Forums / Discussion / General

now, because none of this horseshit is related to the topic at hand (although it's not like you've ever cared about that lmao) and i have nothing to add to the topic at hand, i will return to platinum relic attempts in crash 4 even though it's almost 2:30am where i live and i should probably not be awake at this hour. you're more then welcome however, to go to my recent posts section and make some more pointless antagonizing comments, considering you seem to enjoy doing that

Crap, it's hard to convince some morons about Holocaust or Hitler's slavophobia because of mods on Wikipedia being morons.

You know how Hitler had xenophobic view on Slavs all because he was too stupid to realize most Bolsheviks were Jews while at the same time working with Slavs because he didn't deem them Slavic.

It's hard to convince neo-Nazis about that nowadays because documentaries and schools DO NOT TEACH THAT ENOUGH.

It's getting annoying. We need to teach people about Hitler's bigoted view on Slavs to show that Hitler was never truly Pro-White.

I had no intentions of being anti-Semitic when I mentioned Bolsheviks being Jewish. i just remembered reading Hitler hated Slavs because of Bolsheviks.

Also, I wonder which Hitler's Youth magazine promoted soya beans. I wish even the most hateful stuff got archived so we could laugh at how pathetic those stuff were.

you mentioning centrists makes sense because they are the combination of left and right. Cowardice and ego.

For some reason, I don't trust this question to be genuine. But the two I called out specifically (#1 the fucked-up economy, and #4 the administration lying about the economy) are the most pedestrian by far. Since #7 is just a generalized duplicate of #4, that one counts too. And if you want to go piecewise, the first half of #6, "overspending on foreign policy" counts as well; these are all pretty grounded, straightforward topics that were, by all means, going to be part of the national conversation regardless of what Russia did.

Half of the campaign topics seem to be about race so when you say "a lot of things", I wanted to make sure whether or not that phrase encompassed a number of those.

Probably the best way to tackle what you are doing is just doing 10 minutes of digging.
First off. Hitler's xenophobia stemmed from his racial hierarchy which placed Aryans at the top – and as the master race. Hitler viewed the world as an arena for the permanent struggle between peoples. He divided the world population into high and low races. When he speaks of Aryans he means largely, a combination of Germans, English, Norwegians, Swedish, Danes, East Baltics, Greeks and Italians. Then there is a hierarchy of Untermensch, which Slavs are part of, but have their own hierarchy, for example Poles are on a higher than Russians. In this context the Jews played a special place in his mind; they were clearly untermench, but were able to "poison" every element of German society (and then later on, the World). I think this thinking stems from the fact that he took the defeat of Germany in WW1 rather badly – on top of the fact that after the emperor was gone Germany was in chaos, and rebellions sprung everywhere. Keep in mind Germany was a very militant society, and it is very diffifcult to accept that such a militant society was able to lose in the war, and many blamed internal stab-in-the-back elements which the Jews were usually part of.

I hate using the suffic -phobia. Hitler didn't fear Slavs. Why would he? They were untermench. Hitler just viewed them as inferior and destined to be dominated by the Ubermench. Hitler wasn't stupid either. He used Jewish Bolshevism as an ideological reason to invade the USSR (despite the fact that they had a non-aggression treaty with them).

And this is where you and many people like you can say things that come off as anti-Semitic. Most Bolsheviks were not Jews. By December of 1917, only five of the twenty one members of the Communist Central Committee were Jews; the commissar for foreign affairs, the president of the Supreme Soviet, the depty chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars, the president of Petrograd Soviet, and the deputy director of the Checka. According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census only 5.21% of the party membership was Jewish. Of the 417 Central Executive Commitee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR, and the Russain Republic, the People's Commissars, only 6% were ethnic Jews. Initially Jews over-represented the Bolshevik leadership, but by the time of Stalin's purges in the 30s, Jews had virtually no real presence in the Bolshevik leadership or party. But why were they over-represented in the first place? Historical context. Imperial Russia was horrible to it's minorities, especially the Jews who lived on the Pale of Settlement in Shtetls, and were frequent victims of pogroms. You can make the case that the Russian Empire was actually far worse to the Jews than previous iteration of anti-Semitic violence in Europe (prior to the Holocaust obviously). So when the revolutionary fervor hit the air, of course the peoples most opressed are going to rise up to the occasion.

