lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Uh... Thanks for the David Duke'esque polemnic,but that did'nt answer anything I 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.... 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 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 Whiff #2 Still waiting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Whiff #2 Still waiting... waiting for what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 See post #100.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 See post #100.... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 (edited) 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. You have'nt even scratched the surface...But I'll give you a hint or two... 1.The Battle of Antietam happened on Sept,17,1862.It was won by the Union after Lee made a tactical retreat. 2.This allowed Lincoln to implement something 1 week later 3.It came into effect on January 1,1863. 4.The question I want you to answer about Du Bois happened 40 years after the legislation above... And do you mean the Lincoln Plan endorsed by one George Lincoln Rockwell,head of the American NAZI party? If so...No cred',dude...I'm sticking with the one shot down as implausable 100 years earlier Edited June 4, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 If you Wiki The Battle of Antietam,it's down at the bottom under... "The Aftermath"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 (edited) 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. Irredeemably different.... Hmmm... I'll have to ask my wife how she feels about being irredeemably different. Seperation and non-intervention in Africa?When the natural resource are the goal? Elucidate for everyone how that's going to happen in a peaceful manner? Edited June 4, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 You have'nt even scratched the surface...But I'll give you a hint or two... 1.The Battle of Antietam happened on Sept,17,1862.It was won by the Union after Lee made a tactical retreat. 2.This allowed Lincoln to implement something 1 week later 3.It came into effect on January 1,1863. 4.The question I want you to answer about Du Bois happened 40 years after the legislation above... And do you mean the Lincoln Plan endorsed by one George Lincoln Rockwell,head of the American NAZI party? If so...No cred',dude...I'm sticking with the one shot down as implausable 100 years earlier 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Irredeemably different.... Hmmm... I'll have to ask my wife how she feels about being irredeemably different. Seperation and non-intervention in Africa?When the natural resource are the goal? Elucidate for everyone how that's going to happen in a peaceful manner? 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 INo 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 Only genocide of the Jews, followed by genocide of the Skavs, then genocide... then genocide... Which Hitler made clear was his intent, which he started implementing the moment a war HE wanted gave him the opportunity to start. And all that would have been fine and dandy by you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Incidentally, the formal declaration of war was first initiated BY THE BRITISH... that's right, WW2 started with Britain! Thank you so much for curing me of my ignorance. I always that that Great Britain declared war AFTER Hitler's Germany invaded Poland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Hitler wanted lebensraum to the east.. reclaim the corridor of danzig (which had been german for 500 years)and some concessions to the east... Including the conquest of all of Eastern Europe to the Urul, the enslavement and eventual expulsion (or extermination) of Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, etc., etc., etc. His intentions were mainly defensive And Stalin and Mao were peace-loving teddybears 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! what the Nazis wanted was not security, but world domination and genocide. Unless of course one believes that being non-Aryan is threatening in and by itself... Oops, I fogot, you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 You go ahead and do that. I was talking about the Germans seeing blacks as irredeemably different (which has no negative connotations Are you brain dead? Irredeeemably has no negative connotations? I would not even say you are an irredeemably fascist, there always hope that after adolescence you will put aside childish notions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 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... Considering what the Nazis did to the Jews, the Romas, what they were planning to do to Slavs, separation and non-intervention is not what policy they intended if they ever reclaimed colonies in Africa. More like enslavement, working the populations to death and then eliminating the surplus population, The only thing that would have savec the local population was that massive German immigration to Africa was (unlike Poland or Russia) pretty much a no-no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Only genocide of the Jews, followed by genocide of the Skavs, then genocide... then genocide... Which Hitler made clear was his intent, which he started implementing the moment a war HE wanted gave him the opportunity to start. And all that would have been fine and dandy by you. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Are you brain dead? Irredeeemably has no negative connotations? I would not even say you are an irredeemably fascist, there always hope that after adolescence you will put aside childish notions... I meant irredeemably in the sense: that it is unchangeable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 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... Citation or bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 (edited) Considering what the Nazis did to the Jews, the Romas, what they were planning to do to Slavs, separation and non-intervention is not what policy they intended if they ever reclaimed colonies in Africa. More like enslavement, working the populations to death and then eliminating the surplus population, The only thing that would have savec the local population was that massive German immigration to Africa was (unlike Poland or Russia) pretty much a no-no. 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? Edited June 4, 2010 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Thank you so much for curing me of my ignorance. I always that that Great Britain declared war AFTER Hitler's Germany invaded Poland. after Poland was sending irregular soldiers into german territory and after Germans in Danzig were being shot, their houses pillaged and their people terrorized... After a Danzig referendum voted 96% for repatriation to GrossDeutschland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Talking to a fascist revisionist is like talking to a compulsive sociopathic liar....there is a good chance they actually believe their lies..but zero chance they will be convinced of the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 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... Only the idiot or the pro-Nazi would buy that line. Ever heard of the meeting he;d by Hitler at the Chancellery on December 12, 1941? In his personal notes on the meeting, Goebbels states that Hitler had said the Jews should be exterminated. Notes from Himmler indicate that, aix days later, he had a meeting with the Furious (err I mean the Fuhrer) about extermination of the Jews. 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. Ever heard of Generalplan Ost? No copy of the document itself have survived, but enough is known about it to know what the nazis inteded to do with Slav populations in the East: - forced Germanization (up to 50% in some cases) - elimination of local elite, cultural institutions, educational facilities - mass deportations - enslavement of the remaining population - denial of medical services, interdiction to marry (useful tools to prevent a population from renewing itself) - forced starvation If it looks like a genocide and walks like a genocide... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 (edited) Talking to a fascist revisionist is like talking to a compulsive sociopathic liar....there is a good chance they actually believe their lies..but zero chance they will be convinced of the truth. But reading what they write is so ever entertaining. Edited June 4, 2010 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 (edited) 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 have not said one thing about who was better, or who was worse, unlike what you claim in your usual intellectually dishonest fashion. And I am not interested in checking whther horse manure (stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) is more or less disgusting than elephant dung (Hitler and Co.) I am responding to your denial of historically known fact, such as the Nazi's intent to commit against Eastern Slav populations what can only be termed as genocide. And the absurd notion that Hitler had nothing to do with the genocide of the European Jews. Edited June 4, 2010 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Talking to a fascist revisionist is like talking to a compulsive sociopathic liar....there is a good chance they actually believe their lies..but zero chance they will be convinced of the truth. And I am convinced it's an utter waste of time. Though some on here may find it amusing to toy with a fascist mouse, I am embarrassed that we have such a mouse in the house. And if you ever trap this particular mouse, he finds a hole and scurries away for a long, long time. This board has some of the best discussions out there, and I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that we also have threads that waste time with deceitful and wasteful drive-by spammers who dump their mindless bilge on us, then take off when confronted with the logical breaks in their arguments. Part of me things that having these losers here means we're kind of a democratic institution. And part of me is just revolted by their presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.