The twisting and turning democrats go through to change history and distance themselves from ugly associations, behavior and past is fascinating . The fact is, throughout history "socialism" has had many versions attempted. The textbook definition has never existed. Hitler had his own version of "socialism" just like every communist country has had their own version of communism. It is impossible to move from freedom to communism or socialism without an initial totalitarian movement that forces all those that don't want that change to accept it. Hence the 100 million or so that have been starved and slaughtered by communists/socialists.
I'll worry about the Squad and "but Nazi!" when they try and seize constitutional power over the three branches. I think we're safe for now.
Nazis never seized power. They were voted in. The deep state's beer hall putsch was the Russian collusion hoax. The putsch failed, now the deep state, which is using the radical leftists to achieve its goals, are going the voting route. But of course we all know they're tricky scum, the Social Justice Dotardcrats were caught on tape revealing their plan to infiltrate Republican primaries in districts with low voter turnout, run candidates pretending to be conservative, then activate these sleeper cell socialists after they've been voted into office, after its too late. Because too many people will simply look at the R or the D behind a candidates name and check the box without giving it a second thought.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
Do you believe that Omar and Tlaib simply just disagree with Israel's policies?
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
Do you believe that Omar and Tlaib simply just disagree with Israel's policies?
No, I do not believe that. In their cases, I would hazard a guess that their issues with Israel are more fundamental and far reaching.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
Do you believe that Omar and Tlaib simply just disagree with Israel's policies?
No, I do not believe that. In their cases, I would hazard a guess that their issues with Israel are more fundamental and far reaching.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
Do you believe that Omar and Tlaib simply just disagree with Israel's policies?
No, I do not believe that. In their cases, I would hazard a guess that their issues with Israel are more fundamental and far reaching.
Thanks for the honest response. A rarity around here.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
You want to post those accusations of antisemitism I have supposedly thrown around or do you just want me to drop it and let you lie without having to back up your mouth?
Nazi - National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis were socialists, like you, AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Strike One.
Nazis are defined by their hatred of Jews. All of the fascist clowns you support hate Jews and are allied with terrorists who kill Jews. Strike Two.
Nazis had a group of thugs that went around beating people up who didn't agree with them. They were called brownshirts. You have the anitifa black shirts.
Strike Three, You're Out.
Who's the Nazi?
Not quite. It's fun to play games with these words, but, still, not quite. It was a little more complicated than that, and the reason for that word in the title is a function of historical nuance that is not worth getting into.
Some were committed socialists, like Goebbels; but some were not, in particular, and importantly, Hitler. In fact, Goebbels, who everyone knows wanted to suck Hitler's cock, was disillusioned with the Fuhrer on this very point. They ran a totalitarian regime that existed in periods of recovery from severe economic turmoil and war time, during which government intervention was hardly evidence of socialism or anything. There is a lot of evidence to show that Hitler was, at best, very skeptical of socialism, and he was clearly entirely opposed to communism, which just lives in another part of the same town as socialism.
What we do know about the Nazis is that they were history's all-tim nationalists. What economic platform would have prevailed in a successful post-war German is anybody's guess.
So, the Nazi's belong as much to you and your crowd as they do to the lefty Squad's crowd.
Real Americans, like me, embrace capitalism and needn't worry about these tags. Come on over to my side. You'll feel better about yourself.
I love the ‘so far Left it must be right’ argument.
Call it whatever you want...Socialism/Communism/“Nationalism”...but they all end up with a few in the political class running everything and telling everyone else how to live (until they eventually collapse on themselves). Which is anything but modern Libertarianism and classic “Conservatism”.
Why do you love it? At any rate, I don't think that's at all what's in my post; it neither explicit nor implied.
I'm not saying it's clean, and I'm pretty clear Hitler would trump any individual's rights to anything ... property, liberty, anything ... in the name of nationalism or power. Still, we know Goebbels was a socialist and Hitler was, at best, skeptical of it. We also know he was no Marxist. His debates with Strasser seem relevant.
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
I think what we call it is somewhat important. It's a little disingenuous to decry that AOC, who's admittedly making a horse's ass out of herself, is a Nazi because "socialism", when it's not clear that the head of the Third Reich believed in it as a viable option.