This is also something I want to comment on which I think all too many people miss. We have the luxury of looking at history from a modern lens. The people who joined up the Socialists and the Communists in the beginning of the 20th century could not have ever imagined it would have turned into horrors of Stalinism, Maoism, and the rest. Similarly, prior to Italian invasion of Ethiopia, fascism as a political ideology was in vogue in the US. Many progressives at the time saw Fascism in Italy as a good model to rebuild society on after the Great Depression. Hell, FDR's flagship program the National Recovery Administration was an avowed fascist who handed to people pamphlets praising Mussolini.

Hitler was never truly "Pro-White", because the idea of "White" in the US and the New World was radically different as to how "race" was viewed in the rest of the world. Neo-Nazis and modern progressives have the same problem as viewing the world in terms of race theory that is predominantly used in the US. For the US "white", "brown", "black", "asian" is so utterly nonsensical I am shocked that we still utilize it in official capacity when it comes to bureaucracy and census data. Hitler certainly would never view Polish, Germans, Russians, Italians, and Irish as racial equals under the umbrella of "White", nor would he view the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Indians as equals under the umbrella of "Asian".

White Supremacy is different than Aryan Supremacy. However, American neo-Nazi adopts the conceptualization of Nazi racial theories into an American context.

Yup. Also, Americans took idea of White race based on just anglo-saxon stuff and not Italian nor Irish stuff to justify their White supremacy once.
That was very stupid and annoying.

I was also going to mention documentaries like Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told and Europa: The Last Battle since they exist because documentaries and history classes never teach stuff I mentioned in one of my posts nor do try to debunk sources that are fake, but somehow believable.
Also, one of parts from that Europa documentary was basically "Allies were the real racists.".
As people back in my days would say "gay and retarded".

I had no intention of disrespecting your post, Chewy. Just wanted to write what I thought would sound fine.

A lot of people w ho write that kind of stuff make a huge point to decontextualize things. It is true that Hitler borrowed some of his racial theories from US racists, and racist policies and the concept of Manifest Destiny was something he directly borrowed for his Lebensraum program. In fact he wanted to incorporate our racist policies into Nazi Germany policies with the Jews. And yes, the Nazis also borrowed the idea of death camps from the British.

Yes. Believe it or not, the British, the French, who were colonial empires were pretty fucking terrible to their colonial subjects. And yes, the Germans only had one colony in Africa.

But you cannot compare that to Hitler and the Nazis creating an entire, expansionist state based on racial purity, culminating on an industrial scale mass extermination campaign of Jews, Gays, Gypsies and other inferiors. For how bad colonialism was, in no situation prior to this was the intent and purpose of creating and expanding the state was explicitly for the purpose of eradication of any other race than our own.

This is part of history that takes obscure levels of context to create a new narrative. They rely on people's ignorance about a subject, then drop a decontextualized factoid and create a new grand narrative about the situation. I am very used to this. For example, there is a lot of Slavery apologists who like to point out that there were some Jews involved with the Slave trade. Yeah. There were. But in the end they were a few, and it was still largely conducted by and sold to the white slave owners that bought them. But the way they try to create the narrative was that the Whites weren't responsible for the slave trade, it was actually the Jews! Want proof? Here's a few Jews engaged with it. Yeah I know it's only 1 or 2, but in reality it's all of them!

One of the biggest problems with teaching history in the US is that there is just only so much time and content that can be delivered. This makes it so when teachers have to teach about the early 20th century they tend to gloss over a lot of nuanced context.
For example. I think the problem is that you're dealing with nearly 2 decades of Nazi rule and ideological entrenchment condensed into a single issue: WW2, and also, the Holocaust. But the problem is that the Holocaust itself didn't start with death camps. It started with persecutions, violence, and an attempt to forcefully emigrate the Jews out of Germany. The death camps really began in early 1942, and there has been an entire evolution of what Hitler's final solution to the Jewish problem was. Similarly, Hitler's racial theories evolved based on convenience of alliances. For example, it began with glorifying the Nordic races as pinnacle of Aryan umbrella, but in a few years (probably with the alliance with Mussolini and Southern Slavs) he started to walk back on the Nordic elements.

