What the Nazi movement was really about

[Politruk]

As far as the Jews go, most likely they were just a convenient enemy to focus hatred

To some Nazis, perhaps, but not to Hitler. He actually believed all the antisemitic myths. He was a regular reader of Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer, an antisemitic scandal sheet so lurid that many Nazis found it embarrassing. Hitler was obsessed with "blood purity" -- the Jews had power because they preserved their blood purity, and the Germans could only become a true master race if they purged all Jewish blood from their gene-pool (a term nobody in Hitler's day would have recognized, but they definitely had the concept). Hitler saw the Jews as "negative supermen" -- innately evil, but extremely capable.

 

[Politruk]

That and Voter ID will fix all the rigged Cali and NYC elections

You are an idiot.

 

[Politruk]

Democrat totalitarianism

You are an idiot.

 

[Politruk]

Ultrachad is bobo, bot, originally posting under the username BotonyBoy. He keeps getting banned and reappears under a new username. He posts in the same style so it’s no mystery who he is, though this iteration is more unhinged than previous ones. Do a @RobDownSouth post search, I think he’s written a quick but thorough bio on bobo.

BB is now posting as Noitall. Same with him, except he stays pretty steady.

Thanks. They're both really unhinged. Don't know how they remember to breathe.

 

[Politruk]

A couple of PRATTs:

Fascists weren't right-wing!
The former can be refuted completely outright. (B-b-but Hitler was a socialist. He wanted big government, workers owning the means of production, and gun bans. The opposite of what Republicans want![14] Sure, that was probably why he busted unions and put socialists and communists to death.) The latter refers to Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png which is often used as a reference by hard-right bloggers and ideologues as "proof" that fascism was left-wing, not right-wing, despite the fact that the book has been refuted by everyone with actual expertise in the area, liberal and conservative.[15][note 4] It is probably used as a reference since debunking the book every time it comes up would be too tedious and irritating for most to bother with doing over and over again.

The Weimar Republichttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png failed because it was "too democratic".
No it didn't. The Enabling Act of 1933https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png was passed even though it clearly violated the substance of the constitution by a two-thirds majority of the members of parliament present at the time, thus excluding the Communist MPs already thrown into jail by the Nazis. This was perfectly legal under the interpretation of the constitution then in force — the constitution could be changed by a two-thirds majority of the members of parliament present at the time with a minimum of two-thirds of the nominal members needed for such a vote. Thus only four-ninths of the actual elected MPs were needed to change the constitution. In common practice, laws that broke the constitution but did not officially alter its text could be passed in the same manner. Also, Article 48 (Weimar Constitution)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png gave the President (who though in theory elected by the people, only once got a 50%+1 one vote majority in a popular election — in the 1932 reelection of Paul von Hindenburg) broad powers to govern without parliament, which both Weimar era Presidents did during the 1923 crisis and again during the early 1930s. Even the powers of parliament to repeal such acts were denied through the President's power to dissolve parliament at his whim. If anything, Weimar had too little democracy.

 

[UltraChad]

That's what socialism is all about.

No that's what Marxism is all about.

That is the point of any form of it.

No that's the MARXIST point of it.

Collectivizing the means of production is only the means; economic equality is the end. See post #6.

Still stuck on Marxism=socialism.....you are incorrect as fuck buddy.

And it's not economic equality, we have that, it's economic equity (equality of outcome) that you're after, no need to lie about that.

There is more than 1 rationalization and ideology surrounding collectivizing the means of production. Nazism is one of them.

 

[UltraChad]

You are an idiot.

This is your "I just got bitch slapped and can't really respond any other way." response.....I love it.

 

[LLCox]

 

[Rightguide]

smiles sadly

Remember, like weathered carvings memories once vivid and piercing softened with the passage of years.

 

[UltraChad]

View attachment 2478791

Cry more commie scum.

 

[Rightguide]

A couple of PRATTs:

Fascists weren't right-wing!
The former can be refuted completely outright. (B-b-but Hitler was a socialist. He wanted big government, workers owning the means of production, and gun bans. The opposite of what Republicans want![14] Sure, that was probably why he busted unions and put socialists and communists to death.) The latter refers to Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png which is often used as a reference by hard-right bloggers and ideologues as "proof" that fascism was left-wing, not right-wing, despite the fact that the book has been refuted by everyone with actual expertise in the area, liberal and conservative.[15][note 4] It is probably used as a reference since debunking the book every time it comes up would be too tedious and irritating for most to bother with doing over and over again.

The Weimar Republichttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png failed because it was "too democratic".
No it didn't. The Enabling Act of 1933https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png was passed even though it clearly violated the substance of the constitution by a two-thirds majority of the members of parliament present at the time, thus excluding the Communist MPs already thrown into jail by the Nazis. This was perfectly legal under the interpretation of the constitution then in force — the constitution could be changed by a two-thirds majority of the members of parliament present at the time with a minimum of two-thirds of the nominal members needed for such a vote. Thus only four-ninths of the actual elected MPs were needed to change the constitution. In common practice, laws that broke the constitution but did not officially alter its text could be passed in the same manner. Also, Article 48 (Weimar Constitution)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/12px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png gave the President (who though in theory elected by the people, only once got a 50%+1 one vote majority in a popular election — in the 1932 reelection of Paul von Hindenburg) broad powers to govern without parliament, which both Weimar era Presidents did during the 1923 crisis and again during the early 1930s. Even the powers of parliament to repeal such acts were denied through the President's power to dissolve parliament at his whim. If anything, Weimar had too little democracy.

Politruk reminds me of King Orfeo.

 

[Politruk]

This is your "I just got bitch slapped and can't really respond any other way." response.....I love it.