All the while ignoring or passing on overt nationalist racism that has seen renewed expression in the US. See, e.g., the overtly racist nationalism of OBK, who is on record here in this forum as saying that people 'like me' are welcome here in "reasonable numbers" because this isn't a "Latino country", but just so long as we know our place and watch what we say to real Americans. You can find volumes of his other work in which his dim view of brown people is patently evident. Along with those charming views are several arguments that stack up pretty firmly against capitalism, free markets, and the right of winners to win. If that fucker isn't a modern expression of at least soft Nazi nationalism, then it doesn't exist.
I don't think what Trump said to the squad was rooted in racism, nor do I think it was technically racist. But if you are one of the Tug's Trump goons who don't think there's a healthy amount of racist nationalism behind him when those flames are fanned, then you're not the guy who handed Berkeley Bob his ass on the Reagan discussion a couple years back. You're somebody else with that guy's handle.
I think the entire left=Commie/right=Nationalist is a false narrative folks try and use to paint all the bad folks in history as their political enemies. In reality, for economics (and property law/everything else) its a measure of how much power is given to the masses vs how much power is centralized in a govt entity, whether it is the communist party, some nutjob Nationalist who can hate "socialism" all he wants but thinks he knows how best to run/control things, etc. Its just putting a different name on the same behavior.
You can't have pure democracy on every issue because it would result in complete chaos, but as you centralize more and more of "govt" in whatever form you get more and more corrruption, misallocation of capital, etc...and as is gets to the extreme you see the horrors of history, whether it is the Soviet empire, the Nazis, Chavez/Maduro, etc.
And I'd disagree as well on the "racist nationalism"...I would argue it is a cultural nationalism. People don't dislike immigrants...they dislike immigration that ignore the rules, don't assimilate into the broader society, and in some aspect work against that broader society (as an example a bunch of legal and illegal immigrants showing up and burning American flags is not a good look...). Its gotten worse recently with the sheer mass immigration, but Texas was a great example of lots of immigration that worked well because the people coming in assimilated to the overall culture.
And its not unique...US and Canada are the only 1st world countries that have natural birth citizenship. You look at Europe, and they HEAVILY regulate who and how can legally immigrate and actually become a citizen. As an example, in Holland if you can't pass a Dutch language test you can't become a citizen, even if you live there and your spouse is a citizen. Those hurdles are there to force the incoming folks to assimilate to the overall culture of the country. Its fine for immigrants to adopt to and add to a country's culture...I don't think many people like the idea of immigrants coming in and bashing/trying to fundamentally change that culture.
That's my primary point.
I also agree with the rest of your post. I would say that the burgeoning nationalism we see today is a based on sincere 'home first' focus on what's best for the country, with a healthy % of cultural xenophobia mixed in, and only on the fringe some race conscious nationalism.
I would add to your post that the concept of "assimilation" is a tricky one. It gets used disingenuously by the xeno (and obviously the fringe race) crowd. Let's take my own people for example. By any measure, Cuban immigrants have assimilated well to the US. But for the vast majority of my life, the strong influence we? had on South Florida was bothersome to many Americans. Even now, just the other day, some guy in my office, Seattle of all places, mentioned that one of the reasons he doesn't like Miami is all the signs he sees that are in Spanish. I'd say he's in the minority now, in that most people today would say Cuban influence makes Miami interesting. Anybody over the age of 30 knows it was a point of contention with many, many people.
If you don't know what you are talking about why do you participate in the discussion? Seriously. Did you not watch what your leaders promised in the two debates? By some estimates their promises would cost 93 trillion and who would be forced to pay for all their promises? Me and every other hard worker in this country. You sound like a taker, a net negative draw on society so I doubt you would be making any contributions.
Your lack of depth on this topic is astounding. We are way past healthcare here.
Then you get brain dead followers like APAG posting typical liberal tripe about how the Nazi's were anything other than a different brand of socialism when their own leader cited socialism in his critical thinking/conclusions and you can see that you goose stepping followers will swallow the whole load when your leaders tell you to.
To be clear, the liberal tripe he’s referring to is the encyclopedia Britannica.