On this subject there is a lot of people who say "Did you know that the early Zionists worked with Nazi Germany?" They will point to Lehi, a paramilitary's anti-British Zionist group making overtures to Hitler to make an alliance with them. And it is true that Lehi made those overtures…before the death camps began and during the time w here Hitler's solution was to just kick the Jews out. That's fine and dandy with Lehi, who viewed that Britain was a larger enemy for siding and arming the Arab militias, and an alliance with Nazi Germany would have been okay because they were okay with the Jews being forced out of Germany – because they'd just be coming to Israel anyway. This was before Lehi knew of the death camps.

History is not as rigid as people think, and it's extremely complex and nuanced. People are curious but lazy, and a lot of these peoples abuse that, by dangling a factoid that satisfies the curiosity, but doesn't provide context, and instead weaves a narrative that makes sense to fit that factoid.

Incidentally I have a lot of opinion on how History is taught in general. An over-broad narrative of world history can often miss important nuance that can better link past events to modern times. I often wonder if such an over-broad narrative of world history would better served if it was taught in reverse, establish the modern world as is, and start going backwards to provide context to why it is the way it is.

It's also funny how Nazis made anti-American propagandas by having KKK having Stat of David and anti-British propagandas by having Britain still be an empire while doing something that is arguably worse than both combined.
When you mentioned about Jews and Slavery together, I remembered how some morons would say Jews are responsible for slavery while also waving Confederate Flags. Some would start saying "Union was racist". How ironic.
Sure, Abraham wasn't truly a pure hearted President, but whenever I see Confederate apologists write something that sounds liberal, I just laugh my ass loud like seeing those Emily 14 ACABS talking about how Soviet Union pre-Stalin and post-Stalin was good.

I guess I wrote too much on this thread. I am gonna ignore this thread for a while so I do not spice things up.

And before I go, thanks a lot for explaining to me important stuff, Chewy.
You educated me more than anyone else could.

fucking Trotskyists, a philosophy that holds the viewpoint that "Lenin didn't kill the Kulacs enough"

Some news I wanted to share.

From School Librarian to Activist

The expletive-laced message from a stranger accused her of being a pedophile and a groomer, and concluded with a threat: “You can’t hide. We know where you work + live. You have a LARGE target on your back,” it said. “Click … Click … see you soon!”

Charming.

It seems gunning others down is considered more kid-friendly over there.

It was part of a deluge of online threats and harassment that Jones has faced since the summer of 2022, when she was one of around 20 people to speak out against book banning during a July meeting at her local public library.

Between a librarian being threatened, and online tough guys I don't particularly see the equivalence in them. This sort of stuff has been going on for years too, and the problem is the online tough guys don't see anything wrong with this, and if hauled in front of a stern judge they'd portray themselves as victims.

I thought an illustrated example would explain the difference and why I don't see the online moderation up to banning as a "free speech" issue and yes, people will say the first paragraph is 'free speech". If anything, having people like that kills free speech more than anything, it doesn't mean that the governments isn't doing it that a climate of fear is conductive to discussion.

I've also heard Tenet Media (the people who posted "it's a civil war" every so often) has had shady connections.

Second, what De Santis is up to since he's stopped running for President.

Florida state parks whistleblower fired after exposing Ron DeSantis’s plans

Florida’s department of environmental protection has fired a whistleblower who exposed and sank governor Ron DeSantis’s secretive plan to pave over environmentally sensitive state parks and build lucrative hotels, golf courses and pickleball courts.

James Gaddis, who worked for the agency for two years as a cartographer, was terminated for “conduct unbecoming a public employee”, according to a letter he received on Saturday.

His leaking of the proposals sparked a furious backlash that united Republicans with Democrats and environmental advocates, and forced DeSantis into a humiliating climbdown last week in which he admitted the plans were “half-baked” and were “going back to the drawing board”.

Speaking with the Tampa Bay Times on Monday, Gaddis said preservation of the state parks was more important to him than his position.

“It was the absolute flagrant disregard for the critical, globally imperiled habitat in these parks,” he said. “This was going to be a complete bulldozing of all of that habitat. The secrecy was totally confusing and very frustrating. No state agency should be behaving like this.”

