at least he left us alone for the most part. Hitler wanted to take over the world and wipe out pretty much everyone who wasn't white. I'm quite happy with the choice as I don't think my family is white enough for the Nazis. We picked the lesser of two evils and it just so happens the lesser evil had an unworkable economy that lead to it's own downfall, hate to say it but that was not the case with Nazi Germeny, their economy was pretty damn solid.

When you outlaw and kill any opposition,and you gear up for war,any economy is going to look great...

[Guest TrueMetis]

When you outlaw and kill any opposition,and you gear up for war,any economy is going to look great...

It was more than just looked unfortunetely if we hadn't denied them access to some rather important resources we would have had a much tougher time.

[lictor616]

Nazi Germany in its short existence gave rise to a war that claimed more lives than all the atrocities of the USSR in its ~73 year history.

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!

[lictor616]

When you outlaw and kill any opposition,and you gear up for war,any economy is going to look great...

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

[lictor616]

Stalin was bat-shit crazy but at least he left us alone for the most part. Hitler wanted to take over the world and wipe out pretty much everyone who wasn't white. I'm quite happy with the choice as I don't think my family is white enough for the Nazis. We picked the lesser of two evils and it just so happens the lesser evil had an unworkable economy that lead to it's own downfall, hate to say it but that was not the case with Nazi Germeny, their economy was pretty damn solid.

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:

[Jack Weber]

Lictor...

Could you please respond to post #76,please...

[M.Dancer]

Lictor...

Could you please respond to post #76,please...

You might vant to shout, he ist in ze broderbunker

[Guest TrueMetis]

based on WHAT SPECIFICALLY!?!?!?!?!?, PLEASE ANSWER CONCRETELY:

I actually understand history. The crap your spewing is made up.

[Michael Hardner]

A group effort to point out Lictor's persistent ignoring of questions is a good idea.

The last time he left the board, he abandoned some threads where he was being pressed with good questions that he wasn't answering.

[BubberMiley]

The last time he left the board, he abandoned some threads where he was being pressed with good questions that he wasn't answering.

But if you keep asking, you scare the eunuchs away for good. And then this forum is left with a bunch of boring moderates.

[Michael Hardner]

But if you keep asking, you scare the eunuchs away for good. And then this forum is left with a bunch of boring moderates.

There are plenty of non-moderates who can present their arguments with evidence, back up their views and present and defend their points clearly. Simply the desire to engage with the board in that manner is enough to make new arrivals start to behave in that manner.

I find it boring when someone posts whatever they like, and doesn't respond to questions or criticism. It's like a crazy person yelling on a street corner. Kind of fascinating in a horrible way the first time you experience it, then it becomes dull very quickly.

[lictor616]

Well...That's interesting,I suppose.However,and as usual,there are a few historical ommissions that you've overlooked...

1.You've just made the frankly ridiculous asumption that Herr Schicklegruber woud honour any non-agression pact,or even formal co-operation,between NAZI Germany and the United Kingdom.There's no evidence that he would have since there is ample evidence that his signature was'nt worth the ink it was written in.As it relates to international agreements,he's pretty much one of history's great bald face liars.

2.You make the mistaken assumption that somehow the NAZI's and France would get along swimmingly.Highly unlikely,seeing one of Schickelgruber's main motivations for invading France was to right the wrongs of the "November criminals of 1918".I realize that quote also applied to those Germans he felt sold the country out,however,it was also aimed at the French,whom he despised.I don't see that being an amicable relationship whatsoever.

3.You have not assessed the expansionist ideals of fascists,not only the NAZI's,but in Italy.Consider the Abyssinian campaign of 1936,where Mussolini sent in troops to occupy Haille Selassie's Ethiopia.This is where he authorized the use of Mustard Gas and attacked bushmen armed with spears by aerial assault and armoured infantry.You did not consider Musolini's expansionist activities in Libya,where he did many of the same things.You have not considered the NAZI's North African campaign,which with Italy's help,was all about "empire expansion"

4.You have not considered,what so ever,the Shinto-Fascist Japanese under Hirohito,and their well known expansionist plans on empire growth.If you had,you would have realized that they planned on,not only on conquering China entirely,but crossing the Himylayas and attacking the entire Indian subcontinent.This now brings into consideration the question of who divies up the Middle East oil.