Please, by all means, post for us the link to the "encyclopedia Britannica" that equates Nazi's to everyone that disagrees with liberals.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
I think it's right after the entry that defines Nazi as anyone who wants to incrementally tax the populace for more social programs and push social "diversity" agendas. Two sections before the alternative definition of "anti-Semite" as anyone who's ever disagreed with anything Israel has ever done. See also, "Nazi".
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
You want to post those accusations of antisemitism I have supposedly thrown around or do you just want me to drop it and let you lie without having to back up your mouth?
You want to post those accusations of antisemitism I have supposedly thrown around or do you just want me to drop it and let you lie without having to back up your mouth?
Nazi - National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis were socialists, like you, AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Strike One.
Nazis are defined by their hatred of Jews. All of the fascist clowns you support hate Jews and are allied with terrorists who kill Jews. Strike Two.
Nazis had a group of thugs that went around beating people up who didn't agree with them. They were called brownshirts. You have the anitifa black shirts.
Strike Three, You're Out.
Who's the Nazi?
Not quite. It's fun to play games with these words, but, still, not quite. It was a little more complicated than that, and the reason for that word in the title is a function of historical nuance that is not worth getting into.
Some were committed socialists, like Goebbels; but some were not, in particular, and importantly, Hitler. In fact, Goebbels, who everyone knows wanted to suck Hitler's cock, was disillusioned with the Fuhrer on this very point. They ran a totalitarian regime that existed in periods of recovery from severe economic turmoil and war time, during which government intervention was hardly evidence of socialism or anything. There is a lot of evidence to show that Hitler was, at best, very skeptical of socialism, and he was clearly entirely opposed to communism, which just lives in another part of the same town as socialism.
What we do know about the Nazis is that they were history's all-tim nationalists. What economic platform would have prevailed in a successful post-war German is anybody's guess.
So, the Nazi's belong as much to you and your crowd as they do to the lefty Squad's crowd.
Real Americans, like me, embrace capitalism and needn't worry about these tags. Come on over to my side. You'll feel better about yourself.
I love the ‘so far Left it must be right’ argument.
Call it whatever you want...Socialism/Communism/“Nationalism”...but they all end up with a few in the political class running everything and telling everyone else how to live (until they eventually collapse on themselves). Which is anything but modern Libertarianism and classic “Conservatism”.
Why do you love it? At any rate, I don't think that's at all what's in my post; it neither explicit nor implied.
I'm not saying it's clean, and I'm pretty clear Hitler would trump any individual's rights to anything ... property, liberty, anything ... in the name of nationalism or power. Still, we know Goebbels was a socialist and Hitler was, at best, skeptical of it. We also know he was no Marxist. His debates with Strasser seem relevant.
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
I think what we call it is somewhat important. It's a little disingenuous to decry that AOC, who's admittedly making a horse's ass out of herself, is a Nazi because "socialism", when it's not clear that the head of the Third Reich believed in it as a viable option.
All the while ignoring or passing on overt nationalist racism that has seen renewed expression in the US. See, e.g., the overtly racist nationalism of OBK, who is on record here in this forum as saying that people 'like me' are welcome here in "reasonable numbers" because this isn't a "Latino country", but just so long as we know our place and watch what we say to real Americans. You can find volumes of his other work in which his dim view of brown people is patently evident. Along with those charming views are several arguments that stack up pretty firmly against capitalism, free markets, and the right of winners to win. If that fucker isn't a modern expression of at least soft Nazi nationalism, then it doesn't exist.
I don't think what Trump said to the squad was rooted in racism, nor do I think it was technically racist. But if you are one of the Tug's Trump goons who don't think there's a healthy amount of racist nationalism behind him when those flames are fanned, then you're not the guy who handed Berkeley Bob his ass on the Reagan discussion a couple years back. You're somebody else with that guy's handle.
I think the entire left=Commie/right=Nationalist is a false narrative folks try and use to paint all the bad folks in history as their political enemies. In reality, for economics (and property law/everything else) its a measure of how much power is given to the masses vs how much power is centralized in a govt entity, whether it is the communist party, some nutjob Nationalist who can hate "socialism" all he wants but thinks he knows how best to run/control things, etc. Its just putting a different name on the same behavior.
