Hitler and Liberals. (One and the same)

[reason10]

 

These are all facts. And facts don't care about your feelings.

If you vote Democrat, you're a NAZI. Plain and simple.

Edited June 6, 2023 by reason10

[psikeyhackr]

7 hours ago, reason10 said:

If you vote Democrat, you're a NAZI. Plain and simple.

The difference between Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum is that the 7th Cavalry did not have tanks and gas chambers in 1876.

[reason10]

8 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

The difference between Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum is that the 7th Cavalry did not have tanks and gas chambers in 1876.

That is essentially correct. Democrats like Andrew Jackson treated Indians a lot like Hitler treated Jews. Much of even American history is tainted with brutality. Thing is, this thread is NOT about history. It's m0ronic to compare people TODAY to people who lived even 30 years ago, much less during the time of Manifest Destiny.

The United States of the 20th and 21st Centuries basically is the best thing ever to happen to the world. It basically has shed OCEANS of American blood to save Europe TWICE from the Huns (Germans) in TWO WORLD WARS. The United States spent TRILLIONS in a cold war to save the world from the deadliest enemy of all time:  The USSR and nuclear annihilation. The United States prevented the Middle East from erupting into an other nuclear and chemical weapons exchange by taking Saddam Hussein and other violent rag heads from ISIS out.

Nature goes on,  continuing to pot shot at human life with hurricanes, earthquakes,  tornadoes, tsunaims, etc. But the United States has been the best gift to human life EVER.

The Democrats are frantically trying to turn this country into the FOURTH REICH.

(You've got to remember that most of the liberals here are low information, uneducated retards who couldn't think their way out of wet paper bag. They mindlessly goose step to their Nazi masters: Biden, KKKlinton, Obama,et al, without a clue.)

[psikeyhackr]

3 minutes ago, reason10 said:

That is essentially correct.

The United States of the 20th and 21st Centuries basically is the best thing ever to happen to the world. It basically has shed OCEANS of American blood to save Europe TWICE from the Huns (Germans) in TWO WORLD WARS. The United States spent TRILLIONS in a cold war to save the world from the deadliest enemy of all time:  The USSR and nuclear annihilation. The United States prevented the Middle East from erupting into an other nuclear and chemical weapons exchange by taking Saddam Hussein and other violent rag heads from ISIS out..)

ROFLMBAO

The Economic Wargame is a continuation of the Military Wargame by other means.

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

The Planned Obsolescence of consumer garbage with the economics profession ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer garbage isn't just a high technology form of economic servitude?

Yeah Right!

Then economists cannot suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools even though Adam Smith wrote "read, write and account" multiple times in Wealth of Nations.

Check out: The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood

If you can believe your delusional nationalist bullshit that is yourbusiness .

[reason10]

5 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

ROFLMBAO

The Economic Wargame is a continuation of the Military Wargame by other means.

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

The Planned Obsolescence of consumer garbage with the economics profession ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer garbage isn't just a high technology form of economic servitude?

Yeah Right!

Then economists cannot suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in the schools even though Adam Smith wrote "read, write and account" multiple times in Wealth of Nations.

Check out: The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood

If you can believe your delusional nationalist bullshit that is yourbusiness .

I haven't posted anything that could be even lightly construed as "nationalist." I've merely quoted HISTORY. I've admitted that history is replete with brutal human action. History is also replete with brutal NATURE action. There are those in America in the mainstream Conservative wing, who believe Americans shouldn't have been made to shed blood in the MIddle East just to protect OIL.(And the GREATEST PRESIDENT OF THE 21ST CENTURY DONALD TRUMP actually made American energy independent for the first time in history, which rendered the Middle East, at least in our view, IRRELEVANT.) Private citizen Trump was also opposed to the military action that disposed of Hussein, (who was likely the new HITLER of the Middle East.)

Maybe you need to read more history books instead of just speaking in slogans. A LOT of Americans wanted nothing to do with the conflict in Europe, caused by Hitler. And it was FDR who LIED to America to get us into that war because his New Deal was making the Great Depression WORSE and he needed a WAR to bail the country's economy out.

World War Two cost SIXTY MILLION LIVES. All of Europe owes America its LIFE AND FREEDOM. American soldiers saved Europeans from being converted into lamp shades.

And that is HISTORY. We are in a different time and place today.

Maybe you should read some real  history books and get the facts.