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).

[Jack Weber]

deleted...

Edited June 3, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lictor616]

You have'nt adressed the issues of the sub-Saharan African population at all.You do realize this Fascist global empire is going to require many natural resources,and Africa is perhaps the richest continent on the planet,as it related to these things.What were they going to do about that?

How 'bout the indigenous and Mestizo populations of Central and South America?

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...

[lictor616]

You still have'nt resolved the issue of the "Jewish Question"in Europe...Unless you agree with Adolph Eichmann's idea?

But let's say,through some Machiavellian Kismet,this all works itself out...

No Cold War...Spectacular!

Now the United States must come to grips with the racial issues it had/has more forcefully and more directly.The words of Marcus Garvey,W.E.B. DuBois,Thurgood Marshall,and,George Washington Carver,and dare I say,Fredrick Douglas,become more vibrant because they cannot be dismissed through the focus or fog of war.Unless,of course,you're either advocating for the status quo of Jim Crow segregation?

Or is it "repatriation" to Africa?

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

[Jack Weber]

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).

1.Co-prosperity proposal?

Was that when Schicklegruber said,"We will wring the neck of the English chicken?

You do realize that during the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact that both the NAZI's and Soviets exchanged information on how to dispose of unwanted groups ie.Death Camps neatly and efficiently?

You do realize that was'nt the only promise not to attack anyone that Schicklegruber signed?Rememeber Neville Chanberlain waving the signed piece of paper talking about peace in our time?

Not a stunning track record for Schicklegruber there...And certainly a basis on your part for providing evidence od a peace loving NAZI Germany.In fact,there is little to no evidence at all of that.

2.Did France have very right leaning associations? Yes!Petain is an example of this in the occupied Vichy France.He was also a virulent anti-Semite.

France also had alot of of left leaning associations...Always has!

France also had alot of French Nationalists groups,who might be right leaning,but they were definately staunchly anti-German and Anti-NAZI.You have completely missed the French mindset if the time as it relates to Germany.Germany was attacked by France in 1870.They were subsequently counter-attacked and occupied by the Bismarck lead Germans.The peace treaty signed to end the Franco-Prussian War forced France to give up the Alsace-Lorraine region,and the city of Strasbourg.This region was used as a jump off point for German troops during the invasion in 1914,when France was invaded by Germany again.The Treaty of Versailles was a punishment treaty forced on Germany mainly by the French!Schicklegruber's main reason for attacking and ocupying France was'nt to co-operate with the French.It was to humilaite them,and right the wrongs of the actions of the "November Criminals of 1918"...His words!

Is there any evidence you can provide that would show that there would be any co-operation between a Nationalist France under say...De Gaulle,and a German Nationalist/Fascist such as Schicklegruber,the obvious historically opposed viewpoints?

3.Stop trying to change the subject.What's good for the goose is not always ggod for the gander.I'm not sticking up for colonialism at all.Most of the problems of Africa can be based on the colonialist attitudes of Europeans who carved up the continent with a pencil and a ruler,with absolutely no regard for the tribal differences and strife it caused/causes.See you stated that this was about peace in Europe.Empire is almost always finite.And what would Mussolini have with attacking Ethiopia?It was of relatively little significance?And the visciousness of the unprovoked attack seems to indicate,something else?Libya was unprovoked,as well.You simply have'nt adressed that at all other than to use a childish tit for tat arguement...

4.Japan attcked other nations in Asia for basically the same reason Schicklegruber attacked some nations in Europe..The Japanese had/have a superiority complex.They attacked the Chinese because they felt they were beneath them.They attacked the Koreans because they felt Koreans were beneath them.They attacked the Polynesian Islands,South East Asia,and,the Phillipines because they thought the inhabitants were beneath them.They had plans to go over the Himylayas and attack the Indian subcontinent.This is well known...Almost all of it based in some idea of ethnic supremacy.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

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

1.Why should citizens of and country be forcebly displaced,and relocated to a completely foreign part of the world just because they pray a certain way?