You can't have pure democracy on every issue because it would result in complete chaos, but as you centralize more and more of "govt" in whatever form you get more and more corrruption, misallocation of capital, etc...and as is gets to the extreme you see the horrors of history, whether it is the Soviet empire, the Nazis, Chavez/Maduro, etc.
And I'd disagree as well on the "racist nationalism"...I would argue it is a cultural nationalism. People don't dislike immigrants...they dislike immigration that ignore the rules, don't assimilate into the broader society, and in some aspect work against that broader society (as an example a bunch of legal and illegal immigrants showing up and burning American flags is not a good look...). Its gotten worse recently with the sheer mass immigration, but Texas was a great example of lots of immigration that worked well because the people coming in assimilated to the overall culture.
And its not unique...US and Canada are the only 1st world countries that have natural birth citizenship. You look at Europe, and they HEAVILY regulate who and how can legally immigrate and actually become a citizen. As an example, in Holland if you can't pass a Dutch language test you can't become a citizen, even if you live there and your spouse is a citizen. Those hurdles are there to force the incoming folks to assimilate to the overall culture of the country. Its fine for immigrants to adopt to and add to a country's culture...I don't think many people like the idea of immigrants coming in and bashing/trying to fundamentally change that culture.
That's my primary point.
I also agree with the rest of your post. I would say that the burgeoning nationalism we see today is a based on sincere 'home first' focus on what's best for the country, with a healthy % of cultural xenophobia mixed in, and only on the fringe some race conscious nationalism.
I would add to your post that the concept of "assimilation" is a tricky one. It gets used disingenuously by the xeno (and obviously the fringe race) crowd. Let's take my own people for example. By any measure, Cuban immigrants have assimilated well to the US. But for the vast majority of my life, the strong influence we? had on South Florida was bothersome to many Americans. Even now, just the other day, some guy in my office, Seattle of all places, mentioned that one of the reasons he doesn't like Miami is all the signs he sees that are in Spanish. I'd say he's in the minority now, in that most people today would say Cuban influence makes Miami interesting. Anybody over the age of 30 knows it was a point of contention with many, many people.
Ftr and imo idgaf what you speak or where you come from so long as you embrace the constitution and the principles upon which it was built(i.e. freedom and inalienable rights). I grew up in an area where the "great american salad bowel" of diversity was a strength and part of being Merican'. This view is now considered out-dated, regressive, and racist by many on the left however.
Nazi - National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis were socialists, like you, AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Strike One.
Nazis are defined by their hatred of Jews. All of the fascist clowns you support hate Jews and are allied with terrorists who kill Jews. Strike Two.
Nazis had a group of thugs that went around beating people up who didn't agree with them. They were called brownshirts. You have the anitifa black shirts.
Strike Three, You're Out.
Who's the Nazi?
Not quite. It's fun to play games with these words, but, still, not quite. It was a little more complicated than that, and the reason for that word in the title is a function of historical nuance that is not worth getting into.
Some were committed socialists, like Goebbels; but some were not, in particular, and importantly, Hitler. In fact, Goebbels, who everyone knows wanted to suck Hitler's cock, was disillusioned with the Fuhrer on this very point. They ran a totalitarian regime that existed in periods of recovery from severe economic turmoil and war time, during which government intervention was hardly evidence of socialism or anything. There is a lot of evidence to show that Hitler was, at best, very skeptical of socialism, and he was clearly entirely opposed to communism, which just lives in another part of the same town as socialism.
What we do know about the Nazis is that they were history's all-tim nationalists. What economic platform would have prevailed in a successful post-war German is anybody's guess.
So, the Nazi's belong as much to you and your crowd as they do to the lefty Squad's crowd.
Real Americans, like me, embrace capitalism and needn't worry about these tags. Come on over to my side. You'll feel better about yourself.
I love the ‘so far Left it must be right’ argument.
Call it whatever you want...Socialism/Communism/“Nationalism”...but they all end up with a few in the political class running everything and telling everyone else how to live (until they eventually collapse on themselves). Which is anything but modern Libertarianism and classic “Conservatism”.
Why do you love it? At any rate, I don't think that's at all what's in my post; it neither explicit nor implied.