[Rebound]

31 minutes ago, reason10 said:

I haven't posted anything that could be even lightly construed as "nationalist." I've merely quoted HISTORY. I've admitted that history is replete with brutal human action. History is also replete with brutal NATURE action. There are those in America in the mainstream Conservative wing, who believe Americans shouldn't have been made to shed blood in the MIddle East just to protect OIL.(And the GREATEST PRESIDENT OF THE 21ST CENTURY DONALD TRUMP actually made American energy independent for the first time in history, which rendered the Middle East, at least in our view, IRRELEVANT.) Private citizen Trump was also opposed to the military action that disposed of Hussein, (who was likely the new HITLER of the Middle East.)

Maybe you need to read more history books instead of just speaking in slogans. A LOT of Americans wanted nothing to do with the conflict in Europe, caused by Hitler. And it was FDR who LIED to America to get us into that war because his New Deal was making the Great Depression WORSE and he needed a WAR to bail the country's economy out.

World War Two cost SIXTY MILLION LIVES. All of Europe owes America its LIFE AND FREEDOM. American soldiers saved Europeans from being converted into lamp shades.

And that is HISTORY. We are in a different time and place today.

Maybe you should read some real  history books and get the facts.

First you say it was bad that FDR got America into WW II (in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Japan’s declaration of war onto the U.S.)

Then you say it was GREAT that America was engaged in WW II.  
 

You can’t write two sentences in a row without completely contradicting yourself, troll.  

[CdnFox]

The problem is largely the 'soclalism' part of the equasion.  Whether it's nazi, communist, democratic, whatever - those are just the toppings on the ice cream, not the cream itself.  different flavours of the same thing.

The problem with socialism is that in order to work it requires a pretty authortarian gov't. You can hardly control the economy or social safety nets without a strong centralized control.

That will ALWAYS create an immediate instant power base for the dangerously ambitious to seize control of and take over with - and that's what inevitably happens.

Socialistic models always start out looking great - "we will take the means of production away from the rich (or let them run it and just take the money) and then you will be paid fairly for your work finally honest", But they always end up with the guys near or at the top siphoning away the riches and passing laws limiting freedoms to keep that process going.

[Deluge]

10 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

The difference between Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum is that the 7th Cavalry did not have tanks and gas chambers in 1876.

I think the Jews would've been happier in reservations than concentration camps. What I don't get is how you psychopaths just sit there and watch Native Americans suffer. Changing an NFL team's name from the Redskins to the Commanders is a half-assed gesture at best - it's really just more of a slap in the face. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I think the Jews would've been happier in reservations than concentration camps. What I don't get is how you psychopaths just sit there and watch Native Americans suffer. Changing an NFL team's name from the Redskins to the Commanders is a half-assed gesture at best - it's really just more of a slap in the face. 

uhhh - it was the american FN's who requested that change.  They slapped themselves in the face?

[impartialobserver]

What I find humorous is that supposedly Hitler was a die-hard socialist and yet in his own book (written by him in Mein Kempf and Zweites Buch), he explicitly denounces Marx and economic theory. Does not sound like much of a socialist then. This is like saying that you are devout christian but yet denounce God. 

[reason10]

First you say it was bad that FDR got America into WW II (in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Japan’s declaration of war onto the U.S.)

You are a LIAR. I did not say it was BAD for America to get into WWII. I said FDR LIED to get us into it. FDR new for MONTHS that the Japs were going to hit Pearl Harbor. He could have exposed that, maybe even publicly fortified the defense of that island and THOUSANDS of innocent women and children might have been spared such a horror.

You are STUPID. You somehow want to compare American public opinion today with that of the 1940s. Back then, Americans didn't want to get into any more wars. WWI was enough for them. It took a LIE from FDR to galvanize America into sending our young soldiers to Europe to die on the battlefield rescuing a fagggy continent who couldn't defend itself. That was the prevailing view in 1940. I never said it was bad or good or great. I merely stated FACTS, and FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS, RETARD.

Grow a brain, m0ron. You're the only troll here because you're too stupid to understand what you're reading.

Crawl back under your rock.

 

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

What I find humorous is that supposedly Hitler was a die-hard socialist and yet in his own book (written by him in Mein Kempf and Zweites Buch), he explicitly denounces Marx and economic theory. Does not sound like much of a socialist then. This is like saying that you are devout christian but yet denounce God. 

There is a strong difference between communism and socialism. Hitler was a strong socialist supporter but hated the idea of communism.  Further - hitler's socialism is a lot closer to what we'd call democratic socialism today or market or liberal socialism.  He believed in a market economy (whcih communism doesn't) but strong gov't control over and regulation of and significant gov't ownership of the companies that made up the market.