News of his firing came as two Democratic state representatives pressed the agency about who was involved in drawing up plans that appeared to include no-bid contracts destined for mysteriously pre-chosen developers outside the requirements of Florida law.

Who is more loyal to Israel? GOP or DNC? Genuine question because I feel like GOP is more loyal.

depends on what you mean by loyal. republicans are far more consistent in their support of Israeli actions but it's transactional. It's a realpolitik relationship from that end, where support for Israel is something that can be cashed in either for internal reasons or actions. While recently it seems kind of imbalanced, we have to remember a lot of republicans are saving up their rewards points to buy an apocalypse.

The democrats view the relationship closer to what it was in the pre-9/11 era. An ideological alliance. It's a democracy in an otherwise hostile chunk of the world founded by refugees. When Israel then does something stupid, it's viewed as vital to not support it.

So where we're at now is that the democrats are starting to view this relationship as not working out while the republicans are not at the state where they would have told Israel to not retaliate against Saddam during Desert Shield.

More and more I do not trust Twitter accounts with blue checkmark when it comes to politics.
They seem way too botted.

Can you provide some evidence the overwhelming majority of their constituents feel that the DNC is going against their will in regards to the I/P conflict?

Because this Pew Poll while not dividing support among democrat/republican side do show that the majority of Americans are quite supportive of Israel in this conflict.

It shows that Democrats are more supportive of Palestinians than the GOP, for sure, but it's not nearly as large as to even be a majority, or an "overwhelming majority".

I thought an illustrated example would explain the difference and why I don't see the online moderation up to banning as a "free speech" issue and yes, people will say the first paragraph is 'free speech". If anything, having people like that kills free speech more than anything, it doesn't mean that the governments isn't doing it that a climate of fear is conductive to discussion.

That's not merely expressing a dissenting opinion, it's actual threats of violence and has to be treated as such. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

>Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

The problem isn't that there shouldn't be consequences.
The problem has been, always, whether the consequences fit the transgression.

Having a stressful moment caught on camera where you say something bad because you're not in sound mind shouldn't result in a permanent destruction of your life.

Of course, there's also a case to be made about people being canceled for stuff they said in the past. But the in this case it was being banned from a platform for sending actual death threats and harassment, which isn't exactly unreasonable to me

Tbh it's the "see you soon" part that makes it potentially actionable. Saying "someone could hurt you, jsyk" is a lot less illegal than "I am going to hurt you". That said,

email

This has nothing to do with online moderation.

Thirdly, if you're going to link a paywalled article, have the dignity to provide an archive. Here, I did it for you. I have to wonder how the lawsuits they mentioned turned out, since there doesn't seem to be much on them outside of the initial buzz. I don't expect the third one to have made it very far, because it's frivolous and seems to be the newest. (I don't want to pothole too much, but when looking it up, an article says she tried to present a book published three years prior (at the time of the display) as a "historically banned book" alongside To Kill a Mockingbird. She spent so much time in a library, but never once read a dictionary, how sad.)

So how is the DNC going against their will? If what you this is specifically putting support for a ceasefire, which is what the Biden administration has been pushing for, and so has Kamala Harris, why would you say they are going against their will?

In regards to the DNC, I do know it had rejected having a Palestinian American a slot for speaking during the convention.

The problem is, a stressful moment is maybe letting loose an insult, or swears or generally being an ass. Death threats and more has more going on than just stress and one should quite literally get mental health if stress makes one do that.

It's not just an internet thing, if anything people say stuff on the internet with their real names attached that they wouldn't have dared a few years ago with a username (to think anonymity used to be blamed).

Things people have done or said during the Charlottesville Riots, various protests or the Campus Protests close to this time last year has destroyed their lives.

@TheHolyEmpress

That's not merely expressing a dissenting opinion, it's actual threats of violence and has to be treated as such. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

Well, that's the issue. When is it just expressing a dissenting opinion and when it's spreading deepfakes and other manipulations or outright sending threats? With politics being what it is, threats is considered 'political expression' by some groups and countries.

When is free speech being used to protect the above, or when is the above being used as an excuse to curtail free speech? It's just not a simple issue.