I'm not saying it's clean, and I'm pretty clear Hitler would trump any individual's rights to anything ... property, liberty, anything ... in the name of nationalism or power. Still, we know Goebbels was a socialist and Hitler was, at best, skeptical of it. We also know he was no Marxist. His debates with Strasser seem relevant.
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
I think what we call it is somewhat important. It's a little disingenuous to decry that AOC, who's admittedly making a horse's ass out of herself, is a Nazi because "socialism", when it's not clear that the head of the Third Reich believed in it as a viable option.
All the while ignoring or passing on overt nationalist racism that has seen renewed expression in the US. See, e.g., the overtly racist nationalism of OBK, who is on record here in this forum as saying that people 'like me' are welcome here in "reasonable numbers" because this isn't a "Latino country", but just so long as we know our place and watch what we say to real Americans. You can find volumes of his other work in which his dim view of brown people is patently evident. Along with those charming views are several arguments that stack up pretty firmly against capitalism, free markets, and the right of winners to win. If that fucker isn't a modern expression of at least soft Nazi nationalism, then it doesn't exist.
I don't think what Trump said to the squad was rooted in racism, nor do I think it was technically racist. But if you are one of the Tug's Trump goons who don't think there's a healthy amount of racist nationalism behind him when those flames are fanned, then you're not the guy who handed Berkeley Bob his ass on the Reagan discussion a couple years back. You're somebody else with that guy's handle.
I think the entire left=Commie/right=Nationalist is a false narrative folks try and use to paint all the bad folks in history as their political enemies. In reality, for economics (and property law/everything else) its a measure of how much power is given to the masses vs how much power is centralized in a govt entity, whether it is the communist party, some nutjob Nationalist who can hate "socialism" all he wants but thinks he knows how best to run/control things, etc. Its just putting a different name on the same behavior.
You can't have pure democracy on every issue because it would result in complete chaos, but as you centralize more and more of "govt" in whatever form you get more and more corrruption, misallocation of capital, etc...and as is gets to the extreme you see the horrors of history, whether it is the Soviet empire, the Nazis, Chavez/Maduro, etc.
And I'd disagree as well on the "racist nationalism"...I would argue it is a cultural nationalism. People don't dislike immigrants...they dislike immigration that ignore the rules, don't assimilate into the broader society, and in some aspect work against that broader society (as an example a bunch of legal and illegal immigrants showing up and burning American flags is not a good look...). Its gotten worse recently with the sheer mass immigration, but Texas was a great example of lots of immigration that worked well because the people coming in assimilated to the overall culture.
And its not unique...US and Canada are the only 1st world countries that have natural birth citizenship. You look at Europe, and they HEAVILY regulate who and how can legally immigrate and actually become a citizen. As an example, in Holland if you can't pass a Dutch language test you can't become a citizen, even if you live there and your spouse is a citizen. Those hurdles are there to force the incoming folks to assimilate to the overall culture of the country. Its fine for immigrants to adopt to and add to a country's culture...I don't think many people like the idea of immigrants coming in and bashing/trying to fundamentally change that culture.
That's my primary point.
I also agree with the rest of your post. I would say that the burgeoning nationalism we see today is a based on sincere 'home first' focus on what's best for the country, with a healthy % of cultural xenophobia mixed in, and only on the fringe some race conscious nationalism.
I would add to your post that the concept of "assimilation" is a tricky one. It gets used disingenuously by the xeno (and obviously the fringe race) crowd. Let's take my own people for example. By any measure, Cuban immigrants have assimilated well to the US. But for the vast majority of my life, the strong influence we? had on South Florida was bothersome to many Americans. Even now, just the other day, some guy in my office, Seattle of all places, mentioned that one of the reasons he doesn't like Miami is all the signs he sees that are in Spanish. I'd say he's in the minority now, in that most people today would say Cuban influence makes Miami interesting. Anybody over the age of 30 knows it was a point of contention with many, many people.
Generally agree, but I'm not sure I would say "many". I'm sure folks that lived directly in that area or had strong ties to the area were bothered, and to I certain extent I can understand...if you live in an area and in 10 years it completely changes it bothers folks...its natural. If you live in the sticks and then developers come in and build up massive subdivisions around you it bothers you because your environment changed without your choosing. Its also tough shite...everything changes in life, and it was all done relatively legally and above board. But I doubt many folks outside of that direct area cared much at all.