Why Madagascar?

And the summary execution of people who have a different point of view does'nt sound terribly peace loving...It sounds kinda murderous,thuglike,and opressive?It's interesting how you think that should have just happened as easily as taking a nap?

And what makes you think non Jews would stand by and just let something like this happen in peace loving in the peace loving Fascist Global Empire?Or do you think ther would almost no opposition to this?

2.You've missed the SubSaharan population vis a vis the resources of the continent question entirely

3.You've missed the South American and Central American indigenous and Mestizo population questions entirely

4.There's absolutley nothing wrong with the US dealing with this issue properly in an adult fashion.The right side won a very bloody war over the issue of states rights,namely that individual states had the individual right to own other human beings,without the heavy hand of a federal government telling them they could'nt.The Confederacy was a racist and bigotted institution that was an anachronysm while it existed.The fact of the matter is that while the union won the war,they lost the peace after the war by not enforcing the laws of the nation.This allowed for the very same secessionists to end up in positions of power in individual states and allow for the resegregation of the South.It took almost 100 years to actually deal with the issue in a legal fashion,when it should have been inforced immediately.

Lincoln's plan was put out to placate slaveholding states during the 1860 election.It was a political ploy and was never seriously considered because it would have meant the displacement of an enitre population back to a continent none of them knew.Frankly,Lincoln understood it to be inhumane and impractical.

Segregation was never seperate but equal...It was always seperate and unequal..and mistreated..and lynched...Good to see you advocate for such things...Or are you truly advocating for seperate AND equal treatment for those that stayed PLUS full reperations for those who wanted to leave?

It's interesting that you went right to Carver,and did'nt adress the words of Fredrick Douglas,as abolitionist.And could you quote the words of W.E.B.DuBois,and his reasoning for forming the NAACP?I don't mean when he went off the deep end before he died,but the formative years of that organization.It's also interesting how you dismiss Carver so easily,when he advocated for black self reliance.I would assume you would agree with that position?

[Jack Weber]

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...

I agree that Imperial Germany was relatively better at treating the inhabitants of it's African colonies,but that's not who we're talking about.Somehow I don't see ol' Schicklegruber treating the natives terribly nicely.One only has to look at the propaganda against the French,and it's use of colonial troops.There's nothing in the history of NAZI Germany that would suggest they would be benevolent dictators over any subSaharan Africans,considering what they did to at least 14 million people who essentially looked the way they did.

Why would'nt indigenous and Mestizo's in the South and Central America be interferred with?How could they not be in a Global Fascist Empire?

You should know that I'm quite familiar with Cameroon.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lictor616]

Lincoln's plan was put out to placate slaveholding states during the 1860 election.It was a political ploy and was never seriously considered because it would have meant the displacement of an enitre population back to a continent none of them knew.Frankly,Lincoln understood it to be inhumane and impractical.

Segregation was never seperate but equal...It was always seperate and unequal..and mistreated..and lynched...Good to see you advocate for such things...Or are you truly advocating for seperate AND equal treatment for those that stayed PLUS full reperations for those who wanted to leave?

It's interesting that you went right to Carver,and did'nt adress the words of Fredrick Douglas,as abolitionist.And could you quote the words of W.E.B.DuBois,and his reasoning for forming the NAACP?I don't mean when he went off the deep end before he died,but the formative years of that organization.It's also interesting how you dismiss Carver so easily,when he advocated for black self reliance.I would assume you would agree with that position?

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.

[lictor616]

2.You've missed the SubSaharan population vis a vis the resources of the continent question entirely

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.

[Jack Weber]

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.

Uh...

Who said anything about Maya Angelou?

I think she's a flake!

Fredrick Douglas as dry and mediocre?

I guess there's a first for everything...

But thanks for the David Duke'esque polemnic anyway,however it never answered anything that was asked...

So I'll ask it again as it relates to the NAACP...

What was the original ehtos for W.E.B. Du Bois creating the organization?

And again,the repatriation issue was a political ploy to try to keep slave holding states from actually seceding.It was never really a serious plan.

Not a Civil War historian,I see....

Edited June 4, 2010 by Jack Weber