So he was very socialist but firmly opposed to marx and communism.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, CdnFox said:

There is a strong difference between communism and socialism. Hitler was a strong socialist supporter but hated the idea of communism.  Further - hitler's socialism is a lot closer to what we'd call democratic socialism today or market or liberal socialism.  He believed in a market economy (whcih communism doesn't) but strong gov't control over and regulation of and significant gov't ownership of the companies that made up the market.

So he was very socialist but firmly opposed to marx and communism.

Also, modern socialism is mostly about redistributing resources from the rich to the poor and to do so with no regard for race, religion, etc. . Hitler very clearly laid out that he cared who got what. That is not very socialist. His economy (had he won) would have had very defined winners (white Germans) and very distinct losers (anyone that was not white enough or German enough). 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Also, modern socialism is mostly about redistributing resources from the rich to the poor and to do so with no regard for race, religion, etc. .

Is it?  I would point to america and note that a lot of the proposed socialism based redistribution of wealth and 'equity balancing' is very heavily racially motivated

 

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hitler very clearly laid out that he cared who got what.

I think if you look at it you're going to realize you aren't going to be able to defend this one

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

That is not very socialist.

It is actually. In fact it's the basic foundation of socialism AND communism - the idea that there is one group who has less and one group who has more and you want to take from one and give to the other to 'balance' things. Those different groups might be identified by Class (marx) or race (hitler) or other method but at the end of the day it's ENTIRELY about laying out who gets what.

And as noted the socialists today are very much tied to race. They claim the blacks are exploited and marginalized and should recieve money, resources, opportunities to redress that imbalance.

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

 

His economy (had he won) would have had very defined winners (white Germans) and very distinct losers (anyone that was not white enough or German enough). 

Yes - finally germans would have gotten their fair share instead of being exploited by the jews or those golddigging Gypsies who live off german hard work.

Now - lets make a few substitutions.

Finally blacks would have gotten their fairh share after being exploited by the whites or those gov't carpetbaggers who lived off the black man's work.

See?

Socialism is all about saying one group is being exploited by another and we have to make it fair to everyone by taking from some and giving to others. The specifics of how you identify the groups isn't entirely relevant 

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think if you look at it you're going to realize you aren't going to be able to defend this one

No need to defend it.. He wrote it. It is laid in Mein Kempf and Zweites Buch. Written by whom? Oh.. that's right Hitler. it is quite explicit that he does not want anything redistributed to anybody. The winners of his economy should be based on race and nothing else. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

No need to defend it.. He wrote it. It is laid in Mein Kempf and Zweites Buch. Written by whom? Oh.. that's right Hitler. it is quite explicit that he does not want anything redistributed to anybody. The winners of his economy should be based on race and nothing else. 

Are you deliberately pretending you didn't know what i meant or is that accidental?   i was pretty obviously referring to your position that race based socialism isn't socialism.  I already noted that hitler was a socialist, not a communist.

And the winners of the modern socialist economy should be the lower class and the intersectional people. Same thing.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Are you deliberately pretending you didn't know what i meant or is that accidental?   i was pretty obviously referring to your position that race based socialism isn't socialism.  I already noted that hitler was a socialist, not a communist.

And the winners of the modern socialist economy should be the lower class and the intersectional people. Same thing.

I am pointing out that Hitler's economic vision does not line up with modern day socialism at all. The basis for my point is Hitler's own writing. would you disagree that the best source for wanting to know what someone said or meant is their own writing? As an example, the EITC (US) is not race-based.. plenty of whites benefit from it. Hitler clearly states that he opposes redistribution... tax credits being redistribution. 

[reason10]

20 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I am pointing out that Hitler's economic vision does not line up with modern day socialism at all. The basis for my point is Hitler's own writing. would you disagree that the best source for wanting to know what someone said or meant is their own writing? As an example, the EITC (US) is not race-based.. plenty of whites benefit from it. Hitler clearly states that he opposes redistribution... tax credits being redistribution. 

Socialism is more than just a branch of economics. It involves extreme government behavior at all levels. Some say the only difference between socialism and  communism is how its politicians come into power. Fools vote socialism into power and communism shoots its way into power.

Hitler was ELECTED to push his National Socialism.