I'd add the Cuban influence a good example of what I am talking about. The Cubans that came to the US were, by a large majority, very pro-USA and anti-communist in the height of the Cold War...they didn't want to change the fundamental culture here, only add to it. The weren't calling the US country as a whole racist sexist murderers as we have seen recently with the current nutjobs...
Nazi - National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis were socialists, like you, AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Strike One.
Nazis are defined by their hatred of Jews. All of the fascist clowns you support hate Jews and are allied with terrorists who kill Jews. Strike Two.
Nazis had a group of thugs that went around beating people up who didn't agree with them. They were called brownshirts. You have the anitifa black shirts.
Strike Three, You're Out.
Who's the Nazi?
Not quite. It's fun to play games with these words, but, still, not quite. It was a little more complicated than that, and the reason for that word in the title is a function of historical nuance that is not worth getting into.
Some were committed socialists, like Goebbels; but some were not, in particular, and importantly, Hitler. In fact, Goebbels, who everyone knows wanted to suck Hitler's cock, was disillusioned with the Fuhrer on this very point. They ran a totalitarian regime that existed in periods of recovery from severe economic turmoil and war time, during which government intervention was hardly evidence of socialism or anything. There is a lot of evidence to show that Hitler was, at best, very skeptical of socialism, and he was clearly entirely opposed to communism, which just lives in another part of the same town as socialism.
What we do know about the Nazis is that they were history's all-tim nationalists. What economic platform would have prevailed in a successful post-war German is anybody's guess.
So, the Nazi's belong as much to you and your crowd as they do to the lefty Squad's crowd.
Real Americans, like me, embrace capitalism and needn't worry about these tags. Come on over to my side. You'll feel better about yourself.
I love the ‘so far Left it must be right’ argument.
Call it whatever you want...Socialism/Communism/“Nationalism”...but they all end up with a few in the political class running everything and telling everyone else how to live (until they eventually collapse on themselves). Which is anything but modern Libertarianism and classic “Conservatism”.
Why do you love it? At any rate, I don't think that's at all what's in my post; it neither explicit nor implied.
I'm not saying it's clean, and I'm pretty clear Hitler would trump any individual's rights to anything ... property, liberty, anything ... in the name of nationalism or power. Still, we know Goebbels was a socialist and Hitler was, at best, skeptical of it. We also know he was no Marxist. His debates with Strasser seem relevant.
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
I think what we call it is somewhat important. It's a little disingenuous to decry that AOC, who's admittedly making a horse's ass out of herself, is a Nazi because "socialism", when it's not clear that the head of the Third Reich believed in it as a viable option.
All the while ignoring or passing on overt nationalist racism that has seen renewed expression in the US. See, e.g., the overtly racist nationalism of OBK, who is on record here in this forum as saying that people 'like me' are welcome here in "reasonable numbers" because this isn't a "Latino country", but just so long as we know our place and watch what we say to real Americans. You can find volumes of his other work in which his dim view of brown people is patently evident. Along with those charming views are several arguments that stack up pretty firmly against capitalism, free markets, and the right of winners to win. If that fucker isn't a modern expression of at least soft Nazi nationalism, then it doesn't exist.
I don't think what Trump said to the squad was rooted in racism, nor do I think it was technically racist. But if you are one of the Tug's Trump goons who don't think there's a healthy amount of racist nationalism behind him when those flames are fanned, then you're not the guy who handed Berkeley Bob his ass on the Reagan discussion a couple years back. You're somebody else with that guy's handle.
I think the entire left=Commie/right=Nationalist is a false narrative folks try and use to paint all the bad folks in history as their political enemies. In reality, for economics (and property law/everything else) its a measure of how much power is given to the masses vs how much power is centralized in a govt entity, whether it is the communist party, some nutjob Nationalist who can hate "socialism" all he wants but thinks he knows how best to run/control things, etc. Its just putting a different name on the same behavior.