Sounds like Harris might mess this "Israel funding" up.
Since you folks told me she doesn't have enough knowledge about geopolitics, I guess so.

I have a better Question about DNC and GOP. Who is more loyal to Copyright!
Rules have become so stupid.

Trump went on a rant after Dick Cheney said that he would vote for Kamala Harris. He called him an "irrelevant RINO," called Harris "Comrade Kamala," and called himself the Peace President who will stop World War III.

Trump could use "endorsed by Dick Cheney" as an attack slogan.

The reps are far more loyal to the money, the dems at least try to throw us a crumb or two

"police know the suspect and confirmed they bought an AR-15 with 2,000 rounds this morning."

this fucking country

If Hbomberguy wasn't a Breadtuber, I would trust him more.

I am not sure if this is legit because I do not believe Trump is this stupid.

Seriously. I believe everyone would trust him more if he wasn't a Breadtuber.
Remember Internet Historian drama? I had hard time trusting it.

Voting Kenetic Kups into the ground doesn't change the fact that he's right, that Trump's 'brilliant secret plan' for Ukraine & Russia is just give Russia land .

I haven't really gotten the answer on what happens when some of the Allies tell the American Right to get lost in response to that proposal if it ever happens, that their attempt "to pressure" and demand a diktat will likely fail. Cut aid and sabotage (like they already have and always do) obviously, but will they go further?

To answer the question about the DNC or GOP in terms of foreign policy, if the above didn't make it obvious enough I don't trust the latter at all.

I wouldn't even trust them about Israel, they've outright betrayed the Kurds, ceded ground to Turkey & Russia and weakened their own position and that of allies in the region (the French & British had to cancel operations they were so taken by surprise) for no good reason.

Looks like the Hannibal Directive is trending again

Most Americans support Israel, so why shouldn't she? The question wasn't about support but a ceasefire, to which the Biden administration has been trying to make happen by putting a lot of pressure on Israel to accept. But a ceasefire requires both parties to agree to terms. It cannot be that a ceasefire is unilateral capitulation to Hamas demands, and I don't think most Democrats who want a ceasefire agree with that.

Rafah was a red line until Israelis presented a plan that was acceptable to Biden. And they carried out that plan successfully, as it didn't turn out like the blood bath everyone predicted it would be.

Personally I hate the term ceasefire. It betrays how little understanding the administration has of Hamas and it's goals. The term I would use is "terms of surrender", because if it was any other country after being so brutally and totally defeated would have unconditionally surrendered. Germany surrendered for far less in WW1 and 2, and so did Japan. This reminds me of General Anami asked after the nuking of Nagasaki in regards to surrender: “would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower"

Hamas would gladly sacrifice every last Gazan to survive, for it to continue to exist. Is that the kind of organization you want to survive? The kind of organization to win? How is that actually caring for Palestinians? Cynically, I think much of the Pro Palestine side would gladly sacrifice every single Gazan if it meant satisfying their ideological fantasy of glorious revolution against the capitalist colonial imperialist West.

Debate's gonna be interesting, this time one of them isn't senile
wish they had hot mikes though

That is if Trump doesn't chicken out…

I'm going to make a bet that Kamala is going to avoid concrete policy topics, and so will Trump. This is going to be closer to a school yard mouth-off than a traditional debate over policy. Trump doesn't give specifics, just platitudes, and promises, mixed with self-aggrandizing and petty salesmanship. We know what we expect out of him.

Kamala however is not that smart. Lucky.
She does not do well off-script. She has a tendency to have a ton of nonsensical word salads.

I know the Democrats are really excited for her – and are really excited that they may have someone that can defeat Trump (and she has a very good chance in doing so). But she needs to avoid any serious topics unscripted and avoid going into the word salads.

Effectively, I am going to bet that both sides have their management team begging them to NOT BE THEMSELVES.

Still a good chance
I'm crossing my fingers he calls her a slur on live tv would finally wake people up on how bad he is

I swear those MAGA idiots will start bitching about Irish and Italians very soon and beg Trump to get rid off them over some guy just doing something silly and just happening to be of Irish or Italian ancestry.
After all, MAGAs have been insane since 2018. Might be wrong when I wrote 2018, but I believe so.

Can USA also have younger candidates next presidency?