A lot of socialist regimes disagree as to even their interpretation of the word.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I am pointing out that Hitler's economic vision does not line up with modern day socialism at all.

it does.  As i've noted. In his world the german people (REAL ones speifically) were the exploited group that needed to get the benefits of their economy - and that within that group everyone should share the financial success.

This is very similar to today. We should eat the rich and give to the poor and we have to treat the black people better than others.

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The basis for my point is Hitler's own writing.

Yes, but as noted you've interpreted that incorrectly when comparing it to modern day.

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

would you disagree that the best source for wanting to know what someone said or meant is their own writing?

I would disagree that hitler's writing contains an accurate record of what socialism is today. And that's largely where you went wrong.

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

As an example, the EITC (US) is not race-based.. plenty of whites benefit from it.

I'm not sure i'd call a tax credit 'socialism'   Tax relief is where you DON"T take someone's money and give it to someone else.

However i don't think we'll have to look far to see many groups calling for socialistic pollicies that are black focused.

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hitler clearly states that he opposes redistribution... tax credits being redistribution. 

Tax credits are not redistribution. Tax credits are not taking money in the first place. TAXES are redistribution.  ANd hitler did like taxes.

Sorry - hitler was indeed a socialist and it's very easy to see that. His version is not absolutely identical in every way to our current version but they are substantially the same. Redistribution of wealth (free housing, work programs, health care) very strong gov't control and regulation of industry, most companies of any size had to have a gov't appointed nazi on the board and had to give up shares, Etc etc.

The nazis were socialists (its' right in the name) and while they hated communism they obviously weren't fond of free markets or freedoms for the people either. With a VERY few tweaks they'd be indisginuishable from many so called democratic socialist countries today.

He certainly didn't believe in the free market.

2 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Socialism is more than just a branch of economics. It involves extreme government behavior at all levels. Some say the only difference between socialism and  communism is how its politicians come into power. Fools vote socialism into power and communism shoots its way into power.

Hitler was ELECTED to push his National Socialism.

A lot of socialist regimes disagree as to even their interpretation of the word.

Well - i would disagree with the 'socialism vs communism' part a little.  Although some would argue that "socialistic" models are actually a spectrum running from democratic socialism on one hand to full on communism on the other.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

What I find humorous is that supposedly Hitler was a die-hard socialist and yet in his own book (written by him in Mein Kempf and Zweites Buch), he explicitly denounces Marx and economic theory. Does not sound like much of a socialist then. This is like saying that you are devout christian but yet denounce God. 

1) Socialist and communist leaders are all autocrats at heart: "Everyone has to conform to MY perfect vision or they'll pay a hefty price, and death is on the table." They word "they" is important, autocrats firmly believe in "us vs them".

2) Watch some Roman Catholics and Protestants go at it. Watch some Shia and Sunnis try to get along. Watch all the various Abrahamic faiths try to get along. Watch the Dems talk about their GOP opposition: you'd think that they were talking about swastika-waving Nazis ffs, not a mainstream US political party. 

Part of being an autocrat is believing that everyone else is 100% wrong, and in need of an ass-whoopin', all the time. Getting along with other people isn't something that they do. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

On 6/7/2023 at 10:05 AM, WestCanMan said:

1) Socialist and communist leaders are all autocrats at heart: "Everyone has to conform to MY perfect vision or they'll pay a hefty price, and death is on the table." They word "they" is important, autocrats firmly believe in "us vs them".

2) Watch some Roman Catholics and Protestants go at it. Watch some Shia and Sunnis try to get along. Watch all the various Abrahamic faiths try to get along. Watch the Dems talk about their GOP opposition: you'd think that they were talking about swastika-waving Nazis ffs, not a mainstream US political party. 

Part of being an autocrat is believing that everyone else is 100% wrong, and in need of an ass-whoopin', all the time. Getting along with other people isn't something that they do. 

However, that is not the point. Hitler in his two books clearly states that he despises Marx, socialism, and economic theory. Why? Because economic theory in its most general form is color blind. His thought was that this intellectual nonsense(economic theory) was a way for Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, non-whites to weasel their way into the greater picture of Germany. Also, he believed in an elite class that would make all important decisions and the average citizens would simply follow along and their status in life.... was entirely due to that. No need to redistribute anything to them. not very socialist if you do not even out the playing field in any way. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

However, that is not the point. Hitler in his two books clearly states that he despises Marx, socialism, and economic theory. Why? Because economic theory in its most general form is color blind. His thought was that this intellectual nonsense(economic theory) was a way for Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, non-whites to weasel their way into the greater picture of Germany. Also, he believed in an elite class that would make all important decisions and the average citizens would simply follow along and their status in life.... was entirely due to that. No need to redistribute anything to them. not very socialist if you do not even out the playing field in any way. 