You can't have pure democracy on every issue because it would result in complete chaos, but as you centralize more and more of "govt" in whatever form you get more and more corrruption, misallocation of capital, etc...and as is gets to the extreme you see the horrors of history, whether it is the Soviet empire, the Nazis, Chavez/Maduro, etc.
And I'd disagree as well on the "racist nationalism"...I would argue it is a cultural nationalism. People don't dislike immigrants...they dislike immigration that ignore the rules, don't assimilate into the broader society, and in some aspect work against that broader society (as an example a bunch of legal and illegal immigrants showing up and burning American flags is not a good look...). Its gotten worse recently with the sheer mass immigration, but Texas was a great example of lots of immigration that worked well because the people coming in assimilated to the overall culture.
And its not unique...US and Canada are the only 1st world countries that have natural birth citizenship. You look at Europe, and they HEAVILY regulate who and how can legally immigrate and actually become a citizen. As an example, in Holland if you can't pass a Dutch language test you can't become a citizen, even if you live there and your spouse is a citizen. Those hurdles are there to force the incoming folks to assimilate to the overall culture of the country. Its fine for immigrants to adopt to and add to a country's culture...I don't think many people like the idea of immigrants coming in and bashing/trying to fundamentally change that culture.
That's my primary point.
I also agree with the rest of your post. I would say that the burgeoning nationalism we see today is a based on sincere 'home first' focus on what's best for the country, with a healthy % of cultural xenophobia mixed in, and only on the fringe some race conscious nationalism.
I would add to your post that the concept of "assimilation" is a tricky one. It gets used disingenuously by the xeno (and obviously the fringe race) crowd. Let's take my own people for example. By any measure, Cuban immigrants have assimilated well to the US. But for the vast majority of my life, the strong influence we? had on South Florida was bothersome to many Americans. Even now, just the other day, some guy in my office, Seattle of all places, mentioned that one of the reasons he doesn't like Miami is all the signs he sees that are in Spanish. I'd say he's in the minority now, in that most people today would say Cuban influence makes Miami interesting. Anybody over the age of 30 knows it was a point of contention with many, many people.
Ftr and imo idgaf what you speak or where you come from so long as you embrace the constitution and the principles upon which it was built(i.e. freedom and inalienable rights). I grew up in an area where the "great american salad bowel" of diversity was a strength and part of being Merican'. This view is now considered out-dated, regressive, and racist by many on the left however.
The problem is there aren’t shared principles on which a critical mass would agree on. So for right-wingers an immigrant can only represent american values by embracing their political project. Omar immigrating here and believing in america enough to become a congresswoman doesn’t satisfy the right because she represents political values that they view as anathema to whatever they believe “america” is.
Comments
Donald is simply a buffoon. He is wasting a lot of your time and energy.
AOC, Donald, and the rest of the clowns are simply massive narcissist's. It's a three ring circus. They could care less if the world burned.
IR, YK.
Your post is bullshit. Common tripe that is shit out by TDS liberals in the media 24/7 and regurgitated by goose stepping followers like you.
You're a real independent thinker. Not a goose stepper at all. There's no irony here. There just isn't.
I also agree with the rest of your post. I would say that the burgeoning nationalism we see today is a based on sincere 'home first' focus on what's best for the country, with a healthy % of cultural xenophobia mixed in, and only on the fringe some race conscious nationalism.
I would add to your post that the concept of "assimilation" is a tricky one. It gets used disingenuously by the xeno (and obviously the fringe race) crowd. Let's take my own people for example. By any measure, Cuban immigrants have assimilated well to the US. But for the vast majority of my life, the strong influence we? had on South Florida was bothersome to many Americans. Even now, just the other day, some guy in my office, Seattle of all places, mentioned that one of the reasons he doesn't like Miami is all the signs he sees that are in Spanish. I'd say he's in the minority now, in that most people today would say Cuban influence makes Miami interesting. Anybody over the age of 30 knows it was a point of contention with many, many people.
You sound guilty though.
I'd add the Cuban influence a good example of what I am talking about. The Cubans that came to the US were, by a large majority, very pro-USA and anti-communist in the height of the Cold War...they didn't want to change the fundamental culture here, only add to it. The weren't calling the US country as a whole racist sexist murderers as we have seen recently with the current nutjobs...