That's my "What you just posted is such an unbelievably stupid PRATT that I can't believe anyone would still be saying it" response. You know, like speaking of "voter fraud" or "fake news" or "liberal media" or "the Biden crime family," or calling the Democrats "Communists" or "Marxists" or even "the left." And, despite their name, if you call the Nazis "socialists," you are an idiot. See post #6.

 

[LLCox]

 

[Hel_Books]

To some Nazis, perhaps, but not to Hitler. He actually believed all the antisemitic myths. He was a regular reader of Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer, an antisemitic scandal sheet so lurid that many Nazis found it embarrassing. Hitler was obsessed with "blood purity" -- the Jews had power because they preserved their blood purity, and the Germans could only become a true master race if they purged all Jewish blood from their gene-pool (a term nobody in Hitler's day would have recognized). Hitler saw the Jews as "negative supermen" -- innately evil, but extremely capable.

It's so disturbing that people from the Nazis in Germany to the Lashkar-e-Taiba muslim terrorists in Mumbai to the Ku Klux Klan in the USA to the Tsar's secret police in Russia to the Palestinians to the people waving Hamas flags in London after October 7 all seemed to have an interest in promoting hatred of Jews.

 

[Politruk]

It's so disturbing that people from the Nazis in Germany to the Lashkar-e-Taiba muslim terrorists in Mumbai to the Ku Klux Klan in the USA to the Tsar's secret police in Russia to the Palestinians to the people waving Hamas flags in London after October 7 all seemed to have an interest in promoting hatred of Jews.

The roots are in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church, being a major landowner, therefore more often a debtor than a creditor, preached a debtor's morality: Charging any interest at all on a loan was the sin of usury. But that didn't apply to Jews, so the financial sector was all theirs by default. And nobody loves a moneylender.

Islamic hatred for Jews has different roots.

 

[Politruk]

And it's not economic equality, we have that,

We don't, and we never will until we have a classless society. Which is not what we have now.

it's economic equity (equality of outcome) that you're after

You are drawing a false distinction. You're always using these words wrong. Equity:

Equity, or economic equality, is the construct, concept or idea of fairness in economics and justice in the distribution of wealth, resources, and taxation within a society. Equity is closely tied to taxation policies, welfare economics, and the discussions of public finance, influencing how resources are allocated among different segments of the population.

​

 

[UltraChad]

We don't, and we never will until we have a classless society. Which is not what we have now.

We do, your dollar spends exactly the same as mine.

What you want is EQUITY.....equal OUTCOMES. Dishonest piece of leftist shit.

You are drawing a false distinction.

It's not a false distinction. Equality of standards/laws/rules and equity of outcomes are different things and you (D)ishonest as fuck leftoids LOVE to conflate the two. Helps hide that you're all about the later and VIOLENTLY AGAINST the former.

 

[LLCox]

 

[Hel_Books]

The roots are in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church, being a major landowner, therefore more often a debtor than a creditor, preached a debtor's morality: Charging any interest at all on a loan was the sin of usury. But that didn't apply to Jews, so the financial sector was all theirs by default. And nobody loves a moneylender.

Islamic hatred for Jews has different roots.

Seems like the rabble rousers are just using it to distract. Iranians saying, "Ignore our repression, our persecution of women, our killing of muslims who don't worship exactly the same flavour of islam that we do, our crumbling economy, the corruption of our government, our support of terrorism worldwide . . . . focus on the jews: after they're exterminated everyone will be happy!"

 

[Politruk]

Now, granted, it was about more than one thing. The Nazi movement was, among other things, the most successful example in history of a political movement based on a conspiracy theory. In their case the conspiracy was Jewish, but they were heirs to a long tradition of conspiracy theorizing, which is why Freemasons were interned in concentration camps -- Freemasons had figured in CTs ever since Augustin Barruel and John Robison blamed them for the French Revolution.

We Yanks don't have such a clean record in that regard, either -- see the Anti-Masonic Party.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Who is this "bobo" or "BB" or "bot," whom everyone is always citing as a byword for stupidity-and-dishonesty-even-by-PB-RW-standards?

BoBo/bot

The original name was Botanyboy. A self professed incel, of half Korean decent, who lived with his father, after his mother and sister left. He claimed to be in the military, wounded on pension. Then went to Stanford and got a degree. He tried to open a legal Grow-op in California, but went broke.
He then claimed to move to Duluth Minnesota, where he was a successful greenhouse owner. I have a brother in Duluth, no such person or greenhouse.

After that he got banned for threats. Since then he has had a couple dozen names here, and his story keeps changing. However look at the post I pulled up for Aprime and you can clearly see the syntax is identical in his posting.

Rob Down South can give you a much more detailed history of him.

BB is Busybody
He is a fanatic, and is banned over 1000 times maybe? Used to be funny, but that humour has been wore out more than Ray J Johnson.

 

[Politruk]

View attachment 2478978

What is that robot thing? What show/film/game is it from?

 

[Politruk]

Fascism in general was about -- among many other things -- the idea that a nation can accomplish great things, if only the whole population can be induced to march in step behind a single leader.

Which is undoubtedly true.

Unfortunately, the great accomplishments the 20th-Century fascists had in mind involved conquering other countries and doing horrible things to their people.

And if the whole population marches behind one leader, they're bound to follow him wherever he goes -- even if he marches off a cliff, as Hitler did.

 

[LLCox]

What is that robot thing? What show/film/game is it from?

Commando bot, DC comics, I learned. They are Nazi hence Elon and company. Also Anime is rife with Nazi's

 

[Politruk]

Also Anime is rife with Nazi's

I wonder why?