SIgh,. It's entirely socialist.  You find the socialists spouting the same things today, just with different races and classes.

I'm sorry that this doesn't fit with your ideology or mental image but hitler absolutely was  a socialist - basically what we would call today a democratic socialist. And even if you believe (erroneously) that his book speaks against that, what he did proves it if nothing else does.

The 'National Socialst Party" was.. perhaps unsurprisingly,  socialist.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

SIgh,. It's entirely socialist.  You find the socialists spouting the same things today, just with different races and classes.

I'm sorry that this doesn't fit with your ideology or mental image but hitler absolutely was  a socialist - basically what we would call today a democratic socialist. And even if you believe (erroneously) that his book speaks against that, what he did proves it if nothing else does.

The 'National Socialst Party" was.. perhaps unsurprisingly,  socialist.

HIs words are explicit... no need to interpret anything. There is no reading between the lines. I think the best evidence of one's thoughts would be their words... Well his words explicitly and directly state that he despised economic theory, marx, socialism, etc. 

Also, when Hitler was in power... there was no redistribution of resources. No tax credits, no welfare, etc. So can you argue that he redistributed based on race, nationality when there was no actual redistribution of anything... 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

HIs words are explicit... s

His actions are even more explicit.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

no need to interpret anything.

All words require interpretation and they fact  that you - an otherwise learned and reasoned individual - would even say that should tell you that you've lost your objectivity here.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

There is no reading between the lines. I think the best evidence of one's thoughts would be their words...

then you're a fool.  People say things they don't believe all the time.

And further they change their minds all the time - and from the time he was imprisoned and wrote his book to the time he took power he very well could have revised his beliefs.

But as i've said - your version of what he expressed in the book IS NOT AT ODDS AT ALL with modern socialism.

So - not matter what your'e wrong. But it's like your'e desperately holding on to this like the belief itself was important to you but it just doesn't stand up to logic.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Well his words explicitly and directly state that he despised economic theory, marx, socialism, etc. 

Not socialsm you just threw that in now

And as we've established many socialist hated marx.

You can hate marx, you can hate economic theory, and you can still be a socialist. Entirely.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Also, when Hitler was in power... there was no redistribution of resources.

there were tonnes.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

No tax credits,

There were many.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

no welfare, etc.

there absolutely was.

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So can you argue that he redistributed based on race, nationality when there was no actual redistribution of anything... 

I can because you're wrong.

But it doesn't' stop there - he exercised MASSIVE and socialistic control over industry. He decided that the purpose of the state was to obtain lands and goods for the country by war and conquest and thats what the means of production went to. He literally invaded other countries to redistribute their wealth to his people.

I'm sorry but your position is completely indefensible.  Even as you describe his writings he's socialistic, he joined the national socialist party, and then once in power he ran a socialist govt.

He focused on gov't creating employment, strong state control of industry and agriculture ( the means of production), controlled social behavior.... seriously what more do you want?

The fact that his focus was racially based is irrelevant. Many socialists to day base their thinking on race as well.

[robosmith]

On 6/7/2023 at 9:00 AM, CdnFox said:

There is a strong difference between communism and socialism. Hitler was a strong socialist supporter but hated the idea of communism.  Further - hitler's socialism is a lot closer to what we'd call democratic socialism today or market or liberal socialism.  He believed in a market economy (whcih communism doesn't) but strong gov't control over and regulation of and significant gov't ownership of the companies that made up the market.

So he was very socialist but firmly opposed to marx and communism.

Wrong. FASCISM is entirely distinct from SOCIALISM. Hitler's government was FASCIST.

Quote

fascism vs. socialism: What’s the difference?

Fascism is a system of government (or a political movement) led by a dictator, typically one who forcefully and often violently suppresses dissent and promotes nationalism and often racism. Fascist regimes also often control all industry and commerce. Socialism is an economic or social system based on collective, public ownership and control of the resources used to make and distribute goods or provide services. Both terms are often used broadly, and there is widespread debate about exactly what each term entails and about what current or historical systems they should be applied to. Some people view them as opposite ends of the political spectrum (with fascism on the right wing and socialism on the left wing), while others may consider both fascist and socialist systems as types of totalitarianism, and still others have different conceptions of how they relate